\n

Two State Solution Advocates Address Metropolitan Democratic Club

The Metropolitan Democratic Club meeting on Wednesday August 10 featured two supporters of a two state solution in the Mideast, Rainer Waldman Adkins of J Street and Rob Jacobs of Stand With Us. 

This was the present author’s first visit to a meeting of the Metropolitan Democrats group. Two weeks ago the organizer of the anti-Israel bus ads spoke.  The opportunity to hear the responses provided a good motivation to attend.

Before the scheduled presentation about Israel began, a member of the club introduced the subject of the state budget.  Distributing a recent Stranger article about the budget, she started a group discussion in objection to the continuation of tax loopholes for corporations and special interests while cuts were mandated in social services.  The group decided to write a letter to Gov. Gregoire objecting to her call for budget cuts next year.  State Senator Adam Kline told the group that the legislature tried hard and could not achieve the necessary 25 votes, but no substantial amount of time was devoted to his comment.

It was very clear from the comments made by the club’s members that mainstream progressive voters in the Democratic Party do not understand what happened last spring: the effects of 1053, the power held by the Republicans, the politics of the legislative session and the reasons why the proposals to close tax loopholes did not pass.  It is impossible for voters to understand unless it is explained to them clearly.  The Democratic leadership should communicate with the voters or the misunderstandings within the Democratic voter population will continue.

The voters are upset with Gov. Gregoire because she isn’t leading in the sense of presenting a vision and using the bully pulpit to convince the public of the need to close tax loopholes. Instead she is starting out from a defeatist position.

On to the main topic of the meeting, Israel.  The foundation for Adkins’ remarks was the position that the two peoples both have legitimate claims to the same lands.  He emphasized the need for a two state solution and said that the status quo is dangerous for both sides.  He warned against simplistic viewpoints, reminding the group that “reality is nuanced.”

The protests of 300,000 Israelis against economic inequality would be comparable to 12 million people in the US.  He believed that the Arab Spring influenced Israelis, as evidenced by “Egypt is here” signs and imagery comparing Netanyahu to Mubarak.  He conjectured about the progress we could make here in the US if 12 million people went out into the streets and protested.

J Street is calling for a movement for a two state solution and for peace and emphasized Israel’s need for security.  Adkins said that Mideast peace is a serious American interest.  J Street opposes a one-state solution because the organization is “striving to be reality based,”  a reference to the differences between the two cultures. He emphasized the peace dividend that would result if the fighting stops. 

Objecting to inflammatory anti-Israel propaganda, Adkins said that the enemies of Israel act “from a place of anger.  We act from a place of love.”  Zionism can only succeed if there is a Palestinian state.  J Street is meeting with Senators Murray and Cantwell on August 23 and is carrying out a postcard campaign advocating for the two-state solution.

Rob Jacobs of Stand With Us was concerned that the Arab Spring was being used as a means to levy inaccurate accusations against Israel.  Governments falsely accused Israel of instigating the protests and some protestors believed that Israel supported the governments they were protesting against.    Nearly 2000 Syrians have been killed by the Syrian government in recent months and Hezbollah supports this.  Jacobs questioned why so little concern was voiced over these Arab lives as compared to outcries over Israeli settlement permits.  He was distressed that some progressive Democrats have completely adopted the Palestinian narrative.  

Israel upholds a more progressive agenda than its Mideast neighbors, as demonstrated in areas such as LGBT rights, and is a democracy in the Mideast.  Minority populations have legal rights and hold elected office in Israel, but that is not true for the Jews in the countries that neighbor Israel. 

Jacobs showed some of the maps that Israel’s critics use to claim that Israel gradually took over Palestinian land.  These maps are misleading because the original map in 1946 consisted of one state controlled by England.  In addition, there was trans Jordan, from which all of the Jews were expelled in 1920.  The US partition added the Negev desert to Israel.  This makes Israel look bigger, but the land was and still is largely uninhabitable.  The 1947 boundaries were the result of the peace treaty armistice.  Since 1967 Israel has withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula and gave up its only land on which there was oil..  In 1967 Egypt wouldn’t take Gaza and Jordan wouldn’t take the West Bank. 

Jacobs said that Israel wants direct negotiations, but that there is no one negotiating partner on the other side.  There is no guarantee that the Palestinian Authority could prevent violence on the part of Hamas. Israel’s concern is that without proper security, if it withdraws from the West Bank it will become another Gaza, from which Hamas is building up weapons and fires rockets into Israel.  Israel cannot risk the firing of rockets into Tel Aviv or its main airport.  There is no peace plan that Hamas will agree to. 

The leadership of the Palestinian authority needs to stop the anti-Israel propaganda that is currently being disseminated to the Arab public. 

Last, he said that we cannot point the finger at one side and hold the other side blameless.

During the question period, Judith Kotlikoff discussed a historical account she read about disputing the idea that the Palestinians fled in 1948.  Her source accuses the Israelis of driving the Palestinians out.  Jacobs stated that reputable historians dispute this claim.  Adkins wanted to concentrate more on peace negotiations in the presence and on support for President Obama’s efforts to negotiate a solution. 

Jacobs had stated that he has previously been acquainted with several members of the Metropolitan Democratic Club whose position has been strongly opposed to his and this was shown in a vocal group that sat in the front row.  It is good that the group was willing to listen to the other side.

Someone asked about the difference between J Street and Stand With Us.  Adkins described J Street as a lobbying group which fills a void in foreign policy.  The group had postcards available for meeting attendees to express support for Obama’s diplomatic efforts.  Adkins said that J Street supports the 1967 boundaries as a starting point, not a final agreement point, from which to adjust the lines for negotiated boundaries.  It is the present author’s opinion that this may not be practical, if you think about what American towns and cities looked like in 1967 versus today. 

J Street takes a balanced view and advocated on behalf of the needs of the Israelis and the Palestinians in achieving peace.  Stand With Us is not a lobbying group.  It is similar to the Anti-Defamation League in that it’s main focus is to oppose anti-Semitism and false statements about Israel.  Stand With Us is primarily an educational organization.  The attendees at the meeting may have expected a dispute between the two groups, and the two groups had philosophical differences.  But the increase in anti-Semitism and propaganda has brought the two groups into greater agreement.  Jacobs was visibly supportive of Adkins’ advocacy for the two state process.

How President Obama can best help Democrats: by not running in 2012

President Obama should call it quits and allow a stronger Democrat to run in his place in 2012.

His repeated capitulations and sell-outs have so demoralized Democratic voters that they’re likely to stay away from the polls, just as they did in 2010.  And Independents dislike a weakling who stands for nothing but compromise.  So many Democratic constituencies — labor, progressives, retirees,  environmentalists, and minorities — have reason to dislike Obama. We need a leader, not a capitulator.     If he runs, he’ll be an albatross around Democratic candidates’ necks. A primary challenge is unlikely to succeed.

Democratic leaders should let the president know that this is the best option.

There’s still time.  If he truly cared about the Democratic Party, that’s what he would do.

Don’t say it’s not going to happen.  Defeat is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Gregoire Begins to See the Light…Warns of Ten Percent State Budget Cut

Months ago, I stated that, because our State Budget is based on an assumption that State revenue would grow by 14% during the next two years, our State Budget is a House of Cards. I noted that because our economy is not growing, State revenue is not likely to grow at all. See realwashingtonstatebudget.info.
 
Last week, the Federal Reserve admitted that the economy remained flat for the past 6 months. Then today, Governor Gregoire admitted for the first time that the State Budget might have to be cut another 10% – or about $1.7 billion beginning on January 1st 2012. This is on top of the $4 billion in cuts that were made by the 2011 legislature. For the complete list of upcoming budget cuts, go to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/08/08/2015855454.pdf
 
$1.7 BILLION in State cuts converts to firing another 17,000 State workers and costing another 17,000 private workers to also lose their jobs – for a total of 34,000 job losses beginning January 1, 2012.
 
Sadly, as I also noted months ago, this is just going to be the beginning of budget cuts during the next two years. The House of Cards budget for the 2011 – 2013 biennium agreed to in May 2011 is about $34 billion in spending. The problem is that if revenue does not increase, there will only be $28 billion to $29 billion coming in. This is why I predicted that, if the State legislature continues to give billions in tax breaks to wealthy corporations, there will have to be another $5 billion to $6 billion in cuts during the next two years. So $1.7 billion in cuts is just the tip of the iceberg. Instead of ordering the Titanic to change directions, all our Governor did was order our State to hit the iceberg at a slightly slower speed. Unless the legislature sees the light and stops giving away billions in tax breaks to the super rich, total job losses will exceed 100,000 before the end of this biennium.
 
Nevertheless, we will review what the Governor’s 10 Percent Budget cut will mean to families here in Washington State . First, the good news. While Basic Education funding is $13.7 billion for the next two years, or about $6.8 billion per year, the Governor is not yet proposing a massive cut to public schools – only $100 million or $50 million per year. Only 1,000 teachers will lose their jobs in order to protect a billion per year in tax breaks for Microsoft.
 
Now for the bad news.
 
Public Universities which had already taken a $500 million cut, will be asked to take another $100 million cut. This means 1,000 fewer University Instructors, cutting slots or increasing class sizes for about 20,000 University students. Community Colleges will also see their budget cut by 10% – from about $1 billion to about $900 million. Another 1,000 college instructors will lose their jobs and another 20,000 students will be forced either out of college or into much higher class sizes. Thus, expect one in ten college instructors to be fired in the next few months.
 
But by far the biggest hit will be the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) which will lose over $573 million. Because these funds are tied directly to federal “matching” funds, the actual hit to DSHS will be over $1 billion – for a loss of 10,000 public sector jobs and another 10,000 private sector jobs.
 

All of these cuts still assume that State Revenue will grow by at least 10 percent during the next two years. But firing 34,000 people is 34,000 fewer people with pay checks and 34,000 people unable to shop at local businesses and pay State taxes. This is the downward spiral that will lead to even lower State revenue and even more budget cuts in the future – until the people of Washington State have decided they have had enough of giving billions in tax breaks to Microsoft and other wealthy corporations – while our economy, our schools and our colleges all go to hell in a hand basket.For information about how to reverse this economic disaster, visit one of my new websites: Coalitiontocreatejobsnow.org and wapublicbankproject.org.

Feel free to email me if you have had enough of wealthy corporations sucking the life blood out of our economy. If you are a parent or a teacher, the clock is ticking on our children and our students. It is time to get involved and take back our Democracy. Together we can restore school funding and rebuild our economy.

The straw that may break the donkey's back: can Democrats defend Obama?

Since the election loss last year, a deepening sense of dread and fear has descended upon many Democrats.

The right wing juggernaut seems unstoppable. Emboldened conservatives are succeeding with their plan to drown government in a bathtub.  They are in the process of dismantling decades of progressive legislation and reform. The transfer of wealth and power to the rich will likely continue, even as the country descends further into economic decline.   The stock market is crashing.  People talk of social unrest and civil disobedience. A right wing populist uprising seems like a  real possibility. Words like “fascism” occur often in emails and blog posts.

Worse, the Left is divided. Many Democrats are angry at President Obama for his early and frequent compromises that, they say, have further empowered the GOP. Progressive email lists and blogs are abuzz with heated discussions about whether to primary President Obama, with centrist Democrats warning of a dangerous repeat of 2000.   There is considerable acrimony and name-calling.  See the Washington Liberals Yahoo email list streamed along the left of this website, this poll, and the examples below for an indication of the divided opinions on this topic.

Certainly, the GOP, the military, and their rich allies deserve most of the blame for the grim situation. But many Democrats accuse President Obama of failing to lead or, even, of selling out. At best, they say, Obama has been a poor negotiator and a weak leader. At worst,they say, he has betrayed Democratic principles by actively protecting Republican criminals and actively promoting conservative policies.

The recent budget negotiations over the debt deal were, for many Democrats, the straw that broke the donkey’s back.  Some progressives (e.g., Mike Malloy) say the Democratic Party is dead. I know long term Democrats who are seriously considering joining the Socialist Workers Party.

Some Democrats still think (or pretend) that President Obama is doing a good job. Given all that he’s up against, they say, he should be applauded: he saved the economy from disaster, ended DADT, started withdrawal from Iraq, killed Osama bin Laden, and enacted health care reform that extends coverage to millions more Americans and ended the worst abuses of insurance companies. Plus, he’s begun regulation of Wall Street. Unfortunately, a divided Senate with arcane rules has stymied his more aggressive progressive policy initiatives.  And the House is now in GOP control (largely due to the failure of Democrats to turn out to vote last November.)   The Republicans did all in their power to assure defeat of Obama’s progressive agenda.  Change takes time.

Other Democrats reject this anodyne view of the President and point out his many sell-outs and betrayals of Democratic ideals.  The bailouts were corrupt and unfair. Health care reform lacked a public option and was a gift to Big Insurance and Big Pharma.  The President repeatedly supported centrist candidates and appointees over progressive ones.    DADT was long past due and, in any case, makes it easier for gays to get killed in service of the imperialist war machine, which continues in full force and with increased funding, as does the surveillance and imprisonment infrastructure built by Bush.  Critics of Obama say that much of the blame for the Democrats’ “shellacking” last year lies at the feet of the president. See Petition expressing extreme disappointment with President Obama’s policies for a summary of the case against Obama.

Other Democrats acknowledge Obama’s failings but say: look, we gotta stick with him because the alternative is even worse. Do you want a repeat of 2000 with Nader? Imagine if someone like Perry gets to choose the next Supreme Court judges.

A concrete example of this powerful argument against criticizing Obama appeared recently on the PDA economic justice email list.

I once had two union organizer uncles living in Germany during the 1920s. According to them it was the German Communist Party who enabled the Nazis to succeed! They would not join the center parties in a ‘Reichstag’ coalition and their continuous street battles with the Nazis drove the average German also into their camp. The center parties with the Social Democrats and the Communists had more delegates than the Nazis, but without the far-left Hitler achieved domination constitutionally!

The idea is that purist progressives’ impatience with Obama may lead to a far right wing victory in 2012.

This is, unfortunately, a powerful argument, and it is a reflection of the grimness of the current situation that Democrats may have to pretend to like the President in order to avoid disaster in 2012.

On the same PDA email thread someone posted this more inflammatory anti-Obama quote:

U.S. President Barack Obama is singularly the most dangerous, anti-democratic president in the history of this nation. He has used his pigmentation as as a shield for corporate fascism and the emaciation of everyday, ordinary Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people in this nation and around the world.
–Larry Pinkney, BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board, Obama’s Bait and Switch Game: Otherwise Known As B. S. Aug. 4, 2011

Most people responded negatively, saying that the quote was off topic. One guy went further and wrote, “Racism is an ideology used to divide us. Its false ideas and debasing caricatures can be used by any person of any color for whatever purpose they are serving. Think about what you are doing by broadcasting racist ideas that were carried in a publication whose purpose is to provide a forum for African-American political commentary.”

Indeed, some people accuse Democrats who oppose Obama of being racists. But many African Americans are highly critical of the president, including Cornel West and (recently) John Conyers.   I think it’s unfair to accuse critics of Obama of racism. I voted for Obama and donated a lot of money to his campaign, as did many other (white) progressives.

Someone sent a link to an article about an effort to primary President Obama, “Primary Obama” Ads Roll Through D.C.. In response, someone responded:

Republicans must love it! Bet some of them paid for it. Either that or it is being pushed by some politically naïve progressives. What a shame to waste money an effort doing this, when what is really needed is a progressive push to change the power structure in the House and Senate.

I acknowledge the power the “lesser of two evils” argument and the possibility that the GOP are behind some anti-Obama activism on the left.  The problem with this approach is that it’s very difficult to defend a president whom you believe has betrayed you. Can we pretend to like the guy and his policies?     Commentators like Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman keep reminding us of Obama’s failings.  As Dennis Kucinich says in an excellent interview for TruthDig, Obama Got the Deal He Wanted.

Furthermore, I doubt that many Americans (especially the unemployed and those dependent on government programs) will buy into a favorable view of the president.  The cat is already out of the bag, and already the GOP is accusing Obama of selling out seniors on Social Security and Medicare.  President Obama has made it quite easy for right wing populists to portray the Democratic Party as the handmaiden of Wall Street and government corporatocracy.   A substantial chunk of the Left is already dead set against Obama, whose motivations and psychology remain a deep mystery.

Unless Democrats confront Obama’s failings, they risk being ignored and rejected by the public, who will know full well about Obama’s failings. As David Spring says, “My concern is that Obama is doing to the Democratic Party what Bush did for the Republican Party – making it just about impossible for us to win elections. If we do not stand for protecting Social Security and Medicare, then what do we stand for? ”

A good summary of the dilemma is expressed by this guy’s comments on the PDA email list:

We are working here in Illinois on two progressive campaigns and might add a third. In each we have discussed the issue of how progressives candidates should relate to and speak about the president. No consensus yet, but I think we need to develop talking points that enable progressive candidates to distance themselves from the corporate Democrats including the president without alienating party regulars.

It’s a tough balancing act.

That sums it up well. We’re in a pickle, because we have to support a Democratic president who, under normal circumstances, would be primaried. How can Democrats criticize Obama’s policies without weakening Democrats?  But if we don’t criticize Obama’s policies, we’ll look silly.

The situation is grim and I wish there were a good way forward.

If Obama would withdraw, then a better candidate could possibly step forward.   But this seems unlikely to happen. (Perhaps this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

Corporations Don't Bleed

“Corporations Don’t Bleed” is the slogan adopted by Free Speech for People, one of several organizations working to put electoral power into the hands of everyday Americans by reducing the undue influence on political decision-making giant multi-national corporations currently wield. Electioneering by corporations using their dollars to sway politicians has always been a part of the American political landscape, but recent events have blown the lid off attempts to limit and/or disclose the amount of money that corporations contribute to campaigns. The January 2010 Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allows unlimited and secret contributions by corporations both foreign and domestic into the coffers of politicians seeking public office, removing limits imposed by the McCain-Feingold Act of 1971. The Citizens United decision hinges on the idea that corporations are persons and entitled to the same rights. But as the phrase “corporations don’t bleed” aptly points out, a legal entity is not a human being, and the rights spelled out in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were never intended to apply to corporations.

Any laws passed to try to reinstate campaign finance reform would be immediately challenged by corporate lawyers and just as instantly struck down by five right-wing judicial activists posing as Supreme Court justices; therefore, we have no choice but to undertake serious, long-term grassroots action. Only a Constitutional amendment will carry sufficient legal weight to overrule the Court’s decision. Despite the often cited failure of the Equal Rights Amendment, this has been done before: both the 11th and the 24th amendments overturned Supreme Court decisions.

It is important to keep in mind that this effort is not about Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative. Democracy means one person, one vote; not one dollar, one vote. This value is shared by a vast majority of Americans, from Democratic Socialists to the Tea Party, so don’t be afraid to talk up this issue with your libertarian friends. Just make sure they are aware that you are not anti-business. Remind them that small businesses will benefit if the giant corporate behemoths who are trying to squeeze them out of existence have less influence on local, state and national politics.

Activists across the nation are working to pass a 28th Amendment to abolish corporate personhood. Meanwhile, a coalition of advocacy groups has been meeting in and around South King County to discuss goals, strategy and tactics for the massive outreach efforts, public education, and legislative action that are needed to move this project forward. About 40 people from various organizations (MoveOn, Move To Amend, Olympia, Backbone Campaign, Free Speech for People, Washington Public Campaigns, 65th St. Change Gang, Involved Democracy, Democratic Socialists of America, UU Voices for Justice) attended a meeting on July 28th in Des Moines. There was consensus achieved on the goal of working to urge the Washington State Legislature to pass HJM 4005 or SJM 8007 in the 2012 legislative session in Olympia. (These joint memorials call for a 28th Amendment to revoke corporate personhood and were proposed but did not make it out of committee in 2011. In the opinion of this writer, they do not go far enough since they do not contain a provision to establish that money is not speech, an essential ingredient to undoing the damage inflicted by Citizens United and establishing true democracy.)

While pursuing statewide action is laudable, I cannot emphasize enough the need to continue to work locally. Along those lines, efforts continue to pass city charter amendments calling for an end to corporate personhood in both Olympia and Spokane. Efforts are also underway to pass resolutions calling for a 28th Amendment in each and every legislative district and county in the state, and your help is needed to make this happen. This is exactly the sort of local action recommended by the national leadership of such groups as Move To Amend. What are you doing in your city?

If you are interested in setting up or joining a delegation to visit your state representative or senator or working to pass a local resolution, please send your contact information, along with your legislative district to me at involveddemocracy@gmail.com.

We Can't Live with Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power Plants

The annual peace walk to the Ground Zero Center in Bangor is wrapping up today with a talk by Dennis Kucinich at 6:30 pm. I was able to speak with Senji Kanaeda for a few minutes on July 31st and am finishing up a short video with Senji’s thoughts front and center.

I still have a little tweaking to do on the video, but it’s almost finished and I wanted to get this up. I am also using the video to publicize the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant event at Traditions on Monday, August 8th at 7 pm. We have to stop nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. This is a road that leads nowhere.

MoveOn steps in to fill the vacuum, targets Dave Reichert

There’s a leadership vacuum on the Left, due to the centrism of President Obama, Governor Gregoire, and the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Recently MoveOn.org has stepped in to fill that vacuum and has been successful at garnering citizen participation and media coverage.

Dozens of new people showed up at recent MoveOn house meetings I attended. (See Thoughts on yesterday’s American Dream meeting and MoveOn’s plan for a mass movement.)  Turnout was even higher at  protests that MoveOn organized at Congressional offices, including that of Republican Congressman Dave Reichert (8th CD, WA).  People are scared and angry about Republican insanity and Democratic complicity, and MoveOn provides a useful means of using that anger constructively.

About 75 people turned out at a July 26th protest at Reichert’s Mercer Island office.  Over 60 people showed up on Aug 2.  Both Reichert protests generated a lot of press, for example:

King 5 video on visits to McDermott, Smith & Reichert; MoveOn was mentioned
http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=126221783&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10212
Reichert’s video remarks (let the system work) didn’t address the issues.

Article w/pics about Reichert visit
http://enumclaw.patch.com/articles/citizens-picket-rep-reicherts-office-over-debt-limit-crisis-2
“Mercer Island Police arrived a short time later to escort the protesters out of the building and allowing them to gather on the sidewalk on 78th Avenue SE.”

Protesters worry about national default.

Rep. Dave Reichert will not listen to us.

MoveOn Protest at Reichert's office
MoveOn Protest at Reichert's office

A friend wrote, “A reporter from Mercer Island patch was there and he was writing about it. You may check that. People gathered and went to his office and then they said we should be outside and 2 staffers with clip board came and handed people a piece of paper with their information and they concerns.”

Sandra VanderVen, a MoveOn regional coordinator, deserves applause for organizing these events and stepping forward, literally, with a megaphone at the protests.

I just started a new job and so I have been unable to attend either protest. Apparently, only unemployed, under-employed or retired people have the time to attend such protests, which are usually in the middle of the day on a work day.

MoveOn.org has gone through a lot since it was formed in 1998 in response to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It’s played a big role in helping elect Democrats  but has also come under criticism for being inflexible (top-down), controlling, and complicit with centrism.  The Democratic Party has at times treated MoveOn unfairly, for example in response to MoveOn’s controversial General “Betray Us” ad in the New York Times.

People stop attending meetings and protests if they feel that nothing is being accomplished.  Right now, MoveOn is succeeding.  An organizer of one of the house meetings wrote, “I know that MoveOn.org is really trying to get things moving and right now – that’s going to be tough.  I didn’t get to sit in on much of the discussion last time but what I heard was a frustration that people want to DO something and not just sit around.  I had one guy grill me on what was going to be done with the information that came out of meeting.  Had to admit that I’m not sure – just that I did send it forward to the right people.”

Like the rest of us, MoveOn is imperfect, but it’s been a force for good overall, especially recently. Let’s hope it continues to make constructive use of peoples’ anger.

Let’s also hope that the media continue to give coverage to MoveOn events. In fact, better yet: let’s make our own news media so that we’re no longer at the mercy of often conservative news outlets.