politics – to the LEFT

Henry Wallace: ‘The Dangers of American Fascism’

August 17, 2019Dale Seufert-Navarro1 Comment

fascism boots — Photo Illustration by *Slate*. Photo via Corbis/Getty Images

Everywhere you turn, you hear the word fascism. With Donald Trump’s affinity for violence and a superficial toxic masculine world view, the comparisons between him and historical fascist strongmen are not hard to connect. Because of all of this renewed discussion about fascism, I decided to explore the topic and its historical roots in America.

In 1944, at the height of World War II and the rise of the European fascists – Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco – the Vice President of the Unites States, Henry Wallace, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning about the influence and threats of fascist ideology taking root in America. While some of the content of his piece is distinct to the situation and time in which he wrote it, wartime 1940’s, it is still shockingly relevant to our modern era.

Before I posted my own piece on fascist ideology in American politics, I wanted to present Henry Wallace’s entire NYT op-ed article to highlight him in his own words. As you read his piece, imagine the world he faced and the circumstances that created that world. Now look around at the world us today. What are its warnings? What are its parallels?

Dale Seufert-Navarro

*************************************************************************************

An article from the New York Times, April 9, 1944.

From Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 259

On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:

What is a fascist?
How many fascists have we?
How dangerous are they?

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions, or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

The perfect type of fascist throughout recent centuries has been the Prussian Junker, who developed such hatred for other races and such allegiance to a military clique as to make him willing at all times to engage in any degree of deceit and violence necessary to place his culture and race astride the world. In every big nation of the world are at least a few people who have the fascist temperament. Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist at heart. The hoodlums who have been desecrating churches, cathedrals, and synagogues in some of our larger cities are ripe material for fascist leadership.

The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.

American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.

The European brand of fascism will probably present its most serious postwar threat to us via Latin America. The effect of the war has been to raise the cost of living in most Latin American countries much faster than wages of labor. The fascists in most Latin American countries tell the people that the reason their wages will not buy as much in the way of goods is because of Yankee imperialism. The fascists in Latin America learn to speak and act like natives. Our chemical and other manufacturing concerns are all too often ready to let the Germans have Latin American markets, provided the American companies can work out an arrangement which will enable them to charge high prices to the consumer inside the United States. Following this war, technology will have reached such a point that it will be possible for Germans, using South America as a base, to cause us much more difficulty in World War III than they did in World War II. The military and landowning cliques in many South American countries will find it attractive financially to work with German fascist concerns as well as expedient from the standpoint of temporary power politics.

Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.

Still another danger is represented by those paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after “the present unpleasantness” ceases.

The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination against other religious, racial or economic groups. Likewise, many people whose patriotism is their proudest boast play Hitler’s game by retailing distrust of our Allies and by giving currency to snide suspicions without foundation in fact.

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through cooperation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.

It has been claimed at times that our modern age of technology facilities dictatorship. What we must understand is that the industries, processes, and inventions created by modern science can be used either to subjugate or liberate. The choice is up to us. The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. It was Mussolini’s vaunted claim that he “made the trains run on time.” In the end, however, he brought to the Italian people impoverishment and defeat. It was Hitler’s claim that he eliminated all unemployment in Germany. Neither is there unemployment in a prison camp.

Democracy to crush fascism internally must demonstrate its capacity to “make the trains run on time.” It must develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels. As long as scientific research and inventive ingenuity outran our ability to devise social mechanisms to raise the living standards of the people, we may expect the liberal potential of the United States to increase. If this liberal potential is properly channeled, we may expect the area of freedom of the United States to increase. The problem is to spend up our rate of social invention in the service of the welfare of all the people.

The worldwide, agelong struggle between fascism and democracy will not stop when the fighting ends in Germany and Japan. Democracy can win the peace only if it does two things:

Speeds up the rate of political and economic inventions so that both production and, especially, distribution can match in their power and practical effect on the daily life of the common man the immense and growing volume of scientific research, mechanical invention and management technique.
Vivifies with the greatest intensity the spiritual processes which are both the foundation and the very essence of democracy.

The moral and spiritual aspects of both personal and international relationships have a practical bearing which so-called practical men deny. This dullness of vision regarding the importance of the general welfare to the individual is the measure of the failure of our schools and churches to teach the spiritual significance of genuine democracy. Until democracy in effective enthusiastic action fills the vacuum created by the power of modern inventions, we may expect the fascists to increase in power after the war both in the United States and in the world.

Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about the conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.

It should also be evident that exhibitions of the native brand of fascism are not confined to any single section, class, or religion. Happily, it can be said that as yet fascism has not captured a predominate place in the outlook any American section, class, or religion. It may be encountered in Wall Street, Main Street or Tobacco Road. Some even suspect that they can detect incipient traces of it along the Potomac. It is an infectious disease, and we must all be on our guard against intolerance, bigotry, and the pretension of invidious distinction. But if we put our trust in the common sense of common men and “with malice toward none and charity for all” go forward on the great adventure of making political, economic and social democracy a practical reality, we shall not fail.

Henry Wallace

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

What it Means to be a ‘Radical’

April 12, 2019April 12, 2019Dale Seufert-Navarro1 Comment

emmanuel-Pierre Guittet — Angela Davis in West Germany – *Emmanuel Pierre Guittet*

Growing up in a lower middle-class family, in a small conservative city in central Virginia dominated by the Evangelical Church and Liberty University, I was always a bit different. To say that I was left of center would be an understatement. I was a gay, vegetarian, non-Christian, outspoken progressive, and that just wasn’t the norm for my little town. When most kids were outside playing, I was reading books on Kabbalah, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and anything spiritual in nature. When most teens were out partying, I was reading about economic and political theories. Now, don’t get me wrong, I stubbed my toes riding my bike and had my fair share of drunken teen parties – just ask my grandmother – but I was still different.

It’s not hard to see why I was pretty odd to many people, my family included. I didn’t fit into that little box that the world had created for me. I was a radical queer teen living in the shadow of Jerry Falwell and the conservative politics that came along with that. It was the late 90s and the early 2000s, and while I didn’t have it as bad as generations before me, there was still this feeling of being an outsider – an ‘other’.

I was hard to understand, especially by my parents, and that’s okay, I get it. We had our struggles like all parent-child dynamics, with a bit more given the gay factor, but they and I did the best we could. In fact, I am very lucky that I grew up in the time that I did. It was the cusp of cultural queer acceptance, and I give thanks to the radical brothers and sisters that paved the way for present generations.

medium.com — Noam Chomsky – *Medium.com*

In my life I stumbled upon many important and influential figures to look up to and shape my political worldview, from the historical and intellectual to the ordinary yet profound people in my personal life. The towering icons of my cerebral landscape included such important thinkers as Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, Dr. Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Eugene Debs, W.E.B. Du Bois, Saul Alinsky, and of course Karl Marx – among MANY. In my personal life, like most people, my parents and my maternal grandmother had an immense effect on my life and understanding of the world.

While I love all of my family equally, my father had the most important influence on my life and political trajectory. Like many father figures, my dad was always sort of an enigma to me. Always a quiet and reserved person, he was a bit shy. That is until the discussion turns to politics and current events. The passion that he holds for politics is the same passion that runs through my very veins today, well sort of. You see, as unapologetically progressive as I am, my father is definitely not. My dad is a conservative, of the Ayn Rand libertarian school of thought. Over the years, there were many political discussions between the two of us, some small through laughter with others escalating to raised voices ending in storming off to our respective corners of the boxing ring. But through it all, it was my most important education. He has always been my greatest advisory; my greatest opponent. Unlike a lot of ‘conservatives’, he is informed and his ideas come from an intellectual pursuit, although I disagree with mostly all of it.

When he called me a socialist, I accepted it. When he called me a radical, I reveled in it.

His and my family’s past, along with our life as I grew up shaped my political views and overall worldview. My father had an especially hard upbringing, and he devoted every moment of his adult life – along with my mother – to ensure that my brother and I had the opportunities that they did not have. We weren’t rich by any standards of the definition, but we had it better than so many other people in this world. Like a lot of families, we had hard times, even more that I never knew about, but we made it through the best we could. I saw my parents work long hours in fields that were oftentimes difficult and demanding, my father a welder and my mother working in a manufacturing plant. They sacrificed and struggled. In a sense, it was the knowledge of my parents past and where they had come from, and the lived experience of my childhood that ‘radicalized’ me. This was the fuel that ignited my commitment to social and economic justice.

Radical; turn on the television and I guarantee that you will hear that word eventually, and fairly frequent I imagine. From FOX News to CNN, certain politicians, ideas, and policies are branded with the label.

FOX News Headline: “‘Radical’ Dems Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rhasida Tlaib embrace their reputations, slam President Trump.”

The Atlantic: “The Democratic Party is Radicalizing.”

The National Review: “Radicalism is on the Rise among Democrats.”

Washington Times: “Bernie reveals his radical Inclinations Over and Over Again.”

So radical, what does the word mean? Well, the definition of radical is – A. very different from the usual or traditional. B. favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions. C. associated with political views, practices, and polices of extreme change.

Given this definition and the way that the media frames the use and debate of the word, it would appear that the people and ideas associated with radical are out of the mainstream of normal political discourse. The ideas that they advocate for, and even they themselves, are just too extreme. But is there any evidence for that? Are they really that extreme? Some of the ideas that are framed as radical are: Medicare for All, tuition-free higher education, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, and certain tax policies among other things. Not surprisingly, most of the policies and politicians labeled this way are on the left end of the political spectrum.

But how radical or extreme are some of these policies? Medicare for All polls fairly well for a policy that is still considered fringe politics by some, polling around 56% to 74%. Some polls even show around 47% of Republicans supporting some form of government-administered health care system. Tuition-free higher education even polls well, with around 60% of the public saying they like the idea. And that poll shows 41% of Republicans holding that view. A newer idea, the Green New Deal, is also very favorable with the American people. One poll finds 81% of respondents saying they support some form of sweeping government intervention to combat the effects of climate change.

Now, of course, polling has its limitations and even its inaccuracies. The way polls are conducted, and the way questions are asked can affect the way people respond. But what this shows us is that these policies aren’t crazy ideas from the darkest corners of the internet. Instead, they are serious and worthy of debate. Furthermore, most of these ideas aren’t just ideas in most of the developed world. They are actual policies that have existed for many years in other countries.

I will concede that in our current political situation, some of these ideas are vastly different than the space we occupy. But I ask you to look at history. Look at all the major social and economic achievements that were accomplished. Were they radical for their time? Were the methods used to achieve them radical? Indeed, they were. Throughout history, it is only by the intense struggle of radical thinkers that society has been pushed forward. In contrast, it has always been the centrist moderate that has stood in the way, seeking to preserve – consciously or unconsciously – a repressive status quo. People on the right, and from the center, hurl these designations to the left in hopes of marginalizing them. Currently, and the in the past, terms like radical are used to stifle debate, scare and intimidate.

Photo by Archiv Gerstenberg:ullstein bild via Getty Images) Youngstown Steel Mill Strike –Photo by Archiv Gerstenberg/ullstein bild via Getty Images

The ‘radical’ perspective has always been about the democratization of society. The labor movement was considered radical and was responsible for all of the current worker protections we take for granted – the 40-hour work week, ending child labor, and various other benefits. The civil rights movement, also radical for its time, was responsible for the progress on racial justice that we see. At the time, people in power threw the term ‘radical’ at leaders like Martin Luther King and leaders of the labor movement. They called them anti-American and communists in an effort to intimidate them and scare the American public. In fact, people that belie radicals forget about the most significant expression of radicalism that this country has ever seen, the American Revolution.

When people try to label an idea or a person as radical and extreme, ask what they are implying? What is more extreme, wanting people to have the ability to live and support their families in a real and meaningful way or an economic situation that enriches the already rich and powerful while leaving millions of Americans behind, amounting to modern feudalism and corporate servitude? What is more extreme than an imperialist foreign policy that creates more terror and destabilizes regions? Is regulating a woman’s body over her and her doctors advice and concerns extreme? Is dictating the private consensual sexual relationships of adults extreme? Is careening toward annihilation while doing absolutely nothing about the most dangerous situation facing human existence today-climate change, extreme?

People in the so-called middle say that radicals are rigid purists, putting ideology above compromise. Former President Barack Obama even recently warned progressives about infighting and what he called a ‘circular firing squad’. But the ‘centrist middle’ has never been above ideology. They will say that they are pragmatic and focused on ‘what works’, unlike the purist radical. Well if you look at the current state of the world, the work of this class is failing. The centrists are just as radically ideological as the ‘radicals’ they decry. Theirs is a worship of the status quo.

Progressives should not be scared of the label of radical. Instead, we should embrace it. Embrace the historical significance and success of our radical revolutionary brothers and sisters. The way that people try to use the term in such a dismissive way, ignore the important role of radicals in pushing this country forward, with much of that work unfinished. There is much more work to be done and we should fight in their honor and their spirit. Being a radical means not just accepting the world for what it is today – undemocratic in every sphere, broken and rigged in favor of a small portion of the world’s population – but fighting like hell to change that. Radicals don’t just see the ills of society and want to change them, they do change them. With this, I gladly accept the label as radical in every meaning of the word.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

Priorities

March 23, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

voting

For the past few weeks, I have been writing profiles on the various candidates running in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. As they announce, I have tried to look at their pasts and analyze what they bring to the discussion to the left and their chances at grasping the Democratic nomination and hopefully the White House.

As I laid out in my last post, I have not posted in quite some time. I needed to step back and focus on more personal things. This time gave me time to reflect on the direction of the blog, ‘to the LEFT.’ My goal in starting the blog was to focus on issues and policies that matter to me and that I believe have an impact on our country and world. My biggest critique of the media at large is that they often times do not focus on the issues that matter the most. Instead, they focus on shallow information for ratings and controversy. It makes perfect sense as to the reason for this. The media companies are a part of a very lucrative industry. Like everything else in our vain capitalist society, it is about money.

The time that I was away from working on the blog, I realized that I was falling into the same trap. Instead of focusing on policy and issues, I was only attending to the horse-race way that the media covers elections. They have become sports, with running and campaigning more important than governing.

With only so much time in a day to focus my energy on school, work, and my personal life, I have decided to not do anymore 2020 Spotlight profiles. I’m sure that the rest of the media will have that lane covered.

My energy, instead, is going to go back into the important issues that face our society and the policies that we need to champion in order to make that society flourish. I also plan on focusing more energy in local grassroots activism to push these policies and help elect the next president. I plan on writing a piece soon endorsing who I believe is the best option for championing progressive values and policies, while also defeating Donald Trump.

Life, and politics alike, is about priorities; the things that are most important in time and energy. Sometimes it takes a moment to step back to reevaluate those priorities. I am ready to jump in the trenches and help to create real sustainable change. I invite you all to join me in that fight. No man is an island unto himself, and our future depends on all of us.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

The Intersectionality of Frederick Douglass

February 13, 2019February 13, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

This month we not only celebrate Black History Month, but the birth month of one of our nations most respected activists, Frederick Douglass.

Douglass was born as a slave on the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland. While the exact date of his birth is unknown, many choose to honor him on the 13th or 14th of February. He escaped his slave status and became an activist for the abolition of slavery. Perhaps the greatest wisdom and strength of Douglass was his understanding of the intersectionality of race, class, and gender. In a time when slavery was the law of the land and women suffrage was a mere dream, this is very extraordinary.

Frederick Douglass not only worked towards the abolition of slavery and the racial equality of freed slaves after the Civil War, but he advocated for the right of women to be equal members of society as well. The Northern Abolitionist movement was full of women so this no doubt influenced his view on the matter. He was once quoted,

“When the true history of the antislavery cause shall be written, women will occupy a large space in its pages, for the cause of the slave has been peculiarly woman’s cause.” [Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,1881]

In a time when most men would have felt emasculated in being associated with the womens rights movement — this is also true of today — he took pride in this title.

“…caused me to be denominated a woman’s-rights man. I am glad to say that I have never been ashamed to be thus designated.”

In fact, Douglass joined Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in forming the American Equal Rights Association in 1866. The group called for universal suffrage at the Women’s Rights Convention of Seneca Falls in 1848, where he was a guest speaker.

Douglass also understood the importance of poverty and class solidarity. In 1866, Douglass traveled to the White House to speak with President Andrew Johnson about black equality and suffrage. At the time, Johnson did not want anything to do with the issue. In his mind, this would embolden neo-Confederate restoration. Douglass offered a different vision, one that combined disenfranchised blacks and poor whites in the south.

“Let the negro once understand that he has an organic right to vote, and he will raise up a party in the Southern States among the poor, who will rally with him. There is this conflict that you speak of between the wealthy slaveholder and the poor man.”

Here Douglass understood that while racial animus was real, it was partly due to the division sown by wealthy elites to divide all of the poor, black and white. This is very much the case still today.

Douglass understood that the institution of slavery was not only due to racial supremacy but also because of financial incentives. He was also able to see the lot of women in society was just as entangled in this capitalist patriarchal system.

This ability to see the intersectionality of all of these issues is just as important today as it was in the late 1800s. In some way it is even more important. We like to think that we have evolved past some of these things, but that is simply not the case. Better, but not perfect. The prevailing case of sexism thrives not just on social media but in everyday life. These sexist and racist attitudes can not be blamed on social media alone. In fact, these new platforms are simply mirrors of our deep seated perverseness. Social media has its own problems, for sure, but to argue that they are a cause is yet another case of the strawman. We should use them as a way to highlight what through history as been veiled and not so apparent.

It is sad that so much time has passed since the time of Douglass, and yet we still seem to be reckoning with so many of the sins of that time. In a time when solutions to societies ills seem so hard to decipher, we should lift up voices like Frederick Douglass. A man that understood that it is not just one or the other, but a combination of things. We should strive for all forms of justice — racial, economic, sexual, and gender based. We should also understand and accept that these things permeate all of us whether we think so or not. Instead of fighting this we should accept and embrace it. Go through to get through to the other side. We have to face these injustices in all of their forms, whether personal or societal. This is the only way that we can begin to understand and evolve as a society.

Dale Seufert-Navarro

CALL TO ACTION: Stand with Ilhan Omar

February 12, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

One of Congress’ newest members has been facing harsh criticism – from Democrats and Republicans – over remarks some have referred to as anti-Semitic. I am here to say that she did nothing wrong, and we must stand with her.

Since entering Congress Omar and Representative Tlaib, have been outspoken critics of the nation of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people. The most recent controversy was due to Omar’s tweet related to AIPAC and a bill in the Senate. What was her grave sin? In a tweet responding to Republican Leader McCarthy calling her anti-Semitic for supporting the BDS – Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel – movement, she said, “All about the Benjamin’s baby!” This was a reference to the money that AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – uses in Washington to influence American politics. In fact, their own website states its purpose is to influence Congress for the benefit of Israel. Why does Israel get the distinction of getting shielded from criticism? The media and Democratic party rightly call out the money and influence of the pro-Saudi Lobby, the NRA, Wall street, big Pharma, among others.

She was clearly trying to draw attention to the power that the lobbyist group AIPAC has in Washington, like any other lobby. She faced swift criticism from both parties, with Nancy Pelosi even calling for her to apologize. Omar has since released an apology.

Her apology on twitter:

“Anti-Semitism is real, and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize. At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

In her criticism of the State of Israel and support of BDS she is unequivocally right. The nation of Israel is an undemocratic apartheid nation that is perpetuating the oppression of the Palestinian people. In trying to highlight this injustice she is absolutely right. If she misspoke in her wording that she must acknowledge, but we cannot be more upset about semantic wording than actual physical injustice. Let me be abundantly clear, criticizing a secular nation – not a faith – is NOT anti-Semitic. Israel and its far-right proponents have used this claim to suppress debate and paint its critics in this light. No nation is above fair criticism.

Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right government have continued and worsened the oppression of the Palestinian people. He will claim that there is no occupation, but the facts are very clear on this. International law and the UN, with countries around the world, have condemned many of Israel’s actions, from the forced removal of Palestinians and the building of illegal settlements to open air assassinations by snipers during protests. During its bombing campaigns over the past years, Israel has bombed schools, hospitals, and press buildings – all in direct violation of international law. The Palestinian infrastructure is heavily restricted. Israel controls their airspace, territorial waters, all crossings, telecommunications, and population registries – controlling who can leave or enter Gaza. This blockade even prevents some international aid from getting to the Palestinian people. Now I ask you, how is this not an occupation? Most recently Israel passed the ‘nation state law’ that essentially is a Jewish Supremacy law essentially making Arab citizens second class citizens.

All that being said, the nation of Israel has the right to defend itself but the disproportionate response by the government of Israel is horrendous. Also, anti-semitism is real, and Jews face a rise in violence. But we must divorce actual bigotry with valid criticism of a government not a religion. This cheapens real anti-semitism and muddies the waters when trying to have a valid discussion about policy.

All of this comes at a time when the status quo on Israel and Palestinian relations is rapidly changing. Progressives and young people are beginning to see the occupation of Palestine for what it is – a racial and ethnic apartheid state created by state violence. Young American Jews are some of the loudest critics of the state of Israel and even within the nation, its own citizens are questioning and protesting the actions by their government.

Ilhan Omar is an easy target for Republicans and the conservative media, she is a hijab wearing woman of color and she is strong in her convictions. As progressives and lovers of justice and equality we must stand with our sister in Congress and the Palestinian people.

I urge you to call, write, or email the Congresswoman and voice your support. Let her know that she is not alone, and we are all standing behind her.

Washington D.C. Office Information

1517 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC20515

Phone: (202) 225-4755

Minneapolis Office Information

404 3rd Avenue North

Suite 203

Minneapolis, MN55401

Phone: (612) 333-1272

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

Supreme Court fails to Protect Transgendered Service Members

January 24, 2019Dale Seufert-NavarroLeave a comment

In a victory for the Trump administration and discrimination, on Tuesday the Supreme Court refused to hear a case disputing the ban on transgendered men and women serving in the military. In a 5-4 decision – with the four liberal justices voting to hear the case and continuing to block the ban and the 5 conservative justices opposing – the case will continue to be heard in the lower courts. The Pentagon praised the decision and has long claimed that the policy is not a complete ban on transgendered service members, saying that the policy only applies to people actively seeking transition.

All hope is not lost, there is still a chance that the issue will be solved in the lower courts in a favorable way. Until then, the policy continues to take effect. On this issue, the Supreme Court has relinquished its duty to the American people and the constitution of the United States. There is no reason that the court should not have taken up this case, except for cowardice and malice – or both. Four lower district courts have rejected and blocked the administration’s policy and one recent appeals court has reversed and upheld the case. The court has jurisdiction and power to weigh in when there are conflicting lower court rulings. It is the job of the high court to set a clear precedent of the law. There is also the matter of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th amendment, which allows all citizens equal protection under the law. This is another consequence of the Democratic party not being as vigilant about the Judiciary as the Republican party. Decades ago the Republican party set out upon a successful effort to remake the courts in a more conservative image. The federal judiciary and the Supreme Court have been on a rightward lurch ever since.

Once again, the Supreme Court proves to be a tool of oppression, with historical precedent rampant. Time and time again marginalized groups are thrown under the bus, used as political pawns for political games. Donald Trump is using the trans community as another scapegoat and political distraction. As his administration continues to drown in scandal and incompetence, he throws scraps to his rabid base, this being another example. The irony that trans men and women would freely join the military with the goal of protecting our country, while their own government will not protect them is bewildering, but not surprising. The irony is also not lost in the fact that a spineless man escaped military duty, by claiming bone spurs in his feet, is objecting to anyone wanting to serve in the military. For all of Trumps false claims that the military is in a decline, it is idiotic why he would limit the amount of people eligible to join.

The decision by the Supreme Court to not affirm the equal protection of trans people in this country comes at a time when violence against the trans community is on the rise. When the government does not show a willingness to stand behind the oppressed it, emboldens prejudice. Over the past couple of years, a number of states have tried to pass so-called Transgender Bathroom laws, including my home state of Virginia and my adopted state of North Carolina. These types of policies are not rooted in logic or public safety, instead they are rooted in a malicious effort to sow discord and division. Just recently, a trans woman was harassed and sexually abused in a Raleigh, North Carolina bathroom. Two women have been charged with second-degree kidnapping and sexual battery. Often, the less visible members of society are the least protected. The trans community is but one example. The gay community must stand with our trans brothers and sisters and fight injustice in all of its forms. Remember, that it was a trans woman of color, Marsha Johnson, that helped to initiate the Stonewall Riots in response to police harassment. The trans community has always been on the front lines of the gay rights movement, and we should be just as vocal for them as well.

Dale Seufert-Navarro