I wrote a book that came out in early 2009 called, “The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be,” that talked about the history of the American political debate. One of my fundamental arguments was that conservatives are using the same arguments against modern day progress that their ideological ancestors used against the progress we made throughout history. What I underestimated, though, is how fiercely and broadly the modern conservative movement is trying not only to block advances in progress, but to actually roll back the gains of our history. Things that had seemed long settled only a few years back when I wrote that book are now being fought over anew, and not by trivial people on the fringes of our politics but by most of the leaders in the Republican Party.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen the Supreme Court overturn 100 years of precedent in dramatically expanding corporate political power, and have seen Supreme Court Justices imply in oral arguments that Medicaid might be unconstitutional; we have seen leading Republican presidential candidates openly calling for the repeal of child labor laws, argue for letting the states ban contraception, and say that Social Security is unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme; there was a Republican governor and presidential candidate, Rick Perry, who opened the door to his state seceding from the union; there is a Republican senator who called for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (although he later pulled back from that under intense pressure); and the Paul Ryan budget, passed twice by the Republican House and unreservedly endorsed by their presumptive, ends Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, and calls for a 95-percent cut in domestic spending over the next four decades.

This was the stuff of the extremist fringe -- the John Birch Society, the militia types, the neo-Confederacy fan boys in the South, the Ayn Rand apostles, the Christian Dominionists -- until fairly recently. But this group of outside-the-mainstream ghouls has become the twisted heart and soul of the 2012 Republican Party.

President Obama’s speech this week went after the extremists who control the Republican Party hard, and he nailed it. As a history buff, and someone who wrote at length about the original Social Darwinists in my book, I was glad to see him explicitly tie Ryan and Romney to their Social Darwinist ancestors:

This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.

Just to give you a flavor of the original Social Darwinists, their intellectual founder was British writer Herbert Spencer, who happily applauded the divine right of Kings and “anyone who can get uppermost”. He attacked democratic forms of government, as well as trial by jury, where “12 people of average ignorance” would dare to sit in judgment of great corporations or wealthy people. In the US, the leading Social Darwinist was a Yale professor named William Graham Sumner, who said that every society had a choice between only two alternatives: “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest” or “un-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest.”

Continue reading »

Working America connects with Occupy D.C.

For the second post in our series taking a closer look at the state of the U.S. labor movement, we have an exclusive interview with the executive director of Working America, Karen Nussbaum.

Karen Nussbaum says Working America has had a lot of success in the last nine years, by listening to working families and talking to them on a one-on-one basis. She said that Working America started with the theory that union members view the world differently than many other people — they're more progressive, they vote differently, they have a different view on government. And if non-union people living in the same neighborhoods were given the same information and the same sense of empowerment that they could make a difference in government, they would think and act similarly to union members.

So they went door-to-door talking to non-union households, often an environment where Rush Limbaugh and Fox News played in the background. Working America found that in one-on-one conversations, people were sympathetic to union issues and viewpoints. And they were stunned to find that two out of three people that they got the chance to talk to agreed with them on the issues and were willing to become members. If you have the conversation about who benefits from a particular piece of legislation, people get it. They realize that much of what is being passed now won't benefit them and they become much more questioning of what they're being told and start to look for other options.

Working America has continued to organize and canvass on the local level and they've found that their approach is very effective, even around electoral campaigns. They've found that while the majority of their members are moderates on the ideological spectrum, they vote for Working America-endorsed candidates 65-70 percent of the time. Even in households where Working America members were also National Rifle Association membgers, they were more likely than not to vote for the organization's endorsed candidate.

Nussbaum said their results show the effect you can have if you simply start a conversation with people. She said that working class families, regardless of their ideological background, recognize many of the same issues that movements like Occupy Wall Street have brought attention to. They've been dying to have these conversations, but they just didn't know where to go.

The organization, which is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, is designed to do community outreach on issues that are important to working families. Founded in 2003, Working America is focused on organizing working class voters — union members or not — so that they have a voice in the political conversation. In addition to talking to workers and recruiting them to participate in the political process, they also work on issue campaigns, particularly fighting against some of the worse-case scenarios that have recently popped up in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Ohio, Minnesota and elsewhere. In particular, they fight against policies like "right-to-work" (for less), the loosening of child labor laws, and education cuts frequently found in conservative state budgets. They also pursue positive campaigns like attempts to increase minimum wages and pass measures to institute earned sick days at the city and county level.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (64)

PLAYS: (796)

Embed

As Rachel Maddow reported this Wednesday, despite the Bush administration's best efforts to destroy every copy of internal memo from former State Department counselor Philip Zelikow, one copy survived and has been obtained by Wired Magazine and the national security archive at George Washington University, three years after filing a FIOA request.

Rachel delved into the politics on this, noting the hard move to the right by the Republican Party even since their nomination of John McCain who spoke out against torture during the last presidential election.

MADDOW: And, if the Republican Party were still the party of John McCain, this would open up a whole new can of political worms, because the Obama administration, remember, looked into Bush administration ordered torture and they decided not to prosecute any of it. They decided effectively that the Bush administration was operating on good faith when they ordered torture? They thought it was legal? Probably not. Actually, it turns out they had good reason to know it was not legal, so that means it was a crime. It was probably a war crime, not to put too fine a point on it.

And that is something that we are legally obligated to prosecute in this country. This reopens the whole question of the legal liability for torture that was administered by the previous administration. The Democratic Party will be split by this because the White House politically doesn't want to deal with it, even if it's wrong and even if they know it's wrong.

And the Republican Party still has to figure out who it is. Is the Republican Party still the party of John McCain, which has now the opportunity to out flank the President on a matter of principle here, where the White House knows what the right thing to do is, but they don't want to do it. Or, are the Republicans still the party of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, who think torture is okay? Gut check time.

Given the fact that it appears they're well on their way to nominating Mitt Romney and hell will be warming over before we see anyone in the GOP pushing for prosecutions of the Bush administration, I think we've already got our answer. And given the fact that the Obama administration and the DOJ have not already pushed for prosecutions on this matter, I'm not holding my breath for them to do the right thing either.

Here's Spenser Ackerman's article over at Wired on the newly released memo -- CIA Committed ‘War Crimes,’ Bush Official Says:

Continue reading »

enlarge

FACT. Sister Toldjah is a bigoted wingnut who doesn't know what "nationalize" means. FACT. The number of gay conservatives is much smaller than the number of people who saw "Atlas Shrugs" in theaters.

But. I do love the idea of Teh Geyz nationalizing everything. Just think: no more ugly, pleated khakis. No more Applebee's. No more Pro Wrestling, NASCAR or, let's face it, Republicans.

Where do I sign up?

CREDO SuperPac has announced the eighth member of its 'Tea Party Ten' members of Congress that it will seek to defeat in the 2012 elections, Dan Lungren of California. The 10 are chosen on the basis of their extreme positions and rhetoric and the fact that they are vulnerable. Most of them were elected in the 'wave' election of 2010 and could easily lose in 2012 if they have strong challengers.

Sometimes the actions of elected representatives become so odious that urgent action is required. Many of the Tea Party-affiliated House Republicans were elected in 2010 on a wave of concern about a very troubled economy and with millions of dollars in expenditures by political groups associated with Karl Rove or the Koch brothers. Their actions in Congress have been beyond the pale.

They voted to deny the science on global warming, to change the very definition of rape, to deny funds to Planned Parenthood for the provision of contraception, to expand tax breaks for the top 1%, and to eliminate Medicare and leave seniors and the disabled at the mercy of the insurance industry.

Lungren was announced Wednesday as the latest Republican added to the campaign. His headline reads "California's Rick Santorum":

For more than 30 years, Dan Lungren has stood for Tea Party extremism and radical assaults on equality. When the Obama Administration refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Dan Lungren was happy to sink $1.5 million of our tax dollars into a contract with a former Bush Administration official to uphold this discriminatory law. But denying equal rights to lesbian and gay couples is about the only thing Lungren wants to fund. He voted for the Ryan budget to slash social services and end Medicare as we know it. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood, cut Pell Grants for one third of University of California undergraduates, cut $125 million from K-12 education in California, and eliminate Headstart funding for 14,000 low income children in his district. His position on women's issues are even more extreme: Lungren has sponsored legislation that would have outlawed abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and is so anti-woman that he called the Obama Administration's new regulations on no-cost birth control an "assault" on the First Amendment.

Lungren joins Mike Fitzpatrick (PA), Joe Walsh (IL), Frank Guinta (NH), Sean Duffy (WI), Steve King (IA), Chip Cravaack (MN) and Allen West (FL) on the list. Two members of the Tea Party Ten remain to be unveiled.

Those interested in getting Lungren and the rest of the Tea Party Ten out of office can sign the CREDO pledge or contribute.

DOWNLOADS: (42)

PLAYS: (511)

Embed

Hey, right-wingers: Let's have a little talk about the coming election.

We realize it's not looking so hot for your side, what with the clown-car primary season we've gotten on the Republican side and all. But really, if you lose, it's not the end of the world.

You know that, we know that. It sucks to be you, but it is what it is. And it's not the apocalypse.

So we here in the world of normal people would like to make a request: Stop telling your followers that it is.

Because we know, with night-follows-day-certainty, that you folks have some violent and mentally unstable people lingering among your ranks. And we know with the same certainty that, after the election, these same people will begin acting out violently, usually leaving behind as victims we folks here on Planet Normal, if Obama does indeed win out, as is looking (thanks to GOP ineptitude) increasingly likely.

And it will be all because they believe the crazy-ass crap you guys spew in order to get them all whipped up and eager to vote.

The leading nutcase in this parade has been the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre, who has been warning his fellow right-wingers of a massive Obama conspiracy to destroy the Second Amendment:

If you want a glimpse of a genuine nightmare for America, just look at what’s headed our way.

But unlike a nightmare, this isn’t some fantasy. It’s a very real, very dangerous conspiracy of public deception intended to destroy your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It’s targeted directly at you.

And it’ll succeed unless you recognize it, understand it, and take action now to stop it.

Gosh Almighty! What a nefarious scheme! And here's how it will work:

1. Neutralize gun owners and NRA voters as a political force in national elections, and thereby:

2. Win re-election to a second term in the White House, where they then will be immune to the will of voters and free to continue consolidating and misusing their ever-increasing power to:

3. Prosecute a full-scale, sustained, all-out campaign to excise the Second Amendment from our Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders, judicial fiat, international treaties—in short, all the levers of power of all three branches of government.

Recall what he told the CPAC folks:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (60)

PLAYS: (450)

Embed

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday told reporters and bloggers that he could "imagine a time" when they would have to reveal confidential sources.

"Just the last few years since my last campaign, the changes in your industry have been quite striking," the candidate explained to the American Society of News Editors (ASNE). "Back then, I would look on Drudge or Fox or CNN online to see how the stories were developing and only hours after a speech, it was being dissected on the Internet."

"Now of course, we go to Twitter. It's instantaneous. In 2008, the coverage was all about what I might have said in a speech. Today, it's about what brand of jeans I'm wearing or what I had for lunch."

Romney added: "Some people thus welcome the tumult and turmoil in your industry, heralding the new voices and the unfiltered or supposedly unbiased sources. Frankly in some of the new media, I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. ... I miss the days of two or more sources for a story -- when at least one source was actually named."

During a question and answer period following the speech, ASNE president Ken Paulson asked Romney if there was "a role for confidential sources in American public life, in the press and in our view as a furtherance of democracy?"

"Do I see a role for confidential sources? Yes," the former Massachusetts governor replied. "Could I ever imagine a time when a source would need to be revealed? Yeah I can imagine that too."

"So I know that sounds like a conflict and that's why I'm going to have to give this a lot more thought and a lot more back and forth to understand which side of that I would finally come down on. But I'd want to hear from people in the industry, is there ever a time you would think a confidential source would be revealed or should be revealed, and if the answer is no I'd like to understand why that is the case and what the alternative is."

Coke commercial by the White Stripes shown only in Australia and Great Britain

Score one for the good guys: After being pressured by Color of Change and other progressive groups, Coca-Cola has left ALEC — the cynical corporate coalition that has pushed a bevy of anti-democratic, anti-middle class, and anti-consumer initiatives.

Now that Coke's come around, next up is Walmart. Their response on the ALEC issue was equivocal and unacceptable. And the issue needs to be raised directly and firmly with the other companies that back the organization — a list that includes AT&T, Bayer, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, Pfizer, and UPS.

Standing Up

This weekend on "The Breakdown" we interviewed Rashad Robinson, Color of Change's Executive Director, about the Trayvon Martin case and the role of ALEC in "stand your ground" laws like Florida's. He indicated that ALEC's member companies were going to be a leading target of the campaign for greater political and economic justice.

A few days after that interview aired, Color of Change sent an email to its mailing list that read in part:

You and more than 85,000 Color Of Change members have called on corporations to stop supporting the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) because of its role in voter suppression.

We contacted Coca-Cola to make sure they understand that through their membership in ALEC, they are supporting racially-discriminatory voter ID laws. ... They told us they recognize the importance of voting rights but claimed that they weren't responsible for ALEC's voter ID legislation.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: 28

PLAYS: 510

Embed

You know how you can tell when we're winning? When the wingnuts go completely off the reservation and start lying through their tiny little teeth about their opposition. In this case, Planned Parenthood is the target, but they end up making themselves look like the fools and hypocrites they are.

Kristan Hawkins is Dobson's cohort in this radio clip. Kristan is the executive director of Students for Life, an organization dedicated to spreading guilt and hate ahead of its alleged message of love and peace for those Chosen Followers in The Light.

Here's why people like Kristan and Grampy Dobson drive me crazy. First they lie, and they extol liars like Lila Rose, who lied through her teeth and edited video dishonestly to make Planned Parenthood look like the Satan they think it is.

Here is Righteous Kristan's rant about what Planned Parenthood's true motives are, and Dobson's response.

Hawkins: I think the videos of Planned Parenthood have really helped to focus and to shed the light on Planned Parenthood because they are the abortion Goliath, I always refer to them as the abortion Goliath, they are the big man on campus, they’re the ones with the lobbyists, they’re getting the government funding, they’re subsidizing their abortions, they’re the ones making the money off all of this. I think the videos are very, very important in exposing their real agenda. You know Planned Parenthood sounds like a nice name, ‘ooh Planned Parenthood, and they’re providing free condoms to me, ooh yay,’ but then when you start peeling back, you know, what’s their method?

We have this new postcard, we make these little flashy postcards and they don’t really give students the answer but they’re there to raise controversy and drive people to our website where they can find out more information. It says, Planned Parenthood’s plan for you: One, give you the lowest ranked condoms that are available on the market today, the lowest ranked by Consumer Reports condoms, so you think Planned Parenthood’s great, they’re giving you bad condoms, then they’re going to give you birth control that can cause breast cancer, they’re going to give you low-dose birth control, and then they’re going to give you an abortion, and this is their plan to make money.

Dobson: If you scratch around anywhere near the Planned Parenthood message and the function of Planned Parenthood, you see wickedness; you see evil.

Um, ok. So let's look at Kristan's statement and see if we can find facts.

According to the NIH, there is a higher risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptives, but a lowered risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Further, the risk associated with contraceptives disappears 10 years after use is discontinued. So to be clear, there is a risk of cancer associated with any oral contraceptive, low dose or otherwise, and women should know this and be aware of it before using them. On the other hand, there's a risk of being hit by a bus while crossing the street, but that's not Planned Parenthood's fault. Should we condemn streets, or buses? Or just be aware and look both ways before crossing a street?

Hawkins' claim about condoms seems to go all the way back to this 2005 report published on LifeNews.com. I'm certain there was no bias there, but I'd like to reassure Hawkins that since that 2005 report, Consumer Reports has done another review of available condoms and found that all 500 brands they studied passed their minimum requirements for reliability. Strange how she didn't bother to check that before going on about it, much less suggesting that Planned Parenthood is using cheap condoms in order to build a free market for abortion.

Continue reading »

In an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Mitt Romney blamed teachers unions for the problems with American schools and, in particular, pointed out that California's school decline was because of unions.

Mitt Romney said that America’s schools have gotten worse because “we’ve basically given our school system to the teachers unions.” As an example, he pointed to California, noting, “it used to have some of the best schools in the country, and now it’s ranked near the very bottom.”

Think Progress points out that the real culprit is tax cuts:

Specifically, a ballot initiative enacted in 1978 called Proposition 13 that capped property taxes, which were, at the time, the primary funder of public schools. As the Santa Monica, California-based think tank The Rand Corporation noted:

"Indeed, Proposition 13 marked a dramatic turning point in funding for K–12 public education in California. Revenues and expenditures per pupil had grown fairly rapidly both in California and nationwide until the early 1980s. But California fell well behind the nation by the late 1980s. Despite recent funding increases for K–12 education, California schools have continued to spend far below the national average. Measured in year 2000 dollars, spending per pupil in California went from more than $600 above the national average in 1978 to more than $600 below the national average in 2000."

For Romney's claim to be valid, there would have to be some correlation between states with weak unions and strong student performance and vice versa. The weakest unions tend to be in "right-to-work" (for less) states, which include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

Continue reading »