Saturday, April 16, 2022

Editorial: Fight Fascism at Home and Abroad

 Some on the Left are wary of supporting Ukraine, given the history of US foreign policy misadventures. But the US didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine in February under the pretense that it needed to “de-Nazify” its neighbor. 

The Russian military’s scorched-earth campaign that has targeted residential neighborhoods, hospitals, markets and other civilian areas with missiles and airborne bombing attacks has put the lie to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s insistence that the Russian army was in Ukraine on a peacekeeping mission, and that Ukraine was bombing its own neighborhoods, hospitals and marketplaces. 

Ukraine’s army and territorial defenders, armed with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile launchers provided by the US and NATO member countries in Western Europe, continue to put up heroic resistance to the armored columns of the Russian army. Ukraine is protecting its 30-year-old democracy while Putin hopes to put the Soviet Union back together — but this time as a fascist regime.

Ukraine moved toward independence as the Soviet Union disintegrated. In a referendum on Dec. 1, 1991, 92% of voters approved independence and Leonid Kravchuk, chairman of parliament, was elected first president of Ukraine. On Dec. 21, 1991, leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union. 

In December 1994, leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the US signed the Budapest Memorandum, which provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons — the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world — and joining the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Among other things, Russia, as well as Britain and the US, promised “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

Those assurances didn’t survive the rise of Putin, the former Soviet KGB officer who was chosen by Russian President Boris Yeltsin to become prime minister in August 1999. Putin became acting president when Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned in December 1999, and Putin was elected president the following March 2000.

The Second Chechen War started one month after he became prime minister. The war against Chechen separatists bolstered Putin’s popularity at home, but the conflict caused deep changes in the Russian politics and society, as young veterans returned to their home towns traumatized and embittered, The Economist reported in 2007. 

Tens of thousands of Russian police and security forces in Chechnya learned patterns of brutality and impunity and brought them home, often returning with disciplinary and psychological problems, human rights groups Memorial and Demos reported in a 2007 study. A nationwide poll in 2005 found 71% of Russian respondents said they didn’t trust police at all; another poll found 41% Russians said they lived in fear of police violence. According to Amnesty International, torture of detainees in Russia is now endemic.

After Putin became president, he seized control of the nation’s TV stations but tolerated pluralism and an independent press as long as he retained popularity. He served two terms, then switched places with prime minister Dmitri Medvedev in 2008. But the global financial crisis ended years of economic growth and weakened support for the government. “Three years later in 2011, the Arab Spring exploded in the Middle East, toppling some dictators, challenging others, and requiring the international community to respond,” former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote in an essay on “Russia’s Road to Autocracy” in the October 2021 Journal of Democracy. 

“Amazingly, Medvedev shared the West’s analytic framework and agreed to abstain on UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of force against Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi’s regime. Putin publicly disagreed, believing that the United States was orchestrating these revolutions, just as he believed it had in Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine in 2004.” A few months later, Putin announced he would seek a third term, which he won in March 2012, but Putin witnessed the largest popular mobilization against his regime ever. In fact, they were the country’s biggest demonstrations since the Soviet collapse in 1991, McFaul noted.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, in 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russian prime minister, was declared winner of the presidential election, which the Ukraine’s Supreme Court later ruled had been rigged. Opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko challenged the outcome. During the tumultuous months of what became known as the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko suddenly became gravely ill, apparently poisoned by dioxin, and he suspected Russian involvement in his poisoning. Yushchenko recovered and took office as president, pursuing closer relations with Europe, with Yanukovych in opposition.

Paul Manafort, a longtime Republican consultant, was hired by oligarchs supporting the pro-Russian party and Yanukovych, who returned to power in 2006 as prime minister, until snap elections in September 2007 made Yulia Tymoshenko, an ally of Yushchenko, prime minister. After the 2008-09 Ukrainian financial crisis shrank the Ukrainian economy by 15%, Yanukovych was elected president in 2010 with 48% of the vote.

One of Manafort’s key aides in Ukraine was, allegedly, a Russian spy. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on Trump and Russia said Konstantin Kilimnik was both “a Russian intelligence officer” and “an integral part of Manafort’s operations in Ukraine and Russia,” Ilya Marritz reported at ProPublica.

After Yanukovych’s government proposed new anti-protest laws in January 2014, anti-government demonstrators occupied buildings in the center of Kyiv, including the Justice Ministry building. Riots left 98 dead and 15,000 were injured in what was called the Maidan Revolution. Parliament removed Yanukovych, who fled to Russia.

Putin sent Russian forces to annex Crimea in March 2014, which Putin said was precipitated by the removal of Yanukovych. Separately, pro-Russian groups started a rebellion, with suspected assistance of the Russian military, in the Donetsk and Luhansk areas of eastern Ukraine, collectively called the Donbas. Petro Poroshenko, running on a pro-European Union platform, won the Ukraine presidency in May 2014 with over 50% of the vote.

Meanwhile, Manafort found himself deep in debt, including to a Russian oligarch. He offered his services free of charge to Donald Trump in early 2016 as his convention manager, wrangling delegates for the real estate developer and reality-TV star. He also stripped language from the Republican Party platform that would have expressed support for arming Ukraine with defensive weapons.

According to the US Senate report, Manafort met Kilimnik twice in person while working on the Trump campaign, messaged with him electronically and shared “sensitive campaign polling data” with him.

By 2018, Rudolph Giuliani joined Trump’s legal team, leading the public effort to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian involvement in the election, and looking for “dirt” on Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who served on a Ukrainian energy company’s board. 

Volodymyr Zelensky, a former actor and comedian, got 73% of the vote in an April 21, 2019, runoff to replace President Poroshenko. Donald Trump, in a July phone call, asked Zelensky for a “favor” in return for clearing the way for a $400 million military aid package Congress had approved for Ukraine. The dirt blew back. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2022


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

Selections from the May 1, 2022 issue

 COVER/Jolie McCullough

Texas’ border operation is meant to deter cartels and smugglers. More often, it imprisons lone men for trespassing. 

EDITORIAL
Fight fascism at home and abroad

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS 
Madison Cawthorn: Rogue Republican

RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen 
Searching for truth in Ukraine

DISPATCHES
Jared Kushner got $2 billion in Saudi invesment despite ‘unsatisfactory busiess operations.’
Which one is the party of pedophiles?
Despite Big Oil roadblocks, poll shows majority in US supports climate action.
Voters who received child tax credit in 2021 now favor GOP, thanks to Joe Manchin.
Paying Fox viewers to watch CNN makes them less gullible.
Trump says he’s ‘most honest human being.’

ART CULLEN
Bruised political warrior urges Iowa to stand and fight

ALAN GUEBERT 
Twenty-five hundred gallons of water per bushel of irrigated corn is ‘too much’


BRITNIE REMER
Lessons about poverty in America’s heartland

JOHN YOUNG 
So, GOP, now lying is disqualifying?

JOSEPH B. ATKINS 
Unions arise in what newsrooms remain in the US

TOM CONWAY 
Taxing billionaires the right way

ROBERT KUTTNER 
Biden and the billionaire tax

FRANK LINGO
Earth Day: Short time to change


THOM HARTMANN
Cut out the middlemen and get your energy straight from the sun

SONALI KOLHATKAR 
How to make housing as a human right a reality

DR. CINTLI 
Honoring the Earth, acknowledging the people

HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Enough with health-isolationism!

SAM URETSKY
Medicare disadvantage

ROBERT P. ALVAREZ 
A five-alarm emergency for democracy

WAYNE O’LEARY 
Good, bad and ugly in Ukraine

ERIC BOEHLERT 
Why is the press rooting against Biden?

JASON SIBERT
Whose police will come after Russian invaders?


BOB BURNETT 
Ukraine: What have we learned? 


BARRY FRIEDMAN 
Ted, we hardly knew ye


SETH SANDRONSKY
‘Socialist Register’ takes the measure of neoliberal capitalism

ROB PATTERSON 
Linklater brings back the moon shot era with ‘Apollo 10 1/2’

SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson  
No contest

ED RAMPELL 
The revolutionary Benjamin Franklin

DICK POLMAN
The American Psychiatric Association now says that if I grieve beyond one year, I have a mental disorder. Ah, nope.

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Editorial: The GOP Patriot Game

Republicans today are the least reliable partners in our democracy after five years of putting their principles in a blind trust managed by Donald J. Trump.

Trump spent four years in the White House alienating Western European democracies. First, he reneged on a deal Barack Obama had reached with Iran to stop their development of nuclear weapons in return for easing sanctions. Trump also withdrew from the Paris Agreement to limit climate change and, after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018 in Helsinki, Finland, Trump said he trusted Putin more than US intelligence agencies who accused Russia of meddling with the 2016 election.

Trump was also on the same page with Putin on the future of NATO. “Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States,” the New York Times reported in 2019. Trump’s former national security adviser John R. Bolton confirmed that report in his 2020 memoir that described Trump as repeatedly saying he wanted to quit the alliance. At one point he said, “I don’t give a s—- about NATO.” Bolton said he had to convince Trump not to quit NATO in the middle of a 2018 summit.

Trump in 2019 also placed a hold on aid to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do him “a favor” by launching an investigation of Joe Biden. That July 25, 2019, phone call led to Trump’s first impeachment; the hold on aid to Ukraine was finally lifted in mid-September, only after intense pressure from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Biden spent much of his first year in office mending relations with NATO and the European Union. Meanwhile, Putin started moving mechanized units of the Russian army to the Ukraine border in March 2021, and the Russian military presence continued to increase through 2021 and into 2022. All the while, Russian diplomats assured Western nations Russia had no intentions to attack Ukraine.

Putin kept denying plans to attack Ukraine until two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine declared their independence and the Russian army moved across the border to “keep the peace.” Naturally, Trump lauded his mentor as “very savvy” for making a “genius” move into the breakaway states. “Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said Feb. 22, referring to the Russian troops as “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen.”

Many Republicans, following Trump’s lead, reflexively undermined Biden’s support for Ukraine through early March, when 31 Senate Republicans voted against a $1.5 trillion spending bill that included $13.6 billion in humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine. 

But as public support for Ukraine grew, with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s emotional plea for more weapons and a no-fly zone over Ukraine, in a virtual address to Congress March 16, Republican senators saw a chance to play war hawks against Biden, who had agreed with other NATO leaders that enforcing a no-fly zone, or allowing Russian-made MiG fighters to be transferred to Ukraine from Poland, would amount to a declaration of war on Russia that could start World War III.

After Zelensky’s speech, Biden announced the Pentagon was sending nearly $1 billion in military equipment to Ukraine, including 800 Stinger antiaircraft systems, 100 drones, 25,000 helmets and more than 20 million rounds of small-arms ammunition and grenade launcher and mortar rounds to help Ukraine’s defenders keep up the fight. But that gave Republicans an opening to demand more aid than Biden could allow without escalating the war.

“President Biden needs to make a decision TODAY: either give Ukraine access to the planes and antiaircraft defense systems it needs to defend itself, or enforce a no-fly zone to close Ukrainian skies to Russian attacks,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who voted against Ukraine aid, said in a statement. “If President Biden does not do this NOW, President Biden will show himself to be absolutely heartless and ignorant of the deaths of innocent Ukrainian children and families.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who voted against the Ukraine aid, said Biden needs to “step up” and send MiG jet fighters and other weapons to Ukraine, accusing the administration of “dragging its feet.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) also voted against the spending bill. He said he “strongly” supports providing aid to Ukrainians, but he “ultimately could not support the rest of this bloated spending bill,” apparently because it funded Democratic priorities.

In all, 25 Republican senators voted against the aid for Ukraine, then called for Biden to do more for Ukraine.

Former Republican political strategist Rick Wilson sounded the alarm about how that’s going to play out in the midterm election campaign. He wrote in the Washington Post March 18 that it will get ugly:

“[The GOP] wants to play the most beloved game in the GOP playbook: that the Democrats are weak on defense. In my decades as a GOP ad maker and strategist, I made some pretty notorious ads about it. And I can tell you they work.

“Democrats too often miss the optics and politics of foreign policy, hoping good choices will outweigh the dark, emotional games Republicans like to play when it comes to national security. Republicans specialize at turning Democratic successes overseas into disasters. It’s a slow-burn strategy designed to trigger an outrage culture that doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. GOP leaders don’t care about reality; their audience doesn’t care about the truth, and their political media apparatus always stays on message.

“Donald Trump bungled the 2020 negotiations ending the war in Afghanistan, freeing the Taliban at scale and setting a date certain for US withdrawal. When Biden stuck with that commitment to exit, Republicans leveraged the inevitable chaos in Kabul into a cataclysmic political fable; if only the weak Democrats had held on for another year, victory was ensured.

“Similarly, the terrorist attack on the Benghazi facilities in 2012 was another faux scandal-in-a-box because it gave Republicans — me included — a populist tale to be weaponized, embedded in the right’s mythos and deployed repeatedly. I distinctly recall being in a focus group that year and watching the pollster tease from participants how Benghazi could be used to offset the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden under Barack Obama and transformed into a political millstone for Hillary Clinton.”

Then there is the pro-Putin wing of the party exemplified by Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). “Many Republican base voters are dictator-curious and believe Russian President Vladimir Putin is the savior of White, straight, law-and-order Christianity; the virus of Trumpian hyper-nationalism, with its constant call to reject alliances, diplomacy, smart power and multilateral action, has deeply infected the GOP,” Wilson wrote.

From Harry Truman to George H.W. Bush, there was a bipartisan American resolve to contain Russian aggression, and politics stopped at the water’s edge. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the increasingly fascist lean of the Grand Oligarch Party, that bipartisan unity has largely collapsed. Putin is testing the Western alliance of democracies. Too many Republicans like his style. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, April 15, 2022


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

 

Friday, March 25, 2022

Selections from the April 15, 2022 issue

COVER/Thom Hartmann 

GOP’s new plan would raise taxes on working people and end Social Security and Medicare

EDITORIAL 
The GOP patriot game


FRANK LINGO 
We’re out of our trees

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

LINDSAY OWENS 
It’s not just inflation — it’s price gouging

DON ROLLINS 
Foster care: Picking up the slack

RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen p. 5
Choose your bullies wisely

DISPATCHES 
Oil prices down, gas prices up — Big Oil gets a pass.
Poll shows 80% of US voters support windfall profits tax on Big Oil. 
CFPB gets billions in medical debt wiped from credit reports.
Trump aide reportedly authored report that anchored Trump election fraud lies. 
Soldiers deployed for Greg Abbott’s border stunt were sent to ranches owned by rich Texans. 
GOP attacks transgender youth from every possible angle.
Senatorial speeches at beginning of Supreme Court nomination hearings should be canned ...

ART CULLEN 
Dems giving up on Iowa

ALAN GUEBERT 
Coming war for US crop acres renews food-vs.-fuel fight


LINDSAY KOSHGARIAN 
Our military budget is more lopsided than ever

JOHN YOUNG 
It’s all about you, Gov. DeSantis

CHUCK COLLINS 
Cracking down on Russian oligarchs means cracking down on US tax havens

WENONAH HAUTER
Fossil fuels cause global crises, don’t fix them

HAL CROWTHER
From the wreckage of Ukraine, can we salvage anything positive? 

TOM CONWAY
Uniting for Ukraine

BOB BURNETT 
The new world of oil


JOEL D. JOSPEH 
Ease the oil pain by suspending gasoline taxes


DR. CINTLI 
The fog and smog of war

PAYAL SINHA 
The federal backlog that’s hurting immigrants — and our economy

HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas  
Misogyny redux

SAM URETSKY 
Breaking the news

REBEKAH ENTRALGO 
Addressing racial inequality in paid leave policy

WAYNE O’LEARY 
Son of Stalin


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet  
They are all like us

N. GUNASEKARAN 
The politics of climate risk adaptation


BARRY FRIEDMAN
Horodenka, Ukraine-Poland-USSR-Germany-Austria


DICK POLMAN 
Sarah Bloom Raskin: A casualty of our refusal to confront climate change

ROB PATTERSON 
Writing on the web

SETH SANDRONSKY 
California’s drought worsens


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson  
‘BetterHelp’ for Putin

and more ... 

Saturday, March 12, 2022

Editorial: Putin is Cornered

Vladimir Putin thought his conquest of Ukraine might take 72 hours. By the time sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union took effect, he figured, Kyiv would have fallen to his overwhelming Russian army and Ukraine would be brought back into the Russian orbit.

But Joe Biden was reading Putin’s cards. 

Sanctions were placed on Russia after it annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, but Europe needed Russian gas and oil, so the revenue continued to flow in from the West, even as Russia sponsored separatist groups in eastern Ukraine.

Putin had watched his protégé, Donald Trump, alienate the European democracies in the EU and NATO, while Putin built up a war chest of foreign currency reserves that was supposed to carry Russia through the economic fallout from new sanctions until things settled down. But Putin waited too long to move on Ukraine.

Biden spent much of his first year in office working with Secretary of State Antony Blinken repairing ties with Western Europe, and Biden paid attention to intelligence briefings on the growing threat from Putin. Biden’s activity resulted in NATO and the European Union uniting in opposition to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. But as more than 190,000 Russian troops and armor massed on the Ukraine border, Biden’s Republican opponents seemed, at best, indifferent to what they saw as Biden’s problem, just as they had refused to support the withdrawal of American forces and allies from Afghanistan on the terms Trump had left his successor. The Big Lie Party’s refusal to unite behind Biden may have persuaded Putin that he could get away with the invasion of Ukraine.

When Russian troops moved into eastern Ukraine, after the Russia-dominated breakaway provinces declared independence Feb. 22, Trump said, “This is genius, Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, ‘How smart is that?’”

Trump added, “And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper, That’s the strongest peace force … We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.”

Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also undercut the US position, calling Putin “Very shrewd. Very capable. I have enormous respect for him.”

Trump and Pompeo got plenty of exposure on Russian state TV.

Right-wing talk show host Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, voiced what might be the Republican theme: “Who cares? This is a family dispute between two countries. One rather strong, and one very corrupt and weak.”

The loudest defender of the Kremlin view is Tucker Carlson on Fox News. ”Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium,” Carlson explained. “He just wants to keep his western borders secure. That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO, and that makes sense.”

As for Ukraine? “It’s run by a dictator who’s friends with everyone in Washington,” Carlson said.

Conservative commentator Charlie Sykes noted, “Putin is fully aware that he faces a divided US, and that influential voices on the right have been channeling much of his own propaganda.

“By now the cast of Putin’s useful idiots is familiar, ranging from Tucker Carlson and Josh Hawley to Candace Owens, [Marjorie Taylor Greene] and Maria Bartiromo,” Sykes wrote in a Feb. 21 column on “Putin’s right-wing shills.”

“Putin can be forgiven if he thinks his ‘conservative’ allies represent the sentiment of MAGAWorld, coming as they do from some of Trump’s most loyal acolytes,” Sykes wrote. “And he may be especially emboldened if he believes that Trump himself may actually return to the Oval Office. So these right wing shills matter.”

Two weeks into the invasion, Ukraine’s army, using anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons supplied by the US and other NATO nations, was putting up a much tougher resistance than Russia expected. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky appealed for NATO to establish a “no-fly” zone over Ukraine to stop Russian bombardment of the cities, but NATO leaders were wary that enforcing the no-fly zone would risk nuclear retaliation by Russia. However, the New York Times reported that 14 planeloads of weapons and other supplies arrived at one airfield on March 4. 

Russian forces have switched to a scorched-earth campaign, bombing residential neighborhoods and preventing food and other essentials from reaching cities. Russian forces occupy a few cities but they are having trouble keeping their own supply lines flowing. 

Kyiv eventually will fall, and President Zelensky might eventually have to accept NATO’s offer of a ride across the border, to set up a government in exile, but Russian forces will be spread thin trying to occupy Ukraine, and weapons likely will continue to flow across the western border to keep Ukraine’s defenders well-armed. 

After polls and focus groups showed popular support for Ukraine, Republicans have paid lip service to the heroic Ukraine troops, but Senate Republicans are still talking about blocking the omnibus spending bill, which includes $10 billion for Ukraine, as well as $22.5 billion for the ongoing pandemic response. 

Russian and Ukrainian officials have engaged in negotiations with little progress, as Putin is demanding that Ukraine demilitarize, accept the Russian annexation of Crimea and the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. and give up on joining NATO and the EU.

Concerns about Putin’s bellicose ambitions to put the Soviet Union back together have caused the governments of Georgia and Moldava to apply for EU membership while neighbors Finland and Sweden, after generations of neutrality, are considering joining NATO. Finland and Sweden already are sending assault rifles and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine — the first time Sweden is offering military aid since 1939, when it assisted Finland against the Soviet Union. And stereotypically neutral Switzerland has adopted the sanctions the European Union has imposed on Russian companies and froze assets of oligarchs to punish the invasion of Ukraine, 

The Swiss banks turning against Putin must have given pause to Putin’s new ally, President Xi Jinping of China. Before the Beijing Olympics started, Putin and Xi celebrated their alliance. But Putin’s “peacekeeping mission” in Ukraine, which included the threat that he might use nuclear weapons if NATO intervened, has destabilized world markets. Putin has, to borrow a phrase from “Network,” the 1976 film about a deranged TV anchor, “meddled with the primal forces of nature,” for which he must atone. China declined to support Russia in the UN, abstaining on a Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed, as well as a General Assembly resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine.

We don’t often find ourselves on the same side as multinational corporations, but if bankers can get Russian oligarchs, generals and Xi to wonder if this war was really necessary, so be it. Putin is cornered. Will Republicans come to his rescue? — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, April 1, 2022


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist 

Selections from the April 1, 2022 issue

COVER/Andy Lee Roth
and Mickey Huff
The global seafood supply is being contaminated by microplastics, but no major news outlet has paid any attention

EDITORIAL
Putin is cornered


FRANK LINGO
The Earth loses all wars

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

MITCHELL ZIMMERMAN
GOP hostility to Ketanji Brown Jackson goes beyond hypocrisy

DON ROLLINS
Sometimes even the pushers have to pay

RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen 
Can we talk about survival of the planet?

DISPATCHES
Report details ‘unraveling’ of Manhattan DA’s Trump probe that led 2 prosecutors to resign.
Trump led criminal conspiracy, Jan. 6 probe’s lawyers say in court.
State of the Union provides Biden bounce.
Jobs report continues picture of fast and sustained growth. 
Mark Meadows: Living in a mobile home or vote fraudster? 
Republicans are still coming for your health care, Ron Johnson says. 
Senate Republicans would hike taxes on the poorest 40%.
UN sets sights on plastic pollution, vowing to adopt agreement by 2024.
Russian invasion threatens Ukraine nuclear power plants ...


ART CULLEN
Finkenauer brings her blue-collar background to race against Grassley

ALAN GUEBERT
Global food chains face more uncertainty, more instability

SARAH ANDERSON
Biden’s economic plans are solid, but we need action

JOHN YOUNG 
A plunderer needs a pretext

DICK POLMAN 
Is the State of the Union strong enough to extract more domestic sacrifice?


JOEL D. JOSEPH 
Vladimir Putin is a war criminal like Hitler


PHYLLIS BENNIS
The best way to help Ukraine is diplomacy, not war

RICHARD D. WOLFF 
The American political process is disconnected from economic reality


BONNY GARDNER
How Donald Trump conned his blue-collar base


DR. CINTLI
Multiple crises bring out the best and worst in us

HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas  
The poor: Attention must be paid

SAM URETSKY 
AIDS is back

KIMBERLY SHAPPLEY
I’m a Christian mom and I love my trans daughter

WAYNE O’LEARY
Dollars and sense

ERIC BOEHLERT 
Will GOP’s Putin bromance hurt them in November? Press couldn’t care less

JASON SIBERT
Russia’s invansion of Ukraine didn’t have to happen


DAVID J. SCHMIDT 
Do we actually care about the victims of war? The selective nature of ‘solidarity with Ukraine’


BARRY FRIEDMAN 
Anhedonia, or things I used to like

BOB BURNETT 
Ten questions about Urkaine

SETH SANDRONSKY 
California cautiously charts recovery from COVID-19 pandemic

FILM REVIEW/Ed Rampell  
Undergrads of the world, unite!


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
Russia on the rampage: Time to hide under our desks again


GENE NICHOL
The Ukraine rising

and more ...

Populist.com

News | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us 

Sunday, February 27, 2022

The Problem With Democrats

By GENE NICHOL

President Biden said recently he was confident his Supreme Court nominee would secure bi-partisan support:

“I’m not looking to make an ideological choice. I’m looking for someone to replace Justice Breyer with the same kind of capacity Judge Breyer had, with an open mind who understands the Constitution in a way consistent with mainstream interpretation.”

Who could argue with that? An ‘open mind,” a “Justice Breyer,” a “mainstreamer.”

Well …

It’s lousy and modestly unseemly, I realize, to say a word against the retiring. Good grace demands the bestowal of the gold watch and, then, the moving on. Unless, perhaps, a larger and continuing problem lurks in the balance.

Stephen Breyer is a good fellow. And given my odd career, I can even say he’s a congenial lunch guest — thoughtful, professorial, happily interested in a world of learning and culture outside the law. He’s a student of the intricacies – perhaps overly so. After all, he was an administrative law professor at Harvard.

But now let me speak the unforgivable. Stephen Breyer has been on the US Supreme Court for over a quarter century and, for my money, no modern justice has served so long and had so little impact on American constitutional law. I know some will vigorously disagree with that assessment, and disagree even more with having the boorishness to proclaim it. But upon his announced retirement, it was not uncommon, in professorial circles, to ask, can you think of any Breyer opinions that will be remembered?

Maybe I overstate. I sometimes do. But consider the last dozen or so retirements (or deaths) of Supreme Court justices. Folks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, Lewis Powell, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan. Whether one agrees or disagrees with their respective legacies, the footprint is notably larger and decidedly more enduring.

I’m sure President Biden finds the purported Breyer tendency to quietly (and unsuccessfully) seek consensus appealing; and his disingenuous, self-serving assertions that all the justices simply struggle mightily to give meaning (apart from politics) to the constitution reassuring, but they are brutally misplaced on this Trumpist high court. With six, or at least five, zealously committed partisans on the tribunal, such “virtues” only aid and abet.

So why mention the unseemly? First, the times call for a jurist of clarion skill, vision and temperament. The US Supreme Court is now a democracy-threatening, partisan behemoth. A new member, no doubt, will be cast principally, for years to come, in the role of eloquent dissenter – explaining to the nation, and to history, the actions of her majority colleagues. This is, to understate, no time for a timid cobbler and patcher. Any justice Mitch McConnell or Susan Collins warms to will likely fail the test. They’re Kavanaugh folks.

Second, and maybe even more importantly, this notion of definingly accommodationist Democratic decision-making crushes us. For decades, Democratic hopefuls have explained, effectively, they’re just like Republicans, only not so mean. Vote for us, we’re not quite as bad as the other guys. But a diluted right-wing agenda is still a right-wing agenda. It’s no bragging right to be a weaker, paler, softer version of your adversaries.

This absence of actual commitment disserves most profoundly when a nation is undergoing a battle to secure its democratic foundations. We need a champion not a cordial teammate. Bill Clinton appointed two Supreme Court justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Biden sounds like he’s trying to replicate the wrong one.

Gene Nichol is Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law and in 2015 started the North Carolina Poverty Research Fund after the UNC Board of Governors closed the state-funded Poverty Center for publishing articles critical of the governor and General Assembly. 

Satire: Manchurian Candidate, 2.0

By ROSIE SORENSON

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping, made a splashy show of unity, standing in front of massive flags of their respective countries, on Feb. 4, 2022, at the Bejing Olympics.

China’s Foreign Ministry proclaimed, “In a warm and friendly atmosphere, the two Presidents had an in-depth and thorough exchange of views on China-Russia relations and a series of major issues that concern international strategic security and stability.” In his meeting with Putin, Xi even congratulated both China and Russia for having “safeguarded the true spirit of democracy.”

Behind closed doors a different sort of discussion took place at President Xi’s palace. The dictators sat at a mammoth huanghuali table in the leader’s personal conference room, while interpreters stood beside them.

Putin flashed his reptilian smile as he leaned forward and listed for Xi all of his accomplishments toward bringing America to heel.

“I am proud to report that over 70% of the Republican party is now one gigantic sleeper cell—the largest cell in the world. Installing Trump as President made my job easier.”

“Admirable,” said Xi. “Tell me more, comrade.”

“You no doubt know all of the players: Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Leonard Leo, the entire Federalist Society and others. I could go on. They have been activated and are doing a superb job.

“Civil rights is now a thing of the past, no matter how much African Americans complain.

“Women’s rights? On their way out, thanks, in part, to Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

“Children’s rights? Thanks to book banning and book burning to come in many states, their brains will be limited to what our American comrades, such as Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott wish them to know.

“Voting rights? Being suppressed in 30 or more states. They’re eating their young and finding it tasty.”

President Xi says, with a satisfied smile, “We have each come a long way during our many years of friendship, yes?”

“Indeed,” Putin says. “One more version of Trump as president, Trump 2.0, and America is finished.”

“Very fine work, President Putin.” Xi rises up, walks forward to shake Putin’s hand. On the way out of the the conference room, Putin hands Xi a slim package, wrapped in shiny red paper.

As Xi accepts the gift, Putin nods toward it and says, “The 1962 version of ‘The Manchurian Candidate,’ dubbed into Chinese.”

“Many thanks. This one I’ve not yet seen.”

Rosie Sorenson is a humor writer in the San Francisco Bay Area. You can contact her at: RosieSorenson29@yahoo.com

Film Review: Melancholy Danes: A Scandinavian Sunset Blvd.

By ED RAMPELL

“The Pact” is reminiscent of Billy Wilder’s 1950 classic “Sunset Blvd.,” wherein the has-been silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) interacts with the “promising young writer” Joe Gillis.

Academy Award-winning Danish director Bille August’s screen adaptation of Thorkild Bjørnvig’s (played by Simon Bennebjerg) memoir “The Pact,” about his experiences with the celebrated “Out of Africa” novelist Karen Blixen (who was portrayed by Meryl Streep in the 1985 Sydney Pollack-directed film of the same name, but is here played by the Copenhagen-born actress Birthe Neumann), is a movie meditation on the nature of celebrity, wealth, power and how they affect (and afflict) artists. Endowed with fame, Blixen, a baroness ​whose pen name is Isak Dinesen, takes Thorkild – who’s less than half her age – under her wings, arranging for businessman Knud Jensen (Anders Heinrichsen) to subsidize the handsome aspiring writer.

As part of his eponymous “pact” with Blixen, Thorkild moves from his home to reside at the famous authoress’ estate so he can pursue his writing, unobstructed – and so the lonely Blixen can have a young male companion. But not necessarily a lover per se, as Blixen has been afflicted by venereal disease that causes her great pain and rendered her, alas, apparently unable to consummate her amorous longings.

But this doesn’t keep Blixen from meddling in Thorkild’s sex life. She scorns his marriage and parenting as a bourgeois convention, insisting upon a credo whereby artists are an exceptional breed set apart from ordinary people as talents who must be wild and free to pursue passion. Family, Blixen insists, is antithetical to artists’ need to devote themselves solely to creativity and their desires. “The Pact” reveals the impact this has on Thorkild and his literary process, as well as on his wife Grete (Nanna Skaarup Voss) and their little son. One almost expects the much put- upon Grete to write a rejoinder to the meddling Blixen entitled: “Get Out of Africa!”

Thorkild is caught in a web woven by the string-pulling Blixen, whose pact with her young mentee provides the wannabe writer with subsidization, access to Denmark’s glitterati at dazzling soirees, plus a place to live and work. Thorkild’s benefactor, Knud, actually says that financially successful people without talent are obligated to support those who are gifted. This is a dream come true for starving artists everywhere! Blixen even manipulates Knud’s wife, Benedicte (Asta Kamma August), to seek a romance with Thorkild. It all seems to be too good to be true – and it is, as it comes with Blixen’s idiosyncratic strings attached and at too high a price.

“The Pact” is reminiscent of Billy Wilder’s 1950 classic “Sunset Blvd.,” wherein the has-been silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) interacts with the “promising young writer” Joe Gillis (William Holden). Swanson played the “over-the-hill” Norma as being the same age Gloria actually was when she shot “Sunset Blvd.,” about 50. In “The Pact,” Blixen is meant to be 63 years-old, although Birthe Neumann (who co-starred in artsy European films such as 1998’s “Festen,” or “The Celebration”) is really about 75. I realize that in the postwar period being 63 was not the same then as it is now, and to be candid, although she retains some of her beauty, Neumann’s Blixen does look much older than 63.

Onscreen, Blixen resembles Norma Desmond, and I imagine that some of the Dane’s headgear is deliberately intended to evoke memories of Gloria Swanson’s, who was Oscar-nommed for her role as the fading film star who was enraged at being displaced by talkies and then TV, because: “I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.” “Sunset Blvd.” was a Hollywood Noir and Blixen, too, uses the marksmanship she presumably learned in Kenya in a way similar to how Norma did.

Bille August directs “The Pact” with a deft eye, depicting the highfalutin world of the high arts, where artistes are meant to be philosopher kings, above and unlike the rest of we mere mortals, in a naturalistic style. One thing that I didn’t find to be realistic is that this movie set in 1948 in postwar Denmark has absolutely no reference at all to the then-recent Nazi occupation of the Scandinavian nation. Be that as it may, August is a gifted filmmaker who previously directed Max von Sydow in 1987’s “Pelle the Conqueror”; von Sydow was Oscar-nommed for Best Actor, while “Pelle” scored the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. August’s star-studded1993 adaptation of Isabel Allende’s novel “The House of the Spirits” featured Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons.

The 73-year-old Danish helmer’s almost two-hour “The Pact” is a thought provoking, moody movie. It reminded me of other films about how celebrityhood affects writers and other artists, such as the 2021 documentary “The Capote Tapes.” Neumann’s Karen Blixen is, like Norma Desmond, “Ready for her closeup.”

“The Pact” opened at New York’s Quad Cinema on Feb. 11 and at Los Angeles’ Nuart Theatre and San Francisco’s ​Landmark’s Opera Plaza on Feb. 18.

Ed Rampell is a film historian and critic based in Los Angeles. Rampell is the author of “Progressive Hollywood, A People’s Film History of the United States” and he co-authored “The Hawaii Movie and Television Book,” now in its third edition. This first appeared at hollywoodprogressive.com.

Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

Unfair Labor Practice Strike at California Art College

By SETH SANDRONSKY

California College of the Arts employees in the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 walked off the job Feb. 8-11 at the Oakland and San Francisco campuses. The labor union, which also represents CCA adjunct faculty, alleged that the employer is committing unfair labor practices that violate federal law in the first such labor action at a private college in California since a brief one-day work stoppage at Pepperdine University 46 years ago.

The employer and represented employees began the bargaining process for a first contract in October 2019. According to Bloomberg Law, the median time (half above and below) to negotiate a first labor contract is one year. Early last December, 97% of the CCA staff that SEIU Local 1021 represents, voted to authorize its contract negotiating members to call a strike.

The protracted contract negotiations did not sit well with about 100 CCA staff (admissions officers, librarians, IT specialists and studio managers) in SEIU Local 1021 who in early February, walked a picket line to win economic demands, such as higher pay, in the high-rent SF Bay Area. Most represented workers have had no raises since January 2020 and no retirement contributions for a full year, according to SEIU. 

The lowest paid SEIU Local 1021 worker earns just under $37,000 annually, the highest gets $110,000 per year, according to the union. One of the strikers walking the picket line is Cynthia Santos. She is a CCA support specialist and alumnus, who has been involved with the private college since 2011.

David Owens-Hill is a CCA spokesperson. “CCA remains ready and willing to negotiate as frequently as needed to achieve a fair and mutually beneficial collective bargaining agreement with our unionized staff,” he told The Progressive Populist. “The college has a comprehensive proposal on the table that provides wage increases for our valued staff while also maintaining our ongoing commitment to student financial aid and a financially sustainable future for the college. At a time when we are making rapid progress in negotiations and have reached agreement on so many items, a strike benefits no one—not our staff, not our faculty, and certainly not our students, who have just returned to fully in-person classes for the first time in nearly two years. 

“The college has called on the union to show respect for the process and continue our progress by coming back to the negotiating table. Our goal is to work together to reach an agreement as quickly as possible, and return everyone’s full energy and focus to our core mission of educating students.”   

The CCA strike shut down regular operations and classes during the four day-strike, and put the administration’s unfair labor practices and refusal to bargain in good faith into news media and public discussion, Jennie Camejo of SEIU Local 1021, told The Progressive Populist. “We hope that administration will be ready to come back to the table serious about reaching a fair, equitable agreement for all staff and for adjuncts as well. We will continue to keep the pressure on until that happens.”

Employee militancy is part of—not apart from—the pandemic economy. There is a demographic angle on militant employees. 

According to labor reporter Mike Elk in “How Black & Brown Workers Are Redefining the Strike in a Digital COVID Era,” nonwhite workers are in the vanguard of the strike wave during the pandemic. “With essential workers disproportionately hailing from communities of color, the strike wave movement has been particularly strong in these communities,” he writes.

Where do things go next for CCA and its union employees seeking a fair first contract? “We have agreed to enter mediation and have offered dates for both the staff unit and the adjunct unit,” according to Camejo, “but CCA has not responded, despite claiming publicly that they want to go back to the table and reach an agreement as quickly as possible.”

Seth Sandronsky lives and works in Sacramento. He is a journalist and member of the Pacific Media Workers Guild. Email sethsandronsky@gmail.com.

Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

When Rock-and-Rollers Grow Up

By ROB PATTERSON

One could fill a small library with the plethora of books about the music and culture of the 1960s and the times to follow. For readers who wish to revisit or get acquainted with the era, Jonathan Taplin’s aptly-titled memoir, “The Magic Years: Scenes from a Rock-and-Roll Life,” stands head and shoulders above the usual fare of memories and tales from that era.

When your associations are the likes of Bob Dylan, The Band, George Harrison and Martin Scorsese and you were in the hurricane’s eye at such landmark events as Dylan going electric rock at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, Woodstock, the Concert for Bangladesh and The Last Waltz, you have stories well worth reading. But what makes Taplin’s book distinctive to me is as much his own life as those noted and celebrated people he’s worked and interacted with.

Admittedly, I identify with Taplin, who like me is an Episcopalian from an upper-middle class family who was enchanted by the bohemian musical and intellectual ideals of our youth and the Leftist political strains that aspired to imbue higher purpose and richer humanity into the culture at large. As well, we both landed by fate as much as our own pursuit into fascinating lives in the upper slipstreams of rock’n’roll (we spell it differently) and the times that were a-changin’ and continued to do follow that wind in the decades to follow. I’ve also been a road manager, as Taplin did with Jim Kweskin Jug Band and The Band. I grew up not that far behind him into the countercultural hopes for a better, fairer, more just and enlightened world.

When Taplin says “scenes,” he’s not kidding. The chapters and his remembrances of the events and movements he’s traveled through read rather much like the best advice I’ve ever run across for composing a film scene: Be like the best kind of party guest by arriving late and leaving early. To wit, after his earlier rock and folk music life he produced Martin Scorsese’s debut feature film, “Mean Streets,” as well as “Under Fire” and “To Die For,” plus TV documentaries for PBS. 

The book travels at an efficient clip through some of the major cultural movements of the last six decades right up to our current rather dire and turbulent times. His previous book is “Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.” is a dive into a major skein that affects our contemporary culture, media commerce and politics. On finishing “The Magic Years,” I immediately checked it out from my local library as (fittingly) an ebook.

Taplin’s smarts and sagacity are to be treasured today. As a passage early in this tome reads, “[A]s I am finishing this book, those painfully functioning institutions are putting our society – savaged by a pandemic, a financial depression, and a racial justice crisis – into danger … This book is about the sense of possibility that allows culture to be at its most vital and powerful, even in difficult times. It’s about culture eating politics for breakfast.” Let’s hope it can.

Taplin is something of a Mr. Tambourine Man as a storyteller, enchanting the reader to follow him into the jingle jangle morning of what truly were “Magic Years.” His stories of his times among the celebrated at key cultural junctures are the appetizing breadcrumbs that make this book an eminently readable joy. But it’s the soulful resonances that mark it as important.

Without his explicitly saying so, I am confident that Taplin – even after a stint in the quite compromised realm of high finance – still holds to the ideals and aspirations that nourished the spirit of the ‘60s. I believe that his Episcopal faith, like mine, underlies that. At time when too often the “Christianity” of too many represents repugnant notions that contradict the teachings and mission of Jesus, we dearly if not desperately need more public voices like his.

Populist Picks

TV Documentary: “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power” – Coincidentally, I was viewing this 1992 six-part series produced by Taplin from Daniel Yergin’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book. The story of oil-based energy is the story of how our modern times came to be.



TV Documentary: “The Port of Last Resort” – A fascinating look at how some 20,000 European Jews were spared from the Nazi Holocaust and made it through World War II alive by emigrating to Shanghai, China.

Rob Patterson is a music and entertainment writer in Austin, Texas. Email orca@prismnet.com.


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

Fierce Urgency of Now

 By HANK KALET

Edward Abbey has described the American wilderness as our collective home. The radical anarchist/environmentalist erected this metaphor to justify an aggressive program of targeted vandalism, referred to as “monkeywrenching.”

“Monkey-wrenching,” as defined by his fellow anarchist Dave Foreman, is the strategic disruption of commercial systems by individuals gumming up the works, by tossing a “monkeywrench into the gears of the machine that is destroying natural diversity.”

Abbey and Foreman saw the erosion and destruction of wilderness areas and the natural diversity they contained as an existential threat. Defense of the wild, they would argue, is defense of ecological diversity, of clean air and water, of a livable planet. Corporate interests, Abbey argued, were “bashing their way into our forests, mountains and rangelands and looting them for everything they can get away with,” all for “short-term profits in the corporate sector.”

These “three-piece-suited gangsters” of industry were the stranger at the door, the push-in robber who “threatens your family and yourself with deadly weapons, and proceeds to loot your home of whatever he wants.” We, as the “householder,” Abbey says, have “both the right and the obligation” to defend ourselves, our family and our property “by whatever means are necessary.”

Abbey and Foreman make these points in “Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching,” which was originally published in 1985 and updated several times since, well before we understood the full calamity facing the planet. In the intervening three-plus decades, the existential threat has only grown worse and encompasses ore than just the loss of biodiversity and undeveloped land. Sea levels are rising dramatically, droughts and extreme weather events are occurring more frequently, and parasitical species are spreading. And we are to blame.

Despite this, the national conversation about the climate has been lacking. Extensive programs like the Green New Deal — a collection of polices that would redesign our infrastructure and economy — has been dismissed as too expensive, while climate-change-deniers have taken over one of the two major political parties in this country, effectively ending any chance to shift direction.

So, where does this leave us? Environmental summits like COP26, which took place last fall, are useful but limited. As Grist reported, an agreement was reached “limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit),” which “represents the most dramatic step forward for international climate progress since the Paris Agreement in 2015.”

The Glasgow agreement, said Alok Sharma, president of the conference, “charts a course for the world to deliver on promises made” in the past.

And yet, they remain pledges, promises, dependent on national political will to actually make the changes needed. Much of this will leaves us at the mercy of corporate interests that have little incentive to change and that use their vast wealth to influence government action. Already, the major petroleum and natural gas companies are seeking ways to protect their businesses from international action, even as they pay lip service to going green. And government officials, especially in the United States, are shying away from straight talk on carbon, fearing the inevitable backlash when gasoline prices rise or energy companies threaten to jettison jobs.

This brings me back to Abbey, Foreman and “monkeywrenching.” I’ve taught Abbey’s essay numerous times, and its prescriptions have always seemed problematic to me, mostly because they seem less likely to harm the prospects of corporations than of the men and women who do the work. Spiking trees — which does not harm the trees — damages chain saws and other equipment, often leaving workers without the tools of their trades while the larger corporations write off the losses.

Still, we can look to Abbey and Foreman for inspiration, look to their calls for civil disobedience and direct action, and see in their willingness make trouble a way of challenging power. As Heather Alberro writes at The Conversation, the traditional lobbying organizations that have long been the public face of the environmental movement are more interested in nibbling at the edges and “making industrial capitalism more sustainable.” They ply their trades in the halls of Congress, but need help from the grassroots to push the agenda.

Civil disobedience is needed: occupation of land (see Dakota Pipeline protests, the early labor movement), small-scale and targeted vandalism (such as the actions taken by the Ploughshares group against nuclear weapons), and mass protests.

“These are desperate times,” she writes. And desperate times, what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. might describe as “the fierce urgency of now,” require immediate action, forceful action.

Hank Kalet is a poet and journalist in New Jersey. Email, hankkalet@gmail.com; Twitter, @newspoet41; Instagram, @kaletwrites; Substack, hankkaltet.substack.com.


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

Yuri Andropov, Mitch McConnell and the Search for Humanity

By BARRY FRIEDMAN

Reviewing the unmitigated disaster of “The Greek Tycoon” (1978), which starred Jacqueline Bisset and Anthony Quinn, and the penance they should pay for appearing in such dreck, Jack Kroll, the great film and drama critic for Newsweek, said the two actors should be forced to take a written exam before being allowed back into the human race.

If you’ve seen the movie, you know Kroll was being kind.

Which brings us, believe it not, to two people, at various times in their lives, who needed to sit for the exam: Yuri Andropov, former Soviet Union premier, and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), presently the minority leader of the United States Senate.

After he became the sixth paramount leader of the Soviet Union and the fourth general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (the place had as many titles as the Corleone Family had buffers), Andropov was inexplicably treated to a kinder, gentler American press looking for a kinder, gentler Soviet premier. 

Andropov, a short, dull brute of a man — earlier in his career, he had been described by the New York Times as engaging “in a fairly successful campaign to throttle the recent wave of liberal dissidence” — was being characterized in the Washington Post as “silver-haired and dapper … tall and urbane,” and someone who collected “abstract art and likes jazz and Gypsy music.” Time magazine, in fact, said he was a “witty conversationalist and a bibliophile.” 

The softening of Andropov, the former head of the KGB, was disturbing in part because KGB heads, like today’s Republicans, don’t spend much time wrestling with life’s ambiguities. It’s just easier for some to throw physicists in the gulag, fine teachers for assigning Toni Morrison’s “Beloved,” and rail against Jewish space lasers than it is for others.

Even if the stories about Andropov were true — and according to a piece by Edward Jay Epstein in the Feb. 7, 1983, New Republic, they weren’t — you’d like to think reporters wouldn’t have been so quick to talk of a new and improved Yuri just because there were stories he might be sitting barefoot in a dacha, toe-tapping to Ellington at Newport. Andropov, after all, was the guy chosen to head the KGB after Nikita Khrushchev was ousted for being too liberal. Not sure what the thinking was at the time, unless it was “Sure, Andropov crushed dissidents, imprisoned Andrei D. Sakharov for speaking out on human rights, and restored and invigorated the Soviet Union’s secret police, but he liked ‘Jeep’s Blues,’ so how bad can he be?”

“We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election from one administration to the next.”

The same person also said this: 

“There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the event of that day.”

That the above two quotes came from Mitch McConnell made some wonder if there was something fundamentally different about him than the rest of the invertebrates in the Republican Party who would sell America down a polluted river for 18 holes at Mar-a-Lago. 

Was there a humanity to McConnell we had all missed?

Here was the president of the United States — the current one — during a joint address to Congress last year. Joe Biden’s son, Beau, and the story has been well told, had died of brain cancer in 2015, and McConnell called on the Senate to rename in his honor a bill accelerating cancer research. 

“I’ll still never forget when we passed the cancer proposal in the last year I was vice president, almost $9 million going to NIH,” Biden said, referring to the National Institutes of Health. “You’ll excuse the point of personal privilege — I’ll never forget you standing, Mitch, and saying, naming it after my deceased son. It meant a lot.”

When Beau Biden died, one national Republican officeholder went to the funeral: Mitch McConnell.

Does this make him any less of a blight on our national discourse? Did the books on Andropov’s shelf make him any less of one?

Debatable.

McConnell’s sins — and I’d need this entire edition of The Progressive Populist to elucidate them all — are vast and deep and unconscionable, so at the end of the day, at the end of the election cycle, at the end of the Republic, if it comes to that, it really doesn’t matter whether he hugged Joe Biden at a memorial service or gave lip service to Trump’s culpability for an insurrection any more than it matters that Yuri Andropov could be a witty raconteur at the end of a long day of crushing Hungarian and Czech resistance.

But their quirks — the good ones, anyway — are worth mentioning.

Unless they’re not. Occasional flashes of humanity can be overrated and confusing. 

If only those written tests actually existed.

Barry Friedman is an essayist, political columnist, petroleum geology reporter and comedian living in Tulsa, Okla. In addition to “Funny You Should Mention It,” “Road Comic,” “Four Days and a Year Later” and “The Joke Was On Me,” his first novel, “Jacob Fishman’s Marriages,” a book about the worst love story ever, was published by Balkan Press in February. See barrysfriedman.com.


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

The Promise

By WAYNE O'LEARY

The awkwardness of identity politics Democratic-style has come back to smack President Biden and his administration full in the face and create a mini political crisis where none previously existed. At issue is the Supreme Court opening created by the pending retirement of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a leftover Clinton appointee, whose seat Biden will now seek to fill.

Putting aside for the moment whatever roadblocks Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will throw in front of any Democratic nominee to slow down and frustrate the process, the fact remains that the president is faced with a problem of his own making dating back to the 2020 campaign. Biden is in a box. He mortgaged his first Court selection to South Carolina’s Democratic political boss Rep. James E. Clyburn, whose loyal Black supporters pushed Biden across the line in that state’s pivotal presidential primary; now Clyburn is calling in payment for his crucial endorsement, the price Biden readily agreed to at the time — a Black, female appointment to the high court at the earliest opportunity.

Clyburn not only wants a Black woman justice, he’s already submitted his preference, further tying the president’s hands. The anointed choice is J. Michelle Childs, a South Carolina US district court judge and longtime Clyburn ally, who also has the backing of state Republicans (including GOP Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott); it appears they would consider her a safely “bipartisan” (read: sufficiently conservative) selection.

If picked, Childs promises to continue what has become a party tradition in recent decades: the naming by Democratic presidents of relatively conservative justices to the high court, a pattern begun under Bill Clinton and carried on by Barack Obama. Childs’ sponsor, Rep. Clyburn, is a centrist Democrat — some would say a conservative — who would never counsel Joe Biden to pick an out-and-out liberal.  His previous foray into national party politics was joining the successful effort last year to deny Bernie Sanders ally Nina Turner a congressional nomination for Ohio’s heavily black Cuyahoga County in favor of an establishment alternative.

At this writing, Biden’s Court selection remains to be announced, but if recent experience is any guide, it won’t be anyone especially progressive. Another leading contender, California State Supreme Court Judge Leondra Kruger, is described by The Economist as somebody who has often sided with conservative jurists. Other possible choices have similarly “moderate” records.

Over the last 50 years, Democratic presidents have submitted five Supreme Court nominations (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and the non-confirmed Merrick Garland), none of them left-leaning in historical terms and each appearing “liberal” only in comparison to their Republican-appointed contemporaries. None of these Democratic jurists, furthermore, rank anywhere close ideologically to the most aggressively progressive Court members of the past century.

In 2016 and again in 2018, academic Court analysts, led by Prof. Lee Epstein of Washington University in St. Louis, positioned the modern-day justices along a left-right spectrum and concluded, based on their decisions, that only two, Sotomayor and Ginsburg, truly qualified as liberals, while Kagan and Breyer fell into the Court’s ideological middle, earning the label “median” justices. Notwithstanding Ginsburg’s media-driven reputation as a liberal feminist icon, Sotomayor was the furthest left of the group, with Breyer furthest right, followed by Kagan.

The ill-fated Garland, had he joined the Court, would have fallen close to the more conservative Breyer. Breyer, it should be noted, exhibited an annoying tendency to align himself with GOP members on questions involving corporations and business interests, a fact that should mute his departure celebrations; he voted the conservative position on cases over 40% of the time during his career.

The foregoing is another way of saying that Biden’s predecessors, Clinton and Obama, were not primarily motivated to seek out crusading liberal jurists. For both of them, the top priority appears to have been satisfying the needs of gender-based identity politics. Things are no different for Joe Biden in 2022 except that, in his case, race has been added to the mix.

Ideally, the president should be looking for the best possible legal mind available and, since he represents a liberal party presently submerged by right-wing jurisprudence, the most progressive confirmable nominee obtainable to help redress the balance. Sadly, however, legal philosophy doesn’t appear to be remotely a part of the White House calculations.

Instead, it’s all about racial politics. Whichever Black woman is selected will serve to pay off James Clyburn and his nonwhite constituency. To be fair, Republican presidents follow the same course.  Recent Court addition Amy Coney Barrett was obviously picked in part to pay off the GOP’s conservative White evangelicals. Supreme Court nominations have regrettably become an occasion for stroking the respective party bases and massaging their group identities.

An ABC News/Ipsos opinion poll published on Jan. 30 suggested the public is far ahead of the politicians when it comes to the makeup of the Supreme Court. Three quarters (76%) of those interviewed agreed the president should consider “all possible nominees” for the high-court opening and not just Black women; those favoring a restricted selection process were a distinct minority.

It should be stressed that competence and credentials are not the issue here. As far as interested observers can tell, the Black women candidates mentioned are qualified for the bench. But the fact is so are representatives of other deserving groups lacking insider status, who’ve been neglected. Black women comprise approximately 6% of the US population; that leaves 94% of Americans, including many whose race or ethnicity has never been represented on the Court, among them Native Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, Polish Americans, Greek Americans, Franco Americans — to name just a few.

Or take religion. At present, the Court is made up entirely of Catholics and Jews. But what about Protestants, whose last representative, David Souter, retired in 2009? And what about unblievers? Atheists and agnostics comprise 20% of the population. Don’t they deserve a sitting justice? Surely, Muslims should be represented as well. It’s obvious that if we wish, identity politics as regards the law can be carried to absurd extremes.

It’s not a question of what racial-ethnic-religious affiliation a prospective justice has, but what their thought process is, how they view the law, and how they would fairly apply the Constitution to modern life. Someone tell Joe Biden.

Wayne O’Leary is a writer in Orono, Maine, specializing in political economy. He holds a doctorate in American history and is the author of two prizewinning books. 


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2022 The Progressive Populist

Have Gun Will Rattle

By SAM URETSKY

Harper’s Magazine, August 2010, had a cover article “Happiness Is a Worn Gun:  My concealed weapon and me” by Dan Baum. Mr Baum wrote, “in every book about concealed carry that I read, much was made of “conditions of readiness,” which are color-coded from white to red. Condition White is total oblivion to one’s surroundings—sleeping, being drunk or stoned, losing oneself in conversation while walking on city streets, texting while listening to an iPod. Condition Yellow is being aware of, and taking an interest in, one’s surroundings—essentially, the mental state we are encouraged to achieve when we are driving: keeping our eyes moving, checking the mirrors, being careful not to let the radio drown out the sounds around us. …” Essentially, people carrying guns are on the alert for reasons to use the gun.

An interesting description of the personality of a firearms advocate of the past appears in a book by Bat Masterson, who, in 1902, moved to New York and became a sports writer for the Morning Telegraph. Like any freelance writer he would write anything that promised a paycheck, including the 1907 “Famous Gunfighters of the Western Frontier.”) “… Doc Holliday was a weakling who could not have whipped a healthy 15-year-old boy ... and knowledge of this fact was perhaps why he was so ready to resort to a weapon of some kind whenever he got himself into difficulty. ...”

Currently, 28 states have some version of a “stand your ground” law, which would permit the use of deadly force in self defense. The best known is probably Florida’s, which states, “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” 

Other states may limit the right to use deadly force to specific locations, such as home, business, or automobile. As for “reasonably believes” – there is something of a presumption of reasonableness, which would be impossible to disprove if the only person who might testify against it is dead.

According to the web site , “Beginning Sept. 1, 2021, HB1927 made it legal in Texas for most people 21 or over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit both openly and/or concealed. This law modified the previous open carry law from 2016 by eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry. This means that most people 21 or over may carry a handgun without a license to carry.” There are still a few locations where carrying a weapon is not permitted, but not that many.

Basically, if you’re a Texan, you can buy a gun, strap it on your hip, and go wandering the streets feeling either safe or at least patriotic. Gov. Greg Abbott said that he was signing a bill to protect gun rights and freedom. Texas police, on the other hand, were disappointed, particularly since there was a 65% growth in the number of mass shootings in Texas in 2021.

The simple reality is that there are many people, in Texas and elsewhere, who are afraid of any sort of confrontation, even somebody trying to cut the line in a supermarket, or racing to a parking space. This is the type of argument that should be resolved by an exchange of insults, and usually one person will back down or walk away. But, if each person can see that the other is carrying a firearm, that may initiate an escalation to violence. The prevalence of paranoia has been estimated at between 2.3 and 4.4%, more commonly among men. According to the Merck Manual “(People with paranoid personality disorder) are hypervigilant for potential insults, slights, threats, and disloyalty and look for hidden meanings in remarks and actions. They closely scrutinize others for evidence to support their suspicions. For example, they may misinterpret an offer of help as implication that they are unable to do the task on their own. If they think that they have been insulted or injured in any way, they do not forgive the person who injured them. They tend to counterattack or to become angry in response to these perceived injuries. Because they distrust others, they feel a need to be autonomous and in control.”

And in Texas they’re increasingly likely to be armed and dangerous.

Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in Louisville, Ky. Email sdu01@outlook.com.