Mediaboss Marketing

Over time, ideologies can evolve in unforeseen ways. Consider the following four public policy developments:

1. The Biden administration has attempted to forgive many student loans for college education. 2. Several cities in California have imposed rent controls. 3. Florida recently banned lab grown meat. 4. North Carolina is attempting to ban mask wearing in public.

While the first two examples are often views as progressive legislation and the other two are viewed as populist initiatives, they all share something in common. In each case, the legislation can be seen as a perversion of an earlier form of the ideology in question.

Lets start with progressivism. At the beginning, this ideology was heavily motivated by flaws (real or imagined) in laissez-faire economics. Progressives worried that unrestrained capitalism might lead to abusive monopolies and a highly unequal distribution of income. This led to policy initiatives such as regulation of rates charged by utilities and redistribution programs such as the earned income tax credit.

Over time, however, progressivism became increasingly associated with the means, and not the ends of legislation. Thus to be a progressive meant to favor regulation and redistribution, regardless of whether it achieved the original goals of the movement.

Obviously, the case for rent controls in markets with thousands of individual landlords is far weaker than the case for price controls when there is a single monopoly provider of water or electricity. And it is equally clear that the case for redistributing money from the general taxpayer to college educated Americans is far weaker than the argument for redistributing money to low wage workers. But the progressive movement is dominated by younger Americans. This group is disproportionately comprised of recent college grads living in apartments in expensive coastal cities.

The recent wave of populism was at least partly motivated by resentment against the perception that elites were forcing the public into undesirable changes in their lifestyle (such as mask wearing during pandemics) and unpopular climate change initiatives (such as the discouragement of meat consumption.) But over time, the lifestyle issues gradually came to displace the freedom aspect of populism. Opposition to mask mandates morphed into simple opposition to masks. Resentment that elites were trying to impose a certain lifestyle was replaced by attempts to ban the undesired lifestyle.

This is the natural evolution of populism. It begins as an attempt to free the public from oppression, and ends up imposing another form of oppression once the populists gain power.

One could cite many more such examples. The college free speech movement of the 1960s was originally focused on allowing students to express far left political views. By the 2000s, the freedom aspect was forgotten and college activists had begun trying to mandate that students express left wing views.

Similarly, right wing opposition to woke excesses began as an attempt to allow more free speech on campus, but in at least some places has evolved into an attempt to ban certain left wing ideologies.

The civil rights movement began as a crusade for a colorblind society. While the initial focus was on outlawing discrimination against minorities, over time the emphasis shifted toward mandating discrimination in favor of minorities. (Those reverse discrimination policies may have had unintended side effects, such as making employers reluctant to hire workers that they might be unable to fire at some point in the future.)

Feminism began as an attempt to stop society from treating people differently because of their gender, but has evolved into an ideology demanding that people be treated differently because of their gender.

Why do ideologies continually lose their bearings? I suspect the problem reflects the fact that very few people are committed to broad principles such as freedom or utility maximization. Instead, they have special interests, and use these various ideologies as a convenient cudgel to attack their opponents and achieve their actual policy goals.

PS. Matt Yglesias has a very good post discussing some of the same issues.

See the rest here:
Problems with Progressivism and Populism - Econlib

A failed bipartisan border security measure is on track to receive even less support the second time around when Democrats put it up for another vote in the Senate later this week.

Nearly all Republicans are lined up in opposition while several progressive Democrats indicate they still oppose the bill that was previously attached to a foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel but failed in February after a GOP revolt.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was disappointed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is holding a second vote without changes to the legislation for pathways to citizenship as Democrats try to put the squeeze on Republicans in an election year on a contentious policy issue.

I certainly hope this is not the new starting point for Democrats when it comes to border or immigration negotiations, Padilla told the Washington Examiner. Weve already voted on it, and its already gone down. Time for a new plan.

The measure, which was the byproduct of months of bipartisan negotiations and centers on restricting illegal immigration and expanding deportations, does not include protections for pathways to citizenship for those who came to the United States illegally as children, known as Dreamers.

This is a price that a lot of my Democratic colleagues were willing to pay months ago in order to ensure we delivered funding to Ukraine. Thats been done, Padilla said.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said he will oppose the legislation after initially voting for it because legal pathways are not included and that it would ultimately fail to address the root causes of regional migration and illegal crossings. In a statement, he slammed Republicans for previously opposing it, saying he was appalled and that it was the height of hypocrisy.

I remain committed to pursuing common sense, bipartisan legislation to modernize our immigration system so that it aligns with our most fundamental values, Booker said.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said shell reject the bill for a second time when it comes to a vote on Thursday.

We need border security and a pathway to citizenship for people who are here. The two should be tied, Warren told the Washington Examiner. Thats what my vote reflects.

The bills February vote was 49-50 but required 60 senators to pass. Five members of the upper chambers Democratic caucus voted against, including Padilla, Warren, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Ed Markey (D-MA). Just four Republicans voted in favor: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), and James Lankford (R-OK).

Sanders told the Washington Examiner he was undecided on his vote this week but that his previous opposition was because of military aid to Israel that was attached.

Schumer suggested the border security bill that once had bipartisan backing would be easier to accomplish than measures pushed by progressives to expand legal citizenship.

Lankford, the bills lead GOP architect, told the Washington Examiner last week hell vote against what he called Democrats nonserious effort to pass stronger border security. McConnell will also oppose.

Collins disparaged Democrats handling of the issue but remained uncertain about how shell vote.

Its clearly just a messaging ploy by the Democrats, which is unfortunate because we have a real problem, Collins told the Washington Examiner.

Despite its doomed prospects and the potential for an even worse defeat on the Senate floor, Schumer is forging ahead.

All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance to show this week that theyre serious about fixing the problem, Schumer told reporters. Theyll get a chance to show whether theyre just talking points to them or whether they want to improve the status quo.

President Joe Biden phoned McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Monday about the legislation, in which the president told the Republicans to stop playing politics and act quickly, according to the White House.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

McConnell and his deputies doubled down on whats been Republicans main response: Biden can take executive action to curb the illegal immigration crisis anytime he pleases.

Mr. President, you caused this problem. If theres no legislation that allowed the problem to be fixed, why dont you just renew what the previous admin was doing, which got the border in decent shape? McConnell told reporters. Going to a border bill right now is just a gimmick, a way to try to convince the American people theyre concerned about this when they caused it.

David Sivak contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Border bill boxes in Senate progressives as Schumer forges ahead with doomed vote - Washington Examiner

After 27 years in the state House, New Mexico Rep. Gail Chasey (D-Albuquerque) is retiring, and four Democratic candidates are vying for her Nob Hill-area District 18 seat in the primary election.

All four say theyre big fans of Chasey and much of the legislation the Majority Floor Leader has championed. With the four progressives sharing similar political ideals, their varied backgrounds have emerged as a focal point of the campaign.

Marianna Anaya is a community organizer and registered lobbyist, the latter of which can get a bad rap. But she doesnt see what she referred to as the big L word that way.

I usually answer questions about L words in terms of me being a lesbian, but right now Im answering them about me being a lobbyist, she said. I really have no shame in the work that Ive done.

Outgoing Rep. Chasey has endorsed Anaya, saying whats important is what she lobbies for. Anaya worked to repeal New Mexicos dormant abortion ban before Roe v. Wade was overturned and increase access to the ballot through the New Mexico Voting Rights Act among other progressive policies.

In her endorsement, Chasey also called Anaya the exception as a candidate with lived experience.

I fight for our public schools because I went to our public schools, Anaya told KUNM. And I fight for homelessness and housing issues because my family has struggled with homelessness.

Anaya identifies as a queer Chicana and was raised in Albuquerques North Valley by her mother, grandmother and eight aunts. She was also the first in her family to go to college, receiving a Bachelors degree at the University of Texas at Austin.

What that meant for me is that I was helping my family navigate all of these different barriers that we were facing, she said. Whether it meant struggling with substance abuse, or struggling with trying to get medical care, or the mass incarcerations system or CYFD [Children, Youth and Families Department].

Anaya said those experiences position her well to advocate for district residents and further her policy priorities of addressing homelessness, housing and poverty.

The races other candidates, including Gloria Doherty, push back against Chaseys characterization of Anaya.

You cant dismiss other peoples lived experiences, Doherty told KUNM. I grew up in poverty, both of my parents died from social inequities and health care disparities, and I had to work five jobs to get my way through school. [I am a] single mother, raising my kids.

Doherty said her perspective has been further broadened working as a nurse practitioner at Sandoval Regional Medical Center.

I am exposed to thousands of lives who express what their frustrations are, what their needs are, why they arrived because of not being able to get access, she said.

She also holds a Doctoral degree in Public Policy and Public Administration. Health care and education reform top her list of priorities.

Im able to analyze policy, and do analyze policy, and have for over 20 years, she said. Ive developed policies both at the local and state levels.

Candidate Dr. Anjali Taneja, a family physician, also has a background in medicine and pushing for health care policies.

She takes issue with the idea that Anaya, who conducts work in the Roundhouse, is the only candidate who could get things done if elected.

That feels very exclusive to me because that means that those of us on the ground fighting shoulder to shoulder with community members dont have the ability to have access, she said. And it creates an echo chamber of sorts that only people who are already in the Roundhouse are the ones who get to represent us.

As the executive director of the nonprofit clinic Casa de Salud, Taneja works with people who traditionally struggle to access care those experiencing poverty and homelessness, coming out of incarceration, or navigating the immigration system.

I am an advocate for people with lived experience, she said. And I think that that vision, that knowledge, that fuel, that level of expertise, and what I get to bear witness to, is incredibly valuable.

She added she comes with her own life experience of another kind, as a queer daughter of immigrants from India.

State politics are also not unfamiliar territory for the candidate.

Ive been appointed to the primary care council, Ive been appointed to the governors council for racial justice, and Ive helped introduce and helped pass over six bills, she said.

Those include expanding access to opioid addiction treatment in prisons and jails and protecting consumers from surprise medical bills.

There are currently no doctors serving in the New Mexico House. Taneja said it is important that changes, particularly because health care policy takes up a lot of room in the budget and lawmakers are unpaid and lack staff.

They might not be able to have the education needed on specific health care issues that would be important in setting policy, she said.

Taneja has the endorsement of the areas state Senators Antoinette Sedillo Lopez and Gerald Ortiz y Pino.

Juan Larraaga identifies as a Chicano and grew up in poverty in Albuquerque, attending public school. He credits mentorship programs for his attending Occidental College, a liberal arts school in California, and then UNM business school. He has worked in higher education most of his career, primarily in IT support.

I consider myself a scholar, advocate, and parent of color, he told KUNM.

As a board member for Libros for Kids and ABQ Read to Me, early literacy and education are central to his platform.

On his website, he says he promotes parents rights in schools, a term that has become synonymous with a conservative movement furthered by groups like Moms for Liberty that promote anti-LGBTQ policies and book banning in schools. Larraaga said thats not how he uses the term.

Parents rights for me is more lets support parents. Parents want the best for their children and sometimes they dont know how to get that extra tutoring or how to support their child, he said. My child is profoundly deaf in one ear. What rights do I have as a parent to support her? What rights does she have in the classroom?

He said the four candidates in the race are closely aligned politically, but he hopes to distinguish himself.

I definitely see myself as very similar, but also see myself as different, he said. I see myself as a family voice, a different voice in my background working with stakeholders and my passions of literacy and renewable energy.

Larraaga has brought in the least money in the campaign, with $2,530 in contributions,according to the Secretary of States Office. Records show Anaya has raised the most, at $119,764, followed by Taneja with $92,912 in contributions. Doherty has gotten $49,811 in the door so far. A final campaign finance disclosure is due on May 30.

No Republicans are running for the deeply blue District 18 seat. Early voting ends June 1 ahead of Primary Election Day on June 4.

Go here to see the original:
Four progressives vie to replace the longest-serving NM state rep Source New Mexico - Source New Mexico

Editors Note: Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our communityinformed, we publish some press releases in whole.

Boulder, CO May 14, 2024 Its time for our annual Boulder Progressives candidate forum!

This year our event will feature a Meet-and-Greet with candidates from each of the following races: CU Board of Regents, Colorado State Board of Education, Colorado Senate District 18, Colorado House District 10, Colorado House District 49, Boulder County Commissioners, and Boulder County District Attorney.

The first hour of our event will feature candidates from up and down the ballottalking with the community, shaking hands, sharing their priorities, and learning about their constituents needs and hopes.

In the second hour we will move to highlighting the Colorado Legislature candidates. All six local CoLeg candidates (Judy Amabile, Jovita Schiffer, Junie Joseph, Tina Mueh, Lesley Smith, and Max Woodfin) will take turns answering audience questions and presenting their visions for the future of Colorado.

This event will be taped and shared on our website, but it will not be live-streamed. Members of the press wishing to hear the candidates answers and catch up with guests, participants, and other elected officials are invited to join us in-person on event day.

This event will take place on Saturday, June 1st, 2-4PM at the Sanitas Brewing Company (3550 Frontier Ave, Suite A, in Boulder).

Tickets are limited to the first 100 participants, so please RSVP as soon as possible at:

https://actionnetwork.org/events/boulder-progressives-primary-candidate-meet-and-greet

We also invite you to learn more about all 13 local candidatesby visiting the Boulder Progressives Primary Voter Guide. This Voter Guide includes a question & answer section with each candidate, personal statements, a look at key endorsements, and links to their websites.

We look forward to seeing you on June 1st, and please get in touch with any questions!

MEDIA CONTACTS

Lisa Sweeney-Miran (she/her) |Boulder Progressives Executive Team |720-862-7037

[emailprotected]

Original post:
Boulder Progressives to Host Primary Candidate Meet-and-Greet and Audience Q&A - Yellow Scene Magazine

There wasnt unanimous praise when the state Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul came together on a housing deal. Housing advocates, labor unions, developers and landlords were seemingly united in their disappointment.

Lawmakers and housing advocates spent years pushing for good cause legislation sponsored by state Sen. Julia Salazar and Assembly Member Pamela Hunter. That bill would have prohibited evictions without a good cause and required landlords to justify any rent increases above 3%. In the end, budget negotiations left them with a version chock full of carve-outs and exemptions.

While Salazar and Hunters bill would have covered all tenants in the state, the version of good cause included in the final budget deal only applied to tenants in New York City. Other cities must explicitly opt in to the law in order to receive the same protections. In the weeks since the state budget was approved, supporters of good cause eviction have begun eyeing a host of upstate municipalities that could opt in to the law.

In years prior, some of these cities passed their own local good cause laws, but a 2022 state Supreme Court ruling found those to be in conflict with state law. Some cities moved to repeal good cause rather than face legal action. Now that the state has created a way for local municipalities to opt in to the state law, though, tenants from Newburgh to Rochester are eyeing ways to make good cause eviction a reality, and a few have a good shot of getting it done this summer.

The City of Kingston passed its own local good cause law in 2022 and could be among the first wave of cities to opt in to the states new good cause law. Brahvan Ranga, political director at the Hudson Valley-based progressive activist organization For the Many, told City & State that the city is one of their top priorities this year.

Cities like Kingston were able to have the courage to pass local good cause eviction laws, he said. Hes now optimistic that Kingston, Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, Beacon and possibly Middletown will opt-in to the version of good cause passed by the state Legislature. From there, he said, For the Many plans to explore opt-in campaigns in other municipalities.

Housing Justice For All Campaign Coordinator Cea Weaver said housing advocates across the state are taking a targeted approach to growing the amount of good cause opt-ins. The first phase, she said, will target Hudson Valley cities like Newburgh and Poughkeepsie as well as Albany and Ithaca.

These are places that we either have a pretty strong relationship with electeds on the council, or the places have already passed the (Emergency Tenant Protection Act), theyre majority-tenant cities, you know, we're not expecting a lot of political opposition, said Weaver.

Once those cities opt-in, a second phase could see organizing in municipalities where tenants have organized with more pushback from local electeds, like Hudson, Middletown, Syracuse and Rochester. There's some progressive political infrastructure, but it still will take some work, Weaver said.

Other parts of New York, she said, are on a much longer timeline, like Buffalo or Long Island, and Weaver says an injection of progressive candidates and more tenant organizing are necessary.

Upstate cities that opt in to the states good cause law have the option to tweak the law to cover even more tenants. Some municipalities who are planning to opt in are exploring changes to small property owner exemptions. In New York City, landlords who own 10 or fewer properties are exempt from the law, but some cities want to lower that threshold.

Katie Sims, co-chair of the Ithaca Tenants Union, said that the citys common council, which is composed of a majority of tenants, is aligned on the issue. It's kind of arbitrary on the tenant's part, Sims said. Like it's a protection for tenants, whether your landlord owns 10 or however many buildings doesn't really tell you anything about the tenant's deservingness of the protection, so we're really excited that they're planning on closing that loophole in the City of Ithaca.

Opponents of good cause eviction are not happy about the prospect of more cities opting in to the controversial law. Rich Lanzarone, executive director of the Hudson Valley Property Owners Association, said that good cause and other housing regulations are preventing a tsunami of building in New York. He has sued multiple city governments over housing legislation they have passed, most recently the City of Newburgh after it opted into the Emergency Tenant Protection Act in order to enact rent control measures.

New York State could solve is housing problem, one that has persisted particularly in New York City for 50 years without a solution, by eliminating all regulation and under that plan, people who are currently regulated would stay regulated as long as they live where they live, so they're protected, Lanzarone said.

Either Albany or Kingston is likely to become the first municipality to opt in to the states good cause eviction law later this summer, possibly as soon as July. Albany has the distinction of being the first city to pass its own local good cause law, back in 2021, though it was later struck down by the courts.

Canyon Ryan, the executive director of United Tenants of Albany, said the dynamic between tenants in Kingston and Albany is akin to a race, where tenants want everyone to get to the finish line.

It's kind of like a friendly competition, but also, we're all working to support each other. We talk regularly about, What does this look like? How are your common council members receiving and responding to this? Ryan said. We want to be the first because we were the first, and so we want to kind of maintain that title as the first city.

Original post:
Progressives launch campaign to get upstate cities to opt in to 'good cause' law - City & State New York