• About
  • Documentary Films
  • Index
  • Nota bene
  • Protect and Serve
  • Readings

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Lumpenproletariat

Tag Archives: Ajamu Baraka

2016 California Voter Guide for the November General Election

02 Wed Nov 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Anti-War, Political Science, Presidential Election 2016

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

"Prop. 51 Versus a State-Owned Bank: How California Can Save $10 Billion on a $9 Billion Loan" by Ellen Brown, Ajamu Baraka, Amy Goodman, Bernie Sanders, California Proposition 51 (2016), California Proposition 53 (2016), California Proposition 64 (2016), California Proposition 66 (2016), Dr. Ellen Hodgson Brown (b. 1945), Dr. Jill Stein, Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Electoral College, electoral reform, Fair Vote (Washington D.C.), Flashpoints, Green Party, Hard Knock Radio, Hayward Measure EE (Cannabis Sin Tax), Huffington Post, James Comey (b. 1960), La Onda Bajita (KPFA Radio), Letters and Politics, MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, Modern Money Theory, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, politics of California, progressivism, Proposition 59, Proposition 62, Proposition 64, Proposition 67, sin tax, voter suppression

Vote_12345LUMPENPROLETARIAT—The 2016 November General Election is less than a week away.  Here is our voter guide, which mostly agrees with the Green Party Voter Guide, which your author received via snail mail as a registered Green Party member. [1]  As is self-evident to readers of previous articles on Lumpenproletariat, and all accumulated news and information and insight lead us to our best political conclusions, we are recommending that the American working classes (and others) vote for Dr. Jill Stein (for U.S. president) and human rights leader Ajamu Baraka (for U.S. vice president).  The interests of the American working classes would be best served by the leadership of the Green Party and a Stein/Baraka administration. [2]

For California voters, we’re also recommending a yes vote on Proposition 64 (Marijuana Legalisation) towards the decriminalisation of medicinal cannabis use (and doctor-patient relationships), subversion of the prison-industrial complex, and relief of overcrowded prisons. [3]  Prop. 64 has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Courage Campaign, California Democratic Party, California League of Conservation Voters, and others.  We urge people to vote no on cannabis and tobbaco sin taxes, such as Hayward Measure EE calling for a 15% sin tax on medical and non-medical cannabis sales to be added to local sales tax.  Most sales taxes are regressive.  Sin taxes are also discriminatory.  Proposition 56 is another sin tax we oppose.  Taxes must be placed, as originally intended, primarily on the major corporations, often the committers of the greatest sins, who benefit the most from society’s infrastructure and court systems and such.

We recommend yes votes on Proposition 59 (Campaign Finance, Repeal Citizens United), Proposition 62 (End the Death Penalty), and Proposition 67 (Uphold the Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags).  We recommend a no vote on Proposition 66, which seeks to speed up California’s execution process by limiting limit successive petitions, requiring appointed attorneys who take non-capital appeals to accept death penalty appeals, and exempting prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.  Prop. 66 is opposed by the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and The Sacramento Bee.  What do you think about the various statewide propositions?  Here are our endorsements:

November 2016 California Ballot Propositions

  • Proposition 51 (School Bonds, High-Interest Debt-Funding for K-12 and Community College)—NO (funding schools is good, but bonds are bad; see public banking alternatives) [4]
  • Proposition 52 (Medical Hospital Fee Program)—NEUTRAL (leaning YES; see Tim Redmond, et al. arguing YES on 52; it seems the hospital fee is reimbursed through federal government matching funds resulting in a net benefit to hospital industry.  Ultimately, the state, the people, pay the hospital industry more than hospitals will pay per Prop. 52.  In that sense, this is a delayed tax on California taxpayers.) [5]
  • Proposition 53 (Revenue Bonds, Require Statewide Voter Approval)—NO [6]
  • Proposition 54 (Legislature, Legislation and Proceedings Initiative, Increase Transparency)—YES [7]
  • Proposition 55 (‘Millionaire’ Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare)—YES [8]
  • Proposition 56 (Cigarette ‘Sin Tax’ to Fund Healthcare, Research, Law Enforcement, etc.)—NO [9]
  • Proposition 57 (Criminal Sentences, Parole Option, Judiciary Discretion for Trying Juveniles as Adults, etc.)—YES [10]
  • Proposition 58 (English Proficiency, Multilingual Education Option)—YES [11]
  • Proposition 59 (Campaign Finance, Repeal Citizens United)—YES [12]
  • Proposition 60 (Pornographic Films, Redundant Condom Requirement)—NO [13]
  • Proposition 61 (State Prescription Drug Purchases, Competitive Pricing Standards)—YES [14]
  • Proposition 62 (End the Death Penalty)—YES [15]
  • Proposition 63 (Firearms, Ammunition Sales Restrictions)—NO [16]
  • Proposition 64 (Cannabis Legalisation for Adults)—YES  [3]
  • Proposition 65 (Redirect Funds Collected for Carryout Plastic Bags)—NO [17]
  • Proposition 66 (Death Penalty Procedures, Speed Up Execution Process)—NO [18]
  • Proposition 67 (Uphold the Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags)—YES [19]

400px-Seal_of_California.svgWe know it’s not easy for the working classes to take time out of our busy, hectic, and often stressful days to keep up with the politics of California and study all of the political records of all the candidates and reflect upon and discuss the pros and cons of all of the ballot propositions and legislation proposals on your state’s 2016 Official Voter Information Guide.  But we encourage you, thoughtful readers, wherever you are, to take heart and dig in.  Democracy holds better promise for the people than plutocracy, which is what we get when we don’t pay attention.  As Ralph Nader says, if you don’t turn on to politics, politics will turn on you.  So, talk to your friends and family members and neighbours about what they think about the presidential election, the political parties, the state and local contests, and their own level of participation and sense of civic duty.  (We include various election coverage resources below.)  Surely, our hopes for democracy are half as important as the many hours we may invest in our hobbies, such as spectator sports or video games, learning countless statistics and sports team details.  Let’s take some time away from work and play to think about how we can make the most of our democratic right to vote and make sure that our economic system is working for us—the working classes—not just the rich, the elites, and the capitalist owning classes. [20]

Messina

[Thanks to RDM for contributing research on Prop. 64 to this article.]

***

[The following are notes from a copy of the printed pamphlet, which registered Green Party members receive via snail mail.  Online version (of the printed copy below) at acgreens.org.  Also see cagreens.org and sfgreenparty.org.]

GREEN VOTER GUIDE—[c. OCT 2016]  A publication of the Green Party of Alameda County, an affiliate of the Green Party of California.

Table of contents:

  • Federal Offices ………………………………………….. 1, 3, 4  [21]
    • Dr. Jill Stein (for president)
    • Ajamu Baraka (for vice president)
  • State Senate and Assembly …………………………………. 4
    • no endorsements (see write-up) [22]
  • State Propositions ………………………………. 1, 16, 17, 18
    • 59 – Campaign Finance, Repeal Citizens United — Yes
    • 62 – End the Death Penalty — Yes, Yes, Yes!
    • 64 – Marijuana Legalization — Yes  [23]
    • 67 – Uphold the Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags — Yes
  • Superior Court Judge
  • Peralta Colleges
  • City of Alameda
  • City of Albany
  • City of Berkeley
    • Understanding and using “Ranked Choice Voting” (RCV) [24]
  • City of Emeryville
  • City of Fremont
  • Hayward Area
    • Hayward Measure EE – [NO] [25]
  • City of Oakland
  • Special Districts
  • County Measures
  • Voter Card

Our endorsement process

For many of the candidates’ races, we created questionnaires for the candidates and solicited their responses. For others we conducted over-the-phone or in-person interviews. We also gathered information from Greens and others working on issues in their communities and from the public record. For local measures we gathered information as comprehensively as possible. The Green Party of Alameda County held endorsement meetings to consider all the information and make decisions. Our endorsements are as follows:

When we list “No endorsement,” either we had unresolved differences that prevented us from agreeing on a position, or no position was warranted.

We only endorse bond measures for essential public projects that are unlikely to be funded otherwise. Our endorsement “Yes, with standard bond reservations” reflects our position that funding through bonds is more costly and therefore less fiscally responsible than a tax.

Where no recommendation appears, we did not evaluate the race or measure due to a lack of volunteers. Working on the Voter Guide is fun! Give us a call now to get signed up to help on the next edition!

Learn more at AC GREENS.

***

FREE SPEECH RADIO GENERAL ELECTION COVERAGE

KPFA NEWS—[8 NOV 2016]

[(21:00 PST) (c. 0:01)  Music break/local station identifications, appeals for support, and local announcements.  KPFA has Mark Mericle come on the air announcing Trump is polling stronger than expected.  Stocks are crashing in response to a potential Trump presidency.  News Headlines are read by Mark Mericle.  Mark Mericle interviews Mitch Perry(sp?) in Tampa, Florida with FloridaPolitics.com.  (21:19 PST)  Mericle continues updating the ‘horse race’.  (21:20 PST) (c. 0:20) Sharon Saboda(sp?) reports from Hillary Clinton camp.  Mark Mericle interview Gavin Newsom.]

[KPFA News Department’s Max Pringle reads KPFA News Headlines]

[(c. 21:35 PST) (c. 35:00)  Next report.]

[(c. 21:45 PST)  Mark Mericle speaks with Tom Campbell, former south bay congressperson.]

[(c. 21:47 PST) (c. 47:00)  Mark Mericle interviews Brit-sounding Matt Cherry, who led the campaign for Proposition 62, to abolish the death penalty in California.  SF Bay Area is trending in favour of Prop. 62, but the rest of California seems to be against Prop. 62.  Matt Cherry cautions premature calls, as the Los Angeles area has still not fully reported election results.  (c. 21:52)  Mark Mericle dismissed Matt Cherry.]

[(c. 21:52 PST)  Mark Mericle gets into local SF Bay Area measures.  Oakland Measure HH, the sugar soda tax seems to be winning.  Unidentified guest interviews Dianne Wolsen(sp?) on the sugar soda tax.]

[snip]

[(c. 22:02 PST)  News Headlines (read by Aileen Alfandary)]

[(c. 22:17 PST)  Mark Mericle dismisses Don Nielsen(sp?) on presidential election commentary.]

[(c. 22:17 PST)  Next guest, Mike Walinski(sp?) (CA Teachers Association), on statewide ballot propositions.]

[(c. 22:25 PST)  KPFA reporter on local politician Jesse Arreguin poised to be the first Latino mayor of Berkeley, endorsed by Bernie Sanders.  Arreguin speaks with KPFA’s Mark Mericle.  (c. 22:31)  Mark Mericle dismisses Arreguin.]

[(c. 22:32)  Music break]

[(c. 23:46 PST)  New VP Mike Pence gives victory speech and introduces new US president Donald Trump.]

[(c. 23:51 PST)  Donald Trump takes the stage, announces that Hillary Clinton just telephoned him to concede the election, gives bloated and vacuous victory speech. (c. 23:59 PST)  Trump acknowledges his campaign team and offers his concluding remarks, including thanks to Rudy Giuliani, Governor Chris Christy, Senator Jeff Sessions, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and family, General Mike Flynn(sp?), General Kellog(sp?), et al.]

[(c. 00:03 PST)  Donald Trump continues after somebody announced him as the ‘next president of the United States’.  Trump acknowledges the Secret Service and “law enforcement”.  Trump promises to “do a great job”.]

[(c. 00:05 PST)  Mark Mericle cuts in, as it seems Donald Trump has no intention of wrapping up his victory speech anytime soon.  Mericle reads credits of KPFA News Department’s coverage of the 2016 November General Election coverage.]

[snip]  (c. 00:05 PST) (c. 3:05:00)

Learn more at KPFA NEWS.

*

PACIFICA RADIO—[8 NOV 2016]

[Four-hour special broadcast is scheduled for Election Day, Tuesday, November 8, 2016, starting at 5pm (when the first time zone of election polls close on the east coast at 8pm eastern time zone).]

[(c. 62:00)  Second hour begins.  Florida overwhelmingly passes medical cannabis legalisation.]

[(c. 74:00)  Thomas Frank critiques Hillary Clinton’s type of “liberalism”.  But he, nevertheless, admits that he voted for Hillary Clinton.  And, saliently, he carefully avoids the word neoliberalism]

[(c. 76:00)  Dr. Malveaux tepidly enunciates the explosive word “neoliberalism”.  But she does so dismissively.]

[(c. 77:00)  Amy Goodman moves on to voter suppression issues, including a lawsuit invoking the Ku Klux Klan Act and its legacy.]

[Guest argues that a moral hunger exists among liberals to reclaim the moral centre.]

[(c. 95:00)  Dr. Malveaux, the indefatigable Hillary Clinton apologist, says she’s not voting against Donald Trump but for Hillary Clinton.]

[(c. 96:00)  Reverend Barber:  There wouldn’t be a Donald Trump without a backlash against Obama.  On the race question:  People have suffered for rights, “died and bled”.]

[(c. 92:00)  Next guests…Mitch Perry(sp?)]

[(c. 97:00)  AG gives Thomas Frank an opportunity to respond, as she ‘knows he must leave the broadcast soon.]

[(c. 1:13:00)  Greg Grandin…]

[(19:04 PST) (c. 2:04:00)  Eddie Glaude:  There are no surprises.]  [This sounds like a repeat of what was said, or broadcast, earlier at 17:00 PDT, or earlier in the day, during the regular Democracy Now! broadcast.]

[Dr. Malveaux chimes in, largely agreeing and perpetuating this subtle Democratic Party apologia.]

[(19:08 PST) (c. 2:08:00)  AG updates the two-party dictatorship ‘horse race’.]

[snip]

[(20:06 PST)  Allan Nairn alleges the FBI may be swinging the vote in favour of Trump.]

[(20:08 PST)  CBS News has just reported that Trump has won North Carolina.]

[(20:13 PST)  (c. 3:13:00) Sheriff Joe Arpaio(sp?) has lost his election.]

[(20:13 PST)  (c. 3:13:00)  Next guest:  ]

[(20:23 PST)  Dr. Malveaux cites Dr. Ralph Nader]

[(20:23 PST)  John Nichols cuts in.]

[(20:25 PST)  Alan Nairn cuts in.]

[(20:26 PST)  Amy Goodman cuts in, brings up other issues, including 84-year old Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is facing criminal charges and facing possible jail time.]

[(20:27 PST)  Alan Nairn applauds justice being served against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who once called for prisoners caloric intake to be reduced, so that they wouldn’t have the energy to resist prison injustices.]

[c. 20:28 PST]  Female pundit joins in.

[(20:40 PST)  John Nichols retorts.]

[Professor Eddie Glaude, Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, chimes in.]

[(20:43 PST)  The other male guest chimes in.]

[(20:43 PST)  Dr. Malveaux chimes in.]

[Back and forth chatter within a narrow two-party paradigm continues.]

[(20:44 PST)  Dr. Malveaux invokes Russia fearmongering:  ‘Maybe Trump has dealings with Russia.’]

[Back and forth chatter within a narrow two-party paradigm continues.  No mention of the erosion of democracy, which only Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka’s Green Party campaign are countering.]

[(20:25 PST)  Amy Goodman cuts in to the horse race banter to introduce Wayne Barrett(sp?).  AG reports the corporate media has now reported Iowa coming in favour of Trump.  Barett invokes Bruce Springsteen, a ‘man of the people’, who was ‘never asked’ to campaign for Hillary Clinton.  Deluded liberals are reeling as Trump appears to be winning county after county and state after state on election day.]

[(20:48 PST)  Amy Goodman cuts in to report that ‘Donald Trump has just won the battleground state of Georgia’.]

[(20:54 PST)  Amy Goodman asks about Trump’s relationship with the FBI, including James Comey (b. 1960).]

[Democracy Now’s neoliberal rhetoric continues until the KPFA News Department cuts in, giving no word that the broadcast will not be returning to Democracy Now’s ‘expert’ panel.]

[snip]

[snip]  (c. 3:59:59)

Learn more at PACIFICA RADIO.

*

FLASHPOINTS—[8 NOV 2016]   [Broadcast summary from kpfa.org broadcast archive page:  “Today on Flashpoints: Greg Palast joins us for an election daypost mortem on voter-intimidation. Also The Pipeline: How Marin and San Francisco Financial Firms Fuel the Fracking Boom. And we’ll see if we can get in a few listener phone calls.”]

[snip]

Learn more at FLASHPOINTS.

*

HARD KNOCK RADIO—[8 NOV 2016]  [During the first half hour, Davey D spoke with a centrist liberal, whose remarks largely bolstered a Democrat apologist line of argumentation in the context of the 2016 November general election.]

[snip]

[snip]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at HARD KNOCK RADIO.

*

LETTERS AND POLITICS—[8 NOV 2016]  [“Election Commentary with Richard Wolff” broadcast preview summary (accessed at 10:21 PDT on 8 NOV 2016):  “with Dr. Richard Wolff, a renowned American Marxist economist, and Professor of Economics Emeritus, about the elections, the state of politics in the US and his ideas for rewriting the economic script in the country.  His latest book is Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism.”] 

[transcript pending]

[Messina called in during the call-in section and raised a bunch of issues, particularly the economic fact that we can end involuntary unemployment as we know it through an MMT-based job guarantee programme.  MMT stands for modern money theory, which, as taught at heterodox economics departments throughout the United States, such as at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, shows us how we have monetary sovereignty, which allows us to use modern money for public purpose.  Your author’s former professor, Dr. Stephanie Kelton, for example, shows us that all money exists as an IOU.  This means, technically, taxes don’t pay for federal spending.  They pay for state spending, but not federal spending.  Dr. Richard Wolff agreed that everything was “correct”.  But he didn’t really delve into, or engage with, the issue of the MMT-based job guarantee programme because it seems to clash with his particular variety of Marxian ideology.]

[snip]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at LETTERS AND POLITICS.

*

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[8 NOV 2016]  [Listen to this radio broadcast here; or view the TV version here.]

[Democracy Now! featured coverage of the many local ballot measures throughout the nation, apparently the most in any general election in recent history.  Many of the local ballot measures involve minimum wage laws, local revenue needs, medicinal (and so-called non-medicinal) cannabis sales, sin taxes, and other health care initiatives.]

[(c. 27:00)  Inequality.org]

[(c. 30:00)  Graham Nash music break/local station identifications and announcements]

[Rolling Stone’s Greg Palast (author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) reported from the ‘battleground’ state of Ohio.  Greg Palast has also reported for free speech KPFA Radio’s Flashpoints for its Election Protection series during the 2016 presidential election.]

[On charges of ‘double-voting’ found through ‘cross-checking’ of ballots with similar names as a pretense for purging voters of colour from voter rolls.  At least one million voters are being deleted from the voter rolls; their ballots are being invalidated.  Audit functions are being turned off in Ohio.]

[(c. 45:00)  Amy Goodman dismisses Greg Palast]

[(c. 45:30)  music break/local station identifications and announcements/on KPFA, Christina Aanestad appeals for listener donations]

[On upgrading our democratic process:  abolishing the electoral college; National Popular Vote Interstate Compact; ranked-choice voting (or instant run-off voting); proportional representation.]  (c. 51:00)

[Guest from Fair Vote.]

[(c. 55:00)  Archive clip from Amy Goodman’s ambush interview of Bill Clinton on the political bankruptcy of the two-party system]

[snip]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!.

*

RISING UP—[7 NOV 2016]

[The first guest discussed post-election politics from a narrow two-party perspective, largely consonant with a particular vein of current political commentary, which focuses on a fear of a Trump presidency, which carries with it an implied suggestion to vote for Hillary Clinton, as a ‘logical’ reaction.  Of course, this reasoning is only ‘logical’ if we buy into the premise, which argues that progressives must never break ranks with the Democratic Party, especially not during elections.  They say, sometimes, that we can build political alternatives or third-party challenges after the election.  But many of us have heard this for many elections, going back many years to at least the 1990s with Ralph Nader‘s earliest presidential candidacies.]

[The second guest Jennifer L. Clark discussed voter suppression, including in North Carolina, which has seen cases of voter suppression.]

[Host Sonali Kolhatkar takes a scant few minutes out of her hour-long daily broadcast to read a brief summary of the 2016 California Propositions, which are on the 2016 General Election ballot.  Kolhatkar adopts a mealy-mouthed, know-nothing attitude towards the propositions, loathe to disclose any of her political preferences, insisting, “I cannot endorse any positions.”  Well, why not?  Is it because she’s not informed enough on any of the issues?  Is it because her positions may contradict her ostensibly progressive political reputation?  The history of journalism shows how, over time, media outlets have increasingly obfuscated their political preferences under a false premise of journalistic objectivity.]

Learn more at RISING UP WITH SONALI.

*

LA ONDA BAJITA—[4 NOV 2016]  [snip]

[During the last 30 minutes or so of this two-hour broadcast, a special report discusses California Proposition 64, including Dennis Bernstein (host of Flashpoints), Sabrina Jacobs (host of Rude Awakening), and one of the founders of the Bank of North Dakota, if memory serves, on the role of public banking in removing the private bank roadblock to ending cannabis prohibition.]

[snip]  (c. 1:59:59)

Learn more at LA ONDA BAJITA.

*

[Broadcast summary from KPFA archive page.]

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[2 NOV 2016]  Matt Cherry of Death Penalty Focus on where capital punishment stands today and the potential impact of measures on next Tuesday’s ballot.

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

*

[Broadcast summary from KPFA archive page.  N.B.:  Always listen/read critically.  Talkies host and producer Kris Welch is a SaveKPFA partisan at KPFA, which leans in favour of the Democratic Party via a reform-the-party-from-within ideology.]

TALKIES—[2 NOV 2016]  Election day is less than a week away—how can the top race be so close???? and other questions for progressives!  PLUS:  Tim DeChristopher in the role (missing) of the climate in political discourse.

With host Kris Welch.

Learn more at TALKIES.

*

RISING UP WITH SONALI—[2 NOV 2016]  [election coverage details and link pending.  See kpfa.org]

Learn more at RISING UP WITH SONALI.

*

[Broadcast summary from KPFA archive page.]

HARD KNOCK RADIO—[1 NOV 2016]  California voters come Nov. 8 will have to sort through the longest list of statewide propositions imaginable.  The confusing array of public policy choices includes, the future of the death penalty, a criminal sentence measure aimed at cutting state prison population by giving inmates a chance for earlier parole, a collection of new tough gun laws and a slew of other measures on the November Ballot.

On today’s show we provide listeners with a “voter guide” to help with the navigation of propositions/measures and local intitiatives, come this 2016 election.  Our round-table of experts include invididuals committed to informing community and helping us all wade through the maze of police and legal jargon.

Guests:

  • Pastor Michael McBride, the National Director for Urban Strategies/LIVE FREE Campaign with the PICO National Network.
  • Aparnah Shah, the Executive Director for Mobilize the Immigrant Voice Action Fund and the Million Voters Project.
  • Adam Kruggel, Director of Organizing at PICO California.
  • Kimi Lee, the Director of Bay Rising (on state and local measures)
  • Chaney Turner, an Oakland native, activist, and entreprenuer.

Learn more at HARD KNOCK RADIO.

***

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Green Voter Guide, A publication of the Green Party of Alameda County, an affiliate of the Green Party of California, dated November 8, 2016.  This is a newspaper-like foldout pamphlett, which was mailed out some weeks ago.  (It is also available online as a pdf document.)

The front page features the Table of Contents.

A sunflower graphic, with the word “vote” in the centre, is ringed by the following sociopolitical principles promoted by the Green Party:

community-based economics; social justice; ecological wisdom; feminism; grassroots democracy; global responsibility; respect for diversity; future focus; non-violence; decentralization.

The cover page also lists the following cities:  Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City.

Readers may recall that we, at Lumpenproletariat, previously recommended the working classes in the United States vote for Senator Bernie Sanders for president, even going so far as to register as Democrat to back Sanders in the primary.  But, since Senator Sanders decided that neoliberal Hillary Clinton is the best presidential candidate and quit on his own political movement, we’ve decided that Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka and the Green Party provide the clearest, most intelligent, most honest political campaign and platform.  So, we’ve re-registered as Greens.  Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka provide the best home for the precious efforts, political work, and civic engagement of the working classes toward socioeconomic justice and equanimity.

[2]  As noted previously, we initially supported the Bernie Sanders campaign as the closest approximation to a socialist, or social democrat, presidency the United States could achieve in 2016, in stark contrast to the endless succession of neoliberal administrations under Democratic and Republican rule.  We know that most liberals and many progressives are planning on voting for the neoliberal candidate Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, or out of a fear-based decision, which reacts in fear of a Trump presidency.  But we must bear in mind the many reasons there are to oppose the neoliberal politics of Hillary Clinton, starting with the fact that her politics are, well, neoliberal.  With respect to the neoliberal politics of Hillary Clinton, which are likely to expand, should she win the presidency, we urge readers to review her record, as reflected in any number of snippets of the recent record:

  • 2016 United States Presidential Debate #3, Censored Under the Auspices of the Commission On Presidential Debates; 19 OCT 2016.
  • America at War with Itself (2016) by Dr. Henry A. Giroux; 14 OCT 2016.
  • 2016 United States Vice Presidential Election Debate; 4 OCT 2016.
  • Clinton Cash:  The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (2015) by Peter Schweizer; 1 AUG 2016.
  • “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote” by Michelle Alexander; 27 JUL 2016.
  • Guns and Butter Presents Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Warfare: Is the US/NATO Going To Attack Russia?; 15 JUN 2016.
  • Dr. Glenn Greenwald on Hillary Clinton’s Support for Brutal Dictators and More; 24 MAR 2016.
  • Activist and Indigenous Leader Nelson García Assassinated; 16 MAR 2016.
  • Activist Berta Cáceres Assassinated; 3 MAR 2016.
  • Hillary Clinton, US/NATO Imperialism, & the Lynching of Gaddafi; 3 MAR 2016.
  • Historical Archives: Third-Party Challenge to Unconstitutional Prop 14; 2 MAR 2016.
  • Black Agenda Report: On the USA’s Black Electorate, Circa 2016; 1 MAR 2016.
  • My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (2015) by Doug Henwood; 29 FEB 2016.

[3]  California Proposition 64 sounds good, superficially speaking.  Progressives, as reflected by the Green Party’s endorsement for Prop. 64, favour legalisation and decriminalisation of medicinal and adult recreational use of cannabis.  However, it seems there is some problematic fine print to Prop. 64, as some critics have decried an attached 15% sin tax.  However, Prop. 64 doesn’t say anything about taxing changes.  But, of course, localities are responding by running ballot propositions to impose sin taxes on top of existing sales taxes to all cannabis sales, medical and non-medical.  Hayward Measure EE is one example.  Also, others have complained that, while Prop. 64 makes adult consumption of cannabis legal, it worsens criminalisation of youth caught possessing or consuming cannabis.  Also, there are questions of Monsanto patenting cannabis strains.  A good legalisation proposition would certainly include language against such monopolistic corporate practices.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 64:

This isn’t the law we would have written; it’s complex and has all sorts of rules that might not be needed. But still: Legalizing pot is about, oh, 50 years overdue. The measure allows local communities to set regulations around sales, sets licensing standards, and will bring the state hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax money. Oh, and save millions in wasted law-enforcement time. We all know prohibition is silly and doesn’t work. Vote yes.

Full cannabis legalisation and decriminalisation all the way up to the federal level would certainly be beneficial for society, in terms of reversing mass incarceration by moving beyond paternalistic prohibition.  Perhaps, that’s not an adequate basis for a yes vote on this particular cannabis legalisation state law.  But it seems Prop. 64, in itself, is a beneficial law to pass.  However, it leaves localities to pass onerous sin taxes.  Here is a brief survey of positions on Prop. 64:

  • American Civil Liberties Union:  YES
    • “ACLU California Announces Support of Marijuana Legalization Ballot Meaure” by David Downs, East Bay Express, 15 JUN 2016.
    • “The War on Marijuana in Black and White” by the American Civil Liberties Union, accessed 7 NOV 2016.
  • Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice:  YES
  • California Democratic Party:  YES
  • California League of Conservation Voters: YES 
  • Courage Campaign:  YES
  • Equality California:  YES
  • Our Revolution:  YES

Here are further resources, which discuss the pros and cons of Prop. 64:

  • Arguments for a No vote:  NoOn64.net, accessed 4 NOV 2016.
  • Arguments for a Yes vote:  YesOn64.org, accessed 4 NOV 2016.
  • Arguments for a No vote:  Hard Knock Radio, 2 NOV 2016.
  • Arguments for a No vote:  Hard Knock Radio, 1 NOV 2016.
  • Arguments for a Yes vote:  “Prop. 64 Marijuana Legalization View from Chris Conrad”, The New Connection Magazine, 17 OCT 2016.

[4]  See Dr. Ellen Brown for more information and analyses, which make very compelling arguments against California Proposition 51 from a public banking perspective:

  • “Prop. 51 Versus a State-Owned Bank: How California Can Save $10 Billion on a $9 Billion Loan” by Ellen Brown, Huffington Post, 19 OCT 2016.

HUFFINGTON POST—[19 OCT 2016]  School districts are notoriously short of funding – so short that some California districts have succumbed to Capital Appreciation Bonds that will cost taxpayers as much is 10 to 15 times principal by the time they are paid off. By comparison, California’s Prop. 51, the school bond proposal currently on the ballot, looks like a good deal. It would allow the state to borrow an additional $9 billion for educational purposes by selling general obligation bonds to investors at an assumed interest rate of 5%, with the bonds issued over a five-year period and repaid over 30 years. $9 billion × 5% × 35 equals $15.75 billion in interest – nearly twice principal, but not too bad compared to the Capital Appreciation Bond figures.

However, there is a much cheaper way to fund this $9 billion school debt. By borrowing from its own state-chartered, state-owned bank, the state could save over $10 billion – on a $9 billion loan. Here is how.

[snip]

Learn more at HUFFINGTON POST.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 51:

The need for funding for K-12 and community college facilities is dire. There’s no way to argue against $9 billion in state bonds to help local communities upgrade ebonds come out of the overall general fund, in this case to the tune of $500 million a year, and while everyone in Sacramento wants to borrow money for good causes, it’s hard to find many who want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. Still: Vote yes.

[5]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 52:

Complex, technical, but the bottom line is that private hospitals would pay a fee to pay for uninsured and Medi-Cal patients. If you think that private hospitals in CA are just charities, go check out the financials of the likes of Kaiser and Sutter Health. They make billions. Vote yes.

[6]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following compelling argument against Prop. 53:

This is part of the same agenda that brought us Prop. 13. The anti-tax folks want to make it harder for government to raise money. Revenue bonds aren’t backed by taxpayers; they’re backed by, say, the income from an airport or a public-power agency. The reality is that this is funded by a rich Central Valley farmer who doesn’t like the governor’s plans for new water tunnels or high-speed rail. We don’t like the tunnels, either; we do like the trains. Either way, this is a really stupid way to make policy. Vote no.

[7]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following compelling argument in favour of Prop. 54:

This is going to pass with about 70 percent of the vote, and it should. The state Legislature has a habit of introducing new elements to bills at the last minute, just before a session ends. Rotten special-interest riders hike onto unrelated bills; legislator voting on hundreds of measures don’t get a chance to scrutinize what’s going on. Prop. 54 also mandates that all sessions of the Legislature and its committees be streamed on video. Vote yes.

[8]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following compelling argument in favour of Prop. 55:

In 2009, in the middle of the Great Recession, the state imposed a modest increase in taxes on the most wealthy, people with incomes of more than $250,000 a year. That tax is set to expire in 2018. The rich are even richer, the needs are even more serious, and drop of as much as $9 billion in state revenue would be devastating. Yes, yes, yes.

[9]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 56:

The state’s tobacco tax is only 87 cents a pack. Prop. 56 raises it by $2. The evidence is pretty clear that smoking costs the state billions in health-care costs, and that higher taxes reduce use (particularly among young people). Vote yes.

[10]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 57 :

Prop. 57 – Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature measure for this fall — is a significant step toward reforming the state’s crazy, racist, inhumane criminal justice system. The measure would allow the possibility of parole for some 30,000 nonviolent felons who are now stuck in long sentences. It would also require a judge – not just a prosecutor – to decide whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. And it allows prison authorities to allow inmates “good time” – that is, a reduction in their sentences for good behavior. In reality, only a few thousand would likely be set free any single year, and while this won’t solve the prison overcrowding problem, it will help. Vote yes.

[11]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 58:

The description of this measure is a bit confusing, but its impact would be simple: It would guarantee that public schools in California have the right to use bilingual or immersion education as part of the curriculum for English learners. It would overturn outdated and ineffective “English only” rules. Every credible education group supports it. Vote yes.

[12]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 59:

Prop. 59 is one of those policy statements that we often see on the ballot in San Francisco but not so much at the state level. It has no immediate impact; it doesn’t change any laws. But it would put California voters on record urging Congress and the courts to overturn the Citizens United decision that allows for unregulated campaign spending by corporations. The momentum to overturn that decision is growing – and for California, the nation’s largest state, to take a strong position would send a national signal. Vote Yes.

[13]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument against Prop. 60:

This is one of those measures that sounds sensible – until you stop and think about it. Prop. 60 would mandate that adult film performers use condoms “during filming of sexual intercourse.” Sure, public health and workplace safety, right?

Except that the performers themselves are opposed. Public health organizations are opposed. Because this makes no sense and shows no comprehension of how the porn industry actually works these days.

There are still big outfits like Vivid Studios and Kink.com, but a lot of the industry is now pretty homegrown – performers make and produce their own videos. Under Prop. 60, if they aren’t using condoms, they could be sued anytime. Their real names and addresses could become public.

And it seems to be a solution in search of a problem: There isn’t one documented case of a person getting infected with HIV on a porn set in California. Performers are tested regularly.

There’s no question that the state regulators who handle workplace safety – that is, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration – is behind the times on creating rules for porn studios. There may be instances when a performer who wants to use a condom is told not to – and that’s a problem. But Cal-OSHA should be writing the regulations – and this measure will likely either drive porn films out of state or underground, in either case encouraging less, not more, regulation. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are against this. So are we.

[14]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 61:

This one also sounds confusing and bureaucratic. What it really does is mandate that the state pay no more for prescription drugs than the federal Veterans Administration. It’s part of a national movement that says Big Pharma charges too much for medicine. The state has bargaining power, the VA generally gets way better deals than the state does, and the California Nurses Association supports it. So does Bernie Sanders. That’s good enough for us.

[15]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 62:

YES, YES, YES

The death penalty is barbaric. Most civilized countries have long since abolished it. It’s also hugely expensive and doesn’t work.

Prop. 62 is the latest effort to get California out of the state-sponsored killing business. The last time around, the voters narrowly rejected a death-penalty repeal, but the vast cost (hundreds of millions of dollars), the growing evidence that innocent people have been sentenced to death, and the understanding that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, is imposed overwhelmingly on poor people of color, many of them with serious mental-health issues, is starting to turn the public around. This should be the year. Please: Vote yes.

[16]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour of Prop. 63:

Yes

California has better gun laws than a lot of states, and this will make the rules even tighter by focusing on two problems: It’s still relatively easy to buy ammunition (even over the Internet) and it’s hard to get guns out of the hands of people who are legally banned from owning them (felons and people convicted of domestic violence). Yes, Prop. 63 is a vehicle for Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who proposed it, to get his name out on a hot issue while he prepares his campaign for governor. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

The measure would require background checks for people who buy ammo and create a court process for removing guns from people who aren’t supposed to have them. Vote yes.

[17]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument against Prop. 65:

NO

The plastic-bag industry, which sells something like a billion bags a year in the state, put this on the ballot to confuse voters and prevent the kind of real regulation that is in Prop. 67. It’s not an environmental issue; the real environmental groups are all against it. Vote no.

[18]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument against Prop. 66:

NO, NO, NO

Death penalty enforcement

This one’s the opposite of Prop. 62. It’s devious and potentially terrible. The measure would seek to speed up the death-penalty process by eliminating Constitutional protections and imposing unrealistic timelines on prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the courts. It’s impossible for this to work without seriously risking the execution of an innocent person. It would overload local courts with work they aren’t prepared or funded to do. It’s a cynical attempt by the death-penalty lobby to confuse voters. No, No, No.

[19]  The San Francisco Bay Guardian offered the following argument in favour Prop. 67:

YES

San Francisco phased out single-use plastic bags years ago – and we seem to be doing fine. The idea of reusable shopping bags has caught on, the economic and consumer consequences are zero – and the environmental impacts of getting rid of a few billion plastic bags, which don’t decompose, aren’t recyclable, and kill fish and wildlife are huge. Vote yes.

[20]  GONZO:  I posted the following message when I pledged to vote for Dr. Jill Stein on her website:

[I pledged earlier and was then prompted through a questionnaire about volunteering. My computer shut down, so I’m starting over and apologise for any redundancies.]

Vote Stein/Baraka 2016! Vote Green Party!

Also, let’s get the word out about MMT to Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka. MMT stands for modern money theory, or modern monetary theory. It is taught at universities with heterodox economics departments, such as the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), where I earned a degree in economics. I studied under Dr. Stephanie Kelton, among other heterodox economists, who teach us how our modern monetary system works in the United States. Long story short, given MMT, we can end involuntary unemployment as we know it with a Job Guarantee Programme. And it’s important to understand, as MMT shows us, that taxes don’t pay for anything. So, government spending, such as for a job guarantee programme isn’t paid by taxes. (See MMT on monetary sovereignty, sectoral balances, trade balances, national budget deficits and surpluses, and fiscal budgets.)

Dr. Stephanie Kelton was the chair of the UMKC economics department up until she was hired by Bernie Sanders to work as Chief Economist for the Senate Minority Budget Committee. When Bernie Sanders ran during the 2016 Democratic Primary, Dr. Kelton joined the Bernie Sanders campaign trail, alongside UMKC’s Dr. William K. Black (professor of Law & Economics). Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders failed to tell the American people about an MMT-based Job Guarantee Programme and how we can end involuntary unemployment as we know it.

Imagine that? Let’s work on communicating this to Dr. Jill Stein. That way, she will no longer misunderstand how taxes work or how our monetary system works. And, then, she will be able to inform the American people that we can have a permanent and sustainable national job guarantee programme, which can get the economy going and provide jobs whenever the economy suffers its cyclical capitalist crises.

It’s unfortunate whenever we hear our brightest minds lacking crucial knowledge about economics and how our economy really works. I’ve been trying to get the word out about MMT and the Job Guarantee Programme since I graduated. But it’s not easy. We need all the help we can get spreading the word.

Whether you agree or not with the political decision for the government to create, implement, and maintain a Job Guarantee Programme modelled after the New Deal jobs programmes, there is no disagreement about the economic feasibility and soundness of the government’s ability to fund such a programme without imposing any tax burden on working people. One can argue that they refuse to guarantee the American people jobs. But one cannot argue that it the government cannot afford it or that such government spending will be inflationary.

As a former economics professor of mine, Dr. L.R. Wray, a leading expert on MMT and monetary theory and policy, would say: It is only the lack of political will, which prevents us from ending involuntary unemployment.

[21]  From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (Federal Offices, page 1):

U.S. President and Vice President
Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka

“Stein is not just up against the Democratic and Republican nominees. She is up against a rigid two-party system that erects high barriers to those who seek to open up the process. It is uncommon for independent and third-party candidates to get over and around those barriers. But this is an uncommon year in American politics.” — John Nichols, August 19, 2016, The Nation, “Jill Stein Should Be Part of a 4-Way Presidential Debate”

In the 2016 presidential election, the growing corruption of U.S. electoral politics and the disintegration of what’s left of our democracy is on display: the resignations of numerous campaign and party officials from scandalous ethical violations exposed in leaked emails; the swirling controversy surrounding the foundations of the corporate candidates-on the one hand, allegations of pay-to-play favoritism, and on the other, outright illegal activity; a meeting between a former president and the Attorney General on an airport tarmac, followed by a non-indictment recommendation from the FBI chief; a corporate media telling us that our only choices are a loud-mouthed carnival barker whose racism, misogyny and bigotry have made white supremacy mainstream, or a deeply flawed, entrenched politician whose record offers us more war and more Wall Street.

Against this backdrop, when Jill Stein appears on the news in her lavender blazer, energetic, optimistic and wise, to talk about a bright possible future where war and weapons are transformed into clean energy jobs and free education, the relief and excitement many Americans feel is palpable and real. By August her poll numbers were up to 4 percent nationwide and over 10 percent in California among voters under 30 (higher than Trump’s numbers). As a mother, Harvard-educated physician, and longtime teacher of internal medicine, Stein has led initiatives promoting healthy communities, local green economies, and the revitalization of democracy—championing issues such as campaign finance reform, green jobs, racially-just redistricting, and the cleanup of incinerators, coal plants, and toxics.

In August, Stein chose longtime human rights activist Ajamu Baraka as her running mate. Baraka has served on the boards of Amnesty International, Center for Constitutional Rights, Africa Action, and is currently an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. Following a CNN Town Hall appearance together, Stein / Baraka received significant media coverage. Among others, the LA Times and Fresno Bee even called for the inclusion of Stein (and Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson) in the presidential debates. In September 2016, Stein and Baraka were arrested after protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation.

Stein-Baraka are picking up the mantle of the fight against wealth inequality after the historic Bernie Sanders Democratic primary campaign, which represented the largest public outcry on the declining standard of living in America since the worldwide Occupy Movement (“We Are the 99 percent”) in 2011. While Bernie’s pre-convention endorsement of Clinton—despite months of promising a contested convention—avoided the police violence in the streets which ultimately decimated Occupy in the U.S., many Bernie supporters, unable to stomach the corrupt rightwing politics of Clinton, proceeded to “DemExit”—de-registering Democrat en masse to join the Green Party. Stein helped the transition by compassionately vocalizing the experiences of Bernie’s supporters, tweeting, “Bernie hearts are breaking right now,” and joining them in the street demonstrations outside the DNC in Philadelphia. In an op-ed for The Hill, Stein made her key point, “The consistent efforts of the Democratic Party to minimize, sideline, and sabotage the Sanders campaign are a wakeup call that we can’t have a revolutionary campaign inside a counterrevolutionary party.”

Sanders’ willingness to endorse Clinton, following through on statements he made earlier in his campaign, was nonetheless a shock to some Bernie supporters. They had directly experienced election theft, debate falsehoods by Clinton, DNC undermining of Bernie’s campaign, and SuperPAC undermining of social media accounts. Clinton is a candidate so embraced by the establishment that, following a year long investigation, FBI director Comey took the unprecedented step of intervening in what would normally have been a criminal decision by the Justice Department, and recommended against indictment after laying out a powerful case to Congress for indictment based on Clinton’s violations of public transparency and national security laws. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who clandestinely met with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in the days before Comey’s testimony to Congress, was thus spared from having to follow through with a prosecution.

As the bizarre series of events of the 2016 presidential election continue to unfold, corruption by the two corporate-funded party officeholders and candidates is reaching record levels. Several Clinton superdelegates at the July DNC, for example, were under federal investigation when they voted to nominate her, including Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Florida Representative Corrine Brown. (Superdelegate New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was already sentenced to prison in January for 12 years on federal corruption charges.)

The establishment is so desperate to force Clinton through the installation process, no matter how mistrusted or disliked she is, that it is willing to expose its own extreme media bias, hijack legal criminal proceedings, neglect clear cases of election fraud, and even call her primary nomination before the convention had even started. For these reasons, the likelihood of a Trump presidency is small. Critique of Trump’s positions is illogical, since they can change fully to the opposite position within weeks or months.

As the Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka campaign gains access in more states and their poll numbers rise, we can continue give a voice to the public outcry against corruption, wealth inequality, racism, the climate crisis and wars – vote Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, for a peaceful and just future.

[22]  From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 3, 4):

U.S. Senator
No Endorsement

Our world is in crisis because an economic system based on ecocide—capitalism—is globally dominant and lives through constant economic expansion, threatening the entire web of life by gradually but inexorably destroying a stable biosphere, climate system and our oceans. Time is short to avoid global catastrophe and turn this system around, and generous doses of both farsighted leadership and mass participation will be needed. Alas, no such leaders can be found among the two status quo candidates on the ballot for U.S. Senate this year.

Due to the unfair “top two” electoral system currently in use in California (see box), there are only two Democrats on the ballot. Both Loretta Sanchez and Kamala Harris are establishment Democrats, but represent respectively the “moderate” and “progressive” wings of the dominant plutocracy. Sanchez has been in the U.S. House of Representatives representing two Orange County districts since the late 1990s. A former Republican (until 1992), she identifies as a “Blue Dog” Democrat, the openly pro-capitalist, fiscally conservative, pro-war (“defense”) faction of the Democratic Party. She makes the typical argument that since her parents were immigrants, she will be on the side of the excluded and oppressed. Her entire political and ideological orientation and concrete votes while in office completely refute this ploy to ensnare the unwary voter.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris is the favored candidate of the plutocracy in this race and is very likely to win. She has raised by far the most money, and received the most attention (mainly favorable) from the establishment media. Harris’s career in politics began when she became a protégé of state kingpin Willie Brown in the early 1990s. Brown and other members of the plutocratic wing of the California Democratic Party (such as the billionaire Feinstein and the multimillionaire Pelosi) helped Harris with jobs, endorsements and election fundraising. She was then elected state Attorney General. Despite the culture of frugality stressed by Governor Jerry Brown, Harris’s rapid and easy rise to prominence and power has apparently gone to her head and detailed reports of her “diva lifestyle” and demands for “a life of luxury” have surfaced. One former aide stated that she treats her campaign funds like a personal checking account. An examination of her campaign spending reports shows this to be true.

Harris’s political orientation can be summed up by her endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president: “I’m excited to stand with Hillary Clinton… I have a deep admiration for her.” The issues she is running on reflect the usual “progressive” Democrat approach to politics: carefully manage public anger by offering hope of change while maintaining the status quo with minor alterations. During election time they sound more progressive, but totally cave in to corporate and plutocratic interests as soon as the election is over. Even the soon to be betrayed promises are inadequate. The specifics offered by Harris to deal with the ecological crisis, for example, focus on capitalist market based non- solutions like a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade market for carbon pollution. This lets the high consuming plutocrats (like her friend Feinstein who has seven houses all over the country and flies around on her own private jet to visit them) off the hook; they can consume as much as they want while the rank and file are rationed through the market. Moreover, environmental issues are, in Harris’s program, combined with something not possible: “sustainable economic growth.” The need for de-growth, for a crash program in agroecological agriculture, immediately ending coal mining and fracking, as well as an immediate end to fossil fuel subsidies for big oil, gas and coal are left unmentioned. The necessity of ending the system of grow-or-die capitalism, which must not be continued on our finite planet, is also left out of the Harris program. Harris, like Sanchez, is a facilitator of a higher immorality, ignoring the real issues facing the people and the planet.

As Albert Einstein once stated, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” Clearly, these two candidates do not offer such thinking.

U.S. House of Representatives, District 13
No Endorsement
As of June 30, Democratic Party incumbent Barbara Lee raised $851,066 for her re-election. Keeping in mind that she has never won an election with less than 80 percent of the vote and that her Republican opponent has only raised $4,150, the need for such a campaign war chest becomes a curious question.  (Her opponent, Suzanne Caro, has given $1,100 to her own campaign, Barbara Lee hasn’t given one thin dime to her own re-election!)
Her biggest contributor is an Emeryville business man named John Gooding.  He runs several consulting firms, including the Milo Group, Quadric Group and the Emeryville Education Fund, and he is a member of the board of the Emeryville Chamber of Commerce. He may be best known to the working class for his opposition to the 2005 Measure C in Emeryville, which was a successful campaign to elevate the wages of hotel workers to a living wage. He claimed that raising the wages of workers would cause the hospitality industry to leave Emeryville. Despite his seeming interest in educating children, he donated money to Republican Governor Pete Wilson and his fight to pass Proposition 187 in 1994, an initiative to deny education to children of undocumented immigrants.
A review of Representative Lee’s donation list includes many corporations associated with the Military Industrial Complex, including Vital Systems (from an individual associated with the company), Lockheed Martin, and Microsoft.
Also donating to Lee are DTE Energy PAC, a company associated with gas piping (the fracking industry) and nuclear power, $3,000; Duke Energy of North Carolina, big into coal and nuclear and with no facilities on the West Coast, $2,500; Dickerson Employee Benefits, a health insurance company ($9,800 from Jean and Carl Dickerson of Pasadena, CA); and Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical firm formerly run by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, $5,000. Not to mention: McDonalds PAC $5,000, PG&E PAC $4,000, Clorox PAC $3,000, Bayer PAC $2,500, National Beer Wholesalers PAC $2,500, National Football League PAC $1,500, Berkshire Hathaway PAC $1,000, and State Farm Insurance PAC $1,000.
Of the $851,066 she has raised, (not including the $706,394 she has spent on “Operating Expenses,” which is mostly throwing parties to raise money to throw parties to raise money, including one in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, over 3,000 miles from her district). Is all of this “money laundering” and acceptance of corporate money really what you want from a so-called “progressive” member of Congress?  Do you really want to vote for someone who doesn’t even believe in themselves enough to donate to their own campaign?
Lee’s challenger is Piedmont realtor Sue Caro, vice chair of the Alameda County Republican Party, who somehow thinks Lee is a “socialist.”  Yikes! It looks like we need to go “back to the drawing board” and find a strong, non-corporate progressive candidate to represent us in Congress!
State Senate, District 9
No Endorsement
We favor Sandre Swanson as the better of the only two choices. It is against our policy to endorse Democrats in “partisan” races, even if your only choices are Democrats.  Whoever wins will be one of the most progressive senators in the state. See their responses to our questionnaire.
Before the Assembly, Sandre Swanson had 30 years of political experience, working for Congress persons Ron Dellums and then Barbara Lee. He is committed to growing the middle class and sustainable jobs, at-risk youth, the victims of human trafficking, worker rights, and a “state budget that is not balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable and voiceless in our society.” He supports tuition-free higher education starting with the community colleges.
As evidence of a principled progressive voice, he cites his “no” votes that eliminated the “Healthy Families Program”, moving 740,000 poor children to Medi-Cal, and on measures that would undermine collective bargaining rights. He also voted his “conscience…refusing to support a spending cap ‘rainy day fund’ during the recession,” a vote that cost him the chairmanship of the Labor Committee.  In 2010, he joined with Greens in speaking out forcefully against the “Top Two Primary” proposition.
His endorsers include Loni Hancock, Barbara Lee, Berkeley City Councilmembers Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington, the Wellstone Renewal Democratic Club and LOTS of labor unions. If elected, he will be the only African American from northern California to serve in the State Senate in more than  two decades.
Nancy Skinner served on the Berkeley City Council and the East Bay Regional Parks District Board. She is running to “deliver on the progressive policies that were my hallmark in the Assembly.” She cites legislation that greatly expands rooftop solar, gun violence prevention, fighting corporate tax loopholes and bringing in $1 billion in new sales tax revenue, initiating higher income taxes on the super-rich, and removing dangerous chemicals from building materials. She takes credit for the largest increase in funding for childcare and preschool in over a decade and substantial budget increases for CSU and UC. She believes that “advancing the progressive agenda requires skilled legislators to craft legislation, forge coalitions, and tenaciously push legislation through to the Governor’s desk.”  Her endorsers include most of the mayors in District 9, the Sierra Club, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, a few unions, and a huge list of elected officials.  Currently only 12 of the 40 State Senators are women.
State Assembly, District 15
No Endorsement
The Assembly District 15 covers the area from North Oakland through Berkeley, Richmond, and San Pablo, to Pinole.
Incumbent Tony Thurmond’s answers to our detailed and concrete questionnaire were mostly vague generalities.  He referred several times to his website, but the website is not very concrete or complete.  The only question that he fully answered was his list of endorsements (primarily the Democratic machine). His votes have been standard Democratic votes.
The most detailed answer Thurmond gave was to a specific question about how he plans to address budget deficits:  “I believe we need to bring more fairness to our tax system, including extending Prop. 30, reforming the 2/3 requirement for  passage of tax measures and reforming Prop. 13.” This is a step in the right direction, but it does not address exactly how he would counter the powerful forces which support the corporate property tax status quo.  In some cases, Thurmond’s questionnaire answer was deliberately misleading.  For example, when asked “What must a constituent do in order to meet with you?”, he answered “All a constituent needs to do is contact one of my offices to set up an appointment.”  In fact, that appointment will be with one of Thurmond’s staffers. Thurmond himself does not meet with constituents. He rarely holds Town Hall meetings. He does make campaign appearances, but he appears slick and insincere. His behavior as a new member of the Assembly has occasionally been an embarrassment (see indybay.org).
Thurmond’s first term was a disappointment, since he was put into office in 2014 by progressives and supported by the Greens. It seems possible, but unlikely, that he’ll improve as he gains more experience.
His only challenger is UC Berkeley College Republicans’ Claire Chiara, who was polite but declined to answer our questionnaire.
We very badly need to put a viable progressive into this important seat.
State Assembly, District 18
No Endorsement
The Democratic Party incumbent, Rob Bonta, represents all of Oakland except for the northern portion, plus Alameda and most of San Leandro.
Bonta is becoming more progressive with time. We appreciate that he returned the Green Party questionnaire, which he did not do for the last election. It’s true that his thoughtful, concrete answers told us about specifically-chosen legislative events that may have made him appear more progressive than he actually is. But he had lots of good things to say this time, in essentially every category. In person he appears to be genuinely engaged and concerned.
For example, in 2013 we know that Bonta had voted FOR fracking (against the AB 1323 moratorium). But in 2014 and 2015, he changed his position and voted against fracking, e.g. by supporting SB 4 (fracking regulations, which was an easy vote for him). Notably, he also supported the failed AB 669 (to protect water from fracking, which was a more difficult vote for him).
In 2015 Bonta supported the unpopular mandatory vaccination act SB 277 — which is a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry — after accepting tens of thousands of dollars in donations from them. But Bonta may have learned from this experience, because in his 2016 questionnaire he says he “stood up against the pharmaceutical industry, including by supporting AB 463, the pharmaceutical Cost Transparency Act of 2016, which would have required disclosure of additional information [on expensive pharmaceutical treatments].”
Bonta claims “I have not taken any donations from Big Oil, Big Tobacco, or WalMart,” which is great. Of course, that still leaves a lot of corporations from whom he has accepted money.
Bonta’s only opponent is Roseann Slonsky-Breault, who is an officer of the California Federation of Republican Women. We appreciate her responding to some of the Green Party questions, but her non-specific, polemical responses are far more conservative than Bonta’s.  “We have too many unnecessary entitlement programs.”  “I oppose single payer health care. The free market system allows patients to work together with their own doctors to have the best health care.” “We need less regulation for businesses.”  “Raising the minimum wage . . . hurts the young and less educated workers, it becomes even more difficult for them to find jobs.”
The Assembly District 18 has lots of great progressive people in it.  We need to keep encouraging Bonta—or whoever holds this seat—to accurately represent and lead their constituency.

From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 2):

Taxes, Bonds, Fiscal Responsibility and the Green Party

The Green Party’s commitment to being fiscally responsible is as important as our commitment to being environmentally and socially responsible. Given these values, we often endorse bonds and taxes with reservations. Why? Because structural inequities in the tax system make responsible and progressive financing impossible.

Our budget problems took a turn for the worse in 1978 when California’s most famous proposition, Prop 13, was approved by voters. Fourteen years later, in 1992, the Green Party achieved ballot status in California and we’ve been fighting for a fairer tax system ever since.

Voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 13 to keep people, especially seniors on fixed incomes, from losing their homes due to escalating property taxes. Other less-understood parts of Prop 13, however, have increasingly damaged California’s legacy of great schools, parks, highways, health care and quality of life.

Prop 13 flattened property taxes and prohibited imposition of any new “ad valorem” (according to value) taxes on real property. Prop 13 also requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to increase state taxes. This super-majority is a steep hurdle to jump, especially when slightly more than 1/3 of our legislators have pledged to vote against any and all taxes.

Taxes are now less progressive and more regressive, taxing the poor more than the rich. California can keep the good and fix the bad in Prop 13, but neither majority Democrats nor minority Republicans use their power to promote real solutions.

Bonds have been sold to voters as “no new taxes” rather than “spend now and make kids pay later, with interest.” Bonds meanwhile enrich and give tax breaks to wealthy investors, and encourage scams by casino capitalists on Wall Street. Super-rich individuals and corporations avoid paying taxes, and instead loan money to the government in the form of bonds, and get even richer from the interest. Implementing a publicly-owned State Bank is one way California could use its own capital to fund public projects, and invest the interest savings back into California.

Property taxes before Prop 13 came primarily from commercial properties, and now primarily from homes. Homes are reassessed upon sale, whereas tax loopholes allow corporate properties to escape reassessment.

Parcel taxes are often the same for large properties and small condos. For some voters parcel taxes are outstripping their basic property taxes.

Sales taxes have been relied upon for balancing budgets, and weigh heavily given that, as updated annually by the California Budget Project, when looking at family income, the poorest 20 percent pay more of their income in state and local taxes than the richest 1 percent. This continues to be the case even after Proposition 30’s tax rate Increases. Those who average $13,000 pay 10.6 percent and those who average $1.6 million pay 8.8 percent.

With Reservations we endorse funding when needed for vital services, and at the same time we educate and organize for better ways of raising revenue in the future.

[23]  Green Party position, from the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 1):

Proposition 64 – YES
Marijuana Legalization

Prop. 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative would legalize marijuana and hemp under state law and enact certain sales and cultivation taxes.

The time has finally come for cannabis to come “out of the shadows” and into the daylight in California, as it has now in four other western states (WA, CO, OR, AK). It is pretty clear where the benefits are: less money to crime syndicates both domestically and in Mexico; fewer people put in jail for trivial issues that do not affect actual crime on others; and more revenue for the state to educate about drug issues, clean the environment, and help law enforcement, among other things. Most reasonable people have known for a long time that legalization is not only a rational path to drug policy for multiple reasons, but is virtually inevitable, eventually, across the country.

This proposition is almost sure to pass this time, according to public polling, and has only limited opposition. Some opposition comes from certain sectors of law enforcement that have habitually opposed any sort of legalization; some from large scale growers that don’t want their entrenched profits to drop (though they always masquerade their arguments in terms of other issues); and some opposition comes from “reasonable” concerns about public health: the ability of the drug to push certain predisposed young people over the edge into schizophrenia (an issue which needs more study).

At this point, however, going the “prohibition” route to controlling cannabis consumption is not helping these vulnerable people, nor anyone else. Anyone can get it without much difficulty in the state (and country), and what is needed is to integrate it into our existing public health system, instead of seeing it as “demon weed” outside the scope of civilized society when everyone is aware that, in fact, it’s all around us.

We give a strong YES to Prop. 64.

[24]  Voter education text on ranked-choice voting, from the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 8) [Some cities within Alameda County have elected to begin using ranked-choice voting in various elections.]:

Understanding and using “Ranked Choice Voting” (RCV)

RCV allows you to ‘rank’ three candidates, rather than being forced to choose just one.  Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is more descriptive: when a candidate is eliminated, it’s as if there is a run-off between the remaining candidates.

During the first round of IRV, only the votes ranked first are counted.  If nobody has a majority of votes, an elimination process begins.  The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated.  If it’s your candidate, your next choice, if any, transfers up.  This continues until someone has a majority.  Your highest remaining candidate remains YOUR ONLY VOTE until that candidate is eliminated, or wins.  Your other choices DO NOT MATTER and are not counted unless your higher ranked choices are eliminated.  If you choose to vote for only one or two candidates, if they are eliminated, then your ballot is ‘exhausted’.  It’s as if you chose not to vote in the remaining run-offs.

IRV is great because you can rank ‘sincere choices‘—candidates you actually like—without ‘throwing away’ your vote.

IRV invites strategies like:

¤  Only ranking sincere choices, people with politics or ideals you believe in, even if they can’t win.

¤  Saving the last vote for the ‘least disliked frontrunner’ in case your sincere choices are eliminated.  Use your last place vote strategically.  It may be the only vote that counts.

¤  Make a statement by ranking a candidate you want to appear in the vote counting until they are eliminated, even if they’re not a sincere choice, as long as they have no chance of winning.

Regardless of your strategy, NEVER rank a frontrunner you don’t want to see elected.  Your vote could put them over the top.”

From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 3):

Green Party Disenfranchised by Unfair Top Two System

Currently in California, most state contested political offices are filled through the “top two” primary voting system. This reduces democracy by limiting voter choice. In this year’s U.S. Senate campaign there are only two Democrats on the ballot, no other political party candidates are included. The result is low participation in the November general election when voter interest is highest. This system also increases the role of big money interests in the June primary, since candidates need more money to distinguish themselves from others in what is often a long list of candidates. The Green Party favors fairer voting system like Ranked Choice Voting and Proportional Representation, both used in many nations to better represent the people’s wishes. PR is used in over 90 nations worldwide.

[25]  From the 2016 Green Voter Guide (page 10):

[Lumpenproletariat urges a NO vote on Hayward Measure EE.  Why discriminate against one consumer group?  Why not put a ‘sin tax’ on alcohol?  Sales taxes are regressive.  ‘Sin taxes‘, by definition, are also discriminatory.]

Hayward Measure EE – YES
Cannabis Tax Authorization
Measure EE is similar to other measures on the ballot in November to place additional city taxes (not exceeding 15 percent) on the sale of medical and recreational cannabis— if the sale of cannabis is approved by California voters through the passage of Prop. 64. It seems a pretty clever way to prepare to fill city coffers (which have been running dry in recent years) if Prop. 64 does pass. Measure EE requires a simple majority of 50 percent plus 1 to pass.
Measure EE seems to face no significant opposition by local leaders or other groups. Indeed, most of the Hayward City Council has explicitly endorsed the measure. We think this was a visionary move by the city to prepare for the likely passage of Prop. 64, and see no reason to oppose this measure. We recommend a YES vote.

 

***

[Ranked-Choice Vote Ballot image by source, used via fair use.]

[2 NOV 2016]

[Last modified  00:17 PST  9 NOV 2016]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

America at War with Itself (2016) by Dr. Henry A. Giroux

14 Fri Oct 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Critical Pedagogy, Critical Theory, Education, First Amendment (U.S. Constitution), Free Speech, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Philosophy of Education, Political Economy, Political Science, Sociology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

"What Did You Learn In School Today?", ACLU, Ajamu Baraka, Albert Camus (1913-1960), Amy Goodman (b. 1957), Capitalism and the Politics of Resignation (2010), Central Park Five, curriculum theory, David Talbot (b. 1951), Democracy Now!, Donald John Trump (b. 1946), Doug Henwood, Dr. Henry A. Giroux (b. 1943), Dr. Jill Stein, education theory, HRW, incompatibility between democracy and capitalism, Juan González (b. 1947), junk food news, KPFA, Manuel Zelaya, neoliberalism, news abuse, Pacifica Radio Network, Peter Schweizer, political imagination, school choice, The Washington Post, transcript

girouxamericaatwarwithitselfoct2016LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Educator and leading theorist of critical pedagogy, Dr. Henry Giroux has published a new book entitled America At War With Itself.

Free speech radio’s Democracy Now! has been good enough to feature a brief interview with Dr. Giroux during today’s broadcast. [1]  Primary host Amy Goodman assured her audience this brief interview was only the beginning.  Listen/view (and/or download) here. [2]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Pacifica Radio.]

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[14 OCT 2016]  “From Pacifica, this is Democracy Now!.

YUSEF SALAAM:  “I really didn’t know anything about Donald Trump until he took out those ads and called for our execution.  Every time I think about that, I think, had this been the 1950s, we would’ve been modern-day Emmett Tills.  They had our names, our phone numbers, and addresses in the papers.  And, so, what would’ve happened, if somebody from the darkest places of society would’ve come to our homes, kicked in our doors, and drug us from our homes, and hung us from the trees in Central Park?  That would’ve been the type of mob justice, that they were seeking.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “In 1989, Yusef Salaam and four other African-American and Latino teenagers were arrested for beating and raping a white woman jogger in New York City’s Central Park.  They became known as the Central Park Five.

“Donald Trump took out full-page ads at four New York newspapers calling for their execution.

“Then, in 2002, their convictions were vacated after the real rapist came forward, confessed to the crime.  His DNA matched.

“The Central Park Five served between 7 and 13 years in jail each for the assault.

“New York City, ultimately, settled with them for $41 million dollars.  But, as late as last week, Donald Trump still claimed they were guilty.

“We’ll speak with Yusef Salaam, one of the Central Park Five.  He recently wrote in the Washington Post: Donald Trump won’t leave me alone.

“Then, a new report documents the devastating harm of policies, that criminalise the personal use and possession of drugs.”

FILM CLIP:  “Every 25 seconds, someone is arrested in the United States simply for possessing drugs for their personal use.  Around the country, police make more arrests for drug possession than for any other kind—over 1.25 million arrests per year.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union released the findings Wednesday with a call for a call for states and the federal government to decriminalise low-level drug offences.

“And, from poisoned water in Flint to the police deaths of African-Americans to hatemongering on the presidential campaign trail, is America at war with itself?

“We’ll speak with Professor Henry Giroux, who argues just that in his new book.  All that and more, coming up.”  (c. 2:35)

[Democracy Now! News Headlines omitted by scribe.  Read, or ‘watch’, them here.]

AMY GOODMAN:  “And those are some of the headlines.  This is Democracy Now!, DemocracyNow.org, the War and Peace Report.  I’m Amy Goodman.” (c. 13:09)

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “And I’m Juan González.  Welcome to all of our listeners and viewers around the country and around the world.

“And, Amy, before we get to the rest of the show, I wanted to ask you.  You’re heading back to North Dakota to answer the charges, that were lodged against you in connection to the Labor Day Weekend protests over the Dakota Access pipeline.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “That’s right, our filming of them.  I’m going back to North Dakota to cover the ongoing standoff at Standing Rock with the Democracy Now! team.  I’ll be turning myself in to authorities at the Morton County Jail in North Dakota Monday morning [17 OCT 2016], 8am, North Dakota time—that’s 9am here—as a result of being charged by the state of North Dakota with criminal trespass, following the release of our video showing the Dakota Access pipeline security guards physically assaulting, non-violent, mainly Native American land protectors, pepper-spraying them and unleashing attack dogs.  (c. 14:05)

“I intend to vigorously fight the charge, as I see it as a direct attack on the First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the public’s right to know.  The prosecutor in the case say [sic] he may, actually, uh, add more charges.  Uh, so, we will see.”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “Well, hopefully, reason will prevail on Monday with the authorities there.  But we’ll be watching it, definitely.  And best of luck to you.”  (c. 14:29)

[Central Park Five segment omitted by scribe.  Access the news story here.]  (c. 32:14) [3]

[Music break, interrupted by local KPFA announcements:  Dr. Ralph Nader book event, Breaking Through Power Is Easier Than You Think, on Monday, October 17th, 2016, at 7:30pm at St. John’s Presbyterian Church (2727 College Avenue, Berkeley, CA).]  (c. 33:30)

[Pete Seeger music break continues] (c. 33:33)

AMY GOODMAN:  “Pete Seeger, ‘What Did You Learn In School Today?‘  This is Democracy Now!, DemocracyNow.org, the War and Peace Report.  I’m Amy Goodman.”

[ACLU & HRW report calling for drug decriminalisation segment omitted by scribe.  Access the news story here.]  (c. 45:37)

[Music break, interrupted by local KPFA announcement:  author David Talbot will join author Chris Hedges, Unspeakable, book event, Wednesday, October 19th, at 7:30pm at King Middle School (1781 Rose Street, Berkeley, CA); Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Pacifica coverage of the final presidential debate.]  (c. 46:55)

[Elliot & The Ghost music break continues]

AMY GOODMAN:  “‘Turn Off Your Radar‘, Elliot & The Ghost, whose bandmember, Brett Giroux, is the son of our next guest.   This is Democracy Now!, DemocracyNow.org, the War and Peace Report.  I’m Amy Goodman with Juan González.”  (c. 47:07)

rigged 2016JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “Well, we end today’s show with a look at a new book, that argues America is at war with itself.  From poisoned water in Flint and other cities to the police deaths of African Americans, including Keith Lamont Scott, Eric Garner, and Sandra Bland, to hatemongering on the presidential campaign trail, Henry Giroux critiques what he believes is a slide toward authoritarianism and other failings, that led to the current political climate.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “Noted scholar Robin D.G. Kelley writes in the book’s foreword, quote:

“‘These are, indeed, dark times.  But they are dark, not merely because we are living in an era of vast inequality, mass incarceration, and crass materialism, or that we face an increasingly precarious future, they are dark because most Americans are living under a cloak of ignorance, a cultivated and imposed state of civic illiteracy, that has opened the gates for what Giroux correctly sees as an authoritarian turn in the United States.  These are dark times because the very fate of democracy is at stake—a democracy fragile from its birth, always battered on the shoals of racism, patriarchy, and class rule.’

“‘The rise of Donald J. Trump is a sign of the times,’ he writes.

“Well, for more, we’re joined by the author of America at War with Itself, Henry Giroux, MccMaster University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest.  He joins us in New York City.

“We welcome you.  It’s great to have you with us.”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Well, I’m honoured.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “How is America at war with itself?” [4]

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “It’s at war with itself because it’s basically declared war, not only on any sense of democratic idealism, but it’s declared war on all the institutions that make democracy possible. [5]  And we see it with the war on public schools.  We see it with the war on education.  We see it with the war on the healthcare system.  We see it, as you said earlier, with the war on dissent, on the First Amendment.  We see it in the war on women’s reproductive rights. (c. 48:57)

“But, we, especially see it with the war on youth.  I mean, it seems to me that you can measure any degree—any society’s insistence on how it takes democracy seriously can, in fact, be measured by the way it treats its children.  And if we take that index as a measure of the United States, it’s utterly failing.  You have young people basically who—in schools, that are increasingly modeled after prisons—you have their behavior being increasingly criminalised.  And, one of the most atrocious of all acts, you have the rise of debtors’ prisons for children.  Kids, who basically are truant from school, are being fined.  And if they can’t—their parents can’t pay the fine, they’re being put in jail.  You have kids whose every behavior is being criminalised.

“I mean, what does it mean to be in a public school, and all of a sudden you are engaged in a dress code violation, and the police come in, and they handcuff you? They take you out; they put you in a police car, put you in the criminal justice system, and all of a sudden you find yourself, as Tess was saying earlier, marked for life.  Entire families are being destroyed around this. (c. 49:57)

“So—but it seems to me the real question here is:  How do you understand these isolated incidents within a larger set of categories, that tell us exactly what’s happening? [6]  And what’s happening is the social state is being destroyed, and the punishing state is taking its place.  So, violence now becomes the only tool by which we can actually mediate social problems, that should be dealt with in very different ways.”  (c. 50:20)

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “Well, you devote an entire chapter to Donald Trump’s America.” [7]

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Yeah.”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “And you, specifically, talk about the—how the media coverage of Trump has sort of divorced him from any past history of the country, in terms of the development of right-wing demagogues and authoritarian figures.” [7]

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “That’s an important question.  I mean, you live in a country marked by a culture of the immediate.  You live in a country, that’s marked by celebrity culture, you know, that basically infantilises people, paralyses them.  It eliminates all notions of civic literacy, turns the school into bastions of ignorance.  They completely kill the radical imagination in any fundamental way.”

“And I think that what often happens with Trump is that you see something utterly symptomatic of the decline of a formative culture that makes democracy possible.  Juan, you have to have informed citizens to have a democracy.  You don’t have an informed citizenry.  You don’t have people who can think.  Remember what Hannah Arendt said when she was talking about fascism and totalitarianism.  She said:  Thoughtlessness is the essence of totalitarianism.  So, all of a sudden, emotion becomes more important than reason.  Ignorance becomes more important than justice.  Injustice is looked over as simply something, that happens on television.  The spectacle of violence takes over everything. (c. 51:34)

“I mean so it seems to me that we make a terrible mistake in talking about Trump as some kind of essence of evil. [8]  Trump is symptomatic of something much deeper in the culture, whether we’re talking about the militarisation of everyday life, whether we’re talking about the criminalisation of social problems, or whether we’re talking about the way in which money has absolutely corrupted politics.  This is a country that is sliding into authoritarianism. [9]  I mean it is not a—you cannot call this a democracy anymore.  We make a terrible mistake when we equate capitalism with democracy. [10]  And—” [Amy Goodman’s voice overlaps/interrupts]

AMY GOODMAN:  “You, you talk about the ethical bankruptcy of the U.S. ruling elites paving the way for Donald Trump.” [7]  (c. 52:11)

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “You know, you live in a country in which we have separated all economic activity from social cost, from ethical considerations. [10]  The ethical imagination, in itself, has become a liability.  And I think that when people like you and others make that clear—that you can’t have a democracy without that kind of ethical intervention, without assessing, you know, the degree to which people in some way can believe in the public good, can believe in justice—you have the heavy hand of the law pouncing on you.

“And I think that when the radical imagination dies, when an ethical sensibility dies, you live in a state of terrorism; you live in a state of fear; you live in a state in which people can’t trust each other.  Shared fears become more important than shared responsibilities.  And that’s the essence of fascism.” (c. 52:51)

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “And what sign of hope do you see out of all this, uh—yeah—” [Dr. Henry Giroux’s voice overlaps/interrupts]

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “I think there are a lot of signs.  And thank you for the question.  I mean, I think, at some level, we see young people all over the country mobilising around different issues, in which they’re doing something, that I haven’t seen for a long time.  And that is, they’re linking these issues together.  You can’t talk about police violence without talking about the militarisation of society, in general.  You can’t talk about the assault on public education, unless you talk about the way in which capitalism defunds all public goods.  You can’t talk about the prison system without talking about widespread racism.  You can’t do that.  They’re making those connections. [6]  (c. 53:27)

“But they’re doing something more: They’re linking up with other groups.  If you’re gonna talk about Flint, if you’re gonna talk about, it seems to me, Ferguson, you have to talk about Palestine.  If you’re going to talk about repression in the United States, you’ve got to figure out how these modes of repression have become global because something has happened that we—that suggests a new kind of politics: Politics is local, and power is global.  The elite float; they don’t care about the social contract anymore.  So, you know, we see a level of disposability, a level of violence, that is really unlike anything we’ve seen before.  (c. 54:02)

“I mean, Donald Trump talking about the Central Park Five still being guilty, give me a break.  I mean, what is this really about? Is it about somebody who’s just ignorant and stupid?  Or is it somebody who now is part of a ruling class, that is so indifferent to questions of justice that they actually boast about their own racism?”  (c. 54:20)

AMY GOODMAN:  “Hm.  So. let me ask you about the issue of education.”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Right.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “The debate here is around school choice—”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Right, right.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “—of vouchers, charter schools.  But you’ve been talking about schools for a long time.  What is the role of schools and education in our society?”  [overlapping voices; Dr. Giroux eagerly begins answering the question before Amy Goodman finished answering it.]

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Schools should be democratic public spheres.  They should be places, that educate people to be informed, to learn how to govern rather than be governed, to take justice seriously, to spur the radical imagination, to give them the tools, that they need to be able to, both, relate to themselves and others in the wider world in a way in which they can imagine that world as a better place.  (c. 54:51)

“I mean it seems to me, at the heart of any education, that matters, is a central question:  How can you imagine a future much different than the present, and a future, that basically grounds itself in questions of economic, political, and social justice?”  (c. 55:03)

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “And so, how do you see, then—for instance, the Obama administration has been a big promoter of charter schools and these privatisation efforts as a school choice model.”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “I—the Obama administration is a disgrace on education.  The Obama administration, basically, is an administration, that has bought the neoliberal line.  It drinks the orange juice.  I mean it doesn’t see schools as a public good.  It doesn’t see schools as places where, basically, we can educate students in a way to take democracy seriously and to be able to fight for it.  It sees them as, basically, kids, who should be part of the global workforce.  But it does more because not understanding schools as democratic public spheres means that the only place you can really go is, either, to acknowledge and not do anything about the fact that many of them are now modeled after prisons, or, secondly, they become places, that kill their radical imagination.

“Teaching for the test is a way to kill the radical imagination.  It’s a way to make kids boring; you know?  It’s a way to make them ignorant.  It’s a way to shut them off from the world in a way in which they can recognise that their agency matters.  It matters.  You can’t be in an environment and take education seriously when your education is under—when your agency is under assault.” (c. 56:15)

AMY GOODMAN:  “—[Dr. Giroux interjected before Goodman could respond.]”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “You can’t do it.”  (c. 56:17)

AMY GOODMAN:  “You begin your book with a quote of Albert Camus: ‘Memory is the enemy of totalitarianism.'” [overlapping voices; Dr. Giroux begins agreeing prior to Goodman completing her statement]

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Yeah.  Yeah, yeah.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “Explain.” (c. 56:25)

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Well, I’ll explain it in terms of a slogan, a Donald Trump slogan: Let’s make America great again.  You know—and when I hear that—that seems to suggest there was a moment in the past when America really was great—you know?—when women knew their places, when we could set dogs on black people in Mississippi, when young people went and sat-in in at lunch counters and were assaulted by others, that’s about—that’s about the death of memory.  That’s about memory being, basically, suppressed in a way, that doesn’t allow people to understand that there are things, that happened in the past, that we not only have to remember, we have to prevent from happening again.  Or, at another level, it suggests the suppression of memory, so that those things can happen again and that we don’t have to worry about them.

“And, so, it seems to me that a country without a sense of public memory, without a sense of historical memory, is a country always in crisis.” (c. 57:13)

AMY GOODMAN:  “You have talked about Donald Trump also coming about, the phenomenon, as the—a failure of the progressive left.”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Yeah.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “How?”

DR. HENRY GIROUX:  “Well, I think that, you know, one of the things about the left—three things about the left disturb me, Amy.  One is, they never really have taken education seriously.  They think education is about schooling.  What they don’t realise is that forms of domination are not just simply structural.  They’re also about changing consciousness.  They’re also about getting people to invest in a language in which they can recognise that the problems, that we’re talking about have something to do with their lives.  It means making something meaningful, to make it critical, to make it transformative.  (c. 57:55)

“Secondly, it seems to me that the left is too involved in isolated issues [i.e., identity politics]. [11]  You know, we’ve got to bring these issues together to create a mass social movement, that in some way really challenges the kind of power that we’re now confronting.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “Only the beginning of the conversation.  Henry Giroux, thanks so much for being with us, McMaster University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest.  His new book: America at War with Itself.

“That does it for our broadcast.  Oh, Juan, tomorrow is a very special day: Happy birthday!”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “Amy, thank you.”

AMY GOODMAN:  “Well, we’ll be broadcas—”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ:  “You didn’t need to mention that. [chuckles] (c. 58:28)”

AMY GOODMAN:  “We’ll be broadcasting Monday from North Dakota, from right near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.  Tune in.  [SNIP]  ”

[end of Democracy Now! broadcast]

KPFA CART:  Dr. Ralph Nader presentation:  Breaking Through Power, Monday, October 17, 2016, , First Presbyterian Church, 2727 College Avenue, Berkeley, California; Mickey Huff will host.

[SNIP]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!.

***

[1]  Unfortunately, the brief interview seems to have been designed as a form of news abuse in the sense that the entire brief interview, as evidenced by the line of questions the interviewers asked, was not interested in the larger issues discussed in the book about the anti-democratic trends plaguing our institutions, such as education and our political system, a cartelised two-party dictatorship, as Ralph Nader calls it.  Dr. Giroux doesn’t seem to ever use that term.  But if you read more than a soundbite from Dr. Giroux, you will find that he’s very clear on the political corruption of both political parties.

But this interview is taking place in the context of the ongoing 2016 U.S. presidential election and free speech radio (and TV) coverage, with the election less than a month away.  And this interview, as evidenced by the questions from Amy Goodman and Juan González, the editorial slant at Democracy Now! was bent on using Dr. Henry Giroux to sensationalise a bogeyman image of Donald Trump and foment fear among the listeners and viewers.  That is news abuse, in terms of critical media literacy.  And Democracy Now!, like the editorial slant of the SaveKPFA faction at KPFA, has framed the overwhelming majority of its interviews and discussions, which have touched upon the 2016 presidential election, within a narrow-two party framework, and which (intentionally or not) functions to help marginalise alternative political parties and their candidates.  And alternative candidates, such as the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, are far closer aligned to the ideals and general philosophy of socioeconomic justice championed by Democracy Now! (and KPFA radio).  Yet, they’re loathe to admit it.

Democracy Now! was not interested in the more profound issues being raised by Dr. Giroux, only in a narrow fear-mongering trope about Donald Trump, with a conspicuous implicit subtext to vote for Hillary Clinton.  No critical questions were asked about Hillary Clinton or her how her political record compares to her campaign platform, even though Amy Goodman herself actually emphasised the importance of this point in a speech she gave earlier this year.  But, in practice, Democracy Now! seems to primarily acquiesce to the anti-democratic nature of the two-party machine, which not only keeps out other political parties.  The Democratic Party even keeps out left-of-center candidates, such as Bernie Sanders.  And this is not the first time, as Dr. Jill Stein, has pointed out elsewhere:

“And what we learned, in the course of Bernie’s campaign, is that you cannot have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party.

“The party pulled out its kill switch against Bernie and sabotaged him.  As we saw from the emails revealed, showing the collusion between the Democratic National Committee, Hillary’s campaign, and members of the corporate media.

“And it wasn’t the first time.  This happened to Dennis Kucinich.  It happened to Jesse Jackson.  They did it even to Howard Dean, creating the ‘Dean Scream’.

“This is how they work.  And it’s been a huge wake-up moment.”

This is not the first time this type of news abuse has been perpetrated by Democracy Now!  Some of us have been watching their election coverage since the show began in 1996.  And it seems clear that the editorial agenda at Democracy Now!, during election cycles, has been to subtly steer voters toward the Democratic Party.  A rigorous analysis of Democracy Now!‘s coverage of presidential elections will likely demonstrate this.  And, inhabiting such a central role within free speech media, Democracy Now! should be held accountable for this.  But few have wanted to be critical of their beloved Democracy Now!  Mnar Muhawesh (Mint Press News) is one of the few voices we’ve heard on free speech radio be critical about the failings of our beloved Democracy Now! and their figureheads, such as Amy Goodman.

“But you and I, we’ve been through that; and this is not our fate
So, let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”

[2]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA; Pacifica Radio Network, nationwide) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Democracy Now!, one-hour episode co-hosted by Juan González and Amy Goodman, Friday, 14 OCT 2016, 09:00 PDT.

[3]  The Central Park Five is a tragic story of five black and Latino teenagers wrongly accused and imprisoned between 7 and 13 years in jail each for the assault, the rape and beating of a white woman, which they did not commit.  Donald Trump put out ads back in 1989, which helped railroad the five teenagers, whose sentences were later vacated when the actual perpetrator came forward and a DNA match was established.

Yes, Donald Trump is a political opportunist.  But, unfortunately, that is not newsworthy, unless one is engaging in electoral propaganda.  Of course, it doesn’t have to be newsworthy.  We can have political commentary and opinion, as long as we’re clear on what’s being presented.  In this case, this ‘Central Park Five’ news story is not actually news, technically speaking.  The only thing new is the fact that one of the Central Park Five, Yusef Salaam, wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post, in which he outlined the legal and social injustices suffered by the Central Park Five as well as the sinister role Donald Trump played in the matter.

The constant reporting on trivial details about Trump, such as his latest inappropriate remark, is definitely emblematic of junk food news.  The rehashing of the Central Park Five story, of course, is not junk food news.  But, as we learn from our critical media literacy education, the placement of this story by Democracy Now! within this broadcast to reinforce the paradigm of fear of Trump and a reactionary vote for neoliberal Hillary Clinton is an example of news abuse.  An older example, as Dr. Peter Phillips has mentioned, would be the case of the Jon Benet story, which was also tragic, but overly reported so as to drown out other more consequential news stories.

The central thrust of Yusef Salaam’s opinion piece in The Washington Post is summarised in its subtitle:  The Republican candidate’s antics have filled me with fear.

The implied fear-based messaging is clear, however: Vote Hillary for president next month.

Similarly, the function of Democracy Now! broadcasting a segment about an opinion-piece expressing fear of a Trump presidency also serves to send subtle messaging to its audiences to vote Hillary for president.  And many liberals are already of a lesser-of-two-evils mentality, and don’t need any further enabling from Democracy Now!, who should be counted on to maintain its commitment to critical analysis, even during election cycles.  But, it’s clear the editorial slant at Democracy Now! favours Hillary Clinton.  Even though, Democracy Now! has taken credit for ‘Expanding the Debates’ during recent broadcasts by inserting responses from willing candidates excluded from the Debates.  (Only the Green Party candidates, Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka agreed to participate in Democracy Now!‘s expanded debates.  It’s unclear whether or not Democracy Now! also invited smaller political parties, such as the socialist Peace and Freedom Party based in California.)

But, despite token coverage of the Green Party candidates, the overwhelming bulk of Democracy Now!‘s coverage of the 2016 U.S. presidential election has been focused on the Democratic and Republican Party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  And, worse, it’s largely been uncritical, or toned down its critique, of Hillary Clinton, who, essentially, stole the Democratic Primary.

[4]  A leading question is one which leads the person being questioned to respond in a certain way.  This can be objectionable of proper, depending on the circumstances.  In this case, Amy Goodman‘s selection of a quote from Dr. Giroux‘s book foreword, invoking the spectre of a Donald Trump presidency, seems designed to lead Dr. Giroux into contributing to Democracy Now!‘s ongoing agenda of fomenting fear of a Donald Trump presidency, of prioritising a dominant focus on a binary, good versus evil, narrative of Donald Trump posing an unprecedented menace to society with Hillary Clinton cast as the voice of reason.  But Dr. Giroux is concerned with larger, more profound issues, which transcend one single candidate.  Thus, Dr. Giroux seemed to disappoint Goodman’s interview agenda.  (Apparently undeterred, Juan González kept the Democracy Now! agenda on track when it was his turn to ask question of Dr. Giroux, steering the interview topic back to the Donald Trump talking point with an even more pointed focus than before.)

The dominant focus of this broadcast was:  Fear Trump.  Two of the three news stories were framed in terms of a fear of a Donald Trump presidency.  The framing of the Democracy Now! segment on Dr. Henry Giroux‘s new book is unmistakable in the segment title:  Is Trump’s Rise a Result of America Declaring War on Institutions That Make Democracy Possible?  The segment about the Central Park Five is about an anti-Trump opinion piece recently published in The Washington Post.  We may wonder, however, why an opinion piece about a fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency was not featured, instead, or even an entire factual book, such as My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (2015) by Doug Henwood or Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (2015) by Peter Schweizer.  For example, Honduras has now become one of the most dangerous nations for activists, or citizens attempting to experience democracy in their daily lives.  Thanks to the role Hillary Clinton played, as U.S. Secretary of State, in helping to legitimate the military coup against the Democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya, prize-winning activists, such as Berta Caseres have been assassinated for standing up to exploitative behaviours of multinational corporations after being targeted, threatened, and harassed.  Only through hyperbole and bad journalism can opportunist Donald Trump be elevated to a bogeyman and neoliberal Hillary Clinton be humanised, as a lesser of two evils.  They are, both, just evil.  Can we say that one pedophile is more evil than another?  Not really.  They are both sick.  They both need help.  They must both be kept away from positions of authority where the health and safety of society is at stake.

[5]  Another example of America being at war with itself, of a war on an institution, which makes democracy possible, is the war on the democratic process itself.  The two-party cartelisation of the political process works to censor all political diversity, keep out alternative political parties, kill the American political imagination, and keep the American people within the tight grip of a neoliberal agenda, whether it’s at the hands of a Democratic or Republican administration.  And, sadly, when we look closely, through a critical media literacy lens, we find that Democracy Now! also works to censor all political diversity when it counts the most, during presidential elections when most Americans are likely to be paying attention to political discussions.  Keeping a focus on the two corporate political parties and their candidates helps steer progressives toward the neoliberal Democratic Party, or toward a sense of disaffection in the face of a defeatist TINA ideology—there is no alternative.

[6]  Dr. Giroux raised the question:  How do you understand these isolated incidents [of erosion of democracy] within a larger set of categories, that tell us exactly what’s happening?  One way we can understand these social ills is through understanding the form of socioeconomic organisation, or mode of production, by which we organise our American society.  Given the American capitalist modes of production, our society’s social priorities are subordinated to the goals of the capitalist owning classes to capture profits and market share by any means necessary and regardless of the human or environmental cost.  This means privatising education, criminalising redundant populations, profiting from prisons, profiting from health care, and so on.  And, above all, in terms of pedagogy in education, it means killing the radical spirit and even political imagination of our students, so that they become uncritical cogs in the national machine of capitalist production.  It means killing off the capacity in our students to ever imagine a better world.  In California, Common Core educational standards emphasise evidence-based reasoning.  But, if the educational content being presented to students is narrowed and sterilised, and students are never asked to question the authority or validity of the truth-claims being taught, then there is a gaping hole in our students’ capacity for meaningful critical thinking and knowledge-building.  Books have been written to counter many of the problems with the educational content being presented to our students.  Dr. James W. Loewen‘s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong is one example.  Dr. Howard Zinn‘s A People’s History of the United States is another.  And, of course, the epic documentary film series, The Untold History of the United States, by Oliver Stone and Dr. Peter Kuznets is another excellent example of a valuable resource to supplement educational content.  Yet, sadly, most Americans have acquiesced to these totalitarian trends.

For an excellent academic paper addressing some of these themes, read:  Benson, P., & Kirsch, S.. (2010). Capitalism and the Politics of Resignation. Current Anthropology, 51(4), 459–486. http://doi.org/10.1086/653091  Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653091

[7]  As noted above, the focus is kept on fomenting a fear of a Donald Trump presidency, apparently intended to trigger fear-based decision-making responses in the audience to steer voters toward voting for Hillary Clinton.  Of all the chapters, Juan González chose to focus on the one chapter on Trump.  In the absence, of any meaningful inclusion of Dr. Jill Stein in the overarching, ongoing, political analyses and discussions within Democracy Now!‘s 2016 presidential election coverage, it becomes clear that the suggestion is toward Hillary Clinton as the antithesis to a Donald Trump presidency, not toward other alternatives to the two-party status quo, such as the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein, whose campaign platform, ironically, is more closely aligned to the ideals of Democracy Now! than is Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform.

[8]  Here we see Dr. Henry Giroux undermining the Trump-as-bogeyman fearmongering agenda of Democracy Now!  Yes, Trump is bad for America.  But so is the neoliberal agenda of Hillary Clinton.  Trump is not “some essence of evil” or bogeyman, as Dr. Giroux subtly informs his Democracy Now! hosts.  It is this larger, neoliberal capitalist imperative, which must be confronted, and which is perpetuated by the two-party system, the two-party dictatorship.  And it is that imperative, that system, which is being perpetuated by an uncritical acquiescence to a cartelised two-party system, which, by definition, kills political diversity and kills our political imagination.

Unfortunately, this subtle admonishment is not enough to make explicit the terrible mistakes of journalism, which Democracy Now! is making by predominantly framing their 2016 U.S. presidential election coverage within a narrow two-party framework, even despite token broadcasts featuring the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka.

[9]  Dr. Noam Chomsky and others have also written compellingly about the historical trend towards fascism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism in the United States since, at least, the 1960s government backlash against civic engagement, or political engagement, or as Project Censored’s Andy Lee Roth has recently noted, experiencing democracy on a daily basis, rather than as a shallow participation every few years, in which one passively (and often thoughtlessly) chooses an electoral choice from a predetermined menu, which one had no participatory role in creating.

[10]  Indeed, various experts have written, and commented, about the incompatibility between democracy and capitalism (i.e., capitalist modes of production).

(I’ll have to find a few of those references and include them in this footnote.  A great place to start is with understanding capital and capitalism.  Ilan Ziv‘s Capitalism: A Six-Part Series is a highly accessible and intellectually sound entry point for anyone interested in understanding the capitalist modes of production, which circumscribe all of our lives.)

Essentially, democracy calls for meaningful participation from the citizenry in expressing its political, its socioeconomic, will, which elected leaders and state officials are charged with operationalising.  Capitalism, or capitalist modes of production, on the other hand, prioritise property rights and profit motive above all other considerations, such as democracy in the workplace.  Capitalism requires authoritarianism or fascism in the workplace.  Capitalist labour relations, by definition, involve uneven power relations in which a capitalist employer has all of the power in negotiating wages and working conditions; and employees of capitalists have no choice but to take it or leave it.  This causes income inequality from the start of capitalistic enterprise between the working classes and the capitalist owning classes, the owners of capital, of businesses and corporations.  At the core of capitalist relations we find these uneven power relations and conditions of exploitation.

And, since we allow money to influence our political process, obviously, the owning classes have an advantage in unduly influencing political messaging and propaganda in the nation.  This power differential between the working classes and the capitalist owning classes is why, for example, the nation’s tax burden has been perpetually shifted from corporations (once known as royal charters) onto the working classes, such that income tax, as we now know it, didn’t start in earnest until 1913 with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Prior to that, since the nation’s inception, it was understood that the largest corporations could, and should, solely bear the nation’s tax burden.

And, of course, since we went off the gold standard in 1971 under Richard Nixon, taxes function much differently now.  This point brings us, eventually, to modern monetary theory (or modern money theory).  In 1971, the Nixon administration was mired in the American military efforts to control Vietnamese political self-determination (i.e., the so-called Vietnam War).  At that point, the U.S., essentially, ran out of gold and closed the gold window.  So, Nixon ended the international convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold.  Thus, nowadays, as Dr. Stephanie Kelton and other heterodox economists explain:  Taxes, technically, don’t pay for anything because all modern money exists as an IOU.  These government IOUs are lent, or spent, into creation by the state.  And when they return to the state in the form of tax payments, those IOUs are extinguished, are erased.  Dr. Kelton would emphasise this point by reminding us that the federal reserve actually shred that money, which can be observed whenever one takes a tour of a federal reserve bank.

Obviously, the people, the working classes, would rather not be taxed on their income, as it limits their purchasing power, their livelihoods.  But, because of the incompatibility between capitalism and democracy, the people’s popular will is subordinated to that of the capitalist owning and ruling classes.  But the tax code is only one example of the social ills caused and exacerbated by capitalist modes of production.  Other problems arise in self-serving industry deregulation of safety and environmental protections through political interventions by capitalist elites.  A recent example is the Dakota Access pipeline being built through the sovereign indigenous lands.  Native American leaders have led the resistance to this capitalist project and have been met with violence, repression, and even attack dogs.  Democracy Now!‘s Amy Goodman, as noted above, is even facing criminal trespass charges for filming the state violence against First Amendment activities.

But, virtually everywhere we turn in society, we can see capitalist profit motive at odds with humanity.  This is why capitalist modes of production are incompatible with democracy, because the will of unqualified profit motive is at odds with the needs of a nation, or socioeconomic polity.

[11]  This is the form of false consciousness in which the left isolates itself into narrow silos, which are narrowly focused on single-issue politics, often identity politics.

***

[14 OCT 2016]

[Last modified 17:26 PDT  17 OCT 2016]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

2016 United States Vice Presidential Election Debate

04 Tue Oct 2016

Posted by ztnh in Presidential Election 2016

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ajamu Baraka, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, Green Party, KPFA, Pacifica Radio Network, transcript

rigged 2016LUMPENPROLETARIAT—The first, and only, 2016 U.S. Vice Presidential debate took place today.  This was a much more polite affair than the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  But it was, nonetheless, another blight on our democratic process in the moderator’s inability, or refusal, to control the debate.  We may wonder why stricter time limits aren’t enforced, complete with concise time limit reminders and backed up by cutting mic audio for egregious etiquette offenses.  If a debater wishes to exceed the time limits and ignore moderator cues and warnings, then that debater’s mic should simply be cut with the moderator moving on to the next speaker.  But, instead, the debate proceeded almost as if there had been no prior discussion of agreed upon rules of engagement, such as agreeing not to talk over one another, and so forth.  It’s unacceptable that the most important debates in the nation are such disasters.  We see more discipline, intellectual integrity, and maturity in children’s debates.

Even larger problems with the CPD‘s only 2016 Vice Presidential Debate involved the weakness of the debate questions and topics.  And none of the topics were treated with any meaningful depth.  But the largest problem of all is the antidemocratic exclusion of alternative political parties, such as the Green Party‘s vice presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka and the Libertarian Party‘s William Weld.  Free speech radio broadcasters at the Pacifica Radio Network promised to ‘expand’ the debate by including a form of participation by alternative political parties.  Listen (and/or download) here, for part one; and here, for part two. [1]

Messina

***

CPD‘s 2016 United States Vice Presidential Debate, 4 OCT 2016; Longwood University, Farmville, Virginia; moderated by Elaine Qujano

***

Messina’s Notes On 2016 Vice Presidential Debate

[On Donald Trump’s tax evasion]

[(c. 20:08)  Moderator fails to take control of the debate]

[(c. 21:05)  moderator struggles to keep control of the debate]

[(c. 21:50)  Moderator shifts to topic of social security]

[Kaine says that Clinton-Kaine will never seek to privatise social security]

[Pence responds by saying that Trump will lower taxes, Hillary will raise taxes]

[(c. 24:22)  Moderator shifts to race and policing.  Do we expect too much from cops, not enough from other social services?]

[Kaine responds first:  As mayor and governor, he’s learned that community policing is best, building “bonds” between police and community.  But “overly aggressive, militarised” models polarise police and community.  ‘Comprehensive mental health package’ and gun control reforms, such as close background record checks.]

[Pence waxes on his Chicago cop uncle, which he admired as a youth.  Agrees with community policing.  Trump and Pence will insure police have “resources” to insure “law and order”.]

—

***

PACIFICA RADIO—[4 OCT 2016]  Expanding the VP Debate with Green Party VP Ajamu Baraka, part 1

[Transcript of part 1 of Pacifica coverage pending]

Learn more at PACIFICA RADIO.

***

PACIFICA RADIO—[4 OCT 2016]  Expanding the VP Debate with Green Party VP Ajamu Baraka, part 2

[Transcript of part 1 of Pacifica coverage pending]

Learn more at PACIFICA RADIO.

***

[1]  Terrestrial radio.

***

[5 OCT 2016]

[Last modified  13:22 PDT  7 OCT 2016]

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×
    %d bloggers like this: