Mediaboss Marketing

By one measure, the Coachella Valley is even more politically polarized than California as a whole.

Last year, Joe Biden won over 70% of the vote in three cities here: Coachella, Palm Springs and Cathedral City. That outstrips the 63% he got statewide.

Meanwhile, then-President Donald Trump won just one city in the valley, Indian Wells. He got a hair under 60% there, close to double his 34% across California, according to data compiled by The Press-Enterprise.

You probably know some people coworkers, maybe even family who voted the other way and see a lot of things differently.

But do you ever talk to them about why?

Or do you just stick to the weather, either because you dont want to bother or because youve gotten sick of hitting a brick wall?

#ListenFirst: New virtual event kicks off annual National Week of Conversation

In an effort to bridge that divide through conversation instead of avoidance The Desert Sun and other newspapers in the USA TODAY Network are partnering with the group behind an event called America Talks.

The idea is simple: You answer a few questions about your politics, youre matched up with someone who answereddifferently, then the two of you talk.

The conversations happen next weekend, June 12 and 13.

Pearce Godwin, founder and CEO of the Listen First Project, explained the thinking to USA TODAY: Its easy to sit back and point fingers, to lose hope. What if instead we stepped forward and got real with each other, extending curiosity, good will and grace?

If you sign up as I did at the projects website, AmericaTalks.us, it asks whether you approve of the job Biden is doing as president. From there, it asks about your views on gun control, the minimum wage, immigration, marijuana and whether freedoms of speech and religion are threatened.

After you write brief answers to a couple more questions, it will take all that and match you up with someone to talk with next week.

It might be easier to talk to a stranger about thorny topics than to a friend or relative. Think of it as a warm-up.

Now, its understandable if right about now, youre thinking, I have no interest in speaking with someone who voted for the other guy.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as President?

But that carries on a vicious circle:Politics is so polarized that people dont talk in any real way, which makes politics more polarized, which...

And the pattern makes you think the worst of people who don't think like you. Someone who doesnt share your view of immigration reform is an inhumane monster. A person who supports government spending you dont is an anti-American socialist.

Sure, in theory, people dont think that way: Godwin cited research showing 79% of Americans believe creating opportunities for conversation among people with differing views and values would be effective to bridge divisions, and two-thirds think the differences between Americans are not so big that we cannot come together.

Answering a survey with such idealism is one thing. But how many of us behave that way?

Talking with someone on the other side of the chasm doesnt mean youre going to decide theyre right. Thats not the point.

The point is to find ways not to assume the worst about our fellow Americans.That can start with a single conversation.

Eric Hartley is The Desert Sun's opinion editor. Email him at eric.hartley@desertsun.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2021/06/04/america-talks-bridge-political-divide-coachella-valley-across-us/7505069002/

Original post:
Column: Bridge the political divide in the valley, nationwide by talking to someone you don't agree with - Desert Sun

U.S. officials have long been fond of portraying Ukraine as a plucky democracy fending off the menace of aggression from an authoritarian Russia. Washingtons idealized image has never truly corresponded with the murkier reality, but the gap has now become a chasm. Several actions that President Volodymyr Zelenskys government has taken in recent months are alarmingly authoritarian. Treating Ukraine as a useful (much less, an essential) U.S. security partner cannot be justified on the basis of realist calculations and is needlessly provocative toward Russia. Trying to portray Ukraine as a model democracy deserving U.S. protection on moral grounds is even more far-fetched. Indeed, attempting to do so reflects either willful blindness or the worst sort of cynicism.

There has been a fraudulent element to Washingtons policy ever since Barack Obamas administration backed Ukraines so-called Maidan Revolution in 2014. Administration officials, most notably Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, encouraged and aided demonstrators who sought to overthrow the duly elected, but pro-Russia, government. U.S. leaders insisted that the revolution was a spontaneous, pro-democracy uprising by Ukrainians opposed to President Viktor Yanukovychs corrupt rule, even though Washingtons fingerprints were all over the campaign.

The administration and its allies in the Western news media conveniently ignored other ugly aspects of the democratic revolution. Although there were genuine democrats in the demonstrations, there were also armed ultranationalist and even outright fascist elements, such as Svoboda and Right Sector, which played crucial roles. After the revolution, those factions continued to be a troubling presence in the new, democratic Ukraine. The neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, for example, was an integral part of President Petro Poroshenkos military and security apparatus.

Ultranationalist and anti-Semitic incidents by extremist groups on the streets of Kiev and other cities became far too common in the years following the Maidan Revolution. The Poroshenko governments own policies also exhibited an increasingly authoritarian aspect. Ukrainian officials harassed political dissidents, adopted censorship measures, and barred foreign journalists they regarded as critics of the government and its policies.

As bad as the situation was under Poroshenko, however, it has grown even worse under his successor, Zelensky. In early February 2021, the Ukrainian government closed several pro-Russia, independent media outlets, and did so on the basis of utterly vague, open-ended standards. On May 13, 2021, a Ukrainian court ordered prominent pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk, a political ally of the owner of those television stations, to be put under house arrest while he faced allegations of treason. Medvedchuk, leader of the Opposition Platform - For Life political party, is one of Zelenskys most outspoken critics. Prosecutors had earlier accused him of engaging in subversive activities against Ukraine, including in the economic sphere,"

Medvedchuk is hardly the only target of an increasingly ugly political crackdown. In mid-April, Ukraines state security service detained 60 demonstrators in the city of Kharkiv who sought to protest actions by the local city council. The authorities did not accuse the protestors of engaging in violence; indeed, there was no evidence of such behavior. Instead, the state security service alleged that pro-Russian political forces had sent the demonstrators to stage protests as a way to "justify possible acts of Russian aggression against Ukraine." One could include almost any political activity under the rubric of such a vague, emotionally charged allegation.

The Maidan Revolution alumni now seem to be trying to devour even some of their own members. In mid-May, Kiev mayor Vitali Klitschko charged agents of the SBU, Ukraines state security agency, had come to his apartment in what he denounced as a continuing attempt by his political rival, Zelensky, to put pressure on him. Earlier in May, the SBU, the state prosecutor's office, and police carried out large-scale searches of various units of the Kiev city government, accusing the local authorities of misappropriation of budget funds and tax evasion, among other offenses. Although Klitschko was one of the original leaders of the Maidan demonstrations, Zelensky apparently now regards him as an annoying rival, since the Kiev mayor was a close ally of former president Poroshenko.

Such actions are hard to square with the U.S. foreign policy blobs portrayal of Ukraine as a vibrant, tolerant democracy. Typical of the idealized image was the version offered by William Taylor during House impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump. Taylor had served as interim U.S. ambassador to Kiev, and he clearly was fond of both the Maidan Revolution and the government it birthed. According to Taylor, Ukrainian leaders sought to create an inclusive, democratic nationalism, not unlike what we in America, in our best moments, feel about our country.

The real Ukraine far more closely resembles the illiberal, pseudo-democratic systems that we have seen emerge in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, and other countries than it does the United States. It is reckless to treat Ukraine as a U.S. ally on strategic grounds, and it is morally offensive to do so on the basis of alleged democratic solidarity. The Biden administration should jettison this increasingly odious client state as soon as possible.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of 12 books and more than 900 articles on international affairs.

Image: Reuters

Originally posted here:
Ukraine's Accelerating Slide into Authoritarianism - The National Interest

Democrats defeated President Donald J. Trump and captured the Senate last year with a racially diverse coalition that delivered victories by tiny margins in key states like Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

In the next election, they cannot count on repeating that feat, a new report warns.

A review of the 2020 election, conducted by several prominent Democratic advocacy groups, has concluded that the party is at risk of losing ground with Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters unless it does a better job presenting an economic agenda and countering Republican efforts to spread misinformation and tie all Democratic candidates to the far left.

The 73-page report, obtained by The New York Times, was assembled at the behest of three major Democratic interest groups: Third Way, a centrist think tank, and the Collective PAC and the Latino Victory Fund, which promote Black and Hispanic candidates. It appears to be the most thorough act of self-criticism carried out by Democrats or Republicans after the last campaign.

The document is all the more striking because it is addressed to a victorious party: Despite their successes, Democrats had hoped to achieve more robust control of both chambers of Congress, rather than the ultra-precarious margins they enjoy.

In part, the study found, Democrats fell short of their aspirations because many House and Senate candidates failed to match Joseph R. Biden Jr.s support with voters of color who loathed Mr. Trump but distrusted the Democratic Party as a whole. Those constituencies included Hispanic voters in Florida and Texas, Vietnamese American and Filipino American voters in California, and Black voters in North Carolina.

Overall, the report warns, Democrats in 2020 lacked a core argument about the economy and recovering from the coronavirus pandemic one that might have helped candidates repel Republican claims that they wanted to keep the economy shut down, or worse. The party leaned too heavily on anti-Trump rhetoric, the report concludes.

Win or lose, self-described progressive or moderate, Democrats consistently raised a lack of strong Democratic Party brand as a significant concern in 2020, the report states. In the absence of strong party branding, the opposition latched on to G.O.P. talking points, suggesting our candidates would burn down your house and take away the police.

Former Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Democrat who lost re-election in South Florida in November, said in an interview that she had spoken with the authors of the report and raised concerns about Democratic outreach to Hispanic voters and the partys failure to rebut misinformation in Spanish-language media.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has in some ways lost touch with our electorate, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell said. There is this assumption that of course people of color, or the working class, are going to vote for Democrats. We can never assume anything.

The report, chiefly written by a pair of veteran Democratic operatives, Marlon Marshall and Lynda Tran, is among the most significant salvos yet in the Democratic Partys internal debate about how it should approach the 2022 elections. It may stir skepticism from some quarters because of the involvement of Third Way, which much of the left regards with hostility.

A fourth group that initially backed the study, the campaign finance reform group End Citizens United, backed away this spring. Tiffany Muller, the head of the group, said it had to abandon its involvement to focus instead on passing the For the People Act, a sweeping good-government bill that is stuck in the Senate.

Mr. Marshall and Ms. Tran, as well as the groups sponsoring the review, have begun to share its conclusions with Democratic lawmakers and party officials in recent days, including Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The study spanned nearly six months of research and data analysis that scrutinized about three dozen races for the House and the Senate, and involved interviews with 143 people, including lawmakers, candidates and pollsters, people involved in assembling the report said. Among the campaigns reviewed were the Senate elections in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina, as well as House races in the suburbs of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Dallas, and in rural New Mexico and Maine.

The study follows an internal review conducted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that was unveiled last month. Both projects found that Democratic candidates had been hobbled by flawed polling and pandemic-imposed limitations on campaigning.

In the D.C.C.C. report, the committee attributed setbacks at the congressional level to a surge in turnout by Trump supporters and an inadequate Democratic response to attacks calling them police-hating socialists.

Some lawmakers on the left have complained that criticism of left-wing messaging amounts to scapegoating activists for the partys failures.

Yet the review by Third Way, the Collective PAC and the Latino Victory Fund goes further in diagnosing the partys messaging as deficient in ways that may have cost Democrats more than a dozen seats in the House. Its report offers a blunt assessment that in 2020, Republicans succeeded in misleading voters about the Democratic Partys agenda and that Democrats had erred by speaking to voters of color as though they are a monolithic, left-leaning group.

Representative Tony Crdenas of California, who last year helmed the Congressional Hispanic Caucuss political action committee, embraced that critique of Democratic messaging and said the party should discard the assumption that voters of color are inherently more progressive.

Thats been a ridiculous idea and thats never been true, Mr. Crdenas said, lamenting that Republicans had succeeded in trying to confuse Latino voters with the socialism message, things of that nature, defund the police.

Quentin James, the president of the Collective PAC, said it was clear that some of the rhetoric we see from coastal Democrats had been problematic. Mr. James pointed to the activist demand to defund the police as especially harmful, even with supporters of policing overhauls.

We did a poll that showed Black voters, by and large, vastly support reforming the police and reallocating their budgets, Mr. James said. That terminology defund was not popular in the Black community.

Kara Eastman, a progressive Democrat who lost her bid for a House seat based in Omaha, said Republicans had succeeded in delivering a barrage of messages that tarred her and her party as being outside the mainstream. Ms. Eastman said she had told the authors of the 2020 review that she believed those labels were particularly damaging to women.

Matt Bennett, a Third Way strategist, said the party needed to be far better prepared to mount a defense in the midterm campaign.

We have got to take very seriously these attacks on Democrats as radicals and stipulate that they land, Mr. Bennett said. A lot of this just didnt land on Joe Biden.

Democrats maintained a large advantage with voters of color in the 2020 elections, but the report identified telling areas of weakness. Mr. Biden and other Democrats lost ground with Latino voters relative to the partys performance in 2016, especially among working-class and non-college voters in these communities, the report found.

The report found that a surge in Asian American turnout appeared to have secured Mr. Bidens victory in Georgia but that Democratic House candidates ran behind Mr. Biden with Asian American voters in contested California and Texas races. In some important states, Democrats did not mobilize Black voters at the same rate that Republicans did conservative white voters.

A substantial boost in turnout netted Democrats more raw votes from Black voters than in 2016, but the explosive growth among white voters in most races outpaced these gains, the report warns.

There has been no comparable self-review on the Republican side after the partys severe setbacks last year, mainly because G.O.P. leaders have no appetite for a debate about Mr. Trumps impact.

The Republican Party faces serious political obstacles, arising from Mr. Trumps unpopularity, the growing liberalism of young voters and the countrys growing diversity. Many of the partys policies are unpopular, including cutting social-welfare and retirement-security programs and keeping taxes low for the wealthy and big corporations.

Yet the structure of the American electoral system has tilted national campaigns toward the G.O.P., because of congressional gerrymandering and the disproportionate representation of rural white voters in the Senate and the Electoral College.

Democratic hopes for the midterm elections have so far hinged on the prospect of a strong recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and on voters regarding Republicans as a party unsuited to governing.

Representative Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a moderate Democrat who was briefed on the findings of the report, called it proof that the party needed a strong central message about the economy in 2022.

We need to continue to show the American people what weve done, and then talk incessantly across the country, in every town, about how Democrats are governing, Ms. Sherrill said.

Largely unaddressed in the report is the immense deficit Democrats face among lower-income white voters. In its conclusion, however, Mr. Marshall and Ms. Tran write that Democrats need to deliver a message that includes working-class whites and matches the G.O.P.s clear collective gospel about low taxes and military strength.

Our gospel should be about championing all working people including but not limited to white working people and lifting up our values of opportunity, equity, inclusion, they write.

Visit link:
Democratic Report Raises 2022 Alarms on Messaging and Voter Outreach - The New York Times

A new day of cooperation and collaboration between Democrats and Republicans promised by Illinois House Speaker Emanuel Chris Welch in January has begun. Or it hasnt.

It all depends on whom you ask in the chamber or in the governors office.

After the General Assemblys spring session concluded last week, Democrats who hold super-majorities in the House and Senate say they succeeded, for the most part, in carrying out a legislative agenda focused on children, working people, racial and ethnic equity and ethics reform.

They said they did it all in the middle of a worldwide pandemic that limited in-person meetings and contributed to an end-of-session frenzy of activity, and the new House speaker believes a new day has dawned.

I think its gone quite well, said Welch, D-Hillside, who was chosen by House members in January after longtime Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, suspended his campaign for another two-year term.

We wouldnt have accomplished the monumental things that we accomplished without collaboration and partnership, Welch said. This is a session we can be proud of.

More: Pritzker defends new Illinois budget pushed through by Dems with $1 billion in projects

Republicans, on the other hand, were able to work with Democrats on some issues. But on the big ones such as the budget Republicans said decisions reached were as partisan as ever and maybe even more so this year.

They noted that Democrats included money for a $1,200 legislative pay raise Republicans didnt want in a more than 3,000-page budget bill filed a day or less daybefore it passed the House and Senate with no Republican votes.

That was classic Mike Madigan, classic 65th and Pulaski style, House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, said, referring to the street address of Madigans 13th Ward office in Chicago, where he remains the committeeman.

Earlier: Cannabis legislation to diversify industry approved by Illinois Senate, heads to Pritzker

Republicans said they were left out of final negotiations on the budget, and they disagreed with the way Democrats handled the drawing of new legislative and Illinois Supreme Court maps.

They said the sun heralding a new day in Springfield hasnt begun to peek above the horizon. The result for everyday citizens, they said, has been overspending, massive pension debt, a less-than-favorable business climate and taxes that are higher than necessary.

At the end of the day, its the same process weve seen for years, said Rep. Tim Butler, R-Springfield.

These massive pieces of legislation get dropped at the last minute, in the waning hours of session, he said. Its not a very good way to have productive public policy when we have bills that are thousands of pages that no one really has the opportunity to review before theyre voted on.

Democrats hold a 73-45 majority in the House and a 41-18 majority in the Senate.

When the Democrats have such an advantage in the legislature with the super-majority, they really dont care to engage the Republicans a whole lot because they can just do it themselves with their own votes, Butler said.

In politics, unfortunately,rhetoric and promises are one thing, and the way people conduct themselves while in office seems to be often a different thing, he said.

Democrats, sometimes on a bipartisan basis, spearheaded a litany of bills now headed to the desk of Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat. Democrats say the legislation would enact a balanced budget, pay down debts, expand affordable housing, providemore families subsidies for child care, reduce the states backlog of bills and make the full, scheduled pension payment.

Democrats said legislation they passed to enact the $42.3 billion state budget, an essentially flat spending planfor the fiscal year to begin July 1, also would set more money aside for educating public school students, expand Medicaid services, boost social services and help businesses harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another bill would create more economic opportunity for women and minorities in Illinois legal cannabis industry, Democrats said.

The Medicaid expansion to cover more health services received wide bipartisan support. And Republicans contributed some votes to the cannabis legislation, which gives more latitude for existing dispensaries to relocate and attempts to give people from low-income, high-crime neighborhoods more opportunity to win state-awarded cannabis licenses.

Welch, 50, the states first Black speaker, succeeded the 79-year-old Madigan after Madigan presided over the House for all but two years between 1983 and 2021.

Welch said the House passed a responsible, balanced budget and moved our state … a little bit closer toward racial and gender equity, led by the most diverse leadership team this body has ever had.

Welch said he isnt being critical of Madigan, one of his political mentors, when he said he has been more accessible to Republican and Democratic members of the chamber than Madigan was.

I believe in a more collaborative approach, Welch said. I believe in democracy. I believe in giving people a voice in this process, and I think if you ask around on both sides of the aisle, they will tell you they had plenty of opportunity to shape what happened here in this last session.

But Butler said Welch, like Madigan, spent little time on the House floor, while Durkin spent much more of his days there.

We didnt see a lot of the speaker, which is straight out of Madigans playbook, Butler said. He stays in his office all day long and posts stuff on social media, but we rarely see him on the floor. … This business is about relationships, and if the speaker is not around to continue to build relationships, then it makes it difficult to be productive.

Welch said Butlers criticism isnt fair.

My days started very early, and they ended very late, he said. Being speaker of the House means youre basically the CEO of the chamber. It takes a lot of work, a lot of time, very intense, and so when Im on the floor, its for a specific purpose. But when Im not on the floor, Im doing the work of the House, keeping the trains on the tracks. And so I think that no matter who is the speaker, youre not going to find them on the floor very much just because of the nature of the job and responsibilities that it entails.

Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, who has served in the House since 2001, said he had hopes for more collaboration with Democrats, but by the middle of the session, the process was noticeably more rocky, noticeably more partisan.

Lawmakers having to discuss issues and meet so often on Zoom rather than face to face and rarely spend free time together may have contributed to the situation, Brady said.

Sen. Steve McClure, R-Springfield, said: This is the most partisan spring session Ive experienced. Ive only been here for three sessions, but out of the three, this was the most partisan.

Welch pushed aside Republican criticisms regarding the state budget andmap-making, a process that must take place at least once every 10 years.

Though Republicans disagreed, Welch said lawmakers had a constitutional mandate to complete legislative maps by June 30.

Not meeting that deadline, the speaker said, would have thrown the process to a bipartisan commission that likely would have deadocked, triggering the drawing of a name out of a hat that would have given Republicans a 50-50 chance of being able to enact their own map.

Pritzker signed the map into law Friday. Its expected to be challenged in court before all members of the General Assembly are up for election in 2022.

Welch defended the Democrats use of American Community Survey estimates of population for the map, rather than decennial Census results, because the results arent expected until mid-August.

He and Pritzker faulted Republicans for not coming up with their own map proposal. Republicans said ACS data, the only information available, would be inaccurate, and they continued to call for creation of an independent map-drawing commission that both Welch and Pritzker supported in the past.

Read this: U.S. Congressman Rodney Davis puts pressure on Gov. JB Pritzker to veto legislative maps

The two men said an amendment to the state constitution would be required to create the commission, and though they supported an amendment, the legislature never agreed to put one on the ballot. And the men didnt support Republicans plan to create a commission through existing constitutional provisions or through a new law.

Regarding the budget, Welch said the end-of-session finalizing of details for the budget was unavoidable. He disagreed with calling the budget a last-minute endeavor, saying Republicans are pushing a false narrative.

The budget bill was filed the night before votes were taken May 31 in the House. The Senate passed the bill early on June 1.

Welch said lawmakers had plenty of time to go through it, and that was at the culmination of weeks and months of negotiations of what would go in there.

Republicans said they werent a real partner with Democrats on the budget. Welch pushed back.

We offered them an opportunity to be a partner in everything, he said. They chose what they wanted to be a part of. They helped us with ethics. We got ethics done. They helped us with cannabis. We got cannabis done. They helped us with affordable housing. We got affordable housing done. They helped us with Medicaid. We got Medicaid done.

They pushed away from the table on the budget. They pushed away from the table on redistricting. They cant pick and choose what they want to be a part of and then complain its the Democrats fault. They have to take some responsibility in their own decision-making.

Both Republicans and Democrats said they want to see even more ethics reforms passed beyond the bill headed to Pritzkers desk. the bill would bar elected officials from lobbying other units of government and put some rules in place to interrupt the revolving door of lawmakers leaving and then returning to lobby the General Assembly.

Butler said the dysfunction Republicans continue to see in the legislature may slow progress toward further ethics reforms.

We can continue to work on ethics and do it the right way over the summer, but I doubt that will happen, he said. The Illinois legislature seems incapable of doing it in a fashion that is collaborative and involves a lot of stakeholders when it comes to an issue like that.

Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, one of House Democrats budget negotiators, said he plans to work to give lawmakers and the public more time to sift through and evaluate future budget bills.

The current process has to change, he said, adding that many Democrats share Republicans frustration with voting on a final budget with 24 hours notice or less.

However, Ford said the public needs to consider Republicans motives when hearing their complaints about Welch.

The Republicans probably would never recognize change unless theres a change in party power, Ford said.

He said Republicans should be happy that the budget contains many things they like, including preservation of the Invest In Kids tax credit for donors wanting to assist children with scholarships to private schools, a $350 million boost in the school aid formula, and more money for hospitals.

The final budget didnt provide for eliminating all nine of the tax breaks that Pritzker wanted when he unveiled his budget proposal in February. The Invest in Kids credit was one of them.

Democrats were able to pass the budget without Republicans being forced to take tough votes on a budget that contained measures they didnt like, Ford said.

Madigan sometimes would force overtime sessions to pressure Republicans to contribute votes to the Democratic majority on controversial bills, Ford said.

Ford also gave credit to Welch for allowing changes in House rules that give Republicans more input. Republicans dont think enough has changed, but Ford said more progress will take time.

The state cannot afford for Welch to come in and tear down everything in place, Ford said. This is an incremental change. … It was a successful run for Speaker Welch.

Welch, Pritzker and other Democrats benefited from an unexpectedly swift upturn in the states economy and accompanying state tax revenues as COVID-19 cases declined and vaccines were deployed.

The state also will receive about $8.4 billion through the federal American Rescue Plan, with $1.5 million put to use in the fiscal 2022 budget, another $1 billion going toward capital projects in lawmakers districts, and almost $6 million yet to be appropriated.

Republicans complained that the $1 billion in projects apparently will be doled out by Democratic lawmakers. But Pritzker said the allocation of that money hasnt been completed. Republicans can influence where the money goes by contacting Democratic lawmakers, he said.

Related: Pritzker budget plan keeps spending flat, closes $900 million in 'corporate loopholes'

Republicans said the state has more than enough money to preserve the nine corporate tax breaks and help companies fuel the economic recovery.

But the breaks that were eliminated in the budget bill will save $655 million annually and begin to chip away at the states long-term structural deficit, Pritzker said.

Through the bill, the governor said Democrats acted responsibly when the Republicans wanted us to spend the one-time federal dollars to try to stick up for their benefactors, the wealthy corporations.

Even though the General Assembly continues to negotiate a clean-energy bill affecting Chicago-based Exelon and utilities throughout the state, Pritzker and Welch said the session was successful.

News: Downstate lawmakers, unions, nonprofit utilities wary of 'zero-carbon future' legislation

This is a testament to the fact that theres a real effort here to put Illinois in a great position going forward, Pritzker said.

Republicans, on the other hand, said Democratic control of state government will only perpetuate political scandals, and the redistricting fight was emblematic of whats at stake.

Durkin said citizens desperately want honesty in government. Rep. Tom Demmer, R-Dixon, said Democrats No. 1 goal during the session was gerrymandered maps.

Their true priority this year was to maintain their political advantage, Demmer said. He said Democrats handling of redistricting was a demonstration that we continue to govern through a system of brinkmanship. Its inappropriate.

Contact Dean Olsen: dolsen@gannett.com; (217) 836-1068; twitter.com/DeanOlsenSJR.

Continued here:
Promised 'new day' in Illinois House debatable in a session with plenty of disagreements - The State Journal-Register

The tragedy of the Middle East is that there are no viable solutions.

The status quo? While a lot of Jewish Israelis can live with the status quo, the message of last months bloody conflict was that Palestinians cannot. And not just Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. What came as a shock was the bitter communal violence between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel. Many Israeli Arabs find the status quo intolerable, and so do ultra-nationalist Israeli Jews.

The Abraham Accords promoted by the Trump administration were predicated on the status quo. Small, oligarchical Gulf Arab states would normalize relations with Israel in order to realize the benefits of trade, investment and tourism. Palestinian issues would simply be ignored. The Palestinians response? We will not be ignored!

A two-state solution? That has long been seen as the only viable option by U.S. presidents and many Israeli and Arab leaders. President Donald Trump said to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin NetanyahuBenjamin (Bibi) NetanyahuMORE in 2018, I like a two-state solution. Thats what I think works best. Trump added, oddly, I dont even have to speak to anybody, thats my feeling. After last months cease-fire, President Joe Biden said, We still need a two-state solution. It is the only answer.

But without any discernible peace process, the two-state solution seems to have become less and less realistic. Given ongoing settlement activity and annexations, Israel appears to be moving closer and closer to a one-state outcome. The prospective new Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, has called a Palestinian state suicide for Israel and has supported Israels annexation of much of the occupied territories. Israel is unlikely to accept a hostile state on its own borders, especially one likely to harbor terrorists. Few Israeli settlers in the West Bank would agree to live under the authority of a Palestinian state. In 2014, Bennett warned Israels Arab citizens not to become a fifth column traitors working for the enemy.

A one-state solution would be difficult to sustain as long as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. To give up that identity would be an unacceptable betrayal of Zionism, Israels founding ideology. The alternative would be to treat Arabs as second-class citizens without the same political rights as Jewish citizens. That would be a betrayal of democracy.

Expel the Palestinian population? Some Israeli extremists have talked about it. Just imagine a Jewish state carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing.

With one state becoming more likely, the Palestinian political movement has been moving away from the idea of a national liberation movement and closer to the idea of a civil rights movement. American liberals know how to respond to civil rights movements. They have been doing it for decades in the United States, in South Africa and all over the world. Americans who sympathize with the Palestinian cause see it as a human rights cause. Which it is, given the often brutal and discriminatory policies of the Israeli occupiers. But it is more complicated than that. Much more. Hamas lobs missiles at Israeli population centers, and Palestinian terrorism is a constant threat.

President BidenJoe BidenTrump touts record, blasts Dems in return to stage Trump demands China pay 'reparations' for role in coronavirus pandemic Lincoln Project co-founder: Trump's words 'will surely kill again' MORE is a traditional Democrat, and Democrats have been staunch supporters of Israel ever since President Harry Truman made the U.S. the first nation to give Israel de facto recognition minutes after the new nation was proclaimed in 1948. Biden has followed that tradition. The deputy White House press secretary said President Biden categorically rejects the description of Israel as an apartheid state or as engaging in terrorism.

For its first 20 years, Israel was seen as a country of the left. Many of its leaders came from the European socialist tradition. The Soviet Union was a strong supporter. The leading party was the Israeli Labor Party. The kibbutz movement was clearly identified with the left. All that changed with the 1967 war, when Israel conquered and occupied previously Arab territories. Starting in 1967, Israel came to be identified more and more with the international right.

At the same time, the Democratic Party has moved to the left. As a result, Israel supporters in the Democratic Party have been thrown on the defensive. Younger and more liberal Democrats including many progressive Jews have become openly critical of Israel. It used to be the case that the one place where you could always find bipartisan support for Israel was in the U.S. Congress. But some congressional Democrats have become outspoken in their criticism of Israel.

Despite President Bidens efforts, Israel like every other issue in American politics has become more partisan. Democrats were outraged when Netanyahu accepted an invitation from the Republican Speaker of the House to address Congress a move that President Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaWhy do we need a filibuster rule? Just look at today's political divisions Charter schools at 30: A bipartisan path to reducing inequality Obama: Proving UFOs exist 'wouldn't change my politics at all' MOREs White House denounced as a breach of protocol.

A Politico-Morning Consult poll taken last month showed 51 percent of Republicans more sympathetic to Israel and only 3 percent pro-Palestinian. Among Democrats, 12 percent said they supported Israel in the conflict, while 18 percent supported the Palestinians: 70 percent of Democrats said they either supported both sides equally or had no opinion. Among self-described liberals, support for the Palestinians outweighed support for Israel 24 to 10 percent. While Democrats have not become pro-Palestinian, support for Israel has declined sharply in President Bidens party.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told me in an interview that a true Zionist wants three things: a Jewish state, a democracy and Greater Israel (all the land promised to the Jewish people in the Bible, including the occupied territories). We can have any two of the three, Sharon said, but not all three. If Greater Israel were a Jewish state with a large Arab population, it could not remain a democracy. A democratic Jewish state could not include Greater Israel for the same reason. If Greater Israel were a democracy, the Jewish state would not survive, and the dream of Zionism would be lost.

Sharon believed that the only way a Jewish state could survive was to give up the idea of Greater Israel. He supported Israels withdrawal from Gaza, for which he is still reviled by many Israeli nationalists. Look how it turned out.

I once spoke to an American Jewish congregation and reported what Sharon said. To my surprise, the rabbi responded that Sharon was wrong.

Why do you say that? I asked.

Because, the rabbi explained, in the Torah [the first five books of the Bible], God clearly promised the Jewish people a Jewish state and a Greater Israel. But the word democracy is never mentioned. An undemocratic Israel?

Also unthinkable.

Bill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable(Simon & Schuster).

The rest is here:
Israel, Democrats and the problem of the Middle East | TheHill - The Hill