JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Rahma’s Journey: Navigating Pregnancy Amidst Hardship in Gaza
Brief #135 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Aziza Taslaq
“Rahma’s Journey” sheds light on the harrowing and courageous journey of Rahma, a soon-to-be mother facing insurmountable challenges amidst the turmoil of war-torn Gaza. Rahma’s resilience amidst scarcity, fear, and uncertainty highlights the stark reality for all women and mothers-to-be in this conflict-ridden region.
Is Judge Cannon Tilting The Classified Documents Case In Trump’s Favor?
Brief #222 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
In a controversial turn of events, Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of cases involving former President Trump is under scrutiny, with accusations of favoritism towards Trump. Allegations point to questionable orders and scheduling delays, raising concerns that Judge Cannon may be intentionally tilting the trial in Trump’s favor, prompting widespread debate on the integrity of the judicial process.
Do States Have the Right to Deport Immigrants? A Look at Texas Immigration Law
Brief #160 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by: Devyne Byrd
Texas’s controversial immigration law, SB4, raises questions about states’ authority in deportation matters. Amidst legal battles and federal objections, the law sets a precedent for immigration policy across the nation.
The Chilling Effect of Republican Education Policy
Brief #90 – Education Policy Brief
by: Rudolph Lurz
This article delves into the chilling effect of Republican education policies, particularly exemplified by initiatives such as Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law. It explores how vague legislation is causing educators and students to self-regulate their speech and behavior, stifling freedom of expression in classrooms and beyond.
Former President Donald Trump’s Gag Order
Brief #126 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by: Arvind Salem
In a groundbreaking development, a judge has issued a gag order on former President Donald Trump, prohibiting him from publicly attacking individuals involved in his upcoming trial. This order comes amid concerns over Trump’s history of making threatening statements against those associated with his legal cases.
Who Attacked The Moscow Concert?
Brief #134 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Arvind Salem
The Moscow concert hall fell victim to a devastating attack, leaving a trail of destruction and loss. Identified as the deadliest terrorist incident in Russia in over a decade, the assault has sparked widespread concern and speculation about the perpetrators and their motives.
Checking in on 14 Years of Obamacare: Part 2
Policy Brief #172 – Health and Gender
by: Geoffrey Small
This article examines the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Medicaid expansion across states. Despite the ACA’s goal to make health insurance more accessible and to encourage Medicaid expansion, some states have resisted, leading to ongoing debates and policy changes regarding healthcare coverage and access.
Continued Bloodshed Marks the 3rd Year of the Russian War on Ukraine
Brief #133 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Yelena Korshunov
The article vividly depicts the ongoing devastation in Ukraine’s conflict, highlighting the resilience of communities amidst relentless violence. As tensions escalate and civilian casualties mount, questions linger about the conflict’s trajectory and its broader implications for regional stability.
Suggestions for the Democratic Party’s Foreign Policy Platform
OP ED
by: U.S. Resist News
Diving into the complexities of contemporary foreign policy, our latest op-ed offers insightful suggestions for the Democratic Party’s global stance. With a focus on national security and fostering democratic alliances, it advocates for a nuanced approach to international relations in an interconnected world.
The Top 5 Worst GOP Bills: A Closer Look at Troubling Legislation
The Top 5 Worst GOP Bills: A Closer Look at Troubling Legislation
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #125 | By: William Bourque | February 23, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.thehill.com
__________________________________
In our world of American politics, GOP-sponsored bills often stir up controversy and debate. Some proposals, however, stand out for all the wrong reasons. From healthcare to taxes, environment to social programs, these bills have sparked concern and criticism across the political spectrum.
In this brief, we’re diving into the top five GOP bills that have raised eyebrows and ignited fierce opposition. We’ll explore what they sought to do and the motivations behind them. As we navigate through these bills, it’s crucial to understand the broader political landscape and the tensions driving these debates. While some see these proposals as solutions, many of these bills are foolish and short-sighted. This past year of Congressional proceedings have been nothing short of shocking – with House GOP members getting into physical altercations, screaming matches, and beefing on X (still Twitter in my book). Without further ado, the 5 worst GOP bills of this past year.
-
1. House Resolution 582: A resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas for High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The initial vote on this legislation, which was eventually blocked by Rep. Mike Gallagher, failed in embarrassing fashion for Speaker Mike Johnson. Mayorkas is the first cabinet secretary to be impeached since the 1870’s, when Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached. The motion eventually passed, which sets up a trial in the Senate. Policy differences aren’t impeachable offenses, and Mayorkas is primed to be acquitted by a Democratic-controlled Senate. The GOP is wasting taxpayer money and valuable time where they could be legislating.
-
2. House Resolution 1: Lower Energy Costs Act
This legislation looked to rollback a significant amount of Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided tax credits for renewable energy development in addition to uplifting marginalized communities. The “Lower Energy Costs Act” creates incentives for fossil fuel development including a moratorium on a fracking ban. Not only is this legislation a step entirely backwards, it had no chance of passing the Senate, making it a glorious waste of time for all involved. Sure, it made for good headlines, but it (thankfully) made no substantive change or even came close to becoming law. Another messaging bill for the ever-more-pathetic GOP.
-
3. Biden Border Bill
One of the more egregious Republican moves from the past year is the recent rejection of a deal with President Biden which would have given significant money to border patrol in hopes of stemming the flow of migrants at the Southern border. Realistically, this was the best deal that the GOP could have hoped for. However, President Trump has come out against this bill several times – causing the GOP to turn their backs on the deal brokered by President Biden and GOP leadership. Since then, each and every member of GOP leadership has come out against the bill – making it incredibly obvious that they intend to use the border as a campaign talking point.
-
4. Cutting Foreign Aid (Ukraine et al)
Another policy position that the GOP has leaned into the past year is cutting foreign aid, namely to allies like Ukraine and Israel. While Israel has had many accusations of wrongdoing come up at the UN and within international circles, Ukraine is still universally supported in their fight against Russia…except in the Republican party. The fight against Russia is one of the most vital in the world especially given Putin’s additional consolidation of power. It’s notable that many Democrats have also called for an end to aid for Israel – although for different reasons than Republicans. Republicans seem to be using each and every discussion regarding aid as a campaign chip, hoping they can prop up former President Trump to another unlikely victory.
-
5. Various Censure Votes on Jamaal Bowman, Rashida Tlaib, and Adam Schiff
Yet another waste of time from the House of Representatives, censure votes. The most ridiculous of these three was against Adam Schiff, who made many comments relating to former President Trump and Russia (which are all probably true). House Republicans felt offended that Schiff would bring up this association and felt it was grounds for censure. Schiff wore it as a badge of honor and it seems to be helping him in the race for Senate in CA, where he leads in all polls. The next censure motion was against Rashida Tlaib, who made comments defending Palestine. For what it’s worth, Tlaib is a Palestinian-American and clearly felt like nobody in Congress was defending her people or her homeland – but the vote including both Democrats and Republicans makes this one feel slightly less egregious. There have been several GOP lawmakers who have made statements in opposition to Israel and they haven’t been censured…The last censure was against Jamaal Bowman, who accidentally pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol building that ended up delaying a vote. Bowman claims that it was accidental, and by all accounts, video footage doesn’t make it seem pre-meditated. Either way, censure does absolutely nothing and is only used as a political weapon, so it was another waste of time to go about this.
In a year marked by intense partisan clashes and headline-grabbing controversies, the three worst GOP bills of recent memory have epitomized political theater at its most wasteful. From futile attempts to impeach cabinet members to misguided efforts to roll back progressive policies, these bills have not only squandered valuable legislative time but also highlighted the stark divisions within Congress. As lawmakers engage in futile gestures and symbolic condemnations, the real issues facing the American people remain unaddressed. We don’t expect anything different from the GOP this year, and our election predictions will show that the GOP won’t be the majority in the House for much longer.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
“Alexei’s Death is a Murder Organized by Putin…”
“Alexei’s Death is a Murder Organized by Putin…”
Foreign Policy Brief #122 | By: Yelena Korshunov| February 23, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.euronews.com
__________________________________
Alexei Navalny, a leading opponent of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, died in the Polar Wolf colony on February 16.
According to Russian officials, Navalny felt sick after a morning walk and “almost immediately” lost consciousness. Later, despite “all the necessary resuscitation measures” carried out by the ambulance team, Navalny was pronounced dead. However, some say Alexei’s death occurred earlier, on February 15, after he participated in a court hearing via video link. A prisoner of the Polar Wolf, on condition of anonymity, told the Russian European news portal “Novaya Gazeta Europe” that Navalny could have died later that day.
When employees of the colony accelerated the evening verification and strengthened security, “so that it was impossible to stick a nose out of the cell.” At the same time, “one could hear some cars driving into the zone three times late in the evening and at night.” The morning of February 16th began with a thorough search of the barracks, and already at 10 a.m. (8 a.m. Moscow time) rumors about Alexei’s death spread throughout the colony.
From statements by Navalny’s associates, we know that since February 14, he was kept in a punishment cell for yet another far-fetched reason, and it was the 27th time he was sent there.
Overall, Navalny spent almost 300 days within a punishment cell, leaving a blood-curdling description of the torture, “The solitary confinement cell is a 2.5 x 3 meter [8.2 x 9.8 ft.] concrete kennel. Most of the time it’s unbearable there because it’s cold and damp. There’s water on the floor. I got the beach version – it’s very hot and there’s almost no air. The window is tiny, and the walls are too thick for any air flow – even the cobwebs don’t move. There’s no ventilation. At night you lie there and feel like a fish on the shore. At 5 a.m. they take away your mattress and pillow and raise your bunk. At 9 p.m. the bunk is lowered again and the mattress is returned. There’s an iron table, an iron bench, a sink, a hole in the floor and two cameras on the ceiling.”
Navalny’s body was not released to his mother.
The colony stated that Navalny’s body was transported to the morgue in Salekhard [nearby city]. The politician’s mother and lawyer arrived at the morgue just to find it closed. They called the phone number on the door and were told that there was no Alexei Navalny’s body. Navalny’s press secretary Kira Yarmysh said that the Investigative Committee of Salekhard told the politician’s lawyer that the cause of Navalny’s death had not been established, “a repeat histological examination has been taken,” and the results of which will be known next week. There is a growing opinion in the press that Navalny’s body is not being given to loved ones in order to cover up the traces of the tortures and murder.
Russian authorities’ and world’s reaction to Navalny’s death.
Immediately after Navalny’s death was announced to the public it resonated throughout the continents. Protests took place all over the world for three days as a sign of solidarity with the oppositionist and his family. At least 360 protesters were detained in Russia. The widow of politician Yulia Navalnaya said that she would continue the work of her deceased husband and called on everyone to fight with her.
On Monday, February 19th, the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov told reporters that “the investigation is underway and all necessary actions in this regard are being carried out, but so far the results of this investigation have not been made public and, in fact, they are still unknown.” When asked whether the Kremlin was interested in conducting a thorough investigation into this matter, he replied: “The actions that are provided in accordance with Russian legislation are being carried out.” When Peskov was asked by journalists whether he knew when all procedures related to the release of Navalny’s body to relatives could be completed, he said “No, this is not a question for us. We are not involved in this matter. This is not the function of the presidential administration.”
Answering journalists’ question of what Vladimir Putin’s reaction was to Alexei’s death, Peskov said: “I have nothing to add to what has been said on this topic.” Peskov also clarified that the President of the Russian Federation has not yet publicly spoken out in connection with Navalny’s death. The Speaker of the State Duma [Russia’s Federal Assembly] Vyacheslav Volodin went further, shifting the blame to Washington and Brussels for Navalny’s death.
Thousands of people around the world pay tribute to Alexei Navalny, expressing condolences and support to his family, and blaming Putin for murdering his strong political opponent. Garry Kasparov, chess grandmaster, former World Chess Champion and opposition politician said, “Putin tried and failed to kill Navalny quickly and secretly with poison—and now he killed him slowly and in front of everyone in prison. He [Navalny] was killed for showing the world Putin and his mafia as the crooks and thieves that they are. My thoughts are with the wife and children of this brave man.”
Former US President Barack Obama has described Alexei Navalny as “a fearless advocate for his beliefs who died unbroken by the tyranny he opposed.”
Soviet dissident, former Russia’s political prisoner, and Israeli statesman Natan Sharansky said that “in fact, this is a monstrous torture. Out of 2.5 years [of imprisonment], a person [Navalny] was kept in a punishment cell for almost a year, which in my time was a real torture of hunger and cold. And judging by what he wrote to me, it’s the same today. Therefore, it is clear that he was, one might say, killed there every day. This is revenge, and fear, and the desire to strangle him and his voice. With his life and his death, he showed how to fight evil, uncompromisingly and to the end.”
Ilya Barabanov, special correspondent of the BBC Russian Service Today wrote, “I lost a friend whom I knew for almost 20 years, and millions of people in Russia lost hope for a normal future. Alexei’s ability to instill hope in people, even when he was already in a distant colony, was his amazing talent.”
Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez said he was “shocked by the news of the death in prison of Alexei Navalny, unjustly imprisoned by the Putin regime for defending human rights and democracy.”
President of France, Emmanuel Macron stated that “in today’s Russia, free spirits are sent to the Gulag and sentenced to death. I pay tribute to the memory of Alexei Navalny, his dedication, his courage.”
Former Russia’s State Duma deputy, Dmitry Gudkov shared his thoughts, “I cannot believe this. But if everything is confirmed, then Alexei’s death is a murder organized by Putin. Even if Alexei died from “natural” causes, they were caused by his poisoning and further prison torture. (His) blood is on Putin. One more in addition to the hundreds of thousands killed – also by him – in the war.”
Joe Biden stated that “Putin is responsible for Navalny’s Death”
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “This is terrible news. As the most ardent defender of Russian democracy, Alexei Navalny has demonstrated incredible courage throughout his life.”
When after being poisoned Navalny made a decision to return to Russia from his treatment in Germany, he should’ve known that he would be detained and that Putin would make another attempt to break him or take his life. Why did he return? Why didn’t he stay in Germany to lead his democratic political platform from abroad? This is how a journalist Andrei Loshak answered these questions, “Many people wrote throughout these three years: “Why did he return, what kind of idiocy, what kind of senseless self-sacrifice?” It’s just that people don’t understand who Alexey is. And for those who knew him, it was natural. You see him in life and understand this is a person that cannot do otherwise.”
Engagement Resources:
- Alexei Navalny’s Widow Voes to Continue his Fight for a Free Russia, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/alexei-navalnys-widow-vows-to-continue-his-fight-for-a-free-russia
- The Death of Alexei Navalny, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-death-of-alexei-navalny/
- In Navalny’s death, Putin cements a new era of Russian dictatorship, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/19/alexei-navalny-putin-rule-dictator-power-death/
- Official Website of Alexei Navalny (in Russian language), https://navalny.com/
Stay up-to-date with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Future of Quality Education Lies in the Past: How Liberal Arts Education Provides a Way Forward for Critical Thinking
The Future of Quality Education Lies in the Past:
How liberal arts education provides a way forward for critical thinking
Education Policy Brief #89 | By: Rudolph Lurz | February 22, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.manavrachna.edu.in
__________________________________
The early years of the third millennium were laser-focused on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. Under George W. Bush, the Spellings Commission reported how far the U.S. was falling behind in STEM fields. It recommended ways to close the gap, such as improving recruitment and retention of women in STEM. President Barack Obama called for 100,000 new math and science teachers and established a federal committee to focus on STEM issues. In 2009, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland established a commission on STEM education and created a plan to boost the number of STEM graduates from Maryland universities by 40%. As Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie established a fellowship program to attract new STEM teachers to New Jersey. The message from U.S. policy actors was clear. The country was falling behind economic rivals in STEM education, and measures were needed to improve American performance in these subjects.
Promotion of STEM education had a de facto effect of putting less emphasis on liberal arts subjects. STEM projects, as a result of these directives from state and federal policy actors, received priority over liberal arts projects in funding from colleges, state governments, and private foundations. However, direct antagonism against the liberal arts was rare. The liberal arts were being ignored, but at least they were not being attacked.
That changed early in the 2010s. The tone from policy actors became much more bellicose against liberal arts subjects. Florida was the epicenter of this antagonistic approach. In 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott noted, “If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs. Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.”
Proponents of STEM borrowed rhetoric from the Cold War-era Space Race. If the U.S. was falling behind in STEM, it was not only an education or economic issue; it was a national security issue. This approach created a zero-sum game between STEM and liberal arts disciplines. STEM had to be pushed ahead of the liberal arts to protect the country’s future, and directing any funding to the liberal arts was not only wasteful, it created vulnerabilities that could not be tolerated. In this inhospitable environment, dozens of liberal arts departments at colleges across the country were shut down or endured major budget cuts.
Over a decade after Rick Scott’s remarks, it appears that the focus on STEM education has paid dividends. Americans received 412,100 bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields in 2010. In 2018, that number was 669,600, an increase of 62%. In that same time period, degree growth in all other subjects was approximately 20%. In 2010, 52,900 professional or doctoral STEM degrees were earned by Americans. In 2018, that figure was 72,000, an increase of 36%. Women make up a majority of students at American medical schools, passing the 50% mark for the first time in 2017. President Obama’s foundation celebrated reaching his goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers in November, 2021.
These achievements in STEM did not come without a cost. Misinformation is rampant in this Information Age society. 16% of Americans believe that there is some truth to the QAnon conspiracy theory. The far-right movement reached its head when thousands of rioters stormed and desecrated the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Only 15% of American 8th graders scored proficient or above in history, and only 24% in civics. AI usage is rampant at U.S. high schools and universities.
The country has improved its standing in STEM education. However, neglecting liberal arts disciplines caused a detrimental impact on critical thinking skills and basic civics knowledge.
What good is proficiency in STEM if young Americans cannot tell the difference between conspiracy theories and valid evidence? How can STEM improve American society if young Americans cannot participate in basic elements of the American Republic?
Analysis
There is a common joke I hear in higher education policy circles. Focusing on theater and the fine arts without the liberal arts is how you get Batman villains. Focusing on STEM without the liberal arts is how you get Spiderman villains.
In recent education policy, there has been a movement toward STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, ARTS, and Mathematics) instead of STEM alone to foster innovation and technological proficiency. Going back to that old adage, if the United States does not combine a STEM approach with liberal arts instruction, we are heading for a society filled with both Batman and Spiderman villains.
I did my dissertation research on STEM and liberal arts policy in Florida. My research showed that it was unproductive and unnecessary to denigrate liberal arts disciplines to promote STEM projects. I also suggested that economic impact from state investment in higher education was not linear. Cold War, zero-sum rhetoric does not fit STEM education policy initiatives. STEM education is not a race to the moon with geopolitical implications. In reality, it is more like a gym. Many different approaches are possible to achieve success and growth. Policy actors should embrace the unpredictable nature of economic impact through education, and work on producing opportunistic communicators. These are folks who can recognize opportunities in the 21st century economy and communicate them effectively to varied groups of stakeholders.
There’s no need to beat up on psychology and anthropology to promote STEM subjects. It is not an either/or, zero-sum, Cold War fight. A recent report estimated that a majority of 2030’s jobs do not exist yet. Education institutions should not be job training centers for the jobs of the present. They should be incubators for molding minds capable of producing innovation in a rapidly-changing world.
Those are the types of skills taught in the liberal arts.
We’ve had this fight before. Colleges were told in the early 19th century that the liberal arts model was antiquated and should be replaced by one more suitable for the business needs of the time. The faculty of Yale College answered these critics with the Yale Report of 1828, which defended the traditional liberal arts curriculum. The authors state,
“From different quarters we have heard the suggestion that our colleges must be new-modeled; that they are not adapted to the spirit and wants of the age; that they will soon be deserted, unless they are better accommodated to the business character of the nation. At this point we have an important bearing upon the question immediately before the committee, we would ask their indulgence, while we attempt to explain, at some length, the nature and object of the present plan of education. The two great points to be gained in intellectual culture are the discipline and furniture of the mind; expanding its powers and storing it with knowledge” [emphasis authors’].
In a past article, I opined that such “furniture” also had a place in 21st century education. I discussed how disparate major/minor combinations, such as STEM or business majors with liberal or fine arts minors, were the best pathways to success both in the job market as well as elite graduate programs. Music and English majors are statistically more likely to be accepted into medical schools than biology or chemistry majors. The market demands doctors who can communicate and think creatively. It also demands citizens who can do the same.
The liberal arts today are in a better position than they were in 1828 or when Rick Scott ripped into anthropology in 2011. Policy actors on both sides of the aisle recognize that civic education and critical thinking are important. That is a good thing.
It is my firm belief that the true study of the liberal arts provides the answer to America’s education needs. Liberal arts disciplines seek out hard topics. The world itself is hard and uncomfortable. The place to learn how to approach spaces of contestation with civility and rationality is not the boardroom as a 30-year-old, but rather the classroom as a 13-year-old. It is ironic to me that the political party that claims to support freedom and liberty is so dead-set on controlling every aspect of education. The conservative policy actors who call progressives “snowflakes” are such delicate flowers that they refuse to allow discussions on contentious topics and seek to remove thousands of books from school libraries that even mention things like racism, slavery, or LGBTQ+ issues.
2030 will require a population of students who know how to think. It is our sovereign duty to give them that power. We must use the liberal arts strategies of the past to prepare students for the challenges ahead. If we fail, authoritarian policy actors will use the propaganda methods of the past to lead America’s future adults to a place that is not a functioning republic.
Engagement Resources:
- Spellings Commission Report of 2006: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493504.pdf
- Florida K-12 Civic Education Standards: https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18736/urlt/CivicsGovernment.pdf
Stay up-to-date with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Young Black Voters Lack Enthusiasm for Presidential Candidates
Young Black Voters Lack Enthusiasm for Presidential Candidates
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #124 | By: Abigail Hunt | February 22, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.cnn.com
__________________________________
Four years ago, voting records show, people of color (POC), particularly Black voters, used their voices to help elect President Joe Biden. In the years since, those voters have grown disillusioned. No one is excited about a match between two zombies, and that is what we’re facing with our 2024 presidential candidates. A rematch between two white walkers – Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
In an editorial by NPR, the Black voters, “under 35,” with whom they spoke said of the issues most concerning to them, primary among them was the cost of, and access to, education, including funding for historically Black colleges (HBCU), student loan forgiveness, and whether or not a candidate supports socialist programs and workers’ unions.
In 2016, Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders galvanized younger generations with his unwavering socialist spirit and whip-crack wit and intellect. In contrast, Trump and Biden are stodgy and wooden, with declining cognitive function. Tens of thousands of people turned out to see Bernie speak. People were excited to believe in someone. Then the Democratic National Convention got involved and forced Bernie out to get Hillary Clinton in – she won, but Trump took office anyway, and yet again, Democrats showed voters how little fight they had in them.
The two-party systems’ dogged dedication to preserving the status quo may have been a nail in its own coffin. The young Black voters who spoke with NPR say no one they know wants to vote. Voters too young to have been disillusioned by Bernie’s blackballing are old enough to remember Trump as President. For some of them, this election is exciting because it is the first in which they are old enough to vote. What 18-year-old gets excited about an elderly man who stumbles and fumbles his way through speeches and across stages? It is embarrassing on an international level that the two “best” options we have for President have a greater likelihood of dying in office just by existing – not because they’ll be in danger from assassins, but because they simply continue to grow older at an age when any wrong move could result in a spill that spells the end.
In late February, the New York case Trump faced came to conclusion, saddling Trump with a $355 million fine. Right after, Trump launched his own sneaker brand, where supporters can pre-order gold sneakers emblazoned with the American flag. I wish I was joking. https://gettrumpsneakers.com/ The sneakers sold out immediately, which sounds impressive. However, any information can be manipulated. If only 10 pair were produced, selling out is far less impressive in actual numbers. The premise of exclusivity is seductive for people, and the “sold out” aspect is likely to lure some into purchasing. Trump never seems to concern himself too much with what voters actually need. When he made an appearance at Philadelphia’s Sneaker Con to launch the shoe line, he was greeted with boos.
While a shoe show might at first seem an odd choice of location for Trump to make an appearance, Sneaker Con, like Trump, brands itself the greatest, specifically “The Greatest Sneaker Show on Earth.” There seems to be a harmony of self-aggrandizement, at least. It may be that Ye is his new political advisor; politicians have made worse choices (remember George W. Bush and Ted Haggard?). The choice of a sneaker line is a bit out of left field – is this Trump’s way of appealing to a younger demographic? Or, more likely, would it be an attempt to pay that hefty New York fine? The U.S. sneaker industry generated $22.3 billion in 2023.
If Biden wants to win over younger generations and bring them to the ballot box, he needs to give them something better than a gaudy gold shoe. Perhaps he needs them to have hope. Barack Obama campaigned on hope, and he won. Bernie was someone to believe in, a champion of the people. Biden’s promises to forgive student loan debt have only partially come to pass. Federal legalization of marijuana never manifested. The Democratic signpost arguments for universal healthcare and free college, so passionate and prevalent among Presidential candidates during the last election cycle, faded away. Maybe the best thing Biden and Trump could do for their parties is just that – fade back and give way to the voices of a younger generation.
Engagement Resources
- U.S. General Services Administration. Check Voter Registration and Guidelines in Your State. https://vote.gov/
- LinkedIn. Sneaker Market Research Report on Regional Size and Status 2023-2030. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sneaker-market-research-report-regional?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via
Remember to get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
Texas v. Biden Immigration Clash: Policy Standoff and Legal Implications
Texas v. Biden Immigration Clash: Policy Standoff and Legal Implications
Social Justice Policy Brief #156 | By: Arvind Salem| February 21, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.slate.com
__________________________________
With the recent impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, immigration has emerged as a main issue in the political landscape leading up to the 2024 election. Republicans have increasingly attacked President Biden for his perceived lax immigration policy, and Texas has decided to take immigration enforcement in their own hands.
This dispute has manifested in two main policies that have been recently brought to court: Wire Fencing and Texas SB 4. Texas strategically placed fencing on private property on a stretch of the Rio Grande River and is suing federal agents for attempting to remove that wire. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, allowed the federal agents to cut through that wire in enforcing federal immigration law.
Yet the higher profile of these two is Texas SB 4, which makes illegally entering Texas a state crime. This allows state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute illegal immigrants and allows state judges to deport migrants with no federal oversight. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, supported by 25 other Republican Governors, is attempting to restrict immigration through state law and trying to circumvent federal law by doing this, which he believes is justified as the level of illegal immigration constitutes an invasion that merits invoking the state’s right to self-defense.
Policy Analysis:
In terms of immigration, Biden has been extremely active, undertaking 535 immigration actions over his first three years, which is more than Trump in his four. Some of Biden’s key policies include taking in more refugees, with refugee admissions on pace to reach the highs of 30 years ago. However, there is still an undeniable problem at the Southern border, with many unauthorized immigrants attempting to enter the country.
To combat the problem, President Biden implemented policies that incentivized entering the United States through ports of entry (which makes migrants easier to process than if they enter through more irregular areas). The administration is also attempting to leverage partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean to disincentivize flooding the U.S.-Mexico border and instead encourage migrants to apply lawfully from their home country. This has been accomplished by opening Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs) opened in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala and run by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Yet, due to various global factors including wars, political instability, and pandemic-related economic downturns, the United States is an increasingly attractive option for many migrants, which is clearly reflected by the growing number of migrants attempting to gain entry into the United States. Therefore, immigration still remains as a key fault line in 2024 and an election-year vulnerability for President Biden.
Likely recognizing this, Biden and the Democratic Party as a whole have recently shifted to rhetoric mimicking Republicans, arguing that they too can be tough on the border when necessary, alienating many immigration activists that were pivotal in 2020, but picking up support among moderate voters. Democrat Tom Suozzi, who won the special election for the House of Representatives in NY-03 after Santos was removed, is an example of a Democrat having tough positions on border security that are traditionally more associated with Republicans. With Suozzi’s success, Democrats are likely making the political calculation that it is worth it to support tighter immigration policy, since concerns on the border are so widely held in the public as it seizes center stage in today’s political landscape.
Meanwhile, the fight that Texas is waging with the Biden administration on immigration policy likely has broader implications on the delicate balance between states and the federal government. In particular, if Texas is allowed to have its own set of laws on immigration, there is nothing stopping them from having their own set of policies in other areas. For example, it could pave the way for state overreach into other federal domains such as environmental regulation, which could create a dangerous patchwork of legislation.
Engagement Resources:
- FAIR: FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, is a nonpartisan, public-interest organization that seeks to evaluate policies and develop solutions to reduce the impact of excessive immigration on all facets of the nation including security, the economy, and healthcare. Readers who want to help further immigration reforms through a nonpartisan organization may be interested in contributing to this organization.
- American Immigration Council: The American Immigration Council works to ensure due process for all immigrants by increasing access to legal counsel for immigrants and using the legal system to ensure fair treatment for immigrants. The American Immigration Council also aims to educate the public and use communications strategies to spread awareness about the importance of immigrants to the United States. Readers who want to help more immigrants receive access to legal counsel regardless of the political climate may be interested in contributing to this organization.
- ACLU: The ACLU, the Americans Civil Liberties Union, is an organization that works to protect the freedoms of Americans across a wide range of issues, including voting rights, free speech, and racial justice. One of the issues they address is immigration, helping ensure that immigrants receive the legal protections that they are entitled to. Readers who want to help ensure that immigrants receive fundamental constitutional protections that they are entitled to may be interested in contributing to this organization.
Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
Why Can’t We Agree on Foreign Aid?
Why Can’t We Agree on Foreign Aid?
Foreign Policy Brief #121 | By: Arvind Salem| February 21, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.usatoday.com
__________________________________
With wars continuing to rage on in Ukraine and Gaza, the United States has continued to be largely uninvolved militarily in these conflicts. However, the US has funded both Ukraine and Israel to help them in their war. Negotiations surrounding the latest round of aid have been particularly contentious and offer a prime example of the much-maligned partisan gridlock that plagues the country. Despite the fact that there is considerable bipartisan support for priorities such as funding Ukraine and Israel, intransigent sections of both parties currently make a compromise impossible.
On February 13th, The Senate passed a $95 billion package covering foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and countering China. The largest chunk is going to Ukraine, with $60 billion out of the $95 billion, being allocated to help Ukraine. This includes help for its military, including through funding weapons and support services, as well as money to keep the government afloat and help Ukraine’s private sector. Another $14 billion is going to Israel, primarily to help their air and missile defenses. On the flip side, the legislation contains $9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians in war-torn areas: most prominently Gaza and the West Bank, but also covering Ukraine and other war zones. This occurs as many in Gaza lack basic necessities and are in desperate need of aid. Additionally, roughly $2 billion will go to deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific by replenishing weapons that the U.S. previously provided to Taiwan. While this package has passed the Senate, it faces an uphill battle in the House, as Speaker Mike Johnson is refusing to hold a vote on it due to its lack of border security provisions.
Policy Analysis:
This aid is much needed, especially in Ukraine, as at the end of 2023, the government had a $43 billion budget deficit. Since the start of 2024, The United States has been unable to give any aid to help Ukraine hold off against Russia, as any new foreign aid would require congressional approval. Republicans in control of the House primarily oppose the bill not because they disagree with its express provisions, but because it does not include sufficient funding for border security.
However, especially regarding Israel, this foreign aid bill has exposed tensions within the Democratic coalition surrounding U.S. policy towards Israel: especially between Progressive lawmakers that are less inclined to support Israel than their moderate counterparts. In the very possible situation that moderate Republicans join Democrats, as they did in the Senate, Progressive support wouldn’t be absolutely necessary to pass the bill. However, a lack of Progressive support, would complicate Democrat efforts to force the issue through a discharge petition, where legislation is essentially rammed through the House through a majority vote (218 members). Of course, Speaker Mike Johnson will be extremely reluctant to force the issue to a vote, as getting attacked by some moderates for inaction is a much better outcome for him than the very real possibility of him getting impeached by upsetting the conservative wing of the party that currently has him hostage. This means that for this bill to pass, enough moderates have to break away from the Republican party without the Speaker’s approval and join Moderate Democrats to pass this bill. This degree of political cooperation on such a high stakes issue today is extremely unlikely, but it is necessary to pass this bill to give Ukraine a fighting chance and protect U.S. interests abroad.
Engagement Resources:
- House Progressive Caucus; Readers who sympathize with Progressive objections to this bill may want to explore this site to learn about other Progressive causes.
- DCCC; Readers who are inclined to support the Democratic party and want to ensure that they have a clean majority in Congress next cycle, may be inclined to support this organization.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The Effort To Impeach Secretary Mayorkas
The Effort To Impeach Secretary Mayorkas
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #123 | By: Abigail Hunt | February 19, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.bloomberg.com
__________________________________
The political circus around Washington D.C. continues to bring new acts to the stage. Recently, House Republicans charged Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of U.S. Homeland Security, guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for his alleged mishandling of the border crisis.
Appointed to the position of Secretary of U.S. Homeland Security in 2021, 62-year-old Cuban national Mayorkas was previously Deputy Secretary of the same department from 2013-2016. From 2009-2013, Mayorkas was Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and prior to that, had a decades-long career in private law and law enforcement. His background in law enforcement, politics, and law, as well as his experience negotiating cyber security agreements, means that Mayorkas has the knowledge and experience to be well aware of whether or not he is breaking any laws. It is no shock to learn his trajectory began with employment as a federal prosecutor in California, as police, prosecutors, and politicians are birds of feather who flock together.
After this year, the most memorable thing about Mayorkas may be that he is one of only two Cabinet secretaries ever impeached. The last time it happened was in 1876. The reason for the outrage – Mayorkas is accused of failing to enforce immigration policies. Not enough migrants are being detained, Republicans complain. Republicans excoriate Mayorkas for a humanitarian parole program which they believe bypasses necessary security review requirements. Democrats are offended on Mayorkas’ behalf, dismissing the charges as a political stunt. The House voted in favor of impeachment 214 to 213.
There was no such discord in Congress in 1876 – William Belknap, War Secretary under President Ulysses S. Grant, was charged with blatant corruption, including kickback deals which netted Belknap more than $20,000 (a pretty penny in that day and age). Politicians on both sides generally believed that was a bad move (at least when expressing their public opinion on the matter). On March 2nd, Belknap resigned in tears, attempting to “dodge the bullet,” but he was impeached anyway by a tenacious House later the same day. The Senate ultimately acquitted him through its failure to secure a 2/3rds vote for removal.
The New York Times reports that Senate Democrats plan a swift dismissal of Mayorkas’ charges. Although the House voted for impeachment, they have yet to formally present articles of impeachment to the Senate; House managers should do so in, as they would say in 1876, a fortnight. The same Constitutional impeachment clause that allows for the removal of the President if found guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” would allow for the removal of Mayorkas as Secretary.
If Senate Democrats dismiss the charges against Mayorkas without trial or serious consideration, it is likely to stoke the fire of Republican fury through what they view to be a miscarriage of justice. In the unlikely event he is removed from his position, who would take his place in line as the next scapegoat to blame for the border fiasco? In a matter of weeks, we should know, or at least have a good indication of, which way the wind blows for Mayorkas. The last Secretary got away with money that would today be at least three-quarters of a million dollars. Mayorkas giving leniency to desperate Central and South American migrants who’ve just trekked thousands of miles, some with children and elderly, to request asylum at an openly hostile border seems less than mild by comparison. If only Mayorkas had stolen government funds to spend on private parties and lavish gifts rather than provide humanitarian aid to migrants in need, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Engagement Resources
- United States Senate. Impeachment Trial of Secretary of War William Belknap, 1876. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-belknap.htm
- Senate Looks to Quickly Reject Mayorkas Impeachment Charges in Speedy Trial https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/us/politics/mayorkas-impeachment-trial.html
- Constitution Annotated. Art II. S4.1 Overview of Impeachment Clause. Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1/ALDE_00000282/
Remember to get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
An Analysis of the Presidential Immunity Ruling By The Appeals Court
An Analysis of the Presidential Immunity Ruling By The Appeals Court
Civil Rights Policy Brief #219 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | February 16, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.newjerseymonitor.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary: On February 6, 2024, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling in the case United States of America v. Donald J. Trump. The opinion was issued as a per curiam opinion which signals that the three judges are unified behind the decision with no separate concurring or dissenting opinions discussing an alternative reading of the case.
The opinion from the court as an appeal from a trial proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia before Judge Tonya Chutkan. After the House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack completed its investigation, it referred the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution. On August 1, 2023, a federal grand jury approved an indictment of four criminal charges against Mr. Trump relating to his interference in the case. As the case proceeded, Mr. Trump’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case because they believed that the former President had immunity from prosecution. Judge Tonya Chutkan rejected the motion and the former President, and his team filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a ruling on their presidential immunity claim. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: This ruling is significant because it forcefully pushes back on the contentions made by the former President about his actions inciting the Jan. 6 riot and declares that no President is above the law.
Former President Trump made three significant contentions as to why he should enjoy presidential immunity from prosecution, and each was dismissed by the appeals court. First, he claimed that without presidential immunity that subsequent presidents would be hesitant to perform their duties as president for fear of possibly facing charges after they leave office. Second, he also claims that immunity should apply to him because he was performing “official duties.” And lastly, he claimed that he could not be prosecuted because he must first have been impeached and convicted by the Senate.
Former President Trump’s first claim was easily dismissed by the court which did not find it credible that a President (or any of his advisors) would temper their remarks for fear of a lawsuit after the end of a president’s term. Additionally, the court cited historical examples where Presidents understood that presidential immunity did not extend to a former President after leaving office. President Gerald Ford granted a pardon to former President Richard Nixon for crimes connected to Watergate which implied that President Nixon could have faced criminal charges. And President Clinton accepted a fine and a temporary loss of his law license in exchange for no filing of criminal charges against him for actions he took while in office connected to the Monica Lewinsky affair. These incidents provide a historical basis that presidents do not enjoy immunity after leaving office and that presidents are not necessarily cowed, or “chilled,” in performing their duties. Presidents can be held accountable for their actions in office.
As to the claim by President Trump that he should have presidential immunity because he was performing “official duties” on Jan. 6th., the appeals court rejected this theory, too. This claim by Mr. Trump is one of the most extreme contentions made as much of the evidence on that day – videos on Jan. 6th, statements, and actions – shows a President trying to undermine the structures and procedures of our republican form of government. The President, under the Constitution, has no role in the counting and certifying of a nation – wide election and so it is difficult to conceive that Mr. Trump was performing “official duties” that day. Congress had their constitutionally designated role and yet Mr. Trump tried to intimidate Members of Congress into not certifying an election because he did not agree with the result. It is inconceivable that Mr. Trump would have presidential immunity when his actions were so clearly outside the bounds – and likely illegal – of what an ordinary President would have done.
Finally, Mr. Trump’s final contention appeared to be a Hail Mary attempt to throw any argument out there and see if it would stick. Mr. Trump was impeached (the second impeachment of his term) for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. However, he was not convicted. The Senate voted 57 – 43 to convict which was short of the 67 (two thirds of the Senate chamber) votes required for a conviction. However, a reading of the text of the Impeachment Judgment Clause shows why Mr. Trump was never going to prevail with this argument. The Clause provides:
“[j]udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The Constitution itself declares that an indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment are all still available. For Mr. Trump to say that he needs to be convicted in an impeachment trial first twists the language of the clause into something that likely was not intended. If a person can be subject to the criminal process after a conviction, then surely a person can be subject to criminal proceedings if he is not convicted. The appeals court rightfully rejected Trump’s claim under this constitutional clause.
Now that the presidential immunity issue for Mr. Trump has been rejected and settled, trial on his federal election interference case is set to continue before Judge Chutkan. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- PBS – news video from news site explaining implications of ruling.
- Protect Democracy – non – profit group’s webpage giving background on the presidential immunity doctrine.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Remember to get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
A Guide to Third (3rd) Party Candidates
A Guide to Third (3rd) Party Candidates
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #122 | By: Courtney Denning | February 16, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.bet.com
__________________________________
Duverger’s Law states that political systems which only elect one leader will only have two main parties. This is the case in the United States, where most voters pick between the Democratic or Republican candidates for single seats, whether they be in Congress, the Presidency, or local positions.
Despite this prominent dichotomy, independent and third party politicians have a long history of impactful campaigns even though they rarely win. Many people attribute independent Ross Perot with Bush’s loss in 1992. Then in 2000, Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate, likely taking votes away from Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, a popular environmentalist.
Because of the controversiality of both the Democratic and Republican frontrunners in the 2024 presidential elections, many voters are looking towards a third option.
Analysis:
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr originally announced his run for the presidency as part of the Democratic primary, but withdrew and registered as an independent candidate in October of 2023. His campaign slogan capitalizes his position as a third party choice, saying “Declare Your Independence.”
Currently, the only way to have your name appear on the ballot is to be tied to a political party, and independent candidates must be written in by voters. Kennedy is currently working to create his own political party, “We the People,” in order to more easily get on ballots across the country.
Chase Oliver is a member of the Libertarian Party who is running for president. In 2022, he ran for Senate in Georgia against Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker, garnering enough votes to require a run-off election.
Like Kennedy, Oliver is advocating for structural changes to the voting process that would allow third party candidates to be more viable, strongly backing Ranked Choice Voting.
Jill Stein, of the Green Party, played an important role in the 2016 election and is running for president once again. Some supporters of Hillary Clinton believe that Stein is the reason Trump won the presidency, splitting the progressive vote.
Stein has described her campaign as offering “a choice for the people outside the failed two-party system.”
Cornel West is running for president independently of any political party. He describes the current political system as a “corporate duopoly” and has a spreadsheet on his campaign website detailing his path to getting his name on the ballot.
West feels that we are currently in a “moral bankruptcy” as a nation. His campaign centers around the poor and working classes, claiming that they can only be truly helped from outside of the two party system.
Because of our current political system, it is unlikely that any of these candidates will get the votes needed to become president. However, they each represent a growing dissatisfaction with the two-party system and rising efforts to change it. Like past elections, a large push towards one of these candidates has the potential to change which of the major parties’ candidates ultimately win.
Engagement Resources:
- https://www.kennedy24.com/ballot-access
- https://www.votechaseoliver.com/
- https://www.jillstein2024.com/
- https://www.cornelwest2024.com/petitioning_launch
Want to learn more about the 2024 Election Candidates? Visit usrenewnews.org/2024election for more info and articles. Remember to get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
Ceasefire Resolutions Roil Local and National Politics
Ceasefire Resolutions Roil Local and National Politics
Foreign Policy Brief #120 | By: Mindy Spatt| February 08, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.kqed.org
__________________________________
Advocates for a Ceasefire in Gaza in the US are taking their demands to local legislative bodies and facing fierce pushback even in liberal enclaves like San Francisco. While the impact of these resolutions on the war is questionable, there’s no question that they will have an impact on upcoming elections and some politician’s political futures in local, state and national races, all the way up to the presidency.
Analysis
Even in a city with as rich a history of activism as San Francisco, the numbers that turned out at City Hall to either support or oppose a resolution calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza were unusual. The few hundred seats in the Board of Supervisors’ chambers quickly filled up, and the line of people who wanted to speak during public comment stretched all around the Hall’s massive rotunda. The vast majority of them were in favor of Supervisor Dean Preston’s Ceasefire resolution, but opponents of the measure also spoke passionately. Early in the debate some Supervisors questioned whether the matter was appropriate for their consideration or was too far afield for city government, but it quickly became clear that for many residents of San Francisco including Zionists, Jews, Palestinian-Americans and Health Care workers, the conflict was deeply personal and having an enormous impact on their families, friends and colleagues.
Before the final vote on a revised resolution offered by Board President Aaron Peskin that won passage 8-3, Supervisors on both sides of the debate noted that the thousands of calls, emails and visits from constituents about the issue were unprecedented. But the vote wasn’t the end of the debate by a long shot. Mayor London Breed publicly condemned the resolution, perhaps because opponents were pressuring her to attempt a veto, which she didn’t do. The issue appears to be dividing the gay community especially. The Castro District is represented by one of the supervisors that opposed the resolution and by a state Senator, Scott Weiner, who criticized a mass Ceasefire demonstration at the state capitol earlier in the month. Both of them are gay and traditionally supported by the gay community, but they risk losing that support as many in the LGBTQ community are speaking out against the war and expressing solidarity with Palestinians. Two recent marches in the Castro District sponsored by activist groups Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT) and Gay Shame attracted thousands of people.
The controversy has moved to the City’s influential and left leaning Harvey Milk Club, which recently rescinded its endorsement of President Biden for the primary only, a move criticized by Senator Weiner. But across the country Biden’s unwillingness to call for a Ceasefire, stop the flow of arms to Israel or demand an end to the mass casualties and destruction is alienating young people, people of color and progressives, all important voting blocks for Biden.
Even Vice President Kamala Harris, back home in the Bay for a an event in San Jose highlighting to administration’s efforts to protect abortion rights, drew Ceasefire protestors. President Biden has been met by protestors on the campaign trail as well, including in South Carolina during a speech at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston and in Michigan, a swing state with a large Arab American community
As more cities join the call for a Ceasefire and decisions by the World Court and a Federal District Court in Oakland agree that what is taking place in Gaza is genocide, the political pressure on Biden is increasing. That may have been what prompted him to issue an executive order on February 1 sanctioning 4 West Bank settlers, which is unlikely to placate any Ceasefire advocates.
Engagement Resources:
- Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism: Quitpalestine.org
- Gay Shame: “We work collectively outside boring and deceptive non-profit models to fight white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, cops, settler-colonialism and all forms of domination.” https://gayshame.net
- These US cities have called for a cease-fire in Gaza, Lauren Irwin, Jan. 25, 2024, The Hill
- U.S. Court Concludes Israel’s Assault on Gaza Is Plausible Case of Genocide, Jan. 31, 2024, Oakland, CA
- ‘Vice President Kamala Harris returns to Northern California to a divided Democratic Party,’ By Jenevieve Hatch, Feb, 01, 2024, Sacramento Bee
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.