|
FOCUS: David Brooks' American Dream |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 24 July 2015 11:31 |
|
Pierce writes: "In which Brooks discusses his reactions to Ta-Nehisi Coates' latest book and shares what he learned (or didn't) about the black male experience and race relations in America."
David Brooks. (photo: Getty)

David Brooks' American Dream
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
24 July 15
In which Brooks discusses his reactions to Ta-Nehisi Coates' latest book and shares what he learned (or didn't) about the black male experience and race relations in America.
ere at the Cafe, we'd been putting on extra staff and gathering extra supplies in anticipation of the release of Ta-Nehisi Coates's book because we are not stupid here at the Cafe and we know how a dinner rush is built. What we did not anticipate is that David Brooks would shove his way to the front of the line.
This dream is a secular faith that has unified people across every known divide. It has unleashed ennobling energies and mobilized heroic social reform movements. By dissolving the dream under the acid of an excessive realism, you trap generations in the past and destroy the guiding star that points to a better future.
?That is one helluva passage right there. The dream is a faith but Coates can dissolve it with acid and destroy a star at the same time you are trapping generations. (What? No gom jabbar? I'm crushed.) I feel like I've been sentenced to the metaphor Phantom Zone with no hope of parole.

|
|
FOCUS: Why Doesn't Bernie Sanders Run on a Truly Socialist Platform? |
|
|
Friday, 24 July 2015 10:54 |
|
Myerson writes: "Yet, despite his inescapable affiliation with the s-word - long considered a politically fatal liability - and his reported contempt for the masses' sensibilities, Sanders continues to draw enormous crowds, outpace Hillary Clinton in attracting small donations and generate great enthusiasm, even among groups conventional wisdom doggedly insists will refuse to embrace his candidacy."
The proposals at the core of Bernie Sanders' platform are standard fare for progressive Democrats. (photo: Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald/Getty)

Why Doesn't Bernie Sanders Run on a Truly Socialist Platform?
By Jesse A. Myerson, Rolling Stone
24 July 15
Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, but his platform is hardly radical
ernie Sanders is nominally a socialist, or at least he sorta-kinda calls himself one. "Do they think I'm afraid of the word?" he mused in a recent interview with The Nation. "I'm not afraid of the word." When The Washington Post gave him the opportunity to disavow the epithet during his 2006 Senate run, Sanders stood firm: "I wouldn't deny it," he said. "Not for one second. I'm a democratic socialist."
His affiliation has not escaped notice of Hillary Clinton's defenders. Sen. Claire McCaskill recently grumbled, "I think that the media is giving Bernie a pass right now. I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he's a socialist."
In apparent violation of this supposed cover-up, The Daily Beast's Ana Marie Cox has labeled Sanders an "extremist" "caricature" who amounts to "the Left's Trump." The Week's Damon Linker was also tempted by the Sanders-Trump comparison, calling them "unelectable radicals," and noting that Sanders "shows little interest in tailoring his message to woo the masses."
Yet, despite his inescapable affiliation with the s-word – long considered a politically fatal liability – and his reported contempt for the masses' sensibilities, Sanders continues to draw enormous crowds, outpace Hillary Clinton in attracting small donations and generate great enthusiasm, even among groups conventional wisdom doggedly insists will refuse to embrace his candidacy. That these throngs – energized by Sanders' egalitarian economic advocacy, support for worker empowerment and hostility to what he calls "the billionaire class" – are not noticeably put off by the description of these qualities as socialist, as opposed to merely "progressive," raises the question: Why doesn't Sanders avail himself of this political latitude and run on a more socialistic policy program?
For now, the proposals at the core of his platform – for the most part very good – are standard fare for progressive Democrats. Of the "12 Steps Forward" in his "Agenda for America," none diverge from the policies advocated by Sanders' fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In fact, with the exception of "Creating Worker Co-ops," "Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers" and "Health Care as a Right for All," none of the items would seem out of place in a stump speech or State of the Union address by President Obama.
For now, this sort of platform constitutes the leftmost bounds of mainstream policy discourse, but there is plenty of room to stretch leftward through advocacy of "non-reformist reforms" – those that, in the words of French philosopher André Gorz, "advance toward a radical transformation of society," producing a "modification of the relations of power" and thus "serv[ing] to weaken capitalism and to shake its joints."
On the other hand, an increase in the minimum wage – to use one example from Sanders' platform – yields a host of advantages for working people, and plainly excites the opposition of the capitalist class, but it neither socializes ownership claims on capital, nor fundamentally changes the power relations between workers and owners, nor incites a process that yields equality as reliably as capitalism yields inequality. Raising the minimum wage is a defense against capitalists' perpetual imperative to intensify exploitation of labor by lowering wages, not an offense against the structures by which capitalists are able to do this.
Running on a platform with a non-reformist reform at its core would serve Sanders' pro-equality political project, even if he should lose to Clinton and her mountains of corporate cash. Once one of these off-the-agenda items is named, articulated and argued for – once people are familiarized with a program's contours, rationale and merits – it is much easier to mobilize support for an idea. The Nader campaigns left behind them nothing so much as contempt for third party "spoilers," the Kucinich campaigns not even that. People for Bernie (whose open letter encouraging Sanders to run I signed) may hope for an ongoing political organization, such as emerged from the insurgent candidacy of Sanders' fellow Vermonter, former Gov. Howard Dean. But it is fair to ask more. The more attention and enthusiasm his candidacy garners, the more favorable the terrain will be for Sanders to pry open the boundaries of policy consideration. This would provide a boost to the effort to agitate for a departure from capitalism, after what he calls his "revolution" concludes.
Of the array of non-reformist reforms Sanders could adopt as key planks, the one that probably makes the most sense is a job guarantee, whose historical advocates have ranged from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King. Under this program, the federal government would act as the "employer of last resort"; it could hire the unemployed for its own national projects, funnel money to states and municipalities or let communities design their own projects and apply for funding.
Guaranteeing public sector employment to anyone who wants to sign up would accomplish a lot of the goals Sanders trumpets. It would reduce inequality by eliminating unemployment and its resultant poverty. It would magnify worker power by providing an exit from the job market, thereby setting minimum standards for all sorts for private sector employment. It would eliminate employment discrimination, long a central pillar of structural racism, erasing the chief cause of recidivism. It would allow communities that currently rely on prisons to close them without toppling the local economy, thereby enabling the type of mass decarceration Sanders would do well to advocate forcefully, the better to make up for his recent blunder at Netroots Nation. It would promote ecological sustainability by making full employment independent of the resource extraction sector, by paying for low-emissions employment like elder- and childcare and by providing resources for pollution-reducing infrastructure renovation. It would guarantee dignified pay and conditions for so-called "unskilled" labor typically performed by women: domestic work, childcare and nursing. It would end reliance on increasingly expensive higher education as a prerequisite for employment. It would practically establish a public option for health care, since those availing themselves of the program would receive normal benefits for a federal employee.
All these virtues, and the program would be fiscally sound on its own. It would grow the deficit permanently – an outcome Sanders has repeatedly, to his disgrace, maintained is undesirable – but never so far that inflation, the sole danger of too big a deficit, ensues: When the business cycle is down, the program would grow to bring us up to capacity, and when a boom threatens to inflate the economy, the program would automatically shrink. As long as the job guarantee wages are not competitive with the private sector, they should serve to anchor the general price level.
Nor is this some bizarre, far-fetched idea that would hike Sanders' already uncomfortably high degree of Seeming Kooky: even without inclusion on the agenda of any mainstream political actors, a job guarantee already polls at 47 percent.
Ironically, no one touts the merits of guaranteed public employment more vigorously than modern monetary theorists like Stephanie Kelton, the chief economist for the Democratic staff on the Sanders-chaired Senate Budget Committee. I took his hiring Kelton as a signal that Sanders was preparing to run for president on a job guarantee. So far, he has given no such indication, but there remain many excruciating months until the primaries; Sanders has plenty of time to earn more fully the label he says he's not afraid of.

|
|
|
Loretta Lynch Plays It Safe in Charleston |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 24 July 2015 08:55 |
|
Ash writes: "Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday that federal hate-crimes charges have been filed against accused mass-murderer Dylann Storm Roof in the June killing of nine parishioners, including the church's pastor, State Senator Clementa Pinckney, at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. It was a politically safe decision."
Cudell Rec Center, Cleveland: A makeshift memorial marks the place where Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice on November 22, 2014. (photo: Creative Commons)

Loretta Lynch Plays It Safe in Charleston
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
24 July 15
ttorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday that federal hate-crimes charges have been filed against accused mass-murderer Dylann Storm Roof in the June killing of nine parishioners, including the church’s pastor, State Senator Clementa Pinckney, at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. It was a politically safe decision.
While anyone who would perpetrate the kind of crimes that were committed at the Emanuel AME Church would certainly, without a doubt, qualify for and deserve such charges, the fact remains that Lynch and the Justice Department are acting in conjunction with South Carolina justice officials. It’s good press, but it has little material effect.
Roof, already facing capitol murder charges and a seemingly airtight case, makes a natural target for public outrage. As well anyone charged with such crimes should be.
The problem is that Attorney General Lynch, like her predecessor Eric Holder, is not moving to challenge state law enforcement officers or their supporting justice systems in a wave of police killings that appear unjustified, sparking outrage across the country. While the killing of nine African Americans at a hallowed and historic place of religious worship is horrifying, American law enforcement officers nationwide kill, on average, a black American every day. When you include suspects of all races killed by police, the numbers are staggering.
The online organization “Killed by Police” attempts to monitor and catalog all “Corporate news reports of people killed by U.S. law enforcement officers, whether in the line of duty or not, and regardless of reason or method.” Killed by Police currently puts the count of suspects killed by American police nationwide at 648 for 2015 – so far, often citing as many as half a dozen police killings in a single day. On two dates this year, March 19th and March 27th, there are nine separate incidents listed in which people were killed by cops in America. The same number killed by Dylann Storm Roof at the Emanuel AME Church on June 17th.
But it’s the police killings captured on video that have sparked the greatest public outrage. What video images allow the public to see in many of the cases are graphic glimpses of killings that often appear unprofessional, unwarranted, and unlawful. Glimpses of a carnage underway across the nation.
There are many ancillary reasons why American police are currently killing so many people, but three main reasons.
Foremost is the post-September 11th militarization of all American law enforcement institutions. A sense of full empowerment to kill – no questions asked.
In fact real questions are rarely asked. Most police shootings are investigated with a presumption that the officer involved is telling the truth. Without video evidence to the contrary, regardless of eyewitness accounts, such lethal incidents almost never result in state prosecution, and convictions are even rarer. It is one of the main reasons that police agencies oppose officers wearing body cameras, and they consistently do.
Bystander Feidin Santana’s video of North Charleston, South Carolina, police officer Michael Slager gunning down the unarmed and fleeing Walter Scott is a perfect example of the difference video makes. Slager’s version of events was well on its way to being the accepted account of Scott’s death. Both the North Charleston police department and the local press were moving ahead with Slager’s version of events before the Feidin Santana video went public. Then and only then did the public learn what really happened.
In addition, a general culture of gun violence is a major contributing factor. A recurring theme in many of the police killing videos is a rather detached, almost nonchalant, deliberate killing of a suspect by police officers using a gun as though they were using a pen to fill out a form. As long as certain basic criteria are met, they are free and clear to use their firearm to kill. All too often they do. Regardless of whether an actual threat to their safety even existed.
The Obama presidential era has been marked by a number of very significant, high-profile police killings. Most, but not all, killings of African Americans. In many of the cases, there has been no lack of evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the police officers involved. What has been lacking is a will to prosecute by the Department of Justice.
First under Attorney General Eric Holder and now under his successor Loretta Lynch, the emphasis has been on cooperation with state police agencies rather than on bringing Federal charges when local justice officials will not.
Sure, Attorney General Lynch is in South Carolina, and that’s good. But Dylann Roof has already been charged, and state officials there are already committed to his prosecution.
What about Baltimore? Or Ferguson, or the killing of Eric Garner, or Tamir Rice, or Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo? The evidence is there, but the Justice Department will not act.
Until it does, the American police killing rampage will continue.
Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
The GOP Only Has Itself to Blame for Weaponizing Donald Trump |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 23 July 2015 13:30 |
|
Rich writes: "Whatever else is to be said about Trump, he is a master salesman. And in the GOP presidential marketplace, he has a near-monopoly on the product he is selling now: hard-line, unapologetic, xenophobic opposition to both immigration reform and Mexican immigrants."
Donald Trump. (photo: Stephen B. Morton/AP/Corbis)

The GOP Only Has Itself to Blame for Weaponizing Donald Trump
By Frank Rich, New York Magazine
23 July 15
onald Trump's lead in the polls has been called "the classic pattern of a media-driven surge,” which means that his numbers, like those of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann in 2012, could crater in mid-campaign. But one factor in his success may be his ability to fill the vacuum left by the faded Tea Party, giving voice to the frustrated GOP white underclass. Will the candidates criticizing Trump this week eventually have to integrate part of his message to win over this part of the Republican base?
Whatever else is to be said about Trump, he is a master salesman. And in the GOP presidential marketplace, he has a near-monopoly on the product he is selling now: hard-line, unapologetic, xenophobic opposition to both immigration reform and Mexican immigrants. Immigration is the fault line of the GOP. The party’s establishment — from its corporate backers to The Wall Street Journal editorial page to Jeb Bush (when he’s not hedging) — want immigration reform. They know that no national Republican ticket can win without Hispanic voters. But the base that dominates the primary electorate loathes immigration reform — so much so that even Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, had to retreat from his original embrace of it to be a viable presidential contender. Hence, the question you ask is classic Catch-22: If the ultimate Republican presidential candidate does appropriate some part of Trump’s message to win the nomination, he will be as doomed as Mitt Romney was after he embraced “self-deportation” for undocumented immigrants in 2012. Or more doomed, given the trajectory of the Hispanic population explosion in America.
For all the other much-discussed factors contributing to the Trump boom — the power of celebrity, his “anti-politician” vibe, his freak-show outrageousness, his Don Rickles–style putdowns — it is the substantive issue of immigration that remains the core of his appeal to his fans. That’s why Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are defending him; it’s why Bill Kristol did until last weekend. And those Republicans who are now demanding that he desist are mostly hypocrites. John McCain himself, after all, enabled and legitimized those Trump partisans he now dismisses as “crazies” by putting Sarah Palin on the ticket in 2008. Other GOP leaders waited too long to disown the conspiracy theories about the president’s birth certificate that Trump would eventually exploit to reboot his political aspirations. Romney ostentatiously courted and received Trump’s endorsement in 2012. Many of the Republican politicians now condemning Trump for attacking McCain’s heroism in Vietnam were silent (or worse) when John Kerry’s Vietnam heroism was Swift Boated in 2004.
The GOP can blame the media all it wants, but the party has no one to blame but itself for weaponizing Trump. It subsidized and encouraged the market for what Trump is now selling. Now the Republicans’ only really hope is that Trump will blow himself up, Herman Cain style. Maybe he will, and he certainly has no chance of getting the nomination no matter what he does. But in the meantime he can keep wreaking havoc. Nine other GOP candidates were onstage at the Ames, Iowa, forum last weekend where he trashed McCain, and no one remembers anything anyone else there said unless it was in response to Trump. The same may well happen at the first national debate on Fox News on August 6, which is likely (because of Trump, and much to his delight) to be the highest rated primary debate in history.
Even over the short term, the Republicans are clueless about how to deal with him; they keep playing into his hands. A classic example was yesterday, when John Kasich, regarded by some Republicans I know as perhaps the most substantive and qualified prospect the party has, announced his presidential candidacy. His announcement was drowned out not just by Trump, with his stunt of revealing Lindsey Graham’s private cell-phone number at a campaign event, but by Graham himself, who took the bait by taking to Twitter and television to joke about it — thereby making certain even a minor Trump stunt would keep depriving the rest of the GOP field of oxygen.

|
|