Mediaboss Marketing

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Is it possible to be a good progressive and oppose abortion? This long-simmering question was brought to the fore recently when Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced their support of Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha who is also, inconveniently, antiabortion.

Under pressure from abortion rights groups, Perez quickly walked back his support for Mello and said that being pro-choice was not negotiable for Democrats. That reversal was in turn rebuked by a chorus of high-ranking Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). In the end, Perez walked back his walk-back, announcing there was no litmus test after all.

But is there? Should there be? Increasingly, abortion opponents hear a resounding yes. The message they get from progressive activists and commentators, if not from Democratic Party leaders, is increasingly hostile: As much as the party professes to be a big tent, those who oppose abortion rights arent really wanted.

This is a mistake and not only because it limits Democrats ability to keep or expand their voter base. It also reduces the core values of the progressive movement to a single symbol and constrains the debate on how to best achieve broader goals of social and economic equality. The associated contempt for antiabortion activists often relies on outdated assumptions about their aims and origins and fails to take into account the complexity of most Americans views on abortion.

Ironically, restricting abortion was once a progressive cause. Early defenders saw protecting the unborn as an extension of societys responsibility to shield the poor, weak and otherwise defenseless. Many were wary of abortions eugenic potential and of how it allowed men more leeway to exploit or abuse women without consequence.

But after the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in 1973, the issue became more and more a matter of left-right divide, and the antiabortion cause was folded into a broader portfolio of social conservative goals. Yet recent years have seen the emergence, or perhaps reemergence, of activists who oppose abortion from a divergent and sometimes frankly left-wing perspective secular humanists; consistent life ethic activists who oppose abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia with equal fervor; and antiabortion believers otherwise fed up with the Republican Party.

Democrats, and progressives more broadly, should be welcoming such people rather than disdaining them. Assuming bad faith on the part of anyone who opposes or is even willing to accept limits on abortion rights makes it too easy for the left to embrace a narrow perspective when deciding how best to pursue progressive goals.

Equating non-support of abortion to a total abandonment of womens rights, the way a pointed headline in New York Magazine did last month, ignores the reality that womens rights should include far more than that from an end to pervasive sexual harassment to broader support for mothers. And yes, economic factors may play a role for many women deciding whether to obtain abortions. But suggesting, as did ThinkProgresss Bryce Covert in a recent New York Times op-ed, that an unyielding abortion rights stance is the only way to ensure womens ability to achieve financial security confuses cause and effect.

Equating progressivism with being pro-abortion rights assumes that providing a single, simple solution making it easier to terminate pregnancies is worth more effort than addressing the root causes of the problem. An equally if not more progressive strategy might focus instead on addressing the lack of maternal leave and child-care policies, demanding a living wage, and pushing back against an economic system that penalizes women for having and rearing children in the first place. And while one might argue that Democrats are already doing all of the above, the willingness to excommunicate those who disagree with one strategy even if they adhere to all others makes it clear which issue matters the most.

Of course, even if progressive successes made it possible for every woman to care for an unexpected child, there would still be women who didnt want to continue an unwanted pregnancy. And this is where enforcing cut-and-dried allegiances supporting abortion in all circumstances is the only possible Democratic stance is at odds with the conflicted way that most Americans, even those who would by and large support progressive policies, approach the issue.

According to Gallups 2016 polling, 47 percent of Americans think that abortion is morally wrong, but a full 50percent believe it should be legal, though the circumstances in which they would allow it vary. Attempting to neatly slice these shades of gray in order to most perfectly define a true Democrat would leave many thoughtful Americans out in the cold.

Movements need defining tenets to unite around. From there, individuals within the community can debate the best ways to achieve their goals. But the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement more generally, should be wary of replacing the goals of social and economic justice with the proxy of being pro-abortion rights. Flatly writing off antiabortion progressives alienates potential supporters of the larger cause, while narrowing the spectrum of discussion to the perspectives of a purist few.

See original here:
Why won't Democrats let antiabortion progressives under their tent? - Washington Post

With the subtitle A Roadmap for the Resistance, the Congressional Progressive CaucusPeople's Budget,isn't shy about its purpose in the Trump Era.

As Rep. Barbara Lee summarized it: In stark contrast to President Trumps cruel poverty budget, our progressive proposal is a plan for resistance and a roadmap to a safer, healthier and more prosperous America for all.

While Democrats and Republicansfighting to claim victoryin the deal on thefiscal 2017 spending plan, progressive Democratsare dreaming bigger.

The People's Budget is a yearly wish list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus meant to show what their priorities would beif the left wing of the Democratic Party was in power. Since that is far from the case, the proposalsin the budget are unlikely to become policy in the near future.

But the budget nonetheless provides one of the clearest pictures available of progressivespreferred policies. Unsurprisingly, they differ quite a bit from the deal reachedbetween congressional Democrats and Republicans.

The Peoples Budget includesspending on job creation to reach full employment as aprimary aim, which hasn't changed from previous CPC budgets. It includes $2 trillion in spending on infrastructure and other direct job creation over the next several years, with $281 billion in the rest of calendar year 2017 and about $710 billion over 2017-2018. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute(EPI), which releases an analysis of the CPC budget each year, found it would increase Gross Domestic Productby 2 percent and employment by 2.4 million jobs in the near term.

CPC co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison said in a statement that the budget would also implement debt-free college, fund universal child care, ensure equal pay for equal work, expand Social Security, and fight climate change.

As the Trump Administration attempts to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Labor Department, and countless other essential services, the Progressive Caucus is providing an alternative vision one that will help working families, he said.

The People's Budget also contains provisions for increasing government revenue, largely through measures that are aimed at reducing income inequality, like raising marginal tax rates on millionaires and billionaires, raising tax rates on capital gains and large estate inheritances, closing corporate tax loopholes, and creating a financial transaction tax.

Spending cuts would come in the form of replacing sequestration cuts to the Defense Department with similarly sized, but longer-term, cuts that would slow the growth of defense spending.

Even considering that the People's Budget would increase the deficit in the short term, EPIs analysis estimates that its measures to increase employment would put the government on track to a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in a matter of years.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

View post:
Progressives' 'People's Budget' Becomes 'Roadmap for the ... - Roll Call

Three years ago, as the Princetonbaccalaureate speaker, I stood in the pulpit of the University Chapel and addressed the graduating Class of 2014. I talked about the sacrifices my parents made so I could attend college and my commitment to using my education to help future generations. I encouraged the graduates to consider the path I had chosen: a career in public service.

Last week, I returned to a campus that felt very different from my earlier visit. I met with a range of student groups, and each conversation inevitably turned to our countrys new President, the harm caused by his policies, the disruption of established norms, and the growing political polarization in our country.

At the end of these conversations, the same question kept coming up: Does public service still matter?

For progressive students interested in working for the government, many now find their plans upended. They rightly question whether they can work under the leadership of a President whose values and policies are so contrary to their views.

I share your disappointment, anger, and fear. But even in these troubling times, I havent lost my faith in the value of public service. Now more than ever, our government needs to continue attracting young people who understand the importance of facts, data, and science. However, for progressives interested in public service, the changed political landscape will require a broader search for ways to make a difference.

To those students who remain interested in federal service, I encourage you to pursue those opportunities. Much of what the federal government does is not affected by who occupies the White House. Civil servants implement and enforce the laws that keep our country stable and functioning. They manage critical programs that help millions of Americans. Because of the dedication of federal employees, veterans receive high-quality health care, unemployed workers are trained for the jobs of the 21st century, and medical researchers are eradicating diseases.

That being said, it would be disingenuous for me to say that it doesnt matter who captains the ship. In fact, it matters very much. Just over the past 100 days, climate change is being erased from the federal governments agenda, a 70-year-old foreign policy consensus has been upended, and health care for millions is in danger of being stripped away.

If I were starting a career in government today, I would look instead to state and local government. Progressive leaders across the country are driving change that will create greater opportunity and fairness, and these local actions will eventually become the foundation for national policies.

When it comes to helping American workers, states like California, New York, and Connecticut are leading the way in raising the minimum wage, requiring paid leave, and protecting against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. When it comes to fighting climate change, cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago are committed to taking meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

With the smaller size of state and local government, its also easier to make a difference earlier in your career. The impact of your work will be felt more quickly and acutely in the communities you serve, which, in turn, will result in a more gratifying professional experience. If you want to impact peoples lives every day and get to know the people youre serving the rewards at the local level may ultimately be greater than chasing the shiny object of federal service.

However, public service isnt limited to working in the government. Important policy changes can be driven through nonprofit organizations, foundations, and even the private sector.

I am a board member of the American Sustainable Business Council, which represents a quarter of a million companies around the country. These socially responsible companies support pro-environment and pro-labor policies because they know that profits can made without sacrificing people or the planet. These companies understand that the high road is the smart road.

In the end, public service doesnt take just one form. Its a mindset. Its a commitment to address the problems of our time and not simply pass those problems on to the next generation.

As former President Obama said shortly after leaving office, Our democracys not the buildings, its not the monuments, its you being willing to work to make things better.

I have spent two decades in public service, and I cant imagine a more intellectually stimulating and professionally rewarding career. Our nation is going through one of the most challenging periods in its history, and many are disillusioned about what the future holds. Yet, even in times like this, I still believe in the power of ordinary citizens to create a more perfect union for future generations.

Chris Lu 88 served in the Obama Administration as Deputy Secretary of Labor and White House Cabinet Secretary. He is a news editor emeritus for The Daily Princetonian. He is now a senior fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center of Public Affairs. You can contact him on Twitter @ChrisLu44.

Go here to see the original:
Why public service still matters for progressives - The Daily Princetonian

VANCOUVER Voters in British Columbia head to the polls on Tuesday as the Liberals aim to cling to power and the New Democrats try to take it back after 16 years in Opposition.

Experts say the emergence of the Green party for the first time in Canadian provincial politics has injected some defining moments into an otherwise ho-hum campaign.

Green Leader Andrew Weaver was in both debates during the month-long campaign with Liberal Leader Christy Clark and the NDPs John Horgan.

Heres what else experts said about the issues that they think have resonated with voters:

Hamish Telford, political science professor at the University of the Fraser Valley:

We have not had a provincial election in Canada where the Green party has played a strong third-party role. Even with Elizabeth May at the federal level she has not got into all the election debates so the Greens make this a very different election in Canada, and certainly in B.C.

Telford said the Liberals have run a hard and cold campaign by repeating the message of lowering taxes, controlling government spending and growing the economy. Theres no real love in this message.

Overall, the NDP is running a better campaign than they did the last time. John Horgan has been a vigorous campaigner in the sense that hes attacking the Liberal record.

Telford said Weaver has presented himself as a credible alternative to the traditional parties. Thats a big stride for a new party in the system.

Telford said Canadas first Green member of a legislature is aiming to gain at least three more seats to get more resources in the house.

Jeanette Ashe, political science professor at Douglas College in New Westminster, B.C.

B.C. is historically a polarized system and the fact that the Greens have done well makes us consider whether or not we might be moving toward a three-party system, Ashe said.

The consequence of the growing popularity of the Greens is that its pushing the other parties to reconsider their environmental policies.

Ashe said the Greens opposition to the doubling of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to B.C., a project supported by the Liberals, forced the New Democrats to state their stance against it. For some prospective voters, their position had been unclear.

All the parties are trying to appear more environmentally progressive, and I think thats just in response to the growing popularity of the Green party. The voters are demanding it.

Ashe said gender diversity is increasingly becoming a big factor for political parties around the world in an effort to represent all constituents. When one party leads the way with a diverse slate, as the federal Liberals did in the 2015 election, a contagion effect leads opponents to react, she said.

The NDP said it has the highest number of female candidates, at 51 per cent.

The Greens said 37 per cent of their candidates are women. We recognize that this is not nearly good enough in terms of gender parity, the party said in a statement. This is an issue all parties face as there are systemic barriers to women running for office. We can and we must do better to support more women running with the Greens.

The Liberal party did not respond to requests for information on the percentage of female candidates on its slate, but a count of its candidates suggests 41 per cent are women.

Michael Prince, political science professor at the University of Victoria:

The televised debate is clearly the single-most important political event in terms of making or breaking reputations or shifting moments. For Andrew Weaver, it was a great night. Greens were treated as a co-equal party. In the past, the Greens have been almost an afterthought.

Hes on the side of the angels in terms of deciding not to take any corporate or union donations in the last year, Prince said of Weaver in a province often described as the Wild West because of its lack of strict rules around accepting donations.

I think Andrew Weaver is morphing from a scientist, an academic, into a political performer or a politician. Their platform has matured over the first two or three elections. Theyre clearly not just playing to the environmental file. Theyve got some good policy ideas on education, health care, and housing.

Richard Johnston, political science professor at the University of British Columbia:

This is an election singularly lacking in defining moments, he said, adding the Greens have steadily gained credibility as a viable alternative to the two traditional parties.

I do have a sense that people are really tired of the premier, and that includes the business community. She doesnt have the credibility that (former Liberal premier) Gordon Campbell did. On the other hand, there isnt anything about the NDP that makes them somehow more credible than they have been over the decades.

If I were a New Democrat Id be pretty damn angry about Andrew Weaver, Johnston said. Weaver gets treated as a progressive, and of course there is much in the Green program that is progressive, but it is a kind of soft progressivism that does not address hard questions of poverty, inequality, the workplace, the redistributive elements of taxation, the stuff that goes to class divisions in society.

Follow @CamilleBains1 on Twitter.

Read the original post:
Liberals, NDP forced to notice emerging Green party in BC election - CityNews

It was around Wednesday afternoon that the left-wing activists at Indivisible realized all their plans for the week were shot. Everything we had scheduled was chucked out the window, said Angel Padilla, the groups co-founder and policy director. And everything was refocused on defending the ACA.

Republicans have scheduled a Thursday vote on their bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Liberal groups are making a late, escalated effort to block it, one that goes heavy on protesting members of Congress where they live and work.

It might be too little, too late. Progressives spent weeks watching Republicans struggle to get the votes for Speaker Paul Ryans American Health Care Act. And while some have been sounding the alarm about the bills chance at passage for more than a week, others had largely moved onto other priorities, thinking the fight over ACA might have already been won.

Along with MoveOn.org, CREDO, and several other progressive advocacy groups, Indivisible helped organize 29 protests scheduled for Thursday at the home offices of Republican House members expected to vote for the bill.

Hundreds of protesters are also expected to flood the Capitol at 12:30 pm when a floor vote on the bill is scheduled for a rally to save the ACA. Meanwhile, activists across the country expect to make more than 100,000 phone calls to House Republicans offices on Thursday alone, according to a tally based on conversations with six different leading progressive organizations.

We are going to make clear that voting to repeal health care for millions of Americans is a career-ending vote, said Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org, in an interview. They will hear from us that there will be a massive political price for shredding the health care of millions of people."

When Ryans first stab at replacing Obamacare failed in March, the lions share of the credit went to the resistance movement that had unexpectedly emerged to defend Barack Obamas signature health care law.

Activists and protesters began showing up at town halls and berating Republicans. Obamacares popularity in polling surged. Op-ed pages brimmed with stories of lives the ACA had saved.

As Voxs Sarah Kliff wrote at the time in detailing Obamacares surprising resilience, House Republicans were inundated everywhere they looked by Obamacare defenders:

People who werent even signed up for Obamacare turned out at raucous town hall meetings, suddenly ready to defend a law that has never been very popular. ...

But once the ACA was actually threatened, things changed. Obamacares popularity went up. More states began fighting to expand Medicaid at the exact moment Republicans wanted to end that program. Obamacare supporters showed up to town halls. They proved that delivering on Obamacare repeal would not be nearly as easy as politicians had expected. It has become a program that millions of Americans rely on and that makes it awfully difficult to roll back.

When GOP leaders pulled back from a vote on the AHCA in March, progressive groups celebrated. Democrats took a photo jumping in unison outside of the Capitol. Millions of Americans have embraced progress and do not want to go back, wrote Faiz Shakir, of the ACLU, after House Republicans abandoned their drive to hold a vote.

Meanwhile, Republicans waited and began amending the bill to court more votes.

As the spotlight shifted to new issues, such as North Korea and tax reform, a few big things changed the dynamic of health care reform. Most importantly, an amendment to allow states to opt out of many Obamacare regulations won converts from the conservative Freedom Caucus.

As the bills defenders grew in numbers, its opponents grew quieter.

Every now and then, a report would emerge suggesting Ryan was getting closer to Obamacare repeal, prompting a flare-up of concern on the left. But the unrelenting stream of stories and protests over the ACA has never really come close to resembling its sustained velocity in February and March.

"Everyone went drinking after the first one [AHCA] failed, and I think we got caught flat-footed," said one Democratic Party operative, speaking on the condition of anonymity, in an interview. The grassroots moved on, and then Republicans moved fast Were all now staring at the abyss."

There was a natural reason for the change it didnt look at all likely to outside observers that Ryan could corral his caucus, and its hard to mobilize people to kill a bill that nobody thinks is alive to begin with. But whether the faded pressure was inevitable or not, it created an opening for Republicans to coalesce around a plan.

Other progressives expressed frustration that, after so many false starts, news reporters appeared to grow desensitized to the possibility of a bill ever gaining close to enough momentum to pass. That, in turn, made it harder for advocacy organizations to generate the same kind of passion among their followers.

"MoveOn and many other groups have been operating in Defcon 5 mode for a week. But most Americans, even progressive activists, weren't aware of the danger. And the media environment that our members live in has made it seem like this moment was almost impossible, said Wikler, of MoveOn, pointing to a series of tweets he wrote on April 28 warning Americans to recognize that AHCA was far more likely than most were recognizing.

Wikler added: "We've been working around the clock and spending money hand over fist for the last week to head this off. But it would take all of five minutes to string together a series of quotes about how TrumpCare was dead in major front page and prime-time stories from the biggest news outlets.

But even if some on the left feel caught off-guard, progressives are mobilizing for one big push Thursday morning before Ryans caucus can head to the floor for a vote.

Weve been expecting this for a while and hammering the Republican offices with phone calls for weeks, said Murshed Zaheed, of CREDO. Were going to be bringing that to another decibel level on Thursday.

CREDO is planning to provide what Zaheed calls aerial cover to by flooding congressional Republicans phone lines with tens of thousands of calls. Scott Dworkin, co-founder of the Dems Against Trump political activism group, said he expects his members to lodge 15,000 calls and emails every hour on Thursday about ACA to House Republicans.

Then there are the plans for targeting 29 different Republicans backing AHCA with protests. Two are expected in the home state of Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, a high-profile swing-vote on the bill now expected to back it. There will be five protests against Speaker Ryan throughout different sites in his home state of Wisconsin, including in Appleton, Janesville, Racine, Wausau, and Eau Claire.

Congressional liberals will try to aid the effort. On Thursday, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent out a letter to the rest of the House Democratic caucus reiterating the partys plan to throw up full opposition to TrumpCare for depleting Medicare and driving up premiums for seniors.

Pelosi aide Drew Hammill explained House Democrats battle-plan this way: "Message discipline. Keep it simple. Poll tested. Lethal. Tattoo it to their foreheads.

And progressive advocates are reminding their members that passing it through the House is still just the first step Republicans have to take to making their bill into law.

If they ram it through on Thursday, Murshed said, well target the Senate right away to make sure its dead-on-arrival.

More here:
"We got caught flat-footed": liberals rush to stop a health bill they thought was dead - Vox