What it means to be progressive?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Child_laborer
The reason to be a progressive…

A while back, Mark Gray and Bob Plain were discussing the word “progressive (while discussing Sam Howard’s piece here) and neither seemed sure of how to define the term. (Since then, Andrew Tillett-Saks took a stab at defining the term here.) Bob suggested the term had something to do with supporting “bottom up” Keynesian economics and later suggested that progressives should seek to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Mark seemed to indicate that the term was essentially meaningless and suggested the word “liberal” be reclaimed. As a Humanist, I found this exchange interesting, because at its core, Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life based in reason, compassion, optimism, courage and action, so the term “progressive” is at the core of my beliefs in a very basic way.

Simply put, progressives advocate for social reform. Working from the core value of compassion, progressives see the expansion of human and civil rights as important goals and work to advance the well being of all humans. Built into progressive ideals is an optimism about the necessity of human beings coming together to solve the larger issues confronting our world. When done correctly, progressivism is not Utopian fantasy, because progressives should be pragmatists, grounded in the real world.

Mark and Bob indicated in their podcast that being a pragmatic progressive is akin to being a compassionate conservative. They were riffing off statements made by House Speaker Gordon Fox and State Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who both referred to themselves as pragmatists. However, Raimondo and Fox were not talking about pragmatism as an approach to values decisions but as an approach to political realities, akin to Kissinger’s realpolitik. The statements by Fox and Raimondo indicated a willingness to abandon progressive values when politically expedient, rather than adopting a pragmatic approach towards executing progressive values.

Pragmatically executing progressive values requires science and reason, rather than cultural prejudices and tradition, as the best tools with which to better society. Science and reason are not in and of themselves the goal of progressives, they are the tools progressives use to create a better, more just and more compassionate society. Progressives are led by their compassion to enable the best possible social reform by using the best possible tools.

So what does this all mean in real world terms? Going back to Bob Plain’s idea that progressives advance the ideas of Keynesian economics, for instance, we can see that it’s not a belief in Keynesian economics that makes one a progressive, it’s a belief in compassion,  reason and science that brings one to view that Keynesian economics is currently the best contender as an economic theory around which to organize a capitalist economic system. As to whether capitalism is the best way to organize our economy, that’s a discussion for another time, but here I will note that if capitalism cannot be properly tamed by Keynesian proscriptions, it is not worth the misery it causes and should be abandoned.

Progressives value democracy. Recognizing that all human beings have inherent worth and dignity means that all human beings should have some say in how our society should be arranged. Progressives believe that democracy and universal enfranchisement, limited by a commitment to the widest possible understanding of human rights, is our best method of ensuring our fidelity to the goal of protecting and enhancing human wellbeing.

Bob and Mark felt that support of organized labor was a sticking point for some progressives. Just as all progressives should be in favor of democracy, so should all progressives be in favor of unions. Unions are simply groups of people advocating for the best deal possible in their workplace under a capitalist economic system. Unions at their best are democratically run, and work to better the well being of workers/people. The right of people to peaceably assemble and collectively bargain is as absolute and essential as any right there is.

Progressives and others would be right to take issue with the way some unions behave in the real world, just as they are right to take issue with the way some democracies behave in the real world. One can stand up for democracy and be opposed to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo or support unions without supporting corruption. However, progressives should not be opposed to unions on philosophical grounds. If you accept that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you have to accept the right of people to unionize. If you deny that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you should hang up your “progressive” hat for good, because you are denying basic human rights, democracy and the advancement of human well being in favor of monied interests, plutocracy and economic ideology.

Education is another issue that bedevils progressives. Right now there is a concerted effort to wrest public education from government control (and in our democracy that means wresting it from the control of the citizens) and putting it under the auspices of private industry or religious institutions. Both of these options should be anathema to progressives. If there is truly something deeply wrong with the public education system in the United States (and that seems unclear to me, though I am by no means an expert in this area) then it falls to the public to correct that issue.

Turning over control of our schools to private, for-profit industry, in the hopes that business models will be more effective at finding educational solutions, treats our children as commodities, which is the very opposite of treating our children as worthy human beings. Furthermore, the idea that businesses, operating under the grinding Darwinism of the free market, will do a better job educating our children flies in the face of what business is truly about.  Businesses are not about delivering better products, businesses are about maximizing profits. Look at the world around us. Most cars are not high performance Teslas, and most cellphones are not state of the art iPhones. Education by free market will produce some exceptionally high quality educations but will mostly churn out sub-par, assembly line, cookie cutter educations designed to meet minimum standards. Again, this treats our youth as commodities.

Vouchers, which would give parents money allotments that would allow them to send their children to private and parochial schools, are also contrary to progressive values. The money handed out would be siphoned away from already underfunded and struggling public school systems and channeled to educational environments that may well stand in direct opposition to the values of democracy, human rights and human wellbeing. Private educational institutions are under no obligation to teach students in accordance with the values of a free and open society.

Some private schools may deny the fundamental principles of reason and science by rejecting evolutionary science education, and others may reject universal human rights by denying the existence of women’s and LGBTQ rights. More extreme schools of thought cannot be excluded from public funding through vouchers. Private schools could just as easily deny the roundness of the earth or the humanity of non-whites.

Progressives believe that our society should be under no obligation to fund, in any way whatsoever, ideas that fly in the face of compassion, reason and human rights. Though we recognize that in a pluralistic society such ideas do exist, and understand that some parents and guardians will make the decision to pull their children from public schools in order to send their children to a private institution or home school, our commitment should be to making our public schools the best they can be, using the best ideas and most recent scientific studies to ground our work in reality, not helping to fund those that would tear down our society based on religious or ideological beliefs.

The root of the word “progressive” is “progress.” Progressives need to look beyond current issues and current events and keep one eye on the future. Progressives should imagine the kind of world this could be, and work to get there. Being a progressive in the 1930s did not necessarily include being passionate about LGBTQ rights. But by the 1980s that’s exactly what it meant. Today’s seemingly minor issue could become the great civil rights battle of fifty years from now. There should be no shame in advocating today what will only seem like common sense in the future. Nor should there be shame in giving due consideration to ideas that are outside our experience or seem somewhat wacky. Many things we take for granted today would seem unbelievable to people who existed a century or even fifty years ago. If progressives remember to use compassion, tempered by reason, optimism and the council of others, we will not go too far astray.

One final note on what it means to be a progressive, particularly in Rhode Island, as regards religious and other concerns of conscience. Democracy and a concern for the value of all human beings necessitates a secular, non-religious government. This is as essential to being a progressive as anything else I’ve mentioned. Our private beliefs can be as varied and imaginative as we desire, but the space in which we must all interact, that is, the government and its institutions, needs to be free of religion and dogma, so that all people feel free to express themselves fully. Public, government sponsored religion and prayers, even if deemed ceremonial and traditional, fly in the face of inclusion. The prayer that opens a legislative session or the Christmas Tree displayed in the State House privileges and legitimizes one set of beliefs over another. In this light justice and equality seem a revokable gift of the ruling class, rather than basic and guaranteed human rights.

Being a progressive is deeply meaningful, and progressives should know that they are following a proud tradition of advancing human rights, human well being, and institutional fairness. Progressives have a history of making the world a better place, and I am proud to work in that tradition.

RIPDA hosts Drinking Liberally tonight


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

drinking liberally2 copyThe monthly meet up at the Wild Colonial for liberals, lefties, progressives and anyone else thirsty for some political pals to share a pint with is being hosted tonight by the Progressive Democrats of Rhode Island.

This from the group’s Facebook invite (with directions):

Drink away the cold and get ready for what is bound to be a busy and exciting year with your friends at Providence Drinking Liberally! We’re happy to have the RI Progressive Democrats as co-hosts of this month’s event. RI PDA will be speaking about their current initiatives and action groups, and Regulate RI will be making a guest appearance to fill us in on the latest in marijuana reform. Join us and catch up with your favorite liberals while enjoying some free snacks courtesy of RI PDA!

The new Raimondomania


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Gina Raimondo
General Treasurer Gina Raimondo (D)

On Monday, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo kicked off her campaign to be the Democratic nominee for governor by announcing a broad platform. Among them, rebuilding public school buildings, an assault weapons ban along with tougher gun control, college loan forgiveness, raising the minimum wage and indexing it with cost-of-living-adjustments, providing universal pre-K, allowing undocumented workers access to drivers’ licenses, utilizing social impact bonds to fight poverty and social problems, and holding Wall St. accountable.

Had it been announced by any other candidate it would’ve been hailed as the most progressive platform laid out by a RI gubernatorial candidate in a generation.

Even the campaign of Mayor Angel Taveras, who is running for governor in the same primary, didn’t fault it. When asked by The Providence Journal if they disagreed with a single point, Taveras’ campaign manager replied, “no.”

But progressives didn’t hail it as a high-watermark in years of their organizing and work. As architect of the 2011 pension cuts that wreaked havoc on public sector employees in the midst of Rhode Island’s stalled “recovery” from the recession, the general treasurer still has light-years to go to win back the unanimous left-wing support she enjoyed when she waltzed to victory in 2010. Since ushering pension cuts through the General Assembly, the treasurer has remained remarkably out of sight with the exception of a few financial literacy courses and support for payday lending reform. The effective use of the bully pulpit that she displayed in 2011 was noticeably lacking in 2012 and 2013. Her most high-profile media appearances have been to defend pension cuts or argue for the repayment of the moral obligation bonds secured for the 38 Studios fiasco (another of the many dark clouds that hang over Rhode Island politics).

The 2011 pension cuts have been characterized by national critics such as Ted Siedle and Matt Taibbi as a Wall St. cash-grab, and so local progressives seized upon the under-the-radar concept of social impact bonds (SIBs) to tie the treasurer more closely to Wall St. Longtime fiscal policy observer Tom Sgouros asked in his evaluation of the concept whether Raimondo intended “to promote the public good, or sell it?”

Social impact bonds are easy to tar and feather. First, they contain the word “bond” and Rhode Islanders have seen a string of negative implications of what happens when bondholders come looking for money. The reality is that the treasurer used language out of step with the U.S. federal government. The Feds have used the more accurate “pay-for-success contract” to describe the concept. If the bond doesn’t produce success, there’s no payment from the government; which is why this is attractive to governments. The risk falls on the private investor, rather than the public purse. And unlike the 38 studios bonds, if a SIB fails to register satisfactory results, investors don’t get their money back. They lose it.

Second, their pedigree includes Goldman Sachs. Yes, the investment bank was a major backer of an initiative by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to use the bonds to reduce recidivism among 16-18 year olds leaving Rikers Island. But the concept was initially begun at HMP Peterborough in the U.K. There the backing was from a collection of philanthropies rather than an investment bank. Other U.S. attempts have used a blend of charity and private funding. The left-leaning Roosevelt Institute suggested that SIBs “have the potential to be an important tool in the poverty-fighting arsenal.” Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government even has a guide for state and local governments on how to manage SIBs.

Third, the concept has been so low-key in Rhode Island that even our paper of record, The Providence Journal, suggested that Raimondo “had introduced a new concept to Rhode Island’s political lexicon.” In reality, the idea had been consigned to business reporting until Raimondo mentioned it Monday. Rhode Island’s very own Social Enterprise Ecosystem Economic Development (SEEED) has been exploring SIBs already (and bringing them to the attention of both Raimondo and Governor Lincoln Chafee). Master’s students at Brown’s Taubman Center also researched the concept focusing on recidividism.

So it’s neither a bond (at least not as we’ve become accustomed to them in Rhode Island), nor created by Goldman Sachs, nor a concept unique to the treasurer and her venture capital background. We may be entering a new Raimondomania. Whatever comes out of the treasurer’s mouth is instantly controversial. You can count on the media to cover it, and you can count on progressives to denounce it if they’re not familiar with it; usually with the words “Wall Street” to boot.

Yes, the treasurer is deserving of tough criticism. She’s repeatedly made it clear that our contract with the workers who built our state is less important than our contracts with bondholders who were already insured against losses. She made a previously backwater office a major part of the political landscape, achieved a stunning legislative success, and then squandered the next two years by not vociferously pushing the progressive agenda she was elected on. All of the treasurer’s platform ideas could’ve been pushed for and passed in the General Assembly throughout her current term. She rarely lent her weight to these causes. And there’s no EngageRI to provide muscle to rebuild public school buildings or offer college-loan forgiveness.

But the progressive response to Raimondo’s progressive platform is typical of the left-wing infighting that all too often prevents success. Instead of achieving the 99% of things they agree upon, the left will slaughter one another over the remaining 1%, stymieing progress and allowing conservatives to win policy changes they needn’t have.

Social impact bonds are a prime example of this. Yes, the optimal outcome would be for the state to invest in the solutions and save itself the maximum amount of money possible, to be reinvested elsewhere. However, our state legislators have proven unwilling to do the heavy lifting themselves, preferring instead to look towards business for solutions. Social impact bonds aren’t ideal, but they’re better than doing nothing. If they fail to work, they cost the state nothing. Most importantly, they achieve the progressive goal of helping people immediately rather than in some fantastical future when progressives control both chambers of the General Assembly and the governor’s office and are able to pass their agenda without resistance. Perhaps social impact bonds will be the kick that makes our legislators realize they could just save all this money instead of passing a share of the savings on to private investors.

There is a very real possibility that Raimondo will win the primary and then go on to being the first elected Democratic governor since Bruce Sundlun. Should that come to pass, progressives will have a duty to fight Raimondo if and when her agenda damages the economic health of our state and hurts our people. But when a Governor Raimondo’s agenda aligns neatly with the progressive agenda, then it’s time to applaud and support it. If progressives can’t recognize that even the most controversial part of Raimondo’s platform moves Rhode Island closer to alleviating societal ills then how can they lay claim to being the champions of the downtrodden and dispossessed?

Blame Gina Raimondo? Not So Fast, Progressives


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Raimondo speaks with retiree
Image courtesy New York Times

Regular readers of the blog know that Treasurer Raimondo has become a lightening-rod for criticism of the state’s recent changes to the public employee pension system.

As a tactic, I’ll admit it’s a good one, simultaneously riling up the base and drawing media attention to the union and retiree’s position. It’s also the first salvo in what’s bound to be a contentious Democratic primary for the Governor’s office. But is the General Treasurer actually at fault? Consider the duties of the office.

Duties
The General Treasurer receives and disburses all state funds, issues general obligation notes and bonds, manages the investment of state funds and oversees the retirement system for state employees, teachers and some municipal employees. She is also responsible for the management of the Unclaimed Property Division, the Crime Victim Compensation Program and the state-sponsored CollegeBoundfund.

Noticeably absent is any mention of negotiating union contracts. That’s simply not her job. What critics would have you believe is that Treasurer Raimondo should have essentially “gone rogue” and usurped the Governor’s duties and possibly those of the General Assembly. L’état, c’est Gina? I’m not convinced. This blog has even gone so far as to suggest that the General Treasurer should be more concerned with “main street” than with the state’s investments and bond rating.

I’ve been a fairly consistent Raimondo supporter, but I was also present at last year’s State House protest adding my voice to the position that the plan asked too much of the neediest pension recipients. In fact I agree, as Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Healthcare Professionals president Frank Flynn put it, that it’s “not a simple math problem as some people describe it.”  But that isn’t the job of the General Treasurer. For a treasurer, it is a math problem, and we shouldn’t expect otherwise.

And Raimondo spent an inordinate amount of time speaking with voters, union members, and retirees throughout the state before making her proposal. Oddly that’s what now seems to rile opponents. As Paul Valletta, the head of the Cranston fire fighters’ union said, “It isn’t the money, it’s the way she went about it.”

I’m not sure what else she could have done. Valletta is essentially complaining that the General Treasurer acted within the duties of the General Treasurer. That’s what we as taxpayers pay her to do! If the unions and retirees are unhappy with the absence of a formerly negotiated outcome, let’s be honest. It’s the Governor, not the General Treasurer, who’s to blame.

I’ve also been concerned that many progressives seem intent on framing the General Treasurer as some union hating, right-wing ideologue. It’s not a fair characterization given that we know little yet about what priorities Raimondo would bring to the Governor’s office, and what we do know is largely in line with progressive priorities (a social liberal who believes in marriage equality and respects the rights of immigrants). During the Carcieri years, we’d have been thrilled with a candidate with progressive credentials a fraction of hers. Yes, she has been at the forefront of a pension reform movement heralded largely by the fringe right. But to assume that makes her one of the fringe right, ignores how seriously underfunded the pensions have been here in Rhode Island. It’s quite a different thing to enact reform out of a sense of obligation than to do so because of an ideological desire to eliminate them entirely.

Ms. Raimondo also learned early on about economic forces at work in her state. When she was in sixth grade, the Bulova watch factory, where her father worked, shut its doors. He was forced to retire early, on a sharply reduced pension; he then juggled part-time jobs.

“You can’t let people think that something’s going to be there if it’s not,” Ms. Raimondo said in an interview in her office in the pillared Statehouse, atop a hill in Providence. No one should be blindsided, she said. If pensions are in trouble, it’s better to deliver the news and give people time to make other plans.

How much easier it would have been, how much less detrimental to her political future (at least with the progressives of the state) to simply enact some changes around the margins and kick the can down the road for someone else to address (historical the way most pols have handled the problem). Should we as progressives be critical of the Raimondo plan? Absolutely, but let’s not shoot down a potential rising star before she’s even had a chance to announce her platform.

Kos: Inside the Mind of Markos Moulitsas


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There are many dark and mysterious places on this planet.  I assume they would also exist throughout the universe although I can’t be sure because when I bought my telescope as a kid, I assumed heavenly bodies meant those found in the house across the street.

Anyway, many would find at least some of these places interesting to visit or at least read about, others, maybe not so much.  For example, there is no shortage of people who would find Netroots Nation a dark and mysterious place, better left alone, mocked, and avoided at all costs, while others flock to it in the hope of creating a better world.

I’m not talking about the men’s room at the Rhode Island Convention Center that ran out of toilet paper during this year‘s Netroots Convention, although the two of us sitting in adjacent stalls asking if we could each “spare a square” were convinced we were in some special exhibit allowing us to act out being in a sitcom.

When it comes to dark, mysterious places where one treads with great care, one candidate might be the mind of Markos Molitsas, founder and editor of the Daily Kos, the first significant, often controversial progressive blog,  and principal promoter of Netroots Nation, the annual conference that brings progressives together to learn, network, and build an infrastructure to fight for progressive candidates and policies, and battle the evil Republicans (and sometimes, Democrats).  Netroots, in case you have been hibernating the last few years, refers to political campaigning and advocacy via online technology (I.e. email, websites, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblir, Mumbler, Bumbler, Fuckster,  and too many others to name), as opposed to say grassroots (campaigning on grass) and cementroots (campaigning on sidewalks or campaigning for the mob, I‘m not sure which). Not sure if campaigning by phone is phoneroots or teleroots.

I asked Markos (often found holding court at his booth and taking pictures with attendees) on convention day 1 if I could interview him at some point and he was kind enough to do a 40 minute interview the next day, shocking for me since most people’s reaction when I ask is to run away or claim they would prefer to schedule a dentist appointment. So, without further or due, let’s bring you inside the mind of Markos Moulitsas and let you decide if it’s a place you dare to tread or embrace with open arms.

AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A KEY PLAYER IN THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE MAJOR PROBLEMS FACING THE MOVEMENT AND HOW WILL THE CONFERENCE HELP ADDRESS THEM?

Markos: Nothing will ever get solved without growing a broad base of action and support and evangelizing the broader American public and electorate.  Conservatives have spent decades building an infrastructure that allows them to develop a message, sell that message and get that message passed into legislation by various legislative bodies at the state, local and federal level. They’ve been doing this for decades – we’re looking ahead to the next election,  constantly recreating the wheel. We need to continue building those institutions and organizations that do exactly what conservatives do.

Like I said, it’s creating a message, selling that message, and trying to get that message passed into legislation. Right now I’ve got to say the most effective at this in recent years has been the gay rights movement, the equality movement. They’ve been able to take something like gay marriage that had been considered pie in the sky just a decade ago. If you remember in 2004 when Howard Dean was running for President, he was considered too liberal because civil unions had passed in Vermont. Now civil unions are considered like weak sauce, now it’s all about gay marriage and gay marriage is now the majority position with the American public. In a matter of 8 years that’s insane among a movement about what is a very divisive social issue. So it can be done, it is done,  so we have to learn those lessons and bond those lessons to the movement at large.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS?

Markos:  Obviously each problem has its own solutions, but broadly speaking, it really comes down to creating the ability to, the foundation to be able to first, identify the problem, then craft the solutions. But as liberals we’re good at that, we always have solutions, we’re policy wonks. I don’t mean me, but broader people. If you want to talk about programs and solving the problem, pull out the pie charts, statistics, and spreadsheets, its all fantastic and makes a lot of sense at the intellectual level. We’ve done poorly at the emotional, gut level. That’s how you sell things. Coke and Pepsi,  they don’t sell things by showing you things like the ingredient list,  and saying everything’s great. You craft a campaign that speaks to lifestyle that hits at an emotional level. That’s how you get people to drink Coke and Pepsi.

Conservatives are very good at this,  such as the inheritance tax, calling it a death tax. The ability to take issues, sometimes complex ones,  and boil them down to two word, three word sound bytes. And as much as we’d like to scoff at that, it’s ridiculous and no one is going to buy it, people do because it’s easy to grasp, built on repetition, and they build a media machine that can blast it out and reach the  entirety of the movement within a week. We have 30 million Rush Limbaugh weekly viewers that basically hit 30-40% or the Republican electorate on a weekly basis and there is nothing remotely comparable to that on the left.

IF YOU COULD GO UP TO GOVERNMENT CENTRAL AND CHANGE ANYTHING, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?

Number 1 is  getting rid of the filibuster because you are creating a democratic Senate.  To me, I’m less concerned about individual policy solutions. You want to get to the liberal problem so if you are going to talk about specific policy solutions we don’t have the mechanism to implement them so it’s almost pointless because we are not capable. So you create a Senate that is first of all, democratic, where majority rules and if Republicans grab control of the Senate, well good for them.

That’s what democracy is. I may not like it, but the people have spoken.  I’m not going to be offended, I’m going to work like hell to  make sure the next Senate looks a little different but if someone wins the Senate, they should be able to legislate. It’s just that simple. And we don’t have that so we don’t have accountability. We don’t even have visibility who is influencing legislation. There’s got to be transparency. To me, before we get into the issues or specific policy solutions, I’d be looking at creating a government that is transparent, it’s demonstrative, it’s democratic, and responsive to the will of the voters.

2. If I could waive the magic wand, it would be a Constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United. The effect of the money is pernicious but even before that, before a Constitutional amendment, if we can’t get 60 votes, we’re not going to get 67 votes in either chamber of Congress. So what do we do? We have to disclose that so if you are going to drop in millions of dollars, you should disclose who you are, you shouldn’t be able to hide because we don’t know if there is foreign money involved. You don’t know. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant. It doesn’t always work that way, I’d rather not have to disinfect in the first place, I’d rather have a clean kitchen that we wouldn’t have to clean up but since we don’t have that choice right now because of Citizens United, let’s at least find out who’s putting money into the election and make sure it’s legitimate money, not illegal foreign money. It’s not going to fix the problem, but there are plenty of billionaires like Sheldon Adelson who don’t care about anonymity but a lot of them do. If you want freedom of speech, I need to see you.

THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THIS CONFERENCE ABOUT DEMOCRATS NOT ACTING DEMOCRATIC. HOW IS THAT?

Markos:  It’s a long term problem. The conservative movement really kicked off in 1964 when Barry Goldwater lost. Now we’re 50 years later and they are still cleaning house.  So we look at this, here’s the problem. The modern progressive movement really kicked off in 2002 and 2003. We won in 2006 and 2008 and everyone thought well that was good.  Exactly, we rocked it. The problem was that we didn’t win because we reached parity with other institutions, we won because George Bush was the worst President ever.  So now the reality starts to set in, they get their shit together and they came back in 2010 and in 2012 it’s going to be a lot closer than it should be by all rights.

To me it’s a bunch of influences, some democrats aren’t acting democratic.  Immigration might be a big issue and they may be anti-immigration. I’ll hate them.

ARE THEY AGAINST ILLEGAL OR ALL IMMIGRATION?

They’re against the Dream Act or against comprehensive immigration reform. I’ll hate them for it, but to me that’s not a solid Democrat, someone who has taken populist principles and filtered them out, because of Wall Street money. The Delaware delegation was bought and paid for by special interests. There’s a lot of them, a lot of the small state guys get bought out easy.    So the issue is they started the movement in 1964, they didn’t win the White House until 1980 so you’re looking at 16 years. They didn’t win the Congress until 1994, and they’re still trying to clean house – they’ve gone off the deep end trying to clean house but they’re still engaged in that process.

We started in 2002, so 10 years in we’re in our first decade and we’ve made some progress. We have Al Franken, we have Sherrod Brown and Barbara Boxer was around already but she’s now solidified. We have the first nuggets of a better progressive Democratic Party but most of the Democrats have been entrenched for decades and slowly and gradually we’re going to clean house and clean it up but for the conservatives, they are in year 50 of purifying the party, cleaning it up, making it more ideologically and we’re just in year 10 so we’re way behind on a timeline. We can’t expect everything to happen overnight.

HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM FOR PROGRESSIVES ARE THE PENSION ISSUES THAT ARE FOREFRONT AND CENTER?

Markos: To me, the unions are one of the last bastions of the middle class. They haven’t been decimated by corporate America and they are in the process of being eliminated, systematically eliminated by a group of people who want to hoard capitalism for themselves so unions make it harder to do that.

WHAT ABOUT PENSIONS BEING TOO HIGH, TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THOSE WHO NEED IT, AND HURTING CREDIBILITY?

They are negotiated, it’s called a deal. It might be a tough sell. Being a teacher is a shitty job. One of the few perks you have is a pension.  If you are working with my kids, you should be paid a lot more and you should be rewarded. If you want to pay them more for a smaller pension, do that.

WHAT ABOUT THE IMPACT ON CITIES AND TOWNS?

We have had recessions in the past. What you do is go in the red, then invest, then eventually you grow out of it. It’s the exact opposite of what’s happening in Europe and exact opposite of what’s been done here. You don’t cut back because you don’t grow when you cut jobs. Henry Ford wanted to cut wages, I mean this is one of the legends. Henry Ford’s like why are we paying people so much and the answer is who do you think is going to buy your cars.  You have a system of people who want to slash and cut and by losing jobs by cutting the budget, you are eliminating the jobs and potential economic engine and growth that will allow us to get out of the red.

HOW ABOUT A PERCEPTION PROBLEM? A MEMBER OF THE SHEET METAL’S UNION WHO WAS IN WISCONSIN SAID UNIONS HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PERCEPTION THEY ARE OUT FOR THEMSELVES FIRST

Absolutely, this goes back to the ability the of the right to sell their message. We don’t even have the ability to craft the message. They create the message they sell the message and they implement the policy. We can’t even agree on what the message is. much less sell it. That is a perception. it is amazing in fact, how much non union people supported collective bargaining the way they have even though it has been demonized the way it has. So people inherently understand that when you make a bargain or make a deal, you keep the deal, conservatives have done a fantastic job, they are all about keeping the bargain when it’s benefiting their own

YOU SEE THIS PRIMARILY AS A MARKETING PROBLEM?

Yeah, messaging and marketing, you can’t market without a message.

WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE PRESIDENT OBAMA?

Barack Obama did a lot when he was running for re-election. He talked about bringing the country together, mending the division. Everyone talked about that. George Bush talked about that but nobody means it. He actually believed it and meant it and it was a detriment. It’s one thing if you try to change the tone and you have an opposition that is willing to compromise and work with you but from day one they wanted to destroy Obama. Mitch McConnell said we wanted to destroy Barack Obama.  So you have people who from the start are out to destroy you.

You cannot negotiate with people who are political terrorists who are out to destroy you. No negotiation.

Some millionaire and billionaire liberal donors had Grover Norquist speak to them, I’m not sure why, but they kept saying what if we gave you this, would you then agree on raising taxes, and he said no. But what about this, no. Finally he says, you guys don’t get it. There is no negotiation, it’s no. It will not happen. And they were still like, but what if, and that’s liberals. We want to come together when you have an opposition that’s out to destroy you,

SO LIBERALS SHOULD BE THE SAME AS THE TEA PARTY – NO COMPROMISE?

How can you negotiate with political terrorists? Yes. Absolutely. How do you bring down terrorists? You degrade their capability, you fight fire with fire.  When they run up against a wall and aren’t getting anything they want, because you are actually winning a war of ideas;  we rammed through the health care bill that we all wanted. I’m not talking single payer, I’m talking about the public options, which preserves the existing system that creates a government funded competition, We surrender, and surrender and surrender and when we still didn’t get a republican vote, we passed the bill with all the surrenders in it. We pull back and pass the original bill. Fine, you don’t want to negotiate, what’s the incentive to negotiate when we concede time and time again, and then if we manage to get something through, it’s the concessions.

DO YOU THINK PRESIDENT OBAMA GETS THAT NOW?

I don’t know if he gets it. My advice to him would be, you can’t concede to bullies, terrorists is too loaded a term, bullies, political bullies, you cannot concede to them when they are punching you. You’ve got to fight back.  You fight back, you make them cry uncle, and that’s when they come to the table. If they don’t come to the table, what’s the loss because they are not at the table already.  They are not going to work with you, they don’t like you. They think you are illegitimate, they don’t even think you are an American, much less think you have American values. How can you negotiate with them, it has been a failure.
To me, it was very telling that at the debt limit battle last year, when Obama kept caving and caving in to Boehner and they kept moving the goal posts well, we’ll do it if you do this, the Obama people  and his supporters online  kept saying we should be the grownups in the room. First we learned that being the grownup in the room wasn’t worth anything in 2010. That was the lowest point in Obama’s poll numbers because he looked weak. People don’t want someone who’s constantly, you know, it’s like the battered wife syndrome, they’re beating the shit out of him and he kept going back for more – it was embarrassing, so now he obviously  struck  a more strident tone but even now, when he’s supposed to be in rally-the-base-mode and the base is going to vote for him, they may do some work for him, but it’s not 2008.

WILL THE YOUTH COME OUT FOR HIM?

They’ve seen him absolutely cave in to Republicans time and time again. They don’t like the Republicans. It’s not like the Republicans are picking it up. So how are they going to get excited about the guy? In fact, they always talk about that maybe in the lame duck session, after the election, well that’s really going to motivate people to come out and vote.

WHAT’S YOUR MESSAGE TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

You need to recognize that you have an opposition that is out to destroy you.  Until you re-opt in kind, if they stand down, it’s just like any war, right.  You fight, maybe you hold your ground, may be you make some advances, that’s when they sue for peace. They aren’t going to sue for peace when you are on the defensive and retreating. They should. They are smart. We are not.

It would be political malpractice for them to negotiate with the Democrats right now, given our track record and ability to hold the ground on anything, we haven’t held the ground on anything. It’s embarrassing. Social Security should be the most basic — we should be treating it like Grover Norquist treats taxes, it’s non negotiable, it ain’t going to be on the table.

ANY MESSAGE TO THE UNIONS?

The unions know what their problems are. It’s a perception problem.  Republicans have been trying to legislate them out of existence. This is systematic. The Republicans are trying to legislate them out of existence just like they are trying to legislate trial lawyers out of existence.  They are looking at systematically hitting at every targeted constituency of the party — not just funding — they’re going after democratic constituencies. If they were Republican voters, we wouldn’t even be having this debate.

ARE DEMOCRATIC COMMENTATORS SAYING WISCONSIN WAS PRIMARILY BEING OUTSPENT, HELPING OR HURTING?

The reality is we were outspent 20 to 1. That was a big cause. Wisconsin was a procedural issue. 10% right off the bat said most don’t agree with recall no matter what, and many were progressive, good government types.

WAS IT A MISTAKE TO DO IT?

No, you always fight. You show fight. I think it was a mistake for Obama not to show up. How does he expect people to fight for him when he won’t fight for them?

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PROGRESSIVE MAYORS SUCH AS ANGEL TAVARES THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH UNION PENSIONS OR THEIR COMMUNITIES FACE BANKRUPTCY OR OTHER FINANCIAL PROBLEMS?

Not familiar with local issues. It’s just not in my realm of expertise. I’m an elections guy.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE  COMING OUT OF NETROOTS?

To me the best thing I’ve gotten out of this conference, is — because I don’t get to go to the sessions, it’s just I’ve given up trying. I used to get disappointed every year. Finally i realized I don’t get disappointed if I don’t get the expectations. A Reporter talked to me and said, the Boston Phoenix guy, what’s amazing at this conference and kind of surprised me is that the sessions that deal with practical organizing and how to wage politics, as opposed to how bad things are — those sessions are packed. People aren’t coming here to be fed red meat, they are sold. They don’t need to be told how terrible the Republicans are or about the economy, this or that.  They want to know exactly what they are going to do about it.

To me, that’s the message here. We are all here collectively building infrastructure. We all have little corners. Every booth here has a little corner of this progressive movement and are all doing their part to build the machinery Republicans  have spent generations building, we’re ten years in, we’re still getting started, we’re not even teenagers yet, but

HOW DOES TODAY COMPARE WITH WHAT YOU INITIALLY ENVISIONED?

For one, I didn’t start this thing. Daily Kos media members started it. I get a lot of credit for this. It’s amazing when we started this in Vegas in 2006, a couple of unions came in as sponsors  and we, the Netroots types, would look at them and go those are the dinosaurs that brought us to where we are today. And they would look at us as oh, a bunch of dorks with keyboards, they’re going to change the world. What are they going to do, hit George Bush on their head with their laptop. And it was such disrespect, distrust and dismissal.

And now, it’s — We may disagree on a race, but generally speaking, they know exactly what we bring to the table, we know exactly what they bring to the table. It’s all valuable, we know where we belong, we know where we fit, we’re a broader ecosystem, no dork on a computer is ever going to change the world, no labor organizer on the ground is ever going to change the world, collectively we’re going to be much better so every year the bonds grow tighter, the movement grows, we have a lot of great organizations filling in niches that haven’t been filled, and so for me, part of this conference is the activists learning the tools of the trade and part of it is all the networking that goes on between all these organizations that forges those bonds.

As long as I’m coming here, I’m meeting with other organizations who are figuring out ways because my role in this ecosystem is we amplify, we’re a megaphone. So we’re not issue based, but we’re movement based, so how can we help these organizations fill their mission how can we amplify and how can we help people get involved with what they are doing and their campaigns. So people here can talk all the policy in the world but I’m about how to get these people together and educated in the tools of the trade to wage effective activism in the 21st century.

Before we took the House and the Senate, people would ask what’s your position on this issue and I would say who cares. We’re in the minority. Let’s get the majority and I’ll point you to people who know about those issues. I’m not a policy guy, I’ve got my hands full working on the organizing.

WHAT DO YOU SEE GOING FORWARD?

Ultimately it comes down to building those institutions and building a mass movement. People always used to say things like how will Daily Kos and Netroots Nation, you’re just preaching to the choir. Absolutely, and if that was a bad thing, there would be no need for churches to exist. The first thing you do to build that movement is you build this church, the church of politics. And you use that to find your fellow travelers and come together as a congregation and learn and educate each other. But that’s just the first step. No church survives as its own little self.  You have to spread out, you have to evangelize.

We’re at the phase now of building this congregation but we also have to be more aggressive in marketing and sending that message out, to the broader American electorate and parts of the movement. The gay marriage movement has been absolutely steller, the amount of movement we have seen on gay marriage in just the last decade is like nothing we’ve ever seen.

On any divisive social issue, there are lessons to be learned there from each other so we can replicate those successes through other parts of the movement.

WHEN YOU WRITE, HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU WITH WHAT YOU WRITE – DO YOU THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BEFORE SENDING IT OUT THERE? ARE YOU BACK ON MSNBC YET?

Laughing – I’m not very careful at all and it gets me in trouble all the time. Am I back on MSNBC, no I’m not. Joe Scarborough reached out to me and wants to meet with me next time I’m in New York. (Markos made a comment regarding Scarborough’s dead intern issue – Google it if you don‘t know what I‘m referring to.)

Part of my brand is that I was the first person to write about John Testa in any publication in 2005, much less 2006. We were one of his biggest fundraising sources for his primary, we helped get him through the primary, we helped raise a lot of money through the general election,  John Testa is somebody who without the Netroots, probably would not be Senator.  Then last year he voted against the Dream Act which is sort of a core principle. You don’t punish kids. That’s the number one rule of anybody, on any issue, you don’t punish kids.

I emailed his Chief of Staff and said to him will you send John this message — tell him fuck you.  Someone who wants to play the inside game isn’t going to do that. I’m not going to do that, it’s total bullshit.  People know what they are getting with me. They know there’s no bullshit involved. I’m not playing any games, it is what it is.  For people that like it, great. For people that don’t like it great.  It makes my life more difficult a lot of times, but…

HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE PERCEPTION THAT YOU ARE JUST COMING FROM THE LEFT. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT TRYING TO ATTRACT THE MIDDLE?

To me, that whole argument that there’s a big center is absolute bullshit, I just don’t buy it. People lean Democrat or Republican. The people who are persuadable are those not paying attention to politics, and I’m not going to reach them anyway.  They’re watching American Idol, I’m not going to reach them.

People are swinging back and forth not because they are ideologically pliable, but because they don’t pay attention.  The people who pay attention even vaguely are going to lean one way or another, even if they say they are independent. A lot of people in the tea party crowd say they are independent yet they are more likely to vote Republican than self identified Republicans. A lot of people who don’t like the Democrats but because they are weak and spineless say they are independents. But they are going to vote Democratic because the alternative is Republican.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO MAY NOT VOTE?

If they are not going to vote, then they aren’t part of the equation at this point.  I don’t worry about the middle because every time you get America to the left, as you did in 08, the radical middle doesn’t exit. A recent poll asked asked if Romney or Obama was too liberal, middle or conservative. Three percent think Romney or Obama are too liberal. A national poll with 3% margin of error. I don’t give a shit about those guys, it’s not going to be an issue for me.  Even if they existed, I’m the church, this is where we come for the true activists, people who are fighting hard, to improve our country. The Daily Kos is where people come to connect, get educated, and find out how we can help and how we can get active to reach those goals.

It’s the politician’ job to try to reach the middle. In 2010 you had a perfect example. You had the example of a party who had zero intention of reaching the middle, swinging so hard right that Lynn Bennet got ousted and Orin Hatch is fighting to survive under serious assault and he won big.

People said this will show how extreme Republicans are, it’s going to activate them, motivate their base to be active. Since our side didn’t react, we ran away from the tea party, it deactivated our side. The appropriate response would have been to fight back, fight fire with fire,  and instead of running away from them, had our politicians stood strong, we probably would have seen a very different 2010. Independents didn’t swing that election, it’s that they voted, we did not.

In Wisconsin, they had a better turnout than we did compared to 2008 where it was whoever turned out. It was impacted by some factors such as being in the summer and summer school was out, we had 80,000 less youth votes which could have swung the election because school was out. Tactically, there were tactical errors.  There is also those saying recall not acceptable. People really voted against the concept of the recall.

WAS IT WORTH IT TO TAKE BACK THE SENATE?

People kept saying the Senate was not going to meet again but they would have been called into special session had they won. Basically we just shut it down. With Scott Walker as Governor, it was probably a good thing.

HOW DO YOU RECOMMEND PEOPLE GETTING INVOLVED IN THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT?

The whole concept of Netroots is what is Netroots. It was originally identified with blogging and is a word invented by a very good friend and blogging partner to mean waging politics online. In the old days, it was email and blogging. Today it’s Twitter, Facebook, just talk to people in a circle. I can go on TV and talk to 150,000 or 500,000 – I don’t know what ratings are, but I don’t make the same connection each individual makes with their professional circle. You are more influential with your 20 friends than I ever will be with 500,000 people.

So use your tools that you have to talk to your network. Use Twitter, Facebook is obviously a good place to talk about activism, everyone is on Facebook except me. I am but not really. And if blogging is your thing, then just blog or use Tumblir.

There are different levels, if nothing else talk to your circle, then get involved with organizations dealing with issues you care about, whether it’s the Sierra Club or join a bigger blog like the Daily Kos,  you can do that if that’s your thing. I’ve never wanted to start the Daily Kos as a solution because it’s not, it’s a broad movement so whether its working with unions to try to organize or working with local labor, work with local democratic parties, or take them over if they’re not doing anything. Run for office. Gradually move up levels of activity. The number 1 thing you can do is become an evangelist to your local social circle.

CONCLUSION

So there ya go.  Thanks to Markos for taking the time to enlighten us about what he and Netroots Nation  are all about. There is little doubt that through efforts such as Netroots Nation and other political activities, Markos and the new progressive movement are having at least some influence on the political process.  It will be especially interesting to see what the long term impact will be including electing progressive candidates and passing progressive legislation. Will they achieve victories here and there,  make a significant lasting impact, or pretty much be a non-issue?

Few will deny the Tea Party is having at least somewhat of an impact on the political process today.    But some, including Republicans, think their hard line, no compromise positions and sometimes extremist tendencies might doom their long term impact and/or hurt the Republican Party. Might the same happen to the progressive movement if they adopt a similar approach?

It’s tough to argue with the fact that many Democrats and progressives need to go to marketing or PR school.  It seems like only yesterday when, when asked by Republicans whether they support the troops or want to win the Iraq war, they responded as if asked to describe the creation of the universe or the Taco Bell menu.  Today, some Democrats seem to have taken a side job, becoming marketing reps for Chick Fil-A,  and when President Obama tried to make the statement about the importance of government assistance with building infrastructure in many success stories, it seemed as if he consulted with Republican PR specialists to say it in the worst way possible.  Right now, Democrats are struggling with how to answer the what is apparently the exceedingly difficult question of whether people are better off today than 4 years ago. You can tell it’s a difficult question when you notice administration officials taking a deep swallow and making a contorted face before answering, even before you have to listen to the often ridiculous, mumbling, inconsistent answers.

But if they pay attention at marketing school (assuming it’s a decent school) they’ll hear the point that your message isn’t just what you decide to develop or communicate. The strongest, often unintentional messages being delivered often result from what you say or do in the course of everyday activities, such as fighting against public employee pension reform.  According to one union rep working in Wisconsin during that recent election and participating in a Rhode Island led workshop, and several others who spoke to me off the record, the ongoing exposure of public employee pensions and their impact on state and local governments, in addition to efforts to fight pension reform, are sending the message that public employee unions are out for themselves and their members more than the others they claim to support.  Some of this concern comes from within the progressive movement, including private sector union members, who see the problem at best, as a major PR problem and at worst, a policy issue that needs to be addressed.  In either case, many feel it’s negatively impacting on the ability to  help the poor, middle class, women, children and seniors, pass progressive legislation, including increased taxes on the rich, and elect Democrats or progressives.

And while there are certainly Democrats bought and paid for by evil special interests, as we have seen with gay marriage, voter ID, illegal immigration, health care reform and other progressive issues, progressives are sometimes all over the place as to where they stand, and the extent they are willing to fight for or even publicly support them. Is it a mistake to think that the problems are mostly about marketing and message or that those not having certain positions or that are moderates or swing voters should not be considered progressives or ignored.

No matter which side of the political or ideological spectrum you are on, or if you think politics is little more than great or not so great entertainment, the one thing for sure is that it will be interesting to watch how this plays out and who the ultimate winners and losers are – not so much the politicians, special interests, or consultants but, lest we forget the main objective here – the rest of the public.

It’s a Showdown in CD1


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
(via Wikipedia)

Elections didn’t used to be this way in Rhode Island. If you ran for federal office and won, you were pretty much guaranteed an unassailable position from which to plot your next step in life; be that a higher federal office, a cabinet position, retirement, or death. In fact, for roughly three out of four of our federal officers, that’s still pretty much the case. But our newest addition to our federal delegation isn’t finding it so easy.

Yes, the latest news out of WPRI’s pollster Fleming & Associates is that incumbent U.S. Representative David Cicilline has a 4.3% lead among likely primary voters over challenger Anthony Gemma, with 19.9% of voters undecided. Rep. Cicilline triumphed with a 14.1% lead over Mr. Gemma and slightly larger leads over David Segal and Bill Lynch in 2010; a year that had older voters motivated in a right-wing backlash against Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

The poll ultimately shows that Rep. Cicilline draws strong support from 18-39 year-olds, and has an advantage among female voters. It also shows that according to voters, his apology hasn’t had much impact or made them less likely to vote for him. However, the key issue that 45.7% of voters cared about was “Economy/Jobs”. “Providence Finances” came in fifth at 7.3%, behind “Best Chance to Win in November” (7.9%), “Experience” (11.3%) and “Character” (23.8%).

The good news for Rep. Cicilline is that his job approval ratings are higher among primary voters than the general electorate; in February, just 19.6% of registered voters said that Rep. Cicilline’s job performance was “Excellent” or “Good”. Among likely primary voters, that number is 32.1%. Not stunning, but not terrible either. And since 33.8% of voters rank his performance as “Fair” (whatever that means), there’s a cushion there.

The other good news, one that cuts both ways, is that Anthony Gemma remains an unknown quantity to most primary voters, 45.4% said they didn’t know enough to give him a favorability rating. Among those who did, 37.7% ranked him as “Very” or “Somewhat Favorable”. WPRI’s Joe Fleming points out that this allows Mr. Gemma to build himself up, or alternatively, allows Rep. Cicilline to tear him down.

Anthony GemmaMr. Gemma Trying To Ride Two Horses At Once

Mr. Gemma has had some serious issues already. Beyond the initial SNAFU when his announcement devolved into him abandoning it in an attempt to avoid the press, Mr. Gemma has been embroiled in trouble over whether he’d be a sore loser if he fails to triumph in the primary in September; and lingering questions of just how committed he is to the Democratic Party. After a meeting with the Democratic City and Town Committee Chairs Association, Mr. Gemma was blasted by Tiverton Democratic Town Committee chair Mike Burk, who claimed that Mr. Gemma would mount an independent campaign if he lost. Portsmouth Democratic Town Committee chair says that Mr. Gemma said he’d merely write his own name in.

But beyond the he-said, he-said of that particular exchange, Mr. Burk also claimed that Mr. Gemma’s 2012 campaign was reminiscent of his 2010 campaign, which sounded more like he was running for governor than for U.S. representative. Indeed, he’s promised 10,000 jobs to Rhode Island, a claim which sounds far-fetched even if he was running for governor, much less a junior representative in a party likely to be in the minority in the 113th Congress.

Also undercutting him is a problem of insincerity. Having claimed to be the progressive in the race, Mr. Gemma comes from a strong business background, one that was cited for 32 labor violations. He did not vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary (one of the closest presidential primary races in recent history), and only affiliated as a Democrat prior to his first run in 2010. He also has said that he is anti-abortion, but would not vote against a woman’s right to choose. Which doesn’t signal strong convictions more than it signals a willingness to do what’s necessary to get elected; a criticism Mr. Gemma has lobbed against Rep. Cicilline on more than one occasion.

Brendan Doherty Lies Waiting in the General

Regardless of which Democrat wins, they’ll run up against Republican Brendan Doherty. Between a WPRI Newsmakers interview where he came out in favor of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire and a recent statement that he favored the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall to separate commercial and investment banks, Mr. Doherty now has an economic policy far to the left of many Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. It should be noted he also has said he favors “right to work” legislation and that Rep. Cicilline has signed onto a bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall and supports ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning more thant $250,000 a year.

But Mr. Doherty’s statement on Glass-Steagall (repealed in the early 1990s under the neoliberal bonanza of the Clinton presidency) raises the specter of accusations during his primary campaign that he was merely a Republican-in-name-only, something which is not helped by Mr. Doherty also having a lead among unionized workers versus Rep. Cicilline in the last poll in which they were matched.

If the economy remains the number one issue for voters, Rhode Island’s Congressional District 1 may have a thunderous battle over economic policies that tilt towards the left if Mr. Cicilline makes it through. On the other hand, Democratic primary voters may face a more traditional interventionist vs. laissez-faire economic debate.

It used to be that federal office in Rhode Island was a secure perch. But even if Mr. Cicilline fails to survive this, his successor, imperfect as the leading two candidates for it are, may face a similar struggle in 2014.

Organize for Equality


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

UPDATE: This training has been postponed and will be rescheduled for a later date. More information to come…

It’s getting close to crunch time in the General Assembly and we’re about to turn up the heat.

In order to continue being as effective as we can be, we need your help. And so I’m inviting you to take part in MERI’s first ever “Organizing for Equality” training on Saturday, May 5, 2012 where we’ll bring together some top notch politicos to teach you everything you need to know about how to motivate our state representatives and senators in support of the Equality Agenda.

This training is free and open to all equality supporters. No experience is necessary. All you need is an open mind and the willingness to work towards creating change. We’ll show you how to do the rest.

Here’s some of the things we’ll discuss:
Legislative briefings on our Equality Agenda: The Equal Access to Marriage Act,
The Equal Access to Family Court Act, and The Equal Religious Protection Act
Navigating the State House: Talking to your legislator about supporting marriage equality and the entire Equality Agenda
Being an effective online organizer: Using social media and how to write a winning email
The Ground Game: How to run phone bank and door knocking efforts in your neighborhood
The 2012 Elections: What you can do to support pro-equality candidates (of any party) to the General Assembly
Registration is from 8:30 to 9:00 am and we expect to wrap up around 2:00. Light breakfast fare and a box lunch will be provided. The Organizing for Equality Training will be held at the offices of SEIU Local 1199 (294 West Exchange Street, Providence, RI).

It comes down to this: we need an army of equality supporters to step up and help us do what needs to be done to win marriage equality. If you’ve ever felt frustrated by slow progress, or by Smith Hill politicians who are out of touch, and you want to do something about it, then this training is for you.

New Leaders Council Hosts Progressive Meet Up


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The New Leaders Council is hosting a networking event for Rhode Island progressives on Friday, May 11 at the Alibi Cafe in downtown Providence.

According to its website, the NLC “works to train and support the progressive political entrepreneurs of tomorrow — trendsetters, elected officials and civically-engaged leaders in business and industry who will shape the landscape.”

Here’s their press release on the event:

Join progressive individuals and organizations from all over Rhode Island for an evening of networking and inspiring conversation about the bright future of progressive leadership in the Ocean State. The New Leaders Council – Rhode Island will host this networking event on Friday, May 11th from 5 to 8PM at the Alibi Cafe.

Connect with fellow progressives, learn about the good works of a few youth organizations (including Riverzedge Arts Project and Young Voices), and hear about the New Leaders Council, a non-partisan progressive leadership institute, all while eating and drinking delightful victuals from Amos House’s More than a Meal and Alibi Cafe.

Our keynote speakers are John McDaid, hyperlocal progressive blogger from Portsmouth and Woonsocket Police Chief and New Leaders Council, Rhode Island board member, Thomas Carey. To join the event, please register at: new.lc/newleaderssummit; or show up on the 11th. Tickets are $20 ($10 for students). Friday, May 11th from 5 to 8PM at the Alibi Cafe, 18 Bassett St., Providence.

To learn more about the New Leaders Council, please visit: http://newleaderscouncil.org/.

Political Parties Should Invite Voters into Process


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The 2008 Democratic National Convention

In case you hadn’t heard, 3% of potential voters turned out in Rhode Island’s presidential primary on April 24th. Rhode Island runs open primaries, where unaffiliated voters can temporarily affiliate on primary day with the party of their choice, so virtually every voter but those registered as Moderates had the ability to vote. The two primaries were different affairs, though, so each has their own issues.

On the Democratic side, only Barack Obama was available (or no one/write-in). But all the available delegates were pledged to Obama. This means that all delegates were going to vote for Obama anyways. So in this case, why care who goes? Since 1968, Democrats have ensured that they wouldn’t ever have to face the chaos of a brokered convention again, de-emphasizing the importance of the delegates.

On the Republican side, the math has essentially made Mitt Romney the victor this primary season. Though Ron Paul managed to pick up some delegates, even RI GOP chair Mark Zaccaria was worried at the low turnout.

It appears to me that the parties are facing a lack of enthusiasm, though RI Tea Party founder Colleen Conley assures me on Twitter that the Tea Party (not really a political party) will crush the Democrats in November. I’m skeptical.

There’s not much to get excited about this election season. My college broke out into a spontaneous celebration in November 2008, and I remember thinking, finally, we won. Now that just seems naive. Neither base can be truly energized when it’s essentially to go vote against someone. We need to want to vote for something.

I think part of the problem is that parties aren’t really distinct parties anymore. If you register as a Democrat, are you actually involved in the Democrats? Do you get to set the platform of your local party? Do you elect the party leadership? Do you decide who will become Speaker of the House if they’re in the majority? Of course not. Only two types of people make those decisions in a modern American political party; party apparatchiks and political candidates.

So when you register as a Democrat, you’re not actually a member of the Democratic Party, you are a voter affiliated with the Democratic Party. Yes, you can select its candidates (a privilege made less relative by open primaries), but you’re essentially powerless over the operations of the party. This is why organizations like the Progressive Democrats of America exist, to counteract the party establishment. This is also why some states have moved towards the jungle primary, essentially making parties vestigial organs.

Parties don’t have to be organized like this. It would be perfectly possible to make a political party function as a democratic organization; where the chair and the leadership are elected by all of the party’s members. The same thing could happen for legislative delegations; the Rhode Island Democrats could be allowed to select who they want to be Speaker of the House or President of the Senate in an election, choosing between candidates from among the Democratic representatives and senators. Party platforms could likewise be suggested and voted upon by party members in the same way a ballot question appears; “would you like the Democratic Party to include in its values a commitment to the equal rights of LGBTQ citizens, including the right of marriage?”

So yes, the criticism that political parties don’t represent the people is accurate; they don’t even represent the people who are registered as their voters. Because those aren’t their members. Their members are the networkers and the political players who really burrow deep inside of the party. And yes, they get paid poorly and have pretty crappy jobs. They get to inhabit these positions because they step up to the plate.

But at the end of the day, if you want your voters to have enthusiasm for their party, if you want them to turn out to the polls no matter the situation, you have to give them agency. It’s the same reason that the Green Bay Packers have their seats sold out for a century; by making the team owned by the fans, they gave their fans agency in their organization. Political parties need to demand participation, open discussion, and activity from their members. They cannot afford to take them for granted.

Democrats Send Progressives To Convention


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Logo for RI Democratic Party

Congratulations to the delegate candidates who won an opportunity to go to the Democratic National Convention in yesterday’s primary. While overall turnout may have been low, it seems as if progressives got out the vote as all but two of our endorsed candidates prevailed.

Anne Connor, whom we profiled, received more overall votes than former Providence Mayor Joe Paolino, who took out an ad in the ProJo (though he did spell the president’s name wrong in it). She even got more votes than him in his hometown of Providence – and she lives in suburban Barrington.

Conservative, anti-union Democrat Doug Gablinske received the fewest votes in CD1

In CD2, the three progressive members of the General Assembly – Josh Miller, Frank Ferri and Teresa Tanzi netted nearly 1,000 more overall votes than the three Weiner candidates, an affluent family from East Greenwich known for being political insiders and regulars at the party convention.

For a complete list of results, click here.

The winners are below, including total number of votes they garnered and percentage.

UPDATE: RI Future Publisher Emeritus Matt Jerzyk writes that our delegate results isn’t accurate because Democratic rules for the representing candidates at the convention employ a sort of affirmative action in which the top 5 men and top 6 women from each district are chosen. As such, these are the results according to Jerzyk:

The top 5 men and top 6 women in each CD are elected – not just the top 11.  That would mean the following won yesterday:

CD-1

  • Myrth YORK
  • Julie E. MEYERS
  • Anne W. CONNOR
  • Joseph R. PAOLINO, JR.
  • Onna A. MONIZ-JOHN
  • Mary A. GASBARRO
  • June S. SPEAKMAN
  • Brett P. SMILEY
  • Tom CODERRE
  • Gerald Pedro CARVALHO
  • David A. SALVATORE

CD-2

  • Joshua MILLER
  • Patrick T. FOGARTY
  • Teresa TANZI
  • Frank G. FERRI
  • Elaine PRIOR
  • Michael A. SOLOMON
  • L. Susan WEINER
  • Mark S. WEINER
  • Elisa M. POLLARD
  • Helen S. TAYLOR
  • Zoe I. WEINER

CD1

Myrth YORK 2831 10.4%
Julie E. MEYERS 2153 7.9%
Anne W. CONNOR 2061 7.6%
Joseph R. PAOLINO, JR. 1986 7.3%
Onna A. MONIZ-JOHN 1880 6.9%
Mary A. GASBARRO 1833 6.7%
June S. SPEAKMAN 1776 6.5%
Brett P. SMILEY 1763 6.5%
Rebecca Kim MEARS 1694 6.2%
Tom CODERRE 1640 6.0%
Gerald Pedro CARVALHO 1369 5.0%

CD2

Joshua MILLER 1313 7.8%
Patrick T. FOGARTY 1272 7.6%
Teresa TANZI 1233 7.3%
Frank G. FERRI 1137 6.8%
Elaine PRIOR 1131 6.7%
Michael A. SOLOMON 1109 6.6%
L. Susan WEINER 1033 6.1%
Mark S. WEINER 1007 6.0%
Thomas J. IZZO 990 5.9%
Ryan Patrick KELLEY 986 5.9%
Elisa M. POLLARD 972 5.8%

Matt Jerzyk and the Early Days of RI Future


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
From the photo files of RI Future.

The Providence Phoenix has given RI Future great press as of late. Last week, the profiled me as the new owner of this progressive news website and this week they profile Matt Jerzyk, a senior policy adviser to Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and the founding father of RI Future whom they dub the state’s “blogfather.” The article dedicates no small amount of ink to the early days of the site he formally named Rhode Island’s Future.

Over the course of his four years running the site, Jerzyk pulled no punches, handing out his annual DINO (Democrat in Name Only) of the Year award while criticizing the likes of State Representative Arthur Corvese, Secretary of State Ralph Mollis, Woonsocket Mayor Susan Menard, former Providence Mayor Buddy Cianci, and former gubernatorial candidate Myrth York. In a state dominated by one party, Rhode Islanders flocked to the site for a mix of political gossip, policy analysis, and the occasional Jerzyk hissy fit.

Jerzyk, of course, is important to the local leftist community for far more reasons than simply launching this site – he’s an important adviser to the state’s most popular and powerful progressive politician, and he’s largely responsible for helping some of the more progressive members of the state legislature win their seats. I’ll always remember his crusade to get Ralph Papitto’s name removed from the Roger Williams law school after the chairman of the school made a racist statement at a meeting.

Both for creating RI Future, and all his efforts in building a better Rhode Island, I’d like to offer Jerzyk a big giant thank you. While this site, and Rhode Island, for that matter, have changed a lot since Matt Jerzyk first launched a blog called more formally and, we think, very fittingly, Rhode Island’s Future, we strive to build upon the great work Jerzyk and others have poured into it over the years. Here’s what Jerzyk told the Phoenix back in 2008 when he first sold this site:

I wanted to build a Daily Kos blog for Rhode Island: an online news source that could build a progressive media to compete with the vast right-wing talk radio operation. I think the blog has become a tremendous success because of the community we have created. With tens of thousands of readers and over a dozen writers, we are not only debating important political issues, we have also provided an online clearinghouse for people to get involved in the political system, from the 2006 US Senate race to the Rhode Island for Obama campaign in 2008 . . . . We are also pushing people to walk the walk because, at the end of the day, a healthy democracy requires people to engage it: by holding elected officials accountable or going to city or town council meetings or running for office directly.

Ignore POTUS: It’s the McGuffin

Mitt, creating jobs

While I, like all of you political junkies, am practically main-lining the GOP Presidential primaries, they bring to mind a basic criticism I’ve had of almost every “outsider” political movement: they foolishly focus on electing a President. But that really doesn’t matter. It’s the McGuffin.

While so many on the left have expressed outrage at Obama’s ineffectiveness, I for one did not expect all that much to begin with. A cursory skimming of the Constitution makes it clear: the power in this government rests with Congress.

And with the last, oh, 15 Congresses, more’s the pity.

So I have to ask: why are we so fixated on the President if that office doesn’t really have that much power and, more importantly, why _aren’t_ we fixated on Congress? The answer, of course, is that the Congress is complicated and the President…well, there’s only the one. It’s so much easier to rally behind a President but completely useless. It’s the McGuffin.

What is a McGuffin?

The Wikipedia page at the link above includes Alfred Hitchcock’s famous explanation of a McGuffin:

It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says “What’s that package up there in the baggage rack?”, and the other answers “Oh, that’s a McGuffin”. The first one asks “What’s a McGuffin?”. “Well”, the other man says, “It’s an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands”. The first man says “But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands”, and the other one answers “Well, then that’s no McGuffin!”. So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all.

The McGuffin is a plot device designed to distract the audience so that the more important aspects of the thriller come as a complete surprise. The McGuffin dominates the first act, but is completely forgotten by the last. Psycho starts out as a movie about a woman who embezzles a large sum of money from the law firm where she works. But is that what the film is really about? The embezzlement is the McGuffin.

So when it comes to implementing the crucial changes that will make this nation better for all of us, our fixation with electing a sympathetic President only prevents us from getting the job done. Congress made this mess; Congress can fix this mess. The President is the McGuffin.

Who is the “Hitchcock”?

Any good detective knows where to start when trying to unravel a mystery: look for the person or persons who benefit the most from the crime. In this case, it’s obvious that “big business”, particularly those businesses that suckle at the federal teat, benefit from a Congress that has largely abdicated its responsibilities and prerogatives.

Is it any coincidence that the US military/intelligence apparatus now circles the globe with “hot” wars in two one nations and covert ops in dozens of others while Congress has basically given up its Constitutional duty for oversight while simultaneously doling out billions annually in “defense contracts”? Congress has not declared war since 1943, yet the military/intelligence apparatus gets more business every year.

Congress pays for the US military to hire mercenaries and out-source torture! Do you really need any more proof?

These are only the most egregious examples. Look into any industry, any area for which Congress has authority and you’ll find a similar scenario — the good of the nation and the goals of virtually all more-or-less normal people come in a distant second to the venal wants of those who own pay for the campaigns of Congresspeople.

Thus the “Hitchcock” here, the director that distracts us so masterfully, is these money interests — amoral non-humans (or worse, amoral humans) that have become absurdly wealthy through the largesse of a long series of Congresses that serve their interests and their interests alone. My film-oriented metaphor is not random; the major media are high on the list of those who benefit from a store-bought Congress and thus high on the list of villains in this drama.

Occupy the Second Act

Like all McGuffins, the meaninglessness of electing a sympathetic President will eventually become known, and this nation will wake up to its responsibilities. Indeed, this is happening already, and no force today is more meaningful to this cause than Occupy. Occupy does all the things necessary to put this into action except run for Congress.

First, Occupy is national at a minimum. Ultimately, this is a global movement, but let’s just focus with what’s on our plates right now. Occupy serves to bring the same basic message of solidarity and direct action to every city of meaningful size as well as towns and hamlets in the most remote areas. Everywhere it goes, it brings a message of civic and political activism. This is the only way for the progressive movement to develop the national groundswell necessary to become a force in Congress.

Second, Occupy breaks through the major media narratives about who we on the left are. I’m not a child. I don’t live in my parents’ basement. In fact, I’m a “job creator”; when I succeed, people in the Blackstone Valley get manufacturing jobs. Occupy Youngstown (OH) is dominated by senior citizens. By forcing itself into the national consciousness, Occupy shows how diverse, intelligent, active, articulate and, above all, how capable we are. We are not to be scorned; we are not to be feared. We are admirable. We are the future.

Third, Occupy jump-starts the national discussion about the truly important issues, and it shows as trivial the issues that The Director wants to keep front and center. Poor people are not millionaires that failed; homelessness is not a function of laziness. In fact, the current severity of both of these issues is a direct result of national policies instituted by Congresses over the past 30 years or more. As long as Occupy can hold itself together, these narratives will become harder and harder to ignore.

Finally, by using the tried-and-true approach of provocative, non-violent direct action, Occupy forces the villains to show their hands. From nonchalant, pepper-spraying UC Davis cops to obsequiously pandering so-called “liberals”, street-level action forces those in authority to prove out their credentials. And, as the Occupiers like to remind us all: The Whole World is Watching. For any more-or-less normal human, it’s obvious which side they’re on.

Act 3: TBD

I don’t doubt for a minute that The Director will develop a counter-attack, a reassertion of the McGuffin. (Wait, did Mitt Romney just do something foolish? Oh, that’s awesome!) Sorry…what was I saying?

If we really want to see change happen, we need to double-down on our program. And it needs to be local first, state second, Congress third and the McGuffin.

At this point, we can quibble around the edges. Does city councilor X need to be replaced, or can he or she find the guts to vote rightly? Is Congressperson Y really in the pocket of the donors, or can a strong, left wing primary candidate make the message clear. (You _know_ what I mean, guest writer, when I say: Apparently NOT!)

RI Future’s own Libby Kimzey is running for RI House 8 against a known villain who takes semi-legal means to destroy historic structures that his own district is trying to preserve (and who drives his preposterous pickup truck like a positive ass-hat). With luck, others will announce against Gordon (H71) and Ottiano (S11). And those are just the ones that come to mind.

The election season is just getting going, and we have more questions than we have answers. But this much is clear — the time to move is now. Progressives have more openings, more opportunity than I’ve ever seen in my political memory. And I remember Nixon vs. McGovern.

Get up. Get out. Get moving.

Somebody asked me recently: How can I vote Progressive for my GA members? I told him, “I’m not sure, but the Progressive candidate in your district might just be you.”

A Primary Challenge for Obama?

One can only hope progressive momentum builds around this idea:

Worried the liberal voice is being drowned out in the presidential campaign, progressive leaders said Monday they want to field a slate of candidates against President Obama in the Democratic primaries to make him stake out liberal stances as he seeks re-election…

“What we are looking at now is the dullest presidential campaign since Walter Mondale — and that’s saying something, believe me,” [Ralph] Nader told The Washington Times. Continue reading “A Primary Challenge for Obama?”