RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
This Is the Greatest Anti-Slavery Speech Uttered by an American Print
Monday, 09 July 2018 08:39

Kendi writes: "On the Fourth of July, 1852, America celebrated its freedom, as it does every Independence Day. Frederick Douglass, America's most famous anti-slavery activist and fugitive slave, saw no ground to celebrate: he saw the octopus arms of slavery stretched everywhere, exposing the hollowness of America's freedom values."

Frederick Douglas addressing an English audience during his visit to London in 1846. (photo: Bettmann/Bettmann Archive)
Frederick Douglas addressing an English audience during his visit to London in 1846. (photo: Bettmann/Bettmann Archive)


This Is the Greatest Anti-Slavery Speech Uttered by an American

By Ibram X. Kendi, Guardian UK

09 July 18


The message of Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech on the contradiction of America’s just ideals and unjust realities endures

n the Fourth of July, 1852, America celebrated its freedom, as it does every Independence Day. Frederick Douglass, America’s most famous anti-slavery activist and fugitive slave, saw no ground to celebrate: he saw the octopus arms of slavery stretched everywhere, exposing the hollowness of America’s freedom values.

That holiday, he delivered the greatest anti-slavery speech in American history. Its relevance endures today. Not least since the racism that made slavery endures. And the contradiction of America’s just ideals and unjust realities endures, too.

On this, the bicentennial year of Douglass’s birth, the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives and American University’s Antiracist Research and Policy Center are honoring 200 Americans whose work best reflects his legacy. We unveiled the first 10 members of the “FD200” today, on the 166th anniversary of Douglass’s speech.

In Douglass’s honor, we’d like to share an abridged version of his speech – now considered one of the greatest in US history.

– Ibram Kendi

***

What to the slave is the Fourth of July?
By Frederick Douglass

5 July, 1852

The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th of July oration. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom.

I shall not presume to dwell at length on the associations that cluster about this day. Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. Cling to this day – cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight.

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. With them, nothing was settled that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were final; not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men.

Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. My business, if I have any here today, is with the present. We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future.

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence?

I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.

This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, is inhuman mockery. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today?

Above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. My subject, then fellow-citizens, is AMERICAN SLAVERY.

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery – the great sin and shame of America! I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! Had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, today, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Americans! Your republican politics are flagrantly inconsistent. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a byword to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! Be warned! Be warned! A horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end.
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;
But all to manhood’s stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his prison-house, the thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive –
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate’er the peril or the cost.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Russian-Backed Offensive in Syria Makes a Mockery of Trump Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6700"><span class="small">Dexter Filkins, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Sunday, 08 July 2018 13:32

Filkins writes: "More than three hundred thousand civilians are on the move - some on tractors, some on foot - trying to escape a Russian-backed Syrian army offensive aimed at reconquering the city of Dara'a and the surrounding area, where the rebellion against the regime of Bashar al-Assad began seven years ago."

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians fleeing the government's attacks in the south, most without shelter, food, or water, are finding borders closed and are withering in the summer sun. (photo: Ammar Al Ali/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Hundreds of thousands of Syrians fleeing the government's attacks in the south, most without shelter, food, or water, are finding borders closed and are withering in the summer sun. (photo: Ammar Al Ali/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)


A Russian-Backed Offensive in Syria Makes a Mockery of Trump

By Dexter Filkins, The New Yorker

08 July 18

 

humanitarian disaster is unfolding in southern Syria, where hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing heavy fighting and finding borders locked tight. More than three hundred thousand civilians are on the move—some on tractors, some on foot—trying to escape a Russian-backed Syrian army offensive aimed at reconquering the city of Dara’a and the surrounding area, where the rebellion against the regime of Bashar al-Assad began seven years ago.

The refugees are fleeing Dara’a in two waves: to the east, toward the nearby Jordanian border, and to the west, toward Israel. Both borders are closed, and the refugees are piling up at the frontiers. The Kingdom of Jordan, which has already taken in nearly a million and a half Syrians, fears that to take in any more would put its very survival at risk. (Jordan’s total population is about ten million.) For its part, Israel has accepted almost no Syrian refugees since the war began. Both countries are providing some help to those fleeing—the Jordanians inside a “safety zone” within their own territory, where other relief groups are also operating, the Israelis by sending relief supplies to camps across the border and by treating small numbers of Syrians in Israeli hospitals. It’s better than nothing, but, against the need, hardly enough.

As a result, this latest wave of displaced Syrians, who number three hundred and twenty-five thousand, are withering in the sun; most have neither shelter nor food nor water. Daytime temperatures are nearing a hundred degrees. Women on the run are giving birth; children are dying not just from dehydration brought on by diarrhea but from scorpion bites. “They’re in desert-like conditions,” Paul Donohoe, a spokesman for the International Rescue Committee, told me. “And the doors are closed.” Among its efforts, the I.R.C. has put a midwife in a mobile clinic just inside the Jordanian border to help deliver babies. Esraa al-Amer, a twenty-two-year-old Syrian woman, made it to the Jordanian safety zone with her two children. The Russian bombs, she told Al Jazeera, were falling “as if it were the Day of Judgement.” “We left everything and ran to the borders.”

The plight of the Syrians fleeing Dara’a is another sad example of America’s persistent reluctance to involve itself in the Syrian war. The rebellion began in 2011, following the castration and murder, by Assad’s goons, of a thirteen-year-old boy named Ali Hamza al-Khateeb, who had been detained for spraying anti-government graffiti. The Assad regime, now in its forty-seventh year, has sworn to crush the rebels, no matter how numerous they are; since 2011, at least four hundred thousand Syrians have died, and roughly half of all Syrians have fled their homes. As the war began, President Obama refused all but the most token support for the rebels battling Assad, fearing a quagmire. Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah rushed into the vacuum and saved Assad. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump criticized Obama’s Syria policy, but since becoming President he has more or less continued it.

Which brings us to Dara’a. Last July, President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia agreed to a ceasefire in Dara’a and its environs. (King Abdullah of Jordan signed on, too.) They called it a “de-escalation zone.” At the time, the agreement was held out as a sign of how the United States and Russia could work together. “I would tell you that, by and large, our objectives are exactly the same,” Rex Tillerson, who was then the secretary of state, said.

At the time, Assad’s army was consolidating its gains in the north of the country, thanks in part to America’s offensive against ISIS. At the same time, Assad was preparing to launch a military campaign in Eastern Ghouta, a large rebel-held area in the Damascus suburbs. A ceasefire in Dara’a, the meddlesome southern province, fit Assad’s needs at the time perfectly. “The Syrians wanted the agreement to buy time,” Jennifer Cafarella, a Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, in Washington, told me.

Assad’s reconquest of Eastern Ghouta was completed in April—with the help of chemical weapons—freeing up his army to head for Dara’a. When the offensive began, two weeks ago, Russian officials, unleashing waves of air strikes, said they had decided to help the Syrian army crush “terrorists.” There was no mention of the “de-escalation zone” that Trump and Putin had agreed to a year ago. The advance of Assad’s army into Dara’a has also been aided by Iranian-backed militias. Several rebel groups have already surrendered.

There’s hardly been a peep out the Trump White House. The “de-escalation zone” was inaction disguised as action; indeed, for all of President Trump’s criticism of his predecessor, he has made it absolutely clear that he intends to stay out of Syria, even at the price of allowing Putin to make him look like a pathetic weakling. This is how Heather Nauert, the State Department spokeswoman, put it this week: “We’re continuing to have talks with the Russians, we’re continuing to have talks with the Jordanians, and express our extreme concern about the situation there.” Cafarella, the Syria analyst, put it more succinctly: “There was never any intention of enforcing the agreement.” On Friday, Syrian forces reached the border post of Nassib, giving them control of one of the main highways running between Damascus and Jordan.

Since 2011, American foreign policy in Syria has been a classic study in the lessons of Realpolitik: preserve the status quo and, above all, use your power only to advance your self-interest. Under both Presidents Obama and Trump, the United States has carried out those dicta perfectly—risking nothing, losing nothing. But Realpolitik has a price, too, even if it can’t be precisely measured in power and self-interest. The catastrophe unfolding in Dara’a is a reminder of just how much America has paid.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Medicare for All Is Now a Mainstream Position Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 08 July 2018 11:32

Sanders writes: "Not long ago, the idea that health care should be a right for every man, woman and child in this country was considered 'radical' or 'fringe' by members of the corporate media and political establishment."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Greg Nash/Getty)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Greg Nash/Getty)


Medicare for All Is Now a Mainstream Position

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

08 July 18

 

ot long ago, the idea that health care should be a right for every man, woman and child in this country was considered “radical” or “fringe” by members of the corporate media and political establishment.

When I introduced my Medicare for all legislation in 2013, I couldn’t find a single Senator to co-sponsor the bill. We were even relentlessly attacked for the idea before the Iowa Caucuses in 2015.

But today Medicare for all is a mainstream position in the Democratic Party. My bill has 16 co-sponsors in the Senate, and a version of the legislation has the support of a majority of Democrats in the House. Public polls conducted by nonpartisan organizations show a full 75 percent of Democratic voters support Medicare for all.

Make absolutely no mistake about it, our ideas are winning.

And would you like to know why so many of my colleagues now support Medicare for all? It’s because you support Medicare for all, and because you have been willing to take action in unprecedented numbers in support of the legislation.

That is the political revolution.

Now, from time-to-time, my colleagues who have yet to co-sponsor our bill will ask me if there is still the energy out there for Medicare for all that there was during our campaign. Those questions have only increased as President Trump continues his efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.

The next time one of them asks, I want to be able to say our movement is only getting stronger. And if I can do that, and if they believe it, it won’t be long before our list of co-sponsors grows.

All of us get sick.

All of us need medicine.

All of us have accidents.

All of us need good quality health care.

And in my view, the function of a rational health care system in this country should be to provide quality care for everyone in a cost-effective way, not to make health industry CEOs richer or drive up stock prices on Wall Street.

Unfortunately, even as support for Medicare for all grows, we are still taking on much of the political and financial establishment in this fight. The insurance companies and drug companies in this country are extraordinarily powerful, and they are not going down without a fight.

If we are serious about providing high-quality and affordable health care, the only real solution is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system that provides health care to ALL Americans, including the 50 million uninsured and underinsured in this country.

Sisters and Brothers: In this pivotal moment in American history, let us lead our country forward to guarantee health care as a right and not a privilege. This is a struggle whose time has come. This is a struggle not just about health care but about the heart and soul of our country, about what we stand for as a people.

Help me send this message to my colleagues today:

Add Your Name: Tell my colleagues in the United States Senate that you are more committed than ever to passing a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care. Click this link to sign my petition, and I will carry your message with me whenever anyone asks.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump's North Korea Policy Just Collapsed Print
Sunday, 08 July 2018 10:38

Chang writes: "On Saturday North Korea's Foreign Ministry called just-completed talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 'regrettable.' They were, the ministry said, 'very concerning' because they could lead to a 'dangerous phase that might rattle our willingness for denuclearization that had been firm.'"

Mike Pompeo. (photo: Eric Thayer/Reuters)
Mike Pompeo. (photo: Eric Thayer/Reuters)


Trump's North Korea Policy Just Collapsed

By Gordon C. Chang, The Daily Beast

08 July 18


Pyongyang, by humiliating Secretary of State Pompeo, exposed the fallacy at the heart of American policy.

n Saturday North Korea’s Foreign Ministry called just-completed talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “regrettable.” They were, the ministry said, “very concerning” because they could lead to a “dangerous phase that might rattle our willingness for denuclearization that had been firm.”

The ministry also complained about America’s “gangster-like mindset.”

The statement embarrassed Pompeo, who just hours before issued a sunny assessment of the two-day discussions. There had been, he said, “progress on almost all of the central issues.”

Perhaps the Foreign Ministry statement was just another example of Pyongyang’s negotiating tactics, but it nonetheless signaled the collapse of President Donald Trump’s North Korea policy.

That policy was based on the assumption that Chairman Kim Jong Un had made a strategic decision to give up his arsenal of nuclear weapons. Acting on that assumption, Trump immediately started a new round of diplomacy by keeping Pompeo in the region after the historic June 12 summit in Singapore.

It was right for the president to give Kim the “one-time shot” to make the historic decision to give up nukes. It was right for Trump to accelerate diplomacy after the summit. It was right for him to put Kim to the test by sending Pompeo to Pyongyang.

And now it is right for Trump to say Kim has wasted that opportunity and act accordingly.

The North Koreans say the talks were “regrettable”? It’s time to give them something to really regret. There have to be consequences.

There were consequences in late May. Then, North Korean propaganda writers issued belligerent words in general and torched Mike Pence in particular, calling the vice president a “political dummy.”

Trump’s response was quick. On May 24, he withdrew from the then-upcoming summit with Kim.

The reaction from Pyongyang was even quicker. North Korean official rhetoric went from belligerent to conciliatory in hours.

This time, Trump needs to pull the plug on negotiations.

Why should there be such a short fuse? Trump, by making concessions in May and June, created a situation where delay greatly benefits the North Koreans.

Trump placed trust in Kim’s good faith, even generously giving the North Korean incentives to stall negotiations. The president backed off sanctions, for instance, providing de facto relief. Moreover, he has been allowing China to violate U.S. and UN measures with impunity, and he has not acted against a slightly less-brazen Russia either.

More important, since at least the end of May the administration has held off sanctioning almost three dozen entities, some of them Russian and Chinese. Because North Korea continually changes front companies, not going after Pyongyang’s new shells essentially spells the end of sanctions.

Trump gave Kim another gift: suspension of large-scale joint military exercises with South Korea. The president, incredibly, did that without getting the North Koreans to suspend their drills. Therefore, the Korean People’s Army will proceed with its summer training cycle while U.S. and South Korea forego August’s Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise, intended to keep UN Command forces at a high state of readiness.

All this means Trump cannot waste time.

Trump has famously boasted of his new relationship with Kim. By now, the president has learned—or should have learned—that Kim rulers do not reciprocate friendly gestures. They perceive them as signs of weakness and then press the advantage. While Trump was toasting and complimenting the current Kim, his regime was increasing production of fissile material and continuing construction of missile facilities.

The only way to disarm North Korea is to give whoever is in charge—Kim or perhaps someone else—no choice but to give up weapons. That means, as a practical matter, imposing extremely high costs for stunts like the one he—or they—just pulled. The Wall Street Journal in late May reported that UN and U.S. sanctions cut the flow of international payments to Kim in half. That number could be reduced by, say, another 40 percent, with vigorous enforcement, including a blockade.

And it would be best for Washington to go after Pyongyang’s big-power sponsors, Beijing and Moscow. The Chinese, in particular, have exerted a malign influence in recent months. As Trump himself suggested on various occasions—for instance at his May 22 press conference while hosting South Korean President Moon Jae-in—China was responsible for Kim’s unwelcome “little change in attitude.”

Trump, in response to Beijing troublemaking, can enforce U.S. law against money-laundering Chinese banks. All of the so-called Big Four have been implicated in this sordid activity, and at a minimum billion-dollar fines are in order. Furthermore, the Treasury Department should think about designating Bank of China, the smallest of the group, a “primary money laundering concern” pursuant to Section 311 of the Patriot Act, essentially a death sentence for an international institution. Designation leads to being disconnected from dollar accounts.

Trump, who has repeatedly said he was not going to make the mistakes of his predecessors, just did, in this case by trying to ingratiate himself with a horrific regime. The North Koreans, by going out of their way to embarrass Pompeo, made Trump pay a price, exposing the fallacy at the heart of his policy.

So now it is time for Trump to return the favor. Last month, referring to Supreme Commander Kim, the American leader said “he won’t have that opportunity again.”

Kim had his chance and blew it. Trump cannot take back the legitimization he conferred on Kim in Singapore, but he can take away just about everything else.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Democrats Need to Choose: Are They the Party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the Party of Michael Bloomberg? Print
Sunday, 08 July 2018 08:33

Greenbaum writes: "If Democrats put the right candidate forward, they can, in one political moment, reclaim the presidency and begin the process of healing the nation - and its parties. But for that to happen, Democrats needs to come to terms with the split that's happening in their own big tent."

Michael Bloomberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: Christophe Ena/Mark Lennihan/AP)
Michael Bloomberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: Christophe Ena/Mark Lennihan/AP)


Democrats Need to Choose: Are They the Party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the Party of Michael Bloomberg?

By Daniella Greenbaum, Business Insider

08 July 18


The Democratic Party needs to look inward: is it the party of Michael Bloomberg or the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Democrats need to decide what kind of candidate they are going to support in 2020. There is a division in the party, and strategists should work to ensure it does not erupt and result in a second term of President Donald Trump.

he Republican Party had a big tent. Then, in 2016, its fringe elements elected Donald Trump, leaving moderates politically homeless and Democrats both politically and emotionally disturbed.

If Democrats put the right candidate forward, they can, in one political moment, reclaim the presidency and begin the process of healing the nation — and its parties. But for that to happen, Democrats needs to come to terms with the split that's happening in their own big tent.

The news this week highlighted two very different kind of Democrats. Earlier in the week came the familiar rumors and rumblings that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning to run for president in 2020. (Bloomberg is a political independent at the moment, but reports have suggested he would run this time as a Democrat.)

We've heard this before. But the question of whether the 76-year-old will actually run this time around is far less important than the question of what the Democrats would do if he — or someone like him — does.

The answer to that question, of course, is that there is no "the Democrats" right now. There is the party's left fringe, and then its more centrist counterpart. On Tuesday, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dethroned Rep. Joseph Crowley, a powerful Democrat who had been a 10-term incumbent.

Ocasio-Cortez self-identifies as a "democratic socialist" and espouses many views that differentiate her from other members of the Democratic Party. Some of those differing views are plainly contrary to those traditionally held by Democrats. Others are simply more extreme, fringe variations on the usual themes.

Some of her ideas are familiar ones: She advocates for gun control and criminal justice reform. But she also has called for Medicare for all and a federal jobs guarantee, without advocating a concrete way of paying for these extreme measures. Her solution to these sorts of issues: Tax Wall Street.

That kind of rich-oppressor versus poor-oppressed framework might work in New York's 14th Congressional district, but it is sure to fail on a national level.

In states like South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where Hillary Clinton significantly outperformed Bernie Sanders in the primaries, a more centrist approach, like that of Bloomberg's, would still garner much more support.

There's an added benefit to supporting a candidacy like Bloomberg's: There would be cross-aisle support. A national candidate who runs on the same platform on which Ocasio-Cortez and New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon are running will not garner meaningful Republican support, even in the age of Trump. But a Bloomberg type could attract all those Republicans and former Republicans who, as a result of Trump's ascension, have found themselves politically homeless.

This election cycle will prove to be a season of choosing for the Democratic Party. There will be consequences either way. But when it comes to retaking the presidency, Democrats should focus on presenting a candidate who can appeal to people beyond the left-most fringe of their progressive wing.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 Next > End >>

Page 1201 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