The Collapse of the American Political Spectrum (Part 2 of 3)

Written by Igor Goldkind

Continued from Part 1 of 3

America is a melting pot goes the cliche, but it’s not a melting pot of people and cultures. Instead, America is a melting pot of people’s idealization of America. A merging of hopes and aspirations from all four corners of the world. All of the immigrants who came to America for whatever reason, imagined what this country represented, my Russian grandfather included. As a youth, he had posters of Hollywood film stars pasted on his walls. He had always dreamed of escaping the Jewish pogroms and escaping to America, the land of the Free, where people could work hard and prosper. He imagined the land where he wanted to live, to escape to, long before he had touched feet on American soil. It was his desire to pursue his dream, his optimistic illusion that moved him. So it was with the Irish, the Germans, the Russians, the Italians, the French, the English, the Spanish, the Indians, the Vietnamese, the Japanese, the Chinese and so forth. Wave upon wave of immigrants arriving literally on the wings of a prayer: that there might be a better life here for them and their families.

From the onset immigrants wanted to conform, to fit into this culture. When people are diverse, they strive to be the same and when people are the same they strive to be distinguished. Immigrants want to become American as fast as possible, or at least they want their children to be as a natural progression. When I asked my grandfather to teach me Russian he refused telling me that it was the language of the old country and best forgotten along with the victims of the Cossack pogroms he and my grandmother had left behind. This was the land of their aspirations and embraced whatever culture they could touch. More often than not, it was the aspirations of the previous generation of immigrants they embraced, that still lingered in the atmosphere like the scent from a million flowers. It was within this churn of dreams that America was invented.

This was the living, breathing American idealism that seamlessly overlapped the original Anglo-Protestant American idealism of the post-Enlightenment both confirming and revitalizing the ideal of America. What America really is, what it really represents is refreshed and reinvigorated with each and every new wave of immigrants. Refugees come here escaping war and tyranny because until this past year, this nation was the safe harbor of Liberty. This is why immigrants are so vital to our democracy and why Trump is so horrifically wrong to hinder their entry. It is optimism of the immigrant, their aspirations, their idealism, that refreshes our democracy and reminds us what is truly great about America and Americans. Not our jingoism (every nation state has that), but our openness to the other we may not first understand and our willingness to change and be changed by the world turning round.

The Black Panthers, the usual right wing's bugbear, at their worst fought for the right to bear arms (as provided by the Second Amendment) and to not be harassed by the Oakland police. They armed themselves to protect their civil rights and to protect themselves from racist police brutality. Don't believe me? Read your history and read the works of Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton and Malcolm X. All were fighting for their American civil rights as provided by and guaranteed in the text of the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of the land.

Even the destruction of property isn't prohibited by the Constitution but by other more localized laws. However, constitutional law trumps federal law, state law, county law and city law. If it's not spelt out in the Constitution then it has been down to the legal tradition to work it out through the enforcement of lower court decisions all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be. But those laws of governance and the rights of man are spelt out, such as the right to free speech, the right to dissent, the right to pursue one's happiness without deterrence and the right to practice any religion without harassment; it stands above any other law that has been passed locally or otherwise.

The U.S. Constitution (and its accompanying Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence), are by their very existence if not definition, progressive documents. They were all written, argued about and voted on to progress us beyond a decadent monarchy, church and systems of government that had existed for a millennium at least previously (with perhaps the exception of the short-lived English Civil War). They were also the rules of governance, not anti-government, but an equitable governance that assured the democratic representation of all citizens, documented or not.

If, on the other hand, you are terrified of change, resistant to progress and always proclaim the past as superior to the present, then you are conservative, but no longer of the right. If you were successfully transferred to the distant past, you would have been a Tory resisting the radical, never before tried, severance from the King and the religious establishment. You would have gone as far as to collude with our foreign enemies, like Benedict Arnold and Donald Trump did to undermine our democratic institutions and betray the Constitution that both had sworn to protect.

So much clarity is lost when we succumb to counterfactual history. In this case, “counterfactual” meaning, not only backward looking narratives that are factually inaccurate, but contrived narratives that actually defy and contradict the tenets they are meant to illustrate. Examples include the right wing attempt to reattach church and state with the preposterous notion that our history is Judeo-Christian just because a lot of Christians live and practice here. As well they should as the first amendment guarantees the right to worship anyway you want but NOT deny others the right to practice their religion or even lack of belief. Again, the United States was founded on the basis of reasoned judgement NOT faith and superstition.

This is exemplified in the malicious rewrite of history that forgets that most, if not all references to God in our founders documents were added later by Christian legislators. The credo ‘In God We Trust’ was actually added to our currency in the mid-20th century, to distinguish us from Communist atheism.

It's time for American patriots to start calling a spade a spade (as in pointed shovel, not a racial slur) if you oppose the general welfare of the American people, you stand against the Constitution. If you oppose every American's unqualified entitlement to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," you stand against the Constitution. If you favour the introduction of prayer into schools and the Christian faith above all other religions in our laws and institutions, then you stand against the Constitution. And if you favour or excuse the gerrymandering of political precincts for the sake of political advantage or to disenfranchise the right of all U.S. citizens to vote regardless, or invite a foreign power to interfere with a U.S. election, you stand against the Constitution.

If you collude with a foreign power to receive stolen information detrimental to your political opponent for political gain; not only do you stand against the Constitution. You're a traitor to it.

Continue to Part 3 of 3

For more writing by the author go to:

https://igorgoldkind.wordpress.com/

The Collapse of the American Political Spectrum (Part 1 of 3)

Written by Igor Goldkind

Left is right and right isn’t right enough anymore in this tipsy-turvy political looking-glass world we’ve passed into after Obama’s 8-year hiatus. Of all the damage the present occupier of the Whitehouse has reeked upon our nation, the one arguably positive benefit we’ve reaped from his bull-in-China’s-shop comportment since his selection by the Electoral College, is the complete and total destruction of the Americas political spectrum.

On both wings: firstly the empowerment of the radical, racist right once referred to as the ‘alt-right’ and since their successful infiltration of the GOP are now just referred to as the right or the extreme right. The term “Rino” (Republican in name only) has already had a devastating impact on the tense political balance our country has maintained since our Civil War, over 150 years of political tradition. The traditional moderate right, the liberal Republicans epitomized by McCain and Flake have suddenly found that Trump’s Blitzkrieg on our political system has trapped them behind Liberal lines.

But it isn’t just the right that’s become irrelevant by virtue of the rising of popularity of extremists, white supremacists and neo-fascist apologists (like Stephen Bannon), the left has also suffered a crisis of identity and relevance. The bitter divisions generated first by the manipulated and largely duped antagonism against Hillary Clinton (at one time defined as a moderate Democrat) and the refusal of the supporters of Bernie Sanders to follow his lead and throw their support behind Hillary when the Democratic primaries had passed. The ‘faux-left’s’ refusal to yield their personal preferences to strategy, created just as severe an impact as Trump did and was one of the chief causes of the Democratic loss. Too many self-righteous progressives and self-described liberals abandoned ship and voted for Jill Stein, the Libertarian ticket or even abstained from voting altogether, for which there really is never any excuse.

Hey, you can’t complain unless you vote.

Political contests are trivialized when you place personality before policy. I voted for Hillary Clinton, not because I liked her; I’m never going to meet her, live next door to her or sleep with her, so why do I have to like her? I voted for her policies which although not the clear white light of perfection, were a helluva lot better than the GOP's platform which began with where it is now and will end: an accommodation of Putin’s Kremlin and a chorus of dog whistles to the despicable racists, religious fanatics and science-botherers who were duped by Russian propaganda into voting for him.

Trump has successfully broken our political wings, both left and right. For us to really further a resistance to the autocratic tyranny that is Trump’s objective, we’re going to have to replace the ideological spectrum that Trump has shattered with one that is more responsive and more accurately reflects the actual disposition of American voters. The only question remaining is if it is all possible that inadvertently Trump has done us all a favour? You know, the kind of favour G/d granted us at Sodom and Gomorrah?

Historically, the difference between American left and the American right is that leftist ideology has always worked within the framework and the implicit intent of the US Constitution. Really, you say? Yes, really. Check it out. Re-read your Thomas Paine, your Thomas Jefferson and the first drafts of the U.S. Constitution before it was altered by the Southern slave states. Did you know that the original draft of the U.S. Constitution has an amendment written by Paine and Jefferson that would have abolished the slave trade and freed all the African slaves? Imagine what kind of America we would be now if slavery had been abolished a hundred years earlier? Thomas Paine also argued for a minimum universal wage so that no one would have to face starvation and homelessness as the poor did in England.

What the extreme right, Libertarians and the occasional Conservative are adamantly blind to is that America was the first nation on the face of the planet to throw the notions of divine rule by king or bishop into the ashcan of history. If you believe in that great revolution then you are a progressive thinker, doer and citizen. The framers of the Constitution were all “social justice warriors”; if they hadn't been they wouldn't have bothered fighting a revolution in the first place. Our democratic state is based not on faith but the rule of reason and justice, the intellectual inheritance of the French and Scottish Enlightenment. You can see that in our laws, our Constitution and our balancing of powers.

Even the extreme left, the Wobblies, Communists, Anarchists and Radical Socialists have never stood opposed to the founding tenets of the American Constitution. In fact, what they have always fought for is more: more freedom (to protest and say what they want), more representation, more and stronger unions, more liberty, more reform, more of everything apart from injustice, racial discrimination or the rule of capital and privilege.

Continued at Part 2 of 3

For more writing by the author go to:

https://igorgoldkind.wordpress.com/

Democrats should face new reality: Medicare for All is a winning platform

You do not know what you do not know. This common phrase speaks to people's blind spots when it comes to their perspectives on various types of issues and ideas, including politics. What is considered not in the realm of possibility may simply be a reflection of societal biases forced upon people by various power structures in which society is based upon. Copernicus learned this the hard way as he challenged the church's orthodox view that the sun revolves around the earth. The same kind of analogy can be made for the political viability of a universal healthcare policy, such as Medicare for All.

“Never, ever”

In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries most Democratic Party insiders believed that having some type of universal healthcare proposal, such as Medicare for All, was not a political possibility because they believed that the idea was too far to the left on the political spectrum to be accepted by the American mainstream. The party ultimately nominated as its presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, a candidate who said that Medicare for All would “never, ever” happen, over Bernie Sanders, a fiercely vocal proponent of an aggressive move leftward towards some type of a universal healthcare system. This turned out to be a huge mistake, resulting in Donald Trump's ascendancy to the Oval Office.

A new political paradigm

Now with Sanders consistently polling as the nation's most popular politician, while Clinton continually remaining one of the least popular, there is little doubt that Sanders would have fared much better against Trump and probably would have won the presidency if the Democratic Party had nominated him. One of the main reasons for this is Sanders's consistent support for Medicare for All, which a clear majority of Americans support. It is obvious that Democrats running in the 2018 midterm elections need to fully support universal healthcare which is already a part of the official party platform. Essentially, Democrats need to start actually being Democrats if they really want to win elections. This is a new political paradigm and a ripe opportunity if Democrats do not allow their past political biases to blind them.

Universal Healthcare vs. Paul Ryan

This new paradigm is clearly illustrated in the current movement to unseat Republican Speaker of the House, Congressman Paul Ryan in Wisconsin. It is notable that the top Democratic primary contenders for the seat, Randy Bryce and Cathy Myers, both have universal healthcare in their platforms. This is remarkable because there are currently no Democrats running in the primary election for the party's nomination that does not support Medicare for All, while just during the previous election cycle the Democratic Party's presidential nominee considered universal healthcare a political impossibility.

This presents, once again, the opportunity for Democrats to sharply draw a contrast between themselves and Ryan, Trump and the GOP's recent effort to strip tens of millions of Americans of healthcare via the highly unpopular Obamacare repeal bill. Progressives, liberals and Democratic voters need to strongly support primary candidates who support Medicare for All, while pushing incumbents to adopt the policy as part of their agendas, if the party is serious about their “blue wave” in the 2018 midterm elections.

Rep. Keith Ellison wants U.S. prosperity to include all Americans

As the Federal Reserve Bank cites a revitalized economy as a reason to raise interest rates, many everyday Americans have yet to share in the benefits of a recovering U.S. economy. Wealth inequality in America is still a serious problem which has continued to grow worst despite a booming stock market and rapidly rising real estate valuations. The U.S. falls well behind most other industrialized nations in income equality and even fares worst than some third-world countries, such as Kenya. Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) understands this dynamic and has proposed legislation aimed at addressing this issue.

Wall Street on the rise, Main Street not so much

President Trump is quick to tout the rising stock market as evidence of his success, despite having been unable to pass any major legislation to address the American economy. However, it hardly matters whether Trump has anything to do with stock market prices, since most everyday Americans do not have a significant amount of their wealth in the stock market. In fact only a little more than half of Americans, a record low, currently own any stocks at all, according to a recent Gallup poll. Therefore, with stagnant wages that fail to keep up with the cost of living, the vast majority of the financial gains of the recent economic recovery skipped over the middle-class and impoverished communities.

U.S. prosperity should be for all Americans, not just the wealthy

Congressman Ellison has vowed to address wealth inequality in America and has taken action by introducing the Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2017 (H.R. 1144) in the House. If it becomes law, the bill would impose a tax on transfer of ownership of certain securities, including stocks, bonds and other derivative financial instruments. It would also provide a tax credit for those earning $50,000 or less annually which would fully cover the new securities excise tax. The collected taxes would allow for the funding of infrastructure and community investments which would help middle-class and impoverished communities receive more of the gains from a recovering American economy.

The bill currently has 23 Democratic co-sponsors in Congress. As of now, no Republicans have supported the proposed legislation. Those who believe that all Americans should enjoy the benefits of an improved U.S. economy should take the time to contact their representatives in Congress and urge them to support H.R. 1144.

Struggle against wealth inequality includes fight for reproductive rights

Wealth inequality is an important concern for those on the left of the American political spectrum. It is also no secret that wealth inequality is currently at record levels in the U.S. However, tackling wealth inequality cannot be done in a vacuum, since this issue intersects with various other social issues in America. For instance, many on the left may not realize how much the battle over reproductive rights in the U.S. can significantly affect the distribution of wealth across the country.

Lack of access to abortion has financial consequences for women

Having a child when not ready financially can be a serious problem for many women. This can keep a woman from being able to advance in her career or obtain the necessary education or training in order to move up along the economic and social ladder. Therefore, policies implemented by lawmakers which make it more difficult for women to access abortion can have significantly negative financial effects on women with unintended pregnancies. As a result, these women and their families are less able to accumulate wealth and therefore are significantly disadvantaged economically.

Anti-choice policies hurt impoverished communities most

Unfortunately, these policies restricting choice are most detrimental to impoverished communities. Women from impoverished communities are five times more likely than affluent women to have an unintended birth, according to The Brookings Institute. The effort to make the anti-choice Hyde Amendment permanent is one of the latest of these GOP anti-choice policies which would result in increased wealth inequality.

GOP aims to make anti-choice policy permanent

The Hyde Amendment, originally passed in 1976, bans the federal government from using taxpayer dollars on abortion services. However, the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform explicitly called for the repeal of the Hyde amendment which has prompted Republicans to take action. The GOP has already passed in the House the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) which would essentially make the Hyde Amendment permanent if it is passed in the Senate.

Democrats move to stop GOP

Fortunately, progressives, liberals and Democrats have responded to this most recent GOP attack on women's rights by putting forth a bill of their own which would put a stop to this latest anti-choice effort by Republicans. The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017 (H.R. 771) would block the GOP's anti-choice bill by permanently repealing the ban on federal funding for abortion.

Who supports the EACH Woman Act?

The EACH Woman Act, along with its sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), is co-sponsored by 122 Democrats and no Republicans. Some of the co-sponsoring Democrats include Keith Ellison, Mark Takano, Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal. As of now, progressive Tulsi Gabbard has not signed onto the bill.

If you want to do something about wealth inequality and fight for a woman's right to choose, then please contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to vote for the EACH Woman Act of 2017. Also, call your Senators and demand that they vote against the GOP's anti-choice bill H.R. 7.

American justice is for sale, bill in Congress aims to fix this

For-profit prisons are turning America into a modern day slave state. The industry's lobbying activities have continuously aimed to unjustly lock up more impoverished and middle-class Americans along with undocumented immigrants in order to garner more profit for themselves. The incarceration rates for the United States is five to ten times that of other developed democratic nations, according to Jacobin. At the same time it costs American taxpayers nearly $2 billion annually to house around 400,000 undocumented immigrants detained by the government, reported The Nation. Progressive Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is looking to address this serious problem in a new bill which could signal the beginning of the end of the prison-immigration industrial complex in America.

Banning for profit prisons

Grijalva recently introduced the Justice Is Not For Sale Act of 2017 (H.R. 3227) which would ban the federal, state and local governments in the United States from contracting with for-profit private prison companies, therefore cutting off the private prison industry lobby's power over American politicians. The current contracts with privately-run prison companies would be phased out over the course of three years.

Parole and immigration reform

The bill also has provisions which give judges more flexibility in sentencing as well as helps reformed inmates more easily obtain parole in order to help them become productive and contributing citizens of society. Additionally, the proposed law would also give undocumented immigrants parole rights which would enable them to return to their families and continue contributing to the U.S. economy while working through the legal system to help them better integrate into American society.

Bill has support from some Democrats, no Republicans

The bill has been co-sponsored by 15 congressional Democrats. Among those include Keith Ellison, Tulsi Gabbard, Mark Takano and Barbara Lee. As of now, no Republicans have been brave enough to begin “draining the swamp” when it comes to reigning in the lobbying influence of the private prison industry. The bill has no co-sponsors from the GOP.

If you believe that American politicians should not be beholden to the prison industrial complex and believe in humane immigration reform then please contact your local congressional representatives and tell them to support the Justice Is Not For Sale Act of 2017.

Want single-payer? End Citizen's United

In the aftermath of the recent Republican attempt to destroy the American healthcare system and take away health insurance from millions of people, many may be wondering what would possess the GOP to attempt to ram through the Obamacare repeal bill which was extremely unpopular among voters on both the left and the right. It is the same reason that centrist Democrats balk at supporting a single-payer healthcare system. That reason is money.

Koch Industries money controls GOP

One would think it would not be good politics for the GOP to attempt to enact legislation that a majority of the public on both sides of the political spectrum strongly reject. However, political campaigns are becoming increasingly more expensive to mount, which means politicians need large amounts of donations to compete. One of the largest donors to the Republican Party, Koch Industries, an international corporation owned by Charles and David Koch, had donated $1.8 million to 176 Republican congressional candidates in 2016. Leading up to the Obamacare repeal vote the Koch brothers had warned Republicans if they were not able to pass major legislation to move the conservative agenda forward, they, along with other GOP mega-donors would stop donating to GOP politicians, according to Salon.

This is why Republican Senator Mitch McConnell had brought the Obamacare repeal bill to a vote despite not knowing if he had enough votes to pass the legislation. He had to at least give the appearance that he was doing everything he could to pass the Republican “healthcare” bill which was also essential for GOP tax cuts for the wealthy to be implemented via the budget reconciliation process.

Democrats and 'Big Pharma'

On the other hand, corporate donors also exercise extensive influence over Democrats and their decisions regarding healthcare policy. This was apparent in Democratic Senator Cory Booker's refusal to back progressive Senator Bernie Sander's bill to allow Americans to purchase prescription drugs from Canada where medications are generally less expensive. He did this despite 72 percent of Americans supporting the idea of importing prescription drugs from Canada, according to The Intercept.

It is no accident that Booker is notorious for being heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, garnering more donations from Big Pharma than any other Democratic senator. Over the last six years Booker has received $267,338 from the drug industry.

Influence from the pharmaceutical industry even played a role in the forming of Obamacare. After receiving millions of dollars in donations from the drug industry Barack Obama decided to back off his push for a single-payer healthcare system, according to International Business Times.

End Citizen's United

The legal mechanism which allows for corporations to essentially pay off American politicians on both sides of the aisle is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs. Federal Election Commission. This decision by the highest court in the country empowered corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns in order to pressure politicians to enact policies friendly to corporate interests regardless of what is best for the American people. Therefore, it is imperative for progressives, Democrats and anybody else who wants to see an American healthcare system that works for everybody to back candidates who want to reform the corrupt U.S. campaign finance system. 

 

Some of the politicians out there right now advocating for campaign finance reform and for ending Citizen's United are Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who has recently pledged to stop taking corporate donations. Even centrist Senator Booker had to decide to “pause” his accepting of Big Pharma donations due to political pressure from constituents, a testament to how much everyday people can change politics if they are informed and involved. There are also various organizations, such as Our Revolution, working to achieve campaign finance reform in the U.S.