Tag Archives: Sonali Kolhatkar

The Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein on Democracy & Ranked Choice Voting

21 Mon Mar 2016

Posted by in Democracy Deferred, Democratic Party (USA), Political Science, Presidential Election 2016

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

321px-Jill_Stein_by_Gage_SkidmoreLUMPENPROLETARIAT—For years now, some of us have argued that we need a serious overhaul of our anti-democratic electoral system.  The two dominant political parties in the USA, the Democratic and Republican parties, serve the highest bidders to their campaigns.  Yet, when political alternatives present political positions, which prioritise the needs of working class families over those of the rich and powerful, such as Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, Democrats call them spoilers.  This is to argue that no political alternatives to the left of Democrats deserve an opportunity to be heard or elected by the people.

Yet, we know that political extremes on the right, such as Mussolini-invoking Donald Trump, are not only allowed, but given the most airtime in our nation’s broadcast media.  Given this imbalance in our nation’s political spectrum, the political center can only shift rightward over time, such that Democrat president Obama is widely understood to be to the right of Republican president Ronald Reagan.  But we can do better as a nation.  We only need a little imagination to think beyond the status quo.

This morning on free speech radio, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate Dr. Jill Stein discussed the anti-democratic nature of the Democrat and Republican parties’ collusion to block political alternatives from competing against them, their fear-based politics, voting for the lesser of two evils, and long overdue democratic ideas, such as ranked choice voting and proportional representation.  Listen (or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Rising Up with Sonali]

RISING UP WITH SONALI—[21 MAR 2016]  (c. 35:34)  “Welcome back to Rising Up with Sonali.  I’m your host, Sonali Kolhatkar.  If you’re just tuning in, you’re listening to, and watching, the debut episode of my new show, Rising Up with Sonali.

“Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been an outsider for most of his senate career.  The outsider is attempting to use insider status by joining the Democratic Party to secure the nomination.  But, as he and his supporters are finding out, it’s not easy to do so, even if you happen to be the most popular candidate in the nation.

“The system is simply rigged by the two major parties.

“My guest knows what it’s like to be an outsider in politics.  For the second time, the Massachusetts-based Dr. Jill Stein is running for the presidential nomination for the Green Party.  In 2012, she was that party’s nominee.  She has also run as Green Party candidate for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010.

“She’s a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Medical School and has practiced internal medicine before turning to politics.  I’m very pleased to welcome, to Rising Up, Dr. Jill Stein.”

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Thank you so much, Sonali.  It’s really an honour to be a part of this maiden voyage here with—”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Thank you.  (c. 36:41)

DR. JILL STEIN:  “—your show. [SNIP] ”

(c. 42:40)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “It shouldn’t surprise us that [Bernie Sanders] hasn’t responded this campaign, though—because I can imagine he doesn’t wanna tip his hat at all until the [Democratic] Convention, or it will give people the opening they’re looking for to undermine his chances at the nomination.

“And I wonder what you make of all the Hillary Clinton supporters, who are already demanding from Sanders that they should pledge their votes to Clinton, if he doesn’t get the nomination.  Interesting that the flip side is not commonly heard.

“People are, of course, bringing up the Ralph Nader presidential run in 2000 as a reason.  And I’m sure you’ve gotten so tired of hearing that excuse as a reason to simply fall back into the two-party system.  But we’re seeing echoes of that again.  I’m seeing, like, pictures of Nader supporters cropping up in Facebook feeds, almost as these tools of guilt, that Clinton supporters are using against Sanders supporters.”  (c. 43:36)

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Yeah.  Yeah, I know.  It’s pretty funny in a tragic kind of way.

“I think there is little doubt.  Bernie Sanders has spent his life trying to build reform inside the Democratic Party.  The Green Party had approached him when he was floating the idea of a presidential run and there was a debate about:  Would he be doing it independently or inside the party?  And the party approached him, I know, at that point.  And he declined to respond.  And the party encouraged him to run independently with the party.  And there was no response.

“But, you know, it was not only our campaign.  There are other independents, who have also attempted to make contact with Bernie Sanders over the years.  And it’s not been Bernie’s thing.  You know?

“He’s dedicated to trying to build change inside the Democratic Party.

“From my point of view, that is very difficult.  Not that our task, of change from outside the Democratic Party—that’s very difficult as well.  But we’re not forced to do that in the course of a year and, then, turn our resources and our momentum back into the Democratic Party, that has just squashed us.

“I mean that’s the whole rationale for having independent politics, so that you can continue to build.

“And, clearly, in our campaign, making the second time around, we are far ahead of where we were the first time because we are building this movement, which has a social dimension.  And it also has an independent political dimension because, in the words of Frederick Douglass, power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.  That [inaudible] needs to be independent.” (c. 45:17)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Jill, how did you do in the 2012 election?  Because, even though the Green Party still doesn’t have the kind of name recognition that it would like to have, I understand that, historically speaking, compared to previous runs, you, actually, did pretty well as a Green Party candidate.”

DR. JILL STEIN:  “We, basically, tripled our vote over the prior one, and possibly two election cycles.  You know, we had done very well, relatively well [chuckles], during the Nader run.

“But there was the enormous backlash around Bush, Bush’s election.  But I want to point out that we’re in a different historic moment.  And you have to, you know, you have to, like, invoke amnesia in order to forget what happened under Barack Obama and two Democratic Houses of Congress, which I think is a very important part of this discussion.  (c. 46:15)

“You know, I’d be glad to have a much longer discussion about each of the arguments, that are used to try to intimidate us into voting our fears, rather than our values.

“To make a long story short, the politics of fear have delivered everything we were afraid of.  All those reasons we were told to vote for the lesser evil, because you didn’t want the massive bailouts of Wall Street, and the off-shoring of our jobs, the meltdown of our climate, the attack on our civil liberties, and on immigrants, all that.  We got it by the droves because we allowed ourselves to be silenced.  Silence is not a political strategy.

“Democracy does not need more fear and silence.  It needs values and voices.  It needs a moral compass.

“We have to inject that moral compass into the, you know, crisis, that we’re in.  It’s not gonna get solved by silencing ourselves and allowing lesser evils to speak for it. And, in fact, history shows that lesser evil paves the way to the greater evil.

“And that happened after Obama’s election, when, first, one House and, then, the other House of Congress flipped from blue to red.  It happened in state after state.  (c. 47:20)

“Lesser evilism is getting us further away from the solution, not closer.

“We could solve this in a heartbeat by passing ranked choice voting.

“There is an electoral solution, that can be passed without a constitutional amendment—it doesn’t have to go through Congress; it can be passed at the state level—that insures that, basically, that liberates your vote and insures that, if your first choice doesn’t win, your vote is automatically reassigned to your second choice.

“So, the issues here could be solved, except that the Democratic Party is committed to using fear because that is its only tool right now.

“You know, we have to—”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “And, Jill, I’m so glad you brought up these issues because whenever we—whenever voters argue with one another about, you know—they may share all your progressive values, but the strategy is where they differ.  They tend to blame one another and the Green Party, rather than the system, that the Democratic Party and, of course, the Republican Party are invested in.

“And I also wanna bring up the fact that the mainstream media is invested in it as well.  It’s not just the Democratic Party, that is rigged against an outsider candidacy.  The mainstream media have been so fixated on Donald Trump because they claim that he drives ratings.  So, all he has to do is act belligerent.  They’ll air his speeches.  And everyone watches.

“I mean one could argue it’s a natural outcome of our warped system of media.  That’s a whole ‘nother conversation.  But what it does for, of course, our electoral system is that the worst rises to the top.  And somebody like yourself or a Bernie Sanders, had he not turned to the Democratic Party, are simply shut out of the mainstream media.

“And, even Sanders, through the Democratic Party is getting short shrift from the media.”  (c. 48:59)

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Exactly.  And, in the same way, you know, we recognise that fascism is, essentially, the merger of corporatism and government—that’s, you know, essentially, the definition of fascism—I think there’s another dimension of fascism here, which is the merger of media and corporatism.  It drives toward exactly what you described.  That is, an electoral process, that is fundamentally driven by ratings and advertising sales.  And this is a very dangerous development, extremely dangerous to our democracy.

“And I think we’re seeing in this election, where Donald Trump has the highest disapproval ratings of any candidate and has yet to really attain a majority in any vote.

“If ranked choice voting were actually used and there’d been, you know—some groups have taken a close look at head-to-head ratings and have, basically, extrapolated a ranked choice vote in the Republican elections, in the primaries, and found that Trump would have lost most of his victories, had a fairer system of voting been in place.  (c. 50:06)

“So, I just want to underscore that Donald Trump is, really, the reflection of an extremely toxic corporatised media.  It really doesn’t reflect the American public.

“There’s one other point, I think is really important here.  We, the progressive voices, are accustomed to the propaganda, that tells us we are the fringe.  You know?  We’re the lunatic fringe.  Why bother standing up?  We’re just a footnote in this political process.

“The reality is that we, actually, reflect the basic values and visions of the American public.  And we see that in polls, that, for example, show that 50% of voters have, actually, rejected the Democratic and Republican parties.  They are now minority parties.  Also, in polling about issues where the desire to cut the military; to provide the right to a job, even if it’s a government job; health care as a human right; etcetera.  This is where the public is truly at.

“And there’s one very compelling force in this race.  And that is that there are 43 million young people—and, now, not-so-young people—who are locked into predatory student loan debt, for whom there is no escape, and for whom our campaign is the one ticket to liberation.  43 million is a winning plurality in a three-way presidential race.”  (c. 51:31)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “So, let’s talk about that.  I’m so glad you brought that up.  How does someone like you break into this system?  The Green Party is left out of the debates.  After the conventions, whoever the nominees are, you’re not gonna be let into the debates. [2]  You’re not gonna get the kind of media exposure, that you need.

“How do you reach the 43 million people?  And, even when you do reach them, how would their votes propel you into a position of power?”

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Well, put it this way.  There couldn’t be a more perfect demographic for self-organising than young people, who are, basically, slammed by the Democratic and Republican parties.  This is the perfect demographic for self-organising on social media.

“And we have won public interest victories before, like stopping the privatisation of the internet.  When the millennial generation understands that its risks, or that its lives, are seriously threatened, on one hand, and that there is a real solution, that is achievable, on the other, that is really the perfect scenario for a completely out of left field major development in this campaign, which has been, in this election, which has been so full of surprises to start with.

“You know, this would be, sort of, the ultimate in an independent and truly revolutionary campaign, were the millennial generation to fully engage and throw off the chains of the Democratic and Republican parties and really open the gates to generational justice here.  And general generational justice is, not only, ending student debt, which we are the only campaign to advocate for.  By the way, we did this for the bankers to the tune of $16 trillion dollars, now.  Bankers and Wall Street, according to the General Accounting Office, have received $16 trillion in zero-interest loans and near-zero and the various forms of bail-out.

“These are the crooks, the crooks who crashed the economy.  Isn’t it time to bail out their victims, the young people, who are, basically, held hostage now by their debt in an economy, in which it can’t be repaid.

“So, of course, we should bail out the students.  They have the numbers to do it.  And they have the means of self-organising.  They’ve done it before around the internet, around the FECC ruling, as well as legislation, that was very close to passing a few years ago.  It was stopped.

“We stopped the first bombing campaign in Syria through a similar social media-organised campaign, when toxic corporate media wouldn’t cover it with a ten-foot pole.  We were able to stop that first bombing campaign in Syria back in 2013.

“We’ve been able to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to delay it into an election season when it doesn’t stand a chance of passing.

“So, we have had major successes, that are not acknowledged by the prevailing mythology.  You—”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “And we don’t acknowledge it, ourselves, sadly.”

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Yes, exactly.  In the words of Alice Walker, the biggest way people give up power is by not knowing we have it to start with.

“We have just begun to prioritise this issue, as our campaign trail, you know, schedule.  We are going to the campuses.  We are setting up campus-based chapters.  And the young people, themselves, are beginning to get the word out.  Our social media is really exploding, just in the last couple of weeks.  And—”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “So, give out all of that information: your website, your social media handles, how you, you know—there are hash tags you would like people to use, as they talk about your candidacy.”  (c. 55:13)

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Great.  So, our website is Jill2016.com.  The Facebook page is Dr Jill Stein.  And that’s D-R, no period, Jill Stein.  And the Twitter handle is @DrJillStein.  And—”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “And we’ll post all of those on our website as well, RisingUpwithSonali.com.  So, I wish you the best of luck, Jill Stein.  And I’m sure we’ll have you back on a few times between now and November.  Thanks for joining us.”

DR. JILL STEIN:  “Thanks, Sonali.  Great talking with you.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “My guest is Dr. Jill Stein.  She is the Green Party presidential candidate.  In 2012, she was that party’s nominee.  She’s also run as the Green Party’s nominee for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010.  She’s a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Medical School and has practiced internal medicine before turning to politics. [SNIP] ” (c. 59:51)

Learn more at RISING UP WITH SONALI.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

THE HUFFINGTON POST—[14 MAR 2016]  “The course of recent events has made it apparent we need to go outside of the Democratic Party to effect real change,” Dr. Jill Stein said in a phone interview last week.

American politics is a two party system. The country is roughly split down geographic lines that mirror an ideological divide: urban liberal elites versus rural conservative populists.

Democrats versus Republicans.

The deadlocked split between the two main forces in American politics hasn’t allowed for a viable third party movement. The Republican Party has successfully absorbed right wing movements and the Democrats have absorbed left wing movements.

“The idea that the Democrats are going to save us is ridiculous,” said Stein. She points to trade deals as evidence of this.

“Who is pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership? President Obama and the Democrats.” Stein said that the legislation would have lasting detrimental consequences for the US and the world.

“The TPP is putting investors on same level of nation states,” Stein explained. “Anyone who supports it should be taken to court and accused of treason. The TPP is dismantling of the framework of democracy. And the fact is, the Democrats are leading the charge.”

Learn more at HUFFINGTON POST.

***

INSIDE SOURCES—[4 DEC 2015]  With the explosion in the last decade of 24/7 political coverage over airwaves and the Internet, the country’s once-every-four-years presidential sweepstakes might seem more open and transparent than ever.

But if there remains one secretive, smoke-filled backroom in the process of picking an American president, says Peter Ackerman, it’s the Commission on Presidential Debates — a powerful, privately-funded nonprofit that does much of its work behind closed doors.

Ackerman, a millionaire financier who heads up a third-party advocacy group known as Level the Playing Field, says the CPD cultivates its low profile because its primary purpose isn’t just staging debates every four years — it’s protecting the status quo for Republicans and Democrats by keeping alternative candidates off the stage and out of the national spotlight.

“The current [CPD] rule makes it impossible for independent and third party candidates to gain the name recognition necessary to become leading candidates,” Ackerman and Level the Playing Field supporters wrote this week in a critical letter to CPD co-chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf and Michael D. McCurry.

In the Dec. 5 letter, Ackerman’s advocacy group — its roster of supporters is a bipartisan Who’s Who of American politics, including one-time Democratic Party vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, former Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman, former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and former Clinton administration Cabinet member Bruce Babbitt, among others — criticizes the CPD for using its status as a nonprofit 501(c)3 to “reject public requests for disclosure of your deliberations and avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.”

The commission — which did not respond to requests from InsideSources for comment on this story — shares far too little information about how its panel of leaders make their decisions, says another Level the Playing Field backer, former State Department official and longtime Washington news executive James K. Glassman.

“Their lack of transparency is a betrayal of American democratic values,” Glassman, a former Atlantic Monthly and New Republic publisher, told InsideSources. “They are very, very powerful and yet they are a self-perpetuating body that keeps its deliberations and the results of its deliberations secret.”

Level the Playing Field and other third-party advocates, including the Green Party and the Libertarian National Committee, filed a lawsuit earlier this year against the Federal Election Commission, which is charged with overseeing the rules for the nonprofit CPD.

Learn more at INSIDE SOURCES.

***

Also see related Lumpenproletariat articles, relevant to the USA’s 2015-2016 presidential campaigns, such as:

***

[1]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Rising Up with Sonali, hosted by Sonali Kolhatkar, for Monday, 21 MAR 2016, 08:00 PDT.

The Dr. Jill Stein segment begins circa 35:38, i.e., around minute 35 of the hour-long broadcast.

During this particular broadcast, host Sonali Kolhatkar announced that the 13-year run of her show Uprising has come to an end on Friday, 18 MAR 2016, and that she has now launched a new show entitled Rising Up.  Admittedly, Rising Up sounds identical to Uprising.  The only difference, perhaps, as Kolhatkar noted, Rising Up will also be televised.  Apparently, free speech radio KPFA hasn’t yet updated their online audio archives to reflect the programme’s name change.

[2]  Stalwart presidential candidate Ralph Nader has long emphasised the corruption of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a now for-profit private, privatised, corporation, which used to be neutrally conducted by the League of Women Voters.  Not since 1992, when Ross Perot ran as an independent presidential candidate, has an independent or alternative candidate been allowed to debate in the presidential debates.  Both, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein have even been arrested by police for simply trying to attend the presidential debates from which they were banned from participating.

The one complaint I will lodge against the Green Party is its own obeisance to the Democratic Party.  Ralph Nader started building momentum with the Green Party as a presidential candidate, perhaps moreso than Dr. Jill Stein has done, but a certain faction within the Green Party won a particular internal debate, which led the Green Party bosses to insist that Ralph Nader agree to, either, pull out of the presidential race or pledge his votes to the Democratic candidate.  This was something Ralph Nader, nor his supporters were willing to concede.  So, Nader, then, had to move further left than the Green Party for a political party to support him.  Ultimately, Ralph Nader had to run as an independent.

(I believe David Cobb was the one who acted as a scab, as it were, filling in for Nader by agreeing to pull out at the last minute to avoid being a spoiler for the Democratic Party.  I will provide more details on this episode of USA electoral history, as time constraints allow.  In the meantime, please look it up.)

Ever since then, I couldn’t be bothered to trust the Green Party, as they have often acted as an appendage to the Democratic Party.  Yes, and here we have Bernie, running for the Democratic Party nomination.

It’s interesting that the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein criticises Bernie Sanders for agreeing to support Hillary Clinton and not running as an independent, should he fail to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination.  The Green Party has been guilty, and as far as we know, is still guilty, of not being in it to win it, until the end.

***

[Image entitled “Jill Stein” by Gage Skidmore used via Wikipedia/Creative Commons.  Jill Stein was photographed at a Green Party Presidential Town Hall in Mesa, Arizona circa March 2016.]

[21 MAR 2016]

[Last modified  23:29 PDT  21 MAR 2016]

Presidential Election 2016: Voting Democrat to Vote Socialist

16 Wed Mar 2016

Posted by in Democracy Deferred, Democratic Party (USA), Political Science, Presidential Election 2016, Prison Abolition

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BernieSanders-Caricature by Flikr user DonkeyHoteyLUMPENPROLETARIAT—Gonzo:  On Monday, I did what I never thought I’d do again.  I registered (online) to vote, as a Democrat.  Gasp.  Like many progressives across the nation, I abandoned an alternative political party—in my case, the socialist Peace and Freedom Party—and registered as a Democrat. [1]

I admit that I voted for Bill Clinton in the first presidential election, in which I was old enough to vote.  But free speech radio and alternative media soon shed light on the many problems with the Clinton administration’s foreign and domestic policies, including laying the foundations for the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008.  So, some of us have voted (and campaigned for) Ralph Nader‘s presidential campaigns since then, until Nader’s retirement from running.

But, momentously, Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has an opportunity to win the Democratic presidential nomination.  But something tells me the Democrat Party bosses, whoever they are, will not allow that to happen.

Although the rules and laws vary from state to state, in California, for example, it seems that so-called independent voters, or closeted voters, those who “Decline to state” a political party, it seems those non-affiliated voters can vote in the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination election, or primary. [2]  At least, that’s what some colleagues tell me.  But, then, the Democratic Party can be anti-democratic, if it so chooses, and break its own rules, as it pleases.  So, voters, such as your author, who are strategically re-registering as Democrat to throw their weight behind the Bernie Sanders campaign and against Hillary Clinton, may simply be discounted by the Democratic Party’s bosses at the last minute.

Lumpenproletariat is a non-partisan website, open to all perspectives, but transparency seems key to understanding.  And, in the interest of transparency, we’ll admit that securing one’s right to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party’s 2016 primary appears to be the most effective strategy working class voters can take at this moment.  We just don’t see the candidates being proposed by any of the alternative political parties as being more progressive or competent than Bernie Sanders.  Of course, we’ll also admit, should Bernie Sanders fail to be nominated by the Democratic Party, we’re immediately going back to building alternative political parties for a more democratic society.

Often, we can rely on free speech radio to be informed about the world around us to be effective and engaged citizens affirming our own political autonomy.  But in the case of electoral politics, at least the free speech radio broadcasts I’ve caught, the public has been given flimsy information.  For example, Democracy Now!‘s Amy Goodman decided to interview a former Republican congressperson, who was arguing that blanket primaries, were the most democratic form of primaries.  And, sadly, the usually bright Amy Goodman, didn’t question the anti-democratic nature of blanket primaries. [3]  To give a second example, Uprising‘s Sonali Kolhatkar provided a useful broadcast on explaining particular rules and laws of voting processes.  Unfortunately, she decided to interview the author of an antidemocratic Top Two primary law without being particularly critical.  Granted, Sonali Kolhatkar did question the voting system, her questions didn’t seem to have any teeth. [4]

Celebrated, and lionised, Mumia Abu Jamal has also recently contributed to the literature a new commentary on the USA’s electoral process, or lack thereof.  Basically, voting sucks within a corrupt system.

MUMIA ABU JAMAL: [5]  “Voting for your pain.  An election is occurring tonight.  It’s a primary, one of many dozens to come.  It matters not where or, for the most part, even who.  Elections are public expressions of emotion, as in, who do you like?  Who do you feel like voting for?

“Millions of dollars are spent on massive advertising campaigns built to bend your emotions, play to your fears, or evoke your deepest hatreds.  Few have plans for your hopes.  Fewer still have a handle on your dreams.

“We have become accustomed to voting for lesser evils, forgetting the obvious truth that the lesser evil is still evil.

“So, we end up voting for wars we don’t want, policies we don’t support, and people who you don’t like.  Essentially, we settle and wonder why things go from bad to worse.

“Each candidate promises the moon and barely delivers dust.  And that is the nature of the beast.  The U.S. political system wasn’t designed to represent the people.  It was constructed to represent the propertied, the well-to-do, elites.

“A system was built to protect the interests of a wealthy minority.  The people, in the words of one of the so-called founders, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, were seen as a riotous mob, which filled him with fear and trembling.

“Do you really think that founders like these ever wanted the mob to vote, ever?  That spirit, the fear of the mob may be seen today in the increasing efforts to deprive more and more people of a so-called right to vote, not to mention giving them someone to vote for.

“For over 70 years, it allowed primarily southern states to develop practices, that demanded that blacks pass literacy test, bean-counting tests, and noxious grandfather clauses, which allowed one to vote only if one’s grandfather voted, which, if one’s grandfather was a slave, their grandchildren were barred from voting forever.

“Today, voting itself has become a lesser evil, a process, that preserves the power of the propertied and the economic privileges of the elites.

“From imprisoned nation, this is Mumia Abu Jamal.”

Messina

***

[Partial transcript by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Uprising.]

UPRISING—[14 MAR 2016]  “From Los Angeles, California, this is Uprising.  And I’m Sonali Kolhatkar.  It’s Monday, March 14th, 2016.  With anti-establishment candidates running in the presidential primaries, we’ll explore, today, the question of:  Who can vote in which primary?  And we’ll hear a commentary by Mumia Abu Jamal on voting and elections.  Plus, organiser and activist Rosa Clemente is one of seven people with Black Lives Matter [BLM] facing charges in Los Angeles.  We’ll speak to her about it.  And we’ll hear the voice of Jasmine Richards, a young BLM activist, who may be facing the harshest criminal charges in the nation for her activism.  That’s coming up after the news.” (c. 1:08)

[News Headlines omitted by scribe]

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Welcome back to Uprising.  I’m Sonali Kolhatkar.  According to Gallup, more than a third of all eligible voters in the United States are not affiliated with, either, the Democratic or the Republican party.  While they can, also, choose who they want as president in a general election, in the primaries, it becomes more complicated.

“Depending on the state where you live in, independent or Decline–to–state voters may, or may not, be allowed to vote for a candidate, that they like, if that candidate is running with a major party.

“The case of Bernie Sanders is especially telling.  The Democratic-leaning Senator spent most of his career identifying as an independent, but is now running as a Democrat.  And he’s attracting plenty of independent progressives.  But can they all vote for him?  (c. 9:11)

“Similarly, there may be some independent voters who back Hillary Clinton simply because they yearn for a woman in the White House.

“Joining me now to shed some light on these questions is Chad Peace.  He is president of Independent Voter Media.  Welcome to Uprising, Chad.” (c. 9:25)

CHAD PEACE:  “Thanks for having me.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Well, let’s start with California, whose primary is in early June.  It’s a huge state.  Or, as Sanders would say:  a ‘uge state.  Lots of delegates at stake.  If independents can vote in the Democratic Primary, you might have a very different dynamic, than in a closed primary.  So, can they in California?

“Can independent or Decline-to-state or even people registered with other parties, can they vote in the Democratic Primary, if they choose?” (c. 9:54)

CHAD PEACE:  “Well, in California, we have what’s called a semi–closed primary.

“Now, if you wanna get technical about it, our Constitution actually says we’re supposed to have an open primary.  But the Democrats have opened their primary to non-member voters or non-partisan voters.  So, if you’re an independent, you can vote in the Democratic primary, but not if you’re a member of a third-party or the Republican Party.” (c. 10:20)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “I see.  So, if you’re like me, who’s Decline to state, I could vote in the Democratic primary.  But if I was with, say, the Green Party, or the Peace and Freedom Party, or the Libertarian Party, I would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary in California.”

CHAD PEACE:  “That’s correct.  You’re Decline-to-state, you have to request a Democratic Party ballot; and they’ll allow you to vote.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “Now, this is something, that the Democratic Party has made as an exception to this year’s election?  Or is this how it always is?”

CHAD PEACE:  “Well, if you go back in—California, actually, used to have what was called an open blanket primary. [3]  And it was the choice of the voters to participate.

“In the year 2000, ironically, it was the Democratic Party, that sued the State of California, saying you can’t force us to allow non-members to participate in our primary.

“Now, they won that case.  And I say irony because now the Democrats, on their own volition, allowed non-members to participate.  In the Republican Party, actually, on their own volition, chooses not to allow them to participate.” (c. 11:21)

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “And I wanna get to the Republicans in a minute.

“So, just to clarify, for our California listeners, who are eligible voters, if you are registered with a party, that is not the Democratic Party, but you would like to vote in the Democratic Primary, you would have to, either, change your party affiliation to Democrat or Decline to state.

“If you are already Decline-to-state, then you can vote in the Democratic Primary, or you could vote in the primary of, I believe two other parties, that have opened up this year, the Libertarian among them, and one other party.  Right?”

CHAD PEACE:  “The American Independent.”

SONALI KOLHATKAR:  “The American Independent Party.

“So, if you want to vote in the Democratic Party, those are the ways, in a Democratic Party primary, those are the ways, in which you can do so. (c. 12:14)

[SNIP] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at UPRISING.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints and/or demand or resources allow.]

***

[1]  Here’s a recent article from the Peace and Freedom Party, the only socialist political party in California, critiquing and citing Bernie Sanders:

*

We Can’t Tail After the Democrats  by Bernie Sanders

Posted on September 2, 2015 by the Communications Committee

This article is the first to appear in The Sanders Campaign: A Symposium. To download in Adobe Acrobat format for printing and distribution, click here.

Introduction by the PFP Communications Committee

We find much of what presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is currently saying about wealth inequality and by implication about the failures of a capitalist economy in the U.S. to be consistent with our platform.

But we think that Bernie Sanders should be running outside the two-party system. Instead, he is running as a Democrat and will likely support the winner of the Democratic primary (he did with Obama), which almost without a doubt will be the “corporate liberal” Hillary Clinton.

While raising important issues for the electorate to consider, the Sanders candidacy also has the function of giving an undeserved left-liberal legitimacy to the Democratic Party. His campaign, which does not directly criticize the record of the Democratic Party or of Ms. Clinton, serves to draw back into the fold otherwise disaffected voters who had been disappointed when the progressive hopes generated by candidate Obama turned out to be largely hopes without substance.

The Peace and Freedom Party considers that one of the first steps toward progressive change in the U.S. is to have an organized left party that is independent of the two corporate parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Ironically, this argument is masterfully made by Bernie Sanders himself in the following article that is reproduced from The Guardian of September 27, 1989 (we have added the subtitles). Written 26 years ago, Sanders’ prescient analysis applies to his current campaign.

Bernie Sanders says the following …

Democratic and Republican Parties Are Indistinguishable

We need a new, progressive political party in the U.S. because on almost every important issue the Democratic and Republican Parties, both controlled by Big Money, are indistinguishable. The “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s was not created solely by Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. It was brought about with the active and strong support of the Democratic Party which controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for eight out of Reagan’s eight years and the U.S. Senate for two out of Reagan’s eight years.

During the Reagan era both parties supported huge tax breaks for the rich – and major cutbacks for working people and the poor. Both parties supported a huge increase in military spending – and cutbacks in education, housing and environmental protection. Both parties supported the illegal and immoral wars against Nicaragua – and efforts to weaken the trade union movement.

We need a new, progressive political movement in this country because the Democrats and Republicans are not only incapable of solving any of the major problems facing this country, they are not even prepared to discuss them. On the most important issues facing this country the Democrats and Republicans have nothing to say.

Mass Media Is Heavily Censored

The mass media in this country is heavily censored by the corporate ownership and the companies that advertise. “News” is increasingly presented as entertainment with exciting video of plane crashes, terrorists in action and other 30-second “news briefs.”

Analysis of why things are the way they are–the unfair distribution of wealth and power, starvation and poverty, war, ecological destruction, racism, sexism, etc. – is not considered “news.” Serious writers and cultural workers who wish to address the problems that most affect the U.S. public are completely out of the “public” broadcasting system. The simple truth is that ideas that are in conflict with the ruling-class ideology are almost never allowed on the mass media.

Has the Democratic Party ever once raised the issue of corporate control over the media, and the need to provide for a national media that will address the reality of U.S. life and allow for a diversity of opinion?

For over 150 years, under Democratic and Republican administrations, the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have overthrown, or attempted to overthrow, every government that has come to power in Latin or Central America or the Caribbean that has defended the interests of its workers and peasants.

Compromised and Corrupt Democratic Party Dominated by Big Money

The U.S. people, as almost never before, are rejecting the “2-party” system and are crying out for a political alternative. Half the people no longer vote for President, and fewer vote in state and local elections. Poor people are almost completely boycotting the current election system.

We need a new political movement in this country because our citizens desperately need to see and hear a radical alternative to the tired old status-quo politics of the Democrats and Republicans. Everyone instinctively knows that the current system is failing, but the progressive movement is not getting out an alternative vision of society or an alternative program of immediate demands.

It is my strong opinion that the boldness and clarity that we need to articulate can never be done through the compromised and corrupt Democratic Party – dominated by Big Money.

We Can Create a Third Party

We need a new political movement in this country, one that must put an end to the ineffective single-issue syndrome that currently exists – where unions, environmentalists, women, people of color, farmers, tax reformers, and senior citizen groups fight their separate battles against a hostile establishment.

We must begin to have the courage to fight for power – not handouts. We are the majority of people and must act accordingly. Clearly, there will be differences within the progressive movement that will have to be worked out. We can do it.

I am not naive, and I understand the enormous difficulties that confront us when we take on the Democratic and Republican Parties and the economic oligarchy that controls this country. I believe, however, that if we stop thinking about all the reasons as to why it can’t be done, and go out in the streets and do it, we can succeed.

We can create a third party. We can raise the important issues which the Democrats and Republicans ignore. We can make politics relevant to working people and the poor. We can win.

Bernie Sanders represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate and is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President.

*

[2]  Fact-check pending.

[3]  For more on the anti-democratic nature of the heinous California Proposition 14 (2010) and blanket primaries, see:

[4]  See free speech radio’s Uprising broadcast for Monday, 14 MAR 2016, 08:00 PDT.

[5]  See free speech radio’s Uprising broadcast for Monday, 14 MAR 2016, 08:00 PDT (c. 24:50).  Transcript by Messina for Lumpenproletariat, Mumia Abu Jamal, Prison Radio, and Uprising.

***

[Image entitled “Bernie Sanders – Caricature” by Flikr user DonkeyHotey used under Fair Use via Creative Commons.]

[16 MAR 2016]

[Last modified 01:38 PDT  17 MAR 2016]

Oxfam Reports the Rich Are Getting Richer (JAN 2016)

20 Wed Jan 2016

Posted by in Political Economy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Oxfam_International_logoLUMPENPROLETARIAT—A new report by Oxfam has provided, perhaps, an eye-opening update on the state of the capitalist mode of production.  Capitalism, as its critics have long argued, by its nature, creates and generates increasing inequality.  According to Oxfam’s latest figures, “the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population.”  “We chose not to name and shame,” says Dr. Nick Galasso, who “leads Oxfam’s work on economic inequality and governance.”  Dr. Galasso joined Sonali Kolhatkar, host of free speech radio’s Uprising, to grapple with the topic of rising global inequality in the context of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, including why Dr. Galasso and his co-authors decided to not name names.  Listen (or download) here.  [1]

Messina

***

THE GUARDIAN—[18 JAN 2016] Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world’s population, says Oxfam

Charity says only higher wages, crackdown on tax dodging and higher investment in public services can stop divide widening  [2]

The vast and growing gap between rich and poor has been laid bare in a new Oxfam report showing that the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population.

Timed to coincide with this week’s gathering of many of the super-rich at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, the report calls for urgent action to deal with a trend showing that 1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined.

Oxfam said that the wealth of the poorest 50% dropped by 41% between 2010 and 2015, despite an increase in the global population of 400m. In the same period, the wealth of the richest 62 people increased by $500bn (£350bn) to $1.76tn.

The charity said that, in 2010, the 388 richest people owned the same wealth as the poorest 50%. This dropped to 80 in 2014 before falling again in 2015.

Mark Goldring, the Oxfam GB chief executive, said: “It is simply unacceptable that the poorest half of the world population owns no more than a small group of the global super-rich – so few, you could fit them all on a single coach.

“World leaders’ concern about the escalating inequality crisis has so far not translated into concrete action to ensure that those at the bottom get their fair share of economic growth. In a world where one in nine people go to bed hungry every night, we cannot afford to carry on giving the richest an ever bigger slice of the cake.”

Learn more at THE GUARDIAN.

***

OXFAM—[18 JAN 2016]  Pre-Davos report shows how 1% now own more than rest of us combined

Runaway inequality has created a world where 62 people own as much as the poorest half of the world’s population, according to an Oxfam report published today ahead of the annual gathering of the world’s financial and political elites in Davos. This number has fallen dramatically from 388 as recently as 2010 and 80 last year.

An Economy for the 1%, shows that the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population – that’s 3.6 billion people – has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010. This 41 per cent drop has occurred despite the global population increasing by around 400 million people during that period. Meanwhile the wealth of the richest 62 has increased by more than half a trillion dollars to $1.76tr. Just nine of the ’62’ are women.

Although world leaders have increasingly talked about the need to tackle inequality, the gap between the richest and the rest has widened dramatically in the past 12 months. Oxfam’s prediction – made ahead of last year’s Davos – that the 1% would soon own more than the rest of us by 2016, actually came true in 2015, a year early.

Oxfam is calling for urgent action to tackle the inequality crisis and reverse the dramatic fall in wealth of the poorest half of the world. It is urging world leaders to adopt a three-pronged approach – cracking down on tax dodging, increased investment in public services and action to boost the income of the lowest paid.  As a priority, it is calling for an end to the era of tax havens which has seen increasing use of offshore centres by rich individuals and companies to avoid paying their fair share to society. This has denied governments valuable resources needed to tackle poverty and inequality.

It is three years since David Cameron told Davos that he would lead a global effort against aggressive avoidance in the UK and in poor countries, yet promised measures to increase transparency in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, have not yet been implemented.

Mark Goldring, Oxfam GB Chief Executive, said: “It is simply unacceptable that the poorest half of the world population owns no more than a small group of the global super-rich – so few, you could fit them all on a single coach.

“World leaders’ concern about the escalating inequality crisis has so far not translated into concrete action to ensure that those at the bottom get their fair share of economic growth. In a world where one in nine people go to bed hungry every night we cannot afford to carry on giving the richest an ever bigger slice of the cake.

“We need to end the era of tax havens which has allowed rich individuals and multinational companies to avoid their responsibilities to society by hiding ever increasing amounts of money offshore.

“Tackling the veil of secrecy surrounding the UK’s network of tax havens would be a big step towards ending extreme inequality. Three years after he made his promise to make tax dodgers ‘wake up and smell the coffee’, it is time for David Cameron to deliver.”

Globally, it is estimated that super-rich individuals have stashed a total of $7.6tr in offshore accounts. If tax were paid on the income that this wealth generates, an extra $190bil would be available to governments every year.

As much as 30 percent of all African financial wealth is estimated to be held offshore, costing an estimated $14billion in lost tax revenues every year. This is enough money to pay for healthcare for mothers and children that could save 4 million children’s lives a year and employ enough teachers to get every African child into school.

Nine out of ten WEF corporate partners have a presence in at least one tax haven and it is estimated that tax dodging by multinational corporations costs developing countries at least $100billion every year. Corporate investment in tax havens increased almost quadrupled between 2000 and 2014.

At the G8 in 2013, David Cameron promised that both the UK and the UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, would introduce public registers of companies’ owners in an effort to crack down on the use of shell companies to avoid tax. The UK has fulfilled that promise but so far only one Overseas Territory, Montserrat, and not a single Crown Dependency has followed suit.

Allowing governments to collect the taxes they are owed from companies and rich individuals will be vital if world leaders are to meet their new goal, set last September, to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030.

Although the number of people living in extreme poverty halved between 1990 and 2010, the average annual income of the poorest 10 per cent has risen by less than $3-a-year in the past quarter of a century. That equates to an increase in individuals’ daily income of less than a single cent a year.

Had inequality within countries not grown between 1990 and 2010, an extra 200 million people would have escaped poverty.

One of the other key trends behind rising inequality, set out in Oxfam’s report is the falling share of national income going to workers in almost all developed and most developing countries and a widening gap between pay at the top and the bottom of the income scale. This particularly affects women, who make up the majority of low paid workers around the world.

By contrast, the already wealthy have benefited from a rate of return on capital via interest payments, dividends, etc, that has been consistently higher than the rate of economic growth. This advantage has been compounded by the use of tax havens which are perhaps the most glaring example set out in the report of how the rules of the economic game have been rewritten in a manner that has supercharged the ability of the rich and powerful to entrench their wealth.

Learn more at OXFAM.

***

[1]  Kolhatkar and Oxfam’s Dr. Nick Galasso seek for the causes of increasing wealth concentration in emphasising tax havens, which is a worthy problem to tackle.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t necessarily mitigate the tendency within capitalism toward concentration of wealth.  And, unfortunately, neither, Oxfam nor Kolhatkar question those fundamental problems inherent in the capitalist mode of production, which creates increasing inequality.

[2]  Larry Elliott, Economics Editor, The Guardian