JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
April 27th UPDATE: Coronavirus
Brief #73—Health
By Taylor J Smith
The global count of COVID-19 cases has topped 2 million with just over a million being in the Unites States, where US deaths have surged to over 55,000. The number of confirmed cases in the United States appears to be doubling every three weeks.
Domestic Violence on the Rise Amid Covid-19
Brief #1—Gender
By Rosalind Gottfried
Domestic violence around the world has exploded with the advent of the coronavirus.
ALL IN THIS TOGETHER EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT
Op Ed
By Ron C Israel
President Trump’s handling or mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis calls into question the ability of the United States to take a much-needed leadership stance to address the threat that the Covid-19 virus poses to the health and well-being of our citizens.
Poverty Rates, Sparked by Covid-19 Could Surpass the Great Depression
Brief #72—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The economic conditions preceding the pandemic, aggravated by the likelihood of extended unemployment, could bring the poverty level to 25% or higher, especially for nonwhites. By some projections, from a Columbia University study, the unemployment rate could reach 30% resulting in 15.4% falling into poverty.
President Trump Surpasses President Bush In Number of “Not Qualified” Federal Judicial Nominees
Brief #121—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
During Donald Trump’s presidency the American Bar Association (ABA) has rated nine of his nominations to the federal bench as “not qualified.” Six of the nine were nominations for a federal district court while the remaining three were nominations to a federal circuit court of appeals.
Mismanagement of the Pandemic Response
Brief #3—Government Coronavirus Watch Post
By Sean Gray/strong>
The Trump Administration’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak has been scatterbrained and inconsistent. Failure to adequately prepare and heed credible warnings are largely responsible for the nation’s current quagmire.
The Virus Is Used As An Excuse to Threaten Women’s Right to Choose
Brief #72—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Almost immediately following the US Supreme Court Roe v Wade (1973) ruling to provide legal access to safe abortions, the rights of women have been challenged in the states. Legal cases have been filed to eliminate or restrict access to abortion and some have been successful.
U.S. RESIST PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN NEWS UPDATE # 1
Brief #1—Campaign News Update
By Iryna Shkurhan
The 2020 U.S presidential election, upended by a global pandemic amidst the primaries, will carry on with some necessary changes to protect public health. The general election is still set to take place on November 3, 2020 and only congress has the power to reschedule the date through legislation.
China, Trump and The Epoch Times
Brief #81—Foreign Policy
By Erin Mayer and Brandon Mooney
On Wednesday, during a White House news conference, President Trump was questioned in regard to allegations that Coronavirus-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, before escaping. The United States government has recently accused China of bearing the brunt of the responsibility for the coronavirus pandemic.
The Danger of “Love It Or Leave It” Rhetoric From A Civil Rights Perspective
Policy Summary
On July 14, 2019 President Donald J. Trump posted on his Twitter account tweets that were directed at four prominent Democratic Congresswomen of color. The women had been critical of United States policies under the Trump Administration. The President’s tweets stated they should “go back and…fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” His comments were condemned as racist from both sides of the aisle.
In August 2019, a Trump campaign petition about the Electoral College slammed “Coastal Elites and Liberal Donors” and referred to Rep. Ocasio – Cortez’s comments and stand against the Electoral College. The petition then ended with the phrase “This is our country, not theirs.”
The four Democratic congresswomen are Reps. Alexandra Ocasio – Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). All of the women with the exception of Rep. Omar are American citizens who were born in the United States. Rep. Omar was born in Somalia and emigrated from Somalia to the United States at the age of twelve and became a U.S. citizen at seventeen. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
When President Trump posted the tweets that told four duly elected Congresswomen of the United States to go back to their countries it caused confusion, anger, charges of racism and debates about the nature of American citizenship and participation in the political process.
The confusion stems from the fact that three of the four women were born in the United States. How could three of these four women be “sent home” when they were born here in America? The women came from African – American, Palestinian and Puerto Rican families but were educated and spent their lives in the United States. The sadness of the President’s tweets show that he viewed the color and family ancestry of the women as a point to degrade them without regard to their backgrounds and contributions to America thus far. White persons with ancestry from Europe, such as Eastern Europe, are almost never singled out to return to their broken countries because of their ancestry or skin color, which demonstrates why President Trump’s comments were deemed racist.
The anger over the President’s tweets comes from the fact that the President has to resort to racist comments in order to deal with political opponents. President Trump’s racism is nothing new as evidenced by his comments about Charlottesville in 2017 but his comments here show that he has no problems resorting to racism when dealing with Members of Congress over simple policy differences. Not every politician is going to agree on every issue, like the Electoral College, but that is no reason to bring racist insults to the table to try and discredit and silence political opponents.
Finally, President Trump’s tweets shine a light on how these kinds of racist insults can affect the ideal of civil rights in America. There is no requirement that newly immigrated people’s vote or role in civil and political life is worth any less than any other person’s just because a person’s family may have been in America longer. There is also no requirement that a person of a white or European race has a greater say in civil life over other persons whose race may be from other places like Africa or Asia. That is why the phrase in the Trump campaign petition is so troubling. Rep. Ocasio – Cortez is neither a coastal elite (she was once a bartender) nor a liberal donor so the phrase may have been directed at her ancestry. Who is the petition referring to when it says “This is our country, not theirs[?]” What they are likely implying is that these women can have no say in the direction of the country. This is contrary to the civil rights ideal that everyone, regardless of how recent his or her families have arrived in America, has an equal say.
If America is to fulfill the goal of equality in American civil life, then the kind of posts telling other Americans to “love it or leave it” should be given no place in American political discourse. Those kinds of thinking and statements perpetuate the mentality that some votes and voices are not as equal as others. And it also implies that recent immigrants should not be viewed as equal with others yet and thus cannot fully participate on the same equal footing as other longer residing citizens just because their families have not been here as long as others. America is for all citizens, not just for a select few. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio – Cortez – House webpage on stances on selected issues.
- Rep. Ilhan Omar – House webpage with press releases on recent issues and policies.
- Rep. Ayanna Pressley – House webpage on issues affecting Congress.
- Rep. Rashida Tlaib – House webpage on issues affecting Congress.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Clem Onojeghuo
President Trump Oversteps His Authority: He Cannot End Long – Standing Birthright Citizenship Rule With An Executive Order
Policy Summary
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In 1898, the United States Supreme Court decided the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Wong Kim Ark was a person of Chinese descent who had been born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. After traveling to China for a visit, Wong Kim Ark returned to San Francisco but was refused entry on the grounds that he did not have U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark brought a case in federal district court that eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 6 – 2 decision that traced the history of the legal concept of “jus soli” (citizenship based on the place of birth) and set the legal precedent for persons born on U.S. soil the Court held that Wong Kim Ark did have United States citizenship because he was born on U.S. land despite his parents being foreign nationals. (There are exceptions to this rule that did not apply to this case.).
On August 21, 2019, President Donald Trump stated that he was going to end the rule that persons born on U.S. soil are given automatic United States citizenship. He stated that he was preparing to change the long – standing rule with an executive order. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
President Donald Trump’s statement that he would overturn the well – settled legal rule that gives persons born anywhere on U.S. soil automatic American citizenship simply cannot be done because of the strength of the legal authorities supporting the rule and the political structure of the U.S. Government.
First, what the President is proposing would go up against some solid legal authorities. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically states in no uncertain terms that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States.” There is no ambiguity here about what these words mean. The President acknowledges this when he stated his intention to end the rule but the fact those words are included in the U.S. Constitution demonstrates that this is a rule meant to endure and withstand changing trends on immigration viewpoints in American politics. In addition to the language in the Constitution, there is also the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case that interpreted the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. That case ruled definitively to uphold the principle that a person born on U.S. soil acquires American citizenship. The fact that this case has never been overruled after one hundred twenty years gives it significant weight as a case that is legally sound and rightfully decided.
Second, the President’s statement that he will overturn the rule with an executive order gets it wrong on what powers he can yield as President. The use of an executive order by the President is used to direct the activities of executive branch agencies and personnel. The executive order must also be consistent with and not contradict existing U.S. law passed by Congress or set forth by the Supreme Court. What President Trump is trying to do is unilaterally change well – settled American law without Congressional approval. And his proposed executive order directly contravenes a rule that the Supreme Court has already ruled on. The American system of “checks and balances” government was designed specifically to prevent one branch of government from taking actions that might be entrusted to another branch or do something beyond the limits of the executive branch of government as the President is suggesting he will do here. Based on this, the President simply cannot issue an executive order and change the birthright citizenship law on his own.
The President has made a suggestion that may have been an attempt to appeal to his political base but his proposal is simply too far – fetched and likely unlawful from a legal standpoint. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s infopage on birthright citizenship.
- American Immigration Council – non – profit group’s webpage on birthright citizenship with online resources.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Taylor Wilcox
Indefinite Detention of Migrants: Trump’s Latest Crackdown
Policy Summary
The Trump Administration recently announced they seek to enable indefinite detention of migrants, that would be a direct overturn of the Flores Settlement The new rule is set to go into effect within the next 2 months. Migrants would be legally detained until their cases are decided – which could take years. Trump believes that this will act as a deterrent for migrant families and in turn ‘save many lives,’ so as to essentially prevent families from making the sometimes dangerous trek to the United States. Acting head of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan finds this new policy to aid in avoiding the Catch and Release loophole that he credits to detention limitations.
Analysis
While this policy would almost certainly institutionalize and legalize imprisoning children on an even greater scale than already exists, the adverse effects of indefinite detainment are plenty. Unlike a prison sentence where perhaps a set release date is agreed upon, indefinite detention would permit an excruciating mental battle and destruction of morale among hundreds of thousands of migrants. Many migrants might never know the end of their imprisonment as the immigration courts can be quite slow and are increasingly overwhelmed. Needless to say, it can be days, months, and/or years of imprisonment bestowed upon any migrant who seeks to become a permanent resident of the United States.
Detained children often have PTSD and suicidal feelings post detainment, according to Human Rights Watch and various other human rights organizations. The American Psychological Association is highly critical of this new policy, stating:
The large majority of these children have already experienced trauma before arriving at immigration facilities, and the longer they are held in detention, the more likely their mental health will continue to suffer
Chronic stress and adversity severely effects the development of a child’s brain, especially in regards to cognition, intellectual process, judgement, self-regulation, and social skills.
Resistance Resources
- First Focus on Children: a Washington, DC based advocacy organization dedicated to making children and their families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
- Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.
Photo by Katie Moum
Struggle to Pass Gun Control Policies Even in the Wake of New Mass Shootings
Policy
Trump has professed a desire for stronger gun control. A talk with the NRA changed that position very quickly, however, and instead there is now a focus on locking the mentally ill in institutions instead of stronger background checks. Mass shootings have led to the deaths of at least 62 this year alone, and yet there is no change in the gun control restrictions in place. The survivors of the Parkland School shooting have been campaigning for something they call a Green New Deal, but for guns. Their proposal includes a national standard for gun control, a national gun buyback, halving the rate of gun deaths within 10 years, instituting a higher standard for gun ownership including increased age limits and more intensive background checks, a 10 day waiting period for gun purchase, reexamining the Second Amendment rulings in the Supreme Court, initiating investigations into the NRA, naming a director for gun violence prevention, creating community solutions, and showing the younger generation they have power to bring change. (March for Our Lives)
While gun control is a popular idea, with many on both sides supporting stricter conditions for gun ownership, the Republicans in government still refuse to accept the idea of gun control measures to make people safer. Gun violence continues to increase with no end in sight, given that more than two dozen arrests for threats of mass shootings have been made since the shootings in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH.
Analysis
Gun violence continues to be a huge threat in America. The Second Amendment continues to be a focus, even though the Founding Fathers likely never expected assault rifles that could kill or wound dozens in less than a minute. The Second Amendment also encourages the people to rise against tyrannical governments, and yet no one seems to remember that part of it.
The Founding Fathers, as they developed the Constitution, encouraged alterations and amendments as the country changed. Some freedoms should not be changed, but at the same time, consideration should be given to those that infringe on things like the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that they stated were the rights of all individuals. Can we trust the flip-flopping of someone who calls himself “the Chosen One” when that so-called chosen is controlled by the NRA and similar interest groups?
Resources
- https://marchforourlives.com/peace-plan/ Discussion and explanation of a Gun Control Plan instituted by the Parkland survivors after the recent mass shootings, seeking to improve gun control laws and tighten restrictions on gun ownership.
- http://vpc.org/5-things-you-can-do-now-to-help-stop-gun-violence/ Violence Policy Center, offering information on what individuals and groups can do to lower gun violence
- https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/ Promoted after the Sandy Hook School shooting, offers information on contacting legislators, volunteering to advocate for stronger laws, and raising awareness about gun violence.
- https://momsdemandaction.org/ Offers ways for different individuals to fight against gun violence and advocate for change.
Photo by Jens Lelie
Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards: an Update
Policy Summary
The acting US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director, Ken Cuccinelli, announced the Trump Administration’s proposal to limit Green Card applicants and essentially make them more exclusive. This is aimed at the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who enter illegally every year and apply to become permanent residents. Beginning in October – a full year since the first indicator of this policy change – Green Card decisions will be made based on an aggressive wealth test to determine whether applications have the means to support themselves. If applicants are deemed likely to require assistance from government benefit programs (such as food stamps and subsidized housing) they will likely be denied. The new Green Card criteria will examine age, health, family status, resources, education, financial status, and assets. For example, someone with an income equal to or greater than 250% of the poverty line (which comes out to nearly $64,000 for a family of 4) will be less likely to be denied.
Cuccinelli claimed the goal was to bring:
People to join us as American citizens, as legal permanent residents first, who can stand on their own two feet, who will not be reliant on the welfare system, especially in the age of the modern welfare state which is so expansive and expensive
According to the US Citizenship and Immigration services website, to obtain a Green Card entails a few steps. First, an immigrant petition must be filed by a sponsor, or essentially someone who can vouch for the applicant. If this is approved, the individual must fill out a Green Card application with the USCIS or a visa application with the US Department of State (depending on the results of the petition). Then, the individual must go to a biometrics appointment to provide photos, signatures and fingerprints before a final interview. Lastly, they wait for a decision.
San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have filed lawsuits against the Trump Administration to challenge their move to deny permanent residence to legal immigrants who use or potentially will use public-assistance programs; claiming it is both harmful to society and unlawful.
Analysis
This new policy puts a price tag on obtaining permanent residency in the US and favors wealthy or highly skilled immigrants. It shifts away from family-based immigration, a long-standing US outlook. Limiting Green Cards to the upper echelon of society creates uneven immigration, extreme gaps in the labor force, and disregards America’s foundation of providing asylum.
Resistance Resources
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
- Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by Blake Guidry
Trump Administration Threatens to Make Big Changes to SNAP Benefits
Policy
The Trump Administration has proposed a change that will affect the way in which states determine who qualifies for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program, known as SNAP and food stamps. The proposal tightens restrictions and closes a “loophole” that allows states to continue to give benefits when a family’s gross income exceeds a certain level. Another “loophole” closure is ending the automatic eligibility of SNAP for residents who already qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This change would require families who receive TNAF to go through a secondary review of assets and income to determine future SNAP eligibility. The most devastating component of the proposal affects children’s free lunches. With this change, school children would have to apply separately to continue to receive free lunches, in comparison to the current policy which automatically qualifies children in families receiving SNAP. There are currently 36 million people who receive monthly SNAP benefits and 265,000 school children.
Analysis
This change specifically affects lower income families that are receiving SNAP benefits that exceed poverty guidelines or $33,475 for a family of four. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture an estimated 3 million people could lose food stamp benefits under this proposal. In addition to the lower income families that will be affected, the proposal will also negatively impact many seniors and individuals with disabilities should their assets exceed $3,500.
Supporters of the current system highlight the discretion the current policy gives to states and how it is instrumental in allowing working low-income families continue to receive benefits through their transition into a higher income bracket. Additionally, cries for protecting children, people with disabilities, and the elderly have gained support as advocates push for continued access to the benefits to our most vulnerable populations. The Trump Administration’s continuous goal is to cut cost where possible. This change is expected to save $2.5 billion a year by removing people from SNAP. This proposal has a 60-day public commenting period after it is officially introduced, before it makes it way to lawmakers. Such a proposal will only result in the worsening of hunger and food insecurity across the nation.
Engagement Resources
- Children’s Defense Fund : A national children’s advocacy group committed to ensuring the protection of children and promoting their growth & development.
- CLASP : A national, nonpartisan, anti-poverty nonprofit advancing policy solutions for low-income people.
- Feeding America : A national organization whose goal is to provide food access to millions through food banks and food panties.
Photo by Hush Naidoo
Did FBI Director Wray Mislead Congress During Senate Committee Testimony About Domestic Terror Groups
Policy Summary
On July 23, 2019, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Christopher Wray offered testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee stating that the FBI had abandoned use of the “black identity extremism” label and was instead using an overarching umbrella label called “racially motivated violent extremism.” This label was to include all domestic terrorism groups without distinguishing any group by race.
On August 8, 2019, investigative reporter Ken Klippenstein of the The Young Turks website revealed leaked documents that showed that the FBI did not abandon the “black identity extremism” label. The leaked FBI documents were “counterterrorism strategy guides” for the Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2020 and showed that even though the new “racially motivated extremism” and “racially motivated violent extremism” labels were used, the FBI continued to define these terms in the same way that they had previously defined “black identity extremism.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
The leak of the counterterrorism strategy guides and revelation by investigative reporter Ken Klippenstein not only discredits Director Wray’s Senate committee testimony in July 2019 but also is disturbing in what it reveals in terms of domestic terrorism priorities for the Bureau.
First, Director Wray’s statement that the FBI had abandoned the term “black identity extremism” label in favor of an umbrella term that included all forms of racially motivated extremist groups ignores the fact that the Bureau continued to use the definition of “black identity extremism” it had previously developed. Even though the new label mentions “white supremacy extremism” as being included, the new label is still defined using the “black identity extremism” label. This implies that black identity extremism is more of a threat than any other category such as white supremacist groups. In fact, the documents categorized black identity extremism as a “priority” threat while white supremacist groups were only a “medium” threat. This indicates that the Trump Administration places a higher priority on criminalizing Black dissent over confronting white supremacist groups.
Secondly, the threat guidance guide for 2020 expanded on the continued use of the so-called discarded black identity extremism label by referring to “violent black extremist attacks.” But nowhere in the document did it list a specific instance of a violent black extremist attack. Instead the guide listed attacks that had been perpetrated by white supremacists – the Pittsburgh synagogue attack, the attack in New Zealand and the San Diego synagogue attack. This indicates that President Trump’s FBI is trying to tie black protest movements to horrific white supremacist attacks even though the threat guide put out by the FBI could list no incident of a violent black extremist attack.
Finally, the documents mention a mysterious project called IRON FIST. Many details of this program have not been revealed yet but the leaked documents indicate that they are an FBI program designed to spy, investigate and infiltrate black activist groups through the use of undercover agents. This is disturbing news because it does not distinguish between legitimate black activist behavior and violent incidents and seems to simply group all black activist behavior as wrong. The IRON FIST program also does not indicate if and how the program will comply with protected civil rights and liberties. This is a real concern as the documents also reveal that black activist groups are considered a higher threat priority than white supremacist groups and even the foreign group Al-Qaeda.
The testimony by FBI Director Wray in July should have helped clarify the issues surrounding the priorities the Bureau would tackle in the future regarding domestic terror groups but these leaked FBI documents show that the Bureau is confused about its priorities. It is also disturbing because it illustrates how the Trump Administration is trying to suppress legitimate black activist behavior when statistics and recent incidents indicate that the more serious threat is from white supremacist groups. This is a terrible position for President Trump and the FBI to take and is clearly misguided on the real domestic terror threat that threatens America today. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement from non – profit group on the leaked FBI documents.
- Black Lives Matter – activist group against state sanctioned violence and anti – Black racism.
- Campaign Zero – group focused on advocating policy solutions to prevent police abuses on local communities.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Lianhao Qu
Democrats Divided on the Best Political Strategy for 2020.
Edited by Erin Mayer
Democrats are divided over which political strategy to pursue to defeat President Trump in the 2020 Presidential election. Candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others argue that the “system is rigged” and in need of radical reform. Others such as Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar say that a more moderate path is the best way to attract a large enough bloc of voters to defeat Trump. In this Campaign Blog USRN writers Colin Shanley and Samuel O’Brient present both sides of this complex issue.
- A) The Case for Proposing Large-Scale Structural Reform by Colin Shanley
From 1933 to 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) passed a series of reforms which fundamentally changed the balance of power between the wealthy and working classes in America. In 1964 and 1968 President Gerald Ford’s (R) administration passed a pair of civil rights bills which ensured a minimum level of federal protection for African Americans. Following these historic advancements, the Democratic Party began to lose touch with advancing the direct material interests of it’s constituency, and instead simply positioning itself as simply virtuous and reasonable foil for the increasingly unhinged yet politically successful Conservative movement. The thoughts behind this shift seems to be that voters of color will vote blue no matter how weakly the Democrats fight for them because the alternative is always worse; that middle and upper class moderates are a key part of the electorate and will eventually side with the more reasonable and even-tempered party; and courting wealthy donors is the only way to build power politically.
What this has left us with is a Republican party which has largely hollowed out our political system through gerrymandering states, filling courts, seizing all three branches of government, and forming a political monopoly on many southern states. The Democratic Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. One side is seemingly waiting in anticipation for voters to regain their taste for polished respectability and tepid incremental progress, and the other calling for a broad upending of the political, social and economic status quo. While the core of this latter movement comes from grassroots organizing in social justice and labor, it is represented on the national stage by figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Sanders made the case for large-scale structural reform in 2016, but ultimately lost the primary to Hillary Clinton. The fact that now, three years later, even the more centrist Democratic Presidential candidates seem required to feign support for many of the underpinnings of Bernie’s 2016 platform shows that the atmosphere among Democratic voters is one of rejection of the failed strategy of Clinton, which relied on the assumption that voters are willing to turn out just to defend the status quo. The Sanders position, however, argues that it is necessary to speak past Trump and make a case for why a vote for the Democratic Party will make a significant impact on one’s life. In a political system so riddled with voter suppression, where winning the popular vote by millions of votes is not enough to ensure victory, the only option is to overwhelm the system with a widely expanded electorate. We can no longer play the game of gambling over the handful of voters who vote regularly and switch between parties. The United States trails the majority of the developed world in voter participation. A big reason for this is the fact that people feel unable to make significant changes in their own lives through politics. In the modern era, the appeal of Liberalism for many people is mocking and opposing the absurdity of the Republican party, rather than actual excitement for the tax incentives and halfhearted public programs that today’s Democrats have produced. That’s why the supposed conflict between major progressive programs and electability is somewhat of a facade. The only reason why the widespread popularity of these programs is not obvious is because people’s conceptions of public opinion is based on wealthy and insulated political pundits rather than actual studies on the subject.
The only way the Democratic Party can win the election, hold power, and fuel a mass movement is through the enactment of major political policies. Issues such as tax-payer funded universal healthcare and education can pull previously apolitical people into the process. Once people can clearly see the lines between the party working for the common voter and the party representing the wealthy elite, the left’s political momentum will finally outpace the steady increase of rising inequality and ecological destruction.
The Case for a Democratic Centrism by Samuel O’Brient
In a 2016 Washington Post op-ed Former Obama Administration Chief of Staff and Commerce Secretary William M. Dailey once stated “Centrist voters typically decide general elections, so hard-left or hard-right platforms don’t help.”
Dailey’s sentiment is a valuable one that is often overlooked by far left pundits and analysts. The era in which we are living is one of increasing polarization, with red and blue voters becoming more divided with each political speech. During the 2016 race to the White House, populism took center stage as Donald Trump made headlines on the right and with Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) on the left. Both candidates did an excellent job of stirring their bases while failing to summarize how their lofty promises would be accomplished. This served to divide the left at a time when united was our only chance of defeating Trump and in short, it cost us the election. When Hillary Clinton received the Democratic nomination in 2016, much of Sanders’ base opted to either write in his name or simply not to vote. Sanders was by far the most popular candidate among millennial voters, a group that outnumbered both their parents’ and grandparents’ generations in terms of numbers of voters. If this group had stood behind Clinton, she would have defeated Trump.
As we draw closer to the Democratic primary, the field remains overcrowded but the polling numbers do not lie. Former Vice-President Joe Biden has been the dominant front runner since he entered the race, remaining ahead of Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Kamala Harris. All of which are considered the far-left candidates. Adding to the mix is fellow moderate Pete Buttigieg, easily the most obscure candidate in the race who skyrocketed to fifth place in the polls where he has successfully stayed for months, ahead of several more established competitors.
It should also be noted that Biden announced his candidacy months after his aforementioned competitors, giving all three more time to garner support. Perhaps more important than his standing among Democrats, though, is his standing among non-democrats. A CNN poll taken in July 2019 indicated that Biden has a higher net favorability rating than any of the other leading Democrat candidates. Biden’s score of 42 points puts him 15 above Sanders. Harris is considered to be more moderate than either Sanders or Warren and is only two points behind Biden. This may be an indicator that non-democratic voters are considerably more open to a moderate democrat than one they see as being too progressive.
As indicated in the aforementioned quote from WIlliam Dailey, independent and centrist voters often end up being the deciding factor in general elections. For any Democratic candidate to defeat Trump, they will need to swing voters from the center of the aisle and the moderate right. Evidence is increasingly clear that this will only be accomplished by a moderate candidate such as Biden. In early 2019, a Gallup poll indicated that although America was starting to learn more towards the left, it was still overall a conservative nation. Moderates are by far the most dominant group, averaging well above moderate democrats and slightly above moderate conservatives. Given all this, it seems a logical conclusion Democrats will need to swing needed voters from the center of the aisle or the moderate right.
The New York Times’ Lynn Vavrek noted in a May 2018 op-ed that extreme candidates may do a good job of exciting their bases but they can easily be a better job of firing up their opponent’s base. This could prove particularly dangerous if Democrats were to nominate a candidate like Bernie Sanders whose fierce disposition and blatant tendency to bombard his competitors could easily serve to also make conservative voters feel attacked. Biden has been attacked for his dealings with multiple segregationist senators decades ago. However, the legislative progress requires bipartisan study and support from both sides of the aisle, as was noted by Brookings Institution’s Alice M. Rivlin.
As was noted during the second Democratic debate, many polls have indicated that Democratic voters are more concerned with having a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump than one who they personally agree with on major issues. These Democrats have recognized the big picture-that unseating Trump should be every voter’s top priority. This will only be accomplished if democrats can apply the pragmatic approach of nominating a candidate who can reach across the aisle and garner support from non-democratic groups including libertarians, centrists and independents. Such a feat will only be achieved by a moderate candidate who can appeal to voters on both sides.
Photo by Samuel Branch
ICE Crackdown in Mississippi
Policy Summary
On August 7, ICE conducted a raid in the small town of Forest, Mississippi and nearly 700 undocumented workers were removed from a food processing plant. Later that evening, 300 of these individuals were released back to their families because they would be leaving behind small children unaccompanied, but given ankle bracelets to monitor them while they await court dates. There are very few immigration lawyers in Mississippi who would work pro bono to assist these displaced families, but many lawyers around the country have since volunteered.
In Forest, there is a large Latino population who are now petrified in light of the recent raid. Businesses and grocery stores are slowing down; children are not going to school. There is a widespread fear throughout the community and people are afraid to leave their homes and use money (in case they would need some for an emergency).
Acting ICE director, Matthew Albence, defended the raid by claiming those breaking the law were ultimately the ones to blame for this situation and that the “parents or the individuals that are breaking the law are ultimately the ones that are responsible for placing their children in this situation.”
Analysis
ICE director, Albence uses a rhetoric typical of the Trump Administration, where he gaslights the victims as well as the general public to believe they ‘made’ them react the way they did; as though there was no choice but to punish harshly due to their actions. It also turns anti-immigrant sentiment up a notch by essentially validating their arguments in real time.
This raid has created such a widespread fear among the immigrant community that is only going to force individuals to perhaps have to pursue more obscure and dangerous routes in false attempts at safety from the Trump Administration’s most recent immigration crackdown. Many children are left traumatized after their parent(s) do not return home and they are told their parent(s) were taken away from their place of work and their families. In Forest, most of the schools have given much leeway for children to take time off from school so that they can try and get assistance for their mental health needs.
Resistance Resources:
- Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance: a non-profit that aims to protect the rights of immigrants and their families in Mississippi.
- El Pueblo Immigration Rights Legal Services: an organization dedicated to providing low-cost humanitarian and family-based immigration legal services in Mississippi
Photo by Matt Popovich
House Democrats Ride the $15/hr Wave into 2020
Policy Summary
Last month, Democrats in the House passed a bill that would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. The so-called ‘Raise the Wage Act faces opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate floor, where as of yet Majority Leader McConnell has refused to raise the issue. 2009 was the last year that the federal government updated its minimum wage. As of this past June, this decade-long stretch broke the previous record for the longest period without minimum wage increases. Coming off this long wage freeze, the ‘Raise the Wage Act’ would more than double the pay of lowest-earning workers in any states and cities that remain pegged to the federal minimum. While a GOP-controlled Senate continues to render the ‘Raise the Wage Act’ implausible in the short-term, the bill’s passing in the house signals a commitment by national Democrats to pursue the $15/hour target rate as we move into the next decade.
The $15/hour benchmark has its origins in the resurgent grassroots labor campaigns of the last decade. Workers and progressive labor activists in the fast food industry, especially, have done the work to mount political pressure behind this goal. The “Fight for $15” slogan was coined at a one-day strike by fast food workers in New York City in 2012. Energized by that campaign, “Fight for $15” grew into a militant movement with global presence. The organization’s official website claims footholds in over 300 cities, including many outside the U.S. Back in 2014, a local campaign spearheaded by the city’s Socialist Alternative chapter made Seattle the first municipal government in the U.S. to sign the target $15/hour minimum wage into law.
Since then, the $15/hour rate has been adopted by cities across the country. Los Angeles is set to reach its $15/hour benchmark by the end of 2020, and New York City and San Francisco reached that rate at the end of 2018. Seven states have passed measures that will raise their wage floor to $15/hour in the coming years — California, Massachussetts, New York, DC, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut, in order of their bill’s passing. As a result, there are several areas in the country where the minimum wage is set to reach $15/hour in cities and surrounding areas before eventually reaching a state-wide $15/hour minimum wage. In New York, for instance, the downstate area, Westchester and other counties surrounding New York City, will reach $15/hour in 2021, whereas upstate workers will receive more gradual inflation-adjusted wage increases up to an eventual $15/hour at an undetermined date. As with healthcare and other major issues that have come up at the Democratic primary debates so far, vast differences in the actual impacts of policies are often disguised by similar rhetoric or messaging. It will be important throughout the coming year to pay attention to the details when candidates for national office mention changes to minimum wage policies.
Analysis
When political work behind the $15/hour target began in 2012, the policy was still seen by many as a fringe proposal. Even for most Democratic politicians, the policy was only conceivable in high-wage urban environments with strong progressive political organizations. As such, the initial victory in Seattle met equal fanfare and skepticism. Progressive activists declared the Seattle bill the first victory in a long-awaited reversal in the balance of power between capital and labor in the U.S. Conservative skeptics expressed the fear that minimum wage laws are untenable without raising unemployment. So far, studies that have looked at the effects of Seattle’s policy have produced mixed results. One notable 2017 study suggested that although most workers benefited from the bill, inexperienced workers newly entering the workforce faced stiffer competition and fewer opportunities. The same authors, however, published a revised study the following year where these losses had largely disappeared, recuperated as the city’s economy adjusted to the wage increase. Even among supporters of wage increases, Seattle seemed like an exceptional case for the policy’s horizon of possibility. Not every city in the United States has a composition of voters and progressive organizations capable of electing committed progressives, let alone socialists, to city council positions.
Yet today, nineteen of the Democratic candidates for President, including centrist frontrunner Joe Biden, have stated support for some version of the $15/hour increase at the federal level. The growing normalcy of the policy proposal is a high-water mark for a Democratic party that has been continuously pushed to the left during the Trump years, at least in rhetoric. Yet, as many analysts have pointed out, “Fight for $15” is not what it once was. In the intervening seven years, the inflation-adjusted value of the slogan has already depreciated significantly. According to Bloomberg, a $15/hour minimum wage in 2025, the year after the date set by the House Democrats’ bill, is comparable to a $12/hour wage in 2012, when the movement began. The current life of the policy, once considered extremely ambitious, is caught between political and economic timelines. As Democratic Party elites become more sympathetic to the $15/hour policy, the actual value it represents depreciates. It is an open question whether the coalitional power necessary to implement the policy at the federal level will keep pace with inflation, passing it before it becomes a watered-down, historically sub-standard increase. The 2020 Senate elections will be a crucial turning point either way, and progressive activists may find it necessary to raise their expectations to maintain adequate pressure on the electoral system.
Across the board, the potential benefits of a minimum wage increase often come down to the details of the laws that have passed. As in the case with New York state, there are exemptions built into their new minimum wage bills, most notably slower rollouts and lower caps for rural areas and smaller companies. Yet, elsewhere, these minimum wage increases have come with wider, structural reforms to the way that wage minimums are regulated. San Francisco’s $15/hour minimum wage law impressively included the very progressive stipulation that the wage be adjusted on a yearly basis to keep pace with increases in inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The ‘Raise the Wage Act’ also includes such a stipulation, which, if passed by a future Democratic Senate, would be the first federal minimum wage policy in U.S. history to include automated adjustments to wages at pace with inflation. Such a policy would create a permanent safeguard for labor’s share of corporate profits. Optimistically, an inflation-adjusted minimum wage would allow progressive political forces to divert their valuable time and effort away from merely keeping up with increases in the cost of living, and towards more substantial structural and political changes. Pending such an outcome, low wage workers in the U.S. will have to continue year after year with “belt-tightening” adjustments as we march further into the longest stall in the federal minimum wage we have ever seen.
Resistance Resources
- The Economic Policy Institute’s Minimum Wage Hub is a resource on minimum wage policies for the uninitiated and the expert alike. The page offers primers on the basics of minimum wage policy and history, newsletters on the issue, and a searchable database of in-depth research housed at the institute. The Economic Policy Institute is a think tank devoted to, as articulated on its website, “the needs of low- and middle-income workers in policy discussions.” Beyond its credentials as a serious, hard-nosed research institute, the EPI also offers resources to laymen seeking to navigate the complicated debate around problems facing poor and working people in the United States.
- Fight for 15 is a multinational movement of workers and activists demanding a minimum wage of $15/hour. Fast food workers in New York City kicked off the movement in 2012, calling for a $15/hour wage and a union. Today, Fight for 15 is proud to report affiliated actions “in over 300 cities on six continents.” Their website hosts accessible information for workers interested in learning about strikes and unionization, as well as frequent newsletter updates on their movement and labor news around the country.
- MIT’s Living Wage Calculator provides an easy way to estimate the “living wage,” or the wage needed to meet a basic standard of living, in your area. The website breaks down the hourly wage-equivalent in income necessary for a given household to live comfortably in any given county in the U.S. The Calculator breaks the numbers down according to the number of children and number of adults employed full-time in a household. For those interested in the math behind these calculations, the Calculator offers a technical version of its spreadsheet, that cites the data used in any given result.
Photo by NeONBRAND