Mediaboss Marketing

POLITICOs James Arkin breaks down why the 2022 Ohio Senate race will be a bellwether of Rust Belt politics in the post-Trump era.

But they see the outcome of the trial, which begins on Tuesday, as a reflection of Trumps viability and influence in the GOP moving forward. And they believe a conviction, which would require the support of at least 17 Republican senators, would simply embolden Trump and enrage his base in a way that hurts the party in 2022 and 2024.

He does a pretty good job of being a victim, a GOP senator, who requested anonymity to candidly address the internal party dynamic, said of Trump. If he were to be convicted, there would be an uproar among his supporters. And it would probably energize them.

Ahead of the trial, Republicans are predicting that no more than a handful of GOP senators will join Democrats in voting to convict Trump, especially after 45 out of the 50 Republicans in the chamber voted last month to declare that the Senate has no jurisdiction over a former president.

Trumps allies are already dreading the trial, though, fearful that a public discussion of the events of Jan. 6 in which a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol after the then-president rallied with them at the White House could damage Trump long-term. GOP senators acknowledged those risks for Trump, even as the trial is shaping up to be a referendum on his standing in the party.

Its going to be aired as publicly as it can be, and its based upon recent events, Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said. So I think how he comes out of it, how he rebuilds, Im not sure where that goes. Thats going to be up to him.

To Democrats, an elevated retelling of the events of Jan. 6 is the next-best option to further ostracize Trump given that a conviction is highly unlikely. While Senate leaders are still haggling over the trials parameters, the House impeachment managers will likely be permitted to use videos and other visuals to make their case a serious advantage for Democrats given that much of their case relies on Trumps public statements and other available footage from the riots at the Capitol.

One of the most powerful reasons for a trial here is the public airing of Donald Trumps really heinous criminal wrongdoing and his criminal intent, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former prosecutor and state attorney general. A trial airs a tableau of evidence and proof that can change the way people think about the individual who is on trial. Even when someone is acquitted, they may still be haunted by the facts that come to light at a trial.

Republicans have already signaled their uneasiness with Trumps lawyers, who in an initial filing last week advanced the former presidents unsubstantiated claims that the election was stolen from him. There is widespread concern among Republicans that the arguments on the Senate floor will turn into a re-litigation of Trumps false allegations of election fraud a discussion that GOP senators arent interested in having, as most of them try to move past Trump.

I think this trial will tell us about what the GOP wants to be going forward, added Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Donald Trump did not just drop out of the sky. Everything that he represents has its roots in earlier iterations of the Republican Party.

With expectations already set, Democrats are already telegraphing a shortened trial that punts on the question of whether to subpoena witnesses, with many in the party worried that this weeks exercise will distract from President Joe Bidens legislative and governing agenda, especially if its elongated by new witness testimony.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), perhaps Bidens closest confidant in the Senate, said that during his hour-long meeting with the president last week, We did not talk about impeachment. Biden, Coons said, is relentlessly focused on delivering coronavirus relief to Americans, as well as countering China and Russia.

Coons was one of a few Democratic senators who balked at the idea of the House impeachment managers seeking to call Trump in as a witness for the trial, calling it a terrible idea. The Delaware Democrat, like many others in the party, is eager to get the trial in the Senates rear-view mirror.

Republicans, too, want to get through the trial as quickly and painlessly as possible. Apart from arguing that the proceedings are unconstitutional, they have not mounted a substantive defense of Trumps actions. Many of them have already publicly said they believe Trumps rhetoric was reckless and irresponsible.

Focusing on a procedural defense, though, allows Republicans to defend the most popular figure in their party without having to justify the alleged conduct at the heart of the Houses impeachment case.

I think most of the focus is going to be on the constitutionality and the precedent set by trying a former officeholder, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.

Other Republican senators have tried to appeal directly to Bidens desire to work on legislation that has a tangible impact on Americans reeling from the pandemic and sluggish economy rather than pursuing what they view as an attempt at partisan retribution against a former president whose influence can target those who vote to convict him.

The whole thing is stupid, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said. I know this: Nothing we do next week on that floor is going to help people get vaccines or more people keep their jobs. We should be focused on that instead.

Of course, not all Republicans want Trump to fade into the background. Several GOP senators have directly benefited politically from Trumps backing, and see little or no downside if Trumps wing of the party prevails in the coming years.

In fact, some of their political fortunes are dependent on Trumps continued involvement in the party, especially given his outsized impact on turnout among the GOP base. And many of those same Republicans worry that some of Trumps voters might not turn out when he isnt on the ballot.

I think this idea that congressional Republicans secretly hate Trump is a partial fiction, said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). I think a lot of them have done very well by him and his movement, and are not looking forward to him disappearing.

See the original post here:
Where Democrats and Republicans agree on Trump - POLITICO

Like McCain, the moonshine-swigging former quarterback isnt afraid to let his colleagues know where he stands on a given day, either in the hallways of the Capitol or on cable news airwaves. Manchin often publicly discusses how hes struggling with issues or tough votes. In a nod to his state, he lives on a boat while in D.C. named Almost Heaven.

Hes kind of the Democratic version of John McCain. I say that partially in jest. But partially its true: Joes a hard guy to figure out how to lead. You know? He dances to his own music.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Senators say following Manchins appearances on cable news or in papers is just as important as following the remarks of Senate leaders to understand where things are going.

Joe loves to be in the middle of the action. And if youre unsure about what hes thinking in that moment, just turn on any TV set and there he is, said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Manchins Republican counterpart from West Virginia.

Making known his dissension from Democratic Party orthodoxy is essential to Manchins political survival in a state former President Donald Trump won twice, by roughly 40 points. And though he has long sought to be an essential Senate moderate, he has found mostly frustration during his 10 years as a senator, eventually declaring of the hallowed chamber: This place sucks.

He chafed at the leadership style of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), then found things little better under GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), finding both leaders unwilling to accommodate his style of politics. Trump mostly ignored Manchins entreaties of cooperation, and Manchin had little in common with President Barack Obama, famously shooting a hole through Obamas climate plan in a 2010 ad.

These days, Manchin couldnt be in a better spot. His ally Chuck Schumer is now majority leader and Joe Biden is president after running as a uniter. They need his support on just about everything, and Manchin has spoken to Biden several times in the past week alone.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, flanked by Sens. Joe Manchin, Bob Casey and Heidi Heitkamp, speaks to the media. | Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

In a recent conversation recalled by Manchin, Biden explained what he went through trying to convince Republicans to come on board with the Affordable Care Act in 2009, only to be jilted after months of talks.

Joe, I dont have time to do that again, Biden told Manchin.

Manchin replied: I respect that Mr. President, I really do.

This time around, Democrats are itching to brush aside what they see as unserious Republican offers to compromise, and use tools like budget reconciliation to pass more expansive, progressive bills with only a simple majority. Manchin is also bolstered politically by a GOP governor pushing for a large aid package.

But there are major limits to what Manchin, who sits in the seat once occupied by arch-institutionalist Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), is willing to do. Budget reconciliation is constrained by a rule named for Byrd, and though Democrats could overrule those restraints, Manchin says he will not. And even if that process allows the minimum wage increase Democrats hope for no foregone conclusion Manchin said he will only agree to increasing it to $11 an hour.

I was more than willing to do [vote for the budget] to help the president the way he believes he has to with the urgency of the pandemic, Manchin said. But he knows Im going to do everything I can to make it bipartisan and I will protect the Byrd Rule at all costs.

Manchin, along with Tester, are probably the only two Democrats that can win a seat in their states in the current political climate. Manchin mulled retirement or running for his old job as governor, but in 2018 ran for re-election and narrowly prevailed -- in part for his support for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Because of that dynamic, Manchin gets a wide berth from Democrats when it comes to his voting record. The United States doesnt have royalty, but Manchin is pretty close to the lord of the Senate at this moment now that hes the deciding vote.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) greeted him this month as your highness, a moniker that makes Manchin a bit sheepish.

They just kid around. None of that does anything for me. Its just a little friendly chit-chat back and forth, Manchin said. I didnt lobby for this position, I didnt pick it.

Compared to most Democrats, Manchin is a fiscal conservative, often votes with the GOP on abortion legislation but has tried to cut deals on everything from immigration to gun background checks. Hes found more success lately on coronavirus aid than past endeavors, and is already pushing Bidens package in a more moderate direction.

The Senate is already taking cues from Manchin, approving his amendment with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 99-1. Manchin famously endorsed Collins in her 2020 battle for reelection, which burnished both of their bipartisan credentials.

Sen. Susan Collins talks to Sen. Joe Manchin as Sen. Jeff Flake looks on during a news conference. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

But she says her friend is about to have the weight of the Democratic Party bearing down on him.

My experience with Joe is hes a person you can count on. And if he gives you a commitment he keeps it, Collins said. It cant be easy for him to be in a caucus where the leader is putting enormous pressure on all of its members to toe the party line regardless of the merits.

As far as his relationship with Schumer goes, Manchin praises the New York Democrat but bristles at the notion he can be whipped in line.

Schumer has never come to me and said: Joe this is a party-line vote, weve gotta have you. He understands me well enough. And thats what I respect. We get along great, Manchin said.

During the Senates recent marathon voting series, it was obvious why Manchins vote is so tantalizing to Republicans. He was the deciding vote on several amendments, siding with the 50 GOP senators on protecting federal funds for houses of worship and pushing back against an Obama-era water regulation.

And perhaps the most important major issue where Manchin will side with the GOP is on the minimum wage. He simply seems immovable on his opposition to a $15 national hourly rate.

I would amend it to $11. You know that. Because I think thats basically a base that we should have in America right now, Manchin said, explaining that he would raise the wage up from $7.25 over two years. It gets people who work 40 hours at least over the poverty guidelines. The states that have $15, already have it. Thats great.

Tester and centrist Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) will also be central decision-makers to Democrats priorities on immigration, health care and spending issues. But even among that group, Manchin stands out.

Whos the most likely maybe to vote with Republicans? I would say Joe, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Put it all together, and its almost hard to imagine a legislator having that much sway over the priorities of a party that controls the Senate, House and White House. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said simply: He is the man.

Manchin was with his party over the past week when it mattered though: He voted against GOP efforts to withhold funding to schools with vaccinated teachers that arent reopening, spurned a Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) effort to make it harder to expand the Supreme Court and sided against Sen. Marco Rubios (R-Fla.) effort to crack down on Bidens catch-and-release immigration policies. And then he voted to approve the budget and move forward Bidens agenda, for now at least.

Sen. Joe Manchin questions President Joe Biden's nominee for Secretary of Defense. | Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

Votes like those show that despite his reputation, Manchin will side with Democrats more often than not. And thats likely to be the difference-maker that Biden needs to get his agenda through over the next two years.

After a decade of exasperation, Manchin finally has the chance to shape legislation in his own aisle-crossing image. But it hasnt changed Manchins opinion of the Senate: It still sucks.

That hasnt changed, he said as he walked through the Capitols basement toward the Senate floor. He was immediately swarmed by reporters, asking for his view on the days news.

See the original post:
The Democratic version of John McCain - POLITICO

Socialism, according to dictionary.com, is defined as: an ideology or system based on the collective, public ownership and control of the resources used to make and distribute goods or provide services.

Is socialism bad or good?

Conservatives rant against the evils of big government. During last Novembers elections, they used fear to warn voters that progressive Democrats would bring in socialism if they won. In most of the U.S. House of Representatives races I researched last fall, that was the common accusation.

These races were in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. If properly administered, socialism can be a good thing, as in the case of stopping the spread of a pandemic or avoiding another Great Depression. Last years round of unemployment checks and government payments kept millions of people from dropping below the poverty line and not being able to feed their children or themselves.

Development of the COVID-19 vaccines that could end our isolation and improve the U.S. economy came in great part because the U.S. government worked in cooperation with the pharmaceuticals. President Biden just ordered the manufacture of 200,000,000 more doses. Distribution of vaccines has been organized by the state governments. The vaccine is free.

My wife and I just received a debit cash card with $1200 on it as part of the second round of financial aid authorized by both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress and signed by the previous president. All of you either have received or will soon receive similar cash cards.

If you object to socialism, perhaps you should send it back, unless of course, it means you can now feed your family or fix your car or pay your rent or mortgage.

People are now getting vaccinated based upon priorities determined by both state and federal officials. Many are clamoring to be able to get their shots as soon as possible, complaining that their group is being forgotten or ignored. In a news article in our local paper, one woman complained that people over 70 were being bumped by teachers in the order of priority for shots. Perhaps they are, but someone has to set those priorities based upon the common good. Perhaps the importance of getting our children back into school is a higher priority to help the economy overall than the impatience of a few individuals. Making those life and death decisions is never easy, or often appreciated

All of these actions can be defined as socialism.

Small businesses have now received federal and state grants to keep their employees working and their businesses open. Most of those business owners are conservative.

So, is all this government aid a bad thing or a good thing?

Conservatives might respond by saying that the state government has put too many restrictions on the movement and actions of its citizens, using the pandemic as an excuse to gain control of power.

In some cases, they may be correct. Its difficult to make good decisions under a great deal of pressure, but the overall concern has been to save lives and return the economy to normality as soon as possible. Mask wearing is promoted for the common good, whether or not you object to your individual rights being violated. Its not only about you.

For those of you who listened to conservative candidates who told you to avoid electing socialists to office, did those conservatives speak out of concern for you, or did they accuse progressives, using fear to manipulate you into voting for them?

Socialism is not good for people if it causes them to avoid working hard and being independent. Its not good if it takes away some freedoms that are necessary for a properly functioning society. As in all major issues, we as individuals and our government officials must seek a balance between individual rights and the common good, between the freedom that capitalism offers versus helping those who dont have the capacity to take care of themselves.

COVID-19 should have taught us the necessity of socialism in keeping a society functioning in times of health catastrophes and economic downturns. Socialism is not all bad in the midst of crises. Think of vaccines, unemployment checks, and federal debit cards the next time you consider the evils of socialism.

Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing editor@courierherald.com.

To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.courierherald.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (Well only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 500 words or less.

Read this article:
Socialism and COVID-19 | In Focus - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Labour stands a long way from power, with a leadership off chasing the will o the wisp of phony patriotism authentic values alignment, in the horrible consultant-speak of the day while the crisis in the country deepens. In the absence of real opposition, the worst government in living memory coasts along at 40% in the opinion polls. With Covid, climate change and economic calamity, the future can look bleak.

But it doesnt have to be that way. Up and down the country, Labour is in power in many local authorities. We are going to have to fight hard to preserve this in the May local elections, with so little vision and leadership at the top and the Tories counting on a vaccine bounce. Unless something changes, the only tools and powers we have at our disposal are at the local level. We must use them. Its time to make the Covid recovery a new era of municipal socialism.

This is partly where our movement began. Sidney Webb, the Fabian thinker, was among six socialists elected to the London County Council in the 1892 elections. Of the first hundred Fabian pamphlets published between 1884 and 1900, 43 were about local government. In What About The Rates?, Webbs 1913 tract on the financial autonomy of municipalities, he argued for a socialist strategy for local government. We, as socialists, much cherish local government, he wrote, and aim always at its expansion, not its contraction.

Municipal socialism was a deliberate process of shifting ownership and power whilst raising local living standards something we in the Labour Party could learn from again, as we struggle with the need to balance long-term economic change with delivering immediate real benefits for ordinary people. Municipal socialism was a means of using local political and economic success to build further success, expanding socialist strategy both horizontally, to other municipalities and sectors, and vertically, to larger enterprises and services, and higher levels of government. It both blazed the trail and laid the pathway for national-level economic and political change.

Today we are back in a situation akin to that of the municipal socialists. Like theirs, our methods public ownership, local control, self-help and mutual aid are those required to chart a path through the pandemic and economic crisis and to confront the looming climate emergency. We must harness the available powers of local government to rebuild our shattered economies and our communities. Local government should be our most democratic and accountable level of government and it can be again, if we work to take it back.

This will not be easy. To begin with, local government powers have been eviscerated by 40 years of neoliberal rule and available resources slashed through central government cuts to council budgets. And the Labour Party itself is too often full of know-nothings and naysayers at the local level, people who claim that nothing can be done and are all too quick to fall into line delivering Tory austerity.

But difficulty is not the same as impossibility. We can see this in the innovative approaches being taken by an emerging generation of visionary political leaders at the local level in Labour councils and local authorities up and down the country. These include Jamie Driscoll in North of Tyne, Jan Williamson in Wirral, Paul Dennett in Salford, Joe Cullinane in North Ayrshire, and last but not least Matthew Brown in Preston, and many more.

These leaders are all pursuing innovative strategies municipal ownership, mutual aid, community organising, community wealth building, participatory budgeting, local Green New Deals to improve their local economies and communities and the lives of their residents. They show what can be done even under constrained conditions and during a pandemic and economic crisis. There is no reason why we cant build on these examples to create a new era of municipal socialism from the bottom up no reason except political will and the need to organise to build political power.

Nobody is coming to save us. But we dont need to wait for help from outside. Instead, we can get to work ourselves, building the local economies we want and need, starting from our base in local government. At a time when national politics is failing us, we should return to our roots and re-hoist the banner of municipal socialism in Britain.

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList

More here:
Lets see the Covid recovery bring in a new era of municipal socialism - LabourList

(Left to right: Andrew T Warman; courtesy of Marian Jones)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Sarah Leonard and Marian Jones met at the Democratic Socialists of Americas socialist-feminist reading group (held in The Nations conference room!) in 2017, after Donald Trumps election prompted a surge in membership in the 40-year-old organization. Now, along with several other editors and an art director, they are members of the Lux collective, named for the revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg. The first issue of its print magazine hits mailboxes this month. I spoke with Leonard and Jones about the future of left feminism, solidarity versus sisterhood, and why Lux is a glossy.

Emily Douglas

ED: Your mission statement argues that girlboss ideology has failed. Why did feminists let go of girlboss ideology?

SL: The girlboss model just doesnt work for most people. The way American inequality looks now, there are a few people at the top, then those peoples lawyers and doctors, and then theres a massive gap, and then theres everybody else. The aspirational character of girlboss-ism is not as true to peoples lives at this point, if it ever was.

ED: Is Lux trying to elevate womens class consciousness?

MJ: There were periods within the feminist movement when people would try to adopt the slogan Sisterhood is powerful and [the idea that] were all in this together, but Black women and other women of color felt like their own needs were getting erased. One of the ways that Black feminists have historically pushed back on sisterhood is the idea that were all victims of the same thing. If youre a white woman, solidarity calls on you to be aware of the way that youre victimized by white supremacy, but also of the way that youre complicit in it.

SL: As feminists, we think in terms of solidarity rather than sisterhood, because we dont necessarily think theres anything organic about all women coming together. You have to build solidarity with intent and build relationships. We refer often in our editorial note to the Combahee River Collective Statement, and one of the reasons we refer to it constantly is that they wereand remain, for that mattervery serious about building points of solidarity with different groups who they had political goals in common with but were different from.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

This magazine is designed to be part of that project. We imagine a particular kind of constituency thats made up of all of these solidarities that are feminist, abolitionist, queer, and socialist. And to us, that creates an extremely big world, a very big constituency [with] lots of alliances. Different pieces of identity [act] as bridges to other groups rather than barriers.

Womenand Im going to say women, but Im always anxious about hammering too hard on women because we have a very queer and expansive definition of our constituencyare an under-organized constituency. You see that in the fact that this country has an absolute childcare and eldercare crisis. Basically, all of that work is done by women. Everybody knows this as a crisis, and its not a priority anywhere.

ED: For the past decade or more, progressives and leftists have been repositioning issues like abortion, child care, and reproductive health as economic issues. What is still missing from that conversation?

SL: Whenever the Koch brothers put money behind an opponent of abortion and get that person elected, they get a tax cut, because thats what Republicans do. And we pay for that with our bodies and our lives. And to be clear, obviously, the people whose bodies are being sacrificed are poor and working-class women and, disproportionately, women of color.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Ideas about morality in the family serve capital in very specific ways. All of the things that politicians dont want to pay for, they say, Its a family problem. So, unless we push back against the idea that the nuclear family is the home of all morality, were never going to win on economics.

Why did Sandra Fluke get called a slut? It was to defeat a universal health care program.

ED: The family is always the prop that has to stand in when social policy fails.

SL: Socialist feminists have always been big on problematizing labors of love. [The feminist campaign] Wages for Housework is all about trying to provoke people into thinking: What is love? What is work? When does one disguise the other?

We have this incredible piece in the first issue thats a new translation of a manifesto about abortion from one of the founders of Wages for Housework, Maria Rosa de la Costa. It is just dripping with contempt for the state and its institutions that are so neglectful and unable to support the society and, especially, women and children. And they say things like, We will put as many children on this earth if we want to, but only when we want to. And we want to raise them in beautiful, comfortable circumstances.

So, theyre making a demand, which is that its sort of pathetic to run a society on bare survival. And, in fact, there should be a level of abundance and pleasure and the ability to raise a family however you want. It has a lot in common in with some language of the reproductive justice movement in the States, some years later.

Wages for Housework is pointing out that if women, in their case, in the household were not doing the reproductive labor of cooking, cleaning, having children, the capitalist system would cease to function. It would end. Capitalism owes a debt to all these unwaged workers who are half the population.

ED: You write that Luxs vision of feminism is fighting for a world in which everyone has access to food and shelter, to beauty and pleasure. What excites you about launching a feminist magazine at this moment?

SL: Weve gotten very good at criticizing the inadequacies of the right and certain forms of liberal feminism. We also want to be constructing a vision of what we want. The pieces were working on are all addressing questions that we have about the world we want to live in and the organizing that we are doing. We are very interested in putting forward the idea that the purpose of politics is for people to have a good life. And we should think about what that good life would consist of.

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

MJ: There isnt a Lux that already exists. Lux is going to be a really pretty magazineit has to be.

ED: Why is it important to you that Lux looks good?

SL: To me, it was important [that Lux be a glossy] because I grew up reading glossy womens magazines. I wanted to build this thing that I had always enjoyed reading, but fill it with socialism.

Publications on the left often take the form of journals that suggest in their tone or their style that you should already be in the know. I want the opposite of that. I want it to be a gate flung open that people feel free to walk through.

Theres something radical in the strategic pursuit of pleasure. Weve spent decades talking about whether women can have it all, which is actually this kind of depressing idea of working all the time but also doing domestic work all the time. In a sense, it is very unambitious: Can you contort yourself to conform to the unreasonable expectations of this society? One of our taglines is We want it all, with the idea being, if we really want a good life, fundamental things about how our society is structured would have to be transformed.

ED:It sounds like your approach is not just about the look; its also about the kinds of features and content youll be running.

MJ: Ive always been really excited to be involved in a project where the goal is to convert people. Our magazine is definitely for someone who hasnt read Marx yetor any kind of leftist or feminist theorists.

ED: Lux was born out of the connections you made doing political organizing. Do you see it going the other way? Do you intend to use Lux as an organizing tool?

MJ: I really hope for it to be both an organizing and consciousness-raising tool. I think a lot of organizing can come out of reading groups. After you read about all this stuff, youre energized to organize around it. Were all organizers. Were all really connected to the movement. So I definitely hope that we do more political stuff.

SL: Were all volunteering to do Lux as a political project.

MJ: I dont want to use the term labor of love, because we talked about thisI view it as an organizing project.

Go here to see the original:
The Socialist Glossy That Wants You to Have It All - The Nation