RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Challenging Power, Changing Politics Print
Friday, 14 September 2012 11:59

Excerpt: "Welcome - to some ideas you didn't hear at the Republican and Democratic conventions."

Bill Moyers on Wednesday interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Dale Robbins/Moyers & Company)
Bill Moyers on Wednesday interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Dale Robbins/Moyers & Company)



Challenging Power, Changing Politics

By Bill Moyers and Bernie Sanders, Moyers & Company

14 September 12

 

 

 

ILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company…

JILL STEIN: We have to first fix the broken political system. It is the mother of all illnesses and we can fix it.

CHERI HONKALA: The last thing that we have in this country is our voice and our democracy and once that's taken away from us we're really in trouble.

BILL MOYERS: And…

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I don't think any sane person believes that this economy or the middleclass is really going to recover until we deal with the greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior on Wall Street, in my humble opinion. Fraud is the business model for Wall Street.

[Funders]

BILL MOYERS: Welcome – to some ideas you didn’t hear at the Republican and Democratic conventions. Both parties spent their time blaming each other for the fix we’re in, and offering themselves as the cure. But we’ve been governed for years now by one or the other of them, see-sawing back and forth in controlling Congress and the White House, so self-absorbed and corrupted by money that neither seems willing or able to cope with reality, or even to grasp what’s happening to everyday Americans. By their very nature, neither party’s capable of providing the radical critique we need – a blunt, even brutal assessment of a political system so dysfunctional as to call into question the survival of democracy.

For that, we need independent voices and third parties. So, here we go:

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress: 16 years in the House of Representatives, five now in the Senate. Before he went to Washington he served four terms as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, during which time the city was recognized as one of the most livable in America.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I am here to take a stand against this bill, and I am going to do everything I can to defend this bill.

BILL MOYERS: You may recall what happened two years ago when Senator Sanders, having finished his usual Vermont breakfast of oatmeal and coffee, walked on to the floor of the Senate and began speaking:

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: What our job is is to appeal to the vast majority of the American people to stand up and to say: Wait a minute. I do not want to see our national debt explode. I do not want to see my kids and grandchildren paying higher taxes in order to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

BILL MOYERS: He spoke on for eight and a half hours…

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: We should be embarrassed, Mr. President…

BILL MOYERS: Castigating the agreement President Obama and the Republicans had made to extend the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich, lower their estate taxes, and jeopardize the future of the Social Security Trust Fund by diverting revenue away from it to other purposes.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: We have got to stand tall and draw a line in the sand and simply say: Enough is enough.

BILL MOYERS: Around 7 that evening Bernie Sanders finished, and what happened next was phenomenal. The Senate server, overwhelmed, went down – crashed. The switchboards were jammed. And like sparks from a hundred thousand watch fires lighting up the distant hills and hollows, his words flew across the country. That speech is now this book entitled, "The Speech."

I spoke with Senator Sanders earlier in the week.

Good to have you.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Great to be with you, Bill.

BILL MOYERS: I watched the Democratic Convention, as perhaps you did. And I heard all the speeches about opportunity and solidarity. And I saw that vast array of faces, of every color, every age, every gender. And I thought, "There are still two Democratic Parties in this country, the party out across the country of everyday folks like Michelle Obama's parents, working paycheck to paycheck. And then there's the Washington Democratic club, the corporate lawyers, the lobbyists, the Wall Streeters like Robert Rubin and Peter Orszag." And I was wondering, as I watched, if Obama wins reelection, which party goes back to the White House with him? The party of the country or the party of the club?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, we certainly hope it will be the party of the country, the party of 25 million Americans without any jobs, the party of people struggling to keep their heads above water, the party of the people who want to see health care for all of us. But there is no question, Bill, of the enormous impact that big money has, certainly on the Republican Party, but on the Democratic Party as well. And I fear very much that unless we galvanize public opinion, unless we create the kind of progressive grassroots movement the big money interest will continue to dominate.

BILL MOYERS: Tell me how that money works. I mean, you've been on the inside 20-some-odd years, as I sit. How does it actually work? We hear "money in politics."

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, this is how it works. And this is what people do not appreciate. And it's true for Republicans and Democrats, as well. You do not know how many hours every single week, how many hours every single day people walk into the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee or the Republican Committee. And you know what they do? They dial for dollars. They dial for dollars, hour after hour after hour.

BILL MOYERS: Who are they calling?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: They're calling a list of people who have money. That's who they're calling. And what happens when you do that day after day, month after month, your worldview becomes shaped by those people. And most of the money coming into your campaign coffers comes from those people. And you begin representing their perspective.

BILL MOYERS: Well, there are more--it's more than that, isn't it? Because you just released a long report on the billionaires.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: --who are pouring money into the—

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. We have right now, and this should frighten every American, as a result of this disastrous Citizens United decision, we're looking now at people like the Koch Brothers, putting in one family, $400 million. Adelson, worth $20 billion, putting in $100 million. We have over 23 billionaire families making large contributions, and I think that's a conservative number.

So what you are looking at is a nation with a grotesquely unequal distribution of wealth and income, tremendous economic power on Wall Street, and now added to all of that is you have the big money interests, the billionaires and corporations now buying elections. This scares me very much. And I fear very much that if we don't turn this around, Bill, we're heading toward an oligarchic form of society.

BILL MOYERS: But the people who are in charge of this system and could therefore change it are the people who benefit from the dialing for dollars. So what's the solution when you have the fox in charge of the henhouse?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, the immediate political solution is a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The longer-term solution is people all over this country saying, "We're not going to give up the democracy that has made this country great, so that a handful of billionaires can control the political process. We ain't going to allow that to happen." We need public funding of elections, which I think is probably the most important thing we can do politically. Billionaires cannot and should not be allowed to buy elections.

BILL MOYERS: I was taken that I think 64 villages, towns in Vermont, your home state passed resolutions calling on Congress to endorse a constitutional amendment. What's of that? In fact, when my readers on our website heard that you were coming, a lot of questions were submitted to us online. One of them says, "I've been following Senator Sanders' intention against the Supreme Court Citizens United for two years now. Why has so little happened?" That's from Craig Crawford.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, first of all, this is what happened, has happened. It's not only Vermont. We have a total of six states whose legislatures and governors have come out in support of a constitutional amendment. And just very, very recently, we have the president and his advisors talking about, perhaps, not as strong as I would like, the need for a constitutional amendment.

And millions and millions of people have signed petitions. We had a petition on our website, over 200,000 people signed it. So it is slower than I would like it to be. But I think interestingly enough, Bill, it is not just progressives who are disgusted. I think your average conservative looks around and says, "Is this really what America's supposed to be when a handful of families can buy the political process?"

BILL MOYERS: What does it take to pass a constitutional amendment? We’ve done it 25 or 26 times in the history of our country but it’s a difficult process, isn’t it?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: It is going to be a long process, but this is what I like about the process. I think in the process we're going to educate the American people about one of the most serious problems facing this country. And that is that virtually no piece of legislation will get passed in Congress unless it has the okay of corporate America and big money interest. So the corrupting, absolute corrupting impact of big money is something we have to address.

And I like the idea of taking it from state to state, legislature to legislature, having the people debate what kind of democracy do they want. I'm very proud. You know, I come from the State of Vermont. We still have town meetings. People get up and they argue about how much money they spend on the town plow. That's what democracy is about.

BILL MOYERS: Do you have to dial for dollars?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I am very fortunate. I have. I have. But I do it a lot less. We raise our money, I have to tell you, I'm very proud of this. We have 130,000 individual contributions, averaging about 40 bucks a piece.

BILL MOYERS: Senator, what's your take on why so many young people and progressives are disillusioned with President Obama?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: In my view, President Obama ran the best campaign for president that I have seen in my lifetime. He did what is enormously difficult, get young people involved, get working people involved, have a vision out there, get people excited. That's not easy stuff. He did it.

What I think happened is, in a sense, the day after the election, he said to all of those people, all of that grassroots activism, "Thank you very much. Now I got to sit down and work with Republicans. And I got to start compromising. And I'm not going to fight for the vision that I campaigned on."

For example, every speech that I give, I talk about the crooks on Wall Street and what their illegal behavior has done to this economy. And people say, "Bernie, why aren't these guys in jail? Why isn't the Obama administration taking these people on? Why aren't we breaking up these large banks?" From the White House, do you hear much about that? You don't.

The power of big money, coming forward with the bold initiatives that get excited, say to them, "Listen, we got some right-wing extremists running the House. I need your help. We're going to change our disastrous trade policies. We are going to create a jobs program to put millions of people to work. But I can't do it taking on all the money guys. I need millions of people standing with me." Have you heard that from the White House?

BILL MOYERS: No, what we hear is continuing calls for bipartisanship, even as Republicans have waged the most partisan and obstructionist agenda in modern history. And even the other day, the president said, "I'm sure that after I'm re-elected, the Republicans will work with me." I mean, I don't understand that, frankly. And you've been down there all of this time. From his speeches, he seems to be a fighter. But from his behavior, he caves.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I don't understand it, either. Look, there's nothing wrong with bipartisanship. If you and I disagree and we can come up with a decent compromise that's good for the American people, let's do it. But when you have people whose main function in life is to obstruct and destroy every single initiative, when you have the Republican leader in the Senate say, "Our main goal is to make sure that Obama is a one-term president."

And you keep reaching out. And they keep cutting you and cutting you and cutting you, there comes a time when you say, "Hey, I got to stand up to you. I have to rally the American people." He has not done that. Is he a fighter? I think that you have a very competitive guy, in terms of himself getting reelected. I think this guy's going to work like a dog.

BILL MOYERS: That's his career.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: That's right. He's a tough guy in that sense. In terms of public policy, standing up for Republicans, I think we're looking at a different president.

BILL MOYERS: Well, we're coming to a potential serious conflict between the election and the inauguration, no matter who wins. And you made that eight and a half hour speech, because of that agreement, to extend the Bush tax cuts and to do all of that. And we're facing this crisis over the deficit, over social services and the safety, and the safety net over the Bush tax cuts. Do you think Obama will cave again as he did the last time, sending you to the floor of the Senate? I don't think the Senate can take another eight and a half hour speech.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Here's where we are. And here's the-- you want to add another irony on top of all this, Bill, is that the American people support what the president is talking about and are vigorously opposed to what the Republicans want. Every poll that you and I have seen, including polls from Tea Party sympathizers, you know what they say? "Do not cut Social Security. Don't cut Medicare. Don't cut Medicaid. Ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. And by the way, take a look at military spending as well." That is what, by and large, the American people are saying.

BILL MOYERS: The polls show that? The polls show that?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Polls show that. So you would think that even if you were a hack politician who didn't believe any of this, you would stand up and fight for those principles. What I am going to do working with some of my progressive colleagues is say, "No, we are not going to balance this budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. Social has not contributed one nickel to the deficit. We are not going to cut Social Security."

I am waiting. And we're doing everything that we can to beg the president, "Get up and say what you said four years ago." And that is you're not going to cut Social Security. That's what the American people want to hear.

BILL MOYERS: You know, everyone seems to agree that our deficits are unsustainable, that something has to give. And many Democrats, some privately, some publicly say Social Security has to be quote "fixed." Now I was there in the White House with President Johnson when Medicare was passed. And I've often said that if Democrats don't take the lead in fixing Medicare, the opponents will. How do we fix Social Security and Medicare? From a progressive standpoint?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Okay, they're two separate issues. Okay. Social Security, as you know, is funded by the payroll tax. So despite what our right-wing friends are going to tell us, Social Security has not contributed one nickel to the deficit, because it's funded independently. In fact the Social Security Trust Fund, according to the Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus. Surplus.

Can pay out every benefit for the next 21 years. When Barack Obama ran for president four years ago, he had a very simple and good idea. He said, "Okay, let's lift the cap on taxable income so that instead of having a ceiling of $110,000 now, you lift that cap, start at $250,000." And you know what, Bill? You do that, just that one simple thing, Social Security will be solvent for the next 75 years. That's your solution to Social Security.

Medicare, Medicaid are more complicated issues. And that takes us to the whole issue, why we end up spending more per capita on health care than any other nation, any other major nation. In my view, we have got to move toward a Medicare for all, single-payer system. And by the way, I hope that Vermont leads the nation in that direction.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you know, I, another of the letters that came in on our website were from a man named Chrys Barnes. "How can single payer advocates rise from the ranks of marginalized fringe groups to getting an actual seat at the bargaining table?"

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, in my state, by the way, we're not marginalized. We have a governor who now supports a Medicare for all, single-payer system.

BILL MOYERS: Governor Shumlin.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: That's right. And we have a legislature that does. And we have the people who do it. I would say to your writer there, that I think the action is probably in the short term, at least, not going to take place in Washington. It's going to take place in the state level. And if Vermont or perhaps some other state can show that you can provide health care to every man, woman, and child in a cost-effective way, other states are going to say, "You know what? We would like to do that, as well." It spreads; Washington finally acts. But currently, the system is dysfunctional. It is a disaster. It is enormously wasteful. We need fundamental changes.

BILL MOYERS: Do you look at the Democratic leadership as your leadership? And if you do, doesn't that compromise you as an Independent?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I'm a compromised every day of my life. It's a hard life. You know, there are Democrats, including Harry Reid, who are good friends of mine and who I work with. And there are other people in the Democratic caucus, who on many issues are no different than Republicans. So what you got to do is you do the best that you can.

In terms of the Fed, for example, the Federal reform. We got into the financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank important language, which for the first time provided an audit of the Fed so that we learned that $16 trillion was lent out to every major financial institution, et cetera, et cetera. So--

BILL MOYERS: Low-interest loans that they were getting. It wasn't just the bailout, right? It was the—

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Above and beyond the bailout.

BILL MOYERS: Exactly, right. We're coming up on the fourth anniversary of the collapse of this economy. We were on the cliff and almost over. Do you think the reforms that have come in the consequence, in the aftermath of that, is sufficient to prevent it from happening again?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Do we have eight and a half hours to talk about the issue?

BILL MOYERS: You had that one shot in your life. Don't think you’ll get it again.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Bill, look, I don't think any sane person believes that this economy or the middleclass is really going to recover until we deal with the greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior on Wall Street, in my humble opinion. Fraud is the business model for Wall Street. Right now, to answer your question, of course, the answer is no. We made some modest, modest little steps, which the moneyed interests are now trying to push aside.

We now have in this country six financial institutions led by J.P. Morgan Chase, which collectively have assets equivalent to two-thirds of the G.D.P. of the United States of America. Over $9 trillion. They write half of the mortgages in this country and two-thirds of the credit cards, okay? Three out of the four large financial institutions that we bailed out because they were too big to fail are today bigger than they were before we bailed them out.

Now, if this were Teddy Roosevelt were president of the United States, what do you think he would say? He’d say, "Break these babies up." Let's create a system where the financial institutions actually invest and lend money into the productive economy, where businesses are trying to produce products or create services, not the kind of casino, this horrendous, ugly casino that we have on Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: But Senator Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate said to me and to others that the banks, Wall Street, those six firms now own the Senate.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: That's right. That's all absolutely right.

BILL MOYERS: How are you going to, how are you going to get a reform there, when they—

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, that takes us back to another issue that Dick and I and others are working on. And that is public funding of elections. I'll give you an example. I was on-- when I-- it was in the House. It was on the House Financial Services Committee. So Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin and all of these guys and they said, "We have to deregulate Wall Street. We have to allow the commercial banks to merge with the investor banks, to merge with the insurance companies, so they can compete globally."

You had to be a moron to actually believe that. I didn't believe that. I don't think most of the American people thought that Alan Greenspan made any sense at all. Wall Street over a ten-year period, Bill, spent $5 billion dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions. And they got what they wanted with Democratic support.

BILL MOYERS: And?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: We are where we are. And how do you take them on?

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, you need a political revolution. You need a grassroots mobilization which says among other things, "You got to break these banks up." We need a financial system which supports the productive economy and job creation.

BILL MOYERS: But that's a conundrum, because, you know, some people criticize you because you're what they call "too cordial" to the Democratic Party. On the other hand, some people who support you say, "Well, if he is not cordial to the Democratic Party, he won't be able to slip a progressive idea in here and there." That's a tight rope to watch, isn't it?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: It is. It certainly is. You know, ever since my-- when I was first elected back in 1990 to the House—

BILL MOYERS: As a socialist.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: As an Independent. But, if you ask me, am I a democratic socialist, consistent with what goes on in Scandinavia? I am.

BILL MOYERS: Which means?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Which means that health care should be a right of all people, that higher education should be a right and kids shouldn't graduate $50,000 in debt, which means that we should pass legislation that represents the interests of working families, not big money interest, which means that we should be aggressive in reversing global warming and protecting the environment for future generations. You know, which means that workers earn a decent wage. All of these ideas, which people have talked about from Eugene Debs on, you know, for 200 years.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, but somewhere in socialist heaven, Senator Patrick Moynihan is looking down and say, "Go on, Bernie, go on, I’m with you" Right, right?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Maybe.

BILL MOYERS: But, you know, the right says that Obama is a socialist. They keep calling him a socialist. Can you prove he's not a socialist?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Can I prove he's not a socialist? Yeah. Look at his record. He is not a socialist. I mean, that's-- I mean, to be a socialist, a democratic socialist is to say, "Hey, we have 15 percent of our people unemployed today, that's the reality, or underemployed, some, close to 25 million workers. We are going to have a jobs program to put those people back to work. We're going to deal with the deficit in a progressive way."

Bill, among all of the other issues out there, what really drives me a little bit nuts, and we don't talk about it, is distribution of wealth and income in this country. Distribution of wealth, I want people to listen up on this one. You got one family, the Walton Family of Walmart, that now own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. One family, top one percent owns 41 percent of the wealth in America. The bottom 60 percent, you want to take a guess? Now I'm going to ask you the question.

BILL MOYERS: No, I ask the questions. You can ask it and answer it.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: It's less than two percent. Can you believe that? One percent owns 41 percent. Bottom 60 percent owns less than two percent. And with that grotesquely immoral and unfair distribution of wealth and income, these billionaire guys putting this money under their mattresses. They are saying, "I’m the Koch brothers, I got $50 billion. Hey, that’s not enough, I need to invest $400 million in this campaign so I get more tax breaks on whatever it may be." So they’re using their money and their power to create an even more unfair America.

BILL MOYERS: Are we at a tipping point between what we think of as democracy and oligarchy, which is the political rule by the wealthy?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Bill, I think we are. I think if you add up this grotesquely unfair distribution of wealth where so few have so much money. When you look at the economic power of Wall Street and other very powerful corporate entities, and then you look at Citizens United and the ability of these people to fund elections, I believe, you know, you may have the trappings of a democracy. But I believe for all intent and purposes, you're looking at a situation where a handful of families will control the economic and political life of this nation, unless we educate, organize, and take these guys on.

BILL MOYERS: How do you explain as an experienced politician, the fact that despite the Republican Convention and the Democratic Convention and all that's happened, we have a country that's divided 45 percent to 45 percent, maybe 46 percent to 46 percent, with about three percent to five percent of the voters undecided? And most of the experts say that's where the-- that's where the election will be decided with three percent to five percent. How do you explain that close division?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Okay, I look at it a little bit differently. This is what I think. I think we know where the Republicans are. The Republican Party over a period of years has moved from what we call a center-right party. And we used to have governors and senators coming from Vermont, who were Republicans. But you know what? They were sane human beings that actually were concerned about education, the environment, more conservative than you and me. They weren't crazies.

The party has now moved to the extreme right, all right? That's the Republican Party. The problem is the Democratic Party, if you go out, it is beyond my mind, Bill, that you have a Democratic Party of F.D.R. of L.B.J. that today is losing by a significant percentage the White working class of this country and senior citizens. The party that created Social Security and Medicare is losing the vote of seniors and white working class people. How does that happen?

It happens because they are not there making it clear. Listen to Roosevelt's speeches in 1936. He'd say, "Hey, the big money interests hate me. I welcome their hatred, 'cause I'm standing with the unemployed and working peoples." You hear that coming from too many Democrats right now? So yeah, the Democrats have become a party which does some good things, environment, women, gay issues, very good. Protecting white, well, not white, any working class people. They're not strong.

BILL MOYERS: How do they get them back? Not that you're in the business advising Democrats, but what, how do they get them back?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, let me tell you for a start. President of the United States goes on television, holds a press conference just to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to tell you, there's a lot of pressure for me to cut Social Security. Ain't going to happen. Bill comes before me, I'm going to veto it. Social Security is solvent. I'm going to make it solvent for 75 years. And I want every working person in this country to know Social Security will be there for them."

I think that would be dramatic. Number two, an issue that, again, there's been a lot of collusion between Democrats and Republicans about. And that is our disastrous trade policy. When I was in the House, the corporate entities, Chamber of Commerce, "free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, will be the greatest thing since sliced bread." All right?

The end result is that in the last ten years, we have seen 55,000 factories in America shut down, millions of decent-paying jobs lost. You go out to elderly people and they say, "I can't buy a product made in America anymore. Where are the factories? Where are the decent-paying jobs?" So I would like to see the president get up there and say, "You know what? We're going to rethink our trade policies. I want corporate America to start investing in America, not in China."

Other things that he could be doing, certainly, I think the much maligned stimulus bill, to my mind, was one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in my lifetime, in my state, money into bridges, into roads, into Head Start, into sustainable energy, created 6,000, 7,000 jobs when we needed it a whole lot. You need more of that. I just got off a plane a little while ago. Believe me, our airports are in trouble. Roads, bridges, schools, water systems, waste water plants. Let's put people back to work.

BILL MOYERS: There was a report just last weekend on N.P.R., National Public Radio, 8,000 bridges in this country in need of serious reconstruction. And that would put a lot of people to work. But you can't seem to get Washington's attention on those particularities.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Look, you got in-- this is an example where the president has got to go to every state in this country and say, "We can create jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure." And then he has to remind people that when Clinton left office and Bush came in, we had a $236 billion surplus.

And I happen to believe that Paul Ryan and his friends are total and absolute hypocrites on the deficit issue. They voted for two wars, didn't pay for it, gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich, didn't offset it. Passed a Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies, $400 billion over a ten-year period, didn't pay for it. Now, after all of that, they think we have to cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

BILL MOYERS: This is going to be the big issue after the election, when we face the problem of those staggering debts, the Bush tax cuts and the other issues that are facing us. What will you be watching for in that period when we're on the edge of the so-called fiscal cliff? And the president, it'll be Obama. He'll still be in the White House, even if he loses in November, negotiates with the Congress. What are you going to be watching for?

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, it's taking place right now. I don't have to watch after the election. Right now, you have CEOs, meeting with Democrats and Republicans, trying to work out some kind of deficit reduction plan. If some of us and the American people are not successful in stopping them, there will be cuts in Social Security, I suspect Medicare and Medicaid. Not anywhere near as Draconian as what the Republicans, let alone, want.

There is an answer to the deficit crisis. And that is when you have this grotesquely unequal distribution of wealth and income, somebody's going to have to say, "Hey, what, you're a billionaire, you know what, you're going to have to contribute." One quarter of American corporations don't pay anything in taxes. We're losing $100 billion a year, because these companies are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. There are ways to deal with the deficit without attacking the middleclass and working class of this country, who are already reeling and in pain.

BILL MOYERS: Senator Bernie Sanders, thanks for being with me and happy birthday to you.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you very much, Bill. My pleasure to be with you.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Building Progressive Momentum: 5 Ballot Initiatives Lead the Way Print
Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:30

Monaco writes: "From challenging Citizens United to protecting collective bargaining rights, grassroots groups are using ballot initiatives to push back against austerity initiatives and revitalize our economy."

Chicago Cubs fan Jessica Polte signs a petition urging the team to move their spring training camp out of Arizona. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Chicago Cubs fan Jessica Polte signs a petition urging the team to move their spring training camp out of Arizona. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)


Building Progressive Momentum: 5 Ballot Initiatives Lead the Way

By Charles Monaco, YES! Magazine

13 September 12

 

From challenging Citizens United to protecting collective bargaining rights, grassroots groups are using ballot initiatives to push back against austerity initiatives and revitalize our economy.

he ballot initiative process, which provides an injection of direct democracy in twenty-four states, often ends up helping the right wing. For years, deep-pocketed funders have backed ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage, restrict reproductive rights, or make it nearly impossible for elected state legislatures to raise taxes-hurting families and helping to tank state budgets.

Often, the process plays out like a game of tug-of-war. Two years ago, the rightward shift in control of state legislatures presaged a wave of legislative attacks on workers, women, immigrants, voters, and the middle class. But then a funny thing happened: Voters pushed back at the polls.

After the attack on collective bargaining in Wisconsin, voters engaged in a recall effort that flipped control of the state senate. Ohio voters last November repealed SB 5 by a wide margin, a law that would have limited collective bargaining rights for public employees. And the people of Mississippi soundly rejected an amendment claiming that life begins at conception, which would have rendered many forms of contraception illegal.

This fall, voters in some states and cities will have the chance to do more than just push back. Initiatives are on the ballot that would directly confront the destruction that austerity economics has wrought on communities, while building national momentum behind policies to revitalize our economy and protect our democracy. All kinds of issues are at stake, from workers' rights to corporate influence in politics, to whether corporations and the luckiest few will pay their fair share in taxes. While voters will be electing a president, governors, Congress, and thousands of state legislators this November 6, here are a few places where a progressive vision will also be on the ballot:

Michigan: Guaranteeing Collective Bargaining Rights

Following attempts to roll back collective bargaining rights in states including Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio, voters in Michigan will have a chance to enshrine those rights in their state constitution by approving the "Protect Our Jobs" amendment. Conservative groups took to the courts in an attempt to keep the amendment off the ballot, but the state Supreme Court ultimately agreed with a lower court decision and ensured the measure will go before voters on Election Day.

A coalition of unions, small businesses, and other organizations is supporting the proposal, which would amend the state constitution by establishing "the people's rights to organize to form, join or assist unions and to bargain collectively with public or private employers." It would also prohibit employers or governments from interfering with those rights.

Unsurprisingly, the same corporate interests who have bankrolled legislative efforts to undermine labor in state after state also continue to fight this amendment. As of late August, according to the coalition leading the campaign, corporate spending on TV and radio ads against the proposal had reached $6.45 million (including time reserved for future ads), while only $1.73 million had been spent on ads backing the proposal. Yet despite this onslaught, an August Detroit News poll showed a 19-point margin of support for this effort to advance a positive vision of workers' rights.

California: A Compromise Includes Millionaire's Tax

California is one of 16 states that impose some sort of supermajority vote requirement on their state legislature if they seek to raise taxes. This has long been an obstacle to progressives seeking to avoid austerity budgets and destructive cuts. In California, ballot initiatives are one way around that obstacle. A set of competing initiatives was originally proposed for this fall's ballot in the Golden State, including a millionaire's tax backed by the California Federation of Teachers, the Courage Campaign, and other progressive organizations.

The measure as originally written would have permanently raised tax rates on earned income over $1 million. However, Governor Jerry Brown introduced a rival initiative (with the support of unions like the SEIU and the California Teachers Association) that he said would offer a "shared sacrifice." That bill would have temporarily increased income tax rates on earnings over $250,000, while also increasing sales taxes.

Earlier this year, the two camps reached a compromise on a single initiative to raise both sales and income taxes. Proposition 30 would raise the sales tax from 7.25 to 7.5 percent, while creating three new high-income brackets that will see increased tax rates for the next seven years. While two other less popular tax initiatives will also be on the ballot, a July field poll showed voters favoring Proposition 30 by a margin of 54 to 38 percent.

Other measures to support new or existing state revenue increases will be on the ballot this fall in both Washington and Oregon. As the expiration of the Bush tax cuts approaches, West Coast voters have a chance to show Congress and the nation as a whole that Americans support a responsible approach to revenue-and asking the luckiest few to pay their fair share.

Oregon: Putting Money into K-12 Classrooms Instead of Lining the Pockets of Corporations

In Oregon, the fight against austerity economics is being thrown into sharp relief by a ballot initiative that would reform a 33-year-old state corporate tax refund to the benefit of the state's kids. Measure 85, or the "Corporate Kicker for K-12 Schools" initiative, would amend the state constitution so that so-called "kicker" state tax refunds-which are currently returned to corporations when tax revenues exceed predicted values by more than 2 percent for a given budget cycle-are instead invested into Oregon classrooms.

According to Our Oregon, one of the main backers of Measure 85, the corporate "kicker" has only been triggered five times since 1989. In 2007, the legislature voted to temporarily suspend the corporate "kicker," diverting $344 million to a surplus "rainy day fund" account instead. Since then, legislative attempts to reform or eliminate the corporate "kicker" have met stiff resistance, so proponents of reform turned in over 200,000 signatures in July to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. Our Oregon claims the measure would primarily affect large out-of-state corporations, which receive the bulk of "kicker" refunds.

Oregon has proven receptive to this type of effort before. The state bucked the national austerity trend at the height of national Tea Party mania in January 2010 by approving tax increases on corporations and high-income earners at the ballot box. This year, at least some initial signs are promising. A few weeks ago, a state commission of 24 randomly selected citizens voted 19-5 in favor of a report that will be summarized in a state-issued voters' guide recommending that voters approve the initiative (despite the fact that the initiative's own supporters did not support the Citizens' Initiative Review Commission process).

Florida (Orange County): Ensuring Access to Earned Sick Days

Orange County, which includes the city of Orlando, is a swing region in the middle of a swing state, where voters will have the chance to decide on a key protection for workers that is gaining momentum across the nation. The county's Earned Sick Time measure would ensure that workers in businesses with 15 or more employees get one hour of paid sick time for every 37 hours worked, up to about seven days of sick time a year for an average full-time worker.

Corporate interests have responded by attempting to introduce a competing and intentionally confusing ballot measure intended to appear side-by-side with the earned sick days proposal-a move described by Citizens for a Greater Orange County, the main group backing the Earned Sick Time measure, as a "sneak attack... to undermine the will of Orange County voters."

With nearly 40 percent of private sector workers and more than 80 percent of those in the lowest-wage jobs lacking access to paid sick time nationwide, cities and states have been taking the lead in ensuring that no worker needs to worry about losing a job just because they or a family member get sick. In 2011, Connecticut became the first state to pass a statewide paid sick-leave bill, and Hawaii and Massachusetts both saw progress on efforts this year. If successful, Orange County would join localities including San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle, the last of which just enacted their paid sick-days policy earlier this month.

Update: The fate of the Orange County Earned Sick Days initiative became even more unclear on September 11 as county commissioners voted to hire an outside attorney to review the proposal's text and report back in a month, which would prevent the measure from appearing on the November ballot. State Rep. Scott Randolph called the move "a clear setup" and "a flagrant violation of the [county] charter."

Montana: Taking On Citizens United

Somewhat lost among the momentous Supreme Court decisions this summer was the Court's summary reversal of a 100-year-old Montana law that conflicted with Citizens United, the case that opened the floodgates to corporate money in the 2010 elections. The Court's ruling in June of this year overturned that law, which had banned corporate contributions to political campaigns. Montana was not alone in defending their campaign finance law; their argument was joined by 22 state attorneys general.

Even as the Court was considering this case, an effort was already underway in the state to qualify a ballot measure that would confront the overriding issue of corporate influence in politics. That measure, the Corporate Contributions Initiative, would "establish" it to be state policy that "corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings." How an initiative could require officials to take a specific position on policy either logistically or legally is unclear, but even as an advisory measure, the effort could have a big impact in the growing debate over corporate personhood nationwide.

As Governor Brian Schweitzer told one reporter, "the initiative has very good prospects in Montana, but what we're trying to do is start a prairie fire." Indeed, other organizations and coalitions, including Common Cause and Move to Amend, are simultaneously working to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. That effort was recently endorsed by President Obama himself, who noted in response to a questioner on Reddit that, "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight [on] the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change." The President's comment was a reminder of the role that ballot measures can play in building popular support for change on a wide range of issues-and of the need for continued grassroots pressure on these issues in every state, no matter who wins the big electoral contest this fall.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Larry Gibson, Appalachian Hero Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11243"><span class="small">Ted Glick, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 12 September 2012 16:08

Glick writes: "Larry didn't just model courage. He modeled steadfastness, a kind of humble steadfastness despite his town of Kayford literally being destroyed."

Larry Gibson, a tireless activist and founder of the Keepers of the Mountain Foundation, died of a heart attack on Sunday at his Kayford Mountain home. (photo: Ohio Citizen Action)
Larry Gibson, a tireless activist and founder of the Keepers of the Mountain Foundation, died of a heart attack on Sunday at his Kayford Mountain home. (photo: Ohio Citizen Action)


Larry Gibson, Appalachian Hero

By Ted Glick, Reader Supported News

12 September 12


Reader Supported News | Perspective

 

Larry Gibson, the Keeper of the Mountains, died of a heart attack on Sunday at Kayford Mountain, West Virginia. Larry was a leader in the fight against the destructive and polluting coal extraction processes, Mountaintop Removal. -- CW/RSN

 

r. Dan Berrigan wrote a poem, "Some," that I thought of after hearing of Appalachian hero Larry Gibson's death two days ago:

Some stood up once
and sat down.
Some walked a mile
and walked away.
Some stood up twice
then sat down.
I've had it, they said

Some walked two miles
then walked away.
It's too much, they cried

Some stood and stood and stood.
They were taken for fools
They were taken for being taken in.

Some walked and walked and walked
They walked the earth
They walked the waters
They walked the air.

Why do you stand
they were asked, and
Why do you walk?

Because of the children, they said, and
Because of the heart, and
Because of the bread.
Because
The cause
Is the heart's beat
And the children born
And the risen bread.

I didn't know Larry well, but I interacted with him in a number of settings over the past several years as I've done what I can to act in solidarity with the movement against mountaintop removal (mtr). I spent the most time with him during the weeklong March on Blair Mountain in June of 2011. Larry was with us every day of that march, wearing his neon green Keepers of the Mountain t-shirt and driving his covered truck with its very visible signs against mtr all along the route we walked.

It really felt like Larry was watching over us, letting anyone who might be thinking of disrupting our five-day-long march know that if they did so, they'd have to deal with him.

I remember Larry speaking on the evening of the second day. We were back in the Marmet warehouse near Charlestown, West Virginia, which had functioned as the organizing center for the march, forced to return there for the second night in a row because of coal company pressure leading to the cancellation of our camping locations. Larry reminded us of what we were doing and why, of the many years of struggle he and other Appalachians had endured, and ended with a call for everyone to make plans to get up very early the next morning so we could make up for time we had lost. He got a rousing ovation, raising our flagging spirits and motivating us for what lay ahead. He did his job.

At another point, Larry spoke about the time many years earlier when he had been forced to the side of the road by coal trucks while riding in his truck. He described how he pulled his gun out, placed it on the dashboard, went outside and proceeded to talk his way out of this dangerous situation. He described how he asked the coal company workers if they thought their kids were going to have decent jobs in Appalachia when they grew up. Larry described how he could tell from the look in their eyes and their body language that he had gotten through, and, this time, he wasn't hurt. The workers got in their trucks and left and he was able to continue on.

Larry didn't just model courage. He modeled steadfastness, a kind of humble steadfastness despite his town of Kayford literally being destroyed while Larry and his family refused to sell out or give in to the coal barons destroying Kayford Mountain. I am sure that, in Dan Berrigan's words, he was "taken for a fool" by too many who didn't have his courage or his passion for standing and walking for what is right.

I would guess that he wouldn't want us to get all sentimental and weepy about his passing, though I must admit I've cried more than once since getting the news of his death. He would want us to do what the late Judy Bonds called for, that we "fight harder." He would want us to stand stronger. He would want us to draw strength from his example, this little man with a heart as big as the forests where he lived, worked and died for the land and its people.

 


Ted Glick is the National Campaigns Coordinator of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. Past writings and other information can be found at http://tedglick.com, and he can be followed on twitter at http://twitter.com/jtglick.

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
 
We're Not 'The Entitlement Generation' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=17524"><span class="small">Sandra Fluke, Reader Supported News </span></a>   
Wednesday, 12 September 2012 16:06

Fluke writes: "Over the last seven months, I hope I've made it clear that I won't let personal attacks (or lies about my professional history) stop me from fighting for the policies I believe in."

Sandra Fluke with President Obama. (photo: Getty Images)
Sandra Fluke with President Obama. (photo: Getty Images)


We're Not 'The Entitlement Generation'

By Sandra Fluke, Reader Supported News

12 September 12

 

ast weekend, Representative Walsh said he was "offended" by me, a "life-time student," and that he wanted me to stop acting "entitled" and "get a job." He explained that it wasn't my fault because my generation has been raised this way and doesn't know how to take care of ourselves.

Over the last seven months, I hope I've made it clear that I won't let personal attacks (or lies about my professional history) stop me from fighting for the policies I believe in. But I also won't stand by when a U.S. Representative blatantly misrepresents a policy that benefits struggling women in this country, or when he disparages my generation.

I testified before members of Congress not because "I wanted the American people to pay for my contraception," but because I wanted the private insurance that women pay for themselves to cover the contraception they need. I was there to tell, not my own, but the story of a close friend who, despite paying her deductible, lost an ovary when she was unable to afford the contraception her insurance failed to cover, but that she needed to treat her polycystic ovarian syndrome.

My friend was not alone. Hart Research Associates found that 55% of young women ages 18-34 report having had difficulty affording the contraception they need to treat medical conditions or to prevent unintended pregnancies. That's no surprise when you realize that for some women contraception can cost as much as $960 per year ($1,210 with the doctor's appointment), according to the Center for American Progress.

But what if I had been there to ask that the government help fund contraception? Federal programs like Title X exist to guarantee the poorest women in our communities affordable access to birth control. Those programs are under attack in Congress and by Gov. Romney, but they're good public policy. They ensure that all American women can control the timing of when they start a family, not just more privileged women. That allows women to set the course of their lives, pursuing their educational dreams and career goals, and allowing the rest of us to benefit from all that they accomplish. Not only do those policies help us create a more equitable society, they prevent unintended pregnancies that can add to the strain on our society's safety nets.

Rep. Walsh and many conservative voices would reduce that sound public policy to evidence of my generation's "entitlement," our reliance on "government [to] take care of [us]."

But my generation doesn't deserve to be labeled 'The Entitlement Generation.' We've supported Title X and fought for the Affordable Care Act's contraception policy, not necessarily because we believe we are automatically entitled to them, but because our vision for the future doesn't leave our fellow citizens behind. We've stood against Representative Ryan's budget attacks on Pell Grants, food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid because we believe in a future in which we come together as a society to help those who are struggling financially, not one in which we tell them that they're on their own. This isn't about not knowing how to take care of ourselves -- it's about knowing we should take care of each other.

Yet, we're not entirely altruistic either. By fighting to protect our nation's social safety net, we ensure that all members of society have a chance to contribute, producing a diversity of ideas that benefits society as a whole. We've seen that affordable access to contraception allows women to contribute their talents to our companies, and the same is true of the host of economic supports under attack. Without President Obama's investment in Pell Grants, over three million additional students (nearly ten million total) might not have been able to afford to attend college last year. The majority of Pell Grant recipients are students of color from economically depressed backgrounds, so we know exactly which perspectives and voices the rest of us would be deprived of.

So we agree that "we've got Americans who are struggling." Our question is why so many elected officials have only one answer for them: cutting their safety net while telling them to "go get a job." My generation is looking for better answers than that.



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
 
FOCUS | Romney Poses, as Militants Kill US Ambassador Print
Wednesday, 12 September 2012 12:00

Cole writes: "Predictably, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tried to make political hay of the tiny demonstrations in Cairo and Benghazi by Muslim militants."

Juan Cole; public intellectual, prominent blogger, essayist and professor of history. (photo: Informed Comment)
Juan Cole; public intellectual, prominent blogger, essayist and professor of history. (photo: Informed Comment)


Romney Poses, as Militants Kill US Ambassador

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

12 September 12

 

redictably, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tried to make political hay of the tiny demonstrations in Cairo and Benghazi by Muslim militants. The Benghazi mob turned violent in clashes with police and the consulate ended up being burned and an embassy staffer is said to have been the US ambassador and three staffers were killed.

Romney seized on the frantic tweets of the Cairo embassy issued *before the attacks*, which condemned the sleazy Youtube videos by American Islamophobes that had provoked the ire of the crowds, as evidence that the Obama administration was siding with the attacking mobs. First of all, really? Romney is trying to get elected on the back of a dead US diplomat? Second of all, really? He thinks the State Department thought the attack on themselves was justified? Third of all, really? Romney is selective. When it comes to Christianity, Romney decries a 'war on religion.' But apparently he thinks there *should* be a war on Islamic religion. (Except that Romney hopimself condemned Terry Jones's Qur'an burning a couple of years ago.) Romney's intervention (he is just a civilian at the moment) in American foreign policy is unwise and risky, not to mention distasteful.

The victory in the Libyan elections of nationalist rather than fundamentalist forces, and the rise to power in Egypt of the relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood has marginalized the militant strain of Muslim activism, known coloquially as ‘jihadis' because of their emphasis on vigilante violence. The vigilante fundamentalists were small but dangerous groups in Muammar Qaddafi's Libya and in Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, and both governments reacted by attacking them and arbitrarily imprisoning them.

The vigilante fundamentalists typically reject elections and democracy, as inauthentic Western imports, and they are headline whores, plotting out attention-grabbing mob actions. These jihadis are tiny groups in Egypt and Libya, though sometimes well-armed and well-trained.

You could make an analogy to the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, which just has perhaps 5,000 active members. But people like Wade Michael Page, who had applied for Klan membership, can make a media splash by simply shooting down people at e.g. a Sikh Temple.

One way the fundamentalist vigilantes can hope to combat their marginalization and political irrelevance in the wake of the Arab Spring is to manufacture a controversy that forces people to side with them. I suspect that is what they were doing in Egypt and Libya, in front of the US embassy in Cairo and at the rump consulate in Benghazi.

That the jihadis could not get bigger crowds up for their demonstrations suggests that they are seen as crackpots by their neighbors. In Libya, their actions may be a catalyst to the new prime minister, to be named today, to spearhead a concerted effort to build new police and army forces on a faster timetable than had the transitional national council. Secular and nationalist Libyans have already announced a peaceful demonstration against the violence at Martyrs' Square in Benghazi for Wednesday afternoon. I doubt the incidents will have long-term political significance. The Neocons will say they are symptoms of the so-called ‘Islamic winter' after the Arab Spring, but that is just a way of making sure Western youth don't identify (as they did during Tahrir) with Arab youth, marking them as a fundamentalist and threatening Other. There isn't any ‘Islamic winter' in Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt just barely squeaked by to win the presidency against a secular candidate– hardly a landslide.

The pretext for the demonstrations/ attacks was a youtube film by Muslim-hater Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American ‘produced' by provocateur Rev. Terry Jones, he of the Qur'an-burning fame. Things were made worse that two expatriate Coptic Christians are said to have been involved in the film. About ten percent of Egyptians are Christians, and the Muslim militants sometimes attack them. The Israeli right wing and its American supporters have a vested interest in driving a wedge between Americans and the Muslim world, since Muslims on the whole stand against the Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank, the major project of the Israeli right wing. Good relations between the Muslim world and the United States might sway the latter to withdraw support for Israeli expansionism and aggression.

Although some of the Egyptian demonstrators may have, as Ashraf Khalil argues, sincerely thought that the films demeaning the Prophet Muhammad were being widely shown in American theaters on on television, I think the jihadis' leadership cynically manufactured this ‘crisis' in order to grab headlines and force the post-revolutionary governments to take a stand. If they stood with the Americans, they'd be guilty of blasphemy themselves. If they stood with the jihadis, they'd have surrendered some legitimacy to the latter. There is a third possibility, which is to deploy police or army against the vigilantes on grounds they had disturbed the peace, and simply declaring that the US embassy isn't responsible for all the nonsense put up on Youtube.

In Egypt, the small crowd of 1500 just gathered outside the embassy walls (the Cairo embassy is a kind of fortress in the tony Garden City district). At one point they tore down an American flag flying outside the embassy grounds and ran up the black flag favored by militants. (Those black flags are freely sold in Tahrir Square and elsewhere, and aren't necessarily al-Qaeda flags. They just denote militancy and a desire for a fundamentalist government). Al-Masry al-Yawm has photos.

In Benghazi, the crowd of militants that gathered at the consulate may have turned violent in response to police or army intervention. The consulate was just a building in which the US set up during the Libyan Revolution, when Benghazi was the rebel capital, and which they kept going as a consulate after they reopened the US embassy in Tripoli. I met with a consulate official in early June there, and she wasn't even sure the US would keep the consulate open. The small crowd in Benghazi turned violent, and at least one of its members had a rocket propelled grenade launcher, which he either loosed against the police and missed, hitting the consulate, or which he targeted the consulate with deliberately. (Hard to know which). The consulate caught fire and burned to the ground, and in the chaotic violence, the ambassador and the three staffers were killed. The killings were vehemently condemned by the Libyan government, which pledged to punish the perpetrators.

Libya had parliamentary elections in July, in which the Muslim fundamentalists did poorly, with nationalists winning out. Some 20 percent of those elected were women. A couple of neighborhoods in Benghazi are known for their strident fundamentalism, and jihadis did not allow a couple of polling stations in the city to open (though the vast majority of the city voted).

There is a small militant cell in Benghazi that has some RPGs and grenades. They have attacked the Red Cross offices, a convoy of the British consulate, and set off a pipe bomb in front of the US consulate last month. Most people in Benghazi are appalled by these extremists. The collapse of the authoritarian government of Muammar Qaddafi has left Libya without much in the way of professional police and army, both of which have to be rebuilt as institutions functioning in a democratic republic rather than as narrow instruments of oppression, control and torture.

What happened in Benghazi was the action of a tiny fringe, sort of like Ku Klux Klan violence in the US. It isn't typical of the new Libya, and Benghazi is not a lawless or militia-ridden city. One of the narratives of what happened there, in fact, is that the police may have been *too* heavy-handed in an attempt to curb the militants' demonstration, provoking the latter to bring out their one RPG launcher.

The crowds both in Egypt and Libya were tiny. Their militancy is not typical of Egypt or Libya today, both of which are struggling toward more democratic forms of governance. In Cairo, there may have been a failure of policing; police in Egypt feel unfairly demonized because they had been seen as bulwarks of the Mubarak regime, and they often decline to show up to their jobs as a result of this low morale. This police foot-dragging has allowed an increase in petty crime, though Cairo is still far safer than most Western cities.

The government of Egypt is still pretty powerful, and will likely act to curb the militants, as it did in the Sinai recently. A merely fundamentalist president, Muhammad Morsi, probably cannot allow this challenge from the militants to pass. Moreover, this kind of thing is bad for tourism, a major part of the Egyptian economy, which had just begun improving this year after the turmoil of 2011.

On the other hand, there could be more trouble. The Egyptian Actors Guild announced an emergency meeting to study how to respond to the film smearing the Prophet. It may be that this obscure Youtube video could be taken unduly seriously even by the Egyptian mainstream.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 Next > End >>

Page 3262 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