Elections – to the LEFT

The Enigma of the ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

April 24, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

There is little doubt that the current state of the American criminal justice system is one of abject corruption and rampant unfairness. The United States is also the most incarcerated nation in the world, with an estimated 2.2 million people behind bars. While the U.S. represents about 4 percent of the world’s population, it houses around 22 percent of the world’s prisoners. Sadly, this number does not include the staggering 4.5 million people that are supervised on probation or parole. Compounding this issue is the sheer racial and economic disparities of that system. There are many factors that have aided in the creation of this malignant environment of cancerous oppression – inherited unconscious biases, outright racist politicians, and well-intentioned community leaders – that is our criminal justice system.

The American criminal justice system is a complex web of individuals, policies, laws, and socioeconomic dynamics that all intersect to form what we have today, a system that was remade from the Jim Crow era and criminalizes the poor. So, with so many different variables, what is the most important piece to this puzzle? Who is the most influential person or entity in this system? Is it the judges that oversee trials and pass down sentences? What about the police, with their frequent use of force? All have their spheres of influence, but the prosecutor stands above them all in power and discretion. Indeed, the prosecutor is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system.

The prosecutor is the only person with the power to decide who to charge with a crime, what charges to bring, what sentence to seek, or to simply dismiss a case. All of these falls under the prosecutor’s discretion. Most people do not even realize that 97 percent of cases do not even go before a judge, the majority of cases are resolved in the plea bargain process.

Also, many do not know that almost all District Attorneys are elected officials. Given that these individuals hold this much power, it is essential that the right people are elected to the office. Here steps in the ‘progressive prosecutor.’ The term progressivehas become a buzz word on the left, with many politicians and public figures trying to claim the title – rightly so or not. The ‘progressive prosecutor’ may be somewhat of a conundrum, as the two words seem to go together as well as oil and water. Historically, the institution of the prosecutor’s office has been anything but progressive, instead it has been just another regressive arm of an equally repressive system. Even presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, has tried to brand her time as a District Attorney in California in this way. I would contend, given her record, this is a fairly far stretch of its intended meaning.

Oftentimes, activists and organizers rely on fighting an unjust system with outside pressure. While this will always be needed, even with a perceived ally on the inside, a sympathetic fighter in the seat of power can do a lot to move the needle of justice. There is hope, however. Across the country people are waking up to this fact and are working towards electing progressive prosecutors, individuals that are helping to rethink the criminal justice system. In fact, during the 2016 election cycle, there was a slew of more progressive prosecutors elected to public office.

One such election was that of Kim Foxx of Cook County, Illinois. Foxx ran against controversial incumbent, Anita Alvarez. Alvarez was criticized for her handling of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a police officer, leading to a ground swell of activism to unseat her. Kim Foxx stepped up to the challenge and now runs the second largest prosecutor’s office in the nation, encompassing the city of Chicago.

Foxx’s background, growing up in the inner city of Chicago, gives her a unique perspective that she brings to the table. She has stated that her objective is to rethink how we approach crime and its causes. Calling for an ‘holistic’ approach to criminal justice, she recognizes that crime is not just “an issue of good guys versus bad guys.” She understands that this issue is not simply black and white, but inherently complex, often a product of concentrated poverty. There are many reasons for the existence of crime – poverty, childhood experiences, acts of desperation, etc. – and people that commit crime cannot always be seen as just bad people. This ‘either-or’ approach to criminal justice does not reflect the underlying factors of crime or even a logical approach to combating it. Kim Foxx understands this, “I’ve seen people I know and love do bad things – and it makes people hard to sum up.” Most prosecutors believe that there are good and bad people, instead of understanding that sometimes there are good people that do bad things for a myriad of reasons.

Since taking office, Foxx has undertaken an aggressive agenda of reform. She has publicly voiced support for the legalization of marijuana and has said that her office would begin the process of expunging all misdemeanor marijuana convictions. “The question is, how far back can we go? How far back does the data go — which will give us what our universe looks like? But we’re in the process of figuring that out,” says Foxx.

Kim Foxx is also intent on reforming the bail system in Cook County, using what is called the I-Bond. Under this system, individuals that are charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies with no history of violent crime and do not pose a public safety risk are released pre-trial.

“Routinely detaining people accused of low-level offenses who have not yet been convicted of anything, simply because they are poor is not only unjust – it undermines the public’s confidence in the fairness of the system.” – Foxx

The issue of cash bail has long been a complaint of activists, essentially criminalizing the poor. It’s not uncommon for defendants to simply plead guilty to crimes that they haven’t committed just to get out of jail. There have been countless cases of individuals sitting in jail for months, because they can’t afford to pay bail, before charges are eventually dropped. Once such story is of 16-year-old Kalief Browder. The young man was arrested and charged with stealing a backpack and his bail was set at $3,000. Unable to pay, he sat in jail for three years, two of which were in solitary confinement (a deplorable tactic by the system as well). Although the charges were eventually dismissed, once he was in the system it was difficult for him to escape it due to his prior criminal history. Sadly, he was unable to cope with his imprisonment and took his own life behind bars.

When talking about Kim Foxx, the case of Jussie Smollet can’t be ignored. It now seems apparent that Smollet did indeed fake his own altercation. Does that mean that he should go to jail, locked up behind bars? All of the talk surrounding criminal justice reform has been somewhat abstract, ‘what ifs.’ Now that we have real reformers in office working towards changing a broken system, things are going to get messy and complicated. Part of that means understanding that just because someone committed a crime, that doesn’t always mean that they should go to jail. It’s about reducing the numbers of incarcerated people and figuring out other ways of dealing with ‘crime and punishment.’ The rest of the world deals with crime in various ways besides throwing people in jail, and those societies are doing just fine. This doesn’t mean they escape some form of punishment, however. Foxx explained it in this way, “We must separate the people at whom we are angry from the people of whom we are afraid.”

Philadelphia’s District Attorney, Larry Krasner, has also been called a progressive prosecutor. Elected in 2017, Krasner also ran on a reformist agenda. Since taking over the district’s office, he has begun implementing a laundry list of criminal justice reforms. The new head of the department made waves when, a week after taking office, he fired 30 prosecutors in the DA’s office that were not committed to the changes he planned on implementing. Krasner has virtually decriminalized marijuana possession by no longer seeking charges for small amounts. For other drugs, his office has begun redirecting people to drug treatment programs instead of jail time. Like Foxx in Chicago he has also stopped asking for bail for nonviolent low-level offenders, saying, “We do not, we should not, imprison people for being poor.”

Krasner has also changed the DA’s office approach to sex work. He has instructed his people to stop charging sex workers that have fewer than three convictions with any crime and has dropped all current cases against workers who also fit that description. Instead, they will be redirecting people to diversionary programs. In fact, he has instructed all prosecutors to avoid convictions if possible and guide cases to diversionary programs. This is radically groundbreaking since prosecutors and DA’s offices usually pride themselves on high conviction rates and jail time.

Krasner also instituted a policy of stopping the wide-ranging practice of beginning plea deals with the highest possible sentence, instead starting at the bottom end. This practice has frequently frightened innocent people into pleading guilty to crimes that they did not commit. Faced with disgustingly long jail sentences and an unnecessarily complex criminal justice system, people will choose pleading guilty and getting possibly probation or a shorter sentence. He has requested his prosecutors to recommend no probation or a 12-month probationary period. Philly currently has 44,000 people in the probation system, a number so high that it’s nearly impossible to manage. Largely nonviolent offenders, that shouldn’t be in the system as it is, are lumped in with more serious cases, making them harder to manage.

These reformers, doing absolute necessary work, aren’t without critics. Most of the push-back has come from local police unions. Kevin Graham, the president of the Fraternal Lodge 7 in Illinois has criticized many of Kim Foxx’s policy changes, with most coming from her effort to expunge misdemeanor pot convictions. The police union in Philadelphia has largely criticized Larry Krasner’s new marijuana policies as well.

Marijuana may still be classified as a Scheduled I substance, but science and the general public have long understood that marijuana is less dangerous than substances that the government does not prohibit, like tobacco and alcohol. Indeed, the criminalization of the drug and its severe classification, in the same category of drugs like heroin, has done more harm to ‘offenders’ and society than the actual drug ever could, disproportionately effecting the poor and communities of color. Moving away from the prosecution of simple marijuana possessions frees up money, resources, and time to work on more important and dangerous crime.

With organizers finally beginning to understand that we must move past criminal justice reform in the abstract and try to understand it in a more tangible way in the real world. We must reexamine how we think about criminal justice and punishment. The easiest thing to do is to just lock someone up but, is this always the best thing to do. This can have crippling effects on a person’s future, family, and on society as a whole. In fact, we as a nation are seeing these ill effects as the most incarcerated nation in the world.

Electing so-called progressive prosecutors is not enough. These prosecutors can work towards dismantling mass incarceration from the inside out. But once elected, activists must continuously hold their feet to the fire and keep a vigilant eye on them. It is our job to make sure that they hold true to their promises of reform and change. Whatever the future holds, with a lot of work still to do, the movement for criminal justice is beginning to see the fruits of its labor. The unsung soldiers working in the trenches, for years unnoticed, have paved the way for us today. Let’s honor their work and sacrifice and continue to fight. The fates, and very lives, of hundreds to thousands of our brothers and sisters are in our hands.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Cory Booker

February 9, 2019February 10, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

On February 1^st, Cory Booker joined a quickly growing list of Democratic candidates running for the presidency. His announcement video draws on his time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey and calls for a return of ‘civic grace.’ Booker points to his unique path in politics, claiming that it is just what our country needs at this rough moment in history. He is a gifted orator and certainly knows how to use a media platform to his advantage. Some parts of his political past are quite interesting, but some on the left remain skeptical of his progressive intentions.

Cory Booker was born in Washington D.C., but grew up in Harrington Park, New Jersey. Booker received a degree in Political Science and a Masters in Sociology from Stanford University. He also attended the University of Oxford, studying American History, and Yale Law School, receiving his Juris Doctor.

His political career started in 1988, when he successfully won a seat on the Municipal Council of Newark. It was during this time that he tried to highlight problems facing urban development. Booker went on a 10-day hunger strike, lived in a tent in the inner city of Newark, and began a week-long challenge to live on $30 food budget – the amount of SNAP benefits recipients receive. The new councilman’s proposals – initiatives to help young people, people of color, affordable housing, and transparency of local government – were routinely outvoted by his fellow members. In 2006, Cory Booker won his race for mayor of Newark, bringing with him a bench of council candidates that became known as the ‘Booker Team’. This gave the new mayor a strong mandate to govern. A central focus of his time as mayor was crime reduction, increasing police forces and working hard to get illegal guns off the streets of Newark. His tenure saw the increase in the amount of affordable housing, increased wages of city workers – while simultaneously reducing his own salary, and the institution of open office hours where residents could regularly meet the mayor to discuss concerns.

Booker gained lots of national media attention during his time as mayor. He once shoveled snow from an elderly resident’s drive way, rescued a woman from a burning building – receiving mild burns and smoke inhalation, and invited displaced residents into his home after Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of the shoreline. Many have claimed that Booker is a master of social media and the attention it brings, using these platforms to elevate his profile. While this may be true, that he seeks out ways to enhance his brand for opportunistic personal reasons, these incidents are noble nonetheless and should be praised and acknowledged.

In 2013, Cory Booker became the first African-American Senator from the state of New Jersey. His time in the Senate has been a mixed bag with the Junior Senator voting for some very good legislation yet, he has drawn criticism from progressives for other votes and campaign fundraising.

On a positive note, Booker co-sponsored and voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Respect for Marriage Act – repealing DOMA and requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. He has been relentless in his opposition to the Trump administration, voting overwhelmingly against the presidents’ nominees and even testifying against fellow Senator Sessions when he was nominated to U.S. Attorney General. Perhaps his most notable achievement recently was his work in getting the First Step Act, an important bipartisan criminal justice reform bill, passed and signed by President Trump. Booker is a proponent of ending the failed ‘War on Drugs’ and supports medical marijuana research as well as decriminalization. The Humane Society has called the Senators voting record the most pro-animal in Congress. Interestingly the Senator has been a vegan since 2014, and a vegetarian for over 20 years.

booker2 — Booker during his time as mayor of Newark, NJ – NJ.com/Robert Sciarrino

Most of Cory Bookers criticism from the left is not about his views on social issues but his fundraising and close ties to the financial and pharmaceutical industries. In 2017, Booker, along with 12 other Democrats, voted against a bill allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada – where the exact same drugs are significantly cheaper. Walter Bragman at Paste Magazine stated, “This is classic Booker – stand out front on feel-good social issues… and align with big money everywhere else.” It is interesting that Bookers home state of New Jersey is home to many pharma headquarters, and the Senator received about $57,000 from pharmaceutical PACs in 2016. But in 2014, an election year that he actually ran in, he received $160,000 from the industry. To Bookers credit, the Senator has recently come out in favor of a Medicare for All system, cosigning Bernie Sanders’ legislation. Many ask why the sudden support, when the Senator has been arguing for a single payer system for years now, questioning his sincerity.

Many have characterized Booker as Wall Street’s favorite Senator. In fact, the Senator received more money from the financial industry than any other member of Congress, with Mitch McConnell in a close second. The past election cycle he received about $1.8 million from securities and investment firms. He even publicly defended Bain Capital in the 2012 election when President Obama criticized Mitt Romney for his work with the company. On Meet the Press, Booker said the Obama campaigns attacks on Romneys career at Bain Capital was “nauseating” and Democrats should “stop attacking private capital”. In Esquire Charlie Pierce wrote, “When the predatory nature of America’s business elites threatened to become a political issue, Cory Booker leaped to salve the wounded fee-fees of the crooks…”.

Booker has also been a supporter of charter schools; which most progressives reject as they see them as a means to privatize education. In 2012, Booker spoke at the School Choice Policy Summit. There he said the traditional public-school system, “still chokes out the potential of millions of children…your destiny is determined by the zip code you’re born into.” While this is indeed true in some respect and the education system needs to be reformed, better funded, and funded differently, the answer is not to privatize education or take more money out of the public system. The group that organized this event was the American Federation of Children, chaired by Betsy DeVos.

There are indeed some positive parts of Booker’s record and some very admirable actions in his past. Every politician is just that – a politician. Their pasts and voting records must be analyzed with nuance and contextualized attention to specific times in history and politics. That being said, it seems unclear if Cory Booker will be able to convince progressives and Democrats that he is the best option to lead an evolving party. The left is finally beginning to understand that the Democratic party has become too close to certain industries and is out of touch with the larger party base, choosing to surround themselves with wealthy donors at fundraisers. Progressives have been skeptical of Booker’s fundraising and apparent ties to financial industries. These issues will undoubtedly come out in the primaries and debates. The Senator will have to find a way to reconcile his past with his current positions.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Kamala Harris

January 30, 2019January 30, 2019Dale Seufert-Navarro2 Comments

In perhaps the most anticipated announcement of the Democratic primary season, Kamala Harris is officially running for president. Many in the media have called the junior Senator from California a front-runner to be the Democratic nominee in 2020. Harris has been a relentless adversary to the Trump administration, grilling many of his nominees in the Senate. Over the past few years, she has become the darling of many on the left and large financial donors alike. While her candidacy excites some, parts of her past as a District Attorney in California worry others. Will Harris be able to convince Democratic voters to take her past with a grain of salt and make her the progressive standard bearer that can ultimately take down Donald Trump?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California to an Indian born mother and Jamaican father. She grew up attending a Baptist Church and a Hindu temple. After her parents divorced, Harris moved with her mother to Canada where her mother took a job doing medical research. Kamala Harris graduated from her Québec high school and then attended Howard University, majoring in Political Science and Economics. Harris then received her law degree from the University of California in 1989. Kamala went on to become the deputy District Attorney of Alameda County, the District Attorney of San Francisco, and then the Attorney General of California. In 2016, Harris successfully ran for Senate in California after Barbara Boxer announced her retirement.

Since announcing her intent on running for president, her time as a prosecutor in California is increasingly becoming an issue of contention for the left. In a time when people on the left are beginning to see the power, and abuses of power, that prosecutors and District Attorneys have, can a former prosecutor win the Democratic nomination?

To the dismay of progressive organizations like the ACLU of California and many Democratic politicians in her state, she opposed and urged voters to reject Proposition 66. California, like many other states, has a ‘three-strikes law’, but the state is one of the strictest – imposing an automatic life sentence, a third-strike, for any minor felony. Proposition 66 would have changed the law to make only violent felonies a trigger for three-strikes. In fact, in her book she states, “Getting smart on crime does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crime.” While this statement is very broad and does not break down specific crimes and punishments, the very broad nature of it is alarming. We indeed, should be rethinking punishments for certain nonviolent crimes and reducing sentencing accordingly. In 2014, a federal judge in the state ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional, after which, she appealed and fought this ruling. Harris also opposed a bill in 2015 requiring her office to investigate all shootings by police officers and did not support standards for body cameras for officers. In a time when the national attention has been on police brutality and the use of excessive force, this decision seems odd.

Harris also made truancy prosecution a priority, to the detriment of poorer Californians and communities of color. She even made this a key part of her campaign for Attorney General. Many progressive groups warned that this heavy-handed approach to truancy could lead to jail time for parents, which would in turn jeopardize employment. High fines compounded with a job loss would spell disaster for a family that is already struggling to survive. This policy effects lower income individuals and criminalizes parents that are already spread thin. This doesn’t reflect the many reasons that kids miss school, and spreading fear through families with the threat of huge fines and jail time doesn’t help children. The somewhat harsh course towards parents of truant children stands in contrast to her failing to prosecute Steve Mnuchin’s One West Bank. In response Harris said, “We went, and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made… We pursued it just like any other case. We go, and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.” An internal memo from the prosecutor’s office in California highlighted what they called ‘widespread misconduct’ and thousands of violations.

Perhaps the issue giving most on the left pause was the fact that during her tenure as San Francisco District Attorney she fought to uphold wrongful convictions obtained through very dubious methods. A lab technician in the San Francisco police department intentionally altered results and stole drugs from the lab. Internal memos showed that her office knew about this but failed to notify defense attorneys, causing a judge to condemn her offices actions. Hundreds of cases were dismissed. A recent piece in the New York Times by Lara Bazelon highlights numerous cases where Harris fought to uphold criminal cases tainted by false testimony, evidence tampering, and the suppression of evidence.

Analyzing Harris’ time as a prosecutor in California takes nuance and thoughtful consideration. While there are some things about her record that she should have to explain, there are some very good things to point out. She started a very successful program for first-time nonviolent offenders, giving them a chance to have their convictions dismissed if they complete rigorous vocational training. Harris also mandated bias training in the DA office and the police department. Women’s groups have praised her work in fixing the back log of rape test kits in the state. We must also remember that society places a double standard on women in positions of power – especially women of color. Oftentimes women in power are held to a higher standard, feeling a need to be tough – to show the world, and their male counterparts, that they deserve to have a seat at the table. This pull is even stronger for people of color in a world that is always ready to tear them down or paint them as something that they are not. Any discussion about Harris’ past must also include this fact as well.

Since this time, Harris has tried to move away from these decisions and brand herself as a progressive prosecutor – this is debatable in the least. Harris has said during her time as DA and Attorney General, she refused to voice support for many of the policies that progressive groups wanted her to support because in her capacity, it would not have been wise to appear to tip the scales. While there is validity in this, the District Attorney and Attorney General of a state has sway and power, and taking principled progressive stands would have a powerful impact, to show a desire to fundamentally change a corrupt system. That is how a progressive prosecutor uses his or her given power.

Seeing the momentum behind Medicare for All, she has cosponsored Bernie Sanders legislation for universal healthcare and gave as full-throated defense of the policy in her CNN Town Hall – to the dismay of some progressives, her advisers have since walked that statement back just a bit saying she is open to more moderate plans. Economically, she opposed the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and vows to replace them with a tax cut for the middle class. She also says she will not accept any corporate PAC money in her presidential campaign. While hopefully this is true, it is troubling that it was reported in the New York Times that her and several other potential candidates have had talks with executives on Wall Street gauging their support. If this is true than this will be a disqualifier for some parts of the left.

Decades after Shirley Chisholm, Harris paid homage to the first woman and the first African-American to run for president. She used similar lettering and a similar color scheme that Chisholm used. Her campaign slogan is, We the People, very different than the, I’m with Her, of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This shows that she learned from the mistakes of the Clinton campaign and is trying to center her campaign around people instead of herself. This at least, shows good messaging. In her campaign announcement video and CNN Town Hall, she appeared poised, studied, and smart. She will be a formidable opponent for a blundering Trump, with his intellectual capacity of a petulant child. What is a bit worrisome is that her answers to questions at times seem like standard focus grouped political messaging, just vague enough to appeal to progressives while not fully offending corporate actors. In a time when billionaires are literally running the government within the Trump administration and people are still struggling to meet the needs of their families, this just simply isn’t enough. We need someone to stand up and say the hard things, rock the boat and start the process of fundamentally changing a rigged system. One thing is true – Harris is a brilliant woman and a talented politician. What remains uncertain is, can Kamala Harris coalesce the different wings of the Democratic party to take on President Trump?

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Kirsten Gillibrand

January 24, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

Another powerhouse in the Democratic party has announced a bid for the White House, Kirsten Gillibrand. The Junior Senator from New York state has long been rumored to be planning a Democratic primary challenge and has become a polarizing figure in the party. A centrist Democrat with past conservative views, she has been criticized by the progressive left and adored by establishment donors. More recently though, she angered the party establishment and donor base by criticizing Bill Clinton and calling for the resignation of Senator Al Franken because of sexual misconduct. In a time when the Democratic party is shifting back towards a more progressive and populist message can a centrist Senator, that literally represents the territory of Wall Street, win the nomination of a party yearning for real change and beat an incompetent and floundering Donald Trump.

Kirsten Gillibrand is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the UCLA School of Law. After graduating in the 90s she worked for a private law firm in Manhattan and clerked for Judge Roger Miner of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York. Working for a private law firm in New York she served as a defense attorney for the tobacco company, Phillip Morris. She helped to defend the company when they were charged with lying to Congress about their previous knowledge about the link between cigarettes and cancer. She has claimed that she had no choice in the types of cases she was handed, but the law firm has stated that all lawyers were given a choice not to work on the case for moral reason, she chose to work for them regardless. Also, during her time she took on pro-bono cases involving tenants’ rights and battered women. It is during this time in the late 1990s that Gillibrand began working on Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign. The two became close, with Gillibrand seeing the former First Lady as a mentor. In 2006 she successfully ran for Congress in New York’s 20^th congressional district.

Her time in the House is becoming somewhat of a liability for the Senator. Upon entering Congress, she joined the Blue Dog coalition in the House, a conservative Democratic caucus. The seat she represented is a traditional conservative district, with her campaigning and voting in Congress that way. Since announcing her run for president she has come under fire for the way she campaigned in that election. Most notably her positions on immigration have come to haunt her, running to the right of her Republican opponent. In a 2007 interview she said that securing the border was a national security issue and closing the border was the first step in this direction. Even as soon as 2008, she claimed the need to expedite ‘illegal alien’ detention and deportation. Gillibrand has since said she is ashamed of this and regrets these positions, calling them unkind and not ‘empathetic’. She said her views were because she lived in and represented a more rural district and did not take the time to put herself in the shoes of immigrant families, crediting her travels as Senator to New York City to talk to these immigrant families as helping to change her views. Before her time in Congress, Gillibrand worked at two law firms based out of Manhattan so one must wonder why she was not able to understand this issue during her time living in a city filled with many immigrants and cultural backgrounds. During her time in the House she also was to the right on guns and received a ‘A’ plus rating from the NRA, voting for a bill that limited information sharing on firearm purchases between government agencies.

In 2008, the then Senator, Hillary Clinton was nominated as Secretary of State by President Obama. Gillibrand campaigned hard for the Governor of New York to appoint her to the vacant seat, ultimately coming out on top. Her time in the Senate has seen her move towards more liberal positions. She has made sexual assault a key part of her agenda, introducing legislation that would remove allegations of cases of sexual assault in the armed forces from official military chain of command and place them in the civilian criminal system. She was also very vocal about calling for the resignation of Senator Al Franken amid his sexual misconduct. Gillibrand even said that President Clinton should have resigned during his Monica Lewinsky scandal. Her views on immigration and guns have also swung leftward during her Senate tenure. She was the first sitting Senator to call for the abolition of ICE and now receives an ‘F’ rating from the NRA. On social issues Gillibrand supports abortion rights and the rights of the LGBTQ community. Economically, she has even come out in favor of Bernie Sanders’ legislation for Medicare for All. In the House she voted in favor of the Bush Tax cuts, but now says she is in favor of raising taxes on high income earners. Once one of the highest receivers of corporate campaign funds, she now says she opposes PAC and other corporate donations.

While in the Senate, Gillibrand seems to be doing everything right – saying all of the right things and voting in all of the right ways. Recently, she has come out in favor of many progressive policies like Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, and a federal jobs guarantee to name a few. But do these reflect her true intentions or are they platitudes to a party that she sees moving to the left. In 2018, while speaking on a panel about the financial crisis of 2008, she was quoted as saying, “…if it wasn’t Lehman brothers, but Lehman sisters, we might not have had the financial collapse.” This is intellectually lazy at best, disingenuous at worst. This shows a very shallow understanding of the dynamic that unfettered capitalism is playing on society and the economy. This feminist capitalism doesn’t solve the ills of a cruel and heartless system. As a feminist myself I want women to be visible in every aspect of society, but this should not be the goal of feminism. Simply putting a female face on capitalism will not fundamentally change the system, especially for women of the working class or working poor.

These new found views stand in contrast to her tenure in the House of Representatives. Progressives and the left wing of the party worry about the genuineness of Gillibrand and her sudden change in views. While evolution and moving on issues is good and needed, does that mean that you get chosen from a crowded field of people to now represent these issues – to be our champion versus other people who have been right on certain issues from the beginning or longer. To some these changing views show a lack of a moral compass, with a goal of winning elections and advancing a career. Her past views on immigration will be hard for some to get past, especially in today’s climate. Too often the Democratic party is willing to throw marginalized groups under the bus for political expedience and expect them to continue to support the party.

At the current moment the Democratic party is going through a much-needed cleansing, a fight for its very soul. To some on the left Gillibrand represents the neoliberal policy of triangulation adopted by the New Democrats of the 1980s – shifting away from the progressive and populist roots of the Democratic party. We, as a party, need to break away from this thinking, and yes burn some bridges. What I worry about is that the party, and the corporate powers that have gained control over it, will use this time to simply revert back to the pre-Trump status quo – epitomized by seemingly ‘woke’ politicians offering platitudes to working Americans but doing little to actually push real change in people’s lives. This very situation is the reason that the Democratic party has lost its reputation for being the party of the working class, and an unprecedented number of state and federal seats. This, among other factors, is what created the perfect situation for an opportunistic leech like President Trump. The election of Donald Trump is a symptom of this. Thankfully the Democratic party is indeed changing, and for the better. Will Kirsten Gillibrand be able to convince Democratic voters that she is the right person to lead a new and more progressive party?

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Julian Castro

January 21, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

castro-906x1024 — Julian Castro – Photo by Harry E. Walker/MCT

Julian Castro has been called a rising star in the Democratic party since he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and his work in the Obama administration. He is a young charismatic politician and was the youngest member of the Obama cabinet. While some may view his bid for the nomination as a long shot, he serves as the antithesis of the Trump administration – a repudiation of the racist and xenophobic narrative that this president has tried to paint of Mexicans and Hispanics at large.

Castro was born in San Antonio, Texas, to parents that were both political activists. His mother, Maria ‘Rosie’ Castro, helped establish a political party called La Raza Unida, out of exasperation with the Democratic party. Julian has credited his mother’s activism for his entry into politics. Castro received a Bachelor of Political Science and Communications from Stanford University in 1996. During this time, he interned for the Clinton administration. After graduating from Harvard Law in 2000 he worked for a private law firm before eventually starting his own practice with his twin brother in 2005.

Obama Announces San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro As Head Of Department Of Housing And Urban Development — Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images

In 2001, Castro became the youngest person elected to the San Antonio City Council at 26 years old. Four years later he unsuccessfully ran for mayor and after his defeat, he opened his private law practice with his brother. In 2009 he tried running for mayor again, this time winning. He would go on to win he re-elections in the years to come with huge overwhelming majorities. In 2014 he was nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Almost immediately, rumors swirled about his possible Vice Presidential nomination on the 2016 Democratic ticket.

On the issues, it is a bit difficult to pin down this rising star in the party. As a former mayor and cabinet member, Castro doesn’t have a voting record. This could prove to be beneficial to him; less baggage. His time as mayor in Texas does offer some insights into his views. Castro has been a long supporter of LGBTQ rights. As mayor of San Antonio he fought against a Texas law banning same-sex marriage, pushing for domestic partner benefits in the city. He was the first mayor to walk in the gay pride parade in his home city. On reproductive rights, he fought alongside Wendy Davis against a Texas law that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks and limited facilities in the state.

Castro has thrown his support behind a number of important pieces of legislation at the moment. He supports some version of the Green New Deal and rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement. His overall approach has been to appeal to the business community stating that it is in their best interest to support and increase their funding for renewable energies. With Medicare for All getting national attention, the young politician has also endorsed the proposal. On immigration, Castro supports comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway for citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Unlike some other Democrats, he has not called for the complete abolition of ICE, instead the agency needs to be reformed. Not much is known about Castro’s foreign policy views, except the fact that he supports the planned withdrawal from Syria, criticizing the president’s announcement of an ‘unplanned’ withdrawal.

Julian Castro is young, at age 44, and ready to hit the ground running. He brings to the Democratic party a vision of fresh energy, something that has been lacking for a long time. In what is becoming a very crowded field of candidates, it is going to be difficult for Castro to set himself apart and stand out. His policies and rhetoric seem to be more in the centrist style of the party, which at the moment is not clear if that will be a liability or an asset. The Democratic party is increasingly being pushed more to the left, a good thing in my opinion. Identity politics are still important in Washington and the fact that he is a Latino will be very interesting to watch as the primaries begin. Castro is the antithesis and the perfect foil to Trumps racist rhetoric. Julian is sure to get under the skin of President Trump in coming months, nominee or not. Another thing to consider is Texas. The state has been a reliable red state for decades, with Jimmy Carter being the last Democratic presidential candidate to win the state in 1976. In recent years, the state’s politics have been slowly trending blue, due to demographics and internal state politics. Could a young Hispanic candidate do the unthinkable in 2020? Who knows, modern American politics has been very unusual and surprising over the last decade.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Tulsi Gabbard

January 17, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

marco garcia:ap — Tulsi Gabbard – *Marco Garcia/AP*

In a recent CNN interview, Tulsi Gabbard announced that she would be running for president in 2020. The young Congresswoman is somewhat of an enigma in the Democratic party, with her policies seeming to be a mix of the left and centrist wings of the party. Most notably, her announcement has stirred up some fierce opposition, with others clamoring to defend her.

Tulsi Gabbard was born in Leloaloa, Samoa, to a Samoan-European father and a mainland American born mother. She grew up in a mixed-religion household, her father catholic and her mother a practicing Hindu. As a teen she chose Hinduism as her faith. She went to Hawaii Pacific University, receiving a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration in 2009. She is a member of the Hawaii State National Guard and has been deployed to Iraq and Kuwait. In 2002, at age 21, she became the youngest state legislator in Hawaiian history and the youngest female legislator in U.S. history, representing Hawaii’s 42^nd state district. She decided not to run for reelection after being ordered to deploy for the National Guard. In 2011 she won a seat on the Honolulu city council. Then when Hawaii’s 2^nd congressional seat became available in 2012, she successfully ran and won, becoming the first Samoan-American and the first Hindu elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the House, most of her work and legislation had been focused on military and environmental issues. She has proposed bills to assist wounded veterans and military victims of sexual trauma. The Congresswoman holds many economically progressive views as well. She fought very hard against the passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which became a focal point of the 2016 Sanders presidential campaign and the greater American left. She supports the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separates commercial and investment banking, and raising the minimum wage to $15. She is equally as vigilant on the environment. She is continually endorsed by the Sierra Club and in 2017 she introduced legislation that would transition the United States to 100% renewable energies by the year 2035. In 2016 she, along with many other veterans, traveled to North Dakota to protest against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

saul loeb:afp:getty images — Gabbard at the DNC – *Saul Loab/AFP/Getty Images*

On social issues, Gabbards positions become a bit more nuanced. Early in her life and career she held many openly conservative views on abortion and LGBTQ rights, most likely due to her conservative catholic fathers influence. She previously opposed same-sex civil unions and marriage, working with her father and his various organizations to promote ‘traditional marriage’ and conversion therapy. When her mother ran for office in Hawaii she gave this alarming quote, “This war of deception and hatred against my mom is being waged by homosexual activists because they know, that if elected, she will not allow them to force their values down the throats of the children in our schools.” She now has said she regrets those views and fully supports the rights of the gay community to marry and their full equal inclusion in society. She credits her tours in the Middle East for her change in views. To her credit, she has supported every pro-LGBTQ legislation since her time in the House, actively speaking out against measures aimed at restricting gay rights. She has also reversed her position on abortion and has received two 100% lifetime ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL America.

Her foreign policy positions also need some defining and clarification. She has been an outspoken critique of American military intervention with regards to regime change, opposing the invasion of Iraq, Libya, and the intervention in Syria. She calls these measures counterproductive to American security. Gabbard has also voiced opposition to our relationship and arms sales to Saudi Arabia. While she has spoken out against much of the U.S. governments policies in the Middle East, she is a bit more hawkish when it comes to the so-called ‘War on Terror’. She most likely would continue the use of drone strikes in the region, which has been a driving force of animosity towards the U.S. in the area. Gabbard commended the Obama administration for clarifying that the use of drones would not be authorized for non-combatant U.S. citizens, but has not spoken out against the use of drones on civilians in the Middle East. The U.S. currently carries out drone strikes in 5 known countries. These so-called ‘targeted killings’ are anything but, with excessive civilian collateral damage documented. The exact number of these causalities are nearly impossible to compile. Critics claim that the excessive amount of civilian casualties greatly outweigh the amount of combatants killed. Gabbard has also been criticized for her support of far-right Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Modi is a controversial figure domestically and internationally, criticized for Hindu nationalist policies and anti-Muslim sentiment.

Tulsi Gabbard is fairly new to the national consciousness but has quickly become a polarizing figure in the Democratic party. In 2016 she stepped down as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee to support Bernie Sanders in his presidential campaign. She criticized Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and the party for tipping the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, through unfair media coverage towards Sanders and an anemic debate schedule. Much of the criticisms coming from the party’s establishment and loyalists are due to the fact that she refuses to toe the party’s corporate line. She bucked the party in 2016 and that is not acceptable to many in party leadership. She also represents a realignment of American foreign policy, one without a lust for regime change and constant military intervention that is short cited and reckless. For this she is unacceptable to the D.C. military establishment that is intertwined with the corporate world and both major parties.

The future of Tulsi Gabbards presidential campaign remains to be seen, but one thing for sure is she faces a steep uphill battle to win over some in the Democratic party. Will she be able to get past her old anti-gay comments and her pursuit in opposition to a key Democratic base? In the past, other Democrats have been able to show their evolution on this issue, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and were embraced by the party. Bill Clinton was the president that signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in the 1990s, throwing the gay community under the bus for political expedience. Some will argue that these Democrats did not go as far as Gabbard, but there is precedent to suggest that people can evolve and be forgiven. Gabbard is not what the leadership and establishment of the Democratic party wants in a candidate – that is evident from the relentlessly negative reporting from the media, right or wrong – but that doesn’t mean she isn’t good for the party. Centrist establishment candidates get glowing coverage from the corporate media, glosses over or conveniently omitting information, while hammering hard on progressive candidates that question corporate or established opinion. She questions the economic and militaristic direction of the Democratic party, and that is a good thing. She will further add a voice to the conversation that should have been had a long time ago – where is the heart and soul of the Democratic party?

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Elizabeth Warren

January 14, 2019January 14, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

cnbc.com — Elizabeth Warren – *CNBC.com*

It’s official, the first major player from the Democratic party is running for president. On the eve of the new year, Elizabeth Warren announced that she would be forming an exploratory committee to run for president. While this is not an official announcement, she is all but telling us that she’s running. Along with her twitter announcement, she released a moving and very powerful video explaining her reasoning for wanting to become the next president of the United States. Many progressives have called on the Senator from Massachusetts to run for president since the 2016 primaries, and now we will see if Elizabeth Warren can pull it off.

Warren was born in Oklahoma City to modest middle-class parents. Her father worked at Montgomery Ward and as a maintenance man. After her father had a debilitating heart attack and was unable to work, her mother started working at Sears to help pay the bills. At 13 years old, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt’s restaurant to help with the family’s income. In 1968 she married her high school sweetheart, Jim Warren, and received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Houston two years later in 1970. After moving with her husband to New Jersey, she enrolled in Rutgers Law School at Rutgers University-Newark. After graduating in 1976, she wrote wills and real estate contracts for clients out of their home. The couple had two children but divorced in 1978. Soon after she remarried Bruce Mann but kept the name of her first husband.

cnn.com — Warren as a Special Advisor to President Obama – *CNN.com*

Elizabeth Warren has taught law at several universities including: Rutgers University, the University of Houston, Texas, Pennsylvania and most recently Harvard Law School. Warren quickly became an expert in bankruptcy and commercial law. In the 90s, she worked to protect consumers as an advocate on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. In the aftermath of the recession of 2008, Harry Reid appointed Warren to a Congressional Oversight Panel to monitor the government’s handling of the financial crisis. Her work on the committee led her to advocate for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which she later helped to formally establish. In 2010, after the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, Warren was elected as the first female Senator from Massachusetts in a special election.

Although a former Republican, Warren has been a darling of the progressive wing of the Democratic party since her election to the Senate. While she advocates for many progressive issues, her main focus has been on banking and the financial sector. Videos of her relentless questioning of Wall Street executives have gone viral and have been shared by thousands. Following the crash of 2008, she has repeatedly called for the resignation and criminal investigation of banking executives. In October of 2017, during a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Warren called out Wells Fargo CEO, Tim Sloan, stating “At best you were incompetent, at worst you were complicit”.

The progressive and feminist battle cry, ‘Nevertheless she persisted’ has been attributed to Warren and other female leaders. It originated from the Senate confirmation process of Jeff Sessions to Attorney General of the United States by President Donald Trump. During debate on the Senate floor, Warren objected to his appointment and began to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1986 when she opposed the nomination of Sessions to be a federal court judge. A Republican Senator interrupted her and reminded her of a Senate rule against attributing “to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.” Warren was unfazed and continued to read, but Majority Leader McConnell instructed the Senator to cease and have a seat. A vote along party lines silenced Warren for the rest of the hearing. McConnell’s own words were used as a rallying cry — “Senator Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.^”

Two important pieces of legislation put forth by Senator Warren are the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act and the sweeping Accountable Capitalism Act. The Anti-Corruption bill is aimed at curbing corrupt campaign spending and getting money out of politics in all three branches of the federal government. The bill would place a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, federal judges, members of Congress, and cabinet members and a multi-year ban for federal employees. It would force presidents to place all assets in a blind trust and require candidates to release a certain amount of tax returns in an effort to prevent conflicts of interests. The bill would also change the rule-making process to restrict corporate influence on law-making. Most importantly, the bill would create a new independent office that would investigate and enforce rules of ethics.

The Accountable Capitalism Act is far more important in that it is one of the most sweeping bills to combat corporate power in decades. The basic premise of the bill is that if corporations claim the legal rights of personhood, following the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court Case, then they should also accept the moral obligations as well. Currently, corporations have prioritized shareholders and enriching their bottom lines over the very workers that make those profits possible. Her bill puts more power in the hands of those very workers and ensure they have a voice in business decisions, not just shareholders. The law would require businesses with profits over $1 billion – a small group, but with a large share of economic activity and employment – to allow workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors. The bill also requires executives to wait at least five years to sell stocks that are received as pay compensation in an effort to disincentivize stock buybacks as a way to enrich their own pay instead of investing in workers and the business.

politico — Elizabeth Warren and family – *Politico*

Elizabeth Warren is better known for her progressive populism, but she also supports many other ideas that will excite Democratic voters. The Senator has said she supports new hot topic policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. She is pro-choice and a strong supporter of reproductive rights. Warren is equally as supportive of the LGBTQ community, supporting same-sex marriage and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. In 2015, she was one of several Senators to write a letter to the FDA asking them to lift the ban on gay men from donating blood saying it perpetuates the stereotype that all gay men pose a health risk to the rest of society. She supports an overhaul of the criminal justice system, calling it a racist and prejudiced against black and brown Americans. Warren has also advocated for the rights of states to legalize marijuana.

While there are many things for progressives to love Elizabeth Warren for, there are a few things that have made the left stop and question. The Senator from Massachusetts was noticeably silent when water protectors from the Sioux Tribe were protesting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Members from the tribe and protesters from around the country were brutally assaulted by local police using extreme force and fire hoses during below freezing weather. Future Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attended some of these protests. She did eventually release a statement in support of the water protectors, but many said it was a little too late, waiting until President Obama halted construction. Many on the left were also disappointed that the Senator didn’t endorse and support Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary season, waiting to endorse Clinton until she had all but wrapped up the nomination. With Sanders losing Massachusetts by only 1.2 percent, many claimed the endorsement from one of the most loved members of the progressive wing of the party could have pushed Sanders to victory. People on the left also worry about Warrens foreign policy. In 2017 she voted for a whopping $700 billion budget for the military, way more than the Pentagon or even President Trump asked for. When it comes to Israel and Palestine she says she supports a two-state solution but adds that Palestinian application to the UN doesn’t help the peace process. If I may add, nothing but a clear and adamant condemnation of the treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state is short of moral and just.

The announcement of Warren for president has been met with cheers and relief from Democrats of all shades. Warrens voice will be sure to add a needed momentum and continued economic push leftward of the Democratic party. For too long the Democratic party has lost sight of what really matters, creating a society in which every voice is valued. The New Democrats of the 80s and 90s traded corporate power and money, tossing the interests of the working class to the wayside. The prospect of the first woman president is also sure to bring voters to the polls. With a few other female candidates rumored to run as well, Elizabeth Warren will have to find a way to make herself stand out. Her relentless pressure on corporate power will motivate and excite Democratic voters, but will it be enough to set herself apart in a crowded field of candidates. Only time will tell, but as it stands right now Elizabeth Warren will quickly become a frontrunner.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 Spotlight: Richard Ojeda

January 13, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

The 2020 general election may be over a year away, but the Democratic primaries have officially begun. The first candidate to announce a bid for the White House is Richard Ojeda, a state Senator from West Virginia. With very little name recognition, it is very likely that most of you have never even heard his name.

Ojeda is 48 years old and was born in Rochester, Minnesota. His paternal grandfather was born in Mexico, and his father lived there until the age of 8. After high school Ojeda joined the Army where he served for 24 years, reaching the rank of Major. While in the military he graduated from West Virginia State University and Webster University, earning his Masters Degree in Business Administration. After retiring from the Army, he worked as a high school teacher before successfully running for West Virginia State Senate in 2016.

Ojeda first came on the national scene in progressive circles when he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2018 election cycle. He also gained notoriety for being very vocal in his support for the 2018 West Virginia teachers strike. Unfortunately, he did not win his bid for Congress but most notably he improved the Democratic results by 32 points, only losing to his Republican opponent by 12 points. For a Democrat in West Virginia this is pretty impressive given the fact that the previous Democrat only won 24% of the vote, with Ojeda taking 44% of the vote.

Ojeda has called himself a moderate Democrat, but many have said that his views are more in line with a left-wing populist platform. In the West Virginia State Senate, he has made increasing teacher pay a key part of his agenda, criticizing the states moderate pay increase. He also sponsored the Medical Marijuana Act, which was signed into law in 2017.

In November of 2018 he announced that he would be running for president on the Democratic ticket. A large part of his campaign is an anti-corruption and anti-lobbying platform, pledging not to take any corporate PAC money. In his 2018 House run, he only accepted small donations from individual donors and labor unions. He has endorsed Medicare for All and full legalization of marijuana.

While Ojeda may have some economic planks in his platform that will appeal to progressives, there is one notable obstacle that Democrats may not be able get past – in 2016 he cast his vote for Donald Trump for president. He stated that he thought Trump would be good for West Virginians, but has since said that he regrets that decision. Ojeda tried to justify his vote by saying that on the campaign trail Trump talked a good game about the little man and helping working class people, but since becoming president, he has become a twitter using, divisive con-man, that has empowered the very characters he claimed to reign in.

ojeda youtube — Richard Ojeda – *youtube.com*

In what is going to be a very crowded primary season, with candidates battling over who is the most progressive choice, does a Trump voting Democrat stand a chance? Ojeda lacks national name recognition and is relatively new on the political scene. Just last primary season, Bernie Sanders, who also had low name recognition, almost successfully took down one of the most well-known and powerful Democrats, Hillary Clinton. Ojeda is hoping for the same underdog success this time around. A key difference is the fact that while Sanders was not very well-known nationally, he was a sitting U.S. Senator and had been involved in politics for almost 40 years. The West Virginian is also personally pro-life but has said that he believes access to abortion should be legal. In a time when reproductive rights are under assault and the very existence of Roe v. Wade is in question this may also make some Democrats hesitant about supporting the candidate.

The Democratic primaries have kicked off and are sure to be fiercely fought by all of the candidates. Richard Ojeda is arguably the biggest longshot of the race but if 2016 proved anything, it’s that all political norms have been tossed aside and anything can happen, and at least Ojeda is more qualified than the current occupant of the Oval Office. That being said, I don’t see Ojeda being a frontrunner in any way, except in helping to push the party in a more economically populist direction focused on the working class.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

2020 SPOTLIGHT

January 13, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

we the people

With the 2020 election just around the corner, the Democratic field is going to quickly become crowded as candidates announce their ambitions throughout 2019. As candidates come forward and announce, ‘to the LEFT’ will be releasing profiles about each person, highlighting their backgrounds and platforms. These profiles will not be complete endorsements of any particular candidate. After it is apparent that all Democratic candidates have announced ‘to the LEFT’ will formally endorse a candidate for president. We have a long and important year ahead of us, with a critical opportunity to combat and defeat Donald Trump in 2020. Please join our community in a lively discussion of the various candidates and issues that will be important to progressive voters and to the entire nation.

Pulling Back the Curtain

December 18, 2018December 20, 2018Dale Seufert-Navarro1 Comment

: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – New York Post

One of the biggest complaints about Congress is that it is too out of touch, unable to understand the basic needs and struggles of everyday Americans. The halls of Congress are filled with elitist millionaires with bank accounts larger than what most Americans will ever see. The average net worth of a Senator is $3.2 million and $900,000 for a Representative in the House. Studies have shown that Congressional offices give preferential treatment to large campaign donors while ignoring calls from everyday citizens. While most members of Congress are unattainable, there is one freshman congresswoman making waves and changing the way members of Congress interact with their constituents. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become a political rockstar ever since she beat longtime Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, in their June primary. From the very beginning of her campaign, she has shown that she will be beholden to her constituents and the movement behind her. In a debate with Crowley she was asked if she would support and endorse her opponent if she lost her primary challenge. Her response was brave and honest. She said that decision would not be up to her alone. She was representing a movement and would therefore need to go back and discuss what would be best for the larger movement. This is what it means to be the leader of actual people and not special interests. As it turns out, honesty and sincerity are still important to voters.

Now that Ocasio-Cortez will officially be a member of Congress, she intends to be a different kind of politician, one that sees herself as part of, instead of above and seperate, from a community. Ocasio-Cortez has been very open and honest about her struggle to find affordable housing in the D.C. area, where housing prices are some of the highest in the nation. Many in the media, and on the right, have criticized her and made a joke out of her financial situation. In pointing to, in their minds, her inadequate savings, they have revealed how out of touch they really are. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median American household has less than $5,000 in savings, with about 30% having less than $1,000. What makes her appealing and relatable is the fact that her situation is more like the lived experience of everyday Americans than the wealthy beltway pundits laughing at her bank account or lack thereof. This is especially true of millennials. Millennials get a very bad rap when it comes to the job market and the housing market, but what some fail to acknowledge is that this generation – my generation – came of age during a time of financial crisis; a time and economy very different then our parents’ generation. Wages have stagnated, the types of jobs have changed, the labor market has become less unionized, the cost of living has increased, the cost of education has skyrocketed, and housing has become very unaffordable. That equation has been very difficult for younger generations to maneuver, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is speaking truth to power about this experience. Unless more millennials and young people run for office and become politically engaged, the political system will not be prepared to speak to the problems affecting a new economy.

Society is changing and calls for making all aspects of it more democratic grow louder, as it should. One part of this is social media (although there are many downsides to this platform as well). Social media has become a very prevalent part of our society, especially for young people. Her strategic use of the platform is smart and builds on the innovations of the Obama and Sanders campaigns. If you are not following her on Instagram, then you are truly missing out. The voters sent her to Washington and now she is bringing everyone along for the ride. Her posts narrating congressional freshman orientation will put a smile on your face and are very useful in lifting the mysterious veil over Congress. Even before heading to Washington she regularly live-streamed herself cooking dinners at home while discussing politics with her followers.

: Via Twitter @Envisioned_One

These Instagram live-streams are comparable to the FDR fireside chats during his presidency in the 30s and 40s. Roosevelt knew that accessibility was important to the general public, and Ocasio-Cortez knows this as well. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brought us along with her as she navigated her first week of orientation, fangirling her meetings with other members of Congress. The videos of her discovering underground hallways in the capital building and the Congressional train remind you of an excited kid starting at a new school.

Instagram

But don’t let this excitement fool you, Alexandria is an articulate and gifted fighter. Recently she revealed that a panel for congressional orientation was packed with corporate CEO’s and lobbyists, but conveniently excluded labor and activist representation.

Via Twitter @Envisioned_One

How often do our elected officials reveal how intertwined and compromised our politicians are to business interests? Many times, candidates run on a platform of change and populism only to abandon those promises once elected. Ocasio-Cortez appears to be sticking to her guns. What she is doing is very important. She is lifting the veil on a mysterious institution clouded in mistrust and showing ordinary people that Congress and politics is not just for rich old white men but can and should be for anybody. I can’t wait to see what she does with her new-found power and platform. I see a long and exciting career ahead of her, even living in a certain famous house one day.

Dale Seufert-Navarro