The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: indivisible
More Evidence Of Republican Disdain For Democracy

More Evidence Of Republican Disdain For Democracy

Reprinted with permission fromAlterNet.

Show up for a protest, and end up losing your home, car, and retirement account? How about losing everything over just being at a meeting or on a conference call?

Arizona State Senator Sonny Borrelli (R-AZ) has introduced an amazing bit of legislation into the Arizona senate, which has already passed—it’s in the House now. The bill would hyper-criminalize any sort of organized political dissent if any person involved with that dissent (including, presumably, agent provocateurs) were to engage in even minor “violence,” so long as that violence harms the “property,” regardless of value, of any person — including a corporation.

They’re doing this by expanding the Arizona RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law to include conspiracy to “riot” among the offenses RICO can be used against. Not unlike parts of the Patriot Act being used against wannabe terrorists, the RICO laws are a powerful blunt instrument that have been used successfully to take down mobsters who have done a very good job of insulating themselves from their crimes.

Inspired in part by the takedown of Al Capone for tax fraud and mobster Rico “Little Caesar” Bandello, the 1970 federal law was one of the first to, in a really big way, make it possible for prosecutors to go after an entire “group” of people, rather than having to target criminals one at a time. As such, it relies heavily on previous laws that had defined “conspiracy” to be a felony.

And much like Richard Nixon used the nation’s drug laws to break the backs of the anti-war and civil-rights movements, Senator Borrelli and his Republican friends apparently want to break the back of anti-GOP, anti-Trump protests with the same type of police-state overkill.

This is merely a new twist on an old Republican strategy.

In 1999, John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s former domestic policy chief, told Dan Baum in an interview with Baum about Nixon’s war on drugs:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The war on drugs was devastatingly successful, and continues to be: Nixon and his successors have locked up large parts of the African American community nationwide (leaving many unable to vote for the rest of their lives), and drug busts (often setups) were used with spectacular success at the local level against SDS and other anti-war activists in the 1960s and 1970s.

Now the power of another law (RICO) designed to deal with organized crime (and expanded in recent years to include “terrorism” and “animal activism”) is about to be mobilized in a similar fashion against anybody who supports any anti-Republican demonstrations (that cause any “property damage”) in Arizona.

As you can read in the proposed law, the realm of crimes into which RICO can now be applied has been expanded from “terrorism” (a recent addition) to “riot,” which, itself has been redefined to include: “A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which EITHER disturbs the public peace OR RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON.” (All-caps from the actual text of the proposed law.)

The new law also adds in the current Arizona “riot” law (13-2903) which essentially defines “riot” as the use of “force,” and redefines “force” as anything that “disturbs the public peace.” Using a bullhorn? Chanting?  Singing? Or merely meeting and planning to do same (“threat” with the ability of “immediate power of execution” meaning you have the ability to stand outside and sing)? You’re disturbing the public peace.

AZ 13-2903 reads: “A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which disturbs the public peace.”

So, let’s say the local chapter of #Indivisible or #OurRevolution or #BlackLivesMatter is planning (“threatening” under this law) to bring a group of people to the offices of Senator Borrelli or any of his GOP colleagues, or just to march through downtown Phoenix to protest Trump’s bigoted policies after a particularly outrageous Executive Order.

And let’s further imagine that somebody who wants to shut down that group has infiltrated it (be they from the police, the Klan, or the Black Block). The protest happens, and the infiltrator throws a stone and breaks a window. Or some people complain that their “peace” has been “disturbed,” even if no rocks were thrown.

And you donated $25 to the group that organized the protest (but had no idea a violent infiltrator was going to show up). Or you went to a meeting of the group. Or you were on a conference call for protest planning. Or you were in the crowd on the day the stone was thrown or the “peace” was “disturbed.”

Under the civil asset forfeiture laws, being used hand-in-glove with the new RICO law, everything you own can now be seized – instantly, and before you’re even convicted of anything. And once you’ve admitted you were a “co-conspirator” – you donated, showed up, were on the call, or even a member of the chat-room – you’re now facing serious time in prison.

So, as is usually the case with RICO prosecutions, the prosecutors bring you in and offer you a deal: help us bust the leadership, and we’ll let you go. So you end up being the stone-thrower at the next demonstration. Or you go to prison.

And, in the meantime, the local or state police department has already converted your home, car, and retirement accounts into cash and used them to buy a new tank for the police station.

And to the inevitable clueless-to-their-privilege white person who says, “Riot laws aren’t controversial and they’d never use laws like this so broadly; that would be wrong,” please talk with any person of color and ask how the “uncontroversial” drug, loitering, and, for G-d sake, even taillight laws have been enforced.

The families of Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Samuel DeBose, and Sandra Bland (among thousands of others), and increasingly in Trumpworld, anybody who looks Hispanic or Muslim, or even has a Muslim-sounding name like the son of Muhammad Ali, can tell you something about selective enforcement of the law in America.

This is not what democracy looks like.

Thom Hartmann is an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host.

IMAGE: Protesters walk in the streets downtown during another night of protests over the police shooting of Keith Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S. September 22, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Blake

How The #Resistance Is Tapping Into The Tea Party’s Playbook

How The #Resistance Is Tapping Into The Tea Party’s Playbook

IMAGE: Demonstrators march during the “Day Without Immigrants” protest in Washington, D.C., on February 16. Hundreds of anti-Trump protests are planned next week, when Congress members are home in their districts.AARON P. BERNSTEIN/REUTERS

How Runaway Inequality Helped To Elect Trump — And How It Can Defeat Him

How Runaway Inequality Helped To Elect Trump — And How It Can Defeat Him

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

Over the last 37 years, the top 10 percent of all Americans saw their incomes rise by 115 percent and the top 1 percent saw an incredible rise of 198 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom half of all American earners not only failed to see any gain at all, their incomes actually declined by 1 percent from 1978 to 2015, according to research by Thomas Piketty and co-researchers.

Declining income brings with it a host of related social problems. As localities are starved for revenues, public safety and the sense of community deteriorate. The social fabric of decent living is imperiled.

Extreme inequality and related social deterioration fueled both the Sanders and the Trump revolts. While Sanders offered concrete plans to reverse it, Trump and the Republicans are sure to make it worse.

The Inevitability of Rising Inequality?

Politicians and pundits alike have convinced themselves that rising inequality is an economic act of God. They repeatedly point to new technology, automation, and competitive globalization as the root causes of rising inequality. They claim that these blind forces turn the well-educated into winners, while the less educated are left behind. These inevitable forces are so powerful in our free market economy, that it would be impossible, and therefore foolish to intervene directly.

Such a self-justifying story! So soothing for well-to-do! And oh so wrong.

The new Piketty study provides a clear-cut example that shows runaway inequality is not inevitable: France.

The French economy is as modern as ours. It is even more exposed to the global market place: Exports in France account for 30 percent of its GDP compared to only 12.6 percent for the U.S. Because it must compete even more rigorously, France must use the highest levels of technology and automation. So if competitive global markets, new technology, and automation cause rising inequality, then France should be its poster child.

It is not.

Inequality is far less extreme in France. The bottom 50 percent saw their incomes grow by 39 percent from 1978-2015. The incomes of the top 10 percent grew by 44 percent and the top 1 percent by 67 percent—unequal still, but nowhere near as lopsided as in the U.S.

Viva la Difference?

Social and economic policies, not blind market forces, determine the degree of inequality. Here are a few obvious differences:

  • France has universal health care—we don’t.

  • France has far stronger labor protections—U.S. workers are far more vulnerable to layoffs, with the Republicans now seeking to cripple unions still further.

  • France has more progressive income taxes—the Republicans want to lower them for the rich.

  • Higher education is virtually free in France—here we put students and families deeply into debt.

  • Financial institutions are more constrained in France—in America, Wall Street dominates the economy and politics.

The financialization of our economy—more aptly called financial strip-mining—is the most powerful driver of runaway inequality. This is the direct result of the failed neo-liberal policies that erroneously claim cutting regulations always makes the economy run better.

In the case of finance the picture is crystal-clear. When we had our foot on the neck of Wall Street (from the New Deal to the late 1970s) the economy became more egalitarian with real wage increases for working people of all kinds. But after deregulation of Wall Street activities—legalization of stock buybacks, end of Glass Steagall, prohibition of regulating derivatives, etc.—U.S. inequality soared.

As the Piketty study puts it, “We observe a complete collapse of the bottom 50% income share in the U.S. between 1978 and 2015, from 20% to 12% of total income, while the top 1% income share rose from 11% to 20%”

The Undoing of Trump?

Trump seized basic working-class issues away from Clinton and the Democrats—little wonder given their ties to Wall Street. But the Obama/Sanders voters who turned to Trump (and there are millions of them) expect Trump to improve working-class incomes. After several weeks of utter chaos, it is safe to say that Trump won’t do anything of the sort.

  • Rather than reduce the power of Wall Street, he has welcomed into his administration a large cohort of big-time financiers.

  • Their first collective move is to kill as many financial regulations as possible.

  • The Republicans want to shift more money to the rich with so-called “tax reforms” and through anti-union legislation.

  • The replacement of Obamacare, whatever that may turn out to be, is certain to harm lower-income people even more, unless the rest of us intervene in a big way.

From Resist to Reversing Runaway Inequality

The good news is that millions are taking to the streets, organizing meetings, challenging their congressional representatives, and in general raising hell. Except for a handful, however, most of these actions are aimed at protecting the status quo from an impetuous, childish autocrat. Without question the resistance must continue, especially to protect the most vulnerable—immigrants, low-income women in need of Planned Parenthood, Medicaid recipients, etc.

However, we are unlikely to win back Obama-to-Sanders-to-Trump voters until we rekindle the spirit of Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders campaign. The social democratic platform Sanders put forth attacked runaway inequality. That kind of agenda needs to become part of the work of Indivisible and the thousands of groups that are holding town meetings all over the country.

A New Movement

To reach the Obama-to-Sanders-to-Trump voters we need to organize a new set of protests and a clear set of pro-active demands. It’s not just about what we don’t want Trump to do, it’s about what we really want to see changed.

Would people show up for protests around this agenda: A Wall Street speculation tax, free higher education, Medicare for All, a $15-dollar-an-hour minimum wage, and tackling climate change?

We can’t get from resist to reversing runaway inequality until we launch an educational process to spread the word. We need thousands of educators to reach out to the Obama-to-Sanders-to-Trump voters who really are seeking to reverse runaway inequality.

Armed with facts—not alternate facts—we can build the foundation for a new movement to take back our country both from Trump and from the financial strip-miners.

Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute, is currently working with unions and community organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall Street movement.

IMAGE: mSeattle / Flickr

Progressives Could Learn A Thing Or Two From The Tea Party

Progressives Could Learn A Thing Or Two From The Tea Party

An energetic and full-throated resistance is building nationwide to oppose the whims of Donald Trump. Witness the crowds that turned out last weekend to protest Trump’s malicious executive order barring refugees from entering the country and voiding the visas of citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Yet the likeliest way to put a leash on Trump and overcome his enablers in Washington requires much more focus than marching in the street. It’s not as sexy. It won’t give you the same thrill or cachet as playing the agitator extraordinaire. You won’t be able to brag about it to your grandchildren. But it’s what will work.

We need to make our representatives and senators squirm. It’s not that hard, if you know how to do it.

Writing to or calling our elected officials is something we know we’re supposed to do, and yet we so seldom follow through. Even when we do get motivated to write a letter or make a phone call, we often do it wrong. The point is not so much to let our rep or senator know how we feel, although that is part of it. Rather, the point is to make him or her aware that you are watching and listening, and that he or she will pay a price for acting or voting against your wishes.

How do you do that effectively? There’s a handy guide titled “Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda.” This easily digested 27-page document is downloadable at www.IndivisibleGuide.com.

As the guide explains, members of Congress react mostly to their constituents. And they don’t like to look bad. Small efforts of vocal, well-timed and articulated advocacy can work wonders.

“Indivisible” groups are forming in major cities and in smaller communities. At last count there were around 4,500, with at least one in virtually every congressional district.

The document offers plenty of insider knowledge, as it was crafted by former congressional staffers. They share their insights into what made their former bosses listen, and squirm.

Thus, “Indivisible” does a great service in helping the well-intentioned but off-script activist. This is covered in helpful table outlining “what your member of Congress doesn’t care much about.” This includes form letters, tweets, Facebook comments that haven’t generated widespread attention, and “your thoughtful analysis of the proposed bill.”

One chapter, “How Your Member of Congress Thinks and How to Use That to Save Democracy,” elaborates the simple but crucial dictum that congressional members worry first and foremost about getting re-elected and protecting their image. Unhappy and outspoken constituents make for bad optics, which inspires more unhappy constituents.

The pamphlet cribs a few sheets from the tea party playbook. Tea partiers, after all, were adept at organizing, keeping their focus local. They didn’t waste energy developing complicated policy agendas. Rather, they relentlessly hounded members of Congress who supported anything that Obama touched. They were the impetus for the extreme obstructionism that transformed the GOP into the “Party of No.”

Tea party efforts cleared the path for decisive midterm victories for the GOP and, eventually, for Trump to take the White House. That is why progressive protesters against Trump, inasmuch as they are on the defensive and need to act accordingly, also need to recognize that playing effective defense presents an awesome opportunity to organize for eventual legislative majorities.

Republicans are firmly in control of Congress at least until the midterm elections in 2018. Retaking the Senate, much less the House, will be a tough uphill climb. The first step toward taking Congress back is to say no to Trump’s agenda now. Hence, the authors of “Indivisible” offer tips for “stiffening Democratic spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.”

Every dysfunctional president has had his enablers. And members of the GOP who do not stand up to Trump’s more egregious moves — which is to say, virtually his entire policy agenda — fit that definition.

Despite his preening and complaining, Trump did not win the popular vote. He has started with a record low approval rating, and he becomes more unpopular with every display of narcissism or cruelty.

So “Indivisible” offers this solid reassurance: “If a small minority in the tea party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.”

The greatest weapon the American public has to fight Trump and his minions is the central institution of our representative democracy: the legislative branch.

Progressives must threaten their representatives with removal if they don’t heed the majority that finds Trump repugnant, and they must organize that majority to speak unambiguously in November 2018.

Mary Sanchez: 816-234-4752, msanchez@kcstar.com, @msanchezcolumn

IMAGE: Activists gather outside the Trump International Hotel to protest President Donald Trump’s executive actions on immigration in Washington January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein