By Zoltan Zigedy
Traditionally in American history, politics is like a seesaw: When one side is up the other side is down,†said Peter Wehner, a former aide to President George W. Bush. “Now it’s as if the seesaw is broken; the public is distrustful of both parties.†Wall Street Journal (11-04-14)
“Follow the money†is a seemingly simple, but telling popular prescription for discerning people’s motives, a slogan made popular by literature and movies.
But it is more than that. It is also a useful key to unlocking the mysteries of social processes and institutions. In a society that affixes a monetary worth on everything, including opinions, ideas, and personal values, tracking dollars and cents becomes one of the best guides to our understanding of events unfolding around us.
Take elections, for example.
Every high school Civics class teaches that elections are the highest expression of democratic practices. Apart from the direct democracy of legend– the New England town meeting or the Swiss canton assemblies– organized secret-ballot-style elections count as the democratic ideal deeply embedded in every US school-age child’s mind.
Let’s put aside the arrogant high hypocrisy of US and European politicians and pundits who deride secret ballots when they result in the election of a Chavez, Morales, Maduro, or Correa. That will make for a juicy topic on another occasion.
Instead, let’s examine what the flow of money tells us about the gold standard of democracy as celebrated in Europe and the US.
Surely, no one would deny that money has a profound effect upon election outcomes. That comes as old news. Even before the dominance of party politics, even before the evolution of party politics into two-party politics, money played a critical factor in advantaging issues, campaigns, and candidates.
To the extent that mass engagement– rallies, outreach, canvassing, etc.– could match or even trump both the corrupting and opinion-changing power of money, electoral democracy maintained an aura of legitimacy. To be sure, buying elections seems a nasty business, but as long as elections remained highly contested extravaganzas drawing interest and engagement, credibility remains intact.
New and changing technologies cast a lengthening shadow over the electoral process. News and entertainment media, like radio, were only too happy to take advertising dollars to promote electoral campaigns. At the same time, these technologies eroded the efficacy of traditional campaigns reliant upon campaign workers’ sweat and shoe leather.
With television and now the internet, the power of media and media dollars has grown exponentially. It has hardly gone unnoticed that these shifts have amplified the power of money and diminished the traditional get-out-the-vote efforts of unions, civil rights, and other people’s organizations.
Most recently, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has opened the spigot of unregulated cash into elections, further overwhelming any counter forces to the outright purchase of candidates and election results.
Readers may find nothing new here. The sordid story of money’s corrupting and deflecting influence has certainly been told before, as has the pat remedy offered by reformers. To return to the halcyon days of US electoral democracy is simply a matter of establishing financial limits on campaigns and campaign contributions. By leveling and limiting the electoral playing field, we can restore the legitimacy tainted by money.
Unfortunately, this idealistic solution will itself be overpowered by the power of money. The traditional forces in US politics are not unhappy with buying and selling political power, except insofar as their own money is not put at a disadvantage.
But the reformist panacea would not work even if it were implemented. Advocates of campaign financial reform fail to see that capitalism and informed, independent, and authentically democratic electoral processes are incompatible. Capitalism, unerringly and universally, erodes and smothers democracy. Eliminating, even significantly, reducing the power of money in politics under a capitalist system is an impossibility. The historical trajectory goes the other way.
A Broken System
Since the New Deal era, political partisanship and the accompanying flow of money was linked to Party politics. Corporations and the wealthy gave generously to opponents of the New Deal, the Republican Party. To a great extent, the people power (and significant independent money) of unions and other progressive organizations served as an adequate counterweight to the resources of the rich and powerful. The Democratic Party enjoyed the benefits of this practice.
The television and money-driven election of JF Kennedy in 1960 marked a watershed in both the diminution of issue relevancy and the maturation of political marketing. Money and the advertising and marketing attention that money bought moved to center stage. Key chains, buttons and inscribed pens were replaced by multimillion dollar television advertisements in the buying of election outcomes.
In 1964, the organic link between the money of wealth and power and the Republican Party began to stretch with the campaign of Barry Goldwater. So called “liberal Republicans†of the East Coast establishment recoiled from what they perceived as extremism, leaving Goldwater’s campaign treasuries to be filled by the extreme right’s wealthy godfathers in the Southwestern and Western US (The looney right rebounded to Goldwater’s loss by investing heavily in rallying and expanding the 26 million Goldwater voter base and by buying a broader, louder, but less shrill voice in the media; that project paid off handsomely by 1980).
While it is understandable that donors would spend to their interests– support candidates of shared ideology– things began to change with the Democratic Party’s retreat from New Deal economic thinking, the general decline of traditional Party politics, and the rise of the politics of celebrity and personality. With advertising and marketing domination of electoral campaigns, constructing an attractive personal narrative replaced issues and accomplishments– contrived image replaced content.
Today, the two-party system holds electoral politics in its tight grip. And issue-driven politics has been replaced by the politics of flag pins, winning smiles and a “wholesome†family.
Undoubtedly, the decline of substance in politics further encouraged the activity of sleazy lobbyists and influence peddling. Politicians are not faced with the conflict of principles against powerful interests because electoral politics have turned away from principles.
We see the cynicism of principle in the Republican Party’s rejection of its ideological zealots. So called “Tea Party†radicals sat well with the Republican corporate leaders when they were energizing electoral campaigns, but the zealots were challenged after setbacks in 2012. Today, the Republican corporate god fathers are making every effort to temper party radicalism in order to insure the only important principle: electability.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, simply ignores its left wing, treating it alternately as an embarrassment or a stepchild. It is this trivialization of principle and ideology that channels the flow of money today.
Barren Politics
This election cycle has revealed something new: Democrats are raising more money from corporate interests for their campaigns than the traditionally dominant Republicans. This process began before the 2006 elections, accelerated sharply in the Presidential elections, strengthened in the early primaries and continued into 2008. In March, 2008, McCain gained somewhat on his Democratic rivals, but still fell well below the total raised by the two Democrats. Within the Democratic camp, Clinton dominated most corporate contributions until 2008, when Obama enjoyed big gains, pushing ahead through March especially in the key industries of finance, lawyers/lobbyists, communications and health. Wall Street has strongly supported the Democratic candidates over the Republicans. Through the end of 2007, seven of the big 8 financial firms (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, and Credit Suisse) showed a decided preference towards the Democrats. Only Merrill Lynch gave more to Republicans, though they gave the single most to Clinton. The Wall Street Journal (2-3/4-08), while noting that Obama receives a notable number of contributions from small donors, pointed out that “…even for Sen. Obama, the finance industry was still the richest source of cash overall…†Through February, Obama led the other candidates in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry and was in a virtual dead heat with Clinton with respect to the energy sector. These numbers strongly suggest that candidates, especially Democratic Party candidates, are unlikely to challenge their corporate sponsors in any meaningful way.
Clearly, Corporate America was not afraid that Obama or Clinton would step on their toes or even stand in their way. While the Republican message and program were more overtly and adamantly pro-business, big business was not trying to swing the election their way. While they may have differed on social and even foreign policy questions, wealth and power understood that the Democrats would not challenge them on any matters relevant to their business agenda. Six years after, they appear to have been right.
Another way to illustrate the uncoupling of corporate money from party ideology is through the trend in corporate PACs to shovel money to incumbents of either party: In 1978 corporate PACs gave 40% of their contributions to House incumbents; in 2014, that number had leaped to 74%.
Corporations are not trying to deliver a message; they are outright buying all of the candidates.
With respect to this year’s November 4 interim election, corporate PACs have shifted their support– sometimes dramatically– from Democrats in key races to Republicans over the last 18 months (WSJ, 10-29-14). Obviously, neither the corporations nor the candidates have changed their agendas greatly. So it’s not about issues, but electability.
It should be transparent that two-party politics in the age of extreme concentrations of wealth and media influence is far from a rousing example of democratic process. Consequently, we should surely not expect the results of the tainted process to be democratic. Like the commercialization of commodities, the commercialization of politics results eventually in the domination of the market by a few products (parties, candidates) and the minimizing of their differences. We no more pick our leaders than we pick the products offered in the showroom. Corporate America picks them both.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
worker |
November 6, 2014 |
8:43 pm | Analysis, Cuban Five, International, Latin America |
Comments closed
Ricardo Alarcón on NYT & the Cuban 5.
3 languages/idiomas/langues
Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.
(ESPAÑOL SIGUE ABAJO)
(FRANÇAIS SUIT CI-DESSOUS)
ENGLISH
The New York Times Breaks the Media Blockade
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
November 6, 2014
In my article currently circulating in Nueva Réplica I regretted that the New York Times had not raised the case of Gerardo, Ramón and Antonio in its editorial last October in which the paper called for ending the US blockade against Cuba.
When I wrote it, I did not imagine that with that document, the New York paper would start an important debate, which has lasted a month and includes several editorials advocating a substantial change in the relations between the two countries. The latest one, published Sunday, November 2, proposed that the three be released and that in exchange, Cuba for humanitarian reasons would free Alan Gross who was sentenced here for participating in illegal activities to overthrow the revolutionary government.
This is a fair and reasonable position. The paper is right when it defines the release of three Cuban heroes as a vital step towards civilized coexistence between two countries that are and will always be neighbors.
It should be added to the arguments of the Times that none of the Five were accused of espionage and therefore were not “spiesâ€. As was demonstrated at the trial in Miami, none of them had access to secret information related to the national security of the United States. Neither had been given directions to look for that kind of information. This was acknowledged under oath by Gen. James R. Clapper who was a government witness whose testimony appears on pages 13089-13235 of the trial transcript. It’s the same Clapper who today is the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama Administration.
It is also necessary to remember that the mission of the Five was to try to thwart terrorist plans against Cuba which more than once have caused death and damage also to people living in United States.
But, in any case, this editorial from the New York Times should be hailed as an event of transcendental importance. The wall of silence surrounding the case of the Five has received a devastating blow which hopefully is final.
A CubaNews translation by Walter Lippmann.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CubaNews/info
The New York Times rompe el bloqueo mediático
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
6 noviembre 2014
En mà artÃculo que aparece en la Nueva Réplica actualmente circulando reproché al New York Times que no hubiese planteado el caso de Gerardo, Ramón y Antonio en su Editorial del pasado octubre en el que se pronunció por la eliminación del bloqueo norteamericano contra Cuba.
Cuando lo escribà no imaginaba que con ese documento el diario neoyorquino iniciaba un importante debate, que dura ya un mes, e incluye varios editoriales abogando por un cambio sustancial en las relaciones entre ambos paÃses. El más reciente del domingo 2 de noviembre, propone que los tres sean liberados a cambio de que Cuba por razones humanitarias ponga en libertad a Allan Gross sancionado aquà por participar en actividades ilegales destinadas a derrocar al Gobierno revolucionario.
Se trata de una posición justa y razonable. Tiene razón el periódico cuando define la liberación de los tres Héroes cubanos como un paso indispensable para avanzar hacia la convivencia civilizada entre dos paÃses que son y serán siempre vecinos.
DeberÃa agregarse a los argumentos del Times que ninguno de los Cinco fue acusado de realizar espionaje y por tanto no eran “espÃasâ€. Como se demostró en el juicio de Miami ninguno de ellos accedió o buscó informaciones secretas relacionadas con la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos. Tampoco recibieron orientaciones para buscar ese tipo de informaciones. Asà lo reconoció, bajo juramento, el General James R. Clapper quien fue testigo del Gobierno y cuyo testimonio aparece entre las páginas 13089 a 13235 de las Actas Oficiales del Tribunal. Es el mismo Clapper que hoy es el Director Nacional de Inteligencia de la Administración Obama.
También es necesario recordar que la misión de los Cinco era tratar de frustrar los planes terroristas contra Cuba que más de una vez han causado muerte y daños también a personas residentes en Estados Unidos.
Pero, en todo caso, este Editorial del New York Times debe ser saludado como un hecho de importancia trascendental. El muro de silencio que rodeaba el caso de los Cinco ha recibido un golpe demoledor que ojalá sea definitivo.
http://www.cubadebate.cu/
Le New York Times brise le blocus médiatique
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
Dans mon article qui paraît actuellement dans la Nueva Réplica, je déplorais que le New York Times n’ait pas évoqué le cas de Gerardo, Ramón et Antonio dans son éditorial d’octobre dernier dans lequel le journal appelait à rompre le blocus des États-Unis contre Cuba.
Quand je l’ai rédigé, je ne soupçonnais pas qu’à partir de cet article, le journal new-yorkais lancerait un important débat, lequel a duré un mois et inclus plusieurs éditoriaux préconisant un changement majeur dans les relations entre les deux pays. Le dernier, publié le dimanche 2 novembre, suggérait que les trois hommes soient libérés et qu’en échange, Cuba, pour des raisons humanitaires, libère Alan Gross condamné ici pour avoir participé à des activités illégales visant à renverser le gouvernement révolutionnaire.
C’est un point de vue honnête et équitable. Le journal a raison de considérer la libération des trois héros cubains comme une étape essentielle vers une coexistence harmonieuse entre les deux pays qui sont et seront toujours voisins.
Il faut ajouter aux arguments du NYT qu’aucun des Cinq n’a été accusé d’espionnage et qu’ils ne sont pas, de ce fait, des « espions ». Comme il l’a été prouvé au procès à Miami, aucun d’entre eux n’a eu accès à des informations secrètes liées à la sécurité nationale des États-Unis ni non plus reçu de mandat pour chercher ce type d’information. Ceci a été reconnu sous serment par le général James R. Clapper, témoin officiel du gouvernement étasunien, dont le témoignage apparaît aux pages 13089-13235 du compte rendu du procès. Clapper est aujourd’hui directeur des Services de renseignements nationaux (National Intelligence) de l’administration Obama.
Il convient également de rappeler que la mission des Cinq était de déjouer des plans terroristes contre Cuba, lesquels ont plus d’une fois entraîné des décès et des destructions, y compris aux États-Unis.
En tout état de cause, cet éditorial du New York Times devrait être salué comme un évènement d’importance capitale. Le mur de silence qui a entouré le cas des Cinq a reçu une onde de choc dévastatrice qui, espérons-le, aura été décisive.
Traduit par Anne-Marie Deraspe, assisté par Arnold August, Montréal
www.democracycuba.com
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/361804751/sen-bernie-sanders-on-the-midterm-results
As Republicans take the Senate by storm, the Vermont Independent – one of the most progressive…
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) awaits the start of a hearing by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on September 9, 2014 in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/AFP/Getty Images)
Nov, 05 2014 — (Here & Now) — It’s bad news for the Democrats. But, after the Republicans have taken the Senate by storm, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also taking note. One of the most progressive voices in the Senate, he’s made huge calls for climate change legislation, universal healthcare, same-sex marriage and minimum wage. He joins Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson for a look at what this new Senate means for him.
Interview Highlights: Sen. Bernie Sanders
On the low voter turnout “I was disturbed by the very low voter turnout and the fact that especially something like 85 percent of the young people didn’t bother to show up to vote and the vast majority of low-income working people didn’t vote as well… I think there is a profound anger and disgust, if I could use that word, at the political establishment; there is anger at the corporate establishment; there is anger at the media establishment. People are hurting and they don’t see folks in power standing up and fighting for them. They’re seeing that their kids can’t afford to go to college and they’re seeing 95 percent of all new income going to the top one percent and then there seeing this top one percent spending hundreds and hundreds of millions dollars on elections in order to elect the candidates who will protect them. So I think people are angry and they’re frustrated and they’re kind of giving up on a lot of American institutions.†On the Republican agenda “If you drill down a little bit deeper and you look at the Republican agenda – man, people don’t want that agenda. Yesterday we saw in some conservative states for example, people voted to raise the minimum wage pretty significantly. In Washington, Republicans very much are opposed to that. If you look at the polling out there, people want a massive federal jobs program to rebuild our infrastructure and create millions of jobs—Republicans oppose that. Republicans are opposed to pay equity for women workers, which is what the American people want. And what we’re going to see in a couple of months, I suspect this will surprise some of the folks who voted Republican yesterday, is that Republicans are going to move aggressively to cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. They’re going to give huge tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. Is that what the American people want? Poll after poll tells me no.†On Republicans’ ‘clever’ campaigning “What did the Republicans campaign on? What did they say to the American people that they would do—other than the fact that they would try to defeat candidates who voted with Barack Obama—what was their agenda, did they talk about it?…I think they ran a very clever campaign and the campaign was ‘Are you hurting today?’ And the American people say yes. ‘The fault is Barack Obama, vote these guys out.’ That was their campaign and it worked. But I don’t recall the Republicans telling us what they intend to do.â€
Guest
- Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent senator representing Vermont. He tweets @SenSanders.
Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.9(MDAxNzgwMTg5MDEyMTQ4Nzc4MjdiNWVmMw004))
Missing some content? Check the source: NPR
Copyright(c) 2014, NPR
•
Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ recent trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have ramped up speculation that the self-described democratic socialist is seriously considering a 2016 run at the presidency. His national tour appears designed to engage a grassroots constituency base and line up the support necessary to give centrist political juggernaut Hillary Clinton a run for her money.
But the far more charismatic and popular Democratic populist, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, has dominated recent speculation about her own presidential ambitions after trips this Fall to stump for Democratic senate and gubernatorial candidates in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
These visits, perhaps not so coincidentally, come hot on the heels of a national book tour this summer promoting a new memoir that situates her aggressive economic justice agenda in the context of her lived experiences as a woman, mother, and grandmother.
Either Sanders or Warren would be welcome challengers to the Democratic establishment pick, and a fresh, dynamic, outsider campaign by either one could do more to force Hillary to watch her back than many pundits are willing to admit.
But there is a real risk of dividing an already weak and fractious electoral Left if both potential candidates were to run campaigns independent of one another.
To avoid that problem, social movement actors serious about using the presidential race as a tool to advance a democratic justice agenda against surging economic inequality should actively promote a joint Warren/Sanders ticket. This is the Left’s best opportunity to engage in the 2016 presidential elections in a way that both shifts the political narrative and moves the public debate to terrain more favorable to our demands.
Sanders and Warren are each heavy-hitters in their own right, but the combined star power of both leaders standing together, crisscrossing the country in a united electoral front, could galvanize a powerful coalition of grassroots constituencies under one banner, minimize the risks of an unnecessary and costly competition between the two, and pull in new layers of everyday people into the movement orbit.
The obvious bread-and-butter platform is both simple and popular:
- Create millions of livable wage jobs.
- Forgive student debt and reduce rising tuition costs.
- Win single-payer health-care.
- Curtail the corrosive influence of big money in politics.
- Expand and strengthen Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
- Bust up big banks and big agribusiness.
- Tax carbon emissions and other sources of corporate pollution.
- Make sure big corporations and the 1% pay their fair share of taxes.
A joint ticket approach would also make it more likely that the money, organization, and national network were all in place early on to mount a full-fledged ground game assault in early caucus and primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Although either Sanders or Warren could probably, on their own, raise enough money to build the necessary organization to run a national campaign, a unified ticket approach would make the task much easier and could return far bigger dividends. The double team offense could electrify a grassroots base of activists inside already existing movement infrastructure, not just to canvass and work the phones, but also to organize town hall meetings, presidential forums, and direct actions.
If done correctly, this could also serve another benefit by plugging new layers of supporters into long standing community organizations, worker centers, peace groups, and labor unions; rather than solely being sucked into the traditional Democratic party apparatus, as is the case in most elections.
Lastly, if the Sanders and Warren camps join forces it would prevent a worst-case scenario where both were to run independently of one another, dividing the electoral Left, splitting scarce financial and movement resources, and all but guaranteeing a primary win for Clinton.
But although the potential rewards are high, a joint ticket approach is also not without its own risks, and raises a series of significant questions that must be ironed out. These include: why should Warren headline the ticket ahead of Sanders? Under what party banner will the campaign run? And how exactly will it be used as a platform to build a stronger social movement independent of Democratic Party?
Why should Elizabeth Warren headline a joint ticket over Bernie Sanders?Â
As an outspoken, self-styled democratic socialist and career third-party and/or no-party independent, Sanders has nearly impeccable credentials for a politician. He is also eager to work with independent grassroots actors, as can be seen by his embrace in Iowa of the tough and tenacious, anti-establishment, people’s action group, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.
But Bernie’s age and gender could both be used by Hillary supporters to drive a wedge in the electoral Left, while his expressed political beliefs as a small “s†socialist could be easy fodder for attack ads. It is also unclear just how far his appeal truly extends and whether or not his message can be picked up outside of a narrow echo chamber.
Warren, on the other hand, has a much more formidable and broad base of support than Sanders, and her demonstrable impact on national policy debates has already forced Hillary into attempting to co-opt her message.
Indeed, after Warren recently came out swinging against the Obama Administration’s coddling of Wall Street big banks in an October 12 interview with Salon magazine, visited two Iowa cities on October 19, and changed her tune on a possible presidential run to People Magazine the week of October 20, Clinton was forced to veer populist during an October 23 stump speech in Minnesota and pay lip-service to reining in the big banks and protecting everyday people from predatory lending. This in turn set off a frenzy of renewed media attention and speculation about both women.
On the downside, Warren appears to be fiercely loyal to the Democratic Party, the “graveyard of social movementsâ€, according to some on the far left, and her perceived lack of experience in national politics could be used as a weapon against her in any attempted hatchet jobs by a Hillary-aligned Super PAC.
Like Sanders, Warren’s generally hawkish stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestine and US wars in the Middle East is also highly problematic, and without a dramatic change in tune could prevent antiwar factions from giving their critical endorsement to the hypothetical joint ticket campaign. Closing corporate tax loopholes and making the 1 percent pay their fair share doesn’t mean much if more than half of every tax dollar still goes to the Pentagon.
But given all these considerations, a Warren/Sanders ticket, with the Democratic populist receiving top billing ahead of the democratic socialist, would be by far the strongest formation, with Sanders’ supporting role as an experienced independent and elder statesmen giving Warren key credibility among some movement actors skeptical of party Democrats.
What party banner should the joint ticket run under?
Whether to run a joint campaign as a third party, no-party, or as Democrats is a somewhat muddier river to wade, but at the end of the day the answer is largely obvious, if admittedly concessionary.
Even if Sanders were to run alone, the chance of him running as an independent or on a third party ticket appears slim, despite his career legacy as a political party outsider, because potential donors and supporters are both wary of playing a “spoiler role†similar to what Ralph Nader and the Green Party were accused of doing in 2000 (for the record, the Supreme Court stole that election and should bear sole blame for the outcome).
Running outside the political party structure could also waste scarce movement resources on ballot access fights, money better spent reaching out to voters, and could exclude both Warren and Sanders from primary debates where they can go head-to-head with Hillary in front of millions of everyday Americans.
On the flip side, running the joint ticket in the Democratic primary could isolate some idealistic leftists who are unafraid of playing a spoiler role but who may assume Hillary will win regardless and are worried about legitimizing a party that is nearly as corporate as the GOP.
Lastly if the sole outcome of a Warren/Sanders primary run were only to bring more disaffected people back into the folds of a centrist Democratic Party tent, then the whole exercise would be for naught. However, it would be an entirely different question if they were to lose but still move the goalposts and put points on the board for a populist agenda.
How will this campaign prioritize principles and people over parties and politicians? Â
Perhaps the most important question to consider is how a united front ticket could be used not just to move Hillary to the left before the general election, but how it could be used to upend the whole political calculus by actually beating Clinton outright, while at the same time strengthening and building a real mass movement from below.
The key here is to never underestimate the populist sentiment of the American electorate, however unorganized, regardless of their party affiliations, or the power of face-to-face retail politics. A strongly populist, anti-corporate message resonates with broad sections of the general public, including young people, women, immigrants, African-Americans, and rank-and-file Tea Party Republicans alike. Although both Hillary and any number of GOP candidates, from Scott Walker to Jeb Bush to Mitt Romney, would all outflank an insurgent Warren/Sanders campaign with big money television ads, it is possible for organized people to take on organized money and win.
Nowhere is this more true than in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa is a Middle America state where Hillary failed to perform (she placed third in 2008 behind Obama and John Edwards, while Bill never bothered to contest Iowa in 1992). New Hampshire is an East Coast state where both Warren and Sanders hold as much of a home-court advantage as Clinton does.
The rest of the primary election map rests on the Warren/Sanders ticket upsetting Hillary early on and gaining enough momentum to carry the rest of the country through to victory, much like Obama did in 2008.
How does all this help build a stronger, fighting movement?
Sanders in particular, with both his words and his actions, has stressed during recent stops across the country that a president cannot govern without a mobilized population asserting our own demands and agitating for systemic change to big business as usual.
Although it is less clear whether Warren shares this same movement analysis, it is critical that the success of either a joint ticket or an individual run by either senator is ultimately measured by how well it builds independent and organizational political power outside of the traditional party structure, by bringing new layers of everyday people into a progressive-populist fold not already controlled by Democrats.
Such a lofty goal will require the joint campaign to collaborate with movement actors with a more transformational type of relationship than typical transaction politics. But an early model to build on for what this could look like in practice already exists in the successful relationship Sanders has built with Iowa CCI members in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
At the end of the day, an individual run by either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders could pose a powerful challenge to Hillary Clinton and corporate Democrats. And if either were to pull off an upset they would stand as strong of a chance, if not stronger, of bringing independents on board and beating any GOP candidate in the general election.
But a joint ticket that harnesses and combines the Warren and Sanders forces together could be even more powerful still. Hillary will be forced to watch the throne either way, but a real coup is more attainable with a tag-team approach that integrates the best that both Warren and Sanders have to offer.
worker |
November 3, 2014 |
8:43 pm | Action, Analysis, Cuban Five, International, Latin America, National |
Comments closed
Readers: Please use this as a model for sending your own letters to President Obama!
From the: International Committee for the  Freedom of the Cuban 5
Lawrence Wilkerson is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.
His last position in government was chief of staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State (2002-2005). He served 31 years in the US Army (1966-1998).
Here is his letter to President Obama:
November 5, 2014
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DCÂ 20500
Dear Mr. President,
It is time to correct an injustice that is in your power to amend. This injustice mars majorly the American system of justice, the U.S. record on human rights and, as importantly, the lives of five men whose dedication to the security of their own country against terrorist attack should be admired and respected, not punished. No doubt you have heard of these men: Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labaniño Salazar, Antonio Guerrero RodrÃguez, Fernando González Llort, and Rene González Sehwerert. The world knows them as The Cuban Five.
Two of these men are today out of prison, two more might be out in the far future, and one might never see the dawn of a free day.  This latter individual, Gerardo Hernández, I tried to visit-unsuccessfully-in the maximum security prison in Victorville, California.  Though I was unable to visit him, a true and trusted colleague who accompanied me, the late Saul Landau, was able to do so and reported to me that Gerardo remains as courageous and undaunted as ever yet still puzzled over the failure to act of what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy.
The Cuban Five suffered a gross injustice when they were arrested in 1998. After their arrests they spent 17 months in solitary confinement. Their trial took place in Miami, Florida and in 2001 they were sentenced to long prison terms. At a legal minimum, the trial through which they suffered in Miami should have been moved to another location, as change-of-venue arguments alone were not only persuasive they were overwhelming, testified to amply when the appeals court in Atlanta, voting in a three-judge panel, supported a change of venue. Later, however, this decision was reversed when the political power of George W. Bush’s administration-an administration in which I served-compelled the court, voting in its entirety to reconsider the three-judge panel’s decision and vote differently; they ratified the sentences of two of them, and the case of the other three were sent back to the court in Miami for re-sentencing. The court recognized that the guide of sentencing were wrongly applied and as a result reduced their prison terms.
But there is more, much more. In fact, there is the now-indisputable fact that the five were not guilty of the substantive charges brought against them in the first place. The politics surrounding the trial were in the hands of hard-line Cuban-Americans in Florida, as well as in the US Congress. Without their blatant interference with the course of justice, the trial never would have taken place. Moreover, these people spent taxpayer dollars to enlist journalists in Miami to write condemnatory articles, to influence the jury pool for the trial, and to predispose public opinion to a guilty verdict. This trial was a political payoff to hard-line Cuban-Americans and every person in the United States and across the world who pays attention to these matters, knows it. Indeed, you know it, Mr. President. This kangaroo-court trial is a blemish on the very fabric of America’s democracy. It sends a clear signal to all the world-who judge us not as we judge ourselves, by how we feel about issues, but by our deeds.
You, Mr. President, cannot erase this blemish; it has lingered too long and too many years have been stolen from these men’s lives by it. Â But you can mitigate it, you can make it less formidable. And, vitally, you can clean the reputation of our justice system, and, in the case of Gerardo and the other two men still in prison, you can free them.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, in May of 2005, declared the imprisonment of the Cuban Five to be a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, placing the United States alongside some of the most heinous countries on earth. The Working Group requested that the U.S. take action to remedy the situation. You, Mr. President, can do just that.
Mr. President, you said that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” But in certain instances, that is wrong and you know it. Would you have us not look back to our Civil War? To the depredations of Black slavery that led to it? To the century-long economic slavery that followed that war? To the racism of our past-a racism that still plagues us today? I think not. And you should not deny the need to look back, review and reverse this mockery of a trial.
Take action, Mr. President. Release immediately the three remaining imprisoned members of the Cuban Five. Admit publicly the gross injustice done to all of them and elaborate the reasons. Apologize to the Cuban people and to our citizens and, most of all, to the Cuban Five and their families. Listen to “the better angels of our nature” and put the United States back on the side of justice.
Very Respectfully,
    Lawrence B. Wilkerson
Colonel, US Army (Retired)
worker |
November 3, 2014 |
8:15 pm | Analysis, Cuban Five, International, National |
Comments closed
Â
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Â
NOV. 2, 2014
Â
Nearly five years ago, authorities in Cuba arrested an American government subcontractor, Alan Gross, who was working on a secretive program to expand Internet access on the island. At a time when a growing number of officials in Washington and Havana are eager to start normalizing relations, Mr. Gross’s continued imprisonment has become the chief obstacle to a diplomatic breakthrough.
Â
There is only one plausible way to remove Mr. Gross from an already complicated equation. The Obama administration should swap him for three convicted Cuban spies who have served more than 16 years in federal prison.
Â
Fidel Castro may no longer be president, but his influence endures. His portrait was displayed at a march in Havana last month.
Â
Officials at the White House are understandably anxious about the political fallout of a deal with Havana, given the criticism they faced in May after five Taliban prisoners were exchanged for an American soldier kidnapped in Afghanistan. The American government, sensibly, is averse to negotiating with terrorists or governments that hold United States citizens for ransom or political leverage. But in exceptional circumstances, it makes sense to do so. The Alan Gross case meets that criteria.
Â
Under the direction of Development Alternatives Inc., which had a contract with the United States Agency for International Development, Mr. Gross traveled to Havana five times in 2009, posing as a tourist, to smuggle communications equipment as part of an effort to provide more Cubans with Internet access. The Cuban government, which has long protested Washington’s covert pro-democracy initiatives on the island, tried and convicted Mr. Gross in 2011, sentencing him to 15 years in prison for acts against the integrity of the state.
Â
Early on in Mr. Gross’s detention, Cuban officials suggested they might be willing to free him if Washington put an end to initiatives designed to overthrow the Cuban government. After those talks sputtered, the Cuban position hardened and it has become clear to American officials that the only realistic deal to get Mr. Gross back would involve releasing three Cuban spies convicted of federal crimes in Miami in 2001.
Â
In order to swap prisoners, President Obama would need to commute the men’s sentences. Doing so would be justified considering the lengthy time they have served, the troubling questions about the fairness of their trial, and the potential diplomatic payoff in clearing the way toward a new bilateral relationship.
Â
The spy who matters the most to the Cuban government, Gerardo Hernández, is serving two life sentences. Mr. Hernández, the leader of the so-called Wasp Network, which infiltrated Cuban exile groups in South Florida in the 1990s, was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Prosecutors accused him of conspiring with authorities in Havana to shoot down civilian planes operated by a Cuban exile group that dropped leaflets over the island urging Cubans to rise up against their government. His four co-defendants, two of whom have been released and returned home, were convicted of nonviolent crimes. The two who remain imprisoned are due for release relatively soon.
Â
A three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned the convictions in August 2005, ruling that a “perfect storm†of factors deprived the five defendants of a fair trial. The judges found that widespread hostility toward the Cuban government in Miami and pretrial publicity that vilified the spies made it impossible to impanel an impartial jury. The full court later reversed the panel’s finding, reinstating the verdict. But the judges raised other concerns about the case that led to a reduction of three of the sentences.
Â
One of the judges, Phyllis Kravitch, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Mr. Hernández’s murder-conspiracy conviction was unfounded. Prosecutors, she argued, failed to establish that Mr. Hernández, who provided Havana with information about the flights, had entered into an agreement to shoot down the planes in international, as opposed to Cuban, airspace. Downing the planes over Cuban airspace, which the exiles had penetrated before, would not constitute murder under American law.
Â
Bringing Mr. Hernández home has become a paramount priority for Cuba’s president, Raúl Castro. Cuban officials have hailed the men as heroes and portrayed their trial as a travesty. Independent entities, including a United Nations panel that examines cases of arbitrary detentions and Amnesty International, have raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. The widespread view in Cuba that the spies are victims has, unfortunately, emboldened Cuba to use Mr. Gross as a pawn.
Â
For years, officials in Washington have said that they would not trade the Cuban spies for Mr. Gross, arguing that a trade would create a false “equivalency.â€
Â
But a prisoner exchange could pave the way toward re-establishing formal diplomatic ties, positioning the United States to encourage positive change in Cuba through expanded trade, travel opportunities and greater contact between Americans and Cubans. Failing to act would maintain a 50-year cycle of mistrust and acts of sabotage by both sides.
Â
Beyond the strategic merits of a swap, the administration has a duty to do more to get Mr. Gross home. His arrest was the result of a reckless strategy in which U.S.A.I.D. has deployed private contractors to perform stealthy missions in a police state vehemently opposed to Washington’s pro-democracy crusade.
Â
While in prison, Mr. Gross has lost more than 100 pounds. He is losing vision in his right eye. His hips are failing. This June, Mr. Gross’s elderly mother died. After he turned 65 in May, Mr. Gross told his loved ones that this year would be his last in captivity, warning that he intends to kill himself if he is not released soon. His relatives and supporters regard that as a serious threat from a desperate, broken man.
Â
If Alan Gross died in Cuban custody, the prospect of establishing a healthier relationship with Cuba would be set back for years. This is an entirely avoidable scenario, as Mr. Obama can easily grasp, but time is of the essence.
MLTodayConnect with Us
- CPUSA National
- People’s World
- An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.
- Political Affairs