Mediaboss Marketing

Netanyahu is out and the latest round of violence with Hamas is over, but progressives willingness to criticize Israel is here to stay.

A dozen Jewish House Democrats responded with a statement blasting Omar for an offensive and misguided comparison that give[s] cover to terrorist groups; the top six House Democratic leaders also pushed back on Omar for drawing false equivalencies" while thanking her for clarifying her remark.

That friendly fire toward Omar prompted speculation that the House could move to punish her, but no tangible threat materialized. In fact, a notable number of colleagues including Jewish Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus defended Omar and insisted that she was being unfairly targeted because she is a Muslim woman.

She is attracting much more scrutiny than anybody, like a person like me, would. People are ready to parse every word that she says. And I just think thats unfair, said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), a septuagenarian Jewish American who contended that he wouldn't face similar backlash for his agreement with Omars comment.

The idea that you cant mention the U.S., Israel and Hamas in the same sentence without being accused of being anti-Semitic? Thats just stupid, Yarmuth added.

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, discusses the Republican efforts to replace "Obamacare," during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 20, 2017. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Even as Republicans leaped to deride Omar as antisemitic, it quickly became clear that the majority of Democrats simply wanted to move on. The 12 lawmakers who initially condemned Omar didnt push the issue further, and Republicans have edged away from their initial flirtation with forcing a vote to kick her off the Foreign Affairs Committee.

A greater number of Democrats used the moment to emphasize that they don't see criticism of the Israeli governments policies on its own as biased against Jewish people.

Do you believe in accountability for human rights, for war crimes? How can you believe in it for everybody except yourself, or your friends? said Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), a Jewish American. That is what Representative Omar was actually saying. And since Ive taken that position myself for many years, why does everybody jump on her when she says it?

The rising number of defenders marks a victory for Omar and fellow progressives, who say their messaging on Israel is getting stronger and attracting more support from across the caucus and the party.

There were more Jews who didnt sign that letter than did, Yarmuth noted, describing the anti-Omar statement as an "overreaction" by the 12 Democrats. Some of the people probably regret that they did it.

Progressives were initially furious that the upper rung of Democratic leadership was so quick to push back on Omars comments. Still, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) later declined to characterize that response as a "rebuke," and Republicans viewed the cooling-down as their opponents effectively ceding a potential political cudgel.

The Democrat Party does not support Israel anymore, and theyre fine with helping a terrorist organization. Thats where they are, said Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who chairs the upper chamber's GOP campaign arm. Its a good issue for us.

Republicans have long sought to tie vulnerable Democrats to Omar and use her rhetoric as a political cudgel to paint the entire party as radical. During the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hamas, some GOP lawmakers went as far as to accuse Democrats of supporting the terror group because they were openly pushing for a ceasefire in defiance of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Liberals counter that their position is favorable on the political and policy merits, as a generational divide within the Democratic Party has elevated younger lawmakers' calls for a recalibration in U.S. policy toward Israel. Democrats should consider a foreign-policy doctrine that takes into account the alleged human-rights abuses by U.S. allies, these younger members say, and a party leadership dominated by octogenarians should be encouraging that discussion.

Young people really look at this through a secular and non-ethnic or cultural or national point of view, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. Young people are saying, why are we paying for this? Why are we supporting this?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) listens as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces the creation of the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Ocasio-Cortez, a longtime Omar ally who's advocated for a tougher posture with Israel, said she often hears from young Jewish Americans who were raised with one narrative about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they do not want their identity tied to this injustice.

One of several progressives pressing to put conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel, which is critical for its survival in the region, Ocasio-Cortez noted that she has long called for conditioning American aid money to various countries that are suspected of human-rights abuses, not just Israel.

Some lawmakers will confront such issues firsthand in the coming weeks. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will lead a congressional delegation to Israel as early as July 5, according to multiple sources. The number of members and who is going remains fluid, but one source told POLITICO that Reps. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) will be joining Meeks first such trip as chair.

Meanwhile, progressives who want to keep reevaluating the U.S.-Israel relationship often add a social justice component to their messaging, underscoring that theirs is an anti-establishment tack. Progressives and young Democrats in particular view the foreign-policy establishment in Washington which has encompassed a majority from both parties as a destructive force.

And after a springtime conflict that saw more Democrats expressing deep reservations with President Joe Bidens strategy of quiet, intensive diplomacy as Israel waged retaliatory strikes against Hamas assets in Gaza, liberals sense more of an appetite for taking on the traditional breed of foreign policy that Biden embodies.

Its a generational shift of prioritizing human rights and having a human-rights focus in American foreign policy, said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). And its definitely a recognition that those rights include Palestinian human rights.

Sarah Ferris and Laura Barron-Lopez contributed.

Read more:
Progressives count their foreign policy wins with Omar flap in rear view - POLITICO

Senate progressives aresignaling they aren't ready to bless a bipartisan infrastructure deal unless they can secure firm commitments on a separate Democratic-only bill.

The early pushback comes as President BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE and a bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement on infrastructure spending, underscoring that any bipartisan legislation willhave a ways to go before winning broad support on Capitol Hill.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersPolitical campaigns worry they're next for ransomware hits Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight How Biden can reframe and reclaim patriotism, faith, freedom, and equality MORE (I-Vt.) vowed that there would not be movement on a bipartisan deal unless there is a "firm, absolute agreement" on a sweeping reconciliation bill.

"There is not going to be a bipartisan agreement without a major reconciliation package," he said before Biden announced the deal Thursday afternoon.

Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Biden: 'Not my intent' to imply veto for bipartisan infrastructure package Biden says he won't sign bipartisan bill without reconciliation bill MORE (D-Conn.) said he is"not voting for a bipartisan package unless I know what is in reconciliation.

"I think there is, like I said, 20 votes for this," he added. "I can find you a lot of other things that there are 20 votes for."

Murphy said Democrats "need to have some understanding" that includes a "pathway to pass" a larger Democratic-only bill through the budget reconciliation process. He sidestepped a question about procedure and timing, saying those issues are still being discussed.

A bipartisan group of 10 senators five Democrats, five Republicans announced on Wednesday night that they had reached an agreement on a scaled-down infrastructure package and that White House negotiators had agreed to the details. Biden met with the group on Thursday and formally endorsed the deal, which includes $559 billion in new spending for a total of $1.2 trillion over eight years.

The deal includes $559 billion in new spending for a total of $1.2 trillion over eight years.

But that amount is still substantially smaller than what many Democrats want. Biden has outlined a $2.3 trillion jobs plan and a $1.8 trillion families plan, while the bipartisan group plan is more tightly focused on more traditional infrastructure like roads, bridges and broadband.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) panned the bipartisan framework from Wednesday night as "paltry." And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenThe Hill's Sustainability Report Presented by NextEra Energy Philippine flies turn trash into beef Colorado lawmaker warns of fire season becoming year-round Progressives fire warning shot on bipartisan infrastructure deal MORE (D-Ore.) argued that the "confusion" over what is in the bipartisan plan underscores that the smaller plan and the Democratic-only bill have to be linked.

"The confusion over the last few days makes it even more important in my mind that the two efforts ... be directly connected. And I want it understood that as chairman of the Finance Committee ... I will not support anything that throws those other matters overboard," Wyden said, referring to priorities like climate change, health care and changes to the tax code.

Wyden declined to say how that would work procedurally on the Senate floor, saying it was still under discussion, but reiterated that the two plans have to be "directly connected."

Democrats are pursuing a two-track path as they try to get infrastructure passed through Congress this year. On one path is the bipartisan group's proposal, on the second is a Democratic-only bill that would be used to pass the reconciliation process that allows Democrats to avoid a 60-vote legislative filibuster.

Part of the scheduling headache for Democratic leaders is that reconciliation is a two-step process: First lawmakers need to pass a budget resolution that greenlights and includes instructions for a subsequent Democratic-only bill. Then they have to write and pass the sweeping multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill itself.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPhotos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight Wallace has contentious interview with GOP lawmaker: Aren't you the ones defunding the police? MORE (D-Calif.), amid progressive pressure, said on Thursday before the deal was announced that the House will not pass the bipartisan bill until they are also ready to pass the larger Democratic-only package.

But progressives don't have that guarantee in the Senate, where they appear likely to move separately.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerThe Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy Infrastructure deal: Major climate win that tees up more in reconciliation bill Democrats seek to calm nervous left MORE (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Wednesday night that he would take up both the potential bipartisan deal and the "first act" of the Democratic-only bill passing the budget resolution that tees it up in July.

Schumer has not given a hard timeline for when the Senate will take up the subsequent Democratic-only infrastructure package. But the Senate is poised to leave town in early August until mid-September, and Democrats believe its increasingly likely it will wait until the fall.

To even pass the budget resolution, Democrats need total unity from all 50 of their members, something they don't yet have. And progressives are warning that they won't let the bipartisan bill move forward without a broader deal on how the bigger package gets passed.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenHeadaches mount for Biden in spending fight Senate plants a seed for bipartisan climate solutions White House adviser to MSNBC host: Biden deal 'wasn't a photo op' MORE (D-Mass.) warned that progressives are "not going to be left holding the bag."

"There is no half a deal or 10 percent of a deal that covers roads and bridges and leaves everything else behind," Warren said.

"We'll work out the details on how the votes go, that's part of what we're talking about right now," she added. "But make no mistake there's commitment in our caucus that one piece is not going to go forward and leave the rest of it in the train station."

See the rest here:
Progressives fire warning shot on bipartisan infrastructure deal | TheHill - The Hill

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks outside of the US Capitol. (AFP via Getty Images)

Major progressive groups are hosting a pair of rallies in Washington DC as pressure builds on the left for the White House and congressional Democrats to take bolder action on the climate crisis in two infrastructure bills up for debate in the coming weeks.

The youth-led Sunrise Movement brought its supporters outside the White House on Monday as the presidents team touted a bipartisan infrastructure agreement with several GOP senators, calling the deal a step back from what President Joe Biden promised during his 2020 campaign.

Chants of shut it down were heard as activists formed a blockade in front of an entrance to the White House, with the organization vowing on social media that their activists would remain until Mr Biden vowed to include funding for a civilian climate corps. in the infrastructure packages being considered by Congress.

We made it clear the first time @POTUS, youre going to hear our demands, whether were inside or outside of the White House. You havent responded. Now were back to make sure you understand us clearly: Its #NoClimateNoDeal and No Compromises, No Excuses, the organization said on Twitter.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to questions about the Sunrise Movements demonstrations at Mondays press briefing, disputing the notion that the bipartisan infrastructure framework did not adequately address climate change: I would dispute the notion that it doesnt do anything for climate, which some are arguing.

Evan Weber, Sunrise Movements co-founder, responded: Unacceptable comment from [Ms Psaki] that demands immediate clarification. Climate measures in [the bipartisan] deal nowhere close to what [Mr Biden] ran on, let alone what is scientifically necessary.

The prominence of Mondays protests were only amplified by the attendance of several progressive members of Congress including congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as her new freshman allies, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush.

Story continues

They occupy our streets. They mass incarcerate us, but they leave us food insecure, in transportation deserts, and our buildings and schools falling apart. Fuck that! Mr Bowman exclaimed, addressing demonstrators.

More members of the Democratic Partys left wing are expected to attend a second demonstration on the National Mall on Tuesday, when the Bernie Sanders-created Our Revolution hosts an event alongside Greenpeace, Food and Water Watch, and other groups demanding that the infrastructure plan deliver on a major progressive ask: An end to federal fossil fuel subsidies.

Among the congressional Democrats expected to attend Tuesdays event include Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, Nanette Barragan and Earl Blumenauer, according to a press advisory.

In a statement to The Independent, Our Revolutions executive director indicated that climate could be the first issue on which the left truly flexes its political muscle to demand concessions from the White House and congressional moderates.

"As discussions around infrastructure and budget reconciliation heat up, we are going to make our voice heard -- one red line for progressives is making sure we end fossil fuel subsidies, period, said Joseph Geevarghese.

For far too long, the federal government has provided subsidies to oil and gas companies that no other industry gets while polluting our air and water and damaging the health of our children. We must stop taxpayer dollars from contributing to the destruction of our health and our planet, that is what tomorrows demonstration is all about."

Read More

US judge: Rep. Boebert can block people on personal Twitter

Biden working to get infrastructure package back on track

Chris Christie's book 'Republican Rescue' coming this fall

Read more from the original source:
Progressives rally on Capitol Hill to call for bolder climate action in Biden infrastructure plan - Yahoo News

When Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinGreen groups shift energy to reconciliation package Ocasio-Cortez says Sinema wrong with defense of filibuster Photos of the Week: Infrastructure, Britney Spears and Sen. Tillis's dog MORE (D-W.Va.) came out in favor of a procedural debate over voting rights legislation on Tuesday, he offered a symbolic showing of Democratic Party cohesion.

But before GOP senators blockedthe billlater in theevening, progressives had already started grumbling about the White House, demonstrating that public and private resentment toward President BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE had been mounting all day.

Were past the point where weve lost faith that hes going to do it on his own, said Cliff Albright, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund, about Bidens approach to the Capitol Hill fight over the For the People Act.

Albright took Biden to task early into his term when he urged the newly elected president to prioritize election reforms ahead of other policy issues. Hes since been campaigning around the country with a cohort of organizers to emphasize the gravity of the situation on the ground.

Activists like Albright were perplexed after watching Biden give wide-ranging speeches on other areas of his agenda and embark on a national infrastructure tour. He wondered why infrastructure in particular took precedence over loudly defending a basic democratic concept.

Wheres your voting rights tour? Albright said, offering frustration ahead of the Senate vote. People have already started to call this out. Thats just going to escalate.

Progressives have been generally more critical of aspects of the Biden administration than their moderate counterparts. That occasional opposition came into full view on Tuesday when one freshman congressman openly called for more engagement and robust leadership from the White House.

The president needs to lead out front and be very vocal on this issue, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) said during an interview withCNN.

The remarks from Bowman, a Black, first-term member who is part of the "squad" of young progressive Democrats, were among the strongest expressed by a group of progressive lawmakers now targeting Biden in addition to Manchin, fellow moderate Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaGreen groups shift energy to reconciliation package Ocasio-Cortez says Sinema wrong with defense of filibuster Headaches mount for Biden in spending fight MORE (D-Ariz.) and the vast majority of the GOP.

Our democracy is in crisis and we need @POTUS to act like it, Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter, repeating his earlier criticism about the presidents purported lack of focus.

One leading liberalorganization took the position that Biden has effectively been dodging the issue on the public stage and condemned the presidents limited speaking schedule.

What youve seen from those of us advocating for democracy is a hope that the president would come out swinging, said Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, which has been targeting Biden with a sharp focus this week.

Early into his administration, there was a belief among many progressives that after Biden plowed through the American Rescue Plan without Republican support, he might replicate that tactic with voting rights. That would happen only if he could convince Manchin and Sinema to join the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus and end or reform the filibuster.

Historically, Levin pointed out, past presidents on both sides of the aisle have managed to check off some of their key legislative priorities. So far, Biden is a notable exception on this issue, he said.

Trump got his tax cuts. Obama got his stimulus. George W. Bush got his tax cut. Clinton got his paid Family and Medical Leave Act, Levin said. Up until this point, aside from a statement here and there, aside from a line in a speech ... the president has been pretty absent in the democracy fight.

The White House rebuked the notion that they have not pursued the topic forcefully.

Those words are a fight against the wrong opponent, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiBiden gambles on bipartisanship Lawmakers, advocates demand details on Afghan evacuation plan Overnight Finance: Republicans warn Biden over infrastructure deal | White House pushes back on criticism | Biden phones Sinema |Consumer spending flat in May, personal incomes drop MORE said when questioned during an afternoon briefing about Bowmans critique. Like other Democrats willing to give the president grace,she sought to redirect the attention to the opposing party.

Psaki elaborated by reiterating the presidents passionate championing of voting protections during his career in politics. Hes absolutely revolted by the wave of anti-voter laws based on the same repeatedly disproven lies that led to an assault on our nations capital, she said.

Minutes before the Senate convened to vote, the official White House Twitter account sent out a tweet providing a brief update about the status of Bidens work with Senate Majority Leader CharlesSchumer (D-N.Y.).

Today, @SenSchumer and I held our latest strategy call on getting the For the People Act to my desk,the tweet read. Democrats are united and committed to passing this landmark legislation to protect voting rights, ensure the integrity of our elections, and repair and strengthen our democracy.

Schumer also used strong language to condemn the party-wide blockade from Republican senators, positioning them with former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' NY prosecutors give Trump Org lawyers Monday deadline: report MOREs debunked theory of widespread election fraud.

Once again, Senate Republicans have signed their names in the ledger of history alongside Donald Trump, the big lie, and voter suppression, to their enduring disgrace, he said.

The majority leader and aligned Democrats cautioned thatmore time is needed beforedeclaring reform efforts doomed.

President Biden has been very outspoken about sounding the alarm about the threats to democracy that we face and the need for legislative fixes, said Norm Eisen, a former high-ranking Obama administration official and co-founder of States United Democracy Center.

While I understand and applaud the sense of urgency that my fellow activists are bringing to that, everyone needs to bear in mind that this is a long process.

Brett Samuels and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

See the original post:
White House draws ire of progressives amid voting rights defeat | TheHill - The Hill

President BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE is scheduled to deliver a speech today outlining his administrations anti-crime strategy. As we enter the summer months, during which violent crime traditionally surges, it already has been soaring in cities across the country. While Democrats would like to blame COVID-19 for that, the surge started before the pandemic hit, and it was turbo-charged by the rioting and defund the police campaigns that followed George Floyds death at the hands of Minneapolis police 13 months ago.

A preponderance of crime victimizes urban communities, particularly Black communities. The reason is something you will never hear from President Biden. Violent crime, especially gang crime, tends to be local, and it is simply a fact that young African American males engage in such crimes at higher rates than other demographic groups.

You can never understand a phenomenon, much less devise a strategy to address it effectively, absent a willingness to understand it. Biden and todays Democrats, led by hardline progressives who call the tune in the major cities riven by lawlessness, do not want to grapple with the harsh realities of crime. Their objective, instead, is to weave a political narrative that shifts responsibility for crime, from cultural dysfunction that is exacerbated by progressive policies to cultural dysfunction that is said to trace to Americas systematic racism.

The narrative is patently foolish. But it thrives in a fortress of political correctness. The in terrorem effects of cancel culture warn that speaking frankly about crime will get one ostracized as a racist. This, notwithstanding that the failure to speak and think honestly about crime harms Black communities more than any others.

The progressive narrative about crime holds that America is an inherently and, it seems, indelibly racist society, in which police are the armed front lines preserving the white power structure. They must be defunded if not to the point of being zeroed out, then at least to the point of being defanged, with swaths of their budgets transferred to social services. Only then can the power structure be dismantled, replaced by a more just system (i.e., a government of progressives, by progressives, and for everyone whether they want it or not).

Progressives would have you believe that the large number of young Black men who are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned a number that is disproportionately high compared to the less than 6 percent of total U.S. population this demographic represents is a function of inherent racial bias, which supposedly plagues the criminal justice system.

It is an absurd story, but one that makes it convenient to overlook the true reason for this state of affairs: the disproportionately high incidence of offense behavior.

Cities where violent crime is spiking, such as New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis and San Francisco, are run by progressives. The judicial system, which processes criminal cases, is run by elite lawyers members of the profession which, with the possible exception of university academics and administrators, is the most unabashedly progressive in the nation. The notion that they would abide racism let alone systemic racism in systems over which they exercise suffocating control is laughable.

Moreover, police in the United States are today more representative of the racial and ethnic make-ups of the communities they protect and serve than at any time in U.S. history.

Take Atlanta, for example. The citys population is about 51 percent African American; its police department is about 58 percent African American. It boasts a Black police chief, a Black assistant chief, and Black commanders of the critical airport and special operations divisions. Yet, a few months back, when a Black man named Rayshard Brooks first assaulted police who were lawfully arresting him, then was shot to death during a chase in which he shot at one of the cops with a stun-gun he had taken from them, the left wailed: another Black man killed by the police, as if that were all you needed to know.

Here is the most significant reason why you know the systemic racism narrative on crime is nonsense: The principal source of our knowledge about who commits crime is not police observations; it is victim reports. Progressives, with their preternatural interest in the welfare of criminals (because the system is supposedly the problem) have precious little to say about those on whom the criminals prey. But the victims overwhelmingly inhabit poor urban communities where crime gang crime, in particular is rampant. We know that young Black males are violating the laws at disproportionately high rates because Black neighborhoods are ravaged by crime at disproportionately high rates.

Police do not encounter Black offenders because, acting on inherent biases, they target Black men as crime suspects. They encounter the offenders because police are dispatched in heaviest concentrations to the communities in which victims report crimes. There is nothing racist about that. If we had physicians departments, like we have police departments, we would not deploy doctors in healthy communities; wed send them where the highest concentration of sick people was, and we would not presume racism on their part based on who their patients were.

Joe Biden used to know this. As Judiciary Committee chairman in 1994, he steered through the Senate the Clinton crime bill that ratcheted up penalties for crack-trafficking. The legislation had significant support in the Congressional Black Caucus, precisely because members were hearing from constituents who were besieged by violent gang crime, which always goes hand-in-hand with the storage and distribution of drugs and money.

When enforced, the new laws resulted in high rates of prosecution and incarceration of Black defendants. That was not because of inherent racism; it was because of offense behavior the epidemic of which was why the laws were enacted in the first place. The incarceration terms were more severe because the punishments prescribed for crack trafficking in legislation principally drafted by a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic administration were significantly higher than for powder cocaine.

It is fair to argue that this disparity (which has since been reduced) was too extreme. That, however, had nothing to do with the politicized fable that crack was the Black drug while powder cocaine was recreation for rich whites. Crack was punished more harshly because of its association with high rates of addiction and violent crime. The laws more routine application to Blacks was because of offense behavior, not to some sinister plan or to the unthinking wages of a racist system.

Enactment of the 1994 law was one of several factors that led to a generational plummeting of crime rates a historic achievement that progressives have made it their mission to undo. Thus did Biden, in his 2020 presidential campaign, distance himself from the 1994 legislation which, in his characteristically shameless self-promotion, he used to gloat about as the Biden Crime Bill. Meantime, in cities across America, the approach now taken by progressive prosecutors is to decline to enforce special sentencing enhancements for gang crime, on the rationale that they are all together now! systematically racist.

To call offense behavior an afterthought would be an overstatement. Were not supposed to think about it at all.

Though its effects are more damaging, crime is like any other problem: It cant be effectively managed, much less solved, until we are ready to see it for what it is. Crime is not a racialized morality play. It is real life, with real victims.

As a senator, Biden once understood that. A generation ago, it was mainstream Democratic thinking, and Biden always has been a mainstream Democratic weathervane. But those Democrats are gone now. There is a new, far-left mainstream, and President Biden is its tribune. So, as someone likes to say, heres the deal: Its going to be a long, hot summer.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow atNational Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is Ball of Collusion. Follow him on Twitter@AndrewCMcCarthy.

Read the original here:
Worried about rising violent crime? You can thank today's progressives | TheHill - The Hill