Mediaboss Marketing

Raisa and Mikhail Gorbachev. (Michael Setboun / Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

On the eve of Mikhail Gorbachevs birthday this March, Time magazines cover featured Anna Rivina, leader of Nasiliu.net, a Russian nonprofit to support victims of domestic violence that had just been branded a foreign agent by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. A symbolic coincidence. The independent womens movement in Russia, born in the years of Gorbachevs perestroika, became a prominent phenomenon outside the country, a part of the international struggle for gender equality. This is yet another obvious result of that unique process of liberation and renewal that began in the mid-1980s in the USSR and became an important factor of subsequent history.

Speaking of Gorbachevs lessons, during his birthday celebrations prominent Russian and international experts, political figures, and analysts spoke mostly about disarmament and freedom of speech, economic and political reforms, the release of prisoners of conscience, changes in the vector of politics, and recognition of the value of individual rights. These were truly revolutionary changes, many of which are irreversible despite the challenges of the times. Perestroika liberated the minds of millions of people, expanding the borders of their understanding of the world. Including the place of women in society and politics.

It was under Gorbachev that womens councils were instituted at work enterprises, so that women could have their say about the workplace and societal changes. It was during perestroika that independent womens groups appeared, along with the slogan Democracy without women is not democracy, the banner of a new Russian feminism. The Russian womens groups began to work with international womens initiatives. Women on East and West, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, tried to find and hear one another and make the world a better place. The 1990s Wild West market years with their painful social consequences would have been much more tragic if not for the active womens organizations that tried to organize daily life in hundreds of cities. The womens groups helped to overcome unemployment and poverty, forming groups of mutual aid, support, and training in new professions, essentially saving themselves and their families.

The independent womens movement grew in the last years of the USSR on a wave of changes, like many other civil initiatives. It did not always meet with understanding. Many architects of perestroika did not think that women had any problems, since Soviet ideology held that men and women were equal and there was a 30 percent quota for women in elected bodies. The majority of members in these bodies had to be from the working class and collective farmers, who, just like women, were often window dressing and voted for decisions made in Party offices. The hypocrisy of the Soviet regime in the Brezhnev stagnation period made people in the intelligentsia reject all Soviet postulates, including gender equality, for many years afterward.

But women wanted to be part of perestroika. Womens councils were formed in scientific centers and large enterprises throughout the country. There were more women than men with a higher education in the USSR. Yet, top positions in government and industry were held by men.

Gorbachevs support of womens councils was attributed to the influence of his wife, Raisa Gorbachev. Far from everyone in the USSR approved of her public activity, her meetings with other first ladies. However, the role of Raisa Gorbachev, the scholar rather than spouse, is hard to overestimate; she dismantled the Soviet tradition of secrecy about the leader and his family and set an example for new forms of international cooperation among women at all levels. Womens peace initiatives, the Russian-American Alliance for Women in Business, and the dozens of joint organizations and consortiums were the result of the breakthrough made during perestroika.

Perestroika was broader and more powerful than expected, touching on the deepest layers of society. As a result, gender issues have become part of the public discourse, no longer part of research labeled secret.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In 1989, Kommunist magazine published How Do We Solve the Womens Question? by Academician Natalya Rimashevskaya and two young sociologists, Natalya Zakharova and Anastasia Posadskaya. It was the first to talk about the gender gap and gender discrimination in the USSR. It caused a great stir in the academic world, and soon under the auspices of the Rimashevskayas new Institute of Socioeconomic Problems, the Moscow Center for Gender Research was founded and headed by Posadskaya. The center attracted researchers from many countries and served as a discussion platform and a laboratory for new experiences and the promotion of gender research in academia.

At the same time, womenengineers, designers, analystsorganized discussion groups about the role of women in government. In 1991, not long before the disappearance of the USSR, the First Independent Womens Forum gathered several hundred women in Dubna, near Moscow. Nothing like that had ever been done in the USSR, and it was a revelation to Russians and Westerners alike. Just before that, Colette Shulman and Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nations editorial director and publisher) began publishing a newsletter in America about the womens movement in the USSR and the US called Vy i My, You and We. In a few years, You and We evolved into a magazine published in Russia. Its hard to overestimate the significance of the publication, whose articles were reprinted by national and federal media in Russia and the countries of the former USSR. It was a bridge between cultures and social practices.

The struggle against domestic violence and discrimination played an important part in the magazine from the start, as did the dialogue among women, which supported and expanded the political dialogue and is still a colossal resource for building relations between Russia and the US. This is part of the discussion at the Raisa Gorbachev Club, which continues its work in Moscow after her passing, with international cooperation an important priority.

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

Another impressive example of Russian-American public diplomacy and cooperation during the Gorbachev era is a dialogue between women writers and scholars that began in spring 1991 at the Conference Glasnost in Two Cultures in New York. Three dozen women, American Slavists, feminists, translators, and Russian women writers, gathered in an extraordinary meeting challenged by some misunderstanding of each others cultures. But relationships were born and continue to this day helping to create a stable and vital movement and bearing fruit in, among many ways, translations of womens short stories collections, occasional conferences, a Russian arm of Womens World Association, new publications.

Women writers conversation about feminism helped turn a new page in gender awareness in the USSR and later in Russia, brought to light new problems and approaches to them, and promoted gender equality in art. It changed popular culture; today young women writers write scripts for TV serials using gender glasses, promoting gender equality that challenges neoconservative and nationalistic trends in contemporary Russian public opinion.

Democracy without women is not democracy has not lost its importance in Russia. The dozens of new womens initiatives, the gender section of the social democratic Yabloko Party, the hundreds of pickets and protests against discrimination, harassment, and violence in cities and regions of Russia all speak to that. New generations are continuing the struggle that began during perestroika. This is the clear and inarguable success of Gorbachevs policies. So is the portrait of a Russian activist on the cover of Time.

Translated by Antonina W. Bouis

Read more:
Democracy Without Women Is Not Democracy - The Nation

Welcome to The Political Fix by Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, a newsletter on Indian politics and policy. To get it in your inbox every week, sign up here.

We dont charge for this newsletter, but if you would like to support us consider contributing to the Scroll Reporting Fund or, if youre not in India, subscribing to Scroll+.

Will Indias illiberal turn under Prime Minister Narendra Modi hurt the countrys chances of engaging with the West?

We asked this question on the Political Fix six months ago:

The challenge of living in a state that has moved away from pluralism as its stated aim is one that Indians will have to grapple with. Over the last few months, this drift has also led to a debate among those who follow Indias strategic thinking and foreign policy efforts

American scholar Ashley Tellis kicked off last weeks round of the debate, arguing that the community of liberal democracies internationally stands to lose if domestic unrest fueled by confrontational politics stymies Indias growth or if India enlarges its material capabilities only by sacrificing its liberal character. Either outcome would dilute the Wests eagerness to partner with India.

Still, knowing that the West has often been more than happy to work with despots and dictators though, will Indias recent moves actually harm its chances?

The last few weeks have seen the West, or at least its public sphere, become much more cognisant of the democratic backsliding under Modi.

US-based non-profit Freedom House in its annual report downgraded the country from free to partly free, saying rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, Modi and his party are tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism.

Swedens V-Dem Institute went a step further, saying the worlds largest democracy has turned into an electoral autocracy.

This led to a burst of coverage of developments in India, with the BBC examining the question of this democratic downgrade and The Washington Post carrying a piece titled, India, the worlds largest democracy, is now powered by a cult of personality.

While for some, terms like electoral autocracy or partly free conjure up images of rigged elections and widespread political violence, Milan Vaishnav, director of Carnegie South Asia, explained in Foreign Affairs that,

Indias drop in the democracy league tables has less to do with the nature of its elections which are largely free and fair than with the shrinking democratic space between them These grim assessments point to several troubling political developments in the country: the consolidation of a Hindu-majoritarian brand of politics, the excessive concentration of power in the hands of the executive, and the clampdown on political dissent and on the media.

The Indian government naturally pushed back against these assessments, citing both a genuine grouse about wayward and inconsistent Western readings of the country as well as less grounded claims of some sort of anti-India agenda from these organisations.

Treating all criticism, whether it comes from Indians or foreigners, as agenda-driven efforts from enemies of the nation is of course one of the indicators of the Indian governments illiberal turn.

Political scientist Paul Staniland looked at V-Dems earlier assessments of India to see if charges of bias against the Bharatiya Janata Party were accurate in an insightful thread:

While Twitter debated these things, in the country itself the question of whether India had become less free seemed, quite literally, academic:

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a vocal critic of the Narendra Modi government, had resigned as professor of the Ashoka University on Tuesday, less than two years after he stepped down as the universitys vice chancellor. The university had refused to say whether his writings and criticism were connected to the resignation. Economist Arvind Subramanian also quit after Mehtas exit

In his resignation letter to Ashoka University, political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta said he was quitting because it had become abundantly clear to him that his association with the university may be considered a political liability.

My public writing in support of a politics that tries to honour constitutional values of freedom and equal respect for all citizens, is perceived to carry risks for the university, Mehta wrote. It is clear it is time for me to leave Ashoka.

Mehta, who is very well known in academic and intellectual circles, had in his regular columns for the Indian Express been writing about Modi and the BJPs impact, with a recent piece titled the real darkness on horizon is the turn Indian democracy is taking.

Though some have questioned Mehtas own analysis of Modi in the past and others have asked why developments at an expensive, private university have garnered more attention than the steady attacks on academic freedoms at public ones, the news undoubtedly added to the international impression of speech being threatened in India.

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar, who looked recently at questions of how to define India under the BJP, decided to read the tea leaves:

The recent negative reports about Indias democracy have given a convenient handle to pseudo-intellectuals of the regime to commence this offensive of redefinition.

A time will come when it will be argued that democracy is a western notion unnecessary for true and spiritual emancipation moksha. It will be claimed that there is an indigenous meaning to democracy. Liberalism and individual rights are a western fashion, institutional autonomy is a fetish, freedom of expression is a superfluous luxury (and of course, no freedom is absolute)

The simplistic binary between electoral and non-electoral needs to be set aside. Regimes which initially hide behind the democratic fig-leaf often overemphasise the virtue of electoral victories and the will of the people

The moment individual citizens or minorities and marginalised sections are silenced into self-censorship born out of the lure of social approbation or risk of repression, democracy based on the claims of so many votes begins to resemble its opposite.

Whether or not to call that opposite of democracy by the name of autocracy, authoritarianism, or partial freedom, is less important because non-democracy, by any name, will smell as odious it will crush the people in whose name it has enthroned itself.

So, will all of this hurt Indias chances of engaging with the West?

As of this week, self-evidently not.

Modi joined US President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suge and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in the first-ever leadership meeting of the Quad, a group of countries that has come together to support a shared vision for an Indo-Pacific region that is free, open, resilient and inclusive.

For nearly two decades now the four countries have coordinated on a few shared activities and discussed cooperating on many more. The grouping has also been seen, accurately, as an effort to contain China, as its influence in the region grows.

In last weeks summit, however, the leaders sought to convey the impression that the group aims to do much more than just counter Beijing militarily.

In an Op-Ed jointly written by the four leaders, the story of the Quad begins with the countries putting together a joint response to the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. Among the biggest agreements from the first summit was a decision to have India manufacture the Johnson & Johnson single-shot Covid-19 vaccine, with financing from the US and Japan and logistical support from Australia to distribute the vaccines across South-East Asia and Pacific countries. The gathering also saw added commitment to work together on things like climate change and critical technology.

Still, as Indrani Bagchi writes, theres no doubt a resurgent, aggressive and hegemonistic China is the wind beneath the Quads wings The Quads the thin end of the wedge in what promises to become an expanding toolkit of a massive counterbalancing exercise.

Well have more coverage and links to outcomes from last weeks Quad summit and further developments in coming days.

But to return to the question, how does Indian democratic backsliding play into all of this? After all, in the joint Op-Ed, the four leaders wrote that our foundations of democracy and a commitment to engagement unite us.

Just a few days later, US Defence Secretary General Lloyd Austin III visited New Delhi, to meet Modi, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. The meetings led to a number of major agreements, such an enhanced Indian cooperation with a number of US military commands as opposed to just the Hawaii-based Indo-Pacific one and collaboration on information sharing, artificial intelligence, space and cyber.

Among the things Austin brought up were questions of human rights abuses, which he had been urged to bring up by the chairperson of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Austin said he spoke to members of the Indian Cabinet about violations of human rights of Muslims in Assam, among other things, adding India is our partner and a partner that whose partnership we value. And I think partners need to be able to have those kinds of discussions.

The Indian government, however, claimed this didnt happen via anonymous sources:

As many expected, under US President Joe Biden, questions about human rights and liberal values are indeed more likely to come up, in ways that will be embarrassing for the Indian government under Modi.

Whether that will prevent the two countries from collaborating is a different matter altogether. One explanation for why it was relevant came from the Hudson Institutes Aparna Pande in a Friday Q&A last year, pointing out that Indias democratic reputation is a reason for its seat at the table:

If India was growing at 8%-10% economic growth, if India had the military, which could stand up to China, then maybe we could turn around and say, you know, Why are you [criticising our move away from liberalism]?

But actually we seem to have it bad on all fronts. Economic growth has slowed down. We havent invested in human capital as Covid shows us right now. Our military modernisation has not gone as planned. And we have political and social tensions What is India offering aside from its image?

What is India offering aside from its image? The answer might be quite simple: A willingness to take on China.

If, as the other Quad countries have concluded, that competition with Beijing will be the defining geopolitical contest of the decade, some amount of Indian democratic backsliding could well be ignored by the West as long as New Delhi stays firm on China.

In both West Bengal and Kerala, several people have found their names on the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate lists without asking to be on there or in some cases not even being members of the party.

This untranslatable interview is the outcome of those developments:

Thanks for reading the Political Fix. Well be back on Friday with a Q&A and links to pieces from around the web. Send feedback to rohan@scroll.in.

Go here to read the rest:
The Political Fix: What does India's democratic backsliding mean for the Quad? - Scroll.in

Opinion: the way we are treated at work can shape our beliefs about how others should be treated

ByLorraine Ryan and Thomas Turner, University of Limerick

Garda Commissioner Drew Harris drew widespread criticism when he claimed that both far left and far right factions were involved in recent anti-lockdown protests in Dublin. He subsequently clarified that there was no 'corroborated evidence' that any far-left groups were involved, and the protests were conducted by anti-vaccine, anti-mask and anti-lockdown protestors, far right groups, and those intent on trouble and disorder.

Across the Atlantic, far right groups were said to have initiated the Capitol Hill riots, an event that tragically included the deaths of five people and was described by many as an assault on democracy. There are other recent examples across Europe and the rest of the world of a weakening of support for democracy and a rise in extreme right-wing or populist political groups. Such groups typically draw on a mass movement led by an outsider or maverick seeking to gain power by using anti-establishment appeals. They are also often linked with racist or anti-immigrant sentiments. Debates around Brexit are a prime example.

An individual'spolitical views are shaped by many personal characteristics and life circumstances including socio-economic class, education, social networks and family. However, our work environment can also have a significant influence on our beliefs and attitudes.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

FromRT 2fm'sLouise McSharry,career psychologist, Sinead Brady on crying at work

Workplaces are microcosms of society and democratic societies require democratic workplaces. How individuals are socialised in the workplace can shape their views and behaviours in important ways. Socialisation refers to the influence of environmental factors (such as workplaces) on social attitudes, including political ones. Most people spend a great part of their life at work and so exposure to democratic or authoritarian work environments influences the extent to which there is a positive or negative spillover into democratic behaviours in society.

Democratic work environments are those where power is dispersed and workers can influence their working conditions, hold management accountable and participate in decision-making in matters that effect their working lives. Democracy does not require consensus and harmony among groups, but rather its bedrock is a recognition of pluralist interests and acceptance of difference. Equality and voice are cornerstones of democracy.

Factors that facilitate democratic work environments include the size of the organisation (larger workplaces tend to be more democratic), mechanisms for worker participation and the presence of a trade union. At root, trade unions are democratic institutions that have long provided an independent voice for workers.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

FromRT Radio 1'sMorning Ireland in April 2020,Patricia King from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on proposals to ensure 'Covid-secure' workplace conditions

The democratic spillover thesis suggests that workplace democracy and participation increase workers' sense of political efficacy, which then transfers to the formal political sphere through, for example. an increased propensity to vote in elections. Research shows that trade union members report significantly higher rates of electoral voting and political activism than non-union workers. Trade unions also often advocate for greater inclusiveness in society, as seen for example in the recent Black Lives Matter movement and the marriage equality referendum. Thus, workers exposed to democratic work institutions such as trade unions are socialised into the legitimacy of equality and voice and the belief that workers can achieve change through a democratic system.

Conversely, authoritarian work environments are those where there is little opportunity for voice and decisions are made by a single authoritarian figure. In such organisations, power is highly concentrated and relatively immune from any challenge. Workers are often subject to strict control and expected to essentially do as they are told.

Authoritarian work environments emphasise conformity to rules, submissiveness to authority and aggression against outsiders. Those working in authoritarian work environments are uncomfortable with others who have dissimilar beliefs to their social group. Workers socialised in such settings are thus more likely to hold negative views towards outsiders such as immigrants and have weaker attachment to democratic values and processes in society.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

FromRT Brainstorm, what might the future of work look like and are we ready for it?

The way we are treated at work can shape our beliefs about how others should be treated as we assimilate the norms and values associated with the organisation in which we spend much of our time. Organisations are integral parts of wider society and contain a significant social nexus and responsibility. Society and the workplace have a mutually reinforcing relationship whereby democracy in society must be mirrored in the workplace and democratic workplaces reinforce democracy in society.

Yet trade union membership and influence are in decline across Europe. Any replacement of the role of unions and collective bargaining faces challenges of legitimacy and independence that are crucial to democracy at work. Public policy interventions at workplace level that provide guarantees to representation and voice for workers can support democracy both at work and in the spillover into society.

Ensuring democratic societies that embrace diverse populations is important in stemming the rise of far-right groups that advocate strong anti-immigrant sentiments. Providing effective voice for all demographic groups is critical in advancing more inclusive and equal societies. The beliefs, values and mechanisms that underpin democratic societies for citizens must be mirrored in the workplaces in which those citizens are employed to encourage active participation in the democratic process and secure the health and robustness of democracy in society.

Dr Lorraine Ryanis a Lecturer in Employment Relations and Human Resource Management at the Department of Work and Employment Studies at theKemmy Business School atUniversity of Limerick. She is a former Irish Research Council awardee.Dr Thomas Turner lectures in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations at the Department of Personnel and Employment Relations at the Kemmy School of Business at the University of Limerick.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RT

Go here to read the rest:
Does where you work influence your political beliefs? - RTE.ie

Jury selection is like putting a penny in a gum-ball machine; you have no idea what you are going to get.

At least that is the contention of retired Circuit Court Judge Casey Stengel, of Moline, Ill.

The worlds attention has been focused on the jury selection taking place in the Minneapolis courtroom where Derek Chauvin, a former police officer, is accused of murder in the death of George Floyd. Of course, lawyers do everything they can to eliminate the randomness by trying to pick jurors who they think will vote their way.

I have covered enough jury selections over the years to have become a bit cynical about the process. For one thing, courts are looking for people who havent already formed an opinion on whether someone is guilty or innocent. But who on planet Earth hasnt already watched that video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyds neck and formed an opinion?

When I first started covering trials, I was working as a reporter in Galveston, Texas. An old judge named Ed Harris took me under his wing and explained how courts really work. Harris had served in the Texas Legislature for decades before being elected a judge. One observation he made that seems to hold true is that the smartest person in the jury pool never gets picked.

Daniel Fultz, a criminal defense attorney for Brown, Hay and Stephens in Springfield, Ill., explained it this way, Lets say you have a mostly blue-collar jury and the towns doctor somehow gets on, too. You can just about bet hell be elected foreman, and hell lead the other jurors to a verdict. If one person is going to choose the verdict, you might as well have the judge decide.

During my time in Texas, I got to know a young defense attorney named Robert Hirschhorn. He has gone on to be one of the top jury consultants in the nation. He picked the juries that acquitted William Kennedy Smith, Robert Durst and George Zimmerman. The jury selection strategy in the George Floyd case would be much different than in most trials.

Everythings reversed, Hirschhorn said. In a typical criminal case, the defendant is looking for more liberal jurors. And the prosecution is looking for pro-law enforcement types. But when you have a cop on trial, especially in a high-profile case, everything gets flipped around. That means that the defense is looking for as many White, law enforcement-oriented, conservative jurors, that they can find and they dont want a liberal anywhere near this case. The prosecution wants as many Black jurors as they can get and as many liberal or moderates as they can get.

So what question should a lawyer ask to determine an ideal juror in this case?

Id ask of the last four presidents Trump, Obama, George W. Bush and Clinton who did you like the best? Jurors who say Obama or Clinton are who the prosecution wants and those who say Trump are the ideal for the defense in a cop case, Hirschhorn said.

Jurors arent always as well-informed as one might expect them to be. When I was a young reporter, I had written a story on a murder case where the defendant was being retried after his first trial ended in a mistrial. It seems a witness was a bit too honest in the first trial. A prosecutor asked why he was frightened of the defendant and the man said, Because he has killed before. It was a truthful answer, but not something the judge wanted jurors to hear. Thus, a mistrial occurred.

The day jury selection was to begin in the second trial, a story I had written appeared on the front page explaining why the man was being retried for murder. The judge on the case worried that his jury pool had been contaminated. So, each potential juror was brought into the courtroom alone and questioned about what they remembered reading in the newspaper that morning. One older woman sat primly on the witness stand and was grilled by the lawyers. The interrogation by the defense lawyer went like this:

Maam, did you read the Galveston Daily News this morning?

Did you read a story about a jury being selected for a murder trial?

Well, yes but I only read the first sentence of the story.

At this point the defense attorney nearly snarled, You knew you were being called today for jury service in a murder trial and you saw a story on the front page of the newspaper about jury selection for a murder trial and you expect us to believe you only read the first sentence of the article? How can that be, maam?

The woman shifted uncomfortably on the witness stand and explained: I got to the courthouse early and saw the newspaper machine out front. I started to read the story through the little window in the machine, but I didnt have a quarter to buy the paper.

Reeder is a veteran statehouse journalist in Illinois and a freelance writer.

Read the original here:
Reeder: Jury selection an imprecise art | Opinion | telegraphherald.com - telegraphherald.com

Democrats are warning they won't tolerate GOP stonewalling as they try to make good on their pledge to enact a bold agenda and avoid Obama-era missteps.

Fresh off a big win on coronavirus relief, Democrats are facing intense pressure not to water down their legislative priorities after years of a backed-up wish list during the Trump era and a decade since the party has had a unified governmentit could use to muscle through sweeping reforms considered anathema to the GOP.

We will try to get them to work with us. But if not, we will put our heads together and figure out how to go, Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats make low-tax states an offer they should refuse Biden must keep his health care promises FEMA pauses flood insurance rate update after Schumer pushback: report MORE (D-N.Y.) told reporters.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem JeffriesHakeem Sekou JeffriesDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Anger over anti-Asian violence, rhetoric rips through Capitol Democratic majority shrinks, but finds unity MORE (N.Y.) was more blunt, calling GOP leadership divorced from reality for opposing policies that are popular even among Republicans outside the Beltway.

Our standard for bipartisanship can no longer be what happens here in the Capitol, because we know that the strategy of my colleagues, legislatively, is not to try and find common ground it's obstruction and mischaracterization, he said. They ran this playbook during the Obama administration. ... They are running the same playbook again.

We will not let them get away with it," he added.

The plow-ahead strategy is significant with a host of big agenda items looming in the coming months, including sweeping proposals addressing infrastructure needs, climate change and fixes to the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. John YarmuthJohn Allen YarmuthDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Democratic majority shrinks, but finds unity On The Money: Biden celebrates relief bill with Democratic leaders | Democrats debate fast-track for infrastructure package MORE (D-Ky.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, said Democrats would prefer bipartisan proposals, particularly on issues like infrastructure that are widely popular in both parties. But Democrats have no intention of letting up, he added, when it comes to pursuing legislation that polls well among voters of all stripes. With that strategy, Democrats are all but daring Senate Republicans to oppose policies popular on both sides of the aisle.

"We're going to keep putting stuff over there, because Schumer's going to keep putting it on the floor and make them cast bad votes," Yarmuth said.

The political reality is two-fold: Democrats, particularly in the House, are disgusted with GOP colleagues who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and feel little incentive to offer an olive branch. And in a significant shift from the Obama years, theres a growing belief within the party that going small or letting priorities stall out in hopes of making them bipartisan is the wrong tact.

I think its significant. Holding out and not getting it. Or you know, holding out and having [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell or [then-House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor, at the time, say Hey look guys, were not going along with any of this,' said Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP This week: Senate works to confirm Biden picks ahead of break Kaine says he still has tingling sensations, hot spots after coronavirus infection MORE (D-Va.), about the lessons learned from the Obama administration.

I think the balance were trying to strike is: Were not going to wait around to do what the public needs, but we want your good ideas, he added.

Unlike in the Obama era, the growing desire to not let Republicans stonewall Democrats priorities is being coupled with the fallout from the Jan. 6 Capitol attack that has deepened partisan rancor, particularly in the majoritarian-run House where 139 Republicans voted to challenge election results.

Were still getting some of these confused messages from our colleagues about the insurrectionary violence that took place," said Rep. Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Calls grow from lawmakers for IRS to extend filing deadline The world abandoned COVID-19's best antidote: Whistleblowers MORE (D-Md.). "I think some of our colleagues are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance because their rhetoric is to support the police, but when our police were violently and viciously attacked for hours by fascist insurrectionist[s], they turned the other cheek."

Raskin added that he is willing to work with Republicans on positive legislation but added a warning: Im not going to entrust anything valuable to my country to those people.

House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP GOP hammers Democrats over Iowa Democrat's election challenge 14 Republicans vote against resolution condemning Myanmar military coup MORE (D-Md.) summed up the first quarter of 2021 as a volatile, sad, dangerous period in the Congress's history.

Those tensions have been on display as conservatives have led an effort to gum up the House floor, an effort that doesnt successfully prevent Democratic priorities from passing but does cause big headaches for leadership.

On the Senate side, Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden: Back to the future on immigration, Afghanistan, Iran Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Johnson, Grassley indecision freezes key Senate races MORE (R-Wis.) sparked broad backlash for telling a radio host that he wasnt afraid during the Jan. 6 attack by a pro-Trump mob, but if "those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned."

Hoyer called it a racist statement, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called Johnson a racist. In an acknowledged break with chambers typical clubby decorum, Sen. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Border surge scrambles Senate immigration debate Democratic senators urge Biden to take executive action on ghost guns MORE (D-N.J.) used a speech on the Senate floor to call Johnson a racist and accuse him of spreading bigoted tropes.

The verbal fireworks come even as Democrats, particularly in the Senate, stress that theres still interest in working with Republicans, who they are in constant touch with on myriad lower-profile issues.

I will always do everything I possibly can to try to find common ground, said Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP On The Money: IRS chief says unemployment recipients shouldn't file amended tax returns | GOP senator blocks bill to prevent private debt collectors from seizing stimulus checks GOP senator blocks bill to prevent private debt collectors from seizing stimulus checks MORE (D-Ore.). The question becomes, what do you do if the other side just says 'No way'? And what Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Johnson, Grassley indecision freezes key Senate races Republicans set to rebound big in 2022 midterms, unless... MORE did in 2009, he said, 'MyNo. 1 goal is to stop Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP There's a five-alarm crisis on the border and Team Biden imposes a media blackout Future of the GOP? The art, promise and lesson of politics MORE from getting reelected.'

Democrats want infrastructure to be bipartisan, and the Biden administration has been in touch with GOP senators as recently as Thursday.

But there are deep divisions over the scope of the bill and key aspects like how to pay for it, leading Democrats to acknowledge that theyll likely need to lean on their own members and pass it through reconciliation.

"What I have seen this year and in past years is that if we want to do something significant, it is very hard to get Republican support," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP The Memo: Two months in, strong Biden faces steep climbs Cotton: Democrats' infrastructure bill will be focused on higher taxes, 'Green New Deal' MORE (I-Vt.). If Republicans are prepared to support a significant and important piece of legislation that deals with climate change, deals with infrastructure, that's great. My own feeling is at this point I doubt that that will be the case.

Meanwhile, the House is sending over a slate of bills that represent big agenda items but that were passed along party lines, putting growing pressure on Democrats to nix the filibuster orriskletting GOP opposition stall their priorities.

Among that slate of legislation are bills to expand background checks prior to gun sales and extend citizenship to Dreamers two ideas with overwhelming popular support across the country, but not among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Democrats are increasingly using that popular support not the stance of GOP lawmakers as a gauge for what theyll bring to the floor.

Im just pleased that what were doing here very much has bipartisan support outside the Congress, said Rep. Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Pelosi says top Democrats won't back measure to expel Greene House Democrats push to create public reminder of Jan. 6 riot MORE (D-Mich.). And I think that matters more than whats happening here.

Democrats dont have the votes, currently, to nix the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most legislation, and Republicans havent actually filibustered a bill yet this year. But supporters argue that watching Republicans block bills that have 50 Democratic votes and broad bipartisan support could move senators who are on the fence about changing the rules.

Wyden, who supports the "talking" filibuster, described the Senate as kind of at an inflection point, questioning the tenability of blocking bills that garner support from a swath of their own voters.

If, as we saw on the Recovery Act, we continue to say, A, we would like to work together,B, show that were serious about it things like doing it for a sufficient amount of time and then, C, and then go forward with an agenda ... where the individual items get strong support from Republicans, I dont know how they're going to be able to find that a winning strategy, Wyden said.

I cant recall a time when Ive seen strong support from Republican voters at the kind of grassroots level in terms of the individual items, he added, and then Republicans saying, 'Were not going to support it.'

After the Jan. 6 attack and the exit of the mercurial Trump administration, some lawmakers said they were hoping for a return to a more gracious era of bipartisan cooperation. Since that hasnt happened, some Democrats suggested they have no choice but to plow ahead with the agenda voters elected them to pursue.

I was hoping that after the inauguration, after things settled down, that we would get a spirit of bipartisanship. But it doesnt seem to be coming, said Rep. G.K. ButterfieldGeorge (G.K.) Kenneth ButterfieldDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP CBC 'unequivocally' endorses Shalanda Young for White House budget chief Black Caucus members lobby Biden to tap Shalanda Young for OMB head MORE (D-N.C.). The question is: Do we continue to wait, or do we legislate?

I think the decision is to go forward with legislation.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP | TheHill - The Hill