People Before Profit blog

Football, race, and American socialism

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:26:00 +0000

Super Bowl 50 - with its Peyton Manning/Cam Newton hype, the half-time show's racial messaging, and the capitalist excesses you see in the advertising orgy - got me reminiscing, feeling nostalgic even. It brought me back to my own experiences playing football at a racially diverse high school and got me thinking about the paradoxical nature of the National Football League.

High school football on Chicago's Northwest side

First, some reminiscences. Prior to high school, I played for the Kilbourn Park Cowboys, a team of Northwestsiders who represented that population - i.e. mostly white. My first year at Carl Schurz High School, the varsity team had three black players, six Latino players, and 27 white players. Interestingly, that year the Schurz Bulldogs had its first black co-captain, who, was, again, one of only three African American players on the team.

Schurz was probably the most diverse school on the Northwest side of Chicago, an area known as a bastion of white ethnic culture, especially back in the 1970s and 80s. The school's racial and ethnic composition was closer to the city's diverse, yet segregated population than most on the Northwest side at the time. So its lack of more minority players on the football team was a bit puzzling.

Years later, I found out why there weren't more black players on the team. Many black alumni told me that they chose Schurz because it was a better school than the one in their neighborhood. Their priority was to escape the poor and failing schools in their segregated neighborhoods by any means necessary and to find refuge at Schurz. This was surprising to me since Schurz was not known for its academic prowess and had its own gang problems.

Most black students made long commutes, primarily the West side, to get to Schurz. Playing football was not their priority. Practices meant either getting up earlier or staying later than the average school day. With a long commute, lugging uniforms, and the physical exhaustion, these students faced bigger obstacles to playing.

Ten years ago, a Schurz teammate died from a heart condition. He was younger than me. He was a gentle giant of a man, always a smile on his face, though you could barely get away from his grasp and reach on the field. Another black teammate suffered a stroke and is now disabled. A Samoan, who went on to play college football, also has died. I have seen first-hand the devastating but undeniable truth that black men, and minorities in general, suffer more severe medical conditions and have shorter life expectancies.

I played football beyond high school and after I retired from the game I loved so much, I began to cherish more the camaraderie, lessons, and experiences I got from playing with a diverse group of people. Off the field they often treated unequally, but on the field we were equal. As the years go by, the X's and O's on Sunday gradually become less important as the memories become more valuable.

Race and the Super Bowl

All of this and more came flooding back as I watched Super Bowl 50. The game and the performances weren't particularly memorable; it definitely did not live up to the new levels of hype. It was a defensive battle, which is usually not very exciting football. There was lots of sloppy play - dropped balls, bad penalties, and poor officiating.

Of course, much of the attention was on the quarterbacks, the Broncos' Peyton Manning and the Panthers' Cam Newton. Manning, 39-years-old, in his last season, was trying to win one last Super Bowl. He was a sentimental favorite for fans looking to root for a team. On the other side, you had Cam Newton, a young superstar, former Heisman Trophy winner who has all the tools and more. Some of the "more" happens to be doing end zone celebration dances like the Dab, and being brash, things that apparently are a no-no for QBs, according to certain fans. Add to that, his poor performance during the game (like when he fumbled a fumble recovery) and during the post-game press conference (he came across as a sore loser) and you have a truly incensed fan base.

But Manning is white and Newton is black. That shouldn't be important, but it is.

Only 20 percent of NFL quarterbacks are black, though roughly 60 percent of players are. Newton has been unapologetic about his behavior, claiming he hates losing. He has expressed the deeply-held belief, popularized by Knute Rockne and Vince Lombardi, which goes something like "show me a person who accepts losing and I'll show you a failure."

Being a sore loser in the NFL may not be appealing, but it makes sense. Teams want players who are offended by losing. Newton, however, seems to rub some fans the wrong way. And by some fans, it seems to primarily be white fans. They won't look beyond the brashness, dancing, and abrupt post-game forced media appearance to see a talented player who celebrates when he's happy and wears his frustration when he's not. They won't let Newton be Newton.

Newton has been quite honest and frank that he won't bend to others' expectations. While claiming he's one of the best quarterbacks in the league who is black and that "may scare some people," Newton acknowledges that the game is greater than him. And what those fans won't look at, or accept, is that Newton is proudly black, as well as a generous person who leads a foundation that helps kids and communities. Yet, (white) fans even have a difficult time acknowledging his giveaway of footballs to kids in the stands after a touchdown, or the support he provides to his teammates.

And whether it's hypocrisy or double standards at play, it seems no one (particularly white fans) conjured up Manning's lack of sportsmanship when, in losing Super Bowl XLIV in 2010, he left the field before time expired. No handshakes. No customary congratulations to the opposing coach or QB.

Maybe we forget that recent piece of history because as much as we say we care about sportsmanship, we really don't care all that much. We understand the desire and passion to win, as well as the deep disappointment and heartache of losing. Withdrawal can be understandable, unless you're someone like Cam Newton. If you are Peyton Manning, and allegedly have some other baggage in your past, then you might get a pass. No such equal assessment seems afforded to Newton, though. He seems to be held to a different standard than other NFL QBs.

Socialist Football League?

The NFL is a living and breathing paradox. It epitomizes everything that's wrong about America as well as what is best and what we aspire towards. The worst is the crass commercialism and juggernaut branding and marketing of a product that has exploited a labor pool who play a dangerous game.

Yet, paradoxically, American football fans don't even realize that the game they love is fueled by a socialist model. Every team in the NFL equally shares television revenue. $7.2 billion split 32 ways puts $226 million in the coffers of each NFL franchise. It's called parity, so each team regardless of market size has a fairly equal and good chance of succeeding. It puts them on a level playing field, so to speak.

Individual teams earn additional revenue through gate receipts, concessions, and merchandise. But the largest market teams like New York and Chicago are no better or worse, due to shared TV revenues, than the smallest market team, Green Bay.

That smallest market team also happens to be the only one that is owned by the people - its fans - who pay to be a Packer shareholder. Monetarily speaking, of course, the stock is essentially worthless. Packer shareholders are entitled to attend the annual shareholders meeting to vote for Lambeau Field board members, and to hear the non-profit board describe the state of the team on the eve of training camp. That's about the end of the shareholder benefits. (Full disclosure: I'm a Chicago Bears fan and Packer shareholder due to my conservative Republican father purchasing two shares as a Christmas gift to me, a sort of novelty item).

The thing about the Packer ownership model is that it works. The smallest market of the 32-team league is also the 9th highest in local revenue, and this despite having only the 18th highest ticket prices. They sink their profits not into some mega corporation and shareholders, or line the pockets of some rich family or CEO, but put earned revenues back into the team and its facilities. Green Bay has the second largest stadium and the largest pro shop in the NFL.

American football is full of metaphors and paradoxes. The NFL is the most (slyly unannounced) socialistic framework and business model in all of professional sports. Yet it enjoys huge fan support and produces a financial windfall. It's a microcosm of what we get wrong regarding violence, prejudice, and greed, and of what we do right regarding playing collectively as a team, and sharing some of the wealth to create equal opportunities for teams to succeed on a level playing field.

Hope is still in play.

The Sanders campaign, political revolution, and the 2016 elections

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:54:00 +0000

The 2016 elections have been dynamic and unpredictable. On the Democratic side, the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will likely remain competitive into the spring. On the GOP side, we face a threat to democracy most clearly posed by the candidacy of Donald Trump. The stakes in the election outcome have been dramatically raised.

The campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders is making a unique contribution to defeating the Republican right and has the potential to galvanize long-term transformative change. The campaign is also a movement. Millions are fed up with the same old establishment politics tied to Wall Street and the 1 per cent. It's reminiscent of the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns. Large numbers, particularly youth, are being activated and excited.

Political boundaries are being eclipsed and thinking reshaped. Seeds of change are being sown and foundations are being laid for deeper-going changes in the future. The Sanders campaign is giving hope to millions coping with long-term economic stagnation and vast wealth inequality, poverty and joblessness, student debt, climate crisis and institutionalized racism.

The campaign is expanding the collective political imagination and injecting radical ideas into the body politic. It has legitimized democratic socialism in the national conversation. Sanders is also influencing Hillary Clinton to adopt more progressive positions on a wide range of issues.

But Sanders understands if he is elected his radical economic and social agenda including breaking up the big banks, universal health care, tuition-free university, massive jobs creation, expanding Social Security, and repealing Citizen's United will go nowhere given the vice grip the GOP and extreme right has on Congress.

The only way to realize a radical agenda is through a "political revolution". This means drawing millions of people into the political process to overcome the power of Wall Street, obstruction of the GOP, and the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Sanders sees his campaign as part of a much bigger movement that must be built.

It starts with defeating the GOP at every level: presidency, congress and statehouses. As Sanders said after his victory in New Hampshire, "Whether or not I win the nomination, we all must work together to unite the Democratic Party. We must come together to assure that the right wing does not capture the White House."

A decisive victory can open the door to passing progressive legislation, changing the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court and more radical changes down the road.

A political revolution rests on building a broad coalition comprising anyone opposing the extreme right; one that is multi-class, multi-racial, male and female, and multi-generational, which unites left and center currents and encompasses all the democratic movements.

It's a coalition that fits this moment with the current balance of class and social forces. If the balance shifts in a more favorable direction resulting from victory, more radical reforms will be possible.

A political revolution can transform politics if labor, its allies and the broad left put their stamp on the multi-class alliance, shape its politics and frame the issues debated for the elections. The Sanders campaign is helping do this including strengthening the left and grassroots composition of the broad anti-ultra right coalition.

It will be transformative if the anti-right coalition is united and mobilized. Polls show that 86% of Clinton supporters will support Sanders in the general election if he is the nominee, and 79% of Sanders supporters will support Clinton if she wins. Sanders will need Clinton's supporters in order to win.

Such a coalition must have an organized expression in every community, particularly working class communities. It must fight uncompromisingly against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant attacks and all efforts to divide.

White working class communities are considered a key demographic for the GOP and are targets of the worst kinds of racist and reactionary ideas. A political revolution cannot abandon them to the embrace of the extreme right and its ideology of hate. Sanders' vision of a political revolution calls for a 50-state strategy including turning red states and districts blue and defeating the GOP in its stronghold - the Deep South.

If either Sanders or Clinton are elected, their administrations will face unrelenting obstruction from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks and mass media and, of course, right-wing elements in the oligarchy (Koch brothers et al).

Voters must remain engaged at a high level after the election. When President Obama was elected in 2008 voters thought they had done their duty and went home. The void was filled by GOP obstruction and the Tea Party. Low voter turnout in 2010 and 2014 led to GOP control of Congress and state houses across the country.

A political revolution will be fueled by ongoing shifts in public attitudes. Majorities of Americans now favor taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, immigration reform, abortion rights, marriage equality, criminal justice reform, and action to curb the climate crisis. New social movements are influencing millions at the grassroots including the Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, The Dreamers, reproductive rights, marriage equality, and climate justice activists.

A political revolution is based on the idea that majorities make change. It is not enough for majorities to believe in an idea, they must actively fight for it.

Sanders' political revolution envisions democratizing our political system. This includes removing money from politics, expanding the right to vote, and stimulating independent politics. Movements are acting both within and outside the Democratic Party and comprise many of the key forces in the anti-right alliance.

A political revolution will help establish the foundations for a real people's party, whether it results in a breakaway from or a takeover of the Democratic Party.

Regardless of whether Sanders wins or not, the politics of the nation will never be the same and the fight for a political revolution will continue.

Photo: Bernie Sanders. | Michael Dwyer/AP

Rebuild America's infrastructure

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:37:00 +0000

In the presidential campaign, we've seen libels on immigrants, fear mongering about Syrian refugees, arguments over Medicare for All and Obamacare, concerns about big money corrupting our politics and more. But too little attention has been paid to the one thing on which there should be consensus within and between the parties: the need to rebuild America now.

We didn't need the horrors of children at risk from fouled lead pipes in Flint, Michigan to know that our infrastructure is dangerously decrepit. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a report card every four years on our infrastructure, detailing the level of our investment deficit. According to the most recent report card, issued in 2013, simply to get the country's drinking water - drinking water - in safe shape would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 25 years.

The report card pegged the immediate cost of fixing at-risk bridges at $76 billion. Add fixing unsafe schools, repairing mass transit, disposing of hazardous waste and maintaining other basics, and ASCE estimated an infrastructure price tag of $3.6 trillion by 2020.

That is simply to repair what is. But we face a far larger investment deficit. If we are ever to enjoy widely shared prosperity, we will need a far more competitive real economy. That means 21st century broadband, fast trains, modernized airports, efficient mass transit and a modernized electric grid, just for starters.

And, as Flint demonstrated, we have communities in distress that need special, targeted investment. Community health clinics to replace hospitals that have closed. New schools with modern facilities and equipment. New water systems. New affordable mass transit that makes getting to jobs in the suburbs possible. Public parks that provide a place for children to play.

And now catastrophic climate change is causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. We need significant research and development to generate the next generation of efficient appliances, cars, buildings and factories. We need public/private partnerships, and public investment, to help retrofit buildings and apartment houses for efficiency and alternative energy.

The need is clear. But the price tag should be seen as an opportunity, not a barrier. We still have not recovered from the financial collapse in 2008. Millions have dropped out of the work force. Some 17 million are still in need of full-time work. We pay to imprison too many and educate and employ too few.

In these circumstances, a bold plan to rebuild the country will put people to work, generate demand, and boost a flagging economy. Modernizing our infrastructure would help us compete in the global economy. With interest rates near zero, reputable economists argue that this will pay for itself in increased productivity, employment, wages and tax revenue. If not, we can easily afford it by requiring the wealthy and the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

This is not and should not be a partisan question. Republican Abraham Lincoln built the railroads and the land grant colleges even in the midst of the Civil War. Republican Dwight Eisenhower built the interstate highway system in the 1950s. The conservative Chamber of Commerce joins with the AFL-CIO to endorse a major infrastructure plan.

Yet, to date, the presidential candidates haven't stepped up. Republican talk about infrastructure is focused on Trump's promise to build a wall on the border and get the Mexicans to pay for it. Marco Rubio promises to spend $1 trillion more - but on the military, not on rebuilding America. Hillary Clinton's proposal on infrastructure - $275 billion over five years - is below what President Barack Obama has called for. Bernie Sanders proposal - $1 trillion over five years - is still far short of the ASCE accounting.

As Flint has shown, the human costs and risks of allowing our infrastructure to decline are immense. The economic costs are far greater in lost productivity than the price tag of making the investment. Consider this a simple measure of our future. America's decline will continue for as long as we fail to rebuild the country.

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

Photo: Wikipedia (CC)

What is socialism? Let’s get specific

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:49:00 +0000

People's World Series on Socialism

Everyone seems to be talking about socialism these days, but what does it mean? That was the question asked by Susan Webb in one of our most popular and widely-shared recent articles. Millions of Americans are considering alternatives to a system run by and for the 1 percent. They are taking an interest in socialism, a word that has meant a great many things to activists, trade unionists, politicians, and clergy around the world over the last century and a half. The article below is one of a series on socialism, what it can mean for Americans in the 21st century, and how we might get there.

I appreciate the invitation to respond to Sue Webb's essay addressing a deeper discussion on a definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' campaign for president certainly has elevated this discussion to a national stage - masses of people in the U.S. are voting for a socialist for president, drawn by his unabashed progressive economic populist agenda. This, in and of itself, is an advance over decades of anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda. Sanders has given expression to a powerful progressive majority, and moved politics to the left, including the likely Democratic Party nominee.

The moment challenges us to get a bit more specific on how socialists define socialism. To speak to this, I would like to draw from the thinking of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. In our Goals and Principles document, adopted in 2009, we say that the efforts to build socialism in the 20th century in uncharted territory were carried out under conditions of severe coercion from outside capitalist powers. In that context, the democratic soul of socialism was seriously undermined, the essential need for popular participation in building the system was largely unrealized, and economic advances were distorted by dogma.

For the 21st century, we agree, there is no blueprint for socialism. This we can all agree on - socialism cannot emerge from sentiment, ideology, or wish fulfillment. Socialism emerges because the working class, as it struggles around the crisis of everyday living, comes to recognize that it is a necessity.

Socialism is a democratic political system wherein the interests and organizations of the working class and its allies have attained and hold the preponderance of political power and play the leading role in society.

It is still a class society, but in a protracted transition to a future classless society. It will be a mixed economy, with both public and private capitalist ownership, for some time. There will still be a need for entrepreneurial startups, both as worker cooperatives and as private firms serving the common good. Capital markets and wage-labor markets will be sharply restricted and even abolished over time.

If needed, a stock market can exist for publicly-traded firms and investments abroad, but it will be strictly controlled. A stock transfer tax will be implemented. Gambling in derivatives will be prohibited. Fair trade agreements with other countries will be on a bilateral basis for mutual benefit. Socialism will feature planning to face the challenges of uneven development and harsh inequalities.

Socialism will guarantee democracy in the workplace and the right to unions; democracy in voting with representative government; a society in harmony with the natural environment; living-wage jobs, genuine full employment, and adequate security for those who cannot work; freedom to practice religion; full equality in all spheres between women and men, between Black, Latin, Asian, Native and white people, and for gay and lesbian, trans, and bi-sexual people.

The role of the armed forces under socialism will be transformed from occupying forces around the world in the interests of capital to defending the interests of people in time of natural disaster, for example. Local police under community control, a prison system based on the principle of restorative justice, non-violent conflict resolution and community-based rehabilitation will be established.

The starting point on the path to socialism today is the struggle to both safeguard and advance democratic openings. It will require new directions in our nation's domestic and global policies, including: democratic control of the Federal Reserve that can channel stimulus funds to workers, not bankers; public ownership of banking and financial institutions that would place people's resources in their own hands; and nationalization of energy to eliminate fossil fuels and move toward a clean energy economy. Democratic advances in housing, education, health care, affirmative action to address centuries of racial inequality, civil and human rights, voting rights and democratic electoral reforms, women's reproductive rights, child care, environmental justice and reversing climate change - in sum, an all-sided progressive democratic agenda.

Whether Sanders or Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination, the progressive movement has been strengthened in opposition to a virulently racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-communist/anti-socialist right wing centered in the Republican Party.

A key question for all of us is how do we translate the votes for Sanders into organization beyond the November elections? Needed is strength at the grass roots. Organizations like the Working Families Party, Progressive Democrats of America and other such forms that can mobilize around issues in communities and neighborhoods with electoral capacity at all levels of government are urgently needed.

The Sanders campaign signals that the time is ripe to step it up.

Pat Fry is co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, is retired from the staff of a health care union, and lives in New York City.

See other articles in the series here.

Have you “turned around”? Reflections on my generation’s political evolution

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:02:00 +0000

George Packer has a fine review article, "Turned Around," in the Feb. 22 issue of The New Yorker magazine that prompted some reflections of my own. Packer is commenting on Daniel Oppenheimer's first book, "Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century" (Simon & Schuster), which is a series of essays about defectors from the left whose influence is still felt in many ways throughout the United States, and indeed in the world.

I haven't read the book, and likely won't. The people Oppenheimer chose to write about are well known, but perhaps not to younger readers. They include:

Whittaker Chambers, a Communist in the 1920s who betrayed his former comrades and became an informer for the likes of Richard Nixon;

James Burnham, former Trotskyist, who came from a comfortable bourgeois background and returned to it, penning screeds promoting the Cold War that eventually earned him a Medal of Freedom in 1983 from President Reagan;

Ronald Reagan himself, former supporter of FDR's New Deal, who became a leading anti-Communist first in Hollywood, and then on the global stage;

Norman Podhoretz, longtime editor of Commentary magazine, who succumbed to the Lorelei song of fame, success, and the American Way perhaps in compensation for his widely recognized reputation as basically a mediocre talent with little inspiration or vision;

David Horowitz, son of Communists and an editor of Ramparts magazine in the 1970s who became disillusioned by the violent turn some radicals took in that period, and later became a crusader against the movement for racial justice and against Marxism in the academy;

and Christopher Hitchens, political writer, who made a similar trajectory from the left toward defending Western civilization from barbarism with a newfound bunch of conservative friends.

At the end of his review, which includes thumbnail sketches of the above figures, Packer calls for a new book about standard bearers of the New Right in America who have left it, disgusted and disillusioned with the movement's white supremacy, chauvinism and junk science.

In the course of his discussion, Packer asserts that after the 1960s "leftism rapidly burned out," and that's what got me thinking.

Did I "rapidly burn out?"

Yes, the heroic phase of the post-war left that "mounted the barricades" in the radical Sixties was expended by the time President Nixon eventually wound down the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, then doing away with the draft in 1973, thus depleting the ranks of protestors. That arc mirrors my own activism during those years, much of it in Students for a Democratic Society, around opposing that horrific war and fighting my draft board.

But did I "rapidly burn out?" Did most of my friends in "the movement" follow that course?

I rather think not. I believe that in one way or another the veterans of the Sixties movements for civil rights and anti-imperialism comprised the cadre for the protest and reform movements of the Seventies. The Sixties was not the end point of leftism, but a launching pad for the feminist movement, for the LGBTQ movement, and the environmental movement, all of which rose to unforeseen prominence in the 1970s. These have all borne magnificent achievements and awakened new generations to activism around themes we barely spoke of during the Vietnam years.

Needless to say, civil rights struggles have continued on apace, incorporating new groups of people demanding justice, and over time new winds of political independence started blowing in the labor movement as well.

In my own case, my disillusionment with the authoritarian and self-destructive forms of leftism that came to dominate the student movement and even certain sectors of the new "identity politics" groups led me to embrace what I saw as a much more benign anarchism. Of course I had no use for that caricature of anarchism represented by a few advocates of "propaganda by the deed" who blindly trusted that a few bold, dramatic actions against the state would instantly mobilize millions into opposition. I had seen enough of that futile idiocy promoted by the Weathermen and the urban guerrilla movement in various countries.

No, I was attracted to anarchist philosophers such as the individualist Max Stirner or the collectivist Peter Kropotkin, and their modern heirs such as Murray Bookchin and Paul Goodman, who taught the reinvention of ecology, of education, of sexuality, of the workplace, of prisons and rehabilitation, of every aspect of life that could be managed, arguably better, without hierarchical methods. In 1971 I and my then-girlfriend (my last, as it turned out) represented the United States as its sole delegates to the International Anarchist Congress in Paris. We left it despairing of a useful future for anarchist politics.

I have to admit that all the time I considered myself an "anarcho-communist," i.e., an anarchist who believed in collective, communal social organization, I continued to vote in elections, hoping for the better outcome given my choices under the present circumstances.

Gradually I came to see that we would be living "under the present circumstances" for quite some time to come; and that in fact one could see evidence of progress within the prevailing political system - decent candidates elected, reforms passed, laws changed, freedoms expanded - if there were sufficient popular movements organized to demand them.

On a global scale - again, given the actually existing world we lived in - I realized that for certain kinds of progress to take place, such as decolonization, ending apartheid, reducing the threat of nuclear annihilation, or improving international cooperation on the environment, a decent respect for the power of nations to come together for mutual interest seemed absolutely necessary. To those ends I was active in groups such as the US-USSR Friendship Society and the US Committee for Friendship with the German Democratic Republic, among others. By that point I don't think any objective person could call me any kind of anarchist.

This New Leftist had not "burned out," but rather had become older and hopefully wiser, more patient perhaps, willing to sit back and take a longer view of humanity. And I believe that's true of most of my generation as well. In the particulars, of course, each person's story is different. But I believe that the essential narrative of our Sixties movement is not the burning out, but the conversion of fire into slowly smoldering embers that will stay warm till the end of our lives.

With the election of Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992, a man of my own generation who had protested the Vietnam War, we had for the first time a president younger than myself. And now, just as I see our generation receding into the first blur of oblivion, Surprise! Another of my Civil Rights/Vietnam Era cohorts - who is older than me - has become a strong contender for the Democratic Party presidential nomination! So there's another New Leftie who has clearly not "burned out."

We will continue to stay active in political campaigns, union retirement groups, community organizations, in the struggle for senior rights, and in the movement to preserve the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society as part of the greater fight for socialism. We gladly add what we can to encourage the new movements that come along and give them our blessing -and yes, hope that once in a while someone might ask us to recall how things were back then and maybe ask for a bit of advice.

Well, that's my plan anyway.

Photo: (left to right) The author; South African refugee, psychologist Michael Jospe; writer and lecturer on Soviet and Chinese education Elizabeth Moos; and former editor on the New Masses, writer and photographer Betty Millard. At Millard's farmhouse in Dutchess County, N.Y., 1976.

For this worker, Indian Point nuclear leak was no surprise

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:00 +0000

On February 5, the public learned that a leak at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, just 25 miles north of New York City, had released radioactive contaminants into the area groundwater, causing radioactivity levels 65,000 percent higher than normal. The groundwater flows into the Hudson River. The aging plant, owned by Entergy Corp., was commissioned in the 1970s and has had big toxic leaks previously. Federal and state investigations are in progress. This article relates the author's experiences working in the plant.

NEW YORK - As an ironworker you can end up working in some interesting places. Indian Point nuclear plant, about an hour north of New York City along the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., was one of them. Periodically the plant has planned outages to do maintenance and improvements in the plant. My union local sent me up to work during one of the outages. It was a particularly bad year on the heels of the big financial crisis of 2008, and I had been bouncing around from job to job. Now, most jobs, you show up, have a brief safety training, and get to work. Not at a nuclear power plant. Two weeks of orientation and safety training, a 500-question multiple choice mental stability test, drug tests and FBI background check are required. You get paid, most of the training is indoors and it was winter, so why not?

Of course a little bit of it was sitting through Entergy's corporate propaganda about the benefits of nuclear energy - it supplies 25 percent of the downstate area's power and, while recognizing the potential dangers, management said, it complies strictly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's operating guidelines. The presentation wasn't over the top as I expected, although I was informed about natural existence of radiation all around us. It's in bananas after all, and who doesn't like bananas? I do.

Two weeks later, training completed, and somewhat to my disappointment FBI background check cleared, I was OK'd to go to work.

Even though Indian Point is one of the original nuclear power plants built in the United States 40 years ago, you have this expectation that given the potential dangers of nuclear power, the plant would reflect the up-to-date clean energy image that nuclear energy proponents like to project. I was kind of shocked at how decrepit the facility seemed. Paint peeling on the walls, rusty pipes, water damage. The complexity of the plant was confounding too. Passageways here and there, and of course restricted areas. It did not inspire confidence in the state-of-the art image the nuclear industry likes to promote.

So I was not entirely surprised when two weeks ago the company reported alarming levels of radioactive tritium in the groundwater, with one monitoring well's levels increasing 65,000 percent and more recent samples showing a continued increase of 80 percent from the original samples.

The New York Daily News reported, "The leak occurred after a drain overflowed during a maintenance exercise while workers were transferring water containing high levels of radioactive contamination."

Oops!

Entergy officials say that there is no threat to public health or safety. The contamination numbers "remain less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal reporting guidelines," the company said in a statement, adding the higher levels are "fluctuations that can be expected as the material migrates." Migrates where, though? Into the groundwater and nearby Hudson River and downstream?

In fact, journalist and technology expert Roger Witherspoon says, "there is no indication that the company has developed the ability to prevent the latest uncontrolled leaks from following the underground waterway into the Hudson. And because the river is a tidal estuary flowing as much as 20 miles above and below the nuclear site, radioactive contaminants may be sucked into the drinking water systems of several river towns."

He points out that a New York State Coastal Zone Assessment issued last November "expressed concern about the periodic leaks into the Hudson River because it serves as a direct water source for Poughkeepsie, Wappingers Falls, Highland, Port Ewen, East Fishkill, Hyde Park, and the Village of Rhinebeck. It is also a backup water source for some 9 million residents of New York City and Westchester County." The assessment notes that the Croton Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to New York City, is only 6 miles from Indian Point.

Environmental groups such as Riverkeeper have called for Indian Point's immediate closure. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said, "The trends of unexpected outages and environmental incidents like these are extremely disconcerting," and called on federal authorities to not renew the plant's license, which would mean its eventual closure. However Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who supports the plant's closing, has rejected its immediate closure, citing its role in providing affordable electricity rates. Schumer said: "I have told some of the environmental people, if you can show me a plan to figure out a way to replace that electricity, fine, but if you can't, it's going to raise electricity rates 30 or 40 percent, which are high enough on average people and that's not the way to go."

But Riverkeeper tells another story. In its 2011 study on retirement options for the plant, the organization cites "ample existing and new resources available to replace Indian Point if it were to retire; and ... neither New York City's nor New York State's electricity reliability would be jeopardized. A replacement scenario focusing on cost-effective demand-side resources, local renewable resources, repowering of existing older inefficient power plants and new efficient generation as necessary would maintain reliability at a low cost to electricity customers."

Others have argued that the plant is an important economic engine for the area. Nearly 1,000 full-time workers and nearly 4,500 jobs statewide are generated from the plant's operation, says the pro-industry Nuclear Energy Institute. But the jobs argument has never been that convincing to me. We never seem to do much to stop plant closings when the corporate bottom line is at stake, no matter what the impact is on the local economy. Why should it be different here, when public health and the environment are at stake?

Of course replacing Indian Point as an energy producer and economic engine no doubt would be a challenge, requiring investment in energy infrastructure across the state as well as renewable alternatives, which of course means jobs. But it's a challenge most reasonable people would agree we could meet if there is the political will, which makes Senator Schumer's comments all the more disappointing. We elect our leaders to face these challenges.

It's been six or seven years since I worked at Indian Point. It is in a beautiful part of the Hudson Valley. When I was there, bald eagles had recently made their appearance in the area, nesting right alongside the Hudson River near the plant. It was the first time I had seen bald eagles in the wild. Even the plant's presence doesn't diminish the beauty of the area, and one could be forgiven for seeing it as an example of the clean energy promise of nuclear power.

Just stay away from the water.

Susan Webb contributed to this article.

Photo: Indian Point nuclear power plant, next to the Hudson River, photographed in 2012. Wikimedia Commons

Bernie Sanders should have done better with Clyde Bellecourt’s treaty question

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:12:00 +0000

At the Black America Forum on Friday, February 14, in Minneapolis, Bernie Sanders was asked a very important question looming in the minds of American Indian voters. Sanders could have and should have done much, much better with a question posed by nationally-known and long-standing fighter for Native American rights, elder warrior, and tireless advocate, Clyde Bellecourt, who is also a founder of the storied American Indian Movement (AIM)..

Bellecourt was among the AIM leaders and activists invited to the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1973 by the local Lakota civil rights organizations that resulted in the siege at Wounded Knee. His inquiry to Sanders in Minneapolis was: "Are you going to honor the treaties?"

Sanders' lackluster answer: "The Native American people have gotten a terrible deal from the federal government. I will do everything I can to redress that. Absolutely. Thank you all very much."

Watching the video left this writer in a state of initial, visceral unease as Sanders gave such a terse, uncomfortable, rushed, and mediocre response. Bellecourt responded, shouting, "You still haven't answered the question," as Sanders hurriedly exited the room. I watched it at least twice. Now, don't get me wrong I am still a Sanders supporter, but again, he could have done so much better.

To begin with (and I don't fault Bernie for this), but why was Bellecourt the last audience member to be given the mic for a question? Although he prefaced his question with several lengthy remarks, historical and otherwise, relevant to the Indian "cause," this was quite understandable considering that non-Indian America hears so little about Native people. His remarks needed to be heard and appreciated.

He brought up the key issue of the treaties that the U.S. has consistently broken throughout history and in the present-day has just as consistently ignored. Sanders' response was simply too routine, rushed, and disrespectful. It almost seemed as if he was running out of the venue. So what if Bernie was late for another campaign appearance!

But all things considered, his prior record of concern for Native issues belies his response on this occasion, or I would like to think so. Also, he was not blindsided in this instance because the issue of treaties should have been on his mind in light of his campaign's recently-created Native American Policy Committee and his visits to various parts of Indian Country.

I can only assume that the treaties would be an agenda item for his Indian policy committee, especially in light of these covenants coming to the forefront in reference to the abortive Oregon occupation and the Burns Paiute unratified treaty which is reverberating with national attention.

But on the voting horizon, he is by far the best candidate in regard to Native concerns. Compared to 2008, Hillary Clinton has said little in reference to Native people during this campaign, despite the fact that she hails politically from a state - New York - with many Indian nations, federally and state recognized.

Sanders on the other hand is a co-sponsor of the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, which increased the jurisdictional sovereignty of tribes over non-Indians who commit crimes on tribal land. He is also the co-sponsor of the Save Oak Flat Act to repeal the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange Act that authorized the Oak Flat transfer, that would grant land sacred to the Apache people and others in the Tonto National Forest to a foreign mining company.

Sanders has been a consistent opponent of the deadly Keystone XL Pipeline, which has been vehemently opposed by American Indians nationwide, while Hilary Clinton who initially was in favor of the Pipeline later opposed it on the feeble grounds that it was a "distraction."

Overall, Sanders was in a position at the forum to make a strong statement on the treaties and give a respectful answer to a tried and true warrior who has spent his life advocating for American Indian rights. May he do better next time, and let this be a learning experience. Let's not have it happen again. Native people expect and deserve more.

Photo: Bernie Sanders.com

Shining a light on Scalia and the Supreme Court

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:12:00 +0000

Linda Greenhouse, the former New York Times reporter who covered with great acuity the Supreme Court for many years until her recent retirement, shows her acumen once again in an op-ed in the Feb. 18 Times. With precision, subtlety, and seeming detachment, she describes the destructive role of Antonin Scalia and the conservative majority on the court of which he was the most outspoken member.

What especially caught my eye were the following observations:

"I've become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution." She goes on to mention recent decisions that underscore this point. Among those cited are rulings on President Obama's deportation deferral program, executive actions on climate change, and voting rights. Greenhouse also alludes to the University of Texas admissions program that allows race to be a consideration in admissions. Most observers of the court had expected it to rule against that in June.
"His frequent parroting of right-wing talking points in recent years may have reflected the contraction of his intellectual universe. In an interview with the writer Jennifer Senior in New York magazine in 2013, Justice Scalia said he got most of his news from the car radio and from skimming The Wall Street Journal and the conservative Washington Times."
"His ability to invoke originalism as a mobilizing tool outside the court, in speeches and in dissenting opinions. The message was that courts have no business recognizing new rights."

What are we to make of Greenhouse's observations? First, Scalia was an extremely backward person, whose worldview, if you can believe it, became more mean-spirited and anti-democratic as he became older and deaf to anything outside of his right-wing echo chamber. Age, it is said, moderates people's views, but that obviously wasn't the case with Scalia; it only made him more intemperate and closed minded.

Greenhouse also shows that Scalia bent constitutional law to fit his right-wing political agenda. Originalism, which he embraced and interpreted to mean that the Constitution is a dead document not to be amended under any conditions, was the rationale for his relentlessly hostile attitude towards popular and legislative efforts to expand democracy and democratic rights.

Finally, Greenhouse's observations strongly suggest that nothing causes the conservatives on the court - now no longer a majority - more agitation than "new rights." Indeed, the record of the Roberts court already shows that the court's conservative members are neck deep in all-consuming war on the "rights revolution" of the 20th and early 21st centuries. That their war has been halted - and maybe permanently - by Scalia's unexpected death must be driving them nuts.

Greenhouse doesn't jump into the current fray over Scalia's replacement, but she does write that the court needs a "reset." And there seems little doubt where she stands on the nature and direction of that "reset."

Now it's our turn to lift up our voices, clarify concretely what the stakes are, and what kind of justice fits our times.

Reposted from SamWebb.org.

Photo: Scalia. | AP

Danny Rubin helped shape our world

Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:03:00 +0000

A memorial meeting was held in New York City on Dec. 20, 2015 for Danny Rubin, a long time member and leader of the CPUSA. Rubin's work included major contributions to many of the important struggles of the progressive movements from the 1950's up until the time of his death last year. People who knew and worked with him are preparing a full biographical obituary but remarks at the memorial made by Jarvis Tyner, New York State Chairperson of the CPUSA touched on many of the important contributions he made to the movements. Tyner's speech follows:

My heart is heavy with sorrow today as I think of my dear friend and comrade Danny Rubin.

I joined the Communist Party USA 55 years ago in Philadelphia. I was 20 years old, married with an infant son, a low-paid struggling shop worker, an active union member and a vocal opponent of racism and the Cold War.

I wanted so much to join with those who were changing the world. The party opened the door to activism and big political thinking for me. I had met some wonderful local young people in the party of different races and nationalities, who shared my hopes and dreams. It was a rich political and social experience for a young African American worker like me.

The first national leader of the Party I met was Danny Rubin, also from Philadelphia. At that time he was the party's national youth secretary. Danny was not a dynamic speaker but his thinking was extraordinary and his manner was very honest and convincing. Danny and his wife Dorothy were role models for our Philadelphia youth.

I read Danny's writings and heard him speak about the role of youth and how important the rise of the civil rights movement was and how it advanced the struggle for real progress on all fronts for democracy. He came to Philly often back then and was a tremendous help. He taught us organization, how to broaden our work and find new ways to build the party and the movement under a political climate still poisoned by McCarthyism. We did grow. At one point we were one of the largest and most interracial Party youth sections in the country.

Danny believed in the working class. He did not come from the working class but he did work in an industrial union shop for a period after college and law school. He often made reference to his shop experience in discussions of the party's work among basic workers.

Danny had the great experience of working closely with Henry Winston, the national chair of the party for many years. In his tribute to Winston in 2012 he said, "It is hard to overstate the importance of the contribution of Henry Winston to the party and to me personally. My mother, my wife of 58 years, Dorothy, and Winnie were the most important adults in my life." He went on to say, "When Winston returned (from prison) to political life (1961), it was decided that he would mentor me."

For 10 years Danny and Winnie met for hours every day. Danny talked a lot about how much he learned from Winston, especially, he said, on the centrality of the fight against racism.

So many were mentored by Winston (myself included), but I was also mentored by Danny Rubin. If it were not for the support and guidance I received from Danny in my first years in the party I likely would not have become a party leader much less run twice for the vice presidency of the United States on the Communist Party ticket.

Danny had done such an outstanding job rebuilding the youth section of the party that J. Edgar Hoover singled him out as "the most dangerous man in America." Because of his outstanding work, the party elevated him to high position of national 0rganizational secretary.

Danny was a master organizer. Over the years, I was part of thousands of meetings along with Danny and in most of those meetings it was Danny whose job it was to see to it that the tens of thousands of decisions from those meetings were carried out. And he did his job masterfully. He also headed our Jewish Commission for some years and produced a number of articles and a valuable booklet on the struggle for peace in the Middle East.

In the turmoil of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist states in 1991 Danny was among those comrades who were in conflict with the majority view of the Political Bureau and after the 25^th convention he left the party and helped found the "Committees of Correspondents for Democracy and Socialism."

In 2000 I was happy to receive a call from my old comrade and mentor. He wanted to talk. I was part of a number of friendly discussions with him and two other former party leaders about renewing their relationship with the party. Danny skillfully maintained non-antagonistic duel memberships for a time. He was elected to the highest national bodies of the party again and did a lot of writing and education work for the national party. As his health began to decline, Danny committed himself to the effort to rebuild the Brooklyn club of the party. With Danny as chair, the club grew into an active, respected and wel- connected collective in New York's largest borough.

In his last period, up to his death, he was an active member of the Executive Committee of the New York District of the CPUSA and the National Committee, the highest body between national conventions.

Danny had a brilliant mind. He was a master organizer. But that is not all. Danny not only led in the implementation of so many decisions, he was also a major voice in making those decisions.

He had an enormous intellect. He was national education director of the party for many years and he wrote two Marxist theoretical works. Can Capitalism Last? was a particular favorite of mine. His articles on the organizational challenges facing the party were fine examples of Marxist thinking. I especially liked his article, "The Party Can and Must Be Built, Starting from Its Base." He wrote that wise piece for the pre-convention discussion in 2014.

Danny was a courageous comrade. When he was dragged before the McCarran Act Committee he refused to cooperate. Watching the movie Trumbo recently I was reminded of the persecution of so many party leaders during that same period. Those comrades faced not just the loss of their livelihood, but if they did not register as a Soviet foreign agent (a patently false charge), Danny and other leaders faced 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine every day they did not register.

You do the math: In just a few days of refusal one's life could be totally ruined. But Danny and his comrades did not comply, and because they refused to comply it strengthened the pressure to make the United States Supreme Court rule the McCarran Act unconstitutional. Attorney John Abt and our lawyers won that case.

When party leaders traveled around the country in those days, usually it was by car, the Party had no credit cards. They carried cash. On one trip some guy tried to rob Danny at knifepoint. Danny fought him off with his bare hands and suffered cuts as a result. The thief had messed with the wrong man that day and ended up running away without a dime of the Party's money.

There was a tender side: Danny was repelled by racist and male misogynistic behavior. He functioned on a high political, moral plane when it came to supporting people victimized by capitalism, racism and colonialism. Danny was always good at finding the right words to challenge any acts of racism and insensitivity in our party. He also had a great sense of humor and an infectious laugh.

During the 1960s Danny traveled to the Jim Crow South and made many political contacts and friendships with leading members of various civil rights groups.

Danny was an activist and an objective thinker: He was not satisfied with imagining worst-case scenarios and doing nothing. Instead he mastered the art of the possible. He saw the best potential in people and helped them to grow and blossom. He was a deeply optimistic person who lived his life with the idea that a better world is possible - or to his way of thinking, probable.

He was a legendary party leader who changed the lives of thousands of young people all over this country and helped make it possible for our party to make a great contribution in this changing world.

Knowing Danny, he would always insist, at gatherings of good people, that some mention had to be made of the immediate big political challenges of the day.

Today that would be the 2016 presidential elections.

We like "Bernie from Brooklyn," who is building a real mass base and very effectively pushing this election to the left.

But Danny would want it understood the grave danger we'd face if a racist provocateur like Trump ends up in the White House.

Danny would call on all of us to do whatever we could to avoid that catastrophe.

I, like so many, loved Danny like an older brother. He was so indelibly a part of the fabric of many lives for so many decades.

He truly lived a life with a purpose. In Danny's name we must continue the fight for the Bill of Rights Socialism that he championed.

On behalf of the entire CPUSA and in a special way the New York District, let me once again extend our deepest comradely condolences to the family of Danny Rubin - to his loving wife Dorothy, who was side by side with Danny all the while, to his children Rose, Joe, and his daughter-in-law Delores, his grandchildren Hector, Jason, Jesse and Salena. We thank you for helping to make it possible for Danny to make the enormous contribution to our movement and to humanity that he has made.

Photo of Danny Rubin speaking. NY District CPUSA.

Clinton will need Sanders' "political revolution" if she's the nominee

Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:54:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - Faced with the threat of a neo-fascist capturing the White House, it's my opinion that we progressives should work to ensure that the energy, direction and infrastructure being built by Bernie Sanders' "political revolution" remain in the campaign against the right wing no matter who becomes the Democratic presidential standard-bearer.

Sanders himself says "Whether or not I win the nomination, we all must work together to unite the Democratic Party. We must come together to assure that the right wing does not capture the White House.

"The aim of the political revolution is to bring together Americans to demand that the government serve the people and not the billionaire class."

At his victory rally in New Hampshire, the crowd did not yell slogans praising Sanders. They chanted, "This is what democracy looks like."

The fact that Sanders chose not to launch the "revolution" as a protest movement but as a campaign within the Democratic Party cuts two ways. On the one hand, the movement has become part of the mainstream politics of America. That should say something to those on the left who so often argue that working within the confines of the Democratic Party amounts to nothing more than "selling out."

On the other hand, on one level, the Sanders campaign resembles a round object trying to fit into a square hole. There is constant pressure on it to conform to the behavior of a regular political campaign - that is to treat what is happening as a horse race between two candidates. I think progressives should strive to keep the "revolution" in the "political revolution," reminding people that we are involved in something much more than just "Bernie versus Hillary."

The Republican presidential wannabees, right wingers all, are currently practicing what they preach: cutthroat competition. However, in all probability one candidate will emerge with a big-money-backed campaign. If it's successful in winning the presidency, the nation would have no bulwark against policies and programs that could suck our economy dry, destroy our democracy, crush the gay rights movement, ruin our environment and curtail health care, especially for women.

If nothing changes, the right wing candidate is likely to be billionaire businessman Donald Trump, unless, of course, the so-called GOP "establishment" can unite behind one alternative to Trump.

Hillary is ahead in money, delegates

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seems determined to ensure that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee.

Unless this changes - and that does not seem likely - she will be.

Clinton began her campaign with more money in her coffers than any other candidate in either party. And to ensure money keeps flowing to back her, the DNC recently repealed the ban imposed by Barack Obama against campaign contributions from federal lobbyists.

Moreover, Clinton began her campaign with 362 super delegates committed to vote for her at the Democratic National Convention in July.

Super delegates are elected officials and others approved by the DNC who are allowed to support whichever candidate they like, regardless of the voting in primaries and caucuses. For example, even though Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by over 22 percent, Clinton walked away with nine of the 24 delegates allotted to the state: eight "super" and one elected.

Altogether, so far Clinton has a massive 394-44 delegate lead over Sanders.

There are a total of 4,763 delegates at the Democratic National Convention including 712 super delegates. Election outcome prognosticator Nate Silver calculates that even if Clinton wins only 42 percent of the votes in primaries and caucuses, she could win the nomination if the DNC convinces the super delegates to unite behind her.

On the other hand, although this is highly unlikely, the leadership of the DNC could decide to bring in a new candidate if they have evidence that neither Clinton nor Sanders could win in the general election. There have even been a few reports that Vice President Biden would "reconsider" his decision not to run.

Meanwhile, pushed by Sanders' "political revolution," the DNC and Clinton have begun to respond to pent up frustration that has been building up for years among the rank and file of the Democratic Party.

For example, at the end of the last televised Democratic debate, Clinton delivered a powerful closing statement calling for universal healthcare, expansion of Social Security benefits, reining in Wall Street, ending the exorbitantly high level of student debt, raising the minimum wage, protecting the right of women to make their own decisions about health care, and much more.

The DNC recognizes that in order to remain a vital force in America, the Democratic Party must be more aggressively progressive in advocating for working families.

The Trump threat

This will be especially true if Trump wins the Republican nomination. He is attracting thousands of mostly white workers, small businesspeople and their families.

Unions and union members are split about whether Sanders or Clinton can best beat Trump among workers and it looks now like the AFL-CIO will hold off next week at its execitive council meeting in San Diego from making an endorsement.

Trump accurately decries many of the problems facing the American people: job loss and lack of job security, low wages, expensive health care and the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world.

He even rails against politicians "who work for billionaires" and who refuse to take any action that will hurt their donors.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Mary Kay Henry estimates that some 64 percent of SEIU's public employee members identify as conservative and are drawn to Trump's reassuring message: "I, through my will and skill, will take care of everything."

At a rally in New Hampshire he told a cheering crowd, "I have lined up the richest, smartest people in the country ... they'll help me.

"You'll be happy about everything."

Henry, along with the leadership of many major unions, including the American Federation of Teachers and AFSCME is supporting Clinton, even though Sanders is at the forefront of SEIU's national campaign to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Unions already announced for Clinton represent more than half the workers in the AFL-CIO.

However, in New Hampshire union members overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. They, and an increasing number of union and non-union workers across the country, are heeding the call to "join the political revolution and tell the billionaires, 'enough.'"

Several unions including the Communications Workers of America, National Nurses United, and the American Postal Workers Union have all endorsed Sanders.

Polls show that to attract workers, and more supporters in general, Clinton needs to sound more "aspirational." For example, the public is aware of how difficult it will be to turn into realities the dreams of universal health care and expanded Social Security but voters want to be assured that their candidates are aiming high. Up until recently, Clinton was talking about incremental expansions of health care and Social Security as if they were ends in themselves.

She needs more often to call for fundamental improvements in American society, just as she did at the end of the last debate. And she needs to show she means it.

Helping Clinton's agenda

Polls show that the majority of American voters will vote for Clinton for president, but not enthusiastically. She has "trustworthiness" problems that run deep and wide among voters. History has shown that even if polls favor candidates, without enthusiastic, dedicated campaign workers they could lose. Clinton has already been forced to shake up her campaign organization.

Progressives will have to support Clinton if she is the nominee despite misgivings because keeping the right wing out of the White House is job number one. However, our numbers are small. Winning in November might take a small army of enthusiastic campaign workers.

Supporters of Trump are nothing if not enthusiastic, and their numbers are growing.

Whether its leaders admit it or not, the Democratic Party needs the "political revolution" that Sanders is talking about to assure a win in November.

What's more, if Clinton wins she will in all probability face at least a House and possibly a Senate too that is controlled by right wing Republicans. If she is serious about improving the lives of working people and the poor, she will need a broad-based, strong grassroots movement to back her up.

President Obama recognized the need for help from a grassroots movement to promote his agenda. He established Organizing for America. It dissipated rather quickly, though. While there is the hope that this will not happen to the political revolution being built by the Sanders campaign success will only follow a lot of hard work and struggle.

It's much too early at this stage to expect Sanders supporters to make concrete plans to work for Clinton. On the ground, the Democratic nomination is still uncertain. Talking about a Sanders loss now would be discouraging to many of those building the political revolution, and they might just go home.

In order to assure that the thousands of people who are being inspired by Bernie Sanders today remain in the fight against the right tomorrow, progressives, moderates, Democratic party leaders and even Wall Street liberals who favor equality for all, should not belittle or berate the building of the "political revolution."

Hopeful signs of unity

Until now, Clinton has been treating Sanders like she would any other opponent. For example, dragging him into an irrelevant argument to make political points: which of the two of them has been more loyal to President Obama. One of the high points in the early campaign was when Sanders dismissed the media's focus on Clinton's e-mails as distracting from real issues. We need a lot more of this from both of these candidates.

However, there are hopeful signs that Clinton and her supporters recognize the potential of the Sanders' political revolution.

For example, Clinton has made clear that she wants people to vote for her because of her ideas and political goals, not because of her gender.

Most important, she praised Sanders for getting many discouraged voters energized and many new voters involved.

Winning in 2016 is going to require unity.

Photo: Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, and Hillary Clinton take the stage before a Democratic presidential primary debate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Feb. 11. Tom Lynn | AP

Megan Green: Unbossed and unbought

Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:55:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - A quiet storm, which has been brewing here since mid-January, has recently become a political tsunami.

It all started when radio talk show host Bob Romanik, the infamous self-described Grim Reaper of Radio, featured St. Louis Board of Alderman President Lewis Reed on his show to discuss allegations made by Ward 15 Alderwomen Megan Green of political corruption.

The allegations revolved around a now defunct new NFL stadium proposal. Green told reporters at the time, "I am hardly the only alderperson on the board who has received promises of financial or political gifts from a party invested in the success of this stadium deal."

The proposal would have required hundreds of millions in tax payer subsidies. Green had called for a public vote on the proposal, which City Hall, the mayor, and board president Reed rejected, knowing that the NFL proposal did not have public support.

Reed had agreed to appear on Romanik's show to counter Green's allegations.

While Green publicly but tactfully discussed her concerns, emphasizing her commitment to her constituents and the need for a democratic, transparent process, Romanik, and by proxy Reed, showed no such decorum.

Romanik, a major donor to Reed's unsuccessful 2013 mayoral bid, assaulted Green's personal character, using numerous gender-based, sexist, and misogynist expletives, while Reed laughed.

Instead of challenging the Grim Reaper's vile language and characterization of Green, Reed called Green's allegations "reprehensible."

Then the tsunami hit land. Reed belatedly took to Twitter to explain himself and assuage those angered by his consent of Romanik's vitriol, but time and the peoples' voices were not on his side. Now the board president is under fire.

Of note here are not only the comments of a lone talk show personality. Rather, the complexities of a political climate hostile to female office-holders - and women leaders generally - make this particular act more than an individual sexist assault. Arguably, it is a hate crime against all women, as the parameters of violent language - as espoused by Romanik - could easily turn into violent acts.

Unfortunately, Romanik's caricature of Green and Reed's acquiescence is not without precedence. In our political landscape women are often criticized not by policies, but by personal character, or must be lowered into an unlearned caricature, often with the use of offensive, sexist language.

The Grim Reaper's words were literally disgusting, but the larger issue is the threat to the status quo that Green's office has and will continue to lay bare. She is unbought and unbossed, which partly explains Romanik's need to characterize her in misogynist, sexist terms, to belittle her as a women rather than addressing her policies, platform, and agenda.

Like the author of this turn of phrase, Shirley Chisholm, the first women of color elected to U.S. Congress, Green is articulate, courageous, and uncompromising. She is described throughout the city of St. Louis as the most progressive politician in office, and her voice and actions makes this sentiment clear.

She put her body on the line while protesting against police brutality in Ferguson, and championed implementation of a living wage of $15 an hour here.

With only one year in office, Green was also a vocal supporter for the creation of a police civilian oversight committee, and proposed implementation of participatory city budget.

She has pledged to never take money nor gifts from special interest. She is beholden only to the people.

This is undoubtedly an ugly episode. Romanik and Reed should both by held publicly accountable - in the media and at the polls.

While the actual outcome of this drama is yet to be determined, one thing is certain: A new, impassioned movement has been born here in St. Louis and Alderwomen Megan Green is one of its leaders. Like the movement surrounding Bernie Sanders nationally, Green's support is broad-based and in motion.

I will continue to support her, as will thousands of other registered voters here - evidenced by the hundreds of phone calls into Reed's office expressing their disappointment in his tacit approval of Romanik's comments.

Additionally, we will continue to form coalitions to elect progressive candidates like Green. We will continue to call out those officials beholden to big-money special interests and corruption. We will have the last word.

Shuron Jones is the newly elected secretary of the 15th Ward Democrats (Green's Ward) and a leader of the St. Louis Workers' Education Society.

Photo: Alderwoman Megan Green (left) at the St. Louis Workers Education Society monthly community pot luck. | Tony Pecinovsky/PW

Indian treaty enforcement could benefit from Oregon occupation

Tue, 09 Feb 2016 16:33:00 +0000

I will not dwell on the on the Oregon takeover, insofar as the occupiers are concerned. But, unwittingly, what they have done could be of benefit to the Indian Treaty movement. This is because of the treaties that have remained unratified by the U.S. government. (This article does not delve into other paramount issues such as: treaty enforcement, treaty protection, expansion of treaty sovereignty, renegotiation of treaties, the making of new treaties and the violations of the agreements already in existence, by the federal government. Of the 371 treaties made between the U.S. and Native nations, all have been violated by the feds.)

For years now the Burns Paiute Nation has engaged in herculean efforts to recover their lands wrongly taken, beginning with the valiant struggle of tribal activist Sarah Winnemuca in the 19^th century.

The present reservation land was confirmed in 1908. For the next 50 years the Burns Paiutes filed lawsuits to recover the land, including the present-day Malheur Wildlife Refuge. After these attempts failed, in the late 1960's they received for the lost land the grand sum of $743.20 for each tribal member, which amounted to pennies on the dollar for their loss.

Notwithstanding their loss in court, the Burns Paiute are still the rightful owners of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

To reach this conclusion it is necessary to go back to the legislation that the created the Oregon territorial government of 1848. This legislation reads in pertinent part: "Provided, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians."

There was never a valid treaty between the Burns Paiutes and the federal government. This is because the Northern Paiutes, the historical antecedents of the present-day tribe, never had an agreement that was ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by law. Therefore, the Burns Paiute Nation is still the legal owner of lands that were theirs at the time they entered into negotiations with the federal treaty commissioners.

This legal principle applies to all unratified treaties with American Indian nations. This presents an incomparable opportunity for the recovery of lands by American Indian nations in the 21^st Century. I say this also as an attorney, well versed in Indian law, who has held various legal positions on a number of reservations.

The need for land recovery under treaty law is of paramount importance to all affected tribes. One can see when looking at any U.S. map of reservations how little land is held by the tribes. For the most part reservations look like specks of pepper in the grand scale of national geography. This is a disgrace!

There at least 150 unratified treaties, which means that millions of acres are just waiting to be reclaimed by the tribes. Action should be taken, both legal and otherwise.

To further emphasize the meaning of unratified treaties, take, for example, California. In 1851-52 the U.S. sent a treaty commission to negotiate with the tribes of that state to legally clear the way for white settlement. The genocidal slaughter of California Indians began in 1848 and was roaring forward with a pace that can only be compared to the horrific, blood-soaked Spanish invasion of the Indies.

The U.S. commissioners signed 18 treaties with over 500 representatives of various California-based nations, setting aside 8.5 million acres. This may sound like a lot, but it is not: it is divided into small parcels, the largest being no more than 25,000 acres of the least desirable land, far away from the coast with its abundant fishing resources. The 18 treaties were negotiated in order for the U.S. to secure title to lands that the tribes were giving up in exchange for guaranteed reserved lands (reservations) in perpetuity, where they would be secure from slaughter by the invading whites. Incredibly, these treaties gathered dust for decades until 1905. The Senate never ratified the treaties that meant no land was reserved for these California tribes. But, on the other hand, this also meant that these nations legally ceded no land to the United States, no land was given up, which means that the land in question still belongs to the tribes to the present day.

The federal government thought that by not ratifying the treaties this would work to the legal detriment of the tribes. But this created a loophole that works to the legal advantage of the tribes and to the legal disadvantage of the U.S. government, invalidating its claim to the Native land that was the subject of the abortive treaties. The U.S. shot itself in the foot by failing to ratify the treaties. This is of immense import.

At the time the treaties were written, it was apparent that the federal government did not think the tribes would survive as they were being slaughtered in the worst genocide campaign recorded in U.S. history. In 1848 the California Indian population numbered over 150,000; by 1856-a span of just eight years-it had plummeted to a mere 25,000. It may be that, in the view of the government, the matter of treaty ratification would be rendered moot by the physical elimination of the Native land claimants.

Much to the surprise of the government, the Indians survived, although with huge losses ("There was never any intention by the U.S. government for Indian people to survive," said one tribal elder).

By the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, California Indians were citizens under Spanish and Mexican law with absolute title to their lands in the state. In other words, with no treaty ratification, the Native peoples of California still have absolute title to the land they possessed at the time and under the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty.

Today, in response to any such legal challenge, the feds will march out their usual army of mercenary attorneys (in the Cobell case of 1996 -- the largest class action lawsuit against the United States in U.S. history -- the government had 35 attorneys fighting the Indian claims compared to Cobell's five, outnumbering him seven to one). The answer to this legal wagon-circling and the feds flypaper defense (file enough paperwork and something is bound to stick) is political activism: the "power of the people."

The much revered elder statesman, the late Standing Rock Sioux author, Vine Deloria, Jr. (I had the honor of meeting him at a venue where he spoke some years ago) said in the 1970s: "Indians had come to realize, by 1973, that political activism was their only hope. Even assuming the best intentions of Congress, they could not achieve even a modicum of justice."

His statement is even more pertinent in 2016. But an opportunity beyond description is provided by what happened at the Malheur Refuge. Without political activism this opportunity to reclaim our lands will slip through Indian hands. If there is no follow-up, a matchless chance will be missed.

The attitude of the U.S. government is that the passage of time and the change of conditions, economic, political and otherwise, are sufficient to invalidate the sacred agreements. Legally, nothing could be further from the truth. A litany of cases establishes that the treaties are still the "supreme law of the land."

The issue of unceded land because of the non-ratification of treaties provides opportunities for the recovery of huge swathes of Indian land illegally taken in the era of western expansion. However, this can only be realized with the political activism of "moccasins on the ground." Only political action can ensure victory.

The Indian Treaty movement should develop powerful momentum before Obama leaves office because with a new president, Native concerns will be relegated to the sidelines. It will be much more difficult to raise them to the level of official attention.

As to whether the recovery of these lands is possible, here is another far-sighted quote from Deloria: "Who is to say that Indians cannot regain their independence some time in the future? Can one view the recreation of the state of Israel after two thousand years of exile and seriously maintain that the Oglala Sioux will never again ride their beloved plains as rulers of everything they see? Or that the might of the Iroquois will not once again dominate the eastern forests?"

In conclusion, I pose this question which the Bundys and their militia have prompted with their actions: What would happen if there was an Indian takeover of unceded land by tribal citizens-land that legally still belongs to the tribe?

Photo: Sarah Winnemucca, Paiute writer and lecturer. Public Domain.

Notes on the eve of the New Hampshire primary

Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:11:00 +0000

1. If your time frame is short, Bernie's showing in Iowa - a "virtual tie" to use his words - wasn't a political earthquake. He was, after all, only 3 to 5 percent behind Hillary in the week before the caucus, depending on the poll, and momentum was running in his favor. So when MSNBC reported that he was neck in neck with Hillary in the vote count, I wasn't blown out of my chair.

But if you stretch out the time frame from a week to a year ago when Bernie announced his candidacy, the results are undeniably a big quake on the Richter scale of American politics. Next to no one thought that he would fight Hillary to a draw in Iowa and go into New Hampshire with a sizable lead in the polls.

The conventional wisdom was that an outsider, independent, democratic socialist, and messenger who takes aim at the billionaire class, Wall Street, and "establishment politics and economics," has about as much chance of winning the presidential nomination as the proverbial snowball has in hell.

Especially when his opponent is Hillary Clinton. She is anything but an outsider. And whether you like her or not, she is a very formidable candidate. In fact, nearly everyone expected that her journey to the nomination would be as close to a coronation as our country's anti-monarchist traditions allow.

Few imagined that she would be in a dogfight, and especially against Bernie Sanders. But here we are six months later and Clinton advisers are sleep-deprived after winning a nail-biter in Iowa and scrambling the last week to prevent a double-digit loss in New Hampshire tomorrow.

What was the miscalculation that so many political pundits, not to mention the Clinton campaign, made with respect to the potency of the Sanders presidential run? It was a failure to understand that the combination of a billionaire class offensive, an ascendant right wing, and a global capitalist economy undergoing profound changes in its structure and dynamics over the past three decades, constituted a powerful disorganizing, disruptive, and destabilizing force on people's lives.

Old and familiar signposts that gave people a sense of security, place, status, continuity and meaning unraveled. Constancy gave way to uncertainty. The future became a roll of the dice. And popular thinking changed in uneven, disparate, and contradictory ways.

On the one hand, millions moved to the right, facilitated by the wide and well-funded infrastructure of the political right. Needless to say, they didn't challenge the dominant capitalist ideology.

But, on the other hand, millions also gravitated to the left and challenged the prevailing ideological orthodoxy, although a progressive and left infrastructure anywhere on the scale of that of the right didn't exist to assist them.

2. The politics of centrism, of occupying the majoritarian middle, didn't disappear by any means, but it no longer had its old adhesive grip on the vast majority of the American people.

Bernie Sanders, to his credit, not only sensed this shift in mood; he went one step further. He staked his presidential bid on articulating it, on giving it progressive expression.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, took the road most traveled - the road of political moderation and incrementalism - in the early going of her campaign, but now sensing the changing dynamics of the primaries she is adjusting her message. "Progressive," she has said repeatedly since arriving in New Hampshire, is part of her resume as well. Some will surely and vigorously contest that claim, but it's not the worst thing that could happen. In fact, it should be welcomed. Isn't it a good thing that the Democratic presidential primaries are turning on which candidate has the most progressive credentials and program?

Whether this signifies the beginning of a period of political realignment in the Democratic Party is another matter. Only time will tell. But at least for now, it can be said that the re-positioning of the Democratic Party to the center-right that was the handiwork of a section of the Democratic leadership in the late 1980s and 1990s has been pushed into the shadows. The policies of financialization, welfare reform, mass incarceration, and fiscal austerity, ushered in during the Bill Clinton presidency, are in retreat and have yielded center stage to progressive politics.

3. Although Hillary's run so far has been bumpier than she expected, it is likely to become a bit smoother when the primary season turns to the South. There her advantages, including voter demographics, will help her. In these states, the traditional constituencies - labor, people of color and women - will figure more prominently in the outcome. And my guess is they and their leaders - for example, Reps. James E. Clyburn, D-SC, John Conyers, D-Mich., Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas; SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, AFSCME President Lee Saunders - to name a few - will throw their support to Hillary with whom they have a comfort level, shared experience, and a history, even if they like many features of Bernie's political program.

Overcoming this advantage of Hillary's will be a considerable challenge for Bernie. And simply talking about the billionaire class and a political revolution won't do it. He will have to tell his own story and communicate an evocative vision as well as show a fluency in the politics and language of inequality and democratic rights.

4. One has to wonder if the 20-year right-wing attack on Hillary might have found its way into the attitudes of progressive and left people toward her. No one, except for President Obama, has been the target of the right-wing attack machine more than she. I mention this because some of the criticism - especially on Facebook and other social media - is so over the top, so lacking in balance, so sexist and stereotyped, and so disconnected to the overriding strategic challenge of defeating right-wing extremism.

It is not unusual to hear that Hillary is barely better than Trump, Cruz and the other lunatics on the Republican side. Really? She isn't an angel, for sure, but to make such a sweeping claim fails to appreciate that the differences between her and her counterparts on the right are differences of kind - not degrees or shades - especially at the level of democracy and democratic rights.

Were she to become the next president, she would for sure govern from the center, but the exact nature of her governance would depend not only on her and her advisers' political disposition at any given moment, but also on the size of her victory, the composition of the Congress, and the ability of the people's movement that supports her to sustain its level of organization and activity in the post election period.

5. To be fair, the (official and unofficial) attack dogs of the Clinton campaign should be reined in as well. Bill Clinton, according to the New York Times, is doing a reprise of his negative role in the 2008 primary campaign. It served no useful purpose then and it won't now. Somebody needs to put a muzzle on him. Short of that, send him on a nine month journey to a distant island in the Pacific and take away his phone and Internet privileges.

This article originally appeared at Sam Webb's blog, SamWebb.org.

Photo: AP

Bernie or bust?

Wed, 03 Feb 2016 13:21:00 +0000

There it was on my Facebook feed. An image of a young woman and beneath it the slogan, "Bernie or Bust."

Catchy enough, I thought. But what does it mean? Two very different interpretations came to my mind.

One is that Sanders' supporters are going all out, taking his campaign as far as it can go (and it's gone further than many political observers thought only a few months ago), but no matter who wins the Democratic Party nomination this summer, supporting the nominee in the fall.

The other is that it's full speed ahead now, but in the event that Bernie doesn't win the nomination and Hillary does, his supporters will sit out the general election. If the first interpretation is the case, so much the better; it's a win-win. If it's the other, it's wrongheaded. Nothing good will come from it. In fact, a lot of bad could result.

Let me explain: Hillary isn't Bernie; no question about that. His positions go beyond the conventional boundaries of the Democratic Party; hers don't. His campaign feels transformational; hers doesn't. He is energizing new constituencies and stimulating new thinking; she isn't. He's on the outs with the party's hierarchy; she's its favorite. He hopes to build a popular movement that will endure after the curtain falls on this election cycle. She has no such aspiration. And he's a democratic socialist to boot. Not her cup of tea.

But, by the same token, Hillary isn't Trump, Cruz, or Rubio either - far from it. Nor is she in the same ballpark as Margaret Thatcher or Carly Fiorina - or Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.

To say that she is a warhawk, a late arrival to the issue of income inequality, and linked to Wall Street, tells us something about her, something important, but it doesn't tell us everything. Her politics, much like President Obama's, are more complex and multidimensional than her unrelenting critics on the left and right allow.

In sharp contrast to her Republican adversaries, Hillary has a democratic sensibility and commitment, even if hemmed in by her centrist politics and class leanings. She may not want to break up banks too big to fail, or rein in U.S. military presence and activity worldwide, or embrace single-payer health care (arguably for good reasons), but she will fight for the full range of democratic rights - collective bargaining rights, wage rights, job rights, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and, not least, health rights - as well as defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions.

If elected president she will build on the achievements of Obama's presidency. In other words, her White House will press for economic, social, and political reforms on a range of issues, including existentially necessary action on climate change. This will be especially so if the progressive and popular base of the coalition that elects her, assuming for the moment that she is the nominee, remains engaged in the post-election period. That wasn't the case in the Obama years, at least on the scale necessary to successfully combat Republican obstructionism.

Even Hillary's foreign policy, while likely more aggressive and military-inclined than Obama's, also has a place for diplomacy, global cooperation, and realism - a far cry from any of the trigger-happy Republican candidates who believe there are no limits to the projection of U.S. power in a complex, fractured, and violent world.

Finally, the election of Hillary will break perhaps the biggest glass ceiling for women. While we can't really know how great its symbolic significance will be, it is safe to say that it will be large and lasting on men as well as girls and women. Moreover, as president, Hillary will certainly do what she has long done - shine a light on women's concerns, ranging from wage and job discrimination, to health care, abortion, and birth control rights, to rape and domestic violence, to child care and parental leave. But she will do it on the largest public stage and with a far bigger voice.

The GOP candidates, on the other hand, have no such sensibilities and commitments. Neither does the Republican Party as a whole. They have demonstrated by words and deeds that they think too much democracy, too much equality, and too many democratic rights plague the country. And if it were not for Obama in the White House for the past eight years, their "scorched earth" assault on this plague of excessive democracy and equality would have been much further along.

And herein lies the danger that supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton must consider: If the Republicans win the presidency, that firewall against far-right extremism that the Obama administration represented will disappear and the barbarians will be no longer at the gate, but likely in charge of the whole castle.

Their grip on the Supreme Court is already secure and the odds are good that if they win the presidency, the presidential coattails will be long enough to maintain their congressional majority.

This doesn't mean that fascism is around the corner. (More about that in another article). But it will mean that a nasty and brutish gang will use its control of the three main branches of government to roll back the democratic rights revolution of the last 60 years and knee cap democratic governance, not to mention ramp up militarism, climate change obstructionism, and the wholesale shrinkage of the public sector.

To make matters worse, this concentration of state power in the hands of the extreme right at the federal level is matched and augmented by its control of thirty state governments, ubiquitous voice in the major media, network of well-funded think tanks, pastors in the pulpits, energetic grassroots constituency, and nearly bottomless war chest - thanks to the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires.

Which brings me back to the slogan "Bernie or Bust." If too many interpret it to mean Bernie or no one, least of all Hillary, it becomes an action (or inaction) that could well cede the country to right wing extremists.

By the same token, much the same could be said if Hillary's supporters - and there have been hints - go on strike in the event that Bernie wins the nomination.

Does anyone really want to repeat the debacle in 1972 when major sections of the Democratic Party sat on their hands rather than support the party's nominee, the anti-war liberal, George McGovern? We got Nixon and Kissinger then; we will get worse now.

Unity around the eventual winner, not division, not sitting on one's hands, is, therefore, imperative.

This may not sound sexy. It isn't a leap down freedom road. It's more defensive than transformational. The framing of the present situation and tasks in this way isn't an end point of analysis or struggle. Instead, it's a necessary way station that can't be bypassed if we hope to arrive at a future of radical and substantive democracy, equality, sustainability, and peace - a future that is worthy of our humanity.

Sam Webb served as national chair of the Communist Party USA from 2000 to 2014. This post is reprinted from his blog: SamWebb.org.

Photo: Volunteers receiving their instructions before beginning a voter registration drive in Ferguson, Mo., on March 8, 2015. Dozens of college students skipped spring break and instead went to Ferguson to encourage residents to vote. St. Cristina Fletes-Boutte | Louis Post-Dispatch | AP

Behind Flint water horror, a corrosive cynicism

Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:02:00 +0000

The basic story of the poisoning of the children of Flint, Michigan, through the water they drink is now pretty well known, but as more details come out, it keeps getting worse. Republican Governor Rick Snyder, after passing a big tax cut for the rich and corporations on coming into office, had to find cuts to make up for the lost revenue.

In Flint and other cities, he essentially nullified democratic elections, deposed elected mayors and city councils and installed his own agents with virtually dictatorial powers. The "emergency manager" of Flint decided that the city could save money by discontinuing its water supply from Lake Huron and instead drawing it from the toxic Flint River.

He then failed to treat the new water with additives needed to keep the city's old pipes from leaching lead. When people objected to the brown, smelly water filled with particles that was coming out of the taps, the governor's men reassured them the water was safe. All of Flint's children were exposed to water with elevated levels of lead.

Now we learn that General Motors complained to state officials that the water was corroding their auto parts. So the governor's team gave GM its own hook up back to the water from Lake Huron - while still insisting to the residents of Flint that the water was safe for their children to drink.

State officials also acted promptly to respond to the bad water for one other constituency: state employees in Flint's state office building. Even as it was reassuring residents that the water was safe to drink, Flint officials arranged for coolers of purified water to be set up on all the floors of the office building.

Flint's residents - disproportionately black and low income - were seen as disposable. And they are not alone. The national statistics on lead poisoning, as Kevin Drum of Mother Jones details, show that African-Americans were poisoned at three times the rate of whites until recent times. And, of course, low-income people are poisoned at higher rates than the more affluent; poor, urban African-Americans and Latinos suffer the highest rates of all.

Drum notes that while white children were severely afflicted in the postwar lead epidemic, it produced "nothing less than a carnage among black kids." He argues that before lead was brought under control in the late 1980s, virtually an entire generation of urban black teenagers was at risk of lower IQs, more behavior problems in school, higher rates of violent behavior. This, of course, reinforced already vicious racial stereotypes of African-Americans, and of the poor. The only hope in Flint is that the children's exposure was limited in time and intensity, but even that is grasping at straws.

And as Flint resident and documentary filmmaker Michael Moore points out, this isn't just a crisis of water. Flint's residents now see the value of their homes wiped out and their hopes for jobs dashed. Few would consider buying a home in Flint now. Few employers will want to set up shop there or expand there. The governor's men have wreaked untold economic damage on the residents of Flint on top of the threat to their health.

The lessons of Flint are plain. Those who scorn government are the wrong people to elect to head it. Government capacity to enforce health and safety, to police environmental poisons and water safety, is essential to the security of our children. As America gets more and more unequal, the cynical, unstated assumption that there are some who are simply disposable, who don't deserve decent services, is likely to spread.

But Flint may end up showing something else as well. That cynicism is more corrosive than the toxic water coming from the Flint River. People aren't going to put up with it. They aren't going to adjust quietly to the decline of basic services. The Flint calamity was exposed because the poorest residents objected time and again, despite the reassurances issued by authorities.

The failure of the governor's local dictator and of the state officials themselves is now apparent. Yet the reaction to the calamity still seems in slow motion. It is time for the federal government to step in. Investigations should lead to indictments. Federal resources should be mobilized to rectify the water in Flint immediately, and to provide the city with a real plan for renovation and revival.

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.

Video: Flint Church Becomes an Oasis for Residents

Earchiel Johnson | Peoplesworld.org

Photo: Plumbers Rob Johnson, left, and Kevin Kinasz assist Flint resident Lawanda Asa, right, with donated faucet installation on Jan. 30, at her home in Flint, Mich. More than 300 volunteer plumbers worked to install donated products from Plumbing Manufacturers International members so residents could use state provided filters in houses and apartment buildings throughout Flint. "I cry. I'm sad. What has been done to the city of Flint is unforgivable," Asa said. Jake May | The Flint Journal-MLive.com via AP

Hillary Clinton and the urn of ashes

Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:12:00 +0000

"They sent forth men to battle.

But no such men return;

And home, to claim their welcome.

Comes ashes in an urn."

Ode from "Agamemnon" in the Greek tragedy the Oresteia by Aeschylus

Aeschylus - who had actually fought at Marathon in 490 B.C., the battle that defeated the first Persian invasion of Greece - had few illusions about the consequences of war. His ode is one that the candidates for the U.S. presidency might consider, though one doubts that many of them would think to find wisdom in a 2,500 year-old Greek play.

And that, in itself, is a tragedy.

Historical blindness has been much on display in the run-up to the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. On the Republican side candidates were going to "kick ass" in Iraq, make the "sand glow" in Syria, and face down the Russians in Europe. But while the Democratic aspirants were more measured, there is a pervasive ideology than binds together all but cranks like Ron Paul: America has the right, indeed, the duty to order the world's affairs.

This peculiar view of the role of the U.S. takes on a certain messianic quality in candidates like Hillary Clinton, who routinely quotes former Secretary of State Madeline Albright's line about America as "the indispensable nation" whose job is to lead the world.

At a recent rally in Indianola, Iowa, Clinton said that "Senator [Bernie] Sanders doesn't talk much about foreign policy, and, when he does, it raises concerns because sometimes it can sound like he really hasn't thought things through."

The former secretary of state was certainly correct. Foreign policy for Sanders is pretty much an afterthought to his signature issues of economic inequality and a national health care system. But the implication of her comment is that she has thought things through. If she has, it is not evident in her biography, Hard Choices, or in her campaign speeches.

Hard Choices covers her years as secretary of state and seemingly unconsciously tracks a litany of American foreign policy disasters: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, and the "Asia pivot" that has dangerously increased tensions with China. At the heart of Hard Choices is the ideology of "American exceptionalism," which for Clinton means the right of the U.S. to intervene in other countries. As historian Jackson Lears, in the London Review of Books, puts it, Hard Choices "tries to construct a coherent rationale for an interventionist foreign policy and to justify it with reference to her own decisions as Secretary of State. The rationale is rickety: the evidence unconvincing."

Clinton is undoubtedly an intelligent person, but her book is remarkably shallow and quite the opposite of "thoughtful." The one act on her part for which she shows any regret is her vote to invade Iraq. But even here she quickly moves on, never really examining how it is that the U.S. has the right to invade and overthrow a sovereign government. For Clinton, Iraq was only a "mistake" because it came out badly.

She also demonstrates an inability to see other people's point of view. Thus the Russians are aggressively attempting to re-establish their old Soviet sphere of influence rather than reacting to the steady march of NATO eastwards. The fact that the U.S. violated promises by the first Bush administration not to move NATO "one inch east" if the Soviets withdrew their forces from Eastern Europe is irrelevant.

She doesn't seem to get that a country that has been invaded three times since 1815 and lost tens of millions of people might be a tad paranoid about its borders. There is no mention of the roles of U.S. intelligence agencies, organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, and of openly fascist Ukrainian groups played in the coup against the elected government of Ukraine.

Clinton takes credit for the Obama administration's "Asia Pivot" that "sent a message to Asia and the world that America was back in its traditional leadership role in Asia," but she doesn't consider how this might be interpreted in Beijing. The U.S. never left Asia - the Pacific basin has long been our major trading partner - so, to the Chinese, "back" and "pivot" means that the U.S. plans to beef up its military in the region and construct an anti-China alliance system. It has done both.

Clinton costumes military intervention in the philosophy of "responsibility to protect," or "R2P," but her application is selective. She takes credit for overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, but in her campaign speeches she has not said a word about the horrendous bombing campaign being waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. She cites R2P for why the U.S. should overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, but is silent about Saudi Arabia's intervention in Bahrain to crush demands for democracy by its majority Shiite population.

Clinton, along with Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the UN, and Susan Rice, the Obama administration's national security advisor, has pushed for muscular interventions without thinking - or caring - about the consequences

And those consequences have been dire:

Afghanistan: Somewhere around 220,000 Afghans have died since the 2001 U.S. invasion, and millions of others are refugees. The U.S. and its allies have suffered close to 2,500 dead and more than 20,000 wounded, and the war is far from over. The cost: close to $700 billion, not counting the long-term medical bill that could run as high as $2 trillion.

Libya: Some 30,000 people died and another 50,000 were wounded in the intervention and civil war. Hundreds of thousands have been turned into refugees. The cost was cheap: $1.1 billion, but it has created a tsunami of refugees and the war continues. It also produced one of Clinton's more tasteless remarks. Referring to Gaddafi, she said, "We came, we saw, he died." The Libyan leader was executed by having a bayonet rammed up his rectum.

Ukraine: The death toll is above 8,000, some 18,000 have been wounded, and several cities in the eastern part of the country have been heavily damaged. The fighting has tapered off although tensions remain high.

Yemen: Over 6,000 people have been killed, another 27,000 wounded, and, according to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yeminis don't have enough to eat, and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.

Iraq: Somewhere from 400,000 to over 1 million people have died from war-related causes since the 2003 invasion. Over 2 million have fled the country and another 2 million are internally displaced. The cost: close to $1 trillion, but it may rise to $4 trillion once all the long-term medical costs are added in. The war is ongoing.

Syria: Over 250,000 have died in the war, and 4 million Syrians are refugees. The country's major cities have been ravaged. The war is ongoing.

There are other countries - like Somalia - that one could add to the butcher bill. Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted after the fall of Gaddafi largely fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.

And how does one calculate the cost of the Asia Pivot, not only for the U.S., but for the allies we are recruiting to confront China? Since the "Pivot" took place prior to China's recent assertiveness in the South China Sea, is the current climate of tension in the Pacific basin a result of Chinese aggression, or U.S. provocation?

Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat who thinks American exceptionalism gives the U.S. the right to intervene in other countries. That point of view it is pretty much bipartisan. And while Sanders voted against the Iraq war and criticizes Clinton as too willing to intervene, the Vermont senator backed the Yugoslavia and Afghan interventions. The former re-ignited the Cold War, and the latter is playing out like a Rudyard Kipling novel.

In all fairness, Sanders did say, "I worry that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences may be."

Would Hillary be more inclined toward an aggressive foreign policy? Certainly more than Obama's - Clinton pressed the White House to directly intervene in Syria and was far more hard line on Iran. More than the Republicans? It's hard to say, because most of them sound like they have gone off their meds. For instance, a number of GOP candidates pledge to cancel the nuclear agreement with Iran, and, while Clinton wanted to drive a harder bargain than the White House did, in the end she supported it.

However, she did say she is proud to call Iranians "enemies," and attacked Sanders for his remark that the U.S. might find common ground with Iran on defeating the Islamic State. Sanders then backed off and said he didn't think it was possible to improve relations with Teheran in the near future.

The danger of Clinton's view of America's role in the world is that it is old fashioned imperial behavior wrapped in the humanitarian rationale of R2P and thus more acceptable than the "make the sands glow" atavism of most the Republicans. In the end, however, R2P is just death and destruction in a different packaging.

Aeschylus got that: "For War's a banker, flesh his gold."

Photo: Hillary Clinton. Mark Nozell/Flickr/CC

This article originally appeared at Conn Hallinan's blog Dispatches From the Edge.

My endorsement of Bernie Sanders

Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:45:00 +0000

Following are excerpts from a letter by Michael Moore that appeared today on the website of Reader Supported News. The original letter by Moore is taken from his website.

My Dear Friends,

When I was a child, they said there was no way this majority-Protestant country of ours would ever elect a Catholic as president. And then John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected president.

The next decade, they said America would not elect a president from the Deep South. The last person to do that on his own (not as a v-p) was Zachary Taylor in 1849. And then we elected President Jimmy Carter.

In 1980, they said voters would never elect a president who had been divorced and remarried. Way too religious of a country for that, they said. Welcome, President Ronald Reagan, 1981-89.

They said you could not get elected president if you had not served in the military. No one could remember when someone who hadn't served had been elected Commander-in-Chief. Or who had confessed to trying (but not inhaling!) Illegal drugs. President Bill Clinton, 1993-2001.

And then finally "they" saId that there's NO WAY the Democrats were going to win if they nominated a BLACK man for president - a black man who's middle name was Hussein! America was still too racist for that. "Don't do it!", people quietly warned each other.

BOOM!

Do you ever wonder why the pundits, the political class, are always so sure that Americans "just aren't ready" for something - and then they're always just so wrong? They says these things because they want to protect the status quo. They don't want the boat rocked. They try to scare the average person into voting against their better judgment.

And now, this year "they" are claiming that there's no way a "democratic socialist" can get elected President of the United States. That is the main talking point coming now from the Hillary Clinton campaign office.

But all the polls show Bernie Sanders actually BEATING Donald Trump by twice as many votes than if Hillary Clinton was the candidate.

Although the polls nationally show Hillary beating Bernie among DEMOCRATS, when the pollster includes all INDEPENDENTS, then Sanders beats Trump two to one over what Clinton would do.

The way the Clinton campaign has been red-baiting Sanders is unfortunate - and tone deaf. According to NBC, 43 percent of Iowa Dems identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness).

So, what is democratic socialism? It's having a true democracy where everyone has a seat at the table, where everyone has a voice, not just the rich.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary recently announced the most looked-up word in their online dictionary in 2015 was "socialism." If you're under 49 (the largest voting block), the days of the Cold War & Commie Pinkos & the Red Scare look as stupid as "Reefer Madness."

If Hillary's biggest selling point as to why you should vote for her is, "Bernie's a socialist!" or "A socialist can't win!", then she's lost.

The New York Times, which admitted it made up stories of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq & pushed us to invade that country, has now endorsed Hillary Clinton, the candidate who voted for the Iraq War. I thought the Times had apologized and reformed itself. What Is going on here?

Well, the Times likes its candidates to be realistic and pragmatic. And to them, that means Hillary Clinton. She doesn't want to break up the banks, doesn't want to bring back Glass-Steagall, doesn't want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr., doesn't want Denmark's free health care system. Just not realistic, I guess.

Of course, there was a time when the media said it wasn't "realistic" to pass a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. They said it would never pass because only all-male legislators would be voting on it in the Congress and the State Legislatures. And that, obviously, meant it would never pass. They were wrong.

They once said that it wasn't "realistic" to pass a Civil Rights Act AND a Voting Rights Act back to back. America just wasn't "ready for it." Both passed, in 1964 & 1965.

Ten years ago we were told gay marriage would never be the law of the land. Good thing we didn't listen to those who told us to be "pragmatic."

Hillary says Bernie's plans just aren't "realistic" or "pragmatic." This week she said "single payer health care will NEVER, EVER, happen." Never? Ever? Wow. Why not just give up?

Hillary also says it's not practical to offer free college for everyone. You can't get more practical than the Germans - and they're able to do it. As do many other countries.

Clinton does find ways to pay for war and tax breaks for the rich. Hillary Clinton was FOR the war in Iraq, AGAINST gay marriage, FOR the Patriot Act, FOR NAFTA, and wants to put Ed Snowden in prison. THAT'S a lot to wrap one's head around, especially when you have Bernie Sanders as an alternative. He will be the opposite of all that.

There are many good things about Hillary. But it's clear she's to the right of Obama and will move us backwards, not forward. This would be sad. Very sad.

81 percent of the electorate is either female, people of color or young (18-35). And the Republicans have lost the VAST majority of 81 percent of the country. Whoever the Democrat is on the ballot come November will win. No one should vote out of fear. You should vote for whom you think best represents what you believe in. They want to scare you into thinking we'll lose with Sanders. The facts, the polls, scream just the opposite: We have a BETTER chance with Bernie!

Trump is loud and scary - and liberals scare easy. But liberals also like facts. Here's one: less than 19 percent of the USA is white guys over 35. So calm down!

I first endorsed Bernie Sanders for public office in 1990 when he, as mayor of Burlington, VT, asked me to come up there and hold a rally for him in his run to become Vermont's congressman. I guess not many were willing to go stump for an avowed democratic socialist at the time. Probably someone is his hippie-filled campaign office said, "I'll bet Michael Moore will do it!" They were right. I trucked up into the middle of nowhere and did my best to explain why we needed Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Congress. He won, I've been a supporter of his ever since, and he's never given me reason to not continue that support. I honestly thought I'd never see the day come where I would write to you and get to say these words: "Please vote for Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President of the United States of America."

I wouldn't ask this of you if I didn't think we really, truly needed him. And we do. More than we probably know.

Sincerely Yours,
Michael Moore

Photo: AP