DECEMBER 18,
2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
THE UNITE HERE
LOCAL 11 UNION AND THE MANAGEMENT AT SODEXO HAVE REACHED A SHORT-TERM
AGREEMENT, WITH WORKER PAY BEING INCREASED BY 25%, BETTER HEALTH CARE
PROVISIONS AND BETTER JOB SECURITY. TOM PEREZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE DNC IS THE HERO
HERE.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/the-strikewave-is-interfering-with-the-dncs-debate-plans.html
DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARIES UPDATED DEC. 17, 2019
The DNC Won’t
Have to Cancel Thursday’s Debate
By Sarah Jones
PHOTOGRAPH –
NBC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE Photo: Alex
Wong/Getty Images
The next
Democratic primary debate will take place as scheduled on Thursday after the
Democratic National Committee helped bring a labor dispute to an end. Members
of Unite Here Local 11 union had been engaged in a fractious labor dispute with
Sodexo, a massive private contractor that provides catering services to
Loyola Marymount University. As the New York Times reported on Friday, all
seven candidates scheduled to appear this Thursday announced that they won’t
cross a planned picket line.
Bernie Sanders
✔
@BernieSanders
I stand with
the workers of @UniteHere11 on campus at Loyola Marymount University fighting
Sodexo for a better contract. I will not be crossing their picket line.
17.6K
1:11 PM - Dec
13, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
3,568 people
are talking about this
That left the
DNC in a bit of a pickle, since it can’t host a debate without any candidates. DNC
spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa told the Times that the committee was exploring
its options, and that chairman Tom Perez, once the secretary of Labor under
Barack Obama, “would absolutely not cross a picket line and would never expect
our candidates to either.”
The DNC
reiterated that commitment to New York Magazine on Monday. “Tom Perez spent the entire weekend on the phone with
various stakeholders, including Sodexo, LMU, and Unite Here,” Hinojosa said.
“As a former Labor secretary who handled several labor disputes, he understands
the importance of getting the parties back to the table, and expects that to
happen promptly.” Unite Here Local 11 did not return a request for comment by
press time. But in a press release issued on Friday afternoon, it said that
“a community delegation” comprised of union members and community activists “is
going to the LMU president’s office to express their support for the workers
and end the stalemate.” It criticized Sodexo for canceling scheduled contract
negotiations last week.
Ada Briceño, a
Local 11 co-president, previously told NPR that the union “felt that it would be
imperative to let the candidates know that we would be holding a picket line on
Thursday.”
“I think it’s
imperative for wages and health care to be taken care of and our contract to be
settled,” she added. “It has become clear to us that the company Sodexo is not
taking the workers seriously.”
On Tuesday morning,
Unite Here Local 11 announced in a press release that it has reached a
tentative contract agreement with Sodexo. The agreement, which will last for
three years, “includes a 25% increase in compensation, a 50% drop in health
care costs, and increases workers’ job security.” Thursday’s
debate will go on as scheduled, the DNC confirmed in a separate statement.
“Every worker deserves fair wages and benefits. That’s why I was proud to help
bring all stakeholders to the table, including UNITE HERE Local 11, Sodexo, and
Loyola Marymount University, to reach a deal that meets their needs and
supports workers,” Perez said. “I commend Sodexo and UNITE HERE for coming
together in good faith to forge an agreement that is a win-win for everyone, and
I appreciate the constructive engagement of LMU leadership which was
indispensable to the resolution of this negotiation.”
In its press
release, the union thanks the DNC for helping broker the agreement with Sodexo.
And as a former labor secretary, Perez certainly has a useful set of relevant
skills. But the situation was also something of a near miss. The window for
helping both parties reach a resolution was never that wide in the first place.
Sodexo isn’t known for its amicable approach to contract negotiations. The French
multinational conglomerate does, however, have an international reputation for
pushing workers repeatedly to the brink of striking. Sodexo workers in the
U.S. and the U.K. have complained that their workplaces are understaffed,
that their workloads are unmanageably high, and that they’re so underpaid they
qualify for welfare.
One obvious
solution would have been for the DNC to relocate Thursday’s debate — for a
second time. The University of California, Los Angeles was previously scheduled
to host, but the DNC deprived the school of hosting privileges over a different
labor dispute. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Local 3299, which represents thousands of employees within the University of
California system, filed three unfair labor practices charges this year over
plans to outsource unionized jobs to private contractors. Over 25,000 unionized
UC workers held a one-day strike in November.
While it may
seem like simple bad luck for the DNC to encounter two separate labor disputes
in the process of planning one debate, there’s a broader and more
complicated trend at work. Though Unite Here’s planned picket line isn’t a
strike, it doubles as a reminder that strike activity in both the private and
public sectors is higher than it has been in years. December’s back-to-back
picket lines might be somewhat unusual, but this probably won’t be the last
time a labor dispute forces the committee to change its primary-season plans.
A strike
wave creates obvious logistical challenges for the candidates and for the
DNC. But picket lines are also opportunities. Wage growth has been so slow
for so long, and inequality so steep, that no Democrat will defeat Donald Trump
if they can’t prove to voters that they side with workers. Candidates
already realize this, and have extended varying degrees of effort to show their
commitment to labor. They tweet. A few — including Senators Bernie Sanders
and Elizabeth Warren — have released extensive labor-specific policy proposals.
Others have visited picket lines that did not disrupt debate plans.
Malachi Barrett
✔
@PolarBarrett
A bit of chaos
as @BernieSanders arrived at @UAW picket line in Detroit.
Embedded video
826
9:48 AM - Sep
25, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
247 people are
talking about this
ABC News
✔
@ABC
Sen. Elizabeth
Warren joins striking Chicago teachers on picket line.
"I also am
here to stand with our unions...The unions are how we have a voice. The unions
are how we have power." http://abcn.ws/2p3I91J
Embedded video
378
10:13 AM - Oct
22, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
153 people are
talking about this
NYT Politics
✔
@nytpolitics
“We’re here
today to tell McDonald’s that it’s not acceptable to pay your workers a wage
they can’t live on,” said Julián Castro, one of several Democratic presidential
hopefuls who joined striking workers on the picket line https://nyti.ms/2HT4fJN
Julián Castro
marched with McDonald’s employees in Durham, N.C., on Thursday. “We’re here
today to tell McDonald’s that it’s not acceptable to pay your workers a wage
they can’t live on,” he said.
2020 Democrats
Join McDonald’s Workers Striking Over Wages and Harassment
As McDonald’s
held its annual shareholder meeting on Thursday, several presidential
candidates joined striking workers demanding a $15 minimum wage.
nytimes.com
14
8:16 PM - May
23, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
See NYT Politics's
other Tweets
This post was
updated following the new
THE SPEECH AND
ITS AFTERMATH
'The Speech': How
Sanders' 2010 Filibuster Elevated His Progressive Profile
December 18,
2019 5:00 AM ET
Headshot of
Scott Detrow, 2018
SCOTT DETROW
VIDEO – SANDERS
FILIBUSTER BEGINS YouTube
It was 2010,
and Sen. Bernie Sanders had already been in Congress for nearly two decades.
The Vermont independent had a long — and consistent — track record, but at that
point, he hadn't yet emerged as a national figure on the left.
That quickly
changed on Dec. 10, starting at 10:25 a.m. and over the following
eight-and-a-half hours.
Die-hard
Sanders supporters simply know it as "The Speech": a filibuster he
launched decrying a bipartisan tax deal crafted primarily by then-Vice President
Joe Biden and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
VIDEO -- YouTube
The agreement —
which extended the Bush-era tax cuts that the Democratic Party had railed
against for years, and lowered the estate tax threshold for the mega-wealthy —
enraged progressives like Sanders.
While Biden and
President Obama argued that those concessions paved the way for Democratic
priorities like an extension of unemployment benefits, Sanders didn't buy it.
"You can
call what I am doing today whatever you want. You can call it a filibuster. You
can call it a very long speech," Sanders said toward the top of his
marathon. "I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to
the American people the fact that we have to do a lot better than this agreement
provides."
The moment
resonates nearly a decade later, as Sanders battles for the Democratic
presidential nomination with the chief architect of the deal, Biden.
Sanders'
filibuster underscored a question that has become central to the current
nomination battle: whether compromising to get things done, or fighting on
principles, is the better way to chart political progress.
A deal forged
by Biden and McConnell
That December
morning, Obama was already facing a lot of pressure.
Democrats had
just lost the House of Representatives. And here was the president, about a
month later, asking his party for a major tax deal that would extend the Bush
administration's tax cuts for the wealthy — something Democrats had campaigned
against for years.
"The issue
here is not whether I think the tax cuts for the wealthy are a good or smart
thing to do; I've said repeatedly that I think they're not a smart thing to
do," Obama told NPR's Morning Edition in an Oval Office interview recorded
the evening before. "The problem is that this is the single issue the
Republicans are willing to scotch the entire deal for."
With Bush's
landmark tax cuts set to expire on New Year's Eve, McConnell and fellow Senate
Republicans had laid down a gauntlet to Obama and Democrats: They'd hold up all
Senate business unless the tax breaks were extended.
Obama tapped
Biden to figure out a deal with McConnell, and the two men reached one
relatively quickly. According to a Senate Republican aide, Biden and McConnell
hammered out the agreement in several phone calls over the course of a single
weekend.
Republicans got
the Bush tax cuts extended for two more years — past the 2012 election. They
also got a lower estate tax rate. In return, Democrats got an extension of
unemployment benefits and a range of broader tax cuts aimed at lower- and
middle-income earners, including a temporary reduction in Social Security
payroll taxes.
Obama and Biden
said the whole thing would help the still-recovering economy, and clear the
way for a lot of other legislative business to get done by year's end.
"We'd
never done anything like this before"
To Sanders,
Obama's justifications sounded like something he was used to hearing from
Republican presidents.
"He was
very frustrated," recalled Warren Gunnels, a longtime Sanders staffer that
the 2020 presidential campaign staff now jokingly refers to as the candidate's
"chief of receipts."
"He wanted
to plot out a strategy to do everything that we could to defeat that
deal," said Gunnels, and the idea of a filibuster was born.
Even though
Sanders said at the beginning of the speech that he wasn't out to set any
records, Gunnels said the unofficial goal was to top an eight-hour mark that
had been set years earlier by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid.
"We'd
never done anything like this before," Gunnels said. "He'd done a lot
of hour speeches, a lot of half-hour speeches, a lot of 45-minute speeches. But
he'd never spoken on the floor for eight hours."
Might we have
to compromise? Yeah. Maybe we do. But you've got to wage the fight before you
compromise.
Sen. Bernie
Sanders
Sanders didn't
want to resort to any gimmicks — like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's reading Green
Eggs And Ham during an hours-long anti-Obamacare speech in 2013 — so he,
Gunnels and other staffers hammered out several general "refrains"
that the senator would keep returning to.
Sanders kept
circling back to two main points as the speech went on.
First, that
public opinion was on his side. "The polls show us the American people do
not believe millionaires and billionaires need more tax breaks," he said
at one point.
And,
foreshadowing his future presidential campaigns, Sanders made a point to
talk past the other lawmakers — who he likely realized were mostly going to
vote for the bipartisan deal. He kept urging people to call Congress to
complain.
"By and
large, it is not a good deal. We can do better," he said several hours in.
"And if the American people stand up and work with us, if they get on the
phones — if they call up their senators, if they call up their congressmen — if
they make their voices heard and said, 'Enough is enough. The rich have got it
all right now,' " Sanders thought the deal could be scuttled.
That's when
Democrats really began to take notice. "The calls to offices, after a
couple hours of the speech, they couldn't get in," Reid said earlier this
year. The Senate website was also briefly overwhelmed by traffic. And, at a
time when the feat was more of a political novelty, Sanders trended on Twitter
and added scores of new followers.
Bringing Bill
Clinton to the lectern
Gunnels noted
all those developments from the Senate floor, but it wasn't until the White
House responded in a dramatic way that he fully realized how much of an impact
the speech was having in progressive circles.
"I don't
even know if they had a topic in mind, but they just rolled out Bill Clinton
while Bernie was speaking," Gunnels recalled, laughing.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Former
President Clinton speaks to the press with President Obama in the White House
Briefing Room on Dec. 10, 2010.
Jim Watson/AFP
via Getty Images
In a move that
launched scores of pre-meme memes, Obama had strolled into the White House
briefing room with the 42nd president, who looked thrilled to be back at the
famous lectern.
As Obama stood
next to him — and then alone, after Obama left to return to a holiday party —
Clinton defended the deal for more than a half hour. "The agreement taken
as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help
the largest number of Americans," he said.
Meanwhile, on
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Sanders kept going.
He railed on
corporate pay and government subsidies for energy giants like Exxon Mobil —
familiar themes for his later presidential runs. He decried the deal's increase
in deficit spending.
And he bluntly
criticized Obama. "His credibility has been severely damaged. We are
caving in on this issue and we should not be," Sanders said.
Finally, after
eight-and-a-half-hours, Sanders stopped.
"The spark
that set things off"
And then?
The Senate
overwhelmingly approved the tax package on an 81-19 vote. Despite loud protests
from House Democrats, the House approved the measure too, and it became law.
By all
short-term measures, Sanders' filibuster had failed.
An exhausted
Gunnels said his despair quickly turned around, though.
"When you
look back at that, I think it might have been the spark that set things
off," he said, sitting in Sanders' presidential campaign headquarters.
Added Jeff
Weaver, the candidate's top strategist: "[The filibuster] brought
Bernie Sanders to the notice of millions of Americans who didn't know who he
was, and I think it laid a lot of the groundwork for the success that he would
see in the 2015-2016 election cycle."
The speech
became a book, which became a bestseller. And progressives frustrated by the
Obama administration's deal-cutting had a new hero to tout, as Republicans
gained more leverage in Washington over the coming years.
The next year,
Biden stood next to McConnell on a stage and defended the deal, which he argued
spurred economic growth. "We've got a long way to go," Biden said.
"But it actually was not only a compromise; it was a compromise that was
useful for the American economy."
Obama did get
those top-tier Bush tax cuts eliminated down the line.
Still, in the
immediate wake of the filibuster, Sanders told NPR he was tired of compromises.
"Might we have to compromise? Yeah. Maybe we do. But you've got to wage
the fight before you compromise. You've got to take the case to the American people.
And we didn't do that."
Compromise, or
fight?
Nearly a decade
later, Sanders and Biden are battling for the Democratic presidential
nomination, in a contest that largely revolves around that same key
question.
2020 democratic
presidential primary
sen. bernie
sanders
ELIZABETH
WARREN FROM REPUBLICAN TO DEMOCRAT
Elizabeth
Warren's Journey From 'Pro-Business' Academic To Consumer Advocate
December 10,
20195:01 AM ET
Heard on
Morning Edition
Asma Khalid -
2016 - square
ASMA KHALID
PHOTOGRAPH -- "We
didn't talk in terms of partisan politics, we talked a lot about policy,"
said Jay Westbrook, Elizabeth Warren's longtime academic collaborator and
co-author from the University of Texas law school. "I think it'd be fair
to say she got pulled ... into these battles."
Photo courtesy
of Kimberly Winick
When Elizabeth
Warren arrived in Austin to teach law school at the University of Texas in the
1980s, colleagues say she was nothing close to the unapologetic progressive
firebrand voters see today.
"She was
quite consistently pro-business," said Calvin Johnson, who taught law
school with Warren at the University of Texas. "And I'm sure she would not
like to be called 'anti-consumer,' " he added. But, in his view, the
future Massachusetts senator was "absolutely anti-consumer" on some
positions at the time.
Johnson, who
commuted to work with Warren and her husband, Bruce Mann, for about six months
in 1981, recalls one particularly wonky issue they would debate on their car
rides: public utility accounting.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Calvin
Johnson, a University of Texas professor of corporate and business law,
commuted to work with Elizabeth Warren and her husband Bruce Mann during his
first semester of teaching at The University of Texas at Austin. Here, Johnson
is photographed outside of Elizabeth Warren's home she rented in 1980's in
northwest Austin on Wed., Oct. 09, 2019.
Katie Hayes
Luke for NPR
"I was
very strongly of the opinion that (the accounting methods were) giving
excessive profits to the public utilities and, in fact, truly abusing the
ratepayers," said Johnson, who has long considered himself a liberal
Democrat. "She came out very strongly in favor of business industry (and)
the utilities."
Through
interviews with former colleagues and students, it's clear Warren arrived in
Austin a moderate economic conservative, perhaps not an overtly political one,
but a conservative nonetheless. She left far more ideologically confused.
Perhaps more than any other time period in her life, the years Warren spent in
Texas planted the seeds of her political identity. The message she espouses on
the presidential campaign trail now about a shrinking middle class comes
directly from the research she conducted on bankruptcy that began roughly 40
years ago in Texas.
For years,
Warren was a Republican; she registered to vote as a Democrat in Massachusetts
in 1996, according to the Massachusetts elections commission. She told Politico
in an interview earlier this year that she assumes 1996 was the first time she
registered as a Democrat; but she doesn't recall voting for a GOP presidential
nominee, with the exception of Gerald Ford in 1976.
Warren's
evolution was ideological before it was political.
Some of her
former colleagues in Austin recall Warren as a "moderate" but a
moderate conservative — not driven by social issues, but by economic concerns.
They found her smart and full of unlimited amounts of energy, but they also
found some of her ideas peculiar.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Tom
McGarity recalls that his former law school colleague Elizabeth Warren was a
believer of the libertarian-leaning Law and Economics movement in the 1980s.
Katie Hayes
Luke for NPR
"I found
Elizabeth to be, in some ways, off-putting," said Tom McGarity, a fellow
University of Texas law professor, who describes himself as a longtime
progressive. "She was really into this 'law and economics movement' where
we assume that everybody is a rationale economic actor, markets are the best
way to go, and we should keep government out of business," he added.
Law and
economics was a movement popularized by the legal academic Henry Manne that
swept through universities in the 1980s thanks to financial backing from
conservatives. Supporters say the movement was a benign attempt to incorporate
economics into the study of law. Critics say it was trying to proselytize
professors.
Either way,
according to former colleagues, Warren was a believer.
"On the
lookout for cheaters and deadbeats"
The early 1980s
was also when Warren became increasingly interested in bankruptcy.
In 1978, Congress
had passed a new bankruptcy code.
"There was
an enormous amount of contention over the new code," said Jay Westbrook,
Warren's longtime research collaborator and co-author from the University of
Texas.
Creditors
suggested that people were intentionally avoiding their debts. "There was
a lot of conjecture," said Catherine Nicholson, one of Warren's former
research assistants. "There was really no hard data on why people filed
for bankruptcy."
Warren wanted
details.
"I might
not have said so at the time, but I think I was on the lookout for cheaters and
deadbeats as a way to explain who was filing for bankruptcy," she wrote in
her memoir, A Fighting Chance.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Kimberly
Winick (left) and Catherine Nicholson, both law school graduates from the
University of Texas, were research assistants on the multi-state bankruptcy
project Warren conducted to find out who was filing for bankruptcy and why.
Photo Courtesy
of Kimberly Winick
Her attitude
sounded Reagan-esque, but there was also a curiosity driving her.
"I wanted
to believe that everyone who filed had done something terrible or stupid or had
lazed about and never tried to make anything of themselves. I wanted to know
that the work-hard-and-play-by-the-rules people might not get rich, but they
didn't need to be afraid," she wrote.
In essence, she
wanted to believe that the people filing for bankruptcy were different from her
or her family.
So, Warren,
along with Westbrook and Teresa Sullivan (who went on to become the president
of the University of Virginia), conducted a massive multistate study called the
Consumer Bankruptcy Project to figure out who was filing bankruptcy and why.
They traveled
across Texas and visited Pennsylvania and Illinois to sift through bankruptcy
files.
"This is back
when it was all paper," said Kimberly Winick, one of Warren's former
research assistants. "And we'd show up with a portable copying machine; it
rolled like a rollerboard suitcase. And you get it there with reams of paper
and start copying."
The team was
looking for answers to specific questions, such as: Was the debtor employed?
What kinds of debt did they have? Had they run up massive credit card debt? Did
they have medical bills? Had there been a recent divorce in the family?
"This was
an empirical study" said Winick. "I mean that is how she works — ask
a question that's a clean question and then get an answer."
In addition to
working for Warren, Winick took three classes with her.
One trait she
says she admires about her former professor was that Warren was "always
asking why" and followed the evidence regardless of where it went. When
the facts in their bankruptcy research became irrefutable, Winick says Warren
was willing to reexamine her previous opinions.
Winick doesn't
remember discussing national politics with Warren. Westbrook agrees.
"We didn't
talk in terms of partisan politics, we talked a lot about policy," he
said. "You have to remember that we were, and to a substantial extent are,
academics. We're interested in thought, we're interested in concepts, and we're
interested in facts."
Still, Winick
had a hunch her teacher had thought people filing bankruptcy were gaming the
system.
Their research
ended up illustrating a different picture.
"The
typical story [was] somebody who pushed a little too far or had bad luck,"
said Winick.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Elizabeth
Warren, seen here in an old edition of the University of Texas Law School
yearbook, began bankruptcy research while in Texas that has influenced much of
her academic and professional career.
Katie Hayes
Luke for NPR
A political
conversion
The Consumer
Bankruptcy Project changed Warren. It wasn't theoretical academic work; it
required looking into people's personal lives.
"She saw
more of the very difficult side of life of the people who go through the
bankruptcy process," said Westbrook. "She saw their struggles. And
she saw a variety of ways in which the credit industry manipulates things in
order to get them ever deeper into debt."
Westbrook says
he can still recall specific anecdotes from individual bankruptcy files.
"These
people were really in enormous amount of debt," he said. "They had
literally enough unsecured debt that it would take them years if they never
bought another meal or paid a telephone bill to dig out from under."
The end result
of their research was unprecedented — an independent, data-driven analysis on
bankruptcy that resulted in a book called As We Forgive Our Debtors.
It drove much
of the academic and professional work Warren has done since, though as The Washington
Post pointed out, Warren and her co-authors faced skepticism and criticism from
a rival about overexaggerating the claims.
Still, Warren
became known as an expert in the field and consulted corporate clients on
bankruptcy. Recently her campaign released information showing that she made
roughly $1.9 million from 1985 to 2009 through her corporate legal work. Some
of that was for large corporations like Dow Chemical, but she also helped
consumers in a class-action lawsuit against Sears over what her campaign
describes as "aggressive debt collection practices."
Then, in the
mid-1990s, Warren joined the National Bankruptcy Review Commission in what was
perhaps the most political move of her career to date.
"Liz is
the kind of person that, when she sees somebody doing something that she thinks
really is gonna screw things up, she's not gonna be quiet about it," said
Westbrook.
And so, Warren
started speaking up loudly in political circles about financial issues.
"It's just
that none of it was in the context of being partisan," Westbrook said with
a long pause, "until it was."
Warren's work
on the bankruptcy commission made her more of a partisan — it became clear to
her that Republicans in Congress were not her ally, nor were all of the
Democrats.
Old colleagues
insist that all these years of studying bankruptcy changed Warren. It's why,
they believe, she eventually registered as a Democrat in Massachusetts in 1996.
Questions of
authenticity
Warren's
bankruptcy research left a deep impression on her, but also on those who
collaborated with her.
"I've
known Elizabeth Warren forever. She cares about families and their
struggles," said Nicholson, who worked as a research assistant for Warren
for three years.
"Come next
year, it'll be a hard choice for me in the ballot box," she added.
It'll be a hard
choice because Nicholson, who describes herself as a conservative Catholic, a
Paul Ryan sort of Republican, voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
"However,
I believe in Elizabeth Warren, too," Nicholson said recently at her home
near Omaha, Neb.
She still
exchanges Christmas cards and emails with Warren.
In the time
since Nicholson first met her, Warren has evolved from one described as an
economically conservative professor to arguably one of the fiercest liberal
consumer advocates in the country.
Some of
Warren's progressive critics say this evolution raises questions about her
authenticity.
Some who've
known her say this evolution is precisely what makes her authentic.
THE ANTI-SEMITISM
CHARGES ARE BACK AGAIN. I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SANDERS WERE TO SUE THE PERSON
WHO STARTED THE STORY, WASHINGTON EXAMINER’S TIANA LOWE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A
LEGAL REMEDY FOR THE TRUE DIRTY TRICKS AND DEFAMATION PHILOSOPHY OF POLITICS,
WHICHEVER PARTY IS DOING IT.
Opinion Bernie
Sanders
Accusing Bernie
Sanders of antisemitism? That's a new low
Kate Aronoff
The allegations
should be called for what they are: politiking in service of politicians who
will put more Jews in danger
@KateAronoff
Wed 18 Dec 2019
09.31 EST Last modified on Wed 18 Dec 2019 12.21 EST
PHOTOGRAPH -- Democratic
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders at a rally on 16 December in Rancho
Mirage, California. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images
Bernie Sanders
– son of Dorothy and Elias Ben Yehuda Sanders, who emigrated from Poland in
1921 to escape antisemitism, and whose family that remained in Poland was
slaughtered in the Holocaust – is not antisemitic. But some are trying to convince
you that he is.
The conservative
Washington Examiner’s Tiana Lowe published a story accusing the
Sanders campaign of being the “most antisemitic in decades”. Worth noting is
that Lowe expressed gratitude several months back for her grandfather’s service
to the Chetniks, a nationalist armed front which collaborated with the Nazis and
delivered thousands of Jews to them in service of building an ethnically
homogenous Greater Serbia. She also posed for a picture with Milo
Yiannopoulos, who once sent $14.88* on PayPal to a Jewish journalist, a
reference to Nazi slogans.
For Lowe and
others on the right that have jumped on this bandwagon, though, details don’t
really matter. Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist, simply belongs to an
opposing political camp with opposing values. Like the attacks against
Corbyn abroad and Ilhan Omar at home, those now being lobbed at Sanders aren’t
about defeating antisemitism so much as using it as a narrative device to
undermine a worldview that offends them. Sanders’s solidarity with
Palestinians suffering under occupation is not an affront to Jews but to the
right’s propaganda that looking out for their best interest means a blanket,
unquestioning support for whatever the Israeli government happens to be doing,
which at the moment includes maintaining a brutal apartheid state.
This all stands
in wild contrasts to Sanders’s actual views on antisemitism. As the Vermont
Senator himself explained [in]a recent essay for Jewish Currents
entitled How to Fight Anti-Semitism, we now live in one of the most
dangerous periods Jews have faced in recent memory, from the deadly
shootings like the one at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue last year to a
wave of of far-right energy in Europe that waxes nostalgic for the continent’s
fascist past.
“Opposing
antisemitism is a core value of progressivism,” Sanders writes. “So it’s very
troubling to me that we are also seeing accusations of antisemitism used as a
cynical political weapon against progressives. One of the most dangerous things
Donald Trump has done is to divide Americans by using false allegations of
antisemitism, mostly regarding the US–Israel relationship. We should be very
clear that it is not antisemitic to criticize the policies of the Israeli
government.” He goes on to lay out how a Sanders administration will confront
antisemitism at home and abroad: immediately appointing a special envoy to
monitor and combat antisemitism, rejoining the United Nations Human Rights
Council and “helping to shape an international human rights agenda that combats
all forms of bigotry and discrimination”, among other measures.
That the
Sanders campaign is somehow abetting antisemitism seems absurd on its face, but
more outlandish blows have landed. As I wrote last week, antisemitism itself
has been a reliable tool of a right looking to ward off the left, and
anti-socialism has often peddled in antisemitic tropes. Accusations coming
from rightwing pundits and politicians now follow proudly in this tradition, albeit
with feigned concern for Jews now used to defend against policies they
disagree with. Just last week, Trump called a room of Jews “brutal killers,
not nice people at all”* before selling an executive order to
criminalize campus protests as a defense of the Jewish people. Trump and
his xenophobic allies abroad are undoubtedly bad for the Jews, and so are smear
campaigns that play into their hands.
Before they
snowball into something worse, the right’s allegations of antisemitism against
the left – and the first Jew within striking distance of the White House, at that – should
be called out for what they are: cynical politiking in service of politicians
who will put more Jews in danger.
Kate Aronoff is
a writer based in New York.
This article
was amended on 18 December 2019 to correct the spelling of Milo Yiannopoulos’ name.
$720,714
contributed
$1,500,000
our goal
On a historic
day for America …
In a matter of
hours, Donald Trump faces an impeachment vote in the House. Today’s vote marks
the latest twist in one of the most turbulent presidencies in US history. If the
House votes to impeach him, he'll be only the third president in history to
face this sanction.
But the
challenges to American democracy do not end today. Over the last three years,
much of what we hold dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This
US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty
disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased
away. The need for a robust, independent press has never been
greater, and with your help we can continue to provide fact-based reporting
that offers public scrutiny and oversight.
Our journalism
is made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers like you across
America in all 50 states. This generosity helps protect our independence and it
allows us to keep delivering quality reporting that's accessible to everyone.
2020 promises
to be an epic year – and could define the country for a generation. In addition
to the impeachment proceedings, many other vital aspects of American public life
are in play – the supreme court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth
inequality, Big Tech and much more.
We are asking
our readers help to prepare for 2020. Please consider supporting us today with
a year-end gift. Contribute from as little as $1 and help us reach our goal.
THIS DESCRIPTION
OF A RECENT SPEECH BY TRUMP IS THE STRANGEST OF ALL THOSE I’VE HEARD ABOUT, EXCEPT
FOR THE COMMENT IN WHICH HE REFERS TO HIMSELF AS “THE CHOSEN ONE.” NOW I
SUSPECT THAT ONE WAS JUST A CASE OF “FOOT IN MOUTH DISEASE,” BECAUSE I DOUBT
THAT EVEN HE WOULD CALL HIMSELF GOD IN FRONT OF CAMERAS.
I WANT TO SEE A
VIDEO OF THE SPEECH ITSELF TO VERIFY FOR MYSELF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOME
ERROR HERE. THIS ISN’T THE ONLY STORY THAT TALKS ABOUT IT, THOUGH, SO EITHER A
WHOLE BUNCH OF JEWISH PEOPLE ARE WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST HIM, OR HE IS RAPIDLY
BECOMING MORE MENTALLY DISTURBED.
SO, FOR A BREATHTAKING
29 SECONDS OF TRUMPSPEAK, GO TO: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1203530971896791040.
IT IS EMBEDDED IN ANOTHER EXCELLENT ARTICLE, FOUND AT https://www.marketwatch.com/story/president-trump-blasted-by-jewish-group-for-his-vile-and-bigoted-remarks-2019-12-08.
TRUMP GOES FULL
ANTI-SEMITE IN ROOM FULL OF JEWISH PEOPLE
“You’re brutal
killers, not nice people at all.”
BY BESS LEVIN
DECEMBER 9,
2019
Photograph –
Donald Trump speaking BY JOE
RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES.
Back in
February 2017, Donald Trump was asked what the government planned to do
about an uptick in anti-Semitism, to which he characteristically responded,
“I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”
That statement, like the ones he’s previously made about being “the least
racist person there is anywhere in the world,” was, and is, obviously not true
at all. Prior to being elected, Trump seemed to suggest to a room full of
Jews that they buy off politicians; tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton’s face
atop a pile of cash next to the Star of David and the phrase, “Most Corrupt
Candidate Ever!”; and released an ad featuring the faces of powerful Jewish
people with a voiceover about them being part of a “global power structure”
that has “robbed our working class” and “stripped our country of its wealth.”
After moving into the White House, and just a few short months following his
assertion that he is the least anti-Semitic person to walk the earth, Trump
refused to condemn neo-Nazis and, just last August, accused American Jews of
being “disloyal” to Israel by voting for Democrats. And if you thought the coming
holiday season would inspire the president to pump the brakes on blatant
anti-Semitism, boy, do we have a surprise for you!
Speaking at the
Israeli American Council in Hollywood, Florida, on Saturday night, Trump
hit all of his favorite anti-Semitic tropes before a room full of Jewish
people. He started off by once again invoking the age-old cliché about “dual
loyalty,” saying there are Jews who “don’t love Israel enough.” After that
warm-up he dove right into the stereotype about Jews and money, telling
the group: “A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you
very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all,” he said. “But you
have to vote for me—you have no choice. You’re not gonna vote for
Pocahontas, I can tell you that. You’re not gonna vote for the wealth tax.
Yeah, let’s take 100% of your wealth away!” (It feels beside the point that
neither Elizabeth Warren nor any other Democratic candidate has proposed a 100%
wealth tax.) He continued: “Some of you don’t like me. Some of you I don’t like
at all, actually. And you’re going to be my biggest supporters because
you’re going to be out of business in about 15 minutes if they get it. So I
don’t have to spend a lot of time on that.”
Claude Taylor
✔
@TrueFactsStated
Trump’s appeal
to Jewish voters...
Embedded video
108
9:03 AM - Dec
8, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
133 people are
talking about this
Not
surprisingly, the remarks by the self-described “King of Israel” were swiftly
condemned by Jewish organizations. “Dear @POTUS,” the American Jewish
Committee tweeted Sunday afternoon, “Much as we appreciate your unwavering
support for Israel, surely there must be a better way to appeal to American
Jewish voters, as you just did in Florida, than by money references that feed
age-old and ugly stereotypes. Let’s stay off that mine-infested road.”
Calling the comments “deeply offensive” and “unconscionable,” the Jewish
Democratic Council of America said in a statement, “We strongly denounce these
vile and bigoted remarks in which the president—once again—used anti-Semitic
stereotypes to characterize Jews as driven by money and insufficiently loyal to
Israel. He even had the audacity to suggest that Jews ‘have no choice’ but
to support him. American Jews do have a choice, and they’re not choosing
President Trump or the Republican Party, which has been complicit in enacting
his hateful agenda.” The group’s executive director added: “Jewish support for
the GOP has been halved since Trump has been in office, from 33 percent in 2014
to 17 percent in 2018, because Trump’s policies and rhetoric are completely
antithetical to Jewish values.”
Trump, on whose
watch hate crimes have hit historic levels, has not seen fit to respond to any
of the criticism yet, but presumably when he does it’ll be to note his
appointment as “the second coming of God” and all of his many Jewish friends.
More Great
Stories From Vanity Fair
— Wildly
incriminating emails show the White House knew Trump was extorting Ukraine
— Is Rudy Giuliani
truly in trouble?
— The secret
life and strange death of Quadriga cofounder, Gerald Cotten
— The hunt for
Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged enabler Ghislaine Maxwell
— New polling
suggests Democrats’ impeachment push could alienate key voters
— From the
Archive: Inside Jeffrey Wigand’s epic multibillion-dollar struggle
Looking for
more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.
1488*
1488
General Hate
Symbols Numeric Hate Symbols
1488
ALTERNATE
NAMES: 8814
1488 is a
combination of two popular white supremacist numeric symbols. The first
symbol is 14, which is shorthand for the "14 Words" slogan: "We
must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
The second is 88, which stands for "Heil Hitler" (H being the 8th
letter of the alphabet). Together, the numbers form a general endorsement
of white supremacy and its beliefs. As such, they are ubiquitous within the
white supremacist movement - as graffiti, in graphics and tattoos, even in
screen names and e-mail addresses, such as aryanprincess1488@hate.net. Some white supremacists will even price
racist merchandise, such as t-shirts or compact discs, for $14.88.
The symbol is
most commonly written as 1488 or 14/88, but variations such as 14-88 or 8814
are also common.
ABOUT THE ADL
ADL is a
leading anti-hate organization. Founded in 1913 in response to an escalating
climate of anti-Semitism and bigotry, its timeless mission is to protect the
Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all. Today, ADL
continues to fight all forms of hate with the same vigor and passion. ADL is
a global leader in exposing extremism and delivering anti-bias education, and
is a leading organization in training law enforcement. ADL is the first
call when acts of anti-Semitism occur. ADL’s ultimate goal is a world in which
no group or individual suffers from bias, discrimination or hate.
Anti-Semitism
begins with the Jews, but never ends with the Jews.
-Deborah
Lipstadt, Author “Denying the Holocaust”
In 1913, the
founders of ADL understood this truth. And, then catalyzed by the lynching
of Leo Frank, they embraced a simple yet audacious mission.
*To stop the
defamation of the Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment to all.
*Hateful,
anti-Semitic stereotypes in the press.
In the public
square.
In politics.
*We fought for
us all. For Jews. For everyone.
*The right to
participate fully in all aspects of American life. Where we all can live.
Where we all
can work.
Where we all
can go to school.
*We fought for
us all.
The right to
vote, regardless of the color of your skin.
The right to
come to our shores, regardless of what country
you hail from.
The right to
marry, regardless of your gender.
The right to be
free from harassment or hate, regardless of your differences.
*Today, ADL
continues to fight for us all.
ADL is a
105-year-old global anti-hate organization.
And we have
only begun to fight.
Against
anti-Semitism.
Against all
forms of hate.
On the street.
On the Internet.
In the
classroom. On campus. In the workplace.
From City Hall
to the halls of Congress to the halls of power in world capitals.
We will
continue to fight the hate that harms us all.
*ADL is the
first call when acts of anti-Semitism occur.
We are the
foremost expert in the study of extremism.
We are a
worldwide leader in anti-bias education.
We are the
foremost authority and leader in fighting hate online. And we are a relentless
advocate for vulnerable communities of all kinds.
*When people
are threatened here at home or around the world, we will stand up for what’s
right.
We will defend
Israel’s right to exist, calling out those who delegitimize and demonize her.
*We will expose
bigotry for what it is, whether it’s cloaked in political rhetoric, academic
theories or calls for boycotts.
*We don’t care
how you vote, but we do care what you value.
We are
principled, not political.
We choose
action, not sides.
*We are guided
by the words of Hillel,
“If I am not
for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not
now, when?”
*In 1913,
our founders understood that America would only be safe for its Jews if it was
safe for all its people.
And, since
then, we have defended American values like dignity. Equality. Justice. And
Fair Treatment for us all.
NOTE: FOR A
TRIAL DESCRIPTION AND BIOGRAPHY OF LEO FRANK, GO TO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank.
Leo Frank
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
“Leo Max Frank
(April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American factory superintendent who
was convicted in 1913 of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan, in
Atlanta, Georgia. His trial, conviction, and appeals attracted national
attention. His lynching two years later, in response to the commutation of his
death sentence, became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial
concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism. Today, the consensus of
researchers on the subject holds that Frank was wrongly convicted.
. . . .”
COMMON DREAMS
SLOGAN SEEMS ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS STORY: “THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE
IN. THIS IS THE WORLD WE COVER.”
Published on
Wednesday,
December 18, 2019
byCommon Dreams
"Let's Nip
This Sh*t in the Bud": Cynical Accusations of Anti-Semitism Against Bernie
Sanders Draw Fire From Progressives
"Bernie
Sanders' willingness to criticize Israel, his support for Palestinian
rights—these are not anti-Semitic."
byEoin Higgins,
staff writer
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen.
Bernie Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, speaks during the 2019
J Street National Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 28, 2019.
(Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Progressives
are taking the initiative to destroy and defeat accusations that Sen. Bernie
Sanders, a frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, is running
or at the least tolerating an anti-Semitic primary campaign—accusations that
come while the right-wing sharpens its knives for the Vermont senator as he
rises in the polls.
Attacks against
Sanders began last week after U.K. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn suffered a
humiliating defeat that some observers believe was helped by years of attacks
claiming he and his left-leaning British party were anti-Semitic. At that
point, columnist Peter Beinart wrote for The Forward on Tuesday, the die was
cast.
"Discrediting
him as a Jew is really about discrediting left-wing Jews in general."
—David Klion,
Jewish Currents
"Given
Bernie Sanders' endurance as a top-tier presidential contender, and his support
for Palestinian rights, it was almost inevitable that conservatives would start
labeling his campaign anti-Semitic," wrote Beinart. "Last week's
election in Britain—and the alleged similarities between Sanders and Labour Party
leader Jeremy Corbyn—provided the pretext."
It happened
quickly. On December 13, right-wing outlet The Washington Examiner reporter Tiana
Lowe—whose recent praise for her Nazi-collaborating Chetnik grandfather was
noted by a number of observers—wrote that the Sanders campaign "has an
anti-Semitism problem."
The smear
provoked a sharp reaction from Sanders speechwriter David Sirota.
"As a
Jewish person, my response to this is simple," Sirota tweeted,
"anyone accusing Bernie of anti-Semitism—and anyone publishing this
shit—is a total asshole."
Lowe's piece
was joined by articles in other right-wing publications, including conservative
magazine Commentary's online editor Noah Rothman. Cartoonist and activist Eli
Valley hit back at Rothman on social media, saying, "It's happening—elated
over the U.K., the minority of American Jews that has waged war on the
progressive Jewish majority for generations is starting to pull the same shtick
with the most inspiring Jewish politician of our time."
"We need to
shut this shit down early," Valley added.
That sentiment
was shared by journalist Kate Aronoff, who, in a call to action, urged
supporters of the senator's campaign to fight against the attacks.
"Let's nip
this shit in the bud, team," tweeted Aronoff.
Kate Aronoff
✔
@KateAronoff
Let's nip this
shit in the bud, team. My latest for @guardian on Zayde Bernie and the craven
slugs calling his campaign anti-Semitic: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/the-rights-accusations-of-antisemitism-against-sanders-are-cynical-and-dangerous
…
PHOTOGRAPH -- Accusing
Bernie Sanders of antisemitism? That's a new low | Kate Aronoff
The allegations
should be called for what they are: politiking in service of politicians who
will put more Jews in danger
theguardian.com
1,984
9:40 AM - Dec
18, 2019
Aronoff pushed
back on the accusations against Sanders, a Jewish man who had members of his
family murdered in the Holocaust, for The Guardian Wednesday. In her essay,
Aronoff argues that smearing Sanders as an anti-Semite or tolerant of
anti-Semitism is rooted in both the senator's support for Palestinian rights
and seeking shameless partisan advantage from his opponents on the right.
"Before
they snowball into something worse, the right's allegations of antisemitism
against the left—and the first Jew within striking distance of the White House,
at that—should be called out for what they are," wrote Aronoff,
"cynical politiking in service of politicians who will put more Jews in
danger."
David Klion,
news editor of left-wing Jewish magazine Jewish Currents, which recently
published a piece on fighting anti-Semitism authored by Sanders, told
Common Dreams that attacks on Sanders are about more than just the senator's
campaign.
"Sanders
represents a strain of American Jewish identity that is profoundly threatening
to the mainstream Jewish establishment—one rooted in social justice and
solidarity with all oppressed peoples, rather than in Zionism, religious
conservatism, or corporate-friendly politics," said Klion.
"Discrediting him as a Jew is really about discrediting left-wing Jews in
general."
"Bernie
Sanders' willingness to criticize Israel, his support for Palestinian
rights—these are not anti-Semitic."
—Sophie
Ellman-Golan, Never Again Action
Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) on Monday attempted to make the case that Sanders' friendship and
political allyship with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Muslim woman of color, was
evidence of a connection between the senator and anti-Semitic elements in
the Democratic Party—an accusation against Omar of anti-Jewish bias.
In a blistering
retort to Cruz, Never Again Action's Sophie Ellman-Golan both called on Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to condemn Cruz and put the attacks on
Sanders in context.
"Bernie
Sanders' willingness to criticize Israel, his support for Palestinian
rights—these are not anti-Semitic, and I'll be dammed if we let right-wing
Christian evangelicals and right-wing members of our own community redefine
them as such," said Ellman-Golan.
Left-wing
activist Twitter account Jewish Worker agreed.
"They're
not attacking Bernie because of anti-Semitism," said Jewish Worker.
"They're attacking Bernie because of anti-Palestinianism. Don't let them
confuse you."
Our work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel
free to republish and share widely.
This is the
world we live in. This is the world we cover.
**** ****
**** ****
Comments
Post a Comment