Donald Trump is about to commit a crime against nature, against the environment, what could be considered “God’s Work”.
In his speech before Congress tonight, Trump is calling for massive reductions in the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, and in so doing setting back five decades and more of promotion of the environment by Republicans going back to Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.
One of the best things Nixon did in office was to sign into law the creation of the EPA in 1970, and the declaration of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
But once Scott Pruitt, former Oklahoma Attorney General, was named to be EPA head, the die was cast, and the Republican Party of 2017 is ready to gut the environment in the name of economic growth and industrial development.
Together with Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, we are about to see a mass attack not only on the concept of climate change and global warming, but also an assault on the National Parks and other public lands built up over more than a century under Republicans and Democrats.
This is not something easily reversed in four to eight years, and it will have a deleterious effect long term, and much of the damage that will be occurring cannot be reversed.
This is a massive tragedy, and there is a sense of frustration at the narrow mindedness and tunnel vision of Donald Trump and the Republicans.
And let us not forget that Donald Trump only won 46 percent of the vote, and that 54 percent of the nation did not wish this attack on “God’s Work”.
Hello, Ronald!
Do you have anything you may want to mention about the February 25, 2017 DNC chair election of Tom Perez?
Yes, D, and I gather you will not be happy at what I feel.
I think Tom Perez is an excellent choice, and being of Dominican heritage, he represents the largest ethnic group in America, people of Spanish speaking origin. He was an exceptional Secretary of Labor, and is a proud progressive.
Keith Ellison is fine, but honestly, being a Muslim who has been highly critical of Israel, is not a plus in a party where two thirds of Jewish Americans reside.
I, myself, am a critic of Israel’s government much of the time and am Jewish, but having an African American Muslim as head of the Democratic National Committee is a net negative in my view.
I expect a harsh rejection by you, D, or will I be surprised?
This blog has written about Tom Perez on more than one occasion.
immasmartypants.blogspot.com
That blog posts more frequently on Facebook lately. https://www.facebook.com/SmartypantsBlog
I hated how MSNBC’s panel made fun of the guy who did the Democratic response, just because he’s not a star. I thought he was down to earth and telling what needed to be said by our side.
Former Kentucky Governor Steven Beshear was very effective in refuting Trump, and I agree that he was panned, wrongfully, by MSNBC.
The pundits absurdly fell over themselves to declare him “presidential”.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/01/the_media_are_suddenly_declaring_trump_presidential_that_s_absurd.html
Ronald,
You’re correct with your sense of where I stand. (Bottom line: I’m not with the establishment, the status quo, etc.)
I asked you Tuesday [February 28, 2017], early in a day which, for me, was followed by a hectic remainder of the day and one that was also something today. So, admittedly, I am not too focused on giving a more detailed response.
I will be more focused with responding to a future entry. But, I did want to ask you…and you answered.
Thank you!
—D
I thought that Perez using his first statement to suspend the rules and make Ellison deputy chair was a classy move. At least those two got the need for unity. We will all need to be unified and determined and engaged Democrats.
You are correct, Rational Lefty!
Agreed about the need for unity. This is a very large and very diverse country and the Democratic Party has to reflect that.
People within this fractious coalition called the Democratic Party have to learn to work together.
The Democratic comeback will depend on inclusion. http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/02/21/democratic-comeback-will-depend-on-inclusion-not-exclusion/#.WKw-dwuBlrE.facebook
BPI blog uses some humor to talk about why Perez is a progressive.
They bring up a good point at the end regarding complaints I’ve seen about him in the progressive blogosphere, such as him being “out of touch” with people: Since when did succeeding in the face of hardship – and then using one’s personal success to advocate for consumers, civil rights, and workers’ rights – become “out of touch?â€
https://bpicampus.com/2017/02/26/the-democratic-party-didnt-learn-their-lesson/
Horizons blog has an article about what “establishment” means.
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-do-we-mean-by-establishment.html
As the blog wisely says at the end, liberals and progressives need power in order to effect change and sometimes it is important to defend the status quo.
I’m not interested in unity with a Democratic Party as it is still under the influence of corporatists Clintons and Barack Obama.
Look at Obama, after 2008 was his high mark, and he kept delivering to the party losses: in 2010 (U.S House flipped Republican to a level of more than 60 seats); 2012: lower electoral-vote score, 332, down from 365 from 2008), making him only the second re-elected to a second term (after 1916 Woodrow Wilson); 2014 (U.S. Senate flipped Republican); 2016 (presidency flipped Republican and Obama, who campaigned on Hillary Clinton being the most qualified candidate who has ever seeked the presidency, labored to get the TPP passed during the election period).
I have no reason to trust the Clintons or Barack Obama on what is best for the Democratic Party.
That whole 2016 primaries rigging by the DNC proved to me that Debbie Wasserman Schulz, who is corrupt, and Hillary Clinton exercised bad and insulting judgment (Clintonby bringing her into her general-election campaign) Everyone in that circle (Obama and Joe Biden campaigned to get Wasserman Schultz re-nominated), did not fear Donald Trump. Theh assumed Hillary would win the presidency. What they feared that Bernie Sanders would actually win the nomination and, afterward, the presidency. They preferred a President Donald Trump to a President Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps the best understanding of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries came from this statement, in a “Democracy Now†interview, by Seattle, Washington council member Kshama Sawant.
“And the reason Bernie [Sanders] did not succeed the Democratic—in winning the Democratic nomination—is not because the Democratic base didn’t support him. I mean, he [Sanders] has electrified an entire base of tens of millions of people. The reason he [Sanders] didn’t win the nomination is not because of recalcitrant Congress, it’s because of a recalcitrant Democratic Party establishment, for whom, although defeating [Donald] Trump is the priority, a bigger priority for the Democratic Party establishment is to defeat the agenda of working people to really fight for the massive social change, because the interests of ordinary working people and the interests of Wall Street are diametrically opposite. The interests of Wall Street are completely antagonistic to the interests of ordinary working people. So as long as we tie ourselves—forget about individuals. As long as we tie ourselves to a party that is tied to Wall Street, our movements will reach a graveyard in the Democratic Party.â€
A transcript of that interview can be found here: http://democracynow.org/stories/16474
.
An astute take on the election of Tom Perez as the [new] DNC chair comes from Jimmy Dore. Here it is…
http://youtu.be/CN0DlQvdOQQ
D, the Democracy Now link did not work.
You certainly make your case in a very detailed and understandable manner. There is a dire need for new, young blood in the Democratic Party, and I hope it will be found over the next two to four years, or else, this nation is doomed, or probably is already, sad to say!
While I do not see it your way, I totally respect your views and your right to your views.
I still think Tom Perez will be effective, and certainly hope so.
Just before submitting it, I am hoping this link works:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/29/kshama_sawant_vs_rebecca_traister_on
Yes, D, this time it works. Thanks!
The Democratic Party is a bottoms up organization. You want to change it, make it more progressive, you have to start at the bottom, no ifs, and, or buts about it.
https://cendax.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/one-more-time-for-the-purists/
The Democratic Party is a big tent party and the majority of us voters are in the middle, not on the fringes.
In that conversation between Shaw and Traister, I’m in agreement with Traister. Voting for Stein helped elect Trump.
Traisters points out the same thing, Former Republican. The move to the left starts at the bottom.
Former Republican,
Right now, the No. 1 enemy of true progressives are not conservatives or Republicans. The No. 1 enemy of true progressives are the establishment in charge of running this current Democratic Party.
The establishment Democratic Party want to make sure true progressives do not get to run the party. They can be in the party, in supporting to minor roles (like the cast of a film in which they don’t get to be A lead or THE lead). They are relegated. They are maligned. They are controlled.
This is why Barack Obama did his best, post-presidency, to get Tom Perez elected as the new DNC chair. Obama is not a true progressive. And, yes, Obama is an enemy (along with Bill and Hillary Clinton) of true progressives.
(Feel free to check out this 2012 Obama interview: “I don’t know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that,” Obama said. “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.” You can find it here: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080 .)
The establishment Democrats, who are neoliberals, want money, money, money. They make a great living at politics. They do so whether the party wins or loses elections. (Hillary had a lot more campaign money than Donald Trump and lost.) And by taking money, their interests are not the same as true progressives. So, they’ll gladly take the votes of true progressives, talk when necessary about “unity,” but they won’t allow for true progressives to have the power for how the party runs. This includes who gets nominated for president of the United States. This includes most high-profile races. (An example was with Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and others making sure to get Patrick Murphy nominated, over true progressive Alan Grayson, for the 2016 Florida U.S. Senate race. Murphy was a Republican as late as 2011. He switched to Democrat in 2012 and unseated Allan West in Congress. Murphy was a lousy candidate and in a state in which the state party has long been in terrible shape.)
Tom Perez, I’m willing to guess, will field more of the same Third Way-type candidates in the 2018 midterm elections. (If there are any primary challengers for incumbent U.S. Senate Democrats who need to go…Tom Perez, as the new DNC chair, will defend them.) The overwhelming majority will not be true progressives but will get called progressive (just in case that can fool enough people).
During the Obama presidency, somewhere around 1,000 seats in state legislatures were lost to Republican pickups. The Republicans are one state away from having a sufficient number of states control to make changes to the U.S. Constitution.
(Here is an article, addressing this issue, by frequent “The Stephanie Miller Show” guest and “Esquire” columnist Charlie Pierce: “Great. Here Comes Another Constitutional Crisis.” http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50672/state-legislatures-republicans/ .)
I don’t want the people who were in charge before Election 2016, during it, and still at this point afterward, to remain in charge of the Democratic Party. But, thanks to having the numbers with lobbyists, the “superdelegates” nonsense, they had the votes to elect Perez and they are determined. And if you look at the people who are truly in charge of this Democratic Party (like with that Jimmy Dore video of their picture), they look like the only thing the can accomplish is re-elect Donald Trump in 2020 (or, if Ronald still thinks it, make sure Republicans hold the White House with a full-term election won by Mike Pence in 2020).
Pragmatic Progressive writes, “In that conversation between [Kshama Sawant] and [Rebecca] Traister, I’m in agreement with Traister. Voting for Stein helped elect Trump.”
Ronald wrote on this topic, last December, with “79,829–Number That Prevented Hillary Clinton From Winning Presidency!” at https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=29196 .
I responded by providing election information.
________________________________________________
n 2012, Barack Obama won the popular vote over Mitt Romney by about +5 million. So, that means a national 2012-to-2016 Republican shift of about +2.5 million votes.
According to http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ , the U.S. Popular Vote (as of 12.02.2016 @ 06:45 a.m. ET) is:
Donald Trump 46.16%
Hillary Clinton 48.02% (+1.86)
Gary Johnson 3.28%
Jill Stein 1.05%
Johnson was +2.23 points nationally above Stein.
If all 100 percent of the votes Johnson received would have gone to Donald Trump (assuming Libertarians are Alternative Republicans and Greens are Alternative Democrats), Donald Trump would have won a Republican pickup of the popular vote by +0.37.
The only state, assuming uniformity with all states, that would have changed was New Hampshire. According to that linked site, the state carried for Hillary Clinton by +0.36. So, Trump would have flipped New Hampshire to carry by +0.01 and receive not 30 but 31 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and not 306 but 310 electoral votes.
Speaking to the three references states:
• Wisconsin: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +2.54 percentage points. (Trump’s margin: +0.81. That would have made Trump win it by +3.35.)
• Pennsylvania: Gary Johnson received +1.57 above Jill Stein. (Trump’s margin: +0.76. That would have made Trump win it by +2.33.)
• Michigan: Gary Johnson outperformed Jill Stein by +2.52. (Trump won it by +0.23. That would have given Trump a margin of +2.75.)
As for some other states which flipped and carried for Trump:
• Florida: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +1.50. (Trump won it by +1.19. This adjustment would be Trump by +2.69.)
• Ohio: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +2.31. (Trump won it by an alarmingly high +8.07. This adjustment means Trump +10.38.)
• Iowa: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +3.05. (Trump won it even better than Ohio at +9.41. This adjustment means Trump +12.46.)
In states which carried for a 2012 Obama/2016 Hillary:
• New Hampshire: Gary Johnson received +3.25 above Jill Stein. (Hillary won it by +0.36. So, Trump would have flipped it to carry by +2.91.)
• Minnesota: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +2.58. (Hillary won it only by +1.52. Evan McMullin received 1.80 percent of the statewide vote. Not counting McMullin, and just focusing on so-called Johnson/Stein impacts, in theory, Trump would have flipped Minnesota by +1.06.)
• Colorado: Gary Johnson was +3.80 above Jill Stein. (Hillary Clinton won it by +4.91. But, Evan McMullin received it +1.04. Pure tossup. Maybe Hillary holds it narrowly. Maybe Trump flips it narrowly.)
With these examples: Donald Trump would have finished with not just 30 but possibly 31 or 32 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and not 306 but either 310 or 320 electoral votes.
________________________________________________
Dave Leip’s “Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections” has these numbers:
Donald Trump 45.94%
Hillary Clinton 48.03% (+2.09)
Gary Johnson 3.27%
Jill Stein 1.05%
So, Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein nationally by +2.21. He drew more votes from Stein in every state in which both were on the ballot. (Stein was not on the ballot in, say, Nevada, the state which came closest to matching Hillary’s +2.09 margin at D+2.42.)
In this anti-third-party angst-ridden argument, Jill Stein did not cost Hillary Clinton anything. None of the six states which flipped from the 2012 Democratic to 2016 Republican column can be blamed on Jill Stein because there were not one but at least two Alternative Republicans also on the ballot (Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin). If anything, the opposite can be argued. Donald Trump could have played this blame game particularly on Johnson. Had 100 percent of the Jill Stein votes gone to Hillary Clinton and 100 percent of the Gary Johnson votes gone to Donald Trump, Trump would have won a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote but additional party pickups of New Hampshire, Minnesota, and the statewide [2 of its 4 electoral votes] of Maine.
Since 2000, Democrats have used Ralph Nader as a scapegoat. It’s as if they’re saying, “Your [“third party”] votes belong to us.” That is not how it works. We don’t come across Republicans doing this. We didn’t come across it with Gary Johnson being Nadered by Republicans/Trump for theoretically costing Trump the U.S. Popular Vote. Each candidate, regardless of party, is No. 1 responsible for winning or losing a campaign. And, since Election 2016, Hillary Clinton has avoided sincerely accepting that she is responsible for having lost to Donald Trump. On Election Night 2008, John McCain said something along these lines: I am responsible and, for however you want to hold me accountable, I accept my having lost this campaign [for the Republican side]. This Team Hillary is still in denial. And we know it given that we can see it from their “Blame Russia” hysteria. (Which, by the way, is damaging.)
D, you have really given us food for thought here.
I have always believed that Obama was the most progressive Democrat, at least in domestic affairs, since LBJ, as Truman, JFK, Carter and Clinton all were unable to accomplish many goals, while Obama had to deal with recalcitrant Republicans, which made the 91 scholars in the C Span Poll of 2017, rank him 39th out of 43 (only ahead of A Johnson, Buchanan, Tyler, and PIerce) on Congressional Relations.
Despite that, Obama ended up 12th on the list, and would have been in the Top Ten ahead of Wilson and Reagan, if not for that major flaw, that he had to deal with a situation that FDR, and LBJ. did not have to deal with, the most obstructive Congress imaginable, more than Bill Clinton had to deal with in his last 6 years.
Obama wanted to do more on ObamaCare, but had to settle as he was unable to gain support for Medicare for all or a public option.
In politics, one cannot expect to have everything that a progressive wants, as every Democratic President has had to deal with the Republican opposition in some form, but Obama did the best he could, I believe, under the circumstances. Except for Clinton, the others always had a Democratic Congress, except for two years under Truman.
Good people can disagree, of course, and we are in a massive crisis as the right wing is in danger of institutionalizing disastrous steps backward after a century of progress.
I think the loss of seats is due to the ugly campaigns of fear by the GOP and the right wing, and race, sadly, had a lot to do with it, so the progressives are in deep trouble, with no easy answer.
But I do not think Sanders would have won, or that Alan Grayson would have won the Florida Congressional seat, as he came across as weird and nutty.
I still think Tom Perez will do a great job in a difficult circumstance, but time will tell.
We second that Professor.
D, I wish to point out that I am an FDR and LBJ fan, and proud supporter of the New Deal and Great Society!
So I want what they promoted to continue to prosper, but under attack right now!
Our side – liberals and progressives – need to be more organized. There are some huge structural advantages held by Republicans. Not in the party organization sense, but in the myriad outside and well funded think tanks etc.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/02/24/advice-for-the-resistance-dont-just-mobilize-organize/
If either Bernie or Hillary had won, they would have faced the same problem with Congress that Obama faced – Republicans saying “No” to everything, not willing to compromise.
This is Tom Perez, to John Podesta, while the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries were in progress @ http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26666 :
“John Congrats again. While I recognize that the mother load is Texas, I am very excited about Massachusetts. I know it is not yet done, but it is looking good. I also look forward to my appearance on Telemundo tomorrow where I can trumpet her strong support among Latinos and put a fork once and for all in the false narrative about Bernie and Latinos. Congrats tom”
___________________________________________________
Tom Perez worked in collusion with so many in the Democratic Party for rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. And he is now the new DNC chair.
I oppose Tom Perez.
Exactly Leia! Compromise is important to getting work done.
Wikileaks is traitorous. They worked with the Russians to steal the election.
Just like Winning Progressive’s latest post, I have no sympathy with Trump voters either.
https://www.facebook.com/WinningProgressive/posts/1574040275939806
Leia – That BPI Campus post, while humorous, nails it!
Full posting of it:
https://bpicampus.com/2017/02/26/the-democratic-party-didnt-learn-their-lesson/
“The Democratic Party Didn’t Learn Their Lesson?â€
Crissie BrownÂ
bpicampus.com
Dear Ms. Crissie,
Electing Tom Perez to chair the Democratic National Committee shows that the Democratic Party didn’t learn their lesson. They are not going to be in touch with the people and they are not ready to move in a new direction despite the rhetoric. The winds of change cannot quickly come through the DNC. Maybe that’s intentional. They’re going to fight us tooth and nail. The leaders of the Democratic Party missed an opportunity today. This vote may sting for progressives, particularly young people. They’re trying to burn the left again. There’d be no good reason to say, “Hey, the Democratic Party cares about Bernie Sanders’s primary voters.†There’s going to be a silent undercurrent that will stay away because they’ll feel their voices were not heard. What do you call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results? Oh yeah: the Democratic Party.
Alexa, Adam, Jean, Dan, Krupesh, Scott, Denise, and Naomi in Left Blogistan
I’m so old (as we say on the Twitter) I remember when the self-denominated progressive faction was looking on Labor Secretary Tom Perez as a kind of savior against those terrible corporate Democrats, maybe ten months ago—when somebody was talking him up as a vice presidential candidate for Hillary Clinton. Didn’t work out, but that’s another story. But Perez did have a very progressive reputation: “The most radical cabinet secretary since Henry Wallace headed agriculture,†howled Breitbart before he’d even been confirmed. Bankers hated him for fighting racial discrimination in housing mortgages at the Department of Justice, and the representatives of capital (such as Sam Batman writing for The Hill) for his work at Labor.
[…]
So it’s been strange to watch in his contest against Rep. Keith Ellison for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee how he’s been treated by some members of that same self-denominated progressive faction as a reactionary and a plutocrat, Matt Stoller at The Intercept actually denouncing him for his “bank-friendly record†(in winning a case against banks that had unlawfully foreclosed against veterans Perez only won a judgment of $123 million without putting anybody in jail, including Steven Mnuchin, now Donald Trump’s treasury secretary, so I’m sure those veterans will never forgive him for merely getting them their money back), and others mysteriously claiming he might be under the malignant influence of the “centrist†or Liebermanian or plutocratist DLC, or Democratic Leadership Council—apparently unaware that that organization expired, unlamented, in 2011, and had very little influence for some time before that.
Many Democrats confuse messaging with educating, marketing with organizing. They think it is all about branding when it is really about relational work. You engage people with each other, creating collective capacity. That’s how you sustain and grow and get leadership. That’s how you make things happen. Organizers have known this for years.
Dear Ms. Crissie,
It sounds like many of us have a lot to learn about, and from, Tom Perez. Will Chef’s Brainy Breakfast Egg Sandwiches help us remember it all?
Hoping to Be Brainier in Blogistan
Putting the article in Reading View in the Edge browser cut off some things, so I’m re-posting it using Internet Explorer 11:
https://bpicampus.com/2017/02/26/the-democratic-party-didnt-learn-their-lesson/
“The Democratic Party Didn’t Learn Their Lesson?â€
Posted by Crissie Brown | Feb 26, 2017 | Ask Ms. Crissie, Morning Lede
“The resident faculty didn’t elect me as chair,†Professor Plum said as he entered the mail room. “Clearly, they didn’t learn their lesson.â€
He read the mail…. (More)
“I didn’t realize the resident faculty had a chair,†Chef said.
Professor Plum pretended to be aghast. “What, you think we sit on the floor?â€
The Squirrel tapped his Blewberry and a stock comedy rimshot rang out. Professor Plum then left with Ms. Scarlet to join the resident faculty in the wine cellar library, where they’ll spend the weekend drinking thinking on our motto of Magis vinum, magis verum (“More wine, more truthâ€). While sitting on chairs.
In the staff poker game, the Professor of Astrology Janitor learned his lesson after overplaying a pair of Nines against the Squirrel’s pocket Kings. So when Chef and the Squirrel merely called his big blind, he peeked at a pair of red Sevens and simply tapped the table.
The flop brought the Eight of Hearts, Seven of Clubs, and Three of Spades. The Squirrel checked and the Professor of Astrology Janitor put in a minimum bet. Chef shrugged and folded. The Squirrel took another look at his cards and pushed them into the muck as well.
“Lousy flop for Ace-Jack,†the Squirrel texted.
Chef chuckled. “I guess there were only two Aces and Jacks left in the deck.â€
The Professor of Astrology Janitor began his plaintive mewling as he scooped in the tiny pot for his three Sevens. Chef went to the kitchen to make Brainy Breakfast Egg Sandwiches, leaving your lowly mail room clerk to review the week’s correspondence….
+++++
Dear Ms. Crissie,
Electing Tom Perez to chair the Democratic National Committee shows that the Democratic Party didn’t learn their lesson. They are not going to be in touch with the people and they are not ready to move in a new direction despite the rhetoric. The winds of change cannot quickly come through the DNC. Maybe that’s intentional. They’re going to fight us tooth and nail. The leaders of the Democratic Party missed an opportunity today. This vote may sting for progressives, particularly young people. They’re trying to burn the left again. There’d be no good reason to say, “Hey, the Democratic Party cares about Bernie Sanders’s primary voters.†There’s going to be a silent undercurrent that will stay away because they’ll feel their voices were not heard. What do you call it when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results? Oh yeah: the Democratic Party.
Alexa, Adam, Jean, Dan, Krupesh, Scott, Denise, and Naomi in Left Blogistan
Dear Alexa, Adam, Jean, Dan, Krupesh, Scott, Denise, and Naomi,
We applaud your support for progressive issues. We also note that, as a consumer advocate, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, and then Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez championed those same issues, as Yastreblyansky of No More Mister Nice Blog explains:
I’m so old (as we say on the Twitter) I remember when the self-denominated progressive faction was looking on Labor Secretary Tom Perez as a kind of savior against those terrible corporate Democrats, maybe ten months ago—when somebody was talking him up as a vice presidential candidate for Hillary Clinton. Didn’t work out, but that’s another story. But Perez did have a very progressive reputation: “The most radical cabinet secretary since Henry Wallace headed agriculture,†howled Breitbart before he’d even been confirmed. Bankers hated him for fighting racial discrimination in housing mortgages at the Department of Justice, and the representatives of capital (such as Sam Batman writing for The Hill) for his work at Labor.
[…]
So it’s been strange to watch in his contest against Rep. Keith Ellison for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee how he’s been treated by some members of that same self-denominated progressive faction as a reactionary and a plutocrat, Matt Stoller at The Intercept actually denouncing him for his “bank-friendly record†(in winning a case against banks that had unlawfully foreclosed against veterans Perez only won a judgment of $123 million without putting anybody in jail, including Steven Mnuchin, now Donald Trump’s treasury secretary, so I’m sure those veterans will never forgive him for merely getting them their money back), and others mysteriously claiming he might be under the malignant influence of the “centrist†or Liebermanian or plutocratist DLC, or Democratic Leadership Council—apparently unaware that that organization expired, unlamented, in 2011, and had very little influence for some time before that.
We also note that Rep. Ellison immediately accepted Perez’s offer to serve as vice-chair, adding: “If they trust me, they need to come on and trust Tom Perez too.â€
We also think they need to be more active in their local Democratic Party groups and work to build relationships among issue groups, rather than merely shouting slogans, as renowned union organizer Marshall Ganz explained:
Many Democrats confuse messaging with educating, marketing with organizing. They think it is all about branding when it is really about relational work. You engage people with each other, creating collective capacity. That’s how you sustain and grow and get leadership. That’s how you make things happen. Organizers have known this for years.
Finally, we note that Perez is the son of Dominican immigrants, that his father died when he was 12, that he worked as a garbage collector to pay his tuition at Brown University, where he earned acceptance into Harvard Law School and went on to become the first lawyer in his family.
This leaves us to wonder: when did succeeding in the face of hardship – and then using one’s personal success to advocate for consumers, civil rights, and workers’ rights – become “out of touch?â€
+++++
Dear Ms. Crissie,
It sounds like many of us have a lot to learn about, and from, Tom Perez. Will Chef’s Brainy Breakfast Egg Sandwiches help us remember it all?
Hoping to Be Brainier in Blogistan
Dear Hoping to Be Brainier,
Chef says numerous studies show that a nutritious breakfast makes it easier to learn, and the Brainy Breakfast Egg Sandwich is loaded with protein, complex carbohydrates, and antioxidants that improve brain health. To make it, simply fry an egg in olive oil and place it on a toasted English Muffin with a slice of Swiss cheese, a slice of tomato, and 3 baby spinach leaves. Chef serves it with a small, sliced apple. Bon appétit!
Pragmatic – That Horizons post also nails it!
Posting full thing:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-do-we-mean-by-establishment.html
Monday, January 25, 2016
What Do We Mean by “Establishment?”
Bernie Sanders took some flak recently for calling Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights campaign part of the establishment. Here’s what he said in response to a question from Rachel Maddow about the fact that those two organizations have endorsed Hillary Clinton.
“What we are doing in this campaign — and it just blows my mind every day, because I see it clearly, we’re taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment,†Sanders said.
“And so I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund [sic], in Planned Parenthood,” Sanders continued. “But you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”
He later walked that back a bit by saying that what he meant was that the leaders of those organizations and their endorsement process are part of the establishment. I have to disagree with Steve Benen (something that rarely happens) when he suggested that clarification “should effectively wrap up the controversy.” Sanders’ subsequent remarks simply made the statement less general and more personal.
A lot of the talk about all of this has focused on whether or not Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign are actually establishment. I don’t think we can honestly address that until we answer the question of what the word means. Let’s be honest. Sometimes people accuse others of being part of the establishment simply because they disagree with them politically. The automatic assumption is that it is a bad thing. So let’s step back for a moment and explore what we’re talking about when we make that accusation.
I can’t pretend to know what Sanders himself means by establishment. But when he made the initial statement to Maddow, he seemed to suggest that it has some relationship to history by pointing out that Clinton “has been around there for a very, very long time.” If that were our definition for what it means to be establishment, Sanders himself would qualify. After all, he’s been in elected office for 35 years. The whole insider/outsider thing doesn’t work either because other than being POTUS (a job Sanders is currently seeking), there is nothing more “inside” when it comes to politics than the United States Senate.
There often seems to be an assumption on the left that any person or group that has power is part of the establishment. Perhaps that is a more accurate definition. But if it is the aim of liberals to fight the establishment, such an endeavor is doomed to failure when power is automatically assumed to be the enemy. Any movement for change requires power to accomplish its goals. What Sanders is attempting to do by mobilizing the voices of millions of Americans for change is to harness power. As I have written before, it is the power of partnership as opposed to the power of dominance. It is the power of citizenship. The power of democracy. That is how almost all progressive change has happened in this country.
Another way the establishment is often defined is to see it as those who defend the status quo. The zeal of radicals is often about busting up the status quo and replacing it with something new. When Sanders says that our system is “rigged” and needs to be replaced, that’s what he is talking about.
The question that raises for organizations like Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign (or merely their leaders) is whether or not they are working to protect the status quo. Here’s where this whole question gets interesting. For example, when it comes to Planned Parenthood, if by status quo we mean Roe v Wade and affordable access to reproductive health services then yes, both the organization and its leaders are working very hard to protect it. The same could be said about the Human Rights Campaign now that marriage equality is the law of the land.
Beyond the two organizations Sanders named, when we talk about the establishment being about power and/or defenders of the status quo, it is not helpful to think in terms of all or nothing. Liberals need power in order to effect change and sometimes it is important to defend the status quo. If that means being part of the establishment…so be it.
Posted by Nancy LeTourneau
Thanks for those Rustbelt. 🙂
Leia – I second that about WikiLeaks. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if all those emails dumped by WikiLeaks were tainted and tampered with by the Russian hackers. I don’t trust one word of anything that has been said on them. In my opinion, WikiLeaks is a right wing propaganda organization.