SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
For the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party in 2024, representing the status quo invites cascading disasters
With 2023 underway, Democrats in office are still dodging the key fact that most of their party’s voters don’t want President Biden to run for re-election. Among prominent Democratic politicians, deference is routine while genuine enthusiasm is sparse. Many of the endorsements sound rote. Late last month, retiring senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont came up with this gem: “I want him to do whatever he wants. If he does, I’ll support him.”
Joe Biden keeps saying he intends to be the Democratic nominee in 2024. Whether he will be is an open question—and progressives should strive to answer it with a firm No. The next presidential election will be exceedingly grim if all the Democratic Party can offer as an alternative to the neofascist Republican Party is an incumbent who has so often served corporate power and consistently serves the military-industrial complex.
The Biden administration has taken some significant antitrust steps to limit rampant monopolization. But overall realities are continuing to widen vast economic inequalities that are grist for the spinning mill of pseudo-populist GOP demagogues. Meanwhile, President Biden rarely conveys a sense of urgency or fervent discontent with present-day social conditions. Instead, he routinely comes off as “status-quo Joe.”
For the future well-being of so many millions of people, and for the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party in 2024, representing the status quo invites cascading disasters. A few months ago, Bernie Sanders summed up this way: “The most important economic and political issues facing this country are the extraordinary levels of income and wealth inequality, the rapidly growing concentration of ownership, the long-term decline of the American middle class and the evolution of this country into oligarchy.”
Interviewed days ago, Sanders said: “It pains me very, very much that we’re seeing more and more working-class people voting Republican. Politically, that is a disaster, and Democrats have to recognize that serious problem and address it.”
But President Biden doesn’t seem to recognize the serious problem, and he fails to address it.
During the last two years, domestic policy possibilities have been curbed by Biden’s frequent and notable refusals to use the power of the presidency for progress. He did not issue many of the potential executive orders that could have moved the country forward despite Senate logjams. At the same time, “bully pulpit” advocacy for workers’ rights, voter rights, economic justice, climate action and much more has been muted or nonexistent.
Biden seems unable or unwilling to articulate a social-justice approach to such issues. As for the continuing upward spike in Pentagon largesse while giving human needs short shrift, Biden was full of praise for the record-breaking, beyond-bloated $858 billion military spending bill that he signed in late December.
While corporate media’s reporters and pundits are much more inclined to critique his age than his policies, what makes Biden most problematic for so many voters is his antiquated political approach. Running for a second term would inevitably cast Biden as a defender of current conditions—in an era when personifying current conditions is a heavy albatross that weighs against electoral success.
A Hart Research poll of registered voters in November found that only 21 percent said the country was “headed in the right direction” while 72 percent said it was “off on the wrong track.” As the preeminent symbol of the way things are, Biden is all set to be a vulnerable standard-bearer in a country where nearly three-quarters of the electorate say they don’t like the nation’s current path.
But for now anyway, no progressive Democrat in Congress is willing to get into major trouble with the Biden White House by saying he shouldn’t run, let alone by indicating a willingness to challenge him in the early 2024 primaries. Meanwhile, one recent poll after another showed that nearly 60 percent of Democrats don’t want Biden to run again. A New York Times poll last summer found that a stunning 94 percent of Democrats under 30 years old would prefer a different nominee.
Although leaning favorably toward Biden overall, mass-media coverage has occasionally supplied the kind of candor that Democratic officeholders have refused to provide on the record. “The party’s relief over holding the Senate and minimizing House losses in the midterms has gradually given way to collective angst about what it means if Biden runs again,” NBC News reported days before Christmas.
Conformist support from elected Democrats for another Biden campaign reflects a shortage of authentic representation on Capitol Hill. The gap is gaping, for instance, between leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the constituency—the progressive base—they claim to represent. In late November, CPC chair Pramila Jayapal highlighted the gap when she went out of her way to proclaim that “I believe he should run for another term and finish this agenda we laid out.”
Is such leadership representing progressives to the establishment or the other way around?Dear Wolf Blitzer,
On February 17 and 18, your CNN colleague Anderson Cooper moderated town halls in South Carolina at which the Republican candidates for president were questioned by the audience and the moderator.
Cooper chose to stick to the standard issues -- national security, the economy, immigration, terrorism and the like. The audience followed suit. This allowed the candidates to regurgitate talking points they have used repeatedly since the debate season began last August 6.
He also spent time on what he apparently thought was crucial personal information about the candidates. "What's your favorite cocktail?" Mr. Cooper asked Senator Ted Cruz. Answer: scotch. Donald Trump is "a big fast food guy" and Marco Rubio's wardrobe was a mess until his "godly and wonderful wife" began selecting his clothes.
But tonight, Wolf Blitzer, you will moderate the last Republican debate before the all-important Super Tuesday primary elections. You have the chance to be the FIRST journalist to seek the candidates' views on one subject that has never been discussed in a televised Republican debate or town hall: voter suppression, the passage in at least 16 states by Republican legislatures of new laws that make it more difficult for African Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, students, the poor and disabled to cast a ballot. You can break new ground, forcing the candidates to reveal their views on one issue that may well affect the outcome of the presidential election.
First, a bit of history. For decades, Republicans were proud to be known as "the party of Lincoln" and many of its leaders played a key role creating and then defending the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act. The original act was written in the office of Senate Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen. He joined with President Lyndon Johnson's lawyers to craft a bill that would win bipartisan support. They were successful: 92 percent of Senate Republicans supported the passage of the act, a number greater than Senate Democrats (73 percent, the disparity explained by Southern segregationists who were still Democrats.)
When the act's temporary provisions were reviewed in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush signed renewals into law. In 2006, every member of the US Senate voted in favor.
The Voting Rights Act helped elect our first African-American president in 2008, and the coalition President Obama built persuaded Republicans that the only way they could take back the presidency was through voter suppression. Following the Republican congressional victory in 2010 (when the GOP controlled both legislative bodies in 26 states, and 26 governorships), legislatures passed and governors enacted a series of laws designed to make voting more difficult for Obama's constituency -- minorities, especially the growing Hispanic community; the poor; students; and the elderly or handicapped. These restrictions included the creation of voter photo ID laws, measures affecting registration and early voting, and, in Iowa and Florida, laws to prevent ex-felons from exercising their franchise.
Democrats were stunned. "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens in voting the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today," former President Bill Clinton said in July 2011. Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court's conservative majority struck down a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act, weakening it severely. Once again, the voting rights of American minorities were in peril.
A bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives has drafted a new Voting Rights Act but Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, believes the bill is unnecessary, and Speaker Paul Ryan, although a supporter of the legislation, refuses to force Goodlatte to hold hearings.
So much for history. Where do today's current Republican presidential contenders stand on the issue of voter suppression?
Donald Trump has said nothing about it during the nine previous debates, although in fairness, not a single moderator has sought his views. His website describes his position on guns, US-China trade reform, Veterans Administration reform, tax and immigration reform, but is silent on voting rights. Wolf, please ask him what he thinks.
Despite John Kasich's pleasant demeanor, he is no friend of voting rights. As governor of Ohio, he enacted a law that significantly limits opportunities for early voting (known in Ohio as "Golden Week") and abolished same day voter registration. In 2012, it's estimated that 90,000 voters, mostly minorities, voted during Golden Week. They will not have that opportunity in 2016. Do such policies contradict Kasich's oft-repeated pledge "to renew the American spirit"?
"I'm going to be a president for all Americans," Senator Marco Rubio told Anderson Cooper, "because an American president has to love the American people, even those that don't love you back." Yet Rubio believes that his Florida constituents should not be allowed to vote in federal elections without first showing a government-issued voter ID, although evidence of voter fraud has been shown to be almost non-existent. Rubio has also opposed early voting and is against allowing nonviolent ex-felons to again have the right to vote.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz's website offers a litany of his achievements -- protecting the 10 Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Second Amendment. It also offers "Get Cruz Gear" -- cups, glasses, cell phone covers, caps and sweatshirts bearing the campaign logo. But it is silent on voting rights. Nevertheless, his public statements make it clear that he is rabidly opposed to making it easier for Texans to vote. The ACLU's Voting Rights Project found that approximately 600,000 Texans, predominately minorities and the poor, lack the documents needed, documents which are too expensive or time consuming to acquire. For many Texans, going to the polls is no longer a practical option and they have chosen not to vote at all.
Finally, there is retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. A visit to his website reveals his views on cyber security, education, energy, healthcare and more, but nothing on voting rights. That's a bit strange because he has publicly mentioned the Voting Rights Act -- and it was to you, Wolf, in an interview last October: "Of course I want the Voting Rights Act to be protected. Whether we still need it or not, or whether we've outgrown the need for it is questionable. Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. But I wouldn't jeopardize it." Ask him to be more precise.
So three of the candidates -- Kasich, Rubio and Cruz -- clearly favor policies that make it harder for African-Americans, Hispanics, students and the poor to vote. Trump is uncharacteristically silent while Carson is equivocal. Are Republicans still the party of Lincoln, or even Everett McKinley Dirksen? Forcing them to discuss their views on voting rights will be a first, Wolf. Call them out.
The populist sentiment that is sweeping the nation has both a source and a solid base, according to new polling that shows a majority of Americans feel like the growing gap between the rich and the poor is cause for serious concern and should be proactively addressed by government policies.
The new poll, conducted jointly by the New York Times and CBS News, found that a "strong majority"--more than six out of 10 people across party lines--think the nation's "wealth should be more evenly divided" among its people and only slightly less (with Republican support falling off) think government policies should drive the effort to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
The survey covered three areas of interest—economic inequality, workers' rights, and international trade—and found, at least in broad strokes, overwhelming support for the positions of most progressives.
In abbreviated terms, the results show that Americans: 1) Recognize and dislike current levels of economic inequality and want something done about it; 2) Think low-wage workers deserve a significant raise, paid sick and parental leave, and better workplace protections; and 3) Don't know much about pending so-called "free trade deals" being negotiated in secret and largely ignored by the mainstream media, but what they do know, they don't like very much.
On specific policies that could help reduce inequality, 68 percent of respondents said they would support raising taxes on individuals who make more than $1 million a year.
The findings of the poll, according to the Times,
help explain the populist appeals from politicians of both parties, but particularly Democrats, who are seeking to capitalize on the sense among Americans that the economic recovery is benefiting only a handful at the very top.
Far from a strictly partisan issue, inequality looms large in the minds of almost half of Republicans and two-thirds of independents, suggesting that it will outlive the presidential primary contests and become a central theme in next year's general election campaign.
The survey also looked at people's sentiments regarding workers' rights in the country and showed that, across the board, support exists for stronger protections, better wages, and increased worker benefits. Among those questions, more than 71 percent think the federal minimum wage should be raised from its current rate of $7.25 per hour to $10.10; a larger majority (81 percent) favor policies that would require employers to offer paid parental leave, and a still larger proportion (85 percent) think an increase of paid sick leave for workers is a good idea.
Strikingly, there was significantly less support for the idea that fast-food restaurant employees and other low-wage workers should enjoy the $15 minimum wage a growing number of them are fighting for, but a large majority of people believe that scheduled workers in those industries should have better protections when it comes to their scheduling.
Another finding that will bolster the position and arguments of many progressives--as they continue their fight against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and Fast Track authority that would give the Obama administration (and his successor) the ability to rush through the TPP and other corporate-friendly deals like TTIP and TISA in the future--is that essential support for such deals is low. Additionally striking is how little Americans feel they know about these deals, which supports critics' argument that the mainstream and corporate media have done a terrible job of informing the public about such complex and secretive agreements over the last year or more.