Showing posts with label Mass organizing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mass organizing. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Henry Giroux and John Logan On Public Education, Labor Unions, Neoliberalism, the Authoritarian State and the Radical Necessity of Social and Economic Democracy



Barbarians at the Gates: Authoritarianism and the Assault on Public Education

Tuesday, 30 December 2014

By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
December 30, 2014
"It is impossible to understand the current assault on public education without coming to grips with the project of neoliberalism," writes Giroux. (Image via Shutterstock) 

As public schools are privatized, succumbing to corporate interests, critical thought and agency are erased, and education emphasizes market values rather than democratic ideals. The emergence of larger radical social movements depends on public education maintaining its role as a democratic sphere.

Once 2015 begins both the US Senate and House of Representatives will be controlled by the Republican Party, one of the most extremist political parties in US history. (1) Coupled with the empty centrism of the Democratic Party, their ascendency does not bode well for public education or a host of other important social issues. Nor does it bode well for democracy. If we conjured up George Orwell and his fear of state surveillance, Hannah Arendt and her claim that thoughtlessness was the foundation of totalitarianism, and Franz Kafka whose characters embodied the death of agency and the "helplessness of the living," (2) it would be difficult for these dystopian works of literary and philosophical imagination to compete with the material realization of the assault on public education and public values in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century.

These are dangerous times. Compromise and compassion are now viewed as a pathology, a blight on the very meaning of politics. Moreover, in a society controlled by financial monsters, the political order is no longer sustained by a faith in reason, critical thought and care for the other. As any vestige of critical education, thought and dissent are disparaged, the assault on reason gives way to both a crisis in agency and politics. The right-wing Republican Party and their Democratic Party counterparts, along with their corporate supporters, despise public schools as much as they disdain taxation, institutions that enable critical thinking, and any call for providing social provisions that would benefit the public good. Not only are both parties attempting to privatize much of public education in order to make schools vehicles for increasing the profits of investors, they are also destroying the critical infrastructures that sustain schools as democratic public spheres.

The educational needs of students for many Republican and Democratic Party members, pundits, lobbying groups and politicians rank low next to the financial needs of hedge fund managers.

Teachers have been deskilled. Losing much of their autonomy to be creative in the classroom, they have been relegated to technicians whose sole objective appears to be enforcing a deadening instrumental rationality in which teaching to the test becomes the primary model of teaching and learning. Moreover, they are being demonized by the claim that the major problem with public education is lack of teacher accountability. The hidden order of politics here is that larger political and economic considerations such as crushing poverty, mammoth inequality, a brutalizing racism and iniquitous modes of financing public education all disappear from the problems facing schooling in the United States. Teachers also serve as an easy target for the (un)reformers to weaken unions, bash organized labor, discredit public servants, and "argue that education can be improved if taxpayer money is funneled away from the public school system's priorities (hiring teachers, training teachers, reducing class size etc.) and into the private sector (replacing teachers with computers, replacing public schools with privately run charter schools etc.)." (3)

These policies and practices echo the principles of casino capitalism or neoliberalism and are designed to enforce a pedagogy of repression, one that kills the imagination, sanctions a deadening mode of memorization and instills in students the discipline necessary for them to accommodate willingly to existing power relations at the expense of developing their capacity to be critical and engaged agents. In this case, the aim of this pedagogy of repression mimics Hannah Arendt's claim that "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any." (4) Public schools are also being defunded as states increasingly develop policies that drain state budgets by giving corporations substantial tax breaks. Diane Ravitch elaborates on the right-wing agenda to destroy public education, which consists of a range of groups ranging from right-wing politicians to shadowy groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). She is worth quoting in full:

Since the 2010 elections, when Republicans took control of many states, there has been an explosion of legislation advancing privatization of public schools and stripping teachers of job protections and collective bargaining rights. Even some Democratic governors, seeing the strong rightward drift of our politics, have jumped on the right-wing bandwagon, seeking to remove any protection for academic freedom from public school teachers. This outburst of anti-public school, anti-teacher legislation is no accident. It is the work of a shadowy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Founded in 1973, ALEC is an organization of nearly 2,000 conservative state legislators. Its hallmark is promotion of privatization and corporate interests in every sphere, not only education, but healthcare, the environment, the economy, voting laws, public safety, etc. It drafts model legislation that conservative legislators take back to their states and introduce as their own "reform" ideas. ALEC is the guiding force behind state-level efforts to privatize public education and to turn teachers into at-will employees who may be fired for any reason. The ALEC agenda is today the "reform" agenda for education. (5)

The educational needs of students for many Republican and Democratic Party members, pundits, lobbying groups and politicians rank low next to the financial needs of hedge fund managers; the ultra-rich such as Bill Gates, the Walton family and the Koch brothers; the legislators who make up ALEC; and any number of major corporations. Individual achievement is invoked to justify education as a private right rather than as a public good. The discourses of empiricism and standardized testing become the ultimate measures of achievement just as pedagogical matters concerning civic responsibility, engaged citizenship, thoughtfulness and critical thought disappear from the vocabulary of educational reform.

Under the regime of neoliberalism, community and working together are viewed as a burden because they are at odds with the neoliberal celebration of a survival-of-the-fittest ethos. Paul Buchheit goes even further arguing that "Privatizers believe that any form of working together as a community is anti-American." (6) In this instance, the labeling of community and caring for the other as anti-American has deeper political roots. As Robert Hunsiker observes, "As for neoliberalism, its dictate of 'survival of the fittest economics' is really 'bottom-feeder economics' whereby the rich accumulate more and more and more at the expense of lower and lower and lower wages, less benefits, and crushed self-esteem. What could be worse?" (7)

Equality, justice and the search for truth no longer define the mission of public education.

Defunding for public education has gotten so out of control that, as Aaron Kase reports, one public school in Philadelphia asked parents to "chip in $613 per student just so they can open with adequate services, which if it becomes the norm, effectively defeats the purpose of equitable public education, and is entirely unreasonable to expect from the city's poorer neighborhoods." (8) Equality, justice and the search for truth no longer define the mission of public education. Economic policies that benefit the bankers, corporations and the financial elite result in massive inequities in wealth, income and power and increasingly determine how the US public views both public education and the needs of young people. As market economies are transformed into market societies, the investment in human capital such as young people has been replaced by an overdetermined emphasis on investing in economic capital. Unchecked market fundamentalism now eats its own children while destroying any viable hope they may have for being included in the social and political infrastructure of democracy and a future that benefits them. (9)

Moreover, the rights of teachers and children are more difficult to protect as unions are either dismantled or weakened by the apostles of neoliberalism and privatization. Secondary education is no longer a right but an entitlement designed mostly to benefit the children of the rich who either flee from public schools to wealthy private schools or attend public schools in wealthy communities that more often than not resemble private schools in terms of how they segregate by class and race, cater to the whims of the rich and enshrine values that are consistent with the market. Schooling for poor people and people of color defined by the school-to-prison-pipeline has come to represent an appendage of the carceral state. This is not only an attack on public education, but an attack on democracy itself. The infrastructure of education has been under assault since the 1980s with the advent of market fundamentalism in the United States and the growing disdain for the welfare state, the public good and public values. By infrastructure, I am referring to the material, financial and intellectual resources necessary for public schools to be able to function in ways that protect teacher autonomy, encourage viable unions, create a curricula that is both critical and meaningful, and produce modes of critical pedagogy that truly embrace education as the practice of freedom and young people as critical agents and engaged citizens necessary for making democracy meaningful and substantive.

The shadow of Orwell now haunts public education and democracy itself as the political defenders of torture and state surveillance take control of Congress. As lawlessness and moral depravity infect all modes of governance, the push toward treating public schools, especially in low-income neighborhoods, as prisons, and students as objects of surveillance and control has become more widespread. The presence of police, guards, cameras, and a host of surveillance and security apparatuses has turned schools into incubators for creating students willing to surrender their freedoms to the national security state. The ghost of Kafka disturbs any vision of democratic education as fear becomes the operative principle in organizing public education, especially for schools largely inhabited by poor people and people of color. For the underserved, education is designed not to inspire and energize, nor is it designed to get students to think, reflect or question. On the contrary, such schools disable the capacities of students to become knowledgeable, informed speaking agents. Instead, it relegates them to the dreary pedagogical tasks of mastering low-level skills such as memorization, a willingness to conform and a refusal to question authority. This is more than a pedagogy of repression; it is a pedagogy of helplessness that infantilizes students while dethroning any relationship between learning and social change.

Schools have become punishing factories subjecting students to zero-tolerance policies that three decades ago were only tolerated in prisons.

Schools have become punishing factories subjecting students to zero-tolerance policies that three decades ago were only tolerated in prisons. (10) Security has been turned into a police matter rather than a term that points to pedagogies, classroom policies, emotional support and modes of administration that provide spaces that dignify students, invest in their welfare, encourage them to expand their capacities for learning and embrace pedagogies that are meaningful, critical and transformative. Schools no longer are viewed as places that create dreams of greatness, extend the horizons of the imagination or point to a future that refuses to mimic the present. On the contrary, they are increasingly held hostage both to the market values embraced by the corporate and financial elite and the fundamentalist ideologies of religious conservatives. It gets worse.

Orwell's premonition about state induced surveillance and Kafka's understanding of the danger of powerlessness encouraged by regimes of fear are now matched by Arendt's warning that human subjectivity is the foundation of politics and that any threat to critical thought, especially through a culture that directs desire into the most trivial of pursuits and anti-intellectual modes of learning, is as dangerous to democracy as the heavy hand of state repression. While Arendt did not use the phrase "radical imagination" to bring home her warning about the crisis and death of critical agency, that is exactly what is being destroyed in the testing factories and penal warehouses replacing public education. As the imagination no longer becomes the subject and object of learning, thoughtlessness expands, as does the foundation for creating students more suited for a totalitarian regime than for a flourishing democracy. Totalitarian governments believe that thinking is dangerous and rightly so. As Arendt points out,

Everything which happens in thinking is subject to a critical examination of whatever there is. That is, there are no dangerous thoughts for the simple reason that thinking itself is such a dangerous enterprise. So how I can convince . . . I think, nonthinking is even more dangerous. I don't deny that thinking is dangerous, but I would say not thinking, ne pas reflechir c'est plus dangereux encore [not thinking is even more dangerous]. (11)

In the new Gilded Age with its growing economic divisions, vast punishing state, criminalization of social behaviors, and war on youth, poor people and people of color, public education is being destroyed. Against the prevailing anti-democratic reforms of the economic and religious fundamentalists, the noble belief in schools as democratic public spheres and in schooling as the center of critical thinking and learning needs to be reclaimed, struggled over and taken up as part of a larger social movement for the defense of the public good, public values and the democratic commons. It is precisely this fear of education as a building block for both critically engaged youth and a broader public and for a radical politics that inspires a great deal of fear in the billionaire, anti-public (un)reformers. (12)

Within the next decade the new extremists who now control the commanding institutions of culture, politics and economics will do everything they can to replace a weakly implemented ideal of democracy with the economic and social principles of a ruthless mode of casino capitalism, which constitutes a new form of authoritarianism. Public spheres that provide a challenge to market-driven fundamentalisms that "promote selfishness and thereby corrode both society and the moral character of individuals" will be under further assault and run the risk of disappearing altogether. (13) As selfishness and the amassing of great wealth and power are transformed by the new extremists into a civic virtue, agency itself withers, trapped within the orbits of an inward looking, privatized world.

But there is more at stake here than the collapse of public values and the destruction of a comprehensive vision of politics, largely under assault by the ongoing predatory market forces of commodification, privatization and an unchecked celebration of self-interests as the cornerstone of human agency. Racist killings, the loss of privacy, the rise of the surveillance state, growing poverty and widening inequality, the increasing corporatization of public goods, and the depleting of resources that serve the commons all point to something more than the mounting privatization and atomizing of everyday life, along with the growing militarization, spying, xenophobia, racism and other anti-democratic practices in US society.

It is impossible to understand the current assault on public education without coming to grips with the project of neoliberalism.

What unites all of these disparate issues is a growing threat of authoritarianism - or what might be otherwise called totalitarianism with elections. Neoliberal societies embrace elections because they "exclude and alienate most people from political power" and thus provide a kind of magical defense for the authoritarian project of depoliticizing the public while removing all obstacles to its goal of defending massive inequities in power, wealth and the accumulation of capital. (14) It is impossible to understand the current assault on public education without coming to grips with the project of neoliberalism and its devaluation of the social, critical agency and informed thinking as part of its attempt to consolidate class power in the hands of a largely white financial and corporate elite.

The struggle for public education as a crucial civic resource and public good must continue through the large-scale organizing of teachers and labor unions, students and groups outside of education who are also struggling against a range of injustices. The struggle over public education cannot be removed from wider struggles against student debt, funding for public goods, the elimination of massive inequalities in wealth and power, the elimination of the military-industrial-security state, the abolition of police brutality, and the eradication of the punishing-mass incarceration state, among other struggles. These struggles all share underlying interests in restoring and reclaiming a notion of radical democracy that puts power in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the ruling elites. They also intersect around the need to elevate social needs over the narrow interests of the market and those elites who benefit from the financialization of society.

As the ruthlessness and misery produced by neoliberalism is made clear, the state resorts to increased levels of violence, often with impunity, particularly when it comes to attacking peaceful student protesters, and assaulting and often killing unarmed black men. (15) At the present moment, large-scale protests are taking place throughout the United States making clear that the public will no longer tolerate the indiscriminate killing of black men, the enforcement of racist policies across a wide social landscape, unrestrained police brutality and the continuing of widespread lawlessness that corrupts every institution - and schools in particular - that have been privatized and organized according to the narrow, if not savage and anti-democratic, interests of the market.

The ongoing protests in response to the killing of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, and the non-indictments of police officers who killed them, must intersect with protests over the defunding of public schools, the attack on welfare state institutions and services, the movement to save the environment, the anti-nuclear movements and a host of other isolated movements that need to join together in a new political formation capable of challenging the financial elite who have taken over the US government and all the commanding institutions of US society. The "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" and "I Can't Breathe" protests must overlap and connect with the struggle over public and higher education and the broader struggle for reclaiming a democracy that fulfills both its most radical ideals and its commitment to the common good, public values and a capacious notion of justice.

The Obama administration's educational policies have been more conservative than that of his predecessor and are based on accountability schemes that reproduce the worst of the testing craze.

The best hope for reforming public education resides in the emergence of what Stanley Aronowitz calls "disruptive social movements that operate outside of the two-party system." (16) Young people, single women, gays, students, union members, and other left groups no longer believe in either the Democratic Party or the two-party system. How else to explain their massive refusal to vote in the 2014 elections, which had the lowest voter turnout since 1943? As Aronowitz points out, for the last few decades, the Democratic Party has been particularly beholden to big money, wealthy donors and the Pentagon, and has pursued "centrist politics that allow them to follow the Republicans ever further to the right." (17) President Obama personifies the political and moral cowardice of the Democratic Party given his violation of civil liberties and civil institutions, the development of a foreign policy that amounts to a doctrine of perpetual war, and his backing of "corporate-friendly economic policies." (18) Moreover, the Obama administration's educational policies have been more conservative than that of his predecessor George W. Bush and are based on accountability schemes that reproduce the worst of the testing craze along with an aggressive approach to promoting charter schools, an attack on unions and the privatization of public education.

The current "disruptive social movements" emerging all over the country have not only opened up a national conversation about police brutality; they have also challenged the "conventional wisdom about what is possible" politically, and if these continue they could produce more far-reaching changes. (19) Both the movements against police brutality and the now largely defunct Occupy movement have provided new discursive signposts for acknowledging important social issues such as racially based police brutality and massive inequality in wealth, income and power. Central to these movements is the recognition of the educative nature of politics and the need to harness the rage of the public to points of identification that move people and indicate to them that they have the power collectively to challenge and transform the current corrupt regime of neoliberal capitalism.

These movements have created new ideological and affective spaces in which to assert the radical imagination and develop a project and politics of educated hope. Making education and the symbols of culture central to their tactics they have engaged in a war in which representations, affect, struggle and the need to produce new desires, identities, and modes of consciousness and agency matter. But they have done something more. These emerging movements are taking risks in not only confronting the raw power of state repression; they are also putting forth bold new and controversial issues such as gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana, the call for a social wage, single-payer universal health care, a shorter work week, the dismantling of the surveillance state, a new Marshall Plan for job development, free education, subsidized child care and racial justice.

Some progressives believe that one response to the extremism of the Republican Party can be found in pushing the Democratic Party to embrace more radical reforms such as gay marriage and a call for raising the minimum wage. The notion that real political, economic and social reform can be realized within the Democratic Party is more than pure fantasy; it also suffers from a form of historical amnesia that refuses to recognize that the only "reform the Democratic Party has implemented is to move more and more to the right, all in the name of a safe centrism that has marked its legacy for the last fifty years." (20)

At its best, education is dangerous because it offers young people and other actors the promise of racial and economic justice, a future in which democracy becomes inclusive and a dream in which all lives matter.

What Orwell, Arendt and Kafka have taught us is that when power is decoupled from accountability and responsibility, thoughtlessness prevails, repression increases and fear becomes the organizing principle of totalitarian societies, whatever form they may take. The legacy of fear and the lawlessness it inspires runs deep in the United States and its destructive effects are spreading into every public sphere capable of offering critical reflection on the nature of power in a society. The collapse of education into training, the loss of autonomy by teachers, the removal of the conditions that enable students to be critical and engaged citizens all speak to the character of a society in which independent thought is debased; creativity, stifled; and dissent, squelched.

We live in an age dominated by financial barbarians who are more than willing to place the vast majority of Americans in strangulating debt, low paying jobs, devastating poverty and spheres of life-threatening abjection, or, even worse, in "criminogenic ghettoes" and penal gulags. Under such circumstances, the rich commit crimes with impunity while the poor are put in jail in record numbers. Depravity and illegality feed each other as torture is defended by the political leadership as a reasonable tactic to extract crucial information from prisoners. All that stands between state terrorism and mass induced fear are informed citizens, critically educated agents and political formations willing to act with the courage necessary to think politics anew while developing innovative strategies, institutions and organizations that make it possible. Such struggles will not happen in the name of reform alone. Mass resistance to the authoritarian financial state must take place and its goal must be the dismantling of the current corrupt political system that has little to do with democracy and a great deal to do with the values, practices and policies of authoritarianism. Liberal reforms constitute a form of political regression and lack a powerful vision for challenging the corrupt and lifeless political vision produced by the regime of neoliberalism.

At the same time, the democratic institutions in which education is defined as the practice of freedom, critical learning and civic responsibility may be under siege by the lobbyists, hedge fund managers and the billionaires club, but the radical spirit of education is too powerful to be contained under state and corporate repression. The promise of educated citizens along with the enduring character of critical reflection and the search for economic, political and racial justice lives on in the demonstrations of workers, unions and young people all across the United States who are not just protesting police brutality, but also marching in order to have their voices heard as part of the promise of a radical democracy along with the arrangements that give it and them a meaningful and just life. At its best, education is dangerous because it offers young people and other actors the promise of racial and economic justice, a future in which democracy becomes inclusive and a dream in which all lives matter. Ursula K. Le Guin who was recently honored at the National Book Awards speaks about the power of books, words and artists who believe in the power of freedom, but I think her words also apply to education and other public intellectuals as well. She writes:

Books, you know, they're not just commodities. The profit motive often is in conflict with the aims of art. We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art - the art of words. I think hard times are coming when we will be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now and can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine some real grounds for hope. We will need writers who can remember freedom. Poets, visionaries - the realists of a larger reality. (21)

Le Guin's words remind us of the power of education and point indirectly to the need to resist all forms of miseducation. Miseducation breeds isolated consumerism, ignorance, militarism, a hatred of the other and indifference to the public good, and feeds a logic of disposability embraced by those who view justice and democracy as a liberal burden, if not a pathology. At its best, the critical and humane spirit of public education lives on in the future of social movements and militant labor unions willing to unify into a third party, create a new language of politics, defend those civic principles that are incompatible with casino capitalism and recognize that the most important investment a country can make is in its youth and educational institutions. The war on public education is part of the war on democracy and it is, in part, born of the legitimate fear that the emergence of larger radical social movements will depend on the development of a formative educational culture and modes of subjectivity that enable the agents for such movements. That is a concern worth nurturing and a struggle worth waging, and time is running out.

Footnotes

1. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism (New York: Basic Books, 2013).

2. Cited in Marie Luise Knott, Unlearning with Hannah Arendt, Trans by David Dollenmayer (New York: Other Press, 2013), p. 10.

3. David Sirota, "New data shows school 'reformers' are full of it," Salon, (June 3, 2013). Online: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/03/instead_of_a_war_on_teachers_how_about_one_on_poverty/

4. Hannah Arendt, "Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government," The Origins of Totalitarianism, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York: 2001). pp. 468.

5. Diane Ravitch, "The People Behind the Lawmakers Out to Destroy Public Education: A Primer
What You Need To Know About ALEC," Common Dreams (May 2, 2012). Online: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/05/02/people-behind-lawmakers-out-destroy-public-education-primer

6. Paul Buchheit, "How Our Public Schools Became a "Communist Threat"," Common Dreams (November 18, 2013). Online: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/11/18/how-our-public-schools-became-communist-threat

7. Robert Hunziker, "A Neoliberal Spring?," CounterPunch (December 18, 2014.) Online: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/18/a-neoliberal-spring/

8. Aaron Kase, "Public School Asks Parents to Pay $613 Per Student As Right-Wing Governor Destroys Public Education with Insane Defunding," AlterNet (August 22, 2013). Online: http://www.alternet.org/education/public-school-asks-parents-pay-613-student-right-wing-governor-destroys-public-education

9. See for instance, Roger Cohen, "'Capitalism Eating Its Children," The New York Times (May 29, 2014). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/cohen-capitalism-eating-its-children.html?_r=0

10. See, for instance, the classic work on zero tolerance: William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Rick Ayers, eds. Zero Tolerance: Resisting the Drive for Punishment in our Schools (New York: The New Press, 2001). See also, Annette Fuentes, Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse (New York: Verso, 2013).

11. Hannah Arendt, Hannah Arendt: The Last Interview and Other Conversations, (Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publishing, 2013), p. 123.


12. Michael D. Yates, "Public School Teachers: New Unions, New Alliances, New Politics," Truthout, (July 24, 2013). Online:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17756-public-school-teachers-new-unions-new-alliances-new-politics

13. Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn, "Selfishness in austerity times," Soundings, Issue 56, Spring 2014. p. 55.


14. Lorenzo Del Savio and Matteo Mameli, "Anti-representative democracy and oligarchic capture" Open Democracy (August 16, 2014). Online:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/lorenzo-del-savio-matteo-mameli/antirepresentative-democracy-and-oligarchic-capture

15. Robin D. G. Kelley, "Why We Won't Wait: Resisting the War Against the Black and Brown Underclass," Counterpunch (November 25, 2014). Online: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/25/75039/

16. Stanley Aronowitz, "Democrats in Disarray," The Indypendent (December 16, 2014), p. 12. Online: https://www.indypendent.org/2014/12/16/democrats-disarray-donkey-can%E2%80%99t-save-our-asses

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. One recent example of this kind of pie in the sky politics can be found in Scott Galindez, "2014: The Beginning of the End for the GOP?" Reader Supported News (December 26, 2014). Online: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27704-focus-2014-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-gop

21. Ursula K. Le Guin, "We will need writers who can remember Freedom," Speech at the 2014 National Book Awards. Online: http://parkerhiggins.net/2014/11/will-need-writers-can-remember-freedom-ursula-k-le-guin-national-book-awards/


https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Panopticon-Review/342702882479366
 
The Five Best Labor Stories of 2014
Tuesday, 30 December 2014
By John Logan, Truthout | Op-Ed 

  
Walmart employees picket outside of the Walmart store in Pico Rivera, California on November 6, 2013. The employees accuse Walmart of continued unlawful retaliation against workers who speak out for change at the company. Some of the striking workers say that when they have come forward to call on Walmart to address issues with scheduling, wages, benefits and above all else, respect in the work place, Walmart  has reacted by retaliating against them. (Photo: UFCW International Union / Flickr)

This year has turned out to be another tough one for US workers. In particular, the results of the 2014 midterm elections, which saw the reelection of anti-union governors in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio, demonstrated that the attack on labor rights at the state level, which started in earnest in January 2011, has yet to run its course. Next year, more states will introduce legislation that restricts collective bargaining rights, right-to-work bills that outlaw voluntary union security agreements and "paycheck protection" bills that make it more difficult for unions to raise and spend money on politics.

But 2014 also saw several more positive developments for workers and unions that suggest that the labor movement might yet have a brighter future in the coming years. Below are five important and hopeful stories from the past 12 months.

1. The Fight for Fifteen: Nothing comes close in significance to the struggle of fast-food workers, airport workers, home-care workers and workers at federal government buildings for a minimum wage of $15 per hour. In the latest round of actions, fast-food workers and their allies held strikes and protests in at least 190 cities around the country. Prior to the first strikes in New York City two years ago, few would have taken seriously the demand for $15 per hour for McDonald's and Burger King workers. Now, not only is it taken seriously, but it has also influenced living wage battles in cities across the nation. Next year the most important labor campaign in decades will escalate its protest action.

2. OUR Walmart: Just over two years ago, Walmart workers participated in the first ever strikes in the history of the world's largest retailer. This year's Black Friday protests were the largest so far: Thousands of community allies joined workers from OUR Walmart to engage in walkouts, sit-down strikes and other protests. These actions highlighted the high cost to the public of poverty wages, poor working conditions and management retaliation. Each year, employees at Walmart, like those at McDonald's, receive billions of dollars in public assistance because their wages are so low. Workers continue to face intimidation, but the tide may be turning against billion-dollar corporations that pay poverty wages at home and abroad. Coordinated by UNI Global Union, the campaign at Walmart has a vigorous international component: Workers in Chile and South Africa have protested this month, and next year will see more protests in the United States and overseas.

3. The UAW Campaign at Volkswagen in Tennessee: In February, when the United Automobile Workers (UAW) narrowly lost a representation election at the Chattanooga plant, this campaign could easily have been remembered as one of the year's low points. After the UAW collected membership cards from a majority of workers, Tennessee's governor and senior US senator colluded with anti-union organizations to mislead and intimidate workers into voting against the union. But the UAW has rebuilt support within the plant and now at least 45 percent of the Volkswagen workers are members. The company, which has behaved in an exemplary fashion throughout, has granted it limited bargaining rights. The campaign demonstrates that if employers remain neutral and workers are free from coercion, they will choose union representation - even in the South. If McDonald's and Walmart were to behave like Volkswagen, their employees would benefit from unions, decent wages, full-time hours and respect at work.

4. The Reinvigoration of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): For much of the past four years, the GOP Congress, anti-union groups and big business have attempted to stop the NLRB from functioning, with considerable success. In the past few months, however, the Board has made a number of important decisions that should offer some protection to workers who want to choose a union. Earlier this month, the NLRB reissued its final rules to streamline the union certification process and get rid of the worst cases of pre-election delay. In a landmark case in December, an administrative law judge ruled that Walmart violated the law when it discriminated against protesting workers at two California stores. Most recently, the Board's general counsel ruled that McDonald's is a "joint employer" and thus responsible for the unlawful actions committed by franchise managers against workers who participated in legal strikes and protests. It's tempting to dismiss the NLRB as increasingly irrelevant, but the Board under the Obama administration has shown that it still matters and can still play a critical role in protecting workers' rights.

5. The San Francisco Retail Workers' Bill of Rights: For several years, California has bucked national trends, both in terms of maintaining union membership levels and improving labor standards. Perhaps the most significant development in the latter respect has been the enactment in December of San Francisco's "Retail Workers' Bill of Rights." The pioneering legislation provides several important benefits for tens of thousands of low-wage workers in grocery and department stores, restaurants and banks: advance notice of work schedules and estimates of how many hours they are likely to work; the posting in conspicuous places of schedules two weeks in advance; and "predictability pay" if their employer changes their schedules at short notice. Enforcement of the new law will prove challenging, but progressive lawmakers throughout the country are watching it closely, as are its opponents. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce said that state and national chambers were extremely concerned that "what's happening in San Francisco can spread nationally." And with a bit of luck, it just well might do that.

Some commentators have suggested that the labor movement's problems have been caused by "self-sabotage," including its alleged backing for law enforcement after recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York, and its support for more prisons. Such an analysis both exaggerates the influence of the labor movement - militant managers, not militant workers, have been the driving force behind the transformation of US employment relations - and misrepresents the labor movement's position on these issues, which has evolved significantly. In the wake of the killing of unarmed black men in Ferguson and New York, AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka, SEIU president Mary Kay Henry, AFT president Randi Weingarten, among others, spoke out in support of "Black Lives Matter" protests.

Trumka said: "We cannot wash our hands of these issues.... Racism is part of our inheritance as Americans. Every city, every state and every region of this country has its own deep history with racism. And so does the labor movement." Trumka, who has made confronting racism a priority, has also attacked mass incarceration, stating that we need to replace it with "mass employment," and has given it significant attention at AFL-CIO conventions. Police and prison guard unions disagree with these actions, of course, but they have seldom played well with most other unions, and should not be confused with the entire labor movement. The views of the leadership of the mainstream labor movement on race, policing and mass incarceration is now more progressive than ever before. While that is a welcome development, it will not reverse the long-term decline of unions.

"Self-sabotage," if it exists, certainly does not explain the decades-long decline in union membership. If the labor movement is to be criticized, it should be for being a little too timid for a little too long. The experience of the past few decades has demonstrated that organizing within the official NLRB system is virtually impossible, and that organizing "outside of the law" is extraordinarily difficult. Most likely, it can be done only as part of a mass movement, which is why the Fight for $15 is potentially so important. 

Next year, like 2014, will likely pose serious challenges for US workers and their organizations. But the campaigns and the policy and regulatory developments discussed above demonstrate that there's life left in the labor movement, which remains the last, best hope for reversing skyrocketing levels of economic inequality and restoring some measure of justice and decency to the US workplace.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

John Logan is a professor and director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University.

 

Related Stories:
 
Labor Unions' Fight for the 99 Percent Goes Beyond Raising Campaign Dollars
By Sarah Jaffe, AlterNet | News Analysis
Labor Unions on the Brink
By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, The Daily Take | Op-Ed
On the News With Thom Hartmann: The Importance of Labor Unions and Meaning Behind Labor Day, and More
By Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | Video Report
Economic Update: Labor and Unions
By Richard D. Wolff, Truthout | Radio Program
Labor Law for the 0.01%
By John Logan, Truthout | Op-Ed

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

President Obama Finally Speaks Out In Support of Net Neutrality--And Not A Moment Too Soon (Now Let's Hope His Own FCC Appointee Doesn't Block His Request!)


All,

Well here's some really Good News for a change. Let's sincerely hope the President will continue on this path and without fear or equivocation finally stand up to and FIGHT the vicious Republican right over the next two years....WHY?...Because WE NEED IT...This also means that more than ever WE have to do our collective job as progressives and radicals and get organized on a national level to openly PUSH for change. This means that WE have to make real concrete DEMANDS of Congress, the media, the White House AND ourselves if we want anything to go in the right direction--like the four million people who demanded that the FCC and Obama stand up and defend the crucial necessity of net neutrality. There’s simply no more time for any of us to waste (like we all have for far too much of the last 6 years). It's NOW or NEVER..for real. Stay tuned...

Kofi

http://truth-out.org/news/item/27391-with-thumbs-up-from-obama-net-neutrality-advocates-see-victory-in-sight


With Thumbs-Up From Obama, Net Neutrality Advocates See Victory in Sight
Tuesday, 11 November 2014
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report


After staying mum on specific policies for months, President Obama waded into the debate over net neutrality on Monday and announced that he supports regulating the internet as a public utility that is as essential to the public as phone service and electricity.

Obama released the statement and a detailed video explaining his position one month before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to vote on a new set of rules for enforcing net neutrality, the concept that internet service providers should treat all legal web traffic equally.

Just hours before Obama made his announcement, Popular Resistance activists blockaded FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's driveway to demand that the agency issue tough regulations to protect the internet from profit-hungry telecom companies. Activists held pro-net neutrality demonstrations across the country in the past week, including one right in front of the White House.

Obama's statement brought cheers from progressives and internet freedom advocates, who have organized a massive movement, both online and off, to pressure the FCC to reclassify the internet as a Title II "common carrier" service, which they say is the only way to establish net neutrality rules with teeth.

Obama made it clear that he agrees.

"So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do," the president said in a statement. "To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act - while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

Obama is a longstanding supporter of net neutrality, but has refrained from directing the FCC toward specific policies until now.

Since a federal court struck down the FCC's latest batch of net neutrality rules in January, the agency has considered several proposals for reestablishing regulations to keep broadband companies from blocking or slowing some websites and services while giving preferential treatment to others. FCC Chairmen Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Obama last year, originally proposed classifying the internet under a different federal statute instead of Title II.

Wheeler also proposed allowing so-called paid prioritization, or "fast lane" deals, that would allow broadband companies to charge companies like Netflix fees for faster speeds to reach consumers, as long as the FCC deemed the deals commercially reasonable.

Protests against Wheeler's original proposal erupted outside and even inside FCC meetings while online organizers gathered thousands of signatures and millions of public comments. Under mounting public pressure, Wheeler later revised the proposal and made it clear that he would consider full Title II reclassification if necessary.

"The president's statement of support for Title II is the result of an unprecedented public outcry," said Craig Aaron, CEO of the pro-net neutrality group Free Press. "More than 4 million Americans have contacted the FCC on the issue, with the overwhelming majority of comments urging the agency to create real net neutrality protections. And the phones have been ringing off the hook at the White House for weeks."

The broadband industry is rigidly opposed to Title II reclassification and has threatened to take the FCC back to court if it approves tough regulations.

"Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation," Verizon said in a statement. "That course will likely also face strong legal challenges and would likely not stand up in court."

A legal challenge from Verizon doomed the FCC's last batch of net neutrality rules, which were thrown out by a federal court last year.

Recent media reports based on leaked information indicated that Wheeler is now considering a hybrid proposal that would classify only part of the internet under Title II so the FCC would have the power to block "fast lane" deals that the agency deems anticompetitive while preserving the internet as a retail information service, not a public utility, for everyday customers.

The proposal was generally seen as a compromise to appease both sides of the net neutrality debate, but Obama has refused to throw his support behind the proposal, saying instead that the entire internet should be placed under Title II and paid prioritization should be banned outright.

"FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the other commissioners now must abandon convoluted proposals and make clear rules that will protect internet users and stand up in court," Aaron said. "As the president made very clear, the only sure way to do that is under Title II."

Obama also called on the FCC to extend net neutrality protections to mobile devices like smartphones.

In a statement, Wheeler said he welcomed the president's input and would add it to the public record.

"We both oppose internet fast lanes," Wheeler said.

He also confirmed that the FCC had been exploring hybrid proposals that would involve only partial Title II reclassification, a move that critics argue would not put the FCC on the kind of firm legal footing needed to stand up to legal challenges from the industry.

Wheeler stated that the FCC "would need more time" to examine how different approaches to regulating the internet would hold up in court,  which suggests the FCC may delay its vote until after a scheduled meeting on December 11.

"Those are stalling tactics," said the internet freedom group Fight for the Future in an email to supporters. "The FCC has had plenty of time to discuss the various options available to them. We need to refocus our campaign on the FCC to make sure that Wheeler - a former cable lobbyist - doesn't delay the vote in a last ditch attempt to sneak through rules that his buddies at Comcast and Verizon can live with. Time is of the essence."

While Obama has taken a strong stance on Title II reclassification, he made it clear in his statement that the FCC is an independent agency and the final decision will be left up to Wheeler and his fellow commissioners.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Mike Ludwig

Mike Ludwig is a Truthout reporter. Follow Mike on Twitter @ludwig_mike.

Related Stories:

Net Neutrality Ruling Will Disempower Communities of Color
By Jaisal Noor, The Real News Network | Video Interview
Facing Growing Grassroots Pressure, Wheeler Revises Net Neutrality Proposal
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the FCC's Net Neutrality Proposal
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis
"Internet Slowdown" Protest Rallies Support for Net Neutrality
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Net Neutrality: Can You Hear Us Now?
By Candace Clement, Mary Alice Crim, OtherWords | Op-Ed

(Photo: Free Press)


Obama Calls for Net Neutrality, but His Own Industry-Tied FCC Appointee Could Stand in the Way

Thursday, 13 November 2014   
By Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now! | Video Report
 
 
 

In a strong statement in favor of a free and open Internet, President Obama has called on the Federal Communications Commission to uphold the principle of net neutrality by classifying the Internet as a public utility. Obama said such protections would prevent Internet service providers like Comcast from blocking access to websites, slowing down content or providing paid fast lanes for Internet service. Obama’s proposal comes as his appointed FCC chair, Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cellphone and cable industries, is considering breaking with the president on net neutrality. According to The Washington Post, Wheeler met with officials from Google, Yahoo and Etsy on Monday and told them he preferred a more nuanced solution. Wheeler reportedly said: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business. What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby." On Monday, protesters called on Wheeler to favor net neutrality as they blockaded his driveway when he attempted to go to work. Protests also took place in a dozen cities last week after The Wall Street Journal reported the FCC is considering a "hybrid" approach to net neutrality. This would apply expanded protections only to the relationship between Internet providers and content firms, like Netflix, and not to the relationship between providers and users. We discuss the ongoing debate over the Internet’s future with Steven Renderos of the Center for Media Justice.

TRANSCRIPT:

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As President Obama attends trade talks in China, he used a video message on Monday to issue a strong statement in favor of a free and open Internet. He called for the Federal Communications Commission to uphold the principle of net neutrality by classifying the Internet as a public utility. Obama said such protections would prevent Internet service providers like Comcast from blocking access to websites, slowing down content or providing paid fast lanes for Internet service.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at or which streaming services you can use. And they can’t let any company pay for priority over its competitors. To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life. The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is theirs alone, but the public has already commented nearly four million times.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: President Obama’s proposal comes as his appointed FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cellphone and cable industries, is considering breaking with the president on net neutrality. According to The Washington Post, Wheeler met with officials from Google, Yahoo, Etsy on Monday and told them he preferred a more nuanced solution. Wheeler reportedly said, quote, "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business. What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby." On Monday, protesters called on Wheeler to favor net neutrality as they blockaded his driveway when he attempted to go to work.
PROTESTER: I’m sorry, but we can’t let you go to work today, because you work for Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, and not for the people. And so, we can’t let you go there, because you’re selling us out on Internet neutrality, and that’s not OK with us. So, we want to know which side you’re on, Tom.
AMY GOODMAN: Protests also took place in a dozen cities last week after The Wall Street Journal reported the FCC is considering a so-called "hybrid" approach to net neutrality. This would apply expanded protections only to the relationship between Internet providers and content firms, like Netflix, and not to the relationship between providers and users.
For more on the latest developments in the debate over the Internet’s future, we’re joined by Steven Renderos of the Center for Media Justice. As the Center’s national organizer, he helped arrange two hearings with FCC Chair Tom Wheeler earlier this year. Renderos is also part of a network of 175 social justice organizations from around the country called Media Action Grassroots Network, or MAG-Net.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
STEVEN RENDEROS: Thank you for having me, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: First start by talking about the significance of what President Obama said.
STEVEN RENDEROS: It’s significant in the sense that what President Obama said was really basically agree on all the points that we’ve been making around net neutrality, the things that we actually agree to in regards to net neutrality, meaning that there should be no blocking or discrimination, meaning that Comcast can’t block the certain websites that I want to visit, that there shouldn’t be fast lanes and slow lanes, no paid prioritization schemes that allow websites to pay for faster access to consumers. And most importantly for us, he talked about applying these rules also to mobile broadband, which is where we know that a lot of, you know, users of color tend to access the Internet, through their cellphone devices; and in addition to that, also said that the way to do it is by reclassifying the Internet as a Title II broadband telecommunications service, essentially treating it like a utility, which is, for most of us, what it is today.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Steve, within hours of President Obama making the announcement earlier this week, my inbox at the New York Daily News was literally flooded by opposition candidates from industry and other conservative groups who basically portrayed this as a catastrophe for business and for innovation on the Internet in America. How important is this battle going to be now over the next few weeks on this issue of what the FCC decides?

STEVEN RENDEROS: Critically important. I mean, some of the indications that we’ve gotten from Chairman Tom Wheeler is that he’d like to delay the vote now. When he first came into office about a year ago into his position at the FCC—

AMY GOODMAN: He may not have a choice, if they keep blockading his driveway.

STEVEN RENDEROS: Absolutely. He might not even be able to get to the FCC. But he talked about wanting to get these rules done efficiently and quickly, using a different set of authorities under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. But now all of a sudden that the president has laid it out fairly clearly what the roadmap is, now all of a sudden he wants to step back and delay, which is unfortunate. Obviously, like shortly after President Obama’s statement, Senator Ted Cruz came out with his tweet, which is ironic, given that it’s because of an open Internet that Senator Ted Cruz has like a platform like Twitter to be able to share his misguided interpretations of what Obama is saying. But it also provides a platform for other voices to be heard.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this whole issue of the government interfering with free enterprise over the Internet, doesn’t it somehow distort the historical record of how the Internet initially was created and the backbone of the Internet, which was largely built as a result of government financing?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Certainly. If you want to maintain innovation, maintain a place where the Internet is an economic driving engine for us and all of our communities throughout the United States, you want to maintain net neutrality. That’s all it’s really doing, is basically keeping in place what we’ve had with the Internet since its inception, how we’ve experienced the Internet since its inception. It’s not about protecting Google or Facebook. It’s really about providing the conditions for the next Google and Facebook to exist.

AMY GOODMAN: And just to clarify, the Ted Cruz tweet: "'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet: the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."

STEVEN RENDEROS: Sure, which means absolutely nothing. It’s great political theater. But again, it’s because of an open Internet that Senator Ted Cruz has a platform like that. But it’s also because of an open Internet that we have platforms to hear about what’s happening in Ayotzinapa in Mexico. It’s because of an open Internet that we get to hear about what’s happening in Ferguson—all of these political moments much more significant because people have a platform to actually share their stories.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain what you mean by that, because for people who aren’t familiar with this whole debate, why wouldn’t they be able to know what’s happening in Ferguson with a, quote, "hybrid" model? Why wouldn’t they know what’s happening in Mexico?

STEVEN RENDEROS: If you think about the foundational principles of the Internet, which is very different to the rest of our media system, you know, users are both consumers and producers of information. There’s no distinction. So, you know, I can create a blog. I can start a Twitter stream. I can start, you know, a Tumblr, like a lot of black trans women of color do. They use Tumblr to, you know, shape their stories, shape their representations, because the mainstream media doesn’t really reflect their lived experiences. On the Internet, there is no distinction, and so we are both consumers and producers of information, meaning that we can control and shape our own narratives.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, one of the things that Wheeler initially tried to do was make a distinction between preserving net neutrality on broadband or through cable services, for example, and—but not necessarily in terms of mobile net. But recent reports have shown that the problems of telephone companies and mobile companies also slowing down content has grown. Can you talk about that, as well?

STEVEN RENDEROS: Sure. I mean, the first thing to really think about is who’s on mobile? Sixty percent of Latinos primarily use their cellphones to access the Internet. Forty-three percent of African Americans use the Internet [sic] to primarily access the Internet.

AMY GOODMAN: The phone.

STEVEN RENDEROS: So that’s who we’re talking about. Yeah, through their cellphone. So, that’s who we’re talking about. That’s who needs to be protected. Part of the fallacy of the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality rules was that it completely left wireless unprotected. But the reality is, for the Internet user, like my mom, for example, when she’s accessing Facebook through her cellphone, that is the Internet to her. So it doesn’t matter; there’s no distinction between accessing it through a computer or through a cellphone for the user. It’s the Internet.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And some of the recent examples that were reported on in terms of cellphone providers impinging on net neutrality?

STEVEN RENDEROS: Sure. We’ve seen examples in which AT&T, for example, blocked the FaceTime app on the iPhone. We’ve seen examples, actually, shortly after 2010, the 2010 FCC net neutrality rules, MetroPCS coming out with a tiered data plan that—where you pay $40, and you get access to certain websites; you pay $10 more, and you get access to more websites—which is essentially just taking the cable model and applying it to the Internet.

AMY GOODMAN: A series of public hearings have been held to draw attention to support for net neutrality, including one in Brooklyn last month. Among those who testified was Cayden Mak, technical director of 18 Million Rising.
CAYDEN MAK: I am 100 percent serious when I say I come from the Internet. The Internet raised me. The Internet saved my life. Have you ever been young and queer and brown in the great American suburb? Because I have. It takes its toll. Not all of us make it out—of the closet, of the subdivision, of our teenage years. Man, I am almost 28 years old, and it’s been a decade since I lived there, and I am still healing those wounds.
An open Internet isn’t just a matter of survival. It’s a matter of opening us to the possibility of magic, not just magic in an Arthur C. Clarke sense that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but magic in the sense that we’re open to the encounter that will change us. The Internet gave me my first chosen family. It wasn’t just about ego tripping that there were these college kids on this message board who wanted to talk to me about ideas. It was about the moment of mutual recognition. It was a series of encounters that changed everything. The foggy predetermined procession of days snapped into focus. There, a route of escape that was not forfeit or death, a word for how I felt, concepts that described what I saw, other people who made it out alive. That’s how I know an open Internet is about making magic. I’ve seen it happen. I am living proof that when you have an open network that empowers the least among us to become creators just as much as the rich and powerful, we are literally saving lives.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Cayden Mak, technical director of 18 Million Rising. Your response, Steve?

STEVEN RENDEROS: Online groups, like 18 Million Rising, Presente.org, Color of Change, would not exist were it not for an open Internet. And we need those spaces for—you know, for Asian Americans, for black and Latinos to have a space to actually shape and be part of the political system in a very significant way, and the open Internet provides that for us.

AMY GOODMAN: Tom Wheeler is the former head of the NCTA, right, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association—

STEVEN RENDEROS: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —which is now headed by Michael Powell, who is the former head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, so they just switched places.

STEVEN RENDEROS: Talk about the revolving door. There’s no better example than that.

AMY GOODMAN: Yet President Obama appointed him.

STEVEN RENDEROS: Absolutely. And I think it will be an interesting moment now to see what Tom Wheeler chooses to do. There was a recent Washington Post article that I think Juan alluded to, where Tom Wheeler is making—you know, separating himself, saying, "We’re an independent agency. We’re going to do our own thing." And there’s some real—he called President Obama’s approach to net neutrality "naive" and "simplistic." It could be "naive" and "simplistic." And what’s naive and simplistic is to really consider that four million people have, you know, commented on this issue, the most ever at the FCC, and to not really take those voices into account, 99 percent of which were in support of net neutrality.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Steve, I’d like to ask you about a touchy question, because President Obama, in taking this stand, is not only going against the cable industry and the telecommunications industry, he’s also going against many of the major civil rights organizations in the country, who have been remarkably AWOL, some of them, on this issue of net neutrality or have actually been supporting the cable companies and the telecommunication companies, which always provide their conferences and their conventions and their programs major funding. Can you talk about this internal battle in the civil rights community over the issue of net neutrality?

STEVEN RENDEROS: Certainly. It’s unfortunate to see that a lot of the legacy civil rights organizations have taken this kind of position when it comes to such a critical, important issue in today’s day. You know, Rashad Robinson from Color of Change oftentimes compares net neutrality to the Voting Rights Act from the '60s. So I think it's very unfortunate that that’s the reality today. However, there’s a whole online community of people of color, of queer, trans, other communities that really stake out their voices through an online—through an open net. So, yes, the legacy civil rights organizations are not with us on this issue, but there are new civil rights organizations, like Color of Change, Presente.org, 18 Million Rising, that really present where we really should be at.

AMY GOODMAN: And the number of people who responded online to the FCC around an open Internet? Was it—

STEVEN RENDEROS: Four million.

AMY GOODMAN: Four million people. And the percentage of those who support an open Internet, not the so-called "hybrid" model that Wheeler is putting forward?

STEVEN RENDEROS: Ninety-nine percent. And what’s interesting is four million people, and that’s the most that the FCC has ever received on any issue. This is including Janet Jackson’s Super Bowlgate. So, you know, it’s pretty significant.

AMY GOODMAN: Steven Renderos, I want to thank you for being with us, with the Center for Media Justice. He is the national organizer.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, a three-star lieutenant general says the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost. Stay with us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

President Obama Soundly Defeats Mitt Romney And Is Re-elected To A Second Term; Five Women From the Democratic Party Are Elected To The Senate

Damon Winter/The New York Times
Americans voted to give President Obama a second chance to change Washington.

Damon Winter/The New York Times
President Obama, with his family, took the stage at McCormick Place in Chicago early Wednesday to speak at his victory party. 



All,


Once again just as they did in 2008 in soundly defeating the McCain/Palin ticket the breathtaking strategic, tactical, and highly disciplined organizational brilliance of Team Obama (especially the incredible campaign leadership of the 'Two Davids'--Axelrod and Plouffe--as well as that of their major organizing cohorts Jim Messina, and the always dynamic Stephanie Cutter) prevailed over the fiercely reactionary and billion dollar 'Super-Pac' fueled Romney and Ryan rightwing machine.  The winning combination of extraordinary political mobilization skills and creative mastery of social media linked to the historically unprecedented voter participation of Obama's vaunted national coalition of African Americans, Latinos, Women, Asian Americans and young people under 40 was a very convincing textbook example of how to effectively organize and motivate an emerging new national demographic coalition that in both stylistic and substantive terms opposes, repudiates, and categorically rejects the socially lethal doctrines of white supremacy and sexist patriarchy and misogyny that  thoroughly defines the Republican and Tea Party.

That said it is now essential that this same progressive coalition make absolutely certain and insist that the President fight and stand up to the rightwing bullies in Congress and not give in to their demagogic bluster and blackmail on every major issue facing us in the very near future.  Obama ran a GREAT campaign and seriously deserves all the kudos and hyperbolic praise he has received.  Hopefully this will remind him that to be a great leader he must have and be prepared  to  assert courage, integrity, determination, and conviction.   Only time will tell if he--and the rest of us--has what it takes to truly change the direction of this country...Stay tuned...

Kofi


Obama Wins New Term as Electoral Advantage Holds
By JEFF ZELENY and JIM RUTENBERG
November 6, 2012
New York Times
 
Barack Hussein Obama was re-elected president of the United States on Tuesday, overcoming powerful economic headwinds, a lock-step resistance to his agenda by Republicans in Congress and an unprecedented torrent of advertising as a divided nation voted to give him more time.

In defeating Mitt Romney, the president carried Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin, a near sweep of the battleground states, and was holding a narrow advantage in Florida. The path to victory for Mr. Romney narrowed as the night wore along, with Mr. Obama winning at least 303 electoral votes.

A cheer of jubilation sounded at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago when the television networks began projecting him as the winner at 11:20 p.m., even as the ballots were still being counted in many states where voters had waited in line well into the night. The victory was far narrower than his historic election four years ago, but it was no less dramatic.

“Tonight in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back,” Mr. Obama told his supporters early Wednesday. “We know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.”

Mr. Obama’s re-election extended his place in history, carrying the tenure of the nation’s first black president into a second term. His path followed a pattern that has been an arc to his political career: faltering when he seemed to be at his strongest — the period before his first debate with Mr. Romney — before he redoubled his efforts to lift himself and his supporters to victory.

The evening was not without the drama that has come to mark so many recent elections: For more than 90 minutes after the networks projected Mr. Obama as the winner, Mr. Romney held off calling him to concede. And as the president waited to declare victory in Chicago, Mr. Romney’s aides were prepared to head to the airport, suitcases packed, potentially to contest several close results.

But as it became increasingly clear that no amount of contesting would bring him victory, he called Mr. Obama to concede shortly before 1 a.m.

“I wish all of them well, but particularly the president, the first lady and their daughters,” Mr. Romney told his supporters in Boston. “This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation.”

Hispanics made up an important part of Mr. Obama’s winning coalition, preliminary exit poll data showed. And before the night was through, there were already recriminations from Republican moderates who said Mr. Romney had gone too far during the primaries in his statements against those here illegally, including his promise that his get-tough policies would cause some to “self-deport.”

Mr. Obama, 51, faces governing in a deeply divided country and a partisan-rich capital, where Republicans retained their majority in the House and Democrats kept their control of the Senate. His re-election offers him a second chance that will quickly be tested, given the rapidly escalating fiscal showdown.

For Mr. Obama, the result brings a ratification of his sweeping health care act, which Mr. Romney had vowed to repeal. The law will now continue on course toward nearly full implementation in 2014, promising to change significantly the way medical services are administrated nationwide.

Confident that the economy is finally on a true path toward stability, Mr. Obama and his aides have hinted that he would seek to tackle some of the grand but unrealized promises of his first campaign, including the sort of immigration overhaul that has eluded presidents of both parties for decades.

But he will be venturing back into a Congressional environment similar to that of his first term, with the Senate under the control of Democrats and the House under the control of Republicans, whose leaders have hinted that they will be no less likely to challenge him than they were during the last four years.

The state-by-state pursuit of 270 electoral votes was being closely tracked by both campaigns, with Mr. Romney winning North Carolina and Indiana, which Mr. Obama carried four years ago. But Mr. Obama won Michigan, the state where Mr. Romney was born, and Minnesota, a pair of states that Republican groups had spent millions trying to make competitive.

Americans delivered a final judgment on a long and bitter campaign that drew so many people to the polls that several key states extended voting for hours. In Virginia and Florida, long lines stretched from polling places, with the Obama campaign sending text messages to supporters in those areas, saying: “You can still vote.”

Neither party could predict how the outcome would affect the direction of the Republican Party. Moderates were hopeful it would lead the rank and file to realize that the party’s grass-roots conservatism that Mr. Romney pledged himself to during the primaries doomed him in the general election. Tea Party adherents have indicated that they will argue that he was damaged because of his move to middle ground during the general election.

As he delivered his brief concession speech early Wednesday, Mr. Romney did not directly address the challenges facing Republicans. His advisers said that his second failed quest for the White House would be his last, with his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, standing as one of the leaders of the party.

“We have given our all to this campaign,” said Mr. Romney, stoic and gracious in his remarks. “I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead this country in a different direction.”

The results were more a matter of voters giving Mr. Obama more time than a second chance. Through most of the year slight majorities of voters had told pollsters that they believed his policies would improve the economy if they could stay in place into the future.

Mr. Obama’s campaign team built its coalition the hard way, through intensive efforts to find and motivate supporters who had lost the ardor of four years ago and, Mr. Obama’s strategists feared, might not find their way to polls if left to their own devices.

Up against real enthusiasm for Mr. Romney — or, just as important, against Mr. Obama — among Republicans and many independents, their strategy of spending vast sums of money on their get-out-the-vote operation seemed vindicated on Tuesday.

As opinion surveys that followed the first debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama showed a tightening race, Mr. Obama’s team had insisted that its coalition was coming together as it hoped it would. In the end, it was not a bluff.

Even with Mr. Obama pulling off a new sweep of the highly contested battlegrounds from Nevada to New Hampshire, the result in each of the states was very narrow. The Romney campaign was taking its time early Wednesday to review the outcome and searching for any irregularities.

The top issue on the minds of voters was the economy, according to interviews, with three-quarters saying that economic conditions were not good or poor. But only 3 in 10 said things were getting worse, and 4 in 10 said the economy was improving.

Mr. Romney, who campaigned aggressively on his ability to turn around the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, was given a narrow edge when voters were asked which candidate was better equipped to handle the economy, the interviews found.

The electorate was split along partisan lines over a question that drove much of the campaign debate: whether it was Mr. Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, who bore the most responsibility for the nation’s continued economic challenges. About 4 in 10 independent voters said that Mr. Bush should be held responsible.

The president built a muscular campaign organization and used a strong financial advantage to hold off an array of forces that opposed his candidacy. The margin of his victory was smaller than in 2008 — he held an advantage of about 700,000 in the popular vote early Wednesday — but a strategic firewall in several battleground states protected his Electoral College majority.

As Mr. Romney gained steam and stature in the final weeks of the campaign, the Obama campaign put its hopes in perhaps one thing above all others: that the rebound in the auto industry after the president’s bailout package of 2009 would give him the winning edge in Ohio, a linchpin of his road to re-election.

Early interviews with voters showed that just over half of Ohio voters approved of the bailout, a result that was balanced by a less encouraging sign for the president: Some 4 in 10 said they or someone in their household had lost a job over the last four years.

He defeated Mr. Romney 52 percent to 47 percent in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, but only because of the number of votes he banked in the month leading up to Election Day.

Mr. Obama won despite losing some of his 2008 margins among his key constituencies, including among younger voters, blacks and Jewish voters, yet he appeared to increase his share among Hispanics and Asians. Early exit poll results showed Latinos representing about 1 in 10 voters nationwide, and voting for Mr. Obama in greater numbers than four years ago, making a difference in several states, including Colorado and Florida.

He held on to female voters, according to preliminary exit polls conducted by Edison Research, but he struggled even more among white men than he did four years ago.

Mr. Romney’s coalition included disproportionate support from whites, men, older people, high-income voters, evangelicals, those from suburban and rural counties, and those who call themselves adherents of the Tea Party — a group that had resisted him through the primaries but had fully embraced him by Election Day.

The Republican Party seemed destined for a new round of self-reflection over how it approaches Hispanics going forward, a fast-growing portion of the voting population that senior party strategists had sought to woo before a strain of intense activism against illegal immigration took hold within the Republican grass roots.

It was the first presidential election since the 2010 Supreme Court decision loosening restrictions on political spending, and the first in which both major-party candidates opted out of the campaign matching system that imposes spending limits in return for federal financing. And the overall cost of the campaign rose accordingly, with all candidates for federal office, their parties and their supportive “super PACs” spending more than $6 billion combined.

The results Tuesday were certain to be parsed for days to determine just what effect the spending had, and who would be more irate at the answer — the donors who spent millions of dollars of their own money for a certain outcome, or those who found a barrage of negative advertising to be major factors in their defeats.

While the campaign often seemed small and petty, with Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama intensely quarreling and bickering, the contest was actually rooted in big and consequential decisions, with the role of the federal government squarely at the center of the debate.

Though Mr. Obama’s health care law galvanized his most ardent opposition, and continually drew low ratings in polls as a whole, interviews with voters found that nearly half wanted to see it kept intact or expanded, a quarter wanted to see it repealed entirely and another quarter said they wanted portions of it repealed.

In Chicago, as crowds waited for Mr. Obama to deliver his speech, his supporters erupted into a roar of relief and elation. Car horns honked from the street as people chanted the president’s name.

“I feel like it’s a repudiation of everything the Republicans said in the campaign,” said Jasmyne Walker, 31, who jumped up and down on the edge of a stone planter in a downtown plaza. “Everybody said that if he lost it would be buyer’s remorse — that we were high on hope in 2008. This says we’re on the right track. I feel like this confirms that.”



Michael Cooper contributed reporting.
by Howard Fineman
11/07/2012
Huffington Post


NEW YORK -- President Barack Obama did not just win reelection tonight. His victory signaled the irreversible triumph of a new, 21st-century America: multiracial, multi-ethnic, global in outlook and moving beyond centuries of racial, sexual, marital and religious tradition.

Obama, the mixed-race son of Hawaii by way of Kansas, Indonesia, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, won reelection in good part because he not only embodied but spoke to that New America, as did the Democratic Party he leads. His victorious coalition spoke for and about him: a good share of the white vote (about 45 percent in Ohio, for example); 70 percent or so of the Latino vote across the country, according to experts; 96 percent of the African-American vote; and large proportions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

The Republican Party, by contrast, has been reduced to a rump parliament of Caucasian traditionalism: white, married, church-going -- to oversimplify only slightly. "It's a catastrophe," said GOP strategist Steve Schmidt. "This is, this will have to be, the last time that the Republican Party tries to win this way."

The GOP chose as its standard-bearer Mitt Romney, whose own Mormon Church until recent decades discriminated officially against blacks. His campaign made little serious effort to reach out to Hispanics voters, and Romney hurt himself by taking far-right positions on immigration during the GOP primaries. He made no effort whatsoever in the black community.

Obama reached out not only racially and ethnically, but in terms of lifestyle. Analysts made fun of, and Republicans derided, his campaign's focus on discrete demographic and social slices of the electorate, including gays and lesbians. But the message was one about the future, not the American past.

U.S. Census numbers tell the story. In the first decade of the new millennium, the Asian-American population rose 43.3 percent, the African-American population 12.3 percent, the Latino community 43 percent -- and the white population just 5.7 percent.

To be sure, the president won because of his stand on the issues -- health care reform, Wall Street regulation, the auto industry bailout, among others. But his victory is something more: a sense that we are all in this together as a society, no matter who we are or how we live our lives.

I saw this new America at the heart of the Obama reelection effort, in their campaign offices. In one office in Virgina, for example, the local campaign manager was Pakistani-American, the volunteers were of every race and background, the people heading out to handle the signup drive were Hispanic, and the event they were working on was a concert by Bruce Springsteen.
Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren
(Photo: Josh Reynolds, AP)
Democrats keep control of U.S. Senate
by Susan Davis
USA TODAY


Democrats are going to maintain their hold on the U.S. Senate.

3:05AM EST November 7, 2012 - Democrats will maintain control of the U.S. Senate after their candidates picked up Republican-held seats in Indiana, Maine and Massachusetts, leaving the GOP no path to a takeover with the remaining competitive races that remain undecided.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., offered a concillatory tone and called for compromise as Congress faces a daunting series of fiscal challenges in the months ahead.

"Democrats and Republicans must come together, and show that we are up to the challenge," Reid said. "This is no time for excuses. This is no time for putting things off until later. We can achieve big things when we work together."

It is the second election cycle in a row in which Republicans were favored to make gains because they were defending fewer seats, only to see their chances diminish because of missteps by their own candidates.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the party needs to take some time to process the impact of Tuesday's results.

"It's clear that with our losses in the Presidential race, and a number of key Senate races, we have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party," Cornyn said. "While some will want to blame one wing of the party over the other, the reality is candidates from all corners of our GOP lost tonight. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."

In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock failed to recover from a late controversy over his remarks at a debate that pregnancy resulting from rape is "God's will" in explaining his opposition to abortion rights. Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly was declared the winner by a narrow margin in a victory that delivered a fatal blow to lingering GOP hopes for a takeover.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock failed to recover from a late controversy over his remarks on abortion rights.(Photo: Michael Conroy, AP)

Harvard University professor and former Obama administration official Elizabeth Warren handily defeated GOP Sen. Scott Brown in one of the highest-profile races of the 2012 cycle, and the most costly in the state's history. Her victory was critical to Democrats' efforts to maintain control and hailed by liberal activists who supported her campaign.

In Maine, former Gov. Angus King sailed to victory despite the GOP's best efforts to make it a competitive race. King ran as an independent and has not said which party he intends to caucus with, but he is widely expected to sit with Democrats in the chamber. To that end, King criticized GOP strategist Karl Rove in his victory speech for directing super PAC money into Maine in an effort to defeat King. "I hope that man never comes to Maine," King said.

An early duo of Democratic re-election victories came in Ohio for Sen. Sherrod Brown and in Florida for Sen. BIll Nelson, thwarting long-shot GOP efforts for pick-ups in those states. Recent Democratic concerns about Connecticut quickly evaporated after Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy handily defeated former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, who spent nearly $100 million of her own fortune for a Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
Sen. Sherrod Brown thwarted a long-shot GOP effort to pick up Ohio.(Photo: Tony Dejak, AP)

In Missouri, Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who was targeted heavily by Republicans, pulled out a convincing win against Republican Rep. Todd Akin, whose campaign foundered after he claimed that women who were victims of rape had a biological defense against becoming pregnant.

Former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine defeated Republican former governor and senator George Allen in the hotly contested Virginia race, maintaining the party's hold on the seat. Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin defeated former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin and made history: She is the first openly gay person elected to the U.S. Senate.

Republicans scored a rare victory in Nebraska, where Republican Deb Fischer defeated former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who was seeking a comeback. Fischer's victory was a GOP pick-up because the seat is currently held by retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. GOP Rep. Jeff Flake also handily won in Arizona against Democrat Richard Carmona. Texas also elected Republican Ted Cruz, a popular candidate among Tea Party activists.

In Nevada, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley held a narrow lead over GOP Sen. Dean Heller, another potential Democratic pick-up, but the race remained tight. Republicans were also eyeing a potential pick-up in North Dakota, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp held a narrow lead over GOP Rep. Rick Berg in a state Republican Mitt Romney won easily.

If either Berkley or Heitkamp secures a victory, 2012 would make history for sending a new record of non-incumbent freshman women senators to the Senate. The record was set in 1996 when four new women were sent to the Senate. Four women have already won including Baldwin, Fischer, Warren and Democrat Mazie Hirono in Hawaii.

Montana was too close to call in a race pitting incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester against GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg in a state Romney carried comfortably.

There were 33 Senate seats up for re-election, 23 Democrats and 10 Republicans, and most incumbents were favored to win handily. Five Republican senators and 17 Democratic senators faced no real re-election threat. With Republicans maintaining control of the U.S. House, Congress will be divided by near-identical margins next year.

All,

Elizabeth is a REAL progressive and a very strong, independent, and effective leader.  She is now also the best and most accomplished grassroots activist and public intellectual in the U.S. Senate...

Kofi


Elizabeth Warren Election Results: 
Consumer Advocate Unseats Scott Brown
11/07/2012


Elizabeth Warren defeated Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) Tuesday in the race for U.S. Senate, NBC News and CBS News projected.

The Harvard Law professor and consumer advocate had narrowly been favored in recent days, as polls showed her with a slight lead over the incumbent senator.

Warren was the intellectual godmother of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was its first head. She was denied a permanent appointment due to objections from congressional Republicans and from within the Treasury Department.

From the beginning, the Massachusetts Senate race attracted national attention. Brown, who opposed Obamacare, won election to the Senate in a 2010 special election at the height of the health care reform debate following the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) Warren's impassioned advocacy for economic fairness caused liberals to rally around their candidacy. Democrats were eager to reclaim the seat that Kennedy held for over four decades.

As a result, Warren became one of the top Senate fund-raisers of all time, surpassing Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate run. Brown was also successful in fundraising, having a significant war chest from his 2010 run.

The race was neck-and-neck for most of the race, but Warren pulled away narrowly after her speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. In September.

Warren stressed that the race was about control of the Senate, and tied Brown to the national GOP. Brown distanced himself from other Senate candidates like Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana. In the end, Warren had an easier lift as a Democrat in a deep blue state, and Brown's moderate image only carried him so far.