RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
A Rot in Honduras That Goes All the Way to the Top Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43261"><span class="small">Hilary Goodfriend, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 27 May 2020 08:31

Goodfriend writes: "A full investigation into the murder of Honduran indigenous leader Berta Cáceres doesn't just uncover the story behind her assassination. It also provides a glimpse into the US-backed militarized narco-state of post-coup Honduras."

Berta Cáceres, Honduran environmental activist and indigenous leader, was murdered on March 2, 2016. (photo: Jacobin)
Berta Cáceres, Honduran environmental activist and indigenous leader, was murdered on March 2, 2016. (photo: Jacobin)


A Rot in Honduras That Goes All the Way to the Top

By Hilary Goodfriend, Jacobin

27 May 20


A full investigation into the murder of Honduran indigenous leader Berta Cáceres doesn’t just uncover the story behind her assassination. It also provides a glimpse into the US-backed militarized narco-state of post-coup Honduras.

ear midnight on March 2, 2016, armed gunmen broke into Berta Cáceres’s house in La Esperanza, Honduras. She was shot three times. Mexican environmentalist Gustavo Castro, visiting for a workshop, played dead after a bullet went through his hand and mangled his ear. When the assassins left, Berta called out to her friend, who rushed to hold her as she died.

In a new book from Verso, Who Killed Berta Cáceres? Dams, Death Squads, and an Indigenous Defender’s Battle for the Planet, journalist Nina Lakhani recounts the events surrounding the murder of the celebrated movement leader. Part biography, part murder mystery, Lakhani’s research reveals the vast dimensions of the conspiracy to assassinate Berta, as well as the disturbing questions that continue to haunt the case.

Berta gained international renown after winning the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize in 2015. But she was a lifelong radical. Berta participated in the Honduran national liberation struggles of the 1980s, resisted the country’s neoliberal reforms of the 1990s, and was a leader in the movement against the 2009 coup d’état that toppled president Manuel Zelaya and the ensuing authoritarian regimes. She spent her last days defending indigenous lands and waters from the imposition of a hydroelectric dam in Honduras’s Río Blanco community.

The title question, “who killed Berta Cáceres?”, has several answers: there’s the hit men who pulled the trigger, the corporate bosses who ordered the hit, the narco-state that fostered crooked industries, and the imperialist power that propped up the narco-state and trained its mercenaries. Lakhani’s chronicle of Berta’s death is a chilling indictment of global capitalist development and the violence of its uneven patterns of accumulation and dispossession, of which Berta is one casualty among many.

Berta’s Struggles

Berta Cáceres came from a long line of political dissidents. Her grandfather was exiled in El Salvador from dictatorship in the 1930s and 1940s; her eldest brother was a student leader in the 1970s and lent clandestine support to the guerrillas in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the liberation struggles of the 1970s and 1980s. Berta joined her mother, a midwife, on trips to local Salvadoran refugee camps, where they delivered medical aid together with clandestine messages from the guerrilla commanders they frequently harbored at home.

Berta became a militant student activist herself in the 1980s, as she trained to be a schoolteacher. At eighteen, just weeks after birthing her first child, she and her partner, Salvador Zúñiga, traveled to El Salvador to join the guerrilla offensive of November 1989. Lakhani’s book offers a unique glimpse into this little-known chapter of Berta’s militant formation: she served with the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front for months, largely in non-combative roles providing logistics and health care, and returned to El Salvador several times before the war’s end.

In 1993, Berta and Salvador founded the Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras (Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, or COPINH). According to Lakhani, the couple’s experiences with the Salvadoran insurgency convinced them that armed struggle was not a viable strategy for their movement, but they embraced militant direct actions to disrupt extractive industries devastating Lenca territories. Inspired by the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Mexico, COPINH led marches of indigenous communities into Tegucigalpa.

The movement, which soon gained national dimensions, scored important victories, like the 1995 ratification of ILO convention 169 on indigenous self-determination, which allowed for the subsequent designation of protected indigenous territories. COPINH also played a key role in restoring the visibility of and pride in indigenous practices. “Some would argue that Berta’s greatest legacy is the rehabilitation of Lenca culture,” writes Lakhani, which had been suppressed and denigrated by the Ladino capitalist state.

These gains occurred even as the United States and its international financial appendages pushed neoliberal reforms in Honduras and across the region, wrenching the country even further open to transnational capital through deregulation, privatization, and free-trade agreements. The reforms ignited further land struggles, as newly empowered corporations sought to appropriate indigenous territory to build hydroelectric dams, African palm plantations, and privatized “charter cites.”

Berta and Salvador separated in 2000, but the pair continued to lead the organization together for years as indigenous and campesino communities fought to defend their territories from rapacious accumulation, extraction, and exploitation. As Berta’s leadership developed, so did her understanding of the relationships between the systems of oppression she was fighting. Lakhani recounts that it was Berta’s increasing embrace of feminist analysis and practice that fueled an acrimonious split within COPINH in 2013, with Salvador leading a defecting faction to found a new organization.

When democratically elected president Zelaya was ousted in “an old-fashioned coup d’état plotted by a powerful cabal of ultra-right business, political, religious and military players,” — a maneuver shored up by the Clinton State Department — Berta and her comrades found themselves on the front lines on the struggle against dictatorship.

Lakhani quotes Guillermo López Lone, one of several judges unceremoniously removed from the bench for denouncing the coup: “The coup marked a before and after in the country. At first, I thought it was a move against Mel [Zelaya], but actually it was a political decision to expand the economic model and roll-out of extractive industries which his reforms threatened. Congress plotted the coup, and then approved the concessions. Anyone threatening the model had to be sent a message. Berta was a threat to the model.”

The Dam

Lakhani notes the unique history of Hondurass’ ruling class. Compared to the formidable oligarchies of neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, elite landowning families in Honduras were relatively poor and toothless, subordinate to the foreign capital that dominated vast portions of the country’s territory throughout the twentieth century. It wasn’t until the neoliberal restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s that the local bourgeoisie, comprised largely of mid-century immigrant merchants from Europe and Palestine, expanded into the growing industries of maquiladora manufacturing, monoculture crops, and tourism, acquiring significant political power.

In the resource-rich Bajo Aguán, for example, local land baron Miguel Facussé Barjum emerged as a primary adversary for the indigenous and peasant movements that arose in this period. Facussé’s fortune was founded in Dinant Chemical; he acquired vast territory in the Aguán for African palm cultivation for biofuel production, dispossessing indigenous and Garifuna communities of their communal lands through a series of duplicitous dealings, dubious legal maneuvers, and outright violence and fraud.

“This toxic mix of ambition, political connections, bullish tactics and military alliances helped turn the Aguán into one of the deadliest parts of the country,” writes Lakhani. “The violence was fueled by the West’s drive for ‘clean energy’.”

The coup inaugurated an auction of sorts on Honduras’s natural resources. Honduras was “open for business,” as post-coup president Porfirio Lobo declared. Most of these concessions are opaque at best. Following the money in Honduras is hard, Lakhani stresses, and it is only because of COPINH’s attention to the Agua Zarca dam and Berta’s murder that anything is known about the deal.

The dam was licensed in 2010, part of the post-coup corporate free-for-all. The communities around the sacred Río Blanco in the predominantly Lenca region of southwest Honduras are largely subsistence farmers. They enlisted COPINH’s support, using every available institutional channel and direct action to prevent the construction.

The project was granted to Desarrollos Energéticos SA (DESA), and it was backed by the oligarchic Atala family. DESA was founded in 2009 for the sole purpose of the Agua Zarca dam; the company won the contract without conducting the requisite environmental impact study, and it was granted its environmental license without securing the requisite free, prior, and informed consent from the Lenca community, as required per ILO 169. After residents voted 401 to 7 against the project in 2011, the local mayor issued the permits anyway.

As Berta had long suspected, the project received funding from the World Bank Group, which, as Lakhani notes, “has a mandate to give socially responsible development loans to alleviate poverty ... By channeling development money through local intermediaries, the World Bank almost got away with keeping its role in Agua Zarca quiet.”

Honduran billionaire Camilo Atala Faraj’s bank, Ficohsa Honduras, received multimillion-dollar loans from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), and it appears to have invested indirectly in the project. Lakhani traces a loan from Ficohsa Honduras to the DESA majority shareholder that was channeled into the company.

The pool of blood around the DESA project is not Ficohsa’s only liability. Miguel Facussé’s Dinant Corporation is a major client, accused of using private and public security forces as mercenaries to murder campesino leaders in the Bajo Aguán. These and many other cases make the financial organization a dubious partner for community development, but that never stopped the World Bank. The IFC didn’t relinquish its equity share in Ficohsa until after Berta’s murder.

David Castillo, a West Point graduate and sleazy dealmaker, was one of sixteen people indicted for corruption in 2019, part of a massive fraud operation tied to the dam project. He used proxies to create DESA and secure lucrative contracts with his employer, the public energy company. Castillo’s name is connected to an assortment of firms with lucrative “clean” energy contracts with the Honduran government, and many of his industry associates have proven ties to drug trafficking; these contracts were routinely secured through fraud and corruption, including cash bribes from organized crime directly to post-coup president Lobo.

DESA security chief Douglas Geovanny Bustillo, following an eighteen-year career in the military that included US training at the School of the Americas, had served as Lobo’s head of security when he was president of the Congress. Bustillo “immediately put his military intelligence skills to work identifying and cultivating several informants in the communities.” The company was aided by military battalions, which operated out of DESA property, further blurring the line between the state, private capital, and organized crime.

In 2013, COPINH supported the community as it maintained a roadblock encampment for months, during which time protesters were met with sometimes lethal violence from public and private security forces stationed at the site. That fall, Berta was convicted on trumped-up charges for damages to DESA equipment and went underground.

Counterinsurgency

Lakhani traces the counterinsurgent practices deployed by DESA to the US-backed anti-communist doctrine that devastated the region during the civil wars of the 1970s and 1980s: “The US, with its psychological warfare handbooks, torture manuals and death squads, turned Central American armies into well-organized killing machines,” she writes. The machine set its sights on so-called subversives: from guerrilla combatants to social-justice-minded nuns, priests, and catechists; union organizers; student radicals; and peasants.

Lakhani recounts the history that, for more than a century, has bound Honduras to US capital. When massive mid-century plantation-worker strikes threatened the banana export industry, Honduras signed a 1954 military assistance agreement that “authorized the US to treat Honduras as a military satellite” from which the CIA would stage its famous coup d’état against democratically elected reformist president Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala that very year. A deft combination of repression and reform quelled the flourishing campesino movement in Honduras, while Guatemala descended into a forty-year civil war.

Ronald Reagan’s ambassador John Negroponte, “a zealous anti-communist action figure” and Vietnam veteran, oversaw the counterinsurgency in Honduras during the 1980s. As military aid to the country skyrocketed, “the US gained free rein over Honduran territory in exchange for dollars, trainings in torture-based interrogation methods, and silence.” Under Negroponte’s watch, Honduras became a principal staging ground for the illegal US paramilitary Contra war against the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, a clandestine venture of dizzying depravity that enlisted drug traffickers, mercenaries, and dictators from across the globe. The de-facto military occupation of the country was a key factor in the suppression of Honduran insurgencies in this period.

The United States founded the Honduran Special Forces in the wake of the 1979 Sandinista victory. These elite troops and their regional counterparts specialized in US counterinsurgency methods, often trained at the School of the Americas or the US Regional Military Training Center in Honduras’s Bajo Aguán. After the Cold War, these security structures formed the foundations of the repressive forces that, deeply entwined with organized crime, increasingly served as mercenaries for capital.

In the early 2000s, Honduran police operated death squads targeting the incipient street gangs, groups that were exported, largely, from the United States at the dawn of the mass deportation regime. In the wake of the coup, counterinsurgency tactics inherited from the dirty wars were increasingly deployed against dissidents like Berta and organizations like COPINH. Indeed, Berta’s assassination “bore the hallmarks of a military-intelligence-backed special operation.”

The Investigation

It took more than two years of bitter struggle to reach a conviction in Berta’s murder, and more than three before the perpetrators were sentenced.

Berta was buried on March 5, 2016, her forty-fifth birthday. Initially, the Honduran authorities tried to frame Aureliano Molina, an ex-boyfriend of Berta’s and member of COPINH, for the murder. On March 7, Gustavo Castro, having barely survived the attack, was stopped at the airport and prevented from returning to Mexico by police, who forced him to remain in Honduras for a month. As officials pushed a “crime of passion” hypothesis, DESA leadership followed the investigation closely, receiving regular reports from the police.

But Molina’s alibi proved indisputable. As international attention mounted, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights offered to send a team of investigators to Honduras; president Juan Orlando Hernández declined. Finally, with Hernández’s authoritarian regime under immense pressure, DESA’s Tegucigalpa offices were raided, and over the course of several months, eight arrests were made: Douglas Bustillo, DESA security chief from 2013–2015, and DESA communities and environmental manager Sergio Rodríguez; Mariano Díaz, a US-trained special forces major implicated in an ongoing narco-trafficking investigation; former army captain Edilson Duarte Meza and his fraternal twin, Emerson; former special forces sergeant Henry Hernández; as well as two local ne’er-do-wells, Elvin Rápalo Orellana and Óscar Torres.

The state’s investigation was spotty, especially when it came to the source of the orders to assassinate Berta. On thirty-five occasions, prosecutors refused to comply with court orders to share information to the family’s attorneys: “the refusal to share evidence fueled the family’s fears that authorities were protecting the real criminal masterminds, and perhaps even their political patrons.” Investigators hired by Berta’s family signaled DESA executives Daniel Atala and David Castillo, together with company security chief and US-trained ex-cop Jorge Ávila, as the masterminds.

Shortly before the pretrial evidentiary hearing, the attorney general announced that “key expert evidence including ballistics, phone and computer analysis and financial reports, could not be shared because they still weren’t complete or in some cases had not even been started.”

Berta’s family requested that top DESA shareholders and personnel be called to testify, as well as the police commander who liaised with DESA during COPINH protests, but the requests were denied. So was every single expert witnessed they proposed:

The family’s case presented the murder as the grand finale of an intelligence-driven terror campaign against Berta Cáceres and COPINH, which could only be properly understood by identifying the whole criminal structure and defining the role played by each person and agency before, during and after. But the court was restricting focus on the murder as an isolated attack by unconnected individuals. In other words, it had decided to only hear the state’s case.

The trial, scheduled to begin September 2018, was delayed by the family’s petition that the judges be recused, alleging obstruction, negligence, and dereliction: “With these judges, justice is obviously impossible,” Berta’s daughter Bertita told the press. The recusal was denied. When the proceedings resumed in October, the judges banned the victims’ lawyers from participating, leaving only the public prosecutors to make the case. Berta’s family and COPINH boycotted the trial, appearing only to testify.

DESA employees Sergio Rodríguez and Douglas Bustillo, together with major Mariano Díaz Chávez and his former subordinate, ex-sergeant Henry Hernández, were accused of planning the attack. Óscar Torres, Elvin Rápalo Orellana, and Edilson and Emerson were the alleged sicarios. Ultimately, only Hernández testified at trial. He implicated Rápalo as Berta’s assassin, and fingered Torres for shooting Gustavo, who corroborated the allegation, recognizing Torres’s photo from the night of the assault. Edilson drove the getaway car. Emerson, his twin, was not involved.

The prosecution never bothered to propose a theory of how this criminal structure was assembled. Gustavo Castro was prevented from returning to testify against his assailant. The most notorious DESA informant and hired goon testified at trial but was not interrogated by prosecutors. Bullets that killed Berta matched a gun in Emerson’s possession, but the gun from Gustavo’s shooting was never found. The bullets discovered at Edilson’s home were never tested, nor was the weapon found in Díaz’s possession.

The state’s case, such as it was, was based on location data and WhatsApp messages extracted from the suspects’ cell phones. Messages revealed regular payments to informants and conspirators, as well as a failed February 5 assassination attempt, coordinated by Díaz with Hernández and a hired shooter. Notably, Díaz’s phone was already tapped as part of a narco-trafficking investigation, yet authorities never intervened in the ongoing murder plot.

In the end, Emerson was cleared; the other seven defendants were convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty-plus years in prison. On the second anniversary of Berta’s murder, David Castillo was arrested, but at the time of this writing, his murder trial was ongoing.

Deadly Development

Lakhani’s investigation provides a glimpse into the militarized narco-state of post-coup Honduras, or what she calls a “criminal” or “mafia state.” The Agua Zarca project is but one example of the dense, obscure nexus of international developers, energy industry giants, heads of state, and organized crime at the vanguard of contemporary capitalist growth.

The rot goes all the way to the top: President Lobo’s son trafficked cocaine for the Cachiros criminal group, which laundered money through front companies that secured rigged contracts with the administration. In a rare twist, Lobo’s wife was imprisoned in Honduras for embezzling hundreds of thousands in public funds. His successor’s brother, Tony Hernández, was convicted in the United States for drug and weapons trafficking.

Testimony in the New York trial of El Chapo Guzmán alleged President Juan Orlando Hernández received millions in campaign donations from narco-traffickers in exchange for permission to operate in the country. After two fraudulent elections, he remains in power.

“It’s unclear what it would take for the US government to stop propping up an illegitimate government accused of operating a narco state,” Lakhani muses.

At the same time, the book reveals the horrifying consequences of this reality on a micro scale. By bribing informants, co-opting impoverished peasant leaders, and sowing terror and distrust, the DESA megaproject left in its wake a community torn apart. The trial, though it marked an unprecedented challenge to the reigning impunity, was a far cry from justice.

Lakhani makes clear that the tragedy in Honduras is no distortion of the development process. For the World Bank and US embassies across the globe, it is the acceptable cost of doing business.

But Berta’s heirs are multitude. They struggle on what Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen, and Thea Riofrancos call the “extractive frontiers,” fighting for decolonized, feminist, ecological, anti-capitalist alternatives to our dystopian present. “They tried to bury us,” goes the Latin American refrain. “They didn’t know that we were seeds.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
One Check Isn't Enough. Congress Must Give Every American $2,000 a Month Now. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50468"><span class="small">Luke Savage, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 May 2020 12:29

Savage writes: "Amid spiraling unemployment and looming economic ruin, the federal government must give ordinary Americans the assistance they need, beginning with a monthly $2,000 check."

People wait in a long line to receive a food bank donation at the Barclays Center on May 15, 2020, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. (photo: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
People wait in a long line to receive a food bank donation at the Barclays Center on May 15, 2020, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. (photo: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)


One Check Isn't Enough. Congress Must Give Every American $2,000 a Month Now.

By Luke Savage, Jacobin

26 May 20


Amid spiraling unemployment and looming economic ruin, the federal government must give ordinary Americans the assistance they need, beginning with a monthly $2,000 check. Without such basic supports, we risk a dangerous groundswell of demands for the premature reopening of the economy.

arlier this month, while touring a factory in Arizona, President Donald Trump reiterated his desire to reopen the American economy as soon as possible. While being ominously serenaded by the refrain from “Live and Let Die,” Trump drew a comparison between ordinary citizens and soldiers fighting in a war. “Our country wants to open. And you see what’s going on. They have to open,” he declared. “I’m viewing our great citizens of this country, to a certain extent and to a large extent, as warriors.”

Few who heard these remarks can have missed the real implication of either Trump’s words or his chosen metaphor, which indicated his willingness to reopen the US economy in full understanding of the catastrophic death toll that would almost certainly ensue. Plenty were no doubt also hesitant about his prescription. If polls like the one recently conducted by the Pew Research Center are to be believed, an overwhelming majority of Americans are concerned that the economy will be reopened too quickly. Even a majority of self-identified Republicans still believes quarantine measures are necessary, though they are far less likely than Democrats to think the worst of the crisis still lies ahead.

Nonetheless, Trump’s remarks tell us something about where the partisan battle lines this summer will probably be drawn: between a Republican leadership bent on fully reopening the economy with little concern about the human cost, and a Democratic leadership intent on maintaining many of the existing quarantine and social-distancing measures. Whatever outcome this tug-of-war ultimately produces, the catastrophic impact of the crisis on ordinary Americans is already incalculable: amid spiking unemployment, millions are losing not only their jobs and incomes but their health insurance as well.

Given this, the relative caution expressed by Democratic leaders has yet to be matched with measures even remotely adequate to the scope of the economic turmoil. Last Friday, the Democratic-led House passed the HEROES Act, which includes, among other things, a second round of $1,200 checks to individuals with a cap at $6,000 per household similar to those sent out during the first phase of the crisis. (As Andrew Perez points out in his forensic examination of the legislation, the bill also contains an appalling number of measures clearly designed to benefit Washington lobby groups and trade associations — a bit rich for something its authors deigned to brand the “HEROES Act.”)

It’s a telltale sign that senior Democrats have either failed to think through the implications of maintaining widespread economic closures or are alarmingly sanguine about what their impact on ordinary Americans will actually be. Among the millions who have already taken advantage of existing federal cash relief, most appear to be spending it on basics like food and household bills — expenses that are unlikely to be covered by occasional injections of $1,200 that may take weeks or even months to arrive.

Democratic leaders should immediately get behind the Senate bill unveiled earlier this month and sponsored by Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Ed Markey that would send $2,000 a month to every American with only a very few exceptions. As a recent Politico report explains:

The legislation would send a monthly $2,000 check to people who make less than $120,000. It would expand to $4,000 to married couples who file taxes jointly and also provide $2,000 for each child up to three .?.?. The payments would be retroactive to March and last until three months after the Health and Human Services Department has declared the public health emergency over. The legislation would also bar debt collectors from taking the payments, and would deliver them regardless of whether people have a Social Security number or filed taxes last year.

In the absence of assistance on this scale — and soon — the continuation of quarantine measures amid growing hardship will only tilt public opinion toward a dangerous resumption of regular economic activity. If Democrats are really going to resist the president’s nihilistic drive to turn the coronavirus into a military enemy and ordinary Americans into citizen soldiers fighting a heavy casualty engagement, they must champion real relief and get behind a $2,000-per-month cash payout before it’s too late.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Team Player Bernie Sanders Leans In to Help Joe Biden Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53392"><span class="small">Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 May 2020 12:02

Hook writes: "Bernie Sanders, long seen by Democratic critics as a loose cannon and definitely not a team player, is stepping up to help former rival Joe Biden in ways likely to far exceed what he did for Hillary Clinton in 2016."

Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. (image: Rolling Stone)
Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. (image: Rolling Stone)


Team Player Bernie Sanders Leans In to Help Joe Biden

By Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times

26 May 20

 

ernie Sanders, long seen by Democratic critics as a loose cannon and definitely not a team player, is stepping up to help former rival Joe Biden in ways likely to far exceed what he did for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Sanders ended his 2020 presidential campaign and cleared the field for Biden in April rather than fight to the bitter end as many supporters wanted. The Vermont senator is ordering his delegates to the Democratic convention to avoid criticizing Biden. Top lieutenants have set up a super PAC to back the former vice president. And Sanders allies have teamed up with Biden’s on task forces to develop the party platform.

That sets a tone very different from the mood in 2016, when Sanders stayed in the hotly contested nomination race against Clinton until June. His raucous supporters protested at the convention. Some ended up backing third-party candidates or Donald Trump. While Sanders himself campaigned hard for Clinton, their two camps continued to view each other with suspicion.

Now, after more than three years of a Trump presidency, Sanders has made common cause with Biden and forged a more collaborative relationship.

“Both parties have been much easier to deal with; they have been more receptive,” said Ben Tulchin, who did polling for Sanders in both 2016 and 2020. “We all learned a lesson from last time: You don’t want to underestimate Trump. Any marginal loss of votes could cost us the election.”

Trump, who would benefit from Democratic defections, has noted the Biden-Sanders rapport and repeatedly sought to drive a wedge between their camps. Just last week, in two tweets, Trump mocked Sanders, saying, “Crazy Bernie Sanders is not a fighter. He gives up too easy!” and again alleging without evidence that “the Dem establishment” sabotaged Sanders’ chances in the nomination race.

The looming question is how effective Sanders will be in bringing along his most committed backers. Many view Biden with indifference, suspicion or hostility.

“The majority of his supporters will back Joe Biden,” said Chuck Rocha, a former Sanders strategist. “The problem is they don’t all support him right now…. It’s a problem today, but there is plenty of time to correct that.”

Sanders has said he is hopeful that Biden will move to the left on policy to win over voters — Latinos, young people and progressives — who were more inclined to vote for the Vermont senator.

Biden “understands that if he’s going to beat Trump, he needs to grow voter turnout, he needs to speak to young people in this country, who are not enamored with him at this point,” Sanders said Friday on “The Young Turks,” a progressive online talk show. “He needs to speak to the progressive community. He needs to speak to sections of the working-class community.”

A festering wound in the Democratic Party still rankles Sanders and his allies: Clinton and some of her supporters continue to blame Sanders for contributing to her loss, and Trump’s election. Among other things, those critics say, his post-convention efforts for Clinton were tepid and halfhearted.

Sanders and his supporters strongly disagree, noting that he held 39 rallies in 13 states over the last three months of the 2016 campaign. If Sanders is now offering more robust support to Biden, the senator’s allies say, it is in part because Biden is a more willing partner.

“This time the Biden team is welcoming Sen. Sanders with open arms,” said Jane Kleeb, a board member of Our Revolution, a political group aligned with Sanders. “Sen. Sanders does not want to be accused again of not doing enough to defeat Donald Trump.”

This period poses a test of Sanders’ relationship with his ardent followers. As he has tried to rally support for Biden in the interest of party unity, Sanders has taken flak from true believers and risked tarnishing his brand as an anti-establishment iconoclast.

When Sanders dropped out of the race, Biden’s delegate lead seemed insurmountable, and the coronavirus crisis was threatening the country’s public health and economic systems. But many of his supporters were disappointed that he did not continue campaigning, even if he could not win the nomination. They wanted him to fight for more convention delegates, to strengthen their bargaining position in drafting the platform and party rules.

“What’s at stake here is not just the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination,” Larry Cohen, board chair of Our Revolution, emailed to members in April. “We’re fighting to build a progressive Democratic Party.”

Once Sanders endorsed Biden, he leaned in on a number of fronts to help him and the Democratic Party — a party to which Sanders, a political independent, is still not a member. 

In mid-April, Sanders signed a fundraising letter for the Democratic National Committee, a group he reviled in 2016 for favoring Clinton. He talked up Biden in his regular livestream appearances for supporters. He appeared with rapper Cardi B on Instagram and Twitter and addressed her concern that “the youth, they don’t really rock with Joe Biden because he’s conservative.”

Along the way, Sanders won some important concessions. Biden reached an agreement allowing Sanders to keep hundreds of delegates he otherwise would have lost, avoiding a messy convention fight. Biden supported Sanders’ effort to secure delegates in New York after officials canceled the state’s presidential primary; the primary was subsequently reinstated.

For his part, Sanders is asking his convention delegates to refrain from the kinds of protests that disrupted the 2016 convention and sign agreements to not attack Biden or party leaders on social media or in interviews.

“Do your best to avoid online arguments or confrontations. If engaging in an adversarial conversation, be respectful when addressing opposing viewpoints or commenting on the opposition,” said a statement of social media policy for delegates, first reported by the Washington Post. “Our job is to differentiate the senator from his opponents on the issues — not through personal attacks.”

One obstacle Sanders faces in getting supporters to transfer their loyalty to Biden: Many are infrequent or new voters who engaged in politics for the first time when they backed him, and idealists averse to half-a-loaf politics.

A USA Today-Suffolk University poll in April found that 14% of Sanders supporters do not intend to vote for Biden; 8% are undecided. Three out of five — 61% — said they were not excited about voting for him. 

Sanders predicted that most of them would come around.

“At the end of the day, the vast majority of the people who voted for me, who supported me, will understand and do understand that Donald Trump is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country,” he told ABC News. “I think at the end of the day, they will be voting for Joe Biden.”

Jeff Weaver, a longtime Sanders strategist, set up the pro-Biden PAC to help sway Sanders voters, especially Latinos, young voters and progressives. The pitch, he said, will be that voting for Biden is the only way to build on Sanders’ success in pushing the party to the left.

“We now have an opportunity to lock in some of those gains,” Weaver said. “It’s not about convincing progressives that Joe Biden is Bernie Sanders or that he is a progressive icon.”

Weaver was criticized by some Sanders supporters for forming a super PAC, a vehicle for raising money from big donors that Sanders has opposed.

“We are trying to get big money out of politics, so this does that movement no good,” Nina Turner, formerly co-chair of the Sanders campaign, told the Hill, a Washington news site. “And for it to be so close to the Sanders movement is really heartbreaking.”

The policy task forces announced this month began holding Zoom meetings last week to make recommendations on topics including healthcare and climate change. Both Biden and Sanders selected high-profile representatives. The climate panel includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, an advocate for the so-called Green New Deal who holds great sway with Sanders’ followers, and former Sen. John Kerry, a Biden ally who helped negotiate the Paris agreement, the Obama-era climate change treaty that Trump disavowed.

Sanders has no illusion that Biden will embrace his full agenda — by suddenly dropping his opposition to Medicare for All, for example. But he sees an opportunity to make gains.

“It’s going to be the responsibility of our task force members to try and push in a respectful way, to move them as aggressively as we can,” Sanders advisor Faiz Shakir said.

For all their policy differences, Sanders and Biden are bound by their shared goal of beating Trump.

“They understand what’s at stake,” Biden spokesman Jamal Brown said, “and our campaigns are working closely together to achieve our mission.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Democrats Are Fueling a Corporate Counter-Revolution Against Progressives Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54472"><span class="small">David Sirota, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 May 2020 11:06

Sirota writes: "Democrats in Washington are not just passively failing to mount a strong opposition to Donald Trump - they are actively helping Republicans try to fortify the obstacles to long-term progressive change well after this emergency subsides."

Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Reuters)
Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Reuters)


Democrats Are Fueling a Corporate Counter-Revolution Against Progressives

By David Sirota, Guardian UK

26 May 20


Democrats in Washington are not just passively failing to mount an opposition to Trump. They are actively helping Republicans

hese are bleak days for America’s progressive movement. The Democratic primary process handed the party’s nomination to the candidate with the most conservative record. Corporate-friendly politicians like the New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, are using the pandemic to brandish their images and install billionaires to run things. Progressive lawmakers in Congress are being steamrolled, even by their own party’s leadership. And a recession is battering the state and local budgets that fund progressive priorities like education and the social safety net.

Perhaps this is a temporary stall-out – a fleeting moment of retreat in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back trajectory. After all, polls continue to show that from workers’ rights to universal healthcare, a majority of Americans support a progressive policy agenda.

The problem, though, is that Democrats in Washington are not just passively failing to mount a strong opposition to Donald Trump – they are actively helping Republicans try to fortify the obstacles to long-term progressive change well after this emergency subsides.

This corporate counter-revolution is easiest to see in Democrats’ enthusiastic support for Republicans’ legislative response to the coronavirus crisis. Democrats’ entire 2018 electoral campaign told America that the opposition party needed to win back Congress in order to block Trump’s regressive agenda. And yet, when the Republicans proposed a bill to let Trump’s appointees dole out government cash to their corporate allies with no strings attached, this same opposition party mustered not a single recorded vote against the package. Not one.

Thanks to that, Trump appointees and the Federal Reserve can now hand out $4tn to politically connected corporations as they lay waste to our economy and steamroll progressive reforms. Private equity firms and fossil fuel companies get new tax breaks as they buy elections and try to lock in permanent climate change.

These bailouts were part of a larger legislative package that included good things like expanded unemployment benefits – and so you could argue that Democrats simply had to swallow a bitter pill and vote yes. Except, they subsequently proposed their own standalone legislation that would further strengthen the corporate opponents of progressive reform.

For example, there is the Democrats’ push to alter the so-called paycheck protection program (PPP). Those loans were designed to help employees of mom-and-pop enterprises throughout the country. House Democrats’ new stimulus legislation would open up the small business lending program to what they call “small nonprofits”, but their language was crafted to provide the forgivable loans to industry trade associations. Those lobby groups represent the planet’s biggest corporations – and their political action committees have delivered more than $191m of campaign cash to lawmakers in the last two decades.

Democrats have pitched their legislation as a “message” bill that declares their values – and in this case, they are reassuring Washington power-players that money meant for workers at neighborhood restaurants, local shops and other mom-and-pop concerns can be raided by the front groups representing giant drug companies, health insurers and Wall Street firms. If the legislation passes, it would not merely be an epic tale of greed – the new funding stream for corporate lobbying groups would bolster the very forces that make sure federal policy disempowers workers, maximizes private profit and generally protects the ruling class.

It’s an even worse story on healthcare. As 43 million Americans face the prospect of losing private health insurance, Democrats had a huge opportunity. After Trump himself suggested he wanted the government to pay healthcare providers directly for treating uninsured Covid-19 patients, they could have called his bluff and passed existing legislation to expand a Medicare program that provides actual medical care. Instead, House Democrats passed a bill to support lightly regulated private insurance marketplaces and to subsidize existing private insurance plans through a Rube Goldberg machine known as Cobra – and they passed this giveaway just after receiving an infusion of campaign cash collected by insurance lobbyists.

Taken together, these initiatives would route yet more public money through a corporate insurance bureaucracy in hopes that medical care eventually trickles down to Americans who desperately need it. Such a system is totally inadequate during a pandemic: it doesn’t guarantee healthcare – it only only guarantees insurance coverage, which is so often denied or restricted when a medical claim is actually filed. Moreover, corporate health insurance has far higher administrative costs than single-payer programs like Medicare, and even the much-vaunted Affordable Care Act allows insurers to siphon up to 20% of customers’ premiums to corporate profits rather than actual medical care.

But then, Democrats’ Cobra plan is not merely a financial bailout for insurers – it is also a political bailout when the industry needs it most. At a time when popular support for Medicare for All is surging – when even a Republican president feels the need to make rhetorical (if empty) gestures toward the concept of government-funded healthcare – the Cobra plan would use public money to firm up the private health insurance industry’s dominance over the healthcare system, just in time to short circuit a Medicare expansion.

That’s probably why insurance companies have been lobbying for it. They know that such a program would boost their short-term profits, and they know that once such a program is in place, it would be politically difficult to get it repealed and replaced by progressives’ far better Medicare for All program. In other words: Democrats’ Cobra plan may secure insurance companies’ profit-skimming position between Americans and their healthcare providers for decades to come.

If you get the sense that the fix is in and this is all deliberate, you’re not wrong. Many of the self-styled progressive advocacy groups in Washington that posture as #resistance leaders turned a blind eye to the bill’s problems and endorsed the legislation shortly after it was introduced, undercutting progressive lawmakers off the bat.

Making matters worse was the theater on the House floor. During the debate over the Democratic bill, nine progressive lawmakers made a public show of voting against the procedural measure to advance the bill, along with a tiny group of moderates. When it came to the real vote on actually passing the bill, a larger group of moderates ended up voting against it, but only one progressive lawmaker, Representative Pramila Jayapal, voted no. Had the progressives and moderates combined forces on either of the votes, they would have forced the bill back to the drawing board. Instead, their shenanigans ultimately helped secure the legislation’s passage.

Taken together, the spectacle was more confirmation that whatever resistance exists in the nation’s capital, it is so often performance art, rather than anything real.

“Outside groups and House lawmakers need to work together to build a populist bloc – probably inclusive of moderate Democrats and perhaps even an occasional Republican – who will stand united to force votes to ensure that our economy does right by ordinary people,” said David Segal of Demand Progress, pointing to news of a potential Democratic coalition to buck the party’s leadership and support a plan to float businesses’ payrolls through the crisis. “We must make sure that America does not go in the wrong direction and become even more inequitable because we let unemployment soar, compel cities and states to implement austerity, force small businesses to shutter and let large corporations backstopped by the Fed roll them up.”

The tragedy is that we’re already moving in that wrong direction, and chances to change the political dynamic do not come around often. As Barack Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (now an investment banker and TV talking head) said more than a decade ago during the financial crisis: “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste – it’s an opportunity to do the things you once thought were impossible.”

Billionaires and corporations are clearly following that advice, aiming to use the pandemic to grow their wealth and political power in previously unfathomable ways. It would be better if the opposition party put up a real fight – or at least refused to be complicit in postponing progress for yet another generation.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Coronavirus Is Deadliest Where Democrats Live Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54468"><span class="small">Jennifer Medina and Robert Gebeloff, The New York Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 May 2020 08:18

Excerpt: "The devastation [...] has been disproportionately felt in blue America, which helps explain why people on opposing sides of a partisan divide that has intensified in the past two decades are thinking about the virus differently."

A masked woman waits for the subway in New York City. (photo: Reuters)
A masked woman waits for the subway in New York City. (photo: Reuters)


The Coronavirus Is Deadliest Where Democrats Live

By Jennifer Medina and Robert Gebeloff, The New York Times

26 May 20


Beyond perception and ideology, there are starkly different realities for red and blue America right now.

he staggering American death toll from the coronavirus, now approaching 100,000, has touched every part of the country, but the losses have been especially acute along its coasts, in its major cities, across the industrial Midwest, and in New York City.

The devastation, in other words, has been disproportionately felt in blue America, which helps explain why people on opposing sides of a partisan divide that has intensified in the past two decades are thinking about the virus differently. It is not just that Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to reopen businesses, schools and the country as a whole. Beyond perception, beyond ideology, there are starkly different realities for red and blue America right now.

Democrats are far more likely to live in counties where the virus has ravaged the community, while Republicans are more likely to live in counties that have been relatively unscathed by the illness, though they are paying an economic price. Counties won by President Trump in 2016 have reported just 27 percent of the virus infections and 21 percent of the deaths — even though 45 percent of Americans live in these communities, a New York Times analysis has found.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 Next > End >>

Page 474 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