RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Why I'm Voting for Hillary Clinton Print
Tuesday, 01 November 2016 12:04

Mckesson writes: "I am not naive enough to believe that voting is the only way to bring about transformational change, just as I know that protest alone is not the sole solution to the challenges we face."

DeRay Mckesson. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
DeRay Mckesson. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)


Why I'm Voting for Hillary Clinton

By DeRay Mckesson, The Washington Post

01 November 16

 

There is much work that lies ahead, and she is ready and prepared to do it.

’ve been thinking lately about Shirley Chisholm’s legacy and her words: “Freedom is an endless horizon, and there are many roads that lead to it.” As Chisholm understood, we engage in imperfect systems sometimes, to make them more perfect. And our engagement in democracy comes in many forms — we engage in democracy in protests, in board meetings, in classrooms and, importantly, at the ballot.

I am not naive enough to believe that voting is the only way to bring about transformational change, just as I know that protest alone is not the sole solution to the challenges we face.

I voted my entire life, and I was still tear-gassed in the streets of St. Louis and Baltimore. I voted my entire life, and those votes did not convict the killers of Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray or Michael Brown.

But elections do have consequences.

The next president will continue to shape the trajectory of justice and landscape of opportunity in this country. She will be responsible for how trillions of dollars in federal funding are spent, decide how to ensure both liberty and security in an increasingly interconnected world and determine the path forward on health care and Social Security.

I am voting for Hillary Clinton.

Make no mistake, I do not agree with Clinton on everything. For that matter, there are few people in the world with whom I agree on everything.

Her platform should call for an end to the death penalty. It should end the federal government’s “Equitable Sharing Program,” which helps police take cash and property from people who are never convicted of wrongdoing. And when I met with her last week, I asked her to address not only how the federal government should treat nonviolent drug offenders but also the many others whose lives have been impacted by the system of mass incarceration.

But I agree with Clinton more than I disagree with her.

When Clinton started this campaign, she didn’t appear to understand the urgency of the need to address racism. When I first met with her in October 2015, she had not yet released comprehensive policy positions dealing with racial justice. She seemed slow to grasp why it was important to act with comprehensive proposed solutions.

The unrest and activism over the last two years has undoubtedly pushed Clinton, specifically on key issues that she and other Democrats otherwise would not have addressed as forcefully as the party’s platform does: private prisons, an increased minimum wage, the role of institutional and implicit bias in sustaining unjust systems and acknowledging the need to address racism directly, to name a few.

Clinton’s platform on racial justice is strong: It is informed by the policy failings of the past and is a vision for where we need to go.

It acknowledges the need to establish new restrictions on police use of force and militarization, invest in treatment and rehabilitation as alternatives to police and prisons, and protect and expand the right to vote.

It also explicitly calls for undoing some of the key components of the 1994 crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law, such as mandatory minimums, the “three strikes” laws and the remaining 18-to-1 disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine.

Perhaps most impressively, she calls for a $125 billion Economic Revitalization Initiative that is akin to a new New Deal, structurally investing in youth employment, re-entry, small business growth and homeownership.

Her platform signals both deep understanding of the challenges and a plan to move us forward. When I met with her last week, it was clear that she now understands these issues well at a policy level and that she has researched the implications of the positions that she has proposed. In this meeting, she spoke both about the context of change and the concrete actions necessary to open new pathways of equity and justice.

Politics is compromise, by its very nature. But we never compromise on our values and beliefs. I will vote for Clinton and plan to continue to challenge her on her platform and these commitments when she’s in the White House.

I often hear some of my peers say that they may not vote, that a Donald Trump presidency would bring about a productive apocalypse — that the system would grind to a halt and force us to confront everything that is wrong with the system. But we know that the system will not come to a grinding halt; it never has. In a Trump administration, the system would surely grind us, black and brown folks, even more than it already does.

Trump wants to take us back to a time when people like him could abuse others with little to no consequence, when people like him could exploit the labor of others to build vast amounts of wealth, when people like him could create public policy that specifically benefited them, while suppressing the rights and social mobility of others.

When Trump says, “Make America great again,” he is referencing an era when people were singled out and harmed because of their race and religious beliefs, and when violent enforcement of Jim Crow masqueraded as the will of the people.

Trump’s campaign strategy is simple voter suppression: His base already hates Clinton — he is only attacking her to dissuade black and brown people, moderates, undecideds and liberals from voting altogether.

And so Trump is the first major-party candidate in recent memory who campaigns expressly on moving backward from today. It’s the only way he wins.

Clinton has the plan to move American forward.  I believe in moving forward.

The false distance of history deceives some into believing that the trauma of racism and injustice is in our past. Trump is placing a bet that America can be fooled into thinking its greatness lies behind it — that restricting immigration and the rights of religious minorities and ending social welfare programs are things to be celebrated, as they have been in the worst moments of our history.

The work of undoing oppressive systems and building systems rooted in equity and justice is today’s work because the trauma is today’s trauma. When we think of it as yesterday’s trauma, we forget that it is today’s work.

“I’m sick of symbolic things. We are fighting for our lives,” Fannie Lou Hamer once said. I, too, am sick of the symbolic things — there’s too much at stake.

There is much work that lies ahead, and Clinton is ready and prepared to do the hard work. And we can, and will, hold her accountable every step of the way.

I’m voting for Hillary Clinton.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The US Government Must Permanently Halt the Dakota Access Pipeline Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Tuesday, 01 November 2016 10:32

Reich writes: "The U.S. government must permanently halt the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now. The Army Corps of Engineers never did a proper review of its environmental impact, nor did it adequately consulted with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


The US Government Must Permanently Halt the Dakota Access Pipeline

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

01 November 16

 

he U.S. government must permanently halt the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now. The Army Corps of Engineers never did a proper review of its environmental impact, nor did it adequately consulted with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

Not only does pipeline go through tribal burial grounds, but if the pipeline were to leak or burst it would send oil deep into the Missouri River, the Standing Rock Sioux's single source of water for everything from bathing to drinking.

Since 1995, more than 2,000 significant accidents involving oil and petroleum pipelines have occurred, adding up to roughly $3 billion in property damage, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. From 2013 to 2015, an average of 121 accidents have occurred each year.

The negative impacts on health have been severe. An in-depth 2010 report from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which looked at the effects of three major oil spills, found increased incidences of cancer and digestive problems in people who had either ingested the oil directly in drinking water or indirectly through eating the meat of livestock exposed to the oil. In addition, people who had used contaminated water for bathing or laundry appeared to experience a higher incidence of skin problems, ranging from mild rashes to severe and lasting eczema and malignant skin cancers.

The Obama administration must take action immediately to stop this devastation.

What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FBI Is Sitting on Evidence of Russian Support of Trump Print
Tuesday, 01 November 2016 08:31

Corn writes: "On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: 'In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.'"

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


FBI Is Sitting on Evidence of Russian Support of Trump

By David Corn, Mother Jones

01 November 16

 

Has the bureau investigated this material?

n Friday, FBI Director James Comey set off a political blast when he informed congressional leaders that the bureau had stumbled across emails that might be pertinent to its completed inquiry into Hillary Clinton's handling of emails when she was secretary of state. The Clinton campaign and others criticized Comey for intervening in a presidential campaign by breaking with Justice Department tradition and revealing information about an investigation—information that was vague and perhaps ultimately irrelevant—so close to Election Day. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."

Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him "garbage.") On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project's financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) "It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."

This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."

The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.

"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer comments. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, "I have nothing to do with Russia."

The FBI is certainly investigating the hacks attributed to Russia that have hit American political targets, including the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign. But there have been few public signs of whether that probe extends to examining possible contacts between the Russian government and Trump. (In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous online reports that a computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, "We don't yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further explanation." In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, "The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.")

According to several national security experts, there is widespread concern in the US intelligence community that Russian intelligence, via hacks, is aiming to undermine the presidential election—to embarrass the United States and delegitimize its democratic elections. And the hacks appear to have been designed to benefit Trump. In August, Democratic members of the House committee on oversight wrote Comey to ask the FBI to investigate "whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests may have contributed to these [cyber] attacks in order to interfere with the US. presidential election." In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrats on, respectively, the Senate and House intelligence committees, issued a joint statement accusing Russia of underhanded meddling: "Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election. At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election." The Obama White House has declared Russia the culprit in the hacking capers, expressed outrage, and promised a "proportional" response.

There's no way to tell whether the FBI has confirmed or debunked any of the allegations contained in the former spy's memos. But a Russian intelligence attempt to co-opt or cultivate a presidential candidate would mark an even more serious operation than the hacking.

In the letter Reid sent to Comey on Sunday, he pointed out that months ago he had asked the FBI director to release information on Trump's possible Russia ties. Since then, according to a Reid spokesman, Reid has been briefed several times. The spokesman adds, "He is confident that he knows enough to be extremely alarmed."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Remembering the Black Panther Party Print
Tuesday, 01 November 2016 08:22

Greene writes: "The creation of local Oakland activists and radicals Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers soon developed into the largest, most prominent manifestation of 'Black Power' ideology following their formation in October 1966. Yet much about the Panthers remains either forgotten or distorted."

Members of the Black Panther Party. (photo: David Fenton/Getty Images)
Members of the Black Panther Party. (photo: David Fenton/Getty Images)


Remembering the Black Panther Party

By Robert Greene II, Jacobin

01 November 16

 

Fifty years after its founding, the Black Panther Party’s antiracist, anticapitalist vision remains just as relevant today.

his year marks the fiftieth anniversary of both Stokely Carmichael’s coining of the phrase “Black Power” and the formation of the Black Panther Party (BPP).

The creation of local Oakland activists and radicals Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers soon developed into the largest, most prominent manifestation of “Black Power” ideology following their formation in October 1966. Yet much about the Panthers remains either forgotten or distorted, gun-toting iconography standing in for a deeper understanding of their aims.

In the interest of setting the record straight, what follows is a primer on the Black Panther Party — a group that a half century after its founding still has much to teach us about organizing, ideology, and the dangers of promoting revolutionary socialism in the United States.

Origins and Aims

The Black Panther Party followed in the footsteps of earlier black leftist groups such as the African Blood Brotherhood and the National Negro Congress. Like its antecedents, the Black Panthers embraced both black nationalism and socialism. Seale and Newton sought to build an organization that could defend the black community against police brutality, while also offering a sharp anticapitalist vision.

Unlike the major organizations of the Civil Rights Movement, the BPP saw its prospective base as the “Black Urban Lumpenproletariat,” as Eldridge Cleaver, one of the group’s early leaders, laid out in his pamphlet On the Ideology of the Black Panther Party.

For Cleaver and other BPP leaders, the black lumpenproletariat was comprised of those “perpetually in reserve” — Africans Americans in Oakland and elsewhere unable to find work or gain the skills needed to compete in a modernizing workforce. They looked to this segment of the population — rather than the traditional agent of revolution, the organized working class — to power their fight against white supremacy, imperialism, and capitalism.

Born in Oakland, a city with a long history of radicalism and civil rights struggle, the BPP eventually formed chapters across the nation — from New York City to Chicago to the South, in places as disparate as Winston-Salem, North Carolina and New Haven, Connecticut. At its height, the BPP boasted more than 5,000 members nationwide. They reached many more through their newspaper, the Black Panther, which had a circulation of 250,000.

What cohered the various chapters wasn’t necessarily a top-down leadership, but an ethos of Black Power, community organizing, and socialism that channeled the energy of young African Americans angered by the hypocrisy of Great Society liberalism and the callousness of New Right conservatism. Young, talented leaders flourished at the local level, most notably Chicago’s Fred Hampton.

In resisting police brutality in Oakland, the Panthers embraced armed self-defense, a tactic employed by many African Americans across the American South. The geographic connection wasn’t necessarily a coincidence. Founded by two Southerners (Seale was born in Texas, Newton in Louisiana), the BPP shared its iconic symbol with Alabama’s Lowndes County Freedom Organization (organized by Carmichael). Both groups directly challenged white supremacy at the grassroots.

But for the BPP, the struggle against racism was incomplete without a struggle against capitalism. Their 1966 ten-point platform, the clearest programmatic expression of the group’s politics, featured a critical analysis of both white supremacy and capitalism in America. Among their demands were “full employment,” “decent housing,” and a “United Nations–supervised plebiscite” to determine whether African Americans wished to separate from the US and form their own self-governing community.

Each of these goals, along with the rest outlined in the ten-point program, pointed to an organization that was already tying together several strands of left thought prevalent by the late 1960s.

The BPP’s Activities

Among the most important of the Panthers’ activities were its social services, or “survival programs.” The most famous was the free breakfast program, which provided meals to many impoverished African-American youths in Oakland. Another was the local health education program, which aided African Americans who lacked access to quality health care.

Together, the more than sixty survival programs allowed the Black Panthers to win the support of many struggling working-class African Americans, immediately improving the living standards of residents even as they gestured toward a socialist future.

The BPP was also known for patrolling Oakland police officers on the beat. Armed with shotguns and California law books, they would travel around the city and monitor police stops, seeking to curb police brutality. Their brandishing of weapons pushed the California General Assembly to pass, and then-Governor Ronald Reagan to sign, the Mulford Act of 1967, which disallowed the public carrying of loaded guns.

Police didn’t take too kindly to the Panthers’ armed oversight either. The same year the Mulford Act passed, a traffic stop devolved into a gun battle between Newton and Oakland police officer John Frey, who died at the scene. Newton’s subsequent trials became causes du jour for the American left, with “Free Huey” taken up as a rallying cry against oppression, police brutality, and white supremacy in American society.

Anxiety built up in the government’s ranks about the threat the Panthers posed to the nation’s national security. In addition to periodic raids and ambushes by police, the FBI, under the auspices of its now-infamous COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program), went to war on the Panthers. The FBI took a special interest in the Oakland and Chicago chapters, sowing distrust among BPP members and often leaving party members unsure of whom, exactly, they could trust.

The assassination of Hampton and fellow Illinois Black Panther Party leader Mark Clark during a Chicago Police Department raid on Hampton’s apartment on December 4, 1969 showed the lengths local and national authorities would go to suppress the Black Panther Party. Even the group’s free breakfast programs — recognized as potentially radicalizing a new generation of African Americans — were targeted by the FBI and local law enforcement.

Under the weight of severe state repression, arguments ultimately broke out over the group’s disparate activities. By the early 1970s the Black Panthers had split along both ideological and tactical lines.

Huey Newton wanted to focus the BPP’s attention on local activism, education, and community service programs. Eldridge Cleaver — at one point the BPP’s minister of information but who had since fled to Cuba and then Algeria after an ambush of Oakland police officers — pressed for the party to ready itself for an armed insurrection in the United States. The schism was thrust into public view in 1971, when Newton openly criticized Cleaver in the pages of the Black Panther.

When Elaine Brown became the party’s chairwoman in 1973 — replacing Newton, who was exiled in Cuba — she took the party back decisively to its grassroots orientation. Brown emphasized community service, running the Oakland Community School through the 1970s and in the process educating hundreds of African-American children in Oakland.

During her tenure, the BPP even became power players in Oakland and California politics. Bobby Seale ran a strong campaign for Oakland mayor in 1973 (finishing second in a nine-person race before losing in a run-off), and Brown threw her hat in the ring for city council in 1973 and 1975 (she came up short both times). Brown also backed Democrat Jerry Brown’s successful run for governor in 1974 (though what that support yielded for the BPP’s constituency is less apparent).

In the end, Newton’s vision for the BPP largely won out. But his return from exile in 1976 set off another power struggle that ultimately destroyed the BPP.

Relationship With the Left

The Black Panther Party didn’t silo itself off from the rest of the Left. Its Chicago chapter, for example, had a working relationship with the Young Patriots, an organization primarily comprised of the sons and daughters of white Appalachian migrants. In 1969, the BPP invited the Young Patriots and other left organizations to come to Oakland to participate in the United Front Against Fascism Conference.

Hampton’s leadership was crucial to establishing this linkage. The dynamic head of the BPP’s Chicago chapter, Hampton appealed to poor whites as part of his effort to forge an antiracist, anticapitalist alliance of the dispossessed. As Hampton explained, “We’re not going to fight racism with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism.” His assassination in 1969 devastated the Black Panther Party and robbed the movement of one of its youngest, most promising leaders.

The Panthers also involved themselves in the antiwar movement, seeing their struggle for black freedom and self-determination as tied to the resistance movements in Vietnam, Algeria, and elsewhere. In fact, they opened a chapter in Algeria in 1969. When they engaged with the anti-draft movement (“one of the first working coalitions we had,” Seale noted), the Panthers made it clear to protesters that the abuse African Americans faced in the US at the hands of the police mirrored the repression the Vietnamese and other groups experienced from the American military.

Newton’s writings on Black Panther Party ideology in the late 1960s reflected a broader trend among radical African Americans — from Martin Luther King, Jr to Stokely Carmichael — that linked racism at home to imperialism abroad. Newton, for instance, expressed support for Palestine several times in his widely read essays.

In the 1970s, as members of a larger Black Power left, the Panthers engaged in debates about the best course of action for African Americans following the decline of the Civil Rights Movement. Stalwarts of the Black Power movement like Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones before his turn towards black nationalism in the late 60s) had become avowed Marxists and shunned nationalist rhetoric.

The Panthers, while less black nationalist than the popular imagination would have it, never jettisoned their brand of Black Power. But they spent considerable time thinking through the proper mix between black nationalism and socialism — and informed the practice of other left groups in the process.

The Legacy of the Panthers

The work of the Black Panthers remains important for several reasons. First, they remind us that the problem of police brutality has long been with us (Martin Luther King, Jr even mentioned it in his oft-cited, but often misinterpreted, “I Have A Dream” speech). Indeed, protests following the death of Denzil Dowell in North Richmond, a community near Oakland, in April 1967 played a major role in the growth of the BPP from a small cadre to a major political and social force.

Second, the BPP offers a good model of grassroots activism and ideology in practice. While the group was torn apart by conflicts between Newton and Cleaver by the 1970s, the Panthers continued to do important work on the ground in Oakland. Their “survival programs” appealed to African Americans living in poverty who were unable to depend on local government for any help. And crucially, they tied their free breakfast and education programs to a larger political project. An ingenious mix of the practical and the visionary, the BPP’s community work was the most revolutionary work they carried out.

The Black Panther Party also proved an important training ground for African-American women activists, such as Kathleen Cleaver and Elaine Brown. As with the Civil Rights Movement, women members did a great deal of the nuts-and-bolts work in the BPP.

This isn’t to say the BPP was a paragon of women’s rights. When Seale and Newton formed the group, they directed their appeals at the “brothers on the block.” (At other times, their rhetoric was quite progressive: in August 1970, Newton became one of the first African-American leaders of any ideological stripe to express solidarity with gay and lesbian Americans.) Even during Brown’s tenure as BPP chairwoman, the group’s leadership remained overwhelmingly male, and Panther women were subjected to physical and verbal abuse.

Still, Brown and other women Black Panthers carved out space and contributed mightily to the organization.

Finally, the legacy of the Black Panther Party can be seen in the current Black Lives Matter movement. The Movement for Black Lives’ demands for economic justice, community power, and reparations recall the Black Panther Party’s ten-point platform. And, like the Black Power and Civil Rights movements, the Black Lives Matter movement has had to deal time and again with negative media coverage and a “go-slow” critique from many American liberals.

Today, fifty years after its founding, the Panthers should be remembered for more than their black berets and shotguns. Despite their flaws, they melded the immediate and the transformative into a potent political vision, advocating a multiracial alliance against racism, capitalism, and imperialism that delivered tangible gains to the most exploited. That vision is equally as stirring today.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Upside of Ignoring Climate Change Print
Tuesday, 01 November 2016 08:19

Excerpt: "Suppose one fast forwards to the Clinton presidency. It's possible that the way the issue would have been framed during the debates could have limited her policy options."

A man watches the tides crash through his family's sea wall. (photo: Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert/Alamy)
A man watches the tides crash through his family's sea wall. (photo: Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert/Alamy)


The Upside of Ignoring Climate Change

By Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash, Slate

01 November 16

 

It wasn’t really mentioned in the debates, and that might be a good thing.

t wasn’t discussed,” environmentalists lament.

It’s true. The 2016 presidential election has largely ignored climate change. During the three debates, the candidates spent 5 minutes and 27 seconds (about 2 percent of the time) on the topic. This was better than the 2012 debates, when zero minutes were devoted to climate change. It was about even with the 2008 debate (5 minutes and 18 seconds), the 2004 debates (5 minutes and 14 seconds), and worse than 2000 (14 minutes and 3 seconds).

Climate change did come up during the Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley were vocal about it. Hillary Clinton was even forced to take a stand against the Keystone pipeline. After tacitly supporting it during her stint as the secretary of State, she famously declared that “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.” Small mercies!

The Republican primary saw everyone in the field opposing climate change mitigation policies. Some openly questioned climate science while others focused their attacks on it being a job killer.

You’d think that the extremely different viewpoints expressed by the two sides would make this a ripe topic for presidential debates. And yet, it was largely ignored, again, much to environmentalists’ chagrin. But might this actually benefit their cause?

To figure this out, we need an answer to the following: What would make arriving at a bipartisan compromise possible once the elections are over?

Some might say that this compromise is already in motion. After all, prominent Republicans (such as Henry Paulson and George Shultz) have acknowledged the reality of climate change and have come out in favor of mitigation. Yet, the 2015 Gibson resolution on addressing climate change mustered support from only 15 of the 248 House Republicans. A recent Pew poll suggests a continued partisan divide among voters: As opposed to 79 percent of Democrats, only 38 percent of Republicans agree that there is scientific evidence that Earth is warming.

Of course, the continued mistaken belief that there is no climate change feels like even more of a reason why it should be discussed. Perhaps environmentalists hope that such a conversation would convince some deniers of the reality (though that’s largely wishful thinking).

Either way, environmental groups may feel justified in complaining about the neglect. They might even argue that outrageous statements by Trump on climate change could galvanize support for action and mitigation. What can be better for publicity than getting into an onstage (or 3 a.m. Twitter) spat with Trump?

Unfortunately, this might also galvanize opposition against mitigation.

Suppose one fast forwards to the Clinton presidency. It’s possible that the way the issue would have been framed during the debates could have limited her policy options. The danger is that framing might outlast the presidential campaign. Call it the “Trump effect”—the ability of a demagogue to distort the issue and force a conversation along highly polarized lines and even lies.

Trump could have framed climate change as a global conspiracy and taking action on it as pandering to China. This is not far from reality: In June 2012 (well before this election cycle), Donald Trump famously tweeted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” His campaign hasn’t deleted the Tweet; so we suppose he stands by his claim.

As ridiculous as it sounds, these can become difficult labels to shrug off. Post-election, Trump supporters might continue with this mindset of “climate change mitigation equals China pandering.” This framing will probably make it more difficult for some Republicans to arrive at a rational compromise with the Democrats on climate change. Remember, Trump will probably draw between 40-45 percent of the total vote. This is a large constituency to ignore. Climate change could even become a new litmus test for Republicans to demonstrate their opposition to Clinton’s “China pandering” agenda. Harry Truman had to deal with the “who lost China” accusation. Hillary Clinton might have to battle “who lost to China.”

It is understandably frustrating that the potential leaders of our country did not have a productive conversation about one of the greatest threats currently facing humanity. But given the reality of how that conversation likely would have gone, perhaps it is actually preferable that it did not happen. Its absence may make action on climate change a more politically viable and less partisan endeavor in the future. The less attention it gets now, the easier it becomes for Clinton to construct policy compromises that can push the climate change agenda forward.

Getting ignored is bliss, especially when Trump is around.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 Next > End >>

Page 1844 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