RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Why Are Extreme Abortion Laws Taking Over America? Blame Gerrymandering Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50914"><span class="small">David Daley, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 June 2019 14:10

Daley writes: "Fifty-four thousand votes out of nearly 4 million. That's what separated Stacey Abrams from Brian Kemp in Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial election, a sign of how closely contested this once reliably red, southern state has become."

Stacey Abrams. (photo: Earl Gibson III/Getty Images)
Stacey Abrams. (photo: Earl Gibson III/Getty Images)


Why Are Extreme Abortion Laws Taking Over America? Blame Gerrymandering

By David Daley, Guardian UK

02 June 19


Republican state lawmakers use redistricting to push through hardline laws that aren’t supported by voters

ifty-four thousand votes out of nearly 4 million. That’s what separated Stacey Abrams from Brian Kemp in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election, a sign of how closely contested this once reliably red, southern state has become.

Earlier this month, however, Georgia’s legislature responded to the state’s closely divided political climate not with thoughtful compromise but by passing one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the United States.

An April poll by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that 70% of Georgians support the landmark Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion. The new state ban is opposed by 48% of Georgians and supported by only 43%. So why would the legislature enact such an extreme measure?

For that matter, why would Ohio, Alabama, Missouri and other states establish similar “fetal heartbeat” laws that are far more restrictive than their constituents support?

One important answer is gerrymandering: redistricting voting districts to give the party in power an edge – making it almost impossible for the other side to win a majority of seats, even with a majority of votes. Sophisticated geo-mapping software and voluminous voter data turned this ancient art into a hi-tech science when the US redistricted after the 2010 census.

Republicans recognized the opportunity. Democrats snoozed. Nine years later, they’re still paying the price, particularly in swing state legislatures. A little-known group called the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) launched a devastatingly effective strategy called Redmap – short for the Redistricting Majority Project. It dropped $30m of dark money into sleepy local races, flipped legislative chambers blue to red, and gave the Republicans control over drawing the vast majority of local legislative and US House seats – and with it, the power to remake the political playing field for the next decade.

Republicans took such advantage that they have controlled state legislative supermajorities in otherwise competitive states even when voters prefer Democratic candidates by hundreds of thousands of votes. This nullifies elections and insulates lawmakers from a majority that seeks to vote them out of office.

Despite lacking any mandate for an extreme agenda in a closely divided nation, Republican lawmakers have pushed through new voting restrictions, anti-labor laws, the emergency manager bill that led to poisoned water in Flint, Michigan, and now, these strict abortion bans. Electorally, there’s little that Democrats can do to stop it.

Just take a look at Georgia, where the ultra-competitive contest between Kemp and Abrams made national headlines and propelled the highest midterm voter turnout in the state’s modern history. But while that race was decided by just a handful of votes, it was a completely different story in the down-ballot elections for the state’s house and senate. Those districts were drawn to be so non-competitive that 112 of the state’s 180 house districts – and 33 of the 56 state senate elections – featured no major-party challenger. Voters literally had no choice at all.

Or travel to Ohio, the long-time midwestern bellwether. There’s also zero evidence that voters here have extreme opinions on abortion. Polls show that more voters are against the new “heartbeat” bill than for it, and Ohioans are clearly comfortable splitting their ballots in statewide races. In 2018, the state re-elected a pro-choice Democratic senator and an anti-abortion Republican governor. They divided their vote for the state’s house and senate about as equally as possible: Republicans won 50.3% statewide.

But thanks to what a University of Chicago study called an “uncommonly severe gerrymander”, barely half the votes provided Republicans more than 63% of the seats. Once again, there’s little that Democrats can do, simply because the maps were surgically designed to create so few competitive seats. In 2018, only six of 99 house elections finished within five percentage points. Democrats could have won them all and still finished far short of control.

In Alabama, meanwhile, a determined racial gerrymander packed black Democrats into as few seats as possible and diluted the African American vote. That legislature, seated after a sleazy money-laundering effort uncovered by the RSLC’s own attorneys, has passed the strictest abortion ban in the nation, one that polls show is too conservative even for Alabama. A recent survey found that only 31% of Alabama voters backed abortion limits like this one, which provides no exception for rape or incest.

This is what happens when so many races are non-competitive. It means that the only action takes place in party primaries. They tend to be low-turnout elections that favor the most passionate partisans. That has three key effects: it sends more extreme members of both parties to state capitals, incentivizes them to fear compromise or anything that might earn a primary challenge, and it insulates them from voters almost no matter what they do. Voters are silenced at the ballot box, and then can be safely ignored by their legislatures.

What, if anything, can voters do? It won’t be easy. Last November, citizens in four states – including Missouri, home to yet another radical new abortion ban – passed ballot initiatives or constitutional amendments that shifted mapmaking powers away from self-interested partisans and toward independent commissions. In Missouri and Michigan, however, despite more than 60% of voters demanding an end to politicians choosing their own voters, these gerrymandered legislatures have taken steps to undermine the new initiatives. Several other states this year have made it significantly harder to put initiatives on the ballot.

Four federal courts, meanwhile, have overturned entire statewide maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The US supreme court, long reluctant to get involved in this political thicket, is expected to issue rulings in cases from Maryland and North Carolina in June. Whether or not the court takes action, it could take a generation to wash away the anti-majoritarian toxins that this decade’s partisan gerrymanders intentionally injected into our hijacked politics. Just as frightening: the 2021 redistricting cycle is just two years away.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Why All the Arguments Against Impeachment Are BS Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44184"><span class="small">Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 June 2019 12:02

Hasan writes: "Well I have some breaking news: the Trump base is already energized."

Medhi Hasan. (photo: NBC/YouTube)
Medhi Hasan. (photo: NBC/YouTube)


Why All the Arguments Against Impeachment Are BS

By Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept

02 June 19

 

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The DCCC Sure as Hell Isn't Going to Let Another AOC Win Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49253"><span class="small">Jack Crosbie, Splinter</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 June 2019 10:55

Crosbie writes: "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a new set of rules on Friday that aims to protect incumbent candidates across the country at the cost of also cracking down on any ideological progress or debate about the party's direction."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: AP)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: AP)


ALSO SEE: The DCCC's Strategy to Kill Primary
Challenges Is Reportedly Already Working

The DCCC Sure as Hell Isn't Going to Let Another AOC Win

By Jack Crosbie, Splinter

02 June 19

 

he Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a new set of rules on Friday that aims to protect incumbent candidates across the country at the cost of also cracking down on any ideological progress or debate about the party’s direction.

The DCCC’s new “hiring standards,” which, per the National Journal, went out to more than 100 political firms that consult or work on campaigns around the country, say the organization will not contract with or recommend the services of any firm that chooses to work for an incumbent Democrat’s opponent. In other words, if a political firm challenges the status quo at all—like working with Ayanna Pressley or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the 2018 midterms, when they both defeated longtime incumbents—they face a DCCC blacklist.

According to the National Journal:

The new protocol, intentionally debuted early in the off-year before most campaign hiring begins, presents a stark financial deterrent to the country’s top firms that provide essential services ranging from polling to TV advertising to strategy. It could cripple would-be primary opponents’ ability to entice top talent to join their staff. The DCCC independent-expenditure arm doles out millions in contracts to consultants and drives more revenue toward them by connecting campaigns with vetted operatives.

“The DCCC is often times the gatekeeper for consultants to get to candidates,” said Ian Russell, a campaign media strategist and former top official at the committee. “Unless you have a steady stream of income coming from another source, it would be very difficult to navigate the House world if you were shut out by the DCCC.”?

The DCCC’s weak justification for these rules is to protect the Democrats’ hard-won majority in the House. But this doesn’t do that. Blocking the best political firms from working with progressive primary opponents doesn’t make fragile centrists in swing districts any safer from Republicans in the general election, but it certainly hinders those districts from putting up a stronger candidate if one comes along. It could also have the effect of helping protect all incumbents, not just the obstinate centrist ones who pander to the Republicans or the status quo.

Fortunately, this power grab isn’t going unnoticed. It’s a good sign when your middling Democrat protection plan doesn’t even pass a smell test by the Pod Save America doofuses:

This is a cynical, stupid idea that will only hurt the party going forward—and a perfect example of how the Democrats would rather back a middle of the road, near-Republican instead of new progressive voices like Pressley or Ocasio-Cortez. If we continue down this road, there’s a good chance 2020 could be 2014, or even 2010, all over again.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What Does Oligarchy Mean? Print
Sunday, 02 June 2019 08:29

Reich writes: "'Oligarchy' means government of and by a few at the top, who exercise power for their own benefit. It comes from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning 'few to rule or command.'"

Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)
Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)


What Does Oligarchy Mean?

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

02 June 19

 

ligarchy” means government of and by a few at the top, who exercise power for their own benefit. It comes from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning “few to rule or command.”

Even a system that calls itself a democracy can become an oligarchy if power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few very wealthy people – a corporate and financial elite.

Their power and wealth increase over time as they make laws that favor themselves, manipulate financial markets to their advantage, and create or exploit economic monopolies that put even more wealth into their pockets.

Modern-day Russia is an oligarchy, where a handful of billionaires who control most major industries dominate politics and the economy.

What about the United States?

According to a study published in 2014 by Princeton Professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern Professor Benjamin Page, although Americans enjoy many features of democratic governance, such as regular elections, and freedom of speech and association, American policy making has become dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans.

The typical American has no influence at all.

This is largely due to the increasing concentration of wealth. In a 2019 research paper, Berkeley economics professor Gabriel Zucman determined that the richest 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. That’s up from 25 to 30 percent of the nation’s wealth in the 1980s.

The only country Zucman found with similarly high levels of wealth concentration is … Russia.

America has had an oligarchy before – in the first Gilded Age, which ran from the 1880s until the early 20th century. 

Teddy Roosevelt called that oligarchy the “malefactors of great wealth,” and fought them by breaking up large concentrations of economic power–the trustsand instituting a progressive federal income tax.

His fifth cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, further reduced their power by strictly regulating Wall Street, and encouraging the growth of labor unions. The oligarchy fought back but Roosevelt wouldn’t yield.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob,” he thundered in 1936. “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

But the American oligarchy has returned. We are now in a second Gilded Age. As the great jurist Louis Brandeis once said, “We can have democracy in this country or we can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

We must, once again, make the correct choice and reduce the economic and political power of the American oligarchy.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama v Doma: How Gay Americans Marched Towards Equality Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50908"><span class="small">Charles Kaiser, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 June 2019 08:25

Kaiser writes: "Thus it felt uncannily right that the arc of history had bent so dramatically toward liberty and justice for all during Obama's presidency. And it made a kind of cosmic sense that a black man was president on 27 June 2015, a crescendo of a day in American history - a day of bottomless sorrow, a day of unparalleled joy."

The North Portico of the White House is illuminated with rainbow colors in recognition of the supreme court decision regarding same-sex marriage, on 26 June 2015. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)
The North Portico of the White House is illuminated with rainbow colors in recognition of the supreme court decision regarding same-sex marriage, on 26 June 2015. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)


Obama v Doma: How Gay Americans Marched Towards Equality

By Charles Kaiser, Guardian UK

02 June 19


From Joe Biden’s unplanned endorsement to a White House lit by the rainbow flag, LGBTQ Americans lived through three extraordinary years

n 6 May 2012, Joe Biden went on Meet the Press to endorse marriage equality – and credited an NBC sitcom for his decision: “I think Will and Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.”

Three days later, in the middle of his re-election campaign, Barack Obama followed the lead of his vice-president. In 1996, Bill Clinton had signed the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) in the middle of the night because he thought that was necessary to ensure his re-election. Now a new Democratic president had embraced the push for equality as a political plus, especially with the younger voters who were so important to his success.

Obama said that even the Republican college students he had met were “very clear” about sexual orientation: “They believe in equality.” He also suggested the benefits of a presidential unit that included a brilliant wife and two precocious children. His daughters, Malia and Sasha, had friends who were the children of same-sex couples, and it had never occurred to them that their friends’ parents would be treated differently.

“It doesn’t make sense to them,” Obama said, adding: “That’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

The tidal wave of change continued. On 6 June, barely a month after the president’s announcement, Judge Barbara Jones of the southern district of New York ruled in favor of Edith Windsor, whose case against Doma focused on the estate taxes she was forced to pay after the death of her wife, Thea Spyer, a burden a straight widow would have avoided. The judge found that Doma was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the fifth amendment and ordered the federal government to issue Windsor a tax refund, including interest. Jones was the fifth federal judge to find the law unconstitutional.

The political wisdom of Obama’s position was confirmed in November when he was re-elected with 332 electoral votes and 51.1% of the popular vote. Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved marriage equality initiatives – and Minnesota voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have banned it.

On 20 January 2013, in his second inaugural address, the president declared: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

Six months later, Edith Windsor was sitting at her lawyer’s dining room table, along with the rest of her legal team. The New Yorker reported what happened next. Suddenly news of the supreme court’s decision flashed across a computer screen: “Doma Is Unconstitutional.”

There were whoops and hollers and then the telephone rang.

“Who am I talking to?” Windsor asked.

The call was coming from Air Force One.

“Oh! Barack Obama?” she exclaimed. Composing herself, she said: “I want to thank you.” And then she added: “I think your coming out for us made such a difference throughout the country.”

As in Romer v Evans in 1996, which held that government cannot legitimately base its decisions on animus toward gay people, and Lawrence v Texas, which made gay sex legal, Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision. For the third time, he catapulted the gay cause forward.

Back in Manhattan, Windsor was taken on an impromptu victory lap around the island. People burst into tears and shouted: “Thank you, Edie!” At the LGBT Community Center in Greenwich Village, Windsor’s lawyer compared her to “Susan B Anthony, or Rosa Parks, or Harvey Milk”; James Esseks of the ACLU echoed the earlier words of the attorney Ted Olson, declaring Windsor to have “made the country more free and more fair and more equal today. In fact, she has made it more American.”

The Windsor decision was only the first piece of good news. California governor Jerry Brown and the rest of the state’s officials had declined to defend Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage. At the supreme court, chief justice John Roberts and four of his colleagues decided unelected proponents of the ban did not have standing to appeal a district court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry. That meant the case was not properly before the supreme court.

Two days later, the ninth circuit court of appeals lifted its stay of the district decision. Hours after that, cheers erupted amid camera flashes as California attorney general Kamala Harris presided at the marriage of Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier at San Francisco’s city hall. They were one of the couples who had sued to prevent Proposition 8 from taking effect.

***

Two years later, our decades-long battle for justice reached a thundering climax.

Barack and Michelle Obama were the first great black leaders to treat the gay movement with the full respect earned by the civil rights movement. Their willingness to link the two movements had a special power. The inspiration we drew from the courage and the blood and the joyfulness of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, James Baldwin, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder and Martin Luther King Jr had made the gay movement possible.

Thus it felt uncannily right that the arc of history had bent so dramatically toward liberty and justice for all during Obama’s presidency. And it made a kind of cosmic sense that a black man was president on 27 June 2015, a crescendo of a day in American history – a day of bottomless sorrow, a day of unparalleled joy.

In the early afternoon, the president and first lady arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, to pay homage to the victims of another hideous mass shooting. There they joined 6,000 other citizens inside a downtown sports arena to celebrate the lives of the Rev Clementa C Pinckney and eight other African American parishioners shot and killed by a racist murderer during a service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church.

The emotional pinnacle came at the end of the four-hour service, when Obama reached the lectern. This was one of the magnificent moments of his presidency.

Barack Obama stood before a large black gospel choir, flanked by the purple robes of African Methodist Episcopal pastors. He said he had felt “an open heart” after learning about the catastrophe, and that, more than anything, was what was needed now, along with a “reservoir of goodness”.

He repeated: “That reservoir of goodness. If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we can tap that grace, everything can change. Amazing grace. Amazing grace.”

For 13 long seconds he was silent. And then he sang the first verse of an 18th-century British hymn, the one that long ago had been reborn as the greatest African American spiritual of them all:

Amazing grace

How sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me

I once was lost, but now am found

Was blind, but now I see.

By the second line, all 6,000 mourners were on their feet, many with tears overflowing, singing the words with him.

When the song was over, the president raised his voice, as if chanting a dirge:

Clementa Pinckney found that grace. Cynthia Hurd found that grace. Susie Jackson found that grace. Ethel Lance found that grace. DePayne Middleton-Doctor found that grace. Tywanza Sanders found that grace. Daniel L Simmons Sr found that grace. Sharonda Coleman-Singleton found that grace. Myra Thompson found that grace.

“Through the example of their lives they’ve now passed it on to us,” he concluded, “may we find ourselves worthy of that precious and extraordinary gift as long as our lives endure. May grace now lead them home. May God continue to shed His grace on the United States of America.”

The president and his wife returned to the White House that evening. As the sun began to disappear, a completely different feeling gripped New York and Washington, Chicago and Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. In those places, and in hundreds of other cities, towns and villages, gay people and their friends swarmed into the streets to celebrate the day’s other, opposite kind of event: the ruling of the United States supreme court that finally made marriage equality the law of the land.

For the fourth time, Anthony Kennedy, a Republican nominated by Ronald Reagan, embraced the idea of a constitution which must change as society changes. He and his four liberal allies found that “the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person”, and that the court had long held that “the right to marry is protected by the constitution”. Kennedy declared that “the fundamental liberties protected by the 14th amendment’s due process clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs”.

And just as advocates had predicted, the court cited Loving v Virginia, the decision that ended bans on interracial marriages, as a crucial precedent.

Outside the courthouse, jubilant demonstrators waved rainbow flags and chanted: “Love has won!” In the Rose Garden, the president declared: “Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens. And then sometimes, there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”

Inside, as dusk settled, Michelle Obama spotted “a purplish glow” through a north-facing window. Then she remembered that the staff had planned a magnificent surprise: the illumination of the White House in the rainbow colors of the gay flag. In her memoir, Becoming, she described what happened next:

Looking out the window, I saw that beyond the gates on Pennsylvania Avenue, a big crowd of people had gathered in the summer dusk to see the lights. The north drive was filled with government staff who’d stayed late to see the White House transformed in celebration of marriage equality. The decision had touched so many people. From where I stood, I could see the exuberance, but I could hear nothing … The White House was a silent, sealed fortress, almost all sound blocked by the thickness of its windows and walls … Oftentimes, I was happy to withdraw into the protected hush of the residence at the end of a long day. But this night felt different, as paradoxical as the country itself. After a day spent grieving in Charleston, I was looking at a giant party starting just outside my window.

She asked her husband to come outdoors but he said he couldn’t deal with another crowd. Sasha, 13, was too focused on her iPad to move, but her 18-year-old sister, Malia, agreed to come. The two of them skipped by hovering Secret Service agents.

We were giddy now. “We’re getting out!” I said. “Yeah we are!” she said. We made our way down a marble staircase and over red carpets, around the busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and past the kitchen until suddenly we were outdoors.

It had taken gay Americans exactly 50 years to reach this moment: 50 years of blood, sweat, toil and tears. In 1965, this building, like the federal government itself, like the entire United States of America, had loomed as a fortress of unchallenged prejudice. But tonight the White House was the glowing mansion at the center of a great national celebration of freedom: the home at the end of our rainbow.

Outside, Michelle and Malia Obama saw “a beautiful, close-up view of the White House, lit up in pride”.

“Malia and I leaned into each other,” Michelle wrote, “happy to have found our way there.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 Next > End >>

Page 872 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