People Before Profit blog

Trump's assassination talk sends Republicans running; creates opening for progressives

Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:38:00 +0000

As the familiar refrain now goes, the Donald Trump campaign has had a "tough two weeks." From the controversy with Gold Star parents to the Paul Ryan endorsement commotion and the Iranian cash airplane video, more and more Republicans have started to join a growing chorus questioning whether their nominee has what it takes to be president.

Trump's economic speech in Detroit Monday was supposed to be the turnaround. Read straight from the teleprompter, it was a perfect fit with the traditional GOP program of the last few decades: tax cuts tilted toward the upper end of the wealth spectrum and deregulation. But of course, it's not a Trump speech without a few disingenuous jabs against free trade thrown in for good measure. The word "workers" was sprinkled in here and there. Some took it as a sign that perhaps the Donald had turned the corner. Maybe this guy could actually be kept on point.

But then, less than 24 hours later, it all fell apart. At a rally in North Carolina, the Republican nominee said that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, it may fall to "the Second Amendment people" to stop her from appointing Supreme Court justices. His remarks, which plunged his campaign into a fresh crisis, were seen by many as musings about assassination or an armed rebellion.

Though his campaign immediately went into damage control and tried to explain it away as simply a call for gun-owner unity at the polls, the likely result is that the already steady stream of Republicans abandoning Trump will now turn into a deluge. Many long-time GOP leaders are starting to see that Trump may be a sinking ship beyond repair.

GOP: A party already divided

The important thing to understand from the start is that Trump was never the guy that the GOP wanted. By cravenly using the racism and reactionary politics stirred up by Tea Party resentment over the years, they did, however, create the conditions which gave rise to his right-wing populist campaign. As long as that kind of message was winning elections and their candidates came out on top, the party didn't mind giving a wink and a nod to the birther movement, indulging in anti-immigrant policies, or opportunistically using the Evangelical community. But with Trump, they finally lost control of the tiger they had been riding.

The recent splits that appearing in the Republican Party - such as 50 GOP national security officials denouncing their nominee, Maine Senator Susan Collins refusing to vote for him, or Joe Scarborough calling on the party to "dump Trump" - are all public manifestations of a trend that was already evident under the surface even during the primaries.

Campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that candidates like Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio were far and away the preferred standard-bearers of the big money industrial sectors that back the Republican Party, especially oil and gas, real estate, insurance, tobacco, agribusiness, construction, and transportation. For all of these groups, Trump was far down on their recipient list.

Since he achieved victory in the primaries, though, there has been a period of wait-and-see for many Republicans and their corporate backers. It was still hoped that perhaps Trump's right-wing populism could be controlled and channeled. Maybe the worst could be avoided.

The panic that now appears to be sending GOPers running for the lifeboats, however, is a signal that such hopes are fading fast. Trump has proven that he just can't be relied upon to stick to the script they've tried to write for him. Electoral self-interest is now forcing a reconsideration.

To be fair of course, you also cannot discount the common sense and decency angle in some of this. Trump's reckless rhetoric goes far beyond even the right-wing norm of Republican politics. The further he ventures out on the extremist limb, the more that some Republicans - especially Republican voters - are going to be questioning their conscience.

Clinton and the Democrats should seize the populist agenda

But none of this means the Clinton campaign can count on smooth sailing ahead or that progressives can just wait for the votes to come rolling in. Even if Trump flames out, his populist base in the industrial and rural heartland is still going to be angry and desperate. Their concerns about the the crushing realities of an economic "recovery" which has yet to come their way, the unresponsiveness of the political system, and the fact that "Washington elites" continue to ignore them are not going to go away.

The self-inflicted crippling of Trump's campaign presents both dangers and opportunities for the left and labor.

It means it is time to pay even more attention to down-ticket races for Congress and state offices. As its chances at the presidency become more untenable, the Republican Party is going to focus more of its efforts and resources to hold onto Congress. If the cash of the Koch brothers and others is not flowing to Trump, you can bet that it will be pouring into right-wing campaigns at all other levels even more.

That's the danger part.

The potential opportunity part comes from the fact that Trump is going to be under increased pressure to stick to the teleprompter. GOP leaders will keep trying (perhaps in vain) to tape their traditional policy book over Trump's mouth in an effort at damage control. This could leave an opening for progressives to open discussions with some of the working class Trump voters who feel their troubadour is abandoning them for the establishment.

If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are smart, they will seize the populist agenda. Right now they should be putting forward even stronger proposals for expanding Social Security, moving toward single-payer healthcare, and implementing stronger family leave and other policies. Rooting the campaign in strong left populist measures such as these is the best route to not only ensuring a landslide victory in November but also expanding the democratic coalition to include even more of those left out by globalization and the uneven economic recovery. It can help shift the balance in Congress and set the stage for real advances for the majority of the American people after the elections.

This is the opportunity to speak to the real concerns of those who feel abandoned and forgotten. It is the chance to speak to the concerns of the 99 percent with a message that works. This opening should not be squandered by turning to the right or simply gloating while Trump self-immolates.

Photo: Donald Trump campaign signs are swept up with the garbage after a cancelled event at the University of Illinois-Chicago on Friday, March 11, 2016. | Charles Rex Arbogast / AP

Desperation in Chicago and other cities while Trump talks estate tax

Tue, 09 Aug 2016 12:49:00 +0000

Chicago is one of America's greatest cities. Yet many of its residents live in terror in what is virtually a war zone. When a demented killer slew 49 in a gun rampage in Orlando, there was national attention. Presidential candidates called for escalating the fight against the Islamic State in the Middle East, even though the killer seems to have been a homegrown terrorist.

But in Chicago, 404 have died in gun violence this year. According to the Congressional Research Service, the murder rate averaged 16.0 per 100,000 a year from 2010-2014. That is nearly four times the national average of 4.6 per 100,000 and nearly three times the Illinois state average (5.8).

These killings are not randomly distributed. African Americans constitute about one-third of Chicago's residents, but they account for 80 percent of its murder victims.

The killings are concentrated in endangered communities, communities burdened with abject poverty and deplorable conditions. Desperation and murder are segregated in Chicago.

In West Garfield Park, the average per capita income is $10,951. More than 40 percent of the residents live below the poverty line, with an unemployment rate greater than 25 percent.

In Englewood, the average per capita household income is $11,993. Forty-two percent of households live below the poverty line, with an unemployment rate over 21 percent.

In Fuller Park, per capita household income is $9,016, with a majority - 55.5 percent - of households living below the poverty line. The unemployment rate is 40 percent. Washington Park, North Lawndale, Austin, Greater Grand Crossing, East Garfield Park...the list goes on.

During the height of the Great Depression, the unemployment rate hovered at roughly 20 percent. These neighborhoods are suffering levels twice that now, six years into the supposed recovery.

These are disaster zones in a supposedly world-class city. They look like they are under siege, and to some extent they are. Drugs, guns, violence, and despair mark lives condemned to live in these zones.

The war in Iraq - the one the Bush administration chose to launch - will end up costing us more than $3 trillion. And of course, the wars go on - in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, and now the U.S. is beginning to bomb Libya.

But the right now disaster zones in Chicago are ignored. The everyday violence is decried but nothing is done. The poverty is regretted but there is no plan to attack it.

In fact, national policy does more to expand the divide between endangered communities and affluent ones, between those living in the disaster zone and those living uptown.

A new report by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Enterprise Development details the growing racial wealth gap in America. They find that without a drastic change in policy, by 2043, when people of color are projected to account for more than half of the U.S. population, the racial wealth divide between white households and African American and Latino households will have doubled from about $500,000 in 2013 to more than $1 million.

The gap reflects the impact of historic inequities - from federally-sanctioned housing discrimination to private redlining - but its expansion is fueled in part by tax policies that aid the highest earners while providing the lowest income families with virtually nothing.

Over the past 20 years alone, the report finds, the federal government spent more than $8 trillion through tax programs to assist families in building long-term wealth, including saving for retirement, purchasing a home, starting a business or paying for college. But the impact of these expenditures has been "upside down." With typical millionaires pocketing about $145,000 in public tax benefits each year to increase their wealth while working families receive a total of $174 on average.

More of the same won't help. Adding benefits to the wealthy few - like Donald Trump's call to end the estate tax - will add to the inequity and contribute to the despair. If nothing changes, the desperate zones will get worse. Surely this crisis is worthy of debate in the presidential campaign, and action from the White House and Congress.

Rev. Jesse Jackson is the founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. He was a leader in the civil rights movement alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and was twice a candidate for President of the United States.

This article originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times. It is reprinted here with the permission of Rainbow PUSH.

Photo: In this May 30, 2016, photo, police work the scene where a man was fatally shot in the chest in Chicago's Washington Park neighborhood. | E. Jason Wambsgans/AP

From #FeelTheBern to #ImWithHer: A young activist takes the long view

Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:30:00 +0000

As of the start of August, it should be clear to voters that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the 45^th President of the United States. As a former supporter of Bernie Sanders' campaign, this fact has proved difficult to digest.

No doubt, Bernie Sanders served as the best representative for the movement towards a more just and democratic society. In spite of that, following Senator Sanders' failure to secure the Democratic nomination, I have come to the conclusion that the most effective means of furthering the movement he represented is to ensure Hillary Clinton thoroughly defeats Donald Trump by a landslide in the upcoming general election.

By no means has the movement with Bernie at its head dissipated or been co-opted; far from it. Politics, much like physics, demonstrates the conservation of momentum. Many of my fellow leftists and ex-Bernie supporters fear that backing Clinton will result in a neoliberal usurpation and expenditure of the progressive energy and hopes that Bernie tapped. Others treat the issue with a profound ambivalence, as though no essential difference exists between a Clinton or Trump administration.

This line of thinking holds that progressive and left political groups would better serve their constituents and causes by refusing to enter into the incipient Clinton coalition. This self-fashioned third bloc of leftism sees itself confronting the same monster in either a Trump or Clinton presidency. They bolster their forces for what is predicted to be the same fight, regardless of electoral results.

The former concern merits response; the latter, a thorough, thought-out, and unequivocal rejection.

Clinton = Trump?

First, the claim that no essential difference can be found between the prospects of a Trump or Clinton presidency does not stand to even superficial examination. For starters, think about what a Trump presidency might look like. His insurgent attempt to steal the White House has failed to offer any concrete political program outside of his particular blend of Nativism and resentment.

Whatever its problems, Clinton's campaign regularly releases detailed policy proposals, subjecting the candidate to our ruthless criticisms. For all the bluster regarding Clinton's abhorrence of transparency, in this instance, there is no question as to which candidate gives the left the room it needs to form a programmatic response. "Better the devil you know," so they say.

But more than the issue of familiarity, a Trump presidency stands as a categorically worse situation. In spite its lack of density, the tenor of Trump's rhetoric offers a glimpse into the crushing defeat his presidency would represent for the left and for democratic movements generally. He willingly stirs up the divisive emotions of racism, xenophobic nationalism, and Islamophobia.

Race, nationality, and religion have all been tools historically utilized by the bourgeoisie to divide and conquer working people. To a large degree, this pattern defines the social history of our nation. Time and again, the capitalist class devastates working class solidarity by fanning these same flames.

A victory for Trump would legitimize these divisive forces in truly unprecedented ways. A Trump presidency would further the division between the white working class and 'the rest.' A Clinton presidency, by contrast, could offer an initial chance at rekindling solidarity within our fractured working class.

A landslide victory is needed

What, then, is essentially at stake on November 8, 2016? Nothing less than the cohesiveness of our working class. History proves that without cohesive solidarity among the members of the working class, social change and progress halts. A Trump victory would destroy the possibility of social change and progress by cementing the division of the working class for the foreseeable future.

For this reason, Hillary Clinton must not only win the election, but utterly destroy Trump's attempts to divide the working class against itself. A landslide victory by Clinton would delegitimize and destroy divisive 'Trumpist' politics.

In light of these considerations, anyone who considers themselves a part of the left must ensure Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump in the upcoming general election. Ambivalence has no place this time around.

No doubt, a degree of ambivalent feeling is to be expected when a candidate the caliber of Bernie Sanders comes up short in the leadership contest. This leads to some of those genuine concerns considered earlier.

Many progressives - millennials in particular it seems - distrust Clinton. They fear she is not only pandering to Sanders' former supporters, but outright misleading them. Some cast her as the neoliberal rube of the neoconservatives. Surely, Clinton's politics leave much to be desired.

The question becomes one, however, of how the insurgent forces Sanders unleashed can maintain their progressive energy when in coalition with an established Democrat the likes of Clinton.

The bulk of those asking such questions do not call for an outright rejection of Clinton as a candidate (like the aforementioned bloc of puritans), but instead wonder about how to maintain the vitality of an emergent practical and effective left. These are legitimate concerns, but they are largely of a theoretical nature in the current situation.

A Clinton victory leaves open the path to progress

Coalition-building and the theory thereof must be developed if Clinton seeks partnership and cooperation with the left. Criticism must remain vibrant in order to ensure liberals do not coopt and redirect the excitement and possibility Sanders unleashed. Otherwise, upon Clinton's victory, the forces of the left will enter into opposition, a place all-too-familiar for those voices.

Until then, progressives, leftists, and former Sanders supporters face an essential task: It is up to them to ensure the possibility of current and future working class solidarity is preserved.

A Trump victory would steal the momentum unleashed by Sanders and crush it with an agenda of social, political, and economic retrenchment. A Clinton victory would leave that momentum up for grabs. It would remain a force still able to seize the opportunity for moving history along.

Jim Roberts, age 22, is a recent graduate of the University of Virginia. He formerly volunteered for the Bernie Sanders campaign in that state. Jim currently resides in Los Angeles and engages in free-lance writing.

Photo: Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. | AP

How do you solve a problem like Russia?

Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:27:00 +0000

One good way to solve the "problem" of Russia might be to avoid making that country into a major problem every chance we get. The neocons, along with some "liberal" Democrats unfortunately, are unlikely to cease doing this any time soon and have used recent emails dumped by WikiLeaks and statements made by Donald Trump to once again launch another anti-Russia crusade.

First, on WikiLeaks: The tons of emails released show that the DNC did its best to back Clinton over Sanders. Nothing at all was surprising there. Everyone and his brother and sister already knew the deal. The controversy arose though over the source of the leaks - over the as yet unsubstantiated claims that Russia was behind them. That was compounded by Trump encouraging Russia to use its alleged hacking skills to find out what was in some of the missing Hillary Clinton emails.

Adding wood to a potential fire here is the continued propensity of Russia's Putin to act more and more like the neocons in Washington he actually opposes. His tendency toward undemocratic behaviors, along with the scandals coming out of Russia involving the disappearance of and even the deaths of Putin opponents, don't help his image around the world.

The United States, of course, is itself in no position to lecture Russia on the norms of acceptable international behavior. Interfering in the elections of another country, even if indeed Russia did do that by hacking into computers, is certainly not something to be condoned. It's mild stuff though when compared to the ways in which the U.S. has interfered in the affairs of other countries using methods up to and including political assassination.

Dems indulge Russia fears

Some say we should not be concerned about Democrats opportunistically using the Russia card against Trump. Trump is so dangerous, the thinking goes, that what's the harm in drawing on the huge reserve of fear of Russia that exists in the U.S. if it can be used to weaken him? Liberals and progressives, including MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, have even jumped on that bandwagon. When Trump, in a temporary and rare moment of clarity or sanity, said Putin was not going to march into the Ukraine, the MSNBC commentators could barely contain their glee as they derided him for not realizing the "invasion" had already taken place.

Despite the fun some of the MSNBC commentators had on this matter at Trump's expense the situation is not really a laughing matter. At stake ultimately is the peace of the world. Both the U.S. and Russia have nuclear arsenals. The U.S. spends ten times as much as Russia spends on the military, so when neocons in the U.S. rattle against Russia, Putin takes it seriously. (He'd have to be as crazy as Trump not to do so.)

What disturbs me too is the willingness of some liberals and some Hillary Clinton supporters to join Republicans in backing the neocon strategy of NATO expansion and destabilization of Russia. I get uncomfortable when I hear Hillary say that she, unlike Trump, can be trusted to "stand up" to Putin.

It reminds me of the time in 2002 when some liberals, including the New York Times, bought into the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If you questioned those claims, you were characterized by some as supporting a dangerous dictator, Saddam Hussein, against the forces of democracy. Likewise, if you question some of the anti-Russia rhetoric now you are supporting a "homophobic," "demagogic," "nationalistic," "undemocratic," "sexist," "dictatorial" Putin.

Demonizing Russia is no way forward

Getting on the anti-Russia bandwagon at this time could also signal the beginning of real problems for us over the next few years. Pushing for conflict with Russia is a dangerous thing.

It can reverse the already successful collaboration between the two countries. The nuclear deal with Iran (a deal Trump opposes by the way) is the result of the direct cooperation between Presidents Obama and Putin.

Putin put quite a bit of pressure on Syria on another occasion and was able, together with President Obama, to get Syrian President Assad to dismantle his chemical weapons stockpile.

The neocons don't give up that easily though. After cooperation between Obama and Putin resulted in the dismantling of Syrian chemical weapons and after Obama rejected calls to bomb Syria, they made an even bigger, bolder move in the Ukraine.

They played their hand well in the Ukraine by backing a right-wing coup against the elected pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovich.

On one side was Yanukovich who wanted to resist EU austerity demands, and on the other were his opponents who wanted closer ties with the European Union. They actually reached a deal to avoid bloodshed, but it was scuttled when neo-Nazis and other right wingers staged the coup, forcing the elected government officials to run for their lives.

Russians living in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea rose up against the right-wing regime in Kiev. Russian troops were already in Crimea as part of a military nuclear base agreement reached when the old Soviet Union broke up. The use of those troops to protect the nuclear armaments and the ethnic Russians who make up most of the Crimean population against organized attacks sponsored by the Kiev government is what the major media here characterized as an "invasion." It's that "invasion" that MSNBC commentators joked about, claiming that Trump didn't know it had ever happened.

A referendum in Crimea went overwhelmingly in favor of re-unification with Russia. (Crimea had been part of the Russian Republic of the old Soviet Union until 1990.)

Many Russians in the eastern Ukraine pushed for a similar type of deal with Russia, but Putin turned them down. Instead, he lent some assistance to the Russian rebels in the eastern Ukraine. Some of those rebels went on to declare themselves autonomous republics inside the Ukraine.

One can argue about details of the above summary of the events in Ukraine, but there is no argument with the fact that Americans have heard a very different version - one of simple Russian attacks upon and invasion of Ukraine as part of some type of Russian plan to reclaim the entire old Soviet Union and then probably more of Europe. It's an argument which, upon careful examination, does not really hold up.

It is also impossible to deny that U.S. foreign policy has long included orchestration of coups, use of drones to kill political opponents, spying on allies and enemies alike, aerial bombing campaigns - you name it. NATO has expanded its reach to the very borders of Russia and the U.S. has participated in massive war games in Poland and the Baltic states. Russian movement of troops into its own Western regions, then, comes as no surprise.

Change course, but not by following Trump

The direction we should be moving in is a very different one.

We should have both the U.S. and Russia pledge to discontinue all interference in one another's internal affairs.

We should support a mutual pledge of "no first use" of nuclear weapons, one which the Obama administration is reportedly considering putting forward in the near future.

We should be rejecting the current U.S. Air Force plans for massive increases in U.S. nuclear capabilities.

Both countries should co-launch a new major initiative whereby the U.S., the EU, and Russia come together to solve the energy and environmental problems confronting their own countries and the world. Those are only a few suggestions, but they would make a good beginning.

One last warning: None of the concerns raised here about Democrats opportunistically playing the Russia card against Trump should be taken to mean that Trump is any kind of vehicle for cooperation with Russia. As mentioned, he has already trashed the Iran deal, which couldn't have happened without U.S. and Russian cooperation. Trump's only interest in Russia is how much money he can extract from it for his own benefit.

If Trump were elected, there is every reason to believe that the neocons would exploit his election to further their goals. Trump would be no peacemaker - not with Russia or with anybody else.

What is also troubling, however, is that if Democrats buy into the anti-Russia campaign now, they too may end up falling into a neocon trap in a Clinton administration. That would have dire consequences not just for world peace, but for their entire domestic program. The most progressive agenda ever put forward in the history of the Democratic Party cannot be implemented if we continue to spend untold billions on war and preparation for war.

Photo: Obama and Putin at UN headquarters. | Andrew Harnik/AP

Green Party “safe state” strategy is neither safe nor a strategy

Fri, 05 Aug 2016 10:31:00 +0000

The Democratic and Republican party conventions are over and the presidential election has entered a new phase. The sprint is on to Election Day.

Since the GOP convention, which adopted its most reactionary platform ever, alarm has grown over the threat to democracy posed by Donald Trump, his appeal to hate and fear and policies that would cleave the nation and violate the constitution.

Practically every speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), including those by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, emphasized this danger.

But the warning is also coming from some in the Republican Party establishment, past and current GOP elected officials, the foreign policy and national security establishment and big donors.

Trump's attack on the Khan family, parents of a Muslim American army captain killed in Iraq, created anger among military veterans and Gold Star families.

Unprecedented early endorsements of Clinton have appeared in the Washington Post and Houston Chronicle, which described Trump as a "danger to the Republic."

Many refer to Trump as an extreme authoritarian or worse, as a fascist.

The message from the DNC was the polar opposite. It reflected the broad electoral coalition backing Clinton, including the labor movement, African American, Latino, Asian and other communities of color, women, the LGBT community, youth, environmentalists, immigrant and disabled rights advocates.

It includes Bernie Sanders and his supporters, over 90% of whom, according to polls, now back Clinton. Those Sanders supporters were instrumental in shaping the Democratic platform which is widely regarded as its most progressive ever.

But there are still some progressives, including some Bernie or Bust activists, who refuse to support Clinton. They deeply despise her ties to Wall Street and call her a warmonger and a liar.

They see nothing positive in Clinton, her historic candidacy or the Democratic Party platform. They dismiss the broad electoral coalition, including the labor movement, that is backing Clinton and that has shaped the platform, a coalition with obvious leverage.

To them, she is as bad as Trump.

Some are voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein to "send a message." Still others hope a Clinton defeat provokes a crisis in the Democratic Party leading to its break-up.

Others see the danger of Trump and want to defeat him. But like Sanders supporter and RootsAction.org founder Norman Solomon, they advocate a "safe state" strategy: vote for Clinton in the battleground states to ensure she wins but vote Green Party in the solidly blue (safe) or solidly red states.

This is a flawed strategy. First, like it or not, we have a two party system. One of the two major parties will win and govern. If this were a parliamentary democracy different tactics would be called for.

Wall Street interests may dominate both parties but they reflect vastly different electoral coalitions and class, racial and social make up.

Many leaders of labor, civil rights and other democratic grassroots movements, including democratic socialists, are leaders within the Democratic Party.

To call for a vote against Clinton is to separate oneself from this electoral coalition.

Secondly, it's dangerous to declare so-called "safe states." This election has been volatile and another terrorist attack, mass shooting or some calamity could make the outcome unpredictable.

In some blue "safe states" the GOP and right wing controls the governorships and state legislatures and in some cases have elected Republican U.S. Senators and have been busy passing voter suppression laws. Since voters often vote down a straight line a Clinton landslide in those states is need to sweep out of office the maximum number of GOP right wingers who now have a lock on sate governments across the country.

Trump has been dismissed at every turn as a "passing phenomena" and "unelectable". He has not only survived, but his extremist message resonates among millions and he has erased Clinton's fundraising advantage.

Left and progressive activists shouldn't make the same mistake as the pundits. Trump is a clear and present danger, an unpredictable candidate in an unpredictable election.

"Safe state" advocates forget the role of Ralph Nader and the Green Party in the 2000 elections. They were the difference in the vote in New Hampshire and Florida. The rest is history.

Thirdly, mandates are real. This election will be a national referendum on racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia. The aim should be a landslide defeat of Trump and a decisive rejection of hate.

The election of Clinton as the first woman president would make history. A landslide would not end sexism, but it would represent a mighty blow just as the election of President Obama was a blow against racism. It would advance democracy.

A landslide makes it more likely that GOP Congressional and state legislative majorities can be ousted and an end put to the politics of obstruction. Most people tend to vote straight ticket.

A landslide will give added weight to the progressive platform adopted at the Democratic Convention and give encouragement to appoint progressive Supreme Court justices. It would be added pressure against backsliding on opposition to TPP and other trade deals. It will put public opinion and the movements in a better position to pressure against Clinton's tendency toward military adventurism and policies of regime change.

With a Democratic president and Congress the post-election political terrain will shift and give immediate momentum to the new Clinton administration.

Even if Trump is defeated, the movement he spawned and the extremist ideas powering it will be a factor in politics for a long time to come. A massive repudiation of Trump will weaken and isolate this movement.

Fourthly, politics is more than voting one's conscience. It's about building electoral and governing coalitions that can broadly advance struggle on the issues. Voting is tactical and rarely does someone vote for candidates they agree with 100%.

One's associations also collectively shape voting. Unity of the broad people's coalition before, during and after the election will do more to ensure the progressive Democratic Party platform is implemented by the new Clinton administration.

The broad coalition of labor, communities of color, women, LGBT, young people, environmental, immigration, disability rights activists, etc. is the only force capable of effectively challenging corporate power and changing the country long term. This electoral coalition and its grassroots capacity are being built through the electoral process, giving it the ability to influence and mobilize key constituencies.

This coalition will not only continue to influence Clinton in a progressive direction, but forms the basis of growing political independence and a future labor-led third party that will advocate radical economic, political and social restructuring.

Parts of this electoral coalition are also taking up Sanders' challenge to run thousands of candidates at every level committed to the "political revolution."

Voting Green Party separates activists and voters from these key forces. One cannot credibly engage in mobilizations of labor, civil rights, women's organizations, LGBT community, and environmentalists while also advocating voting Green Party.

As in everything, if we struggle together and vote together, we win together. There's power in unity.

Photo: Voting Green Party in the blue states is neither safe nor sound. A Clinton landslide is needed in those states if their GOP state governments in power are going to be swept out of office. | Wikipedia (CC)

No free handouts: Politicians must work for the black and brown millennial vote

Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:07:00 +0000

With the general election inching closer, the public is beginning to see some of the uglier sides of politics coming out of the woodwork this summer. Just last month, before the opening of the Democratic National Convention, it was announced that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was leaving her position as head of the Democratic National Committee. Her resignation was triggered by a scandal involving Wikileaks, which released 20,000 emails showing that Wasserman Schultz and members of her team were actively undermining the Sanders campaign. One message even suggested planting a narrative that portrayed the Sanders platform as a disorganized "mess."

This is not the first email controversy coming out of this election. For months, Hillary Clinton remained under the scrutiny of an extensive FBI investigation over deleted emails. Despite this barrier, Clinton has proven to be a force to reckon with. The Democrats pulled every play in the political book during the DNC, bringing in celebrities and the mothers of young black men and women who had been shot at the hands of police. Both Michelle and Barack Obama also publicly endorsed Clinton in separate speeches, and spoke fondly of their personal faith in her leadership abilities.

For what it was worth, reports indicated afterwards that Clinton's speech was ultimately viewed more favorably than Trump's, and her numbers jumped. 60% of viewers in one CNN/ORC poll stated they were more likely to vote for Clinton after watching her address.

Positive poll numbers aside, however, the fact still remains that the Democratic Party has long taken their diverse following of voters for granted - something they can no longer do. If the party wants to win over young voters of color, for instance, they will have to work hard to get those votes. They should not count on any free handouts.

Which way for the millennial vote?

With Sanders out of the race, many have speculated about what direction the millennial vote will go, and in particular, the votes of young people of color. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center estimated that this year's election will be the country's most racially and ethnically diverse ever. Nearly one-in-three eligible voters on Election Day, 31 percent, will be Hispanic, black, Asian or another racial or ethnic minority, inching up from 29 percent in 2012.

Obama's success throughout his presidential campaigns was largely a result of record-breaking turnout, particularly among African Americans. More than 130 million people voted in 2008 - the most ever in a presidential election. Additionally, the 2012 campaign against Romney marked the first time that African American voters turned out at a higher percentage than white voters in a presidential election.

It seems clear that in order for Clinton to pull off a solid victory, she must continue to reach out to marginalized populations and ensure that Black, Latinx, and Asian millennial votes are being represented. She has already established herself as a frontrunner with black voters, having won more than 70 percent of the African-American vote in most of the primary and caucus states with considerable African-American populations. She is statistically a favorite among an older generation of black voters, and has already begun to cement her position by speaking at Al Sharpton's National Action Network, for instance, and continuing to make appearances at black-based events.

But securing a win for the 2016 election will require Democrats to begin regaining the public trust and taking responsibility for the political dishonesty fostered within the DNC's electoral politics.

Democrats should take no one for granted

Of course, Democrats are not the only ones struggling to maintain a positive public image. Many conservatives have jumped ship from the sinking Trump Titanic, with rumors that the GOP is even looking for alternative options in case Trump drops out.

Liberal and conservative voters alike have felt gridlocked within the confines of a two-party system that does no longer truly represent their ideological beliefs. First-year Loyola University MBA student Daniel Cavero told the People's World that although he voted for John Kasich in the primaries, he does not believe he will be voting in the general election. "I don't feel like I can truly voice my opinion through either candidate. I also don't want to fall in the boat where I'm forced to pick between two candidates. I will probably just vote locally during the elections."

This form of political defiance resonates with many young voters, who have historically been known for opting out of the electoral process.

On another level, some progressive organizations have also decided against endorsing any presidential candidate for the 2016 election. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told The Guardian recently that she believes it's impossible to rally around anyone "who hasn't demonstrated that they feel accountable to the Black Lives Matter movement or network." She also expressed concern that politicians would attempt to co-opt movements for their own political gain.

It seems that youth more broadly share similar concerns, as polls in recent years have shown a historically low level of trust for the government among millennials. This may be part of the reason why they continue to have the lowest voter turnout of any age group. Only 46 percent of them showed up for the last presidential election; compared to 72 percent of the Silent Generation (age 71 and up).

There are others, however, who feel as though they have no choice but to vote, regardless of the uncertainty surrounding existing candidates. "I won't opt out of any election. It took too long to get that right. Even today there are states trying to limit that right with voter ID laws," said Shayla Glover, an educator from Columbus, Ohio. "I think even if people are unhappy about the choices on the presidential ticket, they still need to vote. 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election and all of the House. If people chose to not vote for any candidate for president, I can respect that, but do vote for your local elections."

Latinx voters find themselves at a similar crossroads. For the most part, Clinton has banked on Trump's overwhelming unpopularity among Latinx communities. Yet, she herself has been part of an administration with higher deportation rates than any other in history. She has even defended President Obama on the matter, stating that "there are laws that impose certain obligations" on the President.

Clinton has shifted some of her thoughts on undocumented immigration, though, pledging in March not to deport any undocumented immigrants except in the case of violent criminals and terrorists. Many wonder, however, whether she will hold true to her word.

What next?

The more important question becomes: what happens next?

There are sectors of previous Sanders supporters who have decided they will stick to their anti-establishment ideals. A few will supposedly throw their support behind Trump. Others will back Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Nine out of ten, however, have stated that they will eventually end up voting for Clinton.

In the meantime, the nation is coming to understand the importance of addressing the critical issues stemming from systemic injustice. It is no longer acceptable to simply overlap racial and class discourse into a conglomerate discussion. Rather, it is necessary to directly examine the individual needs of black and brown communities.

Though Clinton may have her work cut out for her, there is still time for the Democratic Party to redeem itself and prove that the nation can truly represent even the most underrepresented of voices.

Photo: Local activists and attendees at Netroots Nation 15 March in to Phoenix Sheriff's Department demanding Sheriff Joe Arpaio be arrested. Earchiel Johnson | PW

Trumka: An abundant worldview leads to shared prosperity

Thu, 04 Aug 2016 12:53:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - In an essay for the National Catholic Reporter, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka writes about how approaching politics requires an abundant worldview if you want to achieve shared prosperity. An excerpt:

"Any politician who wants the support of the AFL-CIO must answer a fundamental moral question: Will you choose a world of scarcity or one of abundance?

"A vision of scarcity leads to the building of walls, the turning away of refugees, and the denial of vital services to the most vulnerable among us. A vision of scarcity leads us away from compassion and toward a bitter and impoverished society....

"On issue after issue-whether raising wages or investing in roads, bridges, schools and water systems-an abundant worldview leads to broadly shared prosperity.

"Economists don't use religious terms, typically, but time and again they tell us of the success that comes from investing in ourselves. We are all enriched, literally, when we welcome immigrants and when we take care of each other...."

Read the full essay.

The above story appeared on the AFL-CIO Now Blog

Photo: Parents, students and supporters in solidarity with Chicago teachers. Teresa Albano/PW

What does Black liberation look like under capitalism?

Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:55:00 +0000

Ed. note: This article is the second in a series on Black Lives Matter and capitalism. Click here to read the previous article.

As the nation continues to deal with the aftermath of the police murders of two Black men, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, along with the five officers shot and killed in Dallas Texas just days after, we are faced with America's ever-present problem of racial oppression.

We saw in the first article in this series that the lasting history of chattel slavery, the creation of Jim Crow segregation, and the new Jim Crow of the Prison Industrial Complex all emerged under a system that depends heavily on exploitation of African-American labor for profit.

How then do movements for Black liberation and racial equality combat such systemic oppression? Recent movements such as Black Lives Matter have been grappling with this question as the various groups underneath the unifying slogan put forth a comprehensive set of demands to combat the police brutality that disproportionately affects African Americans. Yet the struggle that the Black Lives Matter movement has brought to the fore is not a new one.

Since the birth of this nation, brought about through the labor of enslaved Black people, there have been movements to deal with America's race problem. These movements have changed the political context for government and politicians to act, and they experienced backlash and internecine clashes of perspectives as well. How have collective movements already changed the political context for policies and reforms to be made? How can emerging movements build power to change it further? Since we know the problems we face are not new ones, if we take a look back on history we can see what answers we have discovered in the course of struggle to add to the narrative of change going forward.

From Booker T. Washington to W.E.B. DuBois

The abolition of slavery at the end of the Civil War ushered in the era of Radical Reconstruction from 1865-1877. It was a time of hope-and of legislative gains. But the Compromise of 1877 sabotaged Radical Reconstruction and left the Black community unprotected by law from the aggression of the descendants of slaveholders and the domestic terrorist organizations they formed, such as the Klu Klux Klan. Racial tensions were high all across the country, as Jim Crow segregation began to take hold. Black Americans were left with the question of where they fit into the structure of the United States -- and what was needed for advancement.

Educator, author, and occasional presidential advisor, African American Booker T. Washington, dominated the debates in the late 1800s through the early 1900s. Washington's idea was that in order to maintain racial peace, and prosperity for African Americans, Black people needed to learn skills that the world (white people) found valuable. There was an emphasis on the importance of acquiring land, homes, vocations and skills, along with obeying the law and cooperating with white authorities to maintain peace. Washington believed that entrepreneurship and industrial education would lead to prosperity for Black America rather than directly challenging the laws of Jim Crow segregation.

In his famous speech entitled "The Atlanta Compromise," Washington stated:

"The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremest folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing... The opportunity to earn a dollar in a factory just now is worth infinitely more than the opportunity to spend a dollar in an opera-house."

Yet some disagreed with Washington's viewpoint that Blacks could only gain prosperity through economic means. A leading opponent of Washington's view was historian, sociologist, and early civil rights activist W.E.B. DuBois.

DuBois explained that Washington's solutions were too narrow and limited to economic objectives. In one of his most famous writings, The Souls of Black Folk, DuBois accused Washington of preaching a "gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life." DuBois also argued that Black people had to fight for an increase in political and civil status, for without that, under the modern economic system Black people could not defend their rights (such as to land, businesses, etc.) and would be forced to exist without the vote.

DuBois was a leader and founder of the Niagara Movement, an early black civil rights organization that openly fought against racial segregation and disenfranchisement. With the Niagara Movement's Declaration of Principles, of which DuBois was a co-author, it became the first African American organization to demand racial equality in all aspects of life. When the Niagara movement disbanded in 1908 DuBois went on to help found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) which would go on to be a leading force in the Civil Rights Movement. It was clear heading into the mid 20^th Century that many in the Black community believed ownership of land and jobs was not enough, and that prosperity had to come about through full recognition of equality and inclusion.

Civil Rights, nonviolence, urban uprisings, and Black Power

Just as the end of chattel slavery in the U.S. brought forth the question of where African Americans fit in society, so too did the end of the "separate but equal" doctrine that dominated the land since 1868. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 saw a legal end to Jim Crow segregation, bringing about the 1954-1968 era of the Civil Rights Movement. During this time African Americans fought to ensure legal recognition and federal protection of their citizenship rights.

Acts of nonviolence and civil disobedience dominated the strategy of the movement as a means to force a dialogue between activists and government authorities. Campaigns within the movement, such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott, which helped put an end to the unconstitutional act of segregation on public transit, helped to keep the issue of racial oppression at the forefront of American's minds. Another victory of this movement was the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and national origin.

In his "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King Jr. explained that the nonviolent campaign had four basic steps to determine if action needed to be taken; (1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive. (2) negotiation (3) self purification (4) direct action."

While the Civil Rights movement made major gains it was not enough to stop the unrest felt in many of the urban cities throughout the country as unemployment in poor inner cities dominated by African Americans was on the rise, along with police harassment. There would be a series of riots starting from 1964 through 1968 including the Harlem riot of 1964, the six days Watts riot of 1965, the Detroit riot of 1967, and the riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Although segregation was no longer legal, it seemed to be de facto in the inner cities as white flight left many poor African Americans behind in dilapidated housing, high rates of unemployment, and high tensions with predominantly white police forces. The riots would result in further property devastation in cities, and a number of deaths.

Into the midst of these riots emerged the Black Power movement. This was a movement characterized by people frustrated with the nonviolence and integration strategy associated with the Civil Rights movement, and sought more radical tactics to ensure Black liberation. The organization that would become synonymous with the Black Power movement would be the Black Panther Party (BPP).

Launched in Oakland, California, The Black Panthers was a Black led organization which used armed citizen patrols to challenge police brutality in Black dominated neighborhoods. The Black Panthers' program, called the Ten Point Platform, included demands of self-determination for the black community, livable housing, better education, employment, an end to police brutality in Black communities, and freedom for Black prisoners. The Panthers implemented the successful "Free Breakfast for Children Program" that aimed to provide free meals for Black families in their neighborhoods, while also shining light on the shortcomings of the U.S. government's so called War on Poverty. The Black Panther party would rise in popularity from its inception in 1966 until its decline in the early 1980s.

As the documentary film Black Panther Party: Vanguard of the Revolution showed, the fall of the Panthers was largely orchestrated by the U.S government, through its Counterintelligence Program known as COINTELPRO, as they were seen as a major threat to the system. It should be noted that COINTELPRO also targeted the Civil Rights Movement. This FBI operation aimed to dismantle the various influential organizations fighting for Black liberation. COINTELPRO organized undercover agents to infiltrate these movements along with carrying out targeted assassinations of Black Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, along with national leader Malcolm X. The Black Panthers was an organization of activists who were part of a long line of activists going against a system bent on continuing the exploitation of Black people.

Yet although the Black Panthers, which was largely a nationalist organization, became synonymous with the emergence of Black Power, their primary work was to courageously fight against segregation and racial oppression. What helped their work be more effective was the work of a massive united multiracial movement, including more mainstream organizations such as the NAACP, that during this time were also fighting for liberation.

New movements, continued struggles - and more work to be done

Through a brief look at the history of movements for Black liberation we have seen that there have been gains made to combat the embedded anti-black racism within the system. Yet even with the gains made, there is plenty of work that still needs to be done. Continued police violence, a staggering increase of Blacks and Latinos disenfranchised and held captive in the prison industrial complex, and the continued poverty of many African Americans - these show that the old battles are still being fought. The American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, continues to be elusive to Black America as a whole. The question remains: were Black Americans ever meant to be part of the American dream in the first place?

As revolutionary Black leader Malcolm X stated in 1964 in his famous speech The Ballot or the Bullet, "No, I'm not an American. I'm one of 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism... I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare."

It is within this "nightmare" that emerging movements have continued to try to find some semblance of hope. Newer movements such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Moral Mondays are continuing the tradition of using various strategies of civil disobedience, protests, and publicized demands, to call attention to the racial oppression faced by African Americans in the United States. Through their actions they have won some victories. Yet they have also faced a backlash reminiscent of the criticisms that organizations fighting for Black liberation faced in the past.

With the recent lone gunmen shootings that have resulted in the deaths of some police officers, for instance, there has been an increased push to paint Black Lives Matter as a movement of violence and hate. This is not dissimilar to the rhetoric once used against the Black Panther Party during its early years. As BLM activist Janae Bonsu explained in a July 2016 article in People's World:

"If history is any prologue, the narrative that is being built... is going to be used to catapult a far-reaching strategy to criminalize the movement for Black lives' commitment to resistance and accountability. We've seen this before in the Civil Rights Movement that coincided with the War on Crime... These measures are nothing more than attempts to censor and criminalize political resistance and protests of police violence. Lawmakers aren't trying to protect officers; they're trying to suppress a movement."

Yet, despite this backlash, organizations under Black Lives Matter have continued to put forth demands and organize demonstrations to bring about an end to police brutality and unjust policing of the African American community. Most recently has been a united platform entitled A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom, & Justice. In this comprehensive platform, activists touch upon key issues such as economic justice, the fight for reparation, and Black people having control of their own communities. One of the opening lines of the platform summarizes accurately that "Black humanity and dignity requires Black political will and power."

This platform is a step in the direction of addressing the unfinished work to be done from the time of movements before Black Lives Matter. Like those movements of the early 1900s into the late 1970s, we don't have a clear idea of what the end result of that work will look like until it is achieved. Despite this uncertainty we have no choice but to work towards something that dismantles this system of oppression and exploitation tied to profit for the wealthy white elite.

As American activist and vice chair of the Communist Party USA Jarvis Tyner stated in his 2016 article Black lives matter! The struggle against police murders, brutality and abuse, "The revolutionary process is not a sprint, but a marathon... The movements that we see today are a continuation of the great battles for freedom that went before. If we win the battle at this stage, the struggle will move to a higher level, embracing more that needs to change."

Just as the oppression of Black people is baked into the oppressive system we live under, so too is the continued fight for Black liberation intertwined with the shaping of our nation. This fight for liberation has already influenced our laws and culture; it will continue to do so.

Photo: Political Research (CC)

How dare Trump belittle the memory of a fallen American soldier

Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:24:00 +0000

This article was reposted from Philly Voice.

Watching Mr. and Mrs. Khan on Thursday night speaking at the convention, I began to cry.

My phone lit up as friends checked in to assure me they were watching. I was acutely aware of Mrs. Khan's trembling face, and felt great empathy for her being on that stage, exposed and trying so hard to keep her emotions in tact.

I watched Mr. Khan slip his arm around her, and thought how much comfort they must take in each other. When Mr. Khan pulled out the Constitution from his pocket, I cheered. Yes , I thought, yes this has needed to be said on a major stage for all these months of campaigning - that the sacrifices of families in these long miserable years of war have come from people of all faiths.

I have seen Humayan Khan's stone in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery. I have attended funerals there, and memorials. It is very clear to me that the stones reflect the young, precious lives lost, and they may show a symbol of the fallen soldier's faith, but they never show a sign of their political party, nor a dollar sign to show their wealth.

How dare he befoul the air around the memory of a fallen soldier and attack his mother.

When I heard Donald Trump's response to the Khans, and how he insulted that Gold Star mother, my rage and sorrow were rekindled.

My son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was killed six weeks before Humayan. Sherwood died in an explosion while serving with the Iraq Survey Group as they searched for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. For many years my deep sense of loss and anger, coupled with a need to speak the truth, fueled me to speak out against the war in Iraq at every opportunity. I faced ridicule and scorn as well as support.

One of the things I always talked about was that beneath the stones of Arlington are laid heroes of every faith, every gender identity, every color. They all tried to do their duty as they saw it, and what we can ask of ourselves to honor them is to be better citizens.

So there on Thursday night stood two beautiful citizens, who paid dearly to be present. They spoke out against intolerance and falsehood, and to that, anyone should just say thank you.

But Donald Trump took the opportunity to insinuate that Mrs. Khan was not permitted to speak because of her faith. Typically, in his cowardly way, he blamed other people for asking if her Muslim faith forbade her to to have an opinion.

In answer to Mr. Khan's question about sacrifice, Trump claimed his reckless business deals and tall bankrupt buildings were the sum of his sacrifice. Seeing that, I began to cry with rage. How dare he befoul the air around the memory of a fallen soldier and attack his mother, and somehow claim some equivalency of loss.

Trump is the worst example of a citizen in the United States of 2016, out to destroy the trust we must have in each other, out to belittle and humiliate anyone who gets in his way, out to achieve power at any and all costs.

Today, I cry for all the lost, and for this Country, once again.

Celeste Zappala is the mother of Army Sgt. Sherwood Baker, who was killed in April 2004 by an explosion in Baghdad, Iraq while deployed with the Pennsylvania National Guard. She is a long-time resident of Mt. Airy in northwest Philadelphia and an active member of First United Methodist Church of Germantown since the 1970s.

Photo: Paul Sancya/AP

Blue lines, Black lives: Policing at a crossroads

Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:46:00 +0000

As long as I can remember, there's been an argument over policing in the Black community. Do police patrol more intensely because the crime rate is higher there, or do higher crime statistics result from heightened levels of policing? When I did my first ride-alongs with the Los Angeles Police Department almost five decades ago, South Los Angeles felt like an occupied colony patrolled by a mostly white department. On the other hand, I often heard a demand from many neighborhood voices asking for a greater police presence because they wanted a safer community.

Safer communities or more occupation? That feels like a bad choice. Blue on Black violence or Black on blue violence? That doesn't feel like a choice at all. Yet here we are, in America, too many years later, stranded between either/or: The police feel attacked and the community - especially the young - feels besieged.

The statistics are much more complex, even confusing. Out of about 900,000 sworn officers in America, according to the memorial page on Officer Down, 130 police lost their lives in the line of duty in 2015. A much smaller number, 41, died due to shootings. Decade to decade, the numbers for officers shot and killed vary widely: In the 1970s an average of 127 police were shot and killed each year; from 2000 to 2009, 57 police were shot and killed on average. Between 2014 and 2015 the number of officers shot decreased 14 per cent. Like I said, confusing.

During all these years, a greater number of people were killed by the police. According to the FBI, about 400 people are killed each year by officers at all levels of government. But in the first five months of last year, police shot and killed 385 people, according to the Washington Post, a sharp increase over most years. About half of those killed were white. Of the total, almost one in six were unarmed or carrying a toy. But among unarmed victims of police shootings, two-thirds were Black or brown. Overall, reports the Post, Blacks were shot and killed at three times the rate of the population as a whole.

Moreover, in the first five months of last year nearly half of all police shootings involved civilians 18 to 34 years old. Perhaps these youth still felt the illusion of invincibility. Perhaps they acted abruptly or erupted rashly. We don't know. We do know that about half of police shootings occur in mundane circumstances: domestic violence situations, a potential suicide, a mentally ill homeless person acting out. These are certainly dramatic situations, but these sorts of calls happen every day. Theoretically, they should not end in anyone dying.

A new study correlates police stops with police shootings. It claims that Blacks and Latinos are no more likely to be shot while interacting with the police than the general population. However, they are more likely to be stopped by police than either Asian-Americans or non-Hispanic whites. And when stopped, they are also more likely to be arrested.

And the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that when stopped, officers were more likely to use pepper-spray or handcuffs, or to point a weapon at a Black person than they would a white person.

These studies paint a picture that looks to me like racial prejudice is alive and well in America. Consciously or not, when people live along stratified socio-economic corridors we cut off one ethnicity and economic group from another. Then as a people we carry an illness, a disease: We do not know each other. So we bring our perceptions and fears into our encounters with those who remain unknown to us.

In the case of the police those perceptions and fears can be lethal. Because they both carry a gun and wear a uniform, officers may feel simultaneously more powerful and more vulnerable. Their power comes not from a gun, but from the overwhelming support of average Americans. Their authority comes from our approval, not our fear of them. Their vulnerability may exist because they are easy targets from unknown threats and unfamiliar differences. Unknown is the risk they take and for which we honor them. The unfamiliar is a condition that can be remedied, and must be, if we are going to live together as a nation of diverse peoples.

Rev. Jim Conn is the founding minister of the Church in Ocean Park and served on the Santa Monica City Council and as that city's mayor. He helped found Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Los Angeles, and was its second chair, and was a founder of Santa Monica's renter's rights campaign.

Reprinted with permission from the author and Capital and Main.

Photo by St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office.