RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Pandemic Is Still a Crisis for Unpaid Caregivers Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60383"><span class="small">Katherine Harmon Courage, Vox</span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 August 2021 12:53

Excerpt: "48 million people provide unpaid care to their loved ones in the US. Here's how to help them."

Jeanie Olinger drives with her son Chris in Norman, Oklahoma. Chris experienced a traumatic brain injury after a 2008 car crash. (photo: Joseph Rushmore/Vox)
Jeanie Olinger drives with her son Chris in Norman, Oklahoma. Chris experienced a traumatic brain injury after a 2008 car crash. (photo: Joseph Rushmore/Vox)


The Pandemic Is Still a Crisis for Unpaid Caregivers

By Katherine Harmon Courage, Vox

04 August 21


48 million people provide unpaid care to their loved ones in the US. Here’s how to help them.

ne evening in 2016, Sabrina Nichelle Scott checked in on her aging grandmother in New York City. She found Lillian, then in her early 90s, trying to cook meat that was still in its plastic packaging.

That was when Scott realized her grandmother’s advancing dementia required more care than visiting home health aides alone could provide. Scott left her job as a systems trainer for New York City Health + Hospitals and became her maternal grandmother’s primary caregiver. With help from multiple aides and other family members, Scott was able to ensure her grandmother was receiving the care she needed, while also carving out enough time to start her own consultancy.

That system worked okay for Scott, now 56 — until the pandemic hit.

Suddenly, much of the outside support became too risky, and Scott needed to provide round-the-clock care in her grandmother’s Harlem apartment. She helped Lillian with basic hygiene, prepared enticing meals to encourage her to continue eating (Scott herself subsisted mostly on oatmeal, grits, and sausages), and spent long, sleepless nights trying to ensure her grandmother didn’t leave the apartment and risk exposure to Covid-19. “From March through October of last year, I did not have a break,” Scott told Vox.

Dementia had not robbed Lillian of her fiercely independent spirit, but it had made her verbally and sometimes physically aggressive, and she would fight back against caregivers other than Scott. Whenever Scott undertook essential errands, she depended on her mother or an aide to stay with her grandmother briefly, so she “only went out under extreme, extreme reasons: I had to go to the laundromat, I had to get food. That’s it.” She had to stop working and even postponed a surgery she needed. It was a “very precarious situation,” she said.

An estimated 47.9 million adults in the United States — a staggering 19.3 percent — provide informal care to an adult with physical or mental health needs. This unpaid work, which includes everything from trips to the doctor to feeding, bathing, and toileting, has been valued at $470 billion per year, equivalent to three-quarters of the entire budget of Medicaid. Even in the best of times, the vast majority of this work is invisible and undersupported, leaving millions of caregivers struggling in silence. The Covid-19 pandemic pushed many caregivers into crisis.

And while Covid-19 vaccination has helped some Americans experience a joyful summer, a large number of caregivers are still at home, struggling with the fallout from ongoing isolation, anxiety, and lack of support.

Interviews with caregivers, researchers, and advocates, along with early data about the pandemic’s impact on this vast and diverse group, reveal widespread and alarming rates of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. They expose a national failure to support this vital part of our society — one that many of us will depend on at some point in life.

Before the pandemic, Scott’s grandmother Lillian was social and stayed physically active, despite her advancing dementia. She played an important role in her church community and regularly exercised by walking the wide hallway in her apartment building.

The shutdown took those activities away. Dementia left Lillian unable to keep her mask on, so venturing out of the one-bedroom apartment, even to the elevator, was too risky for anything but an urgent medical reason. Within Lillian’s apartment building, “death was all around,” Scott said, recalling people going in and out in protective suits to reach sick or dying neighbors.

In the small apartment, Scott tried to replace her grandmother’s activities as best as she could: They sang gospel songs, and she moved the furniture so they could walk a little bit. But “the routine of ritual is so important,” Scott said, noting these disruptions to social connection and physical activity likely contributed to her grandmother’s decline.

Because of Lillian’s difficulty with masking, she also missed important medical care during the pandemic. Many times they were stopped at the door of a health care facility and turned away, Scott said. “Yes, there are rules, but certain populations cannot follow the rules,” she said, frustrated. “They should not be denied access to health care. ... Access to medical resources is a human right.”

Scott struggled to explain her experience even to people who were close to her. Non-caregiver friends talked about pandemic “wellness walks.”

“That’s nice,” Scott said. “I did not have the leisure to go for a walk.” When her brother suggested that she take their grandmother outside, just to sit, Scott reminded him that Lillian could not keep her mask on for the elevator ride.

So they stayed inside, riding the waves of Lillian’s advancing dementia as best they could. “Some days she could dress herself, some days she could not. It ended in me in an apartment not being able to get out to get any fresh air,” Scott said. She remembered thinking: “Mentally, how do I adjust to confinement?”

Her rare breaks during those intense six months came in the middle of the night, sometimes at 2 am, when her grandmother was finally asleep. She used those moments, even during the hot Harlem summer, to take a bath with nice soaps she had splurged on before the pandemic.

Scott said she felt additional pressure, as a Black woman, to be an intensive caregiver. She had previously provided years of live-in caregiving for her paternal grandmother, who had dementia as well. When Scott eventually recommended more skilled care for each of her grandmothers, she says her family resisted — telling her, in effect, “We don’t do that.”

We meaning Black people,” Scott told Vox.

Despite the hardships, Scott says she is grateful to have had the opportunity to care for her grandmother. “My grandmother always opened her doors to people in the family,” she said. Lillian was the person who took people in when they needed a place to stay. “I have no regrets … it was an honor to serve her.”

In March 2021, Lillian died at the age of 97.

Scott has since moved back to Jacksonville, Florida, where she has a house to herself and is working again. Still, she is recovering from the grueling stretch of caregiving and processing the loss of her grandmother. “I could be on a webinar or on the phone, and people don’t even know that tears are coming down my face,” she said. “I know I’m still traumatized from it.”

The Covid-19 pandemic undermined mental health on a massive scale, with anxiety or depression symptoms hitting one in three people in the US early in the outbreak.

Emerging data shows that it’s been especially difficult for informal caregivers. Two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveys last winter found that 40 percent of caregivers for adults reported anxiety or depression symptoms, and a worrying number — about 10 percent — reported serious suicidal ideation. These numbers were even higher early in the pandemic.

Among caregivers for adults who were also parents of young children, a staggering 50 percent said they had experienced serious suicidal thoughts. The authors warned of “an urgent need to tailor public health efforts for this population.”

Nearly half of family caregivers reported psychological distress in a different 2020 survey, and more than a quarter reported fatigue.

Another study found that early in the pandemic, “family caregivers reported higher anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance ... and increased financial worries,” compared to non-caregivers. Caregivers said the pandemic “increased the effort involved in providing care” and made it “more physically, emotionally, and financially difficult.”

“It’s scarring,” said Scott Beach, lead author of the study and director of survey research at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Social and Urban Research. Some caregivers may bounce back from mental health challenges as supports return, but others will likely continue to struggle with residual stress and worry, especially if the pandemic worsened the physical, cognitive, or emotional health of the person they were caring for.

These early data points are only a glimpse of a worldwide problem affecting millions of people. “We’re going to see fallout from this for quite a long time,” said Amy Goyer, an AARP family caregiving expert who has also been a caregiver herself.

Before the pandemic, roughly 60 percent of informal caregivers had some form of paid employment, and the majority of those were working at least 40 hours a week. The pandemic forced a large number to start working from home — which meant juggling job and caregiving responsibilities simultaneously.

“For many of us, that’s our respite,” Goyer said of going to work. “That’s our break from caregiving. And now we’re at home constantly with our loved one.” Experts told Vox that, unlike the struggles of working parents, which were gradually acknowledged by the media, employers, and policymakers, the strain on adult caregivers was less widely recognized and supported.

Others had to leave the workforce altogether. Jessica Mills, 30, who lives in Augusta, Georgia, cares with her father for her 61-year-old mother, who has advanced, early-onset dementia. “She’s very active, so she has a lot of needs,” Mills said, and “within the past couple of years has just needed 24/7 care.”

About a decade before the pandemic, Mills dropped out of college and moved back home to help with her mother’s care. She worked part time at restaurants to bring in extra income.

But when the pandemic started, Mills quickly stopped working, to limit her family’s exposure to the coronavirus. That safety-based decision came with a huge trade-off: “All of a sudden you’re stuck, without the resources,” she said. She told Vox that because her home state of Georgia hasn’t expanded Medicaid, she didn’t have health insurance and was unable to afford therapy.

Caregivers who didn’t have the option to stop working outside the home often carried with them additional levels of anxiety. Many, disproportionately people of color, were already in jobs that put them on the front lines of the pandemic, such as in the service sector. People of color are also more likely to be in caregiving roles in the first place.

Add to that the fact that many communities of color were hit the hardest by the coronavirus. Which meant, for many caregivers, “they’re dealing with higher rates of Covid-19 within their communities, still trying to juggle and balance caregiving, and often not having access to the same resources and supports,” said Christina Irving, the clinical services director at Family Caregiver Alliance in the Bay Area.

Black Americans are still less likely than white or Latinx people to have received at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, leaving more people vulnerable to the virus. “So all these stressors coming at people from multiple angles has made it that much harder for them to manage,” Irving said.

For caregivers, isolation and worry were often a way of life even before Covid-19. “The things everybody feared and had difficulties with during the pandemic, we live that way,” said Jeanie Olinger, 60, who lives in Oklahoma City.

Olinger’s son Chris, who is 37, experienced a debilitating traumatic brain injury in a 2008 car crash. Since then, he has needed full care — from feeding to moving — around the clock. “He does nothing but look at me,” Olinger said.

In 2010, Chris was able to relocate from a care facility to his mother’s home, and she began working remotely and enlisting home health aides for Chris’s extensive needs. She was getting by.

But when the pandemic arrived last spring, “we didn’t let anybody in,” Olinger said. Like the majority of other people receiving care, her son — who has chronic asthma in addition to the brain injury — was at a higher risk of severe Covid-19 and death from the virus. That meant Olinger was on duty caring for her son, while also trying to work from home. “It was really difficult,” she said. For months, she stopped taking her usual stress-relieving runs and walks for fear of contracting Covid-19. Her one source of release was a punching bag in her garage. “When I was overwhelmed, I would go punch the snot out of that bag,” she said.

Caregivers like Olinger stopped seeing family and friends outside their household, and lost other forms of support as well. “Before, you could get your cousin to come over for four hours on Saturday so you could go see a movie, just to escape it and recharge your batteries,” said John Schall, CEO of Caregiver Action Network, a support and education nonprofit, and a caregiver himself. During the pandemic, “that kind of respite, those breaks, haven’t existed.”

Pandemic caregivers were additionally burdened with bearing witness as their loved ones slid precipitously toward poorer health. “The lack of social interaction and lack of physical activity really, really affected so many,” Goyer said. “Their loved ones got worse so much faster.”

Care recipients got “less socialization, less stimulation, less exercise and ability to be out in the world,” Irving said. This leads to more cognitive decline as well as loss of mobility and physical health, she noted. “That’s a huge strain on caregivers.”

The pandemic also prevented some caregivers from accompanying their loved ones — even those with severe cognitive, memory, or communication issues — into medical facilities. Megan Powell, 38, cares for her husband Jesse, 36, who has PTSD and traumatic brain injuries from four tours with the US Army in Afghanistan. She has long been his “caregiver slash advocate” at medical appointments, she told Vox, but she was shut out when the pandemic began. She tried to call in to appointments using speakerphone, worrying that because he has memory issues, important information was getting lost.

Terri Harvath, the founding director of the Family Caregiving Institute at the University of California Davis, said that her older partner was hospitalized in March 2020 for cancer-related complications. “She was delirious from surgery, she was frightened, she had a tracheostomy so she couldn’t talk, she couldn’t indicate what she needed,” Harvath said. Harvath was able to pull strings to be in the hospital, but for three weeks, she was only allowed to leave her partner’s room for one daily trip to the cafeteria.

Caregivers have also struggled with doubt and distress about bringing their loved one to the ER or hospital in the first place, not just because of potential Covid-19 exposure but also the risk of separation due to pandemic restrictions. In her clinic, Harvath worked with one caregiver who thought her mom might be having a stroke but initially thought twice about taking her to the ER because she knew it would mean leaving her at the door.

Informal caregivers are “the invisible member of the interdisciplinary health care team — they’re absolutely essential,” Harvath said.

In August 2020, Olinger’s son, whose traumatic brain injury left him unable to communicate, became very ill and needed to be hospitalized. “It was just terrifying,” Olinger said. After her son received a positive pneumonia diagnosis and a negative Covid-19 test, Olinger was allowed to stay with him. But if he had tested positive for Covid-19 and needed isolation, she said, she would have brought him home — even to die — rather than leaving him alone at the hospital without a caregiver.

For those who could use them, telehealth appointments brought minor and routine care to a growing number of people. But these virtual consultations could not replace important medical interventions and procedures. And “for others who don’t have easy access to technology, or can’t afford the devices or the monthly internet and broadband costs, it just put one more barrier for them being able to access services and supports,” Irving said.

Even as vaccines and lower Covid-19 rates have made it easier to access medical care in many places, missed care is likely to have lasting impacts. “For people who have chronic health conditions, for older adults, they may not bounce back in the same way that somebody who’s healthier would,” Irving added. “So we are going to see a bigger impact even as we start to come out of Covid-19.”

It’s not only the health of care recipients that has been at stake: Caregivers have had a hard time getting health care, too. This is a challenge even during normal times, when, as Goyer put it, “the biggest challenge they have is taking care of themselves.” And regular health care is especially important for this group: More than 40 percent of informal caregivers reported having two or more chronic diseases.

If the primary caregiver is unwell — or has a health crisis — that puts the care recipient at substantially higher risk for poorer health and death.

These sorts of worries wracked Mills while she and her father took care of her mother in Georgia. Mills got very sick with Covid-19 last spring, leaving her then-65-year-old father, in the same house, as the sole caregiver to her mother for weeks on end. “If me and my dad had gotten sick [and] were in bed for weeks, she wouldn’t be able to take care of herself,” Mills said of her mom. “It’s just so scary to think about.”

The mental health of caregivers can also have serious effects on the people they look after. Researchers have found over the years that conditions such as depression tend to lead to lower quality of care. A recent study in China, for example, discovered that stroke patients were more likely to die within six months of discharge from the hospital when their family caregivers experienced anxiety or depression.

For caregiving families, the pandemic restrictions and isolation could make home a pressure cooker. Powell, the caregiver for her Army veteran husband, describes herself as more of an emotional caregiver, because Jesse can keep up with most daily tasks. But his injuries have led to emotional volatility and, after the pandemic shut down his treatment facility, suicidal thoughts. Which put the whole family, including their 4-year-old son, on alert. “Things got really bad,” said Powell, who also experiences anxiety and depression.

“There was a lot of anxiety throughout the entire house,” she said. “It’s not just the three of us. We have this thing in the house with us ... the PTSD monster,” she said. “You don’t know what role it’s going to take in the day, but it’s going to have a role.”

Although she tried to shield their young son from the stress, it was often impossible. “There were a lot of days I would realize he was sucked into it,” she said. “We’re here, and we’re stuck, and we’re not going anywhere.”

The vast majority of people will need care at some point in their lives — and almost anyone can find themselves in the role of caregiver. Of the adults who are not currently caregivers, about one in six expect to become one within the next two years. And an aging population will need more care, with fewer young people to provide it. “The numbers are such that we have to do something to help people,” Harvath said.

An even greater share of this burden will likely be shouldered at home. After the alarming number of deaths from Covid-19 in long-term care institutions, “many families will be reluctant going forward to use those facilities, and we’ll bear an even greater brunt of care — even when it becomes really, really difficult to do so,” Harvath said. And much of this unpaid work will likely be done by people who have not been trained, supported, or adequately cared for themselves.

Some experts and caregivers see the pandemic as an opportunity to increase awareness about these struggles. “My hope is that one of the things that happens is that we use this disruption to all of our lives to make change,” Harvath said.

Before Covid-19, the US was lagging behind other countries in its support for informal, home-based care. Catching up would be a first step toward helping caregivers recover — for example, through tax credits, an expansion of federal family leave policies, and direct pay to informal caregivers.

The Credit for Caring Act, introduced in Congress this spring, would give eligible family caregivers up to $5,000 per year to help pay for care costs. The Biden administration has proposed up to 12 weeks of annual paid family leave that would cover caregivers like the ones in this story, through the American Families Plan.

But other plans have already fallen by the wayside. For example, Biden’s American Jobs Plan proposed $400 billion for additional Medicaid funds to help ease some caregiving burdens, but it was cut from the bipartisan infrastructure bill currently under discussion in Congress.

Harvath also cautions that programs should reach not only low-income caregivers but all families that could use help with care. “Caregivers who are in those middle-income brackets have very few resources,” she said. “They don’t have the resources to pay for care, and they don’t have eligibility” for assistance. Some families choose to spend down their savings just to qualify for essential services they could not otherwise afford.

A handful of states have invested more resources into support of this critical unpaid workforce. In 2018, Hawaii piloted a program making caregivers who also have paid jobs eligible for financial assistance for care expenses, with the aim of helping them stay in the workforce — and of saving the state and taxpayers money on outlays for otherwise more expensive care. The same year, Washington state also launched a pilot program to provide a monthly stipend for services to caregivers who don’t quite qualify for Medicaid benefits. This helps the caregivers and recipients, while saving the state money. Washington is set to evaluate the program at the end of this year, and if it’s deemed successful, it could be replicated in other states.

But policymakers can’t help caregivers unless they can locate them in the first place — which can be more difficult than it sounds. “Most people don’t use that term to describe themselves,” said Jennifer Olsen, executive director of the Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregivers. “If you ask them, they would say, ‘I’m the sister,’ ‘I’m the daughter.’” And it’s not a status doctors typically discuss or screen for — despite the stakes — as they might for family medical histories.

Irving advocates for a more comprehensive connection of services among health care, social service, and government systems. “It doesn’t mean they’re going to provide all the supports — just so that caregivers don’t fall through the cracks.”

The US can’t afford to neglect caregivers. There is neither the budget nor the professional labor force to replace them. “If all of us family caregivers went on strike tomorrow — not that we would ever do that to our loved ones — but if we did, there’s no way the nation could ever fill this gap,” Schall said.

Scott, who trained as a business anthropologist and who now works as a home care consultant, believes that caregivers should receive guaranteed coverage for physical and mental health care: “How can you take care of someone else if you’re not healthy?”

Simply raising awareness is a first step, Scott added. “There will be more and more people who need caregivers,” she said, whether or not we like to think about it. “We’re all aging.”

Scott sees financial support for informal caregivers as a huge opportunity to keep care recipients out of much more expensive, tax-funded care. She would like to see this on a national level, rather than a patchwork of state and local programs that provide uneven coverage. And now is the time for these changes, she said: “Why not be preventative, like preventative medicine, as opposed to waiting until later?”

Caregiving may be a labor of love, but it’s still labor. We need to care for the caregivers, not least because helping them helps everyone else. “There’s an obligation,” Scott said. “Caregivers extend lives.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Why I Signed the Petition for My Own Recall Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60381"><span class="small">Kshama Sawant, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 August 2021 12:05

Sawant writes: "The Recall campaign is using massive voter suppression via a low-turnout winter special election, and the unelected state supreme court's stamp of approval on the ballot itself, in an attempt to construct the most undemocratic election possible."

Seattle councilmember Kshama Sawant. (photo: Steve Ringman/The Seattle Times)
Seattle councilmember Kshama Sawant. (photo: Steve Ringman/The Seattle Times)


Why I Signed the Petition for My Own Recall

By Kshama Sawant, Jacobin

04 August 21


Since the moment that socialist Kshama Sawant was elected to the Seattle City Council, the rich, the Right, and the Democratic establishment have tried to destroy her. Having failed to defeat her at the ballot box, Sawant explains in Jacobin, they’re now resorting to voter suppression.

n response to last year’s historic Black Lives Matter uprising, with 20 million taking to the streets, the ruling class and right wing responded with 81 bills criminalizing peaceful protest in front of 34 state legislatures and over 250 voter suppression laws in 43 states, both offensives initiated by the Republicans but with no effective resistance from the Democrats. Now, both voter suppression and the attack on the right to protest have arrived squarely in liberal Seattle in the form of the right-wing Recall campaign against my socialist council office.

The Recall campaign is using massive voter suppression via a low-turnout winter special election, and the unelected state supreme court’s stamp of approval on the ballot itself, in an attempt to construct the most undemocratic election possible.

If the Recall succeeds, it will set a new and deeply dangerous precedent: when the ruling class fails to unseat left elected representatives through “normal” means like flooding races with corporate cash, or neutralize them through cooptation, they can resort to extraordinary measures like this recall. We see the same phenomenon at play in Buffalo, New York, where the City Council equivalent is threatening to abolish the position of mayor just one month after democratic socialist India Walton won the Democratic mayoral primary.

We have to fight back against both of these related attacks with the full strength of our movement.

Why Big Business and the Right Want Me Out

Since I was first elected to city council as an open socialist and Marxist in 2013, we have used our seat as a tool for Seattle’s working class in its fight against big business, racism, and the political establishment. In just eight years, our office has helped lead movements that won the first $15 minimum wage in a major US city, the $250 million/year Amazon Tax to fund affordable housing and a Green New Deal, many crucial and first-in-the-country renters’ rights victories, the nation’s first ban on chemical weapons by the police (before the Democrats rolled back many of the strongest provisions), and more.

It is precisely because our socialist council office has been so effective at winning victories for ordinary people, and because the ruling class simply cannot beat us in normal democratic elections, that we are now facing a right-wing recall effort based around trumped-up charges against my role in the Black Lives Matter and Tax Amazon movements.

Over 130 Trump donors have donated to the Recall campaign, alongside over 500 Republican donors, more than 100 CEOs and corporate executives (locally and nationally), and three out of five billionaire dynasties in the state of Washington. Who is the Recall’s top lawyer? John McKay, former US Attorney appointed by George W. Bush.

This anti–Black Lives Matter, anti-socialist campaign represents a teaming up of big business, the right wing, and the Democratic establishment against our movement. While local progressive Democrats like US representative Pramila Jayapal and others on the city council have not come out explicitly in favor of the Recall, their nearly year-long silence since the Recall effort began unfortunately speaks volumes. It’s time for them to pick a side.

Voter Suppression in Liberal Seattle

I won election in 2013, reelection in 2015, and yet again in 2019. Besides the socialist movement beating big business and the political establishment against all odds, what did all of these elections have in common? They were all in November, and had extremely high turnouts in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of people of color, young people, and renters.

The same forces we’ve defeated three times in general elections have finally learned that lying about my record and attacking my character as “too aggressive” and unable to “well with others” (other establishment politicians, that is) just isn’t enough. The Recall campaign has done the calculations and figured out that their only path to victory lies through suppressing voter turnout among these exact demographics.

Both historically and today, voter suppression laws are never called “The Voter Suppression Act.” None of them say “black people can’t vote” or “poor people can’t vote.” But they suppress the vote nonetheless, and disenfranchise the most oppressed voters in a variety of indirect ways while attempting to seem innocuous.

To get the Recall on the ballot, they need to collect just 10,700 signatures. With a month left to go before the August 3 deadline to turn in their signatures for a November general election, the Recall announced they had over 9,000 officially pre-verified signatures, and that they were aiming for November but just weren’t sure if they could get there.

Despite their pace up to that point being just under 1,000 per week (given their expensive mail operation to the wealthy parts of the district), we predicted they were planning to intentionally slow down signature collection and, come August 3, cynically pretend they just didn’t have enough to submit.

Why? Because in King County, where Seattle is located, as recently as 2016 and 2018, special elections have had up to 40 percent and 50 percent lower turnout than general elections.

So our movement went on the offensive, exposing the Recall’s primary strategy for what it is: voter suppression.

The only reason the Recall campaign was even in a position to bypass the general election was because the Washington State Supreme Court inexplicably delayed ruling on our case for nearly three months after their own ruling date, which was set for early January. Had they ruled even ten days earlier, a special election may have been off the table altogether.

Signing the Petition for My Own Recall

At a press conference on July 9, I became perhaps the first politician to ever sign a petition for their own recall, and the Kshama Solidarity Campaign announced it would begin collecting thousands of signatures for the Recall with the message of “put up or shut up.” We said at the press conference, “You say you want to turn in your signatures and get on the ballot in November? Then do it. The Solidarity Campaign will collect the rest.” Of course, we only collected signatures from our supporters who opposed the Recall Campaign and wanted to sign as a way to fight its voter suppression.

Our campaign caught fire. Our volunteer turnout to canvassing increased eight-fold, with 764 two-hour canvassing shifts in the three weeks between July 9 and August 1. We held a Solidarity Campaign labor rally with over 100 union members in attendance followed by a canvassing shift, and Seattle DSA organized a rally and fundraiser with Jacobin writer Meagan Day and former Bernie 2020 press secretary Briahna Joy Gray.

We knew this approach would be a win-win for us. Either we would force the Recall to turn in the signatures by August 3, which would mean a high-turnout November election, or we would make it clear for all to see what our opponents’ aim was the whole time: avoid a general election and intentionally suppress the vote.

We delivered our rapidly growing stack of signatures to the Recall campaign every two days via a legal courier, just as they requested in the furious emails we received from their lawyer. At 2,000 signatures, we held a press conference outside the lawyer’s office, and at 3,000, the day before the August 3 deadline, held a rally outside his office that we called “Put Up or Shut Up.”

Despite clearly having enough signatures to submit for a November election, the Recall held on to their signatures and refused to turn them in. Now, our plan is to build the strongest Get Out the Vote effort Seattle has ever seen. The only way to stop right-wing attacks like voter suppression is to build a movement to fight back — so that’s exactly what we plan to do.

Elections and the Socialist Movement

We have used our Marxist city council seat to win historic victories for working people, which is why the Right, big business, and the Democratic establishment are coming after us. Because the ruling class doesn’t care how many times we have won democratic elections (despite Amazon spending $1.5 million in the 2019 city elections), they want us out, and are now using voter suppression to try to make it happen.

As Marxists, we use the capitalist electoral system to win concrete victories for the working class, popularize and build the socialist movement, and expose in real time the limits of the fundamentally undemocratic electoral system we are using. Ultimately, we know we can’t win a socialist transformation of society through the capitalist electoral system because it’s not our system; in fact, it’s designed specifically to prevent systemic change.

When our movement becomes too much of a threat to the status quo, the ruling class has no qualms about taking extraordinary measures, as we see with this undemocratic Recall and many more severe examples throughout history. This was what gave rise to McCarthyism and the “red scare” after World War II. Today, as the socialist movement grows more powerful and becomes better organized, the danger of a twenty-first century McCarthyism will increasingly be posed. This Recall campaign should be a warning to our entire movement.

Big business and the right wing want to make an example out of us, to show that Marxist politics will not be tolerated. But we cannot let them. Throughout the month of August, we are doing a donations drive to cancel out the Recall’s Trump and CEO dark money. Our movement must defend itself with everything we’ve got. We hope progressives and socialists across the country will join us.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Nina Turner's Loss Is Oligarchy's Gain Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 August 2021 10:35

Solomon writes: "The race for a vacant congressional seat in northeast Ohio was a fierce battle between status quo politics and calls for social transformation."

Nina Turner. (photo: David McNew/Getty Images)
Nina Turner. (photo: David McNew/Getty Images)


Nina Turner's Loss Is Oligarchy's Gain

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

04 August 21

 

he race for a vacant congressional seat in northeast Ohio was a fierce battle between status quo politics and calls for social transformation. In the end, when votes were counted Tuesday night, transactional business-as-usual had won by almost 6 percent. But the victory of a corporate Democrat over a progressive firebrand did nothing to resolve the wide and deep disparity of visions at the Democratic Party’s base nationwide.

One of the candidates – Shontel Brown, the victor – sounded much like Hillary Clinton, who endorsed her two months ago. Meanwhile, Nina Turner dwelled on the kind of themes we always hear from Bernie Sanders, whose 2020 presidential campaign she served as a national co-chair. And while Brown trumpeted her lockstep loyalty to Joe Biden, her progressive opponent was advocating remedies for vast income inequality and the dominance of inordinate wealth over the political system. Often, during the last days of the campaign, I heard Turner refer to structural injustices of what she called “class and caste.”

A major line of attack from Brown forces was that Turner had voted against the party platform as a delegate to the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Left unsaid was the fact that nearly one-quarter of all the convention delegates also voted ‘no’ on the platform, and for the same avowed reason – its failure to include a Medicare for All plank.

Scarcely mentioned in media coverage of this race is that Ohio has an “open primary,” and Republicans received public encouragement to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary. We may never know how many GOP voters took the emphatic advice from the likes of right-winger William Kristol and voted for Brown to help beat Turner.

“Reminder: Tuesday’s Democratic primary is effectively the general election, and all registered voters can vote in the Democratic primary,” Kristol tweeted on July 29. “Just request a Democratic ballot.” After sending out a similar tweet on Sunday, he got more explicit via Twitter at dawn on Election Day: “To Akron, Beachwood, Cleveland, Shaker Heights, etc.: Today’s OH-11 primary is in effect the general election. The choice is a radical leftist or a Biden Democrat, @ShontelMBrown. Any registered voter – including independents & Republicans – can request a Democratic primary ballot.”

Prominent Republicans didn’t only pitch in with targeted messaging. Some GOP-aligned donors kicked in big bucks, such as Donald Trump’s billionaire pal Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots in the NFL, who personally maxed out at $5,800 to Brown’s campaign and whose family gave a total of more than $20,000.

Tacitly aligned with the Republican likes of Kristol and Kraft in zeal to boost Brown and defeat Turner was the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus, augmented by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, the highest ranking African-American in Congress. Caucus leaders and Clyburn were busy traveling around Ohio’s 11th Congressional District last weekend, singing Brown’s praises and aiming darts at Turner.

President Biden is popular in the district, and Brown’s forces were intent on framing the choice as pro-Biden or anti-Biden. Days ago, Cleveland’s CBS affiliate reported that the race “has largely come down to Brown, who has positioned herself as the ‘Biden candidate,’ and Turner, who has enjoyed the support of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.” An NBC affiliate asserted that national media and outside groups had made the race “a contest between loyalty to President Biden’s agenda and a more progressive wing of the party.”

Turner’s defeat is a victory for an array of wealthy individuals and corporations alarmed at her willingness to challenge such corporate powerhouses as Big Pharma, insurance firms and the fossil-fuel industry. The relentless and often defamatory advertising barrage against Turner was mainly funded by huge contributions from such vested interests to two outfits, Democratic Majority for Israel and Pro-Israel America, which placed the attack ads.

If the Democratic Party establishment thinks the defeat of Turner has turned back the progressive upsurge, it’s mistaken. Just this week, successful organizing led by Congresswomen Cori Bush and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez forced Biden’s hand, pushing him to extend an eviction moratorium that otherwise would have expired. Bush, AOC and other strong progressives – including Jamaal Bowman, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Mondaire Jones – got to the House by winning Democratic primaries, often ousting entrenched corporate-friendly Democrats in the process. Next year, many Democratic incumbents will face potentially serious primary challenges from the left.

A continuing political reality is that most voters are in favor of policy positions that progressives keep fighting for. In the Brown-Turner race, that reality was largely obscured as Turner’s opponents relentlessly attacked her in personal terms, citing – and often twisting – her outspoken record of criticizing top Democratic Party leaders for failing to walk the walk of their platitudes.

Turner’s vigorous critiques of Biden, especially a crude one last summer, provided very useful fodder for ads attacking her. But foes didn’t have much to say about the transformative policies that she champions. Reporting on her defeat, Politico noted that “the moderate attacks against Turner did not take aim at the progressive proposals she supports, such as Medicare for All or a Green New Deal – an indication they are popular with the base.”

In a statement released late Tuesday night, Turner looked ahead to the future of progressive populism, saying: “We will continue this journey until every working person earns a living wage, including passing a $15 minimum wage. We will continue this journey until every person has health care as a right and not a privilege. We will continue this journey until children’s destinies are not determined by their zip code or the color of their skin. We will continue this journey until we have torn down racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and every kind of hatred and discrimination. We will continue this journey until justice is equal for every person in this country. And this journey will continue until we have ensured that this planet will be habitable for our children and our grandchildren. So, my friends, it is OK to be sad tonight. But tomorrow we must roll up our sleeves and continue the fight to which we are all committed.”



Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Don't Get Swept Up in the Infrastructure Romance. Bipartisanship Is Illusory. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 August 2021 08:34

Pierce writes: "The Republican Party rarely bargains in good faith. More proof is coming soon, in the form of Chuck Schumer's second, $3.5 trillion bill."

Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. (photo: Getty Images)
Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. (photo: Getty Images)


Don't Get Swept Up in the Infrastructure Romance. Bipartisanship Is Illusory.

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

04 August 21


The Republican Party rarely bargains in good faith. More proof is coming soon, in the form of Chuck Schumer's second, $3.5 trillion bill.

he Senate worked all weekend on the famous Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal—a.k.a., the Kyrsten Sinema Protection Act of 2021. It appears that the mills of the clods grinders slowly, but they’re still getting there. However, for all the praise the B.I.D. is getting, it seems as though the Republicans are celebrating it as a partisan win.

Here’s Schumer. From Politico:

“It’s been decades since Congress passed such a significant standalone investment and I salute the hard work done here by everybody,” Schumer said. “Given how bipartisan the bill is and how much work has already been put in to get the details right, I believe the Senate can quickly process relevant amendments.”

And Sinema:

“This very process of finding bipartisan compromise and working together to achieve the objectives that the American people are depending upon us to do is the very heart and very core of why each of us serve in this government,” Sinema said. “It is why I ran for office.”

This is all very adorable. But then we come to Senator Rob Portman, the lead Republican in the negotiations and someone who never took his eye off the ball.

Portman, meanwhile, declared that "this process of starting from the center out has worked." He reiterated that the bipartisan bill focused on “core infrastructure” and would not raise taxes, meeting the two conditions Republicans set.

The Washington Post also points out that whatever bipartisan deal is hammered out isn’t entirely clear of the minefield:

But there nonetheless remains concern in both parties that some of the math is fuzzy, raising the potential that the package still could add to the federal deficit — and bring about significant fighting on the Senate floor.

OK, first of all, absolutely-no-tax-increases-ever is not “the center” by any measure except that of Portman and his party. Second, that business about “core infrastructure” is a shot across the bow regarding the second part of the Biden-Schumer grand design. And the members of the Republican half of this bipartisan triumph are suiting up to become Republicans again when it comes to that.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), another GOP negotiator, addressed that argument Sunday evening, emphasizing that the bipartisan package was a separate effort.“I know members of both parties have mischaracterized our efforts as somehow linked to paving the way to the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion wish list,” Romney said. “If you don’t think our Democrat friends are going to push for that monstrosity with or without this bill then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. They’re going to push for that anyway.”

Despite the demonstrable popularity of many of its principle features, the second bill, the one that Schumer says he will seek to pass through reconciliation, is going to be a genuine brawl with a Republican Party that rarely bargains in good faith, and that has been implacably committed to shoving as much of the nation’s wealth upwards as possible and doing everything it can to keep it there. The second bill is $3.5 trillion, and it is not bipartisan, and it contains a whole pile of things that the country needs and that Republicans believe it does not. Bipartisanship is illusory. The proof of that is coming down the track.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Want to Make Jim Jordan Sing About the Capitol Attack? Ask Jefferson Davis Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56604"><span class="small">Sidney Blumenthal, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 03 August 2021 12:57

Blumenthal writes: "The Ohio Republican admits he spoke to Trump the day the Confederate flag flew in Congress. Aptly, the investigation of John Brown's raid sets precedent for what must happen next."

Jim Jordan listens as Kevin McCarthy speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol. (photo: Shawn Thew/EPA)
Jim Jordan listens as Kevin McCarthy speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol. (photo: Shawn Thew/EPA)


Want to Make Jim Jordan Sing About the Capitol Attack? Ask Jefferson Davis

By Sidney Blumenthal, Guardian UK

03 August 21


The Ohio Republican admits he spoke to Trump the day the Confederate flag flew in Congress. Aptly, the investigation of John Brown’s raid sets precedent for what must happen next

he House select committee on the 6 January insurrection at the Capitol, according to chairman Bennie Thompson, should “not be reluctant” to include on its witness list Republicans including the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan and others who have knowledge of or may have been implicated in the attack.

Those who would be requested to testify spoke with Donald Trump before, during and after the assault, attended strategy meetings and held rallies to promote the 6 January “Stop the Steal” event, and are accused by Democrats of conducting reconnaissance tours of the Capitol for groups of insurrectionists.

But committee members and legal scholars are grappling to find precedent.

“I don’t know what the precedent is, to be honest,” said Adam Schiff.

There is one.

After a bloody insurrection was quelled, a congressional committee was created to investigate the organization of the insurrection, sources of funding, and the connections of the insurrectionists to members of Congress who were indeed called to testify. And did.

On the morning of 16 October 1859, John Brown led a ragtag band of armed followers in an attack on the US arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. His plan was to attract fugitive slaves to his battle, take refuge in the Allegheny mountains and conduct raids on plantations throughout the south, raising a slave army to overthrow the government and replace the constitution with one he had written.

Brown became notorious as pro- and anti-slavery forces fought over how Kansas would be admitted to the Union. Brown committed a massacre and rampaged out of control. Radical abolitionists idealized him as an avenging angel of Puritan virtue. Some of the most prominent and wealthiest, known as the Secret Six, funded him without being completely clear about how the money was going to be used.

Brown confided his plan on the eve of his raid to the great Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass and asked him to join. Douglass told him he would be entering “a perfect steel-trap and that once in he would never get out alive” and refused the offer. Brown was undeterred.

Within hours of the assault Brown and his band were cornered in the engine room of the armory, surrounded by local militia. Then the marines arrived under the command of Col Robert E Lee and Lt Jeb Stuart. At Brown’s public trial, his eloquent statements against slavery and hanging turned him into a martyr. John Wilkes Booth, wearing the uniform of the Richmond Grays and standing in the front ranks of troops before the scaffold on which Brown was hanged on 2 December, admired Brown’s zealotry and composure.

Nearly two weeks later, on 14 December, the Senate created the Select Committee to Inquire into the Late Invasion and Seizure of the Public Property at Harpers Ferry. Senator James M Mason of Virginia, the sponsor of the Fugitive Slave Act, was chairman. He appointed as chief prosecutor Jefferson Davis of Mississippi.

Davis was particularly intent on questioning Senator William H Seward of New York, the likely Republican candidate for president.

“I will show before I am done,” Davis said, “that Seward, by his own declaration, knew of the Harpers Ferry affair. If I succeed in showing that, then he, like John Brown deserves, I think, the gallows, for his participation in it.”

In early May 1858, Hugh Forbes, a down-at-heel soldier of fortune, a Scotsman who fought with Garibaldi in the failed Italian revolution of 1848, a fencing coach and a translator for the New York Tribune, knocked on Seward’s door with a peculiar tale of woe. He had been hired by Brown to be the “general in the revolution against slavery”, had written a manual for guerrilla warfare, but had not been paid. Seward sent him away and forgot about him.

Forbes wandered to the Senate, where he told his story to Henry Wilson, a Republican from Massachusetts. Wilson, who later became Ulysses S Grant’s vice president, was alarmed enough to write to Dr Samuel Gridley Howe, a distinguished Boston physician and reformer, founder of the first institution for the blind, and Massachusetts chairman of the Kansas committee. Wilson relayed that he had heard a “rumor” about John Brown and “that very foolish movement” and that Howe and other donors to the Kansas cause should “get the arms out of his control”.

But Howe, a member of the Secret Six, continued to send Brown money.

The investigating committee called Seward and Wilson. On 2 May 1860, Seward testified that Forbes came to him, was “very incoherent” and told him Brown was “very reckless”. Seward said he offered Forbes no advice or money, and that Forbes “went away”.

Davis pointedly asked Seward if he had any knowledge of Brown’s plan to attack Harpers Ferry.

Seward replied: “I had no more idea of an invasion by John Brown at that place, than I had of one by you or myself.”

Wilson also testified, producing his correspondence with Howe, his recollection of strangely encountering Brown at a Republican meeting in Boston, and denying any knowledge of Brown’s plot. Other witnesses were subpoenaed and warrants were issued for the arrest of those who failed to appear. Howe testified that he knew nothing in advance of the raid.

The Senate committee concluded its report citing the fourth section of article four of the constitution: “The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on the application of the legislature or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence.”

Eight months after submitting the report, Davis was sworn in as president of the Confederacy, assuming command of the greatest insurrection against the United States in its history.

His legacy as a senator before the civil war, however, established the precedent of a congressional committee calling members of Congress to testify about their knowledge of or participation in an insurrection: a precedent that can be used to investigate one in which for the first time the Confederate flag was carried through the Capitol.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>

Page 30 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN