Monday, July 24, 2017

Toss Out Your Milquetoast Campaign Slogans: It’s Time to Build Power

To win elections, People’s Action is mobilizing from the grassroots.

Laurel Wales teaches people how to run for public office, but her aim isn’t just to win elections. She hopes to build a broader, stronger progressive movement and a more representative democracy. “We want to change how elections happen,” she says. “We’re teaching them not only how to run for office, but what it looks like to run with the movement, for the movement, by the movement.”

Wales is the deputy director of movement politics at People’s Action, which is cultivating people to run at every level of government. It now has a slate of roughly 400 candidates who are planning to run on its “Rise Up” platform, which begins: “We are under attack—as poor and working people, as immigrants and refugees, as women, LGBTQ people, Muslims, as indigenous nations, and as people of color. We are under attack by growing corporate power that takes from our families and communities. But we refuse to be defined by these attacks. We know that, rising up together, we will win.”

People’s Action (formerly National People’s Action) had its founding convention in April, 100 days after Donald Trump took office. About 50 affiliate organizations and 1,300 members were present, including 72 of the candidates that it has trained—a few of whom addressed the convention. Wales recently spoke with In These Times about what’s next for the campaign.

Theo Anderson: How is a People’s Action campaign differently from, say, a generic Democratic campaign?

Laurel Wales: If you’re working for a [traditional] political campaign, you run for nine months and then, the day after the election, it all closes down. And that infrastructure is gone. But we see elections as a way to do deep leadership development with our base and train them on how to have conversations with voters. It’s not just about the candidate but about the program we’re building and what we’re fighting for on a larger scale.

The other piece is that we really work with folks to not use milquetoast campaign messaging—stuff that we hear all the time about good jobs and education. We really try to bring in the ‘why.’ And we put bold issues in front of folks. And we do not shy away from race. We see racism as something that has been used to divide us. If we’re not talking about it, and if we’re not moving voters to think about their relationship to that, we will never build the movement that we need to win.

We really try to put women, LGBTQ folks and people of color front-and-center when it comes to who’s running for office. There are a lot of structural barriers that have been put in place that make it difficult for them to run, and to win. So, we don’t want to throw just anyone out there and say, “You have to run now.” We try to be strategic about who they need to know, what base they need to be building, and how much money they need to raise. We want to be sure that we’re not just a protest movement, but that we really are clear about how to win and gain governing power. So, if it’s not the right time or moment for the people we’re working with, we’re not going to force them to run.

Theo: What does the relationship between People’s Action and the candidates look like after the trainings?

Laurel: We’re looking to build support structures and relationships. We believe that it’s incredibly important to not think about this as one individual at a time, but as a cohort and a wave of people who are really thinking about governing.

We know that, once they get elected, they’re going to face a set of other pressures. Once you get into government, it’s hard. You’ve got lobbyists coming to visit you. You’ve got constituents and communities coming to ask for your vote. So, we’re building a cohort of folks who have run from our base, who are part of our movement, and can use each other for support once they’re in government.

Theo: What effect did the election last fall have on recruitment?

Laurel: Folks felt some inspiration from the Bernie Sanders’ message around a political revolution. And then, when Trump won, there was a level of rage and outcry against what had happened. And those two pieces together have set people up to say, “I can really do this.”

We focus a lot on running on people of color for office, and when they look at who currently represents them, and they see a majority of older, white men, that is also helping spark a feeling of ‘enough is enough.’ And with the support that we’re able to provide, and the community they’re building with us, they’re getting ready to take that step.

Theo: So many progressives write off the Democratic Party as a broken vehicle for progressive values. How do you navigate that challenge?

Laurel: We are not afraid of challenging corporate or neoliberal Democrats. We’re also not afraid to challenge Democrats who have been bad on race, class and gender issues. The Democratic Party is a longstanding institution and a field of struggle. There are a lot of relationships and connections to the party. But, at the same time, we’ve seen Democrats pass and push for legislation that doesn’t work for working people, communities of color and low-income communities.

In a campaign led by Maine People's Alliance, voters voted to raise the minimum wage and eliminate the state’s tip credit. It was on the ballot last year and won by an 11-point margin. And then, this year, we saw the Democrats restore the tip credit [which allows restaurant owners to pay workers below the minimum wage]. That was done by Democrats. They could have stopped it, and they didn’t. And we will not support the kind of Democrats who do that.

Different strategies might work in different areas. And in some areas, a third party might be an option. But that isn’t true everywhere. We care more about how we get to a place where we have a stronger, more reflective democracy and candidates who are willing to co-govern with the people in their community. So that’s why we we’re not just building the Democratic Party, but we’re building something that can both push and use the party as a vehicle to do this work. We’re building a movement that relates to a party, or the parties. How do we get to a place of co-governance, where the people in our communities really feel heard and feel that they are part of the government process?

Theo: People’s Action is interesting and rare, in that it’s best known for movement work, but also does this electoral work, and tries to bridge the two.

Laurel: We can either let elections happen to us or for us. And, for a long time, the progressive movement has let elections happen to us. As somebody who has gone back and forth between community organizing and election work, I’ve felt that deep divide for a long time.

But I really feel that we can start to bring those two fields together. It can be deep, relational community organizing in the context of an election. That’s what good politics is. And that’s why we don’t call ourselves just a political program. We want a radical change in the way politics is done. And we’ve seen it work. We can’t keep doing things the same way and expect different results. We have to start thinking differently about the way that we do this work, and bringing those fields together.


How Amazon Crushes Local Economies & Gets Tax Breaks To Do It

Michael Mann Responds to ‘Uninhabitable Earth’

People & Power - The Koch Brothers

Koch Brothers EXPOSED: 2014 (ft. Bernie Sanders)

EU spreads lies about Israel boycott

A senior European Union representative has been advised to malign Palestine solidarity campaigners.

Vera Jourova, the EU’s justice commissioner, was given a briefing paper earlier this year about how to handle various topics in a discussion with the pro-Israel lobby.

Drawn up by Brussels officials, the paper provides some talking points about the EU’s “position” on the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. It alleges that “the encouragement of boycotts against cultural and academic institutions or artists” contradicts the “EU’s stand on non-discrimination and freedom of expression.”

That paints a false picture of the BDS movement. Its activities are subject to guidelines, which make clear that the cultural boycott does not target Israeli artists as individuals.

The cultural boycott is, instead, applied to artists who represent the Israeli state or institutions complicit in Israeli crimes or take part in branding exercises intended to divert attention away from the oppression of Palestinians.

Jourova’s briefing paper – which was obtained under freedom of information rules – can be read below. It was prepared ahead of a Holocaust memorial ceremony held in January this year.

The ceremony was hosted by Israel’s embassy to the EU and the American Jewish Committee, a pro-Israel advocacy group.

The officials who drew up the paper recycle almost verbatim accusations made in 2016 by Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU’s anti-Semitism coordinator. Von Schnurbein had claimed that “anti-Semitic incidents rise after BDS activities” in Europe’s universities. She was unable to provide specific examples of such incidents when asked.

Jourova’s office did not respond to requests for comment.


The BDS National Committee, a Palestinian umbrella group that coordinates boycott activities, stated that it was “appalled” by Jourova’s briefing paper. The document “defamed the BDS movement as anti-Semitic,” Ingrid Jaradat, a legal adviser to the committee, stated.

A crucial detail omitted from the briefing paper is that the BDS movement has consistently denounced anti-Jewish bigotry.

Jourova’s briefing paper is at odds with previous comments made by other EU representatives.

The Union’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini stated last year that the EU “stands firm in protecting freedom of expression.” Although she opposed the boycott of Israel, Mogherini recognized that activists have a right to advocate BDS tactics. That right is protected by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Despite the clarity of that statement, some of the EU’s institutions and governments have continued to cast aspersions against the Palestine solidarity movement.

Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has conflated opposition to Israel’s state ideology Zionism with hatred of Jews. On Sunday, Macron called anti-Zionism “a mere re-invention of anti-Semitism.”


Macron’s comments echo a decades-long effort by Israel and its supporters to imply that Palestine solidarity activists have ulterior motives. The efforts have been undertaken since at least 1973, when Abba Eban, Israel’s foreign minister at the time, labeled anti-Zionism as the “new anti-Semitism.”

That deliberate dishonesty has been reflected by a dubious definition of anti-Semitism approved last year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental body.

That definition is virtually identical to one which was proposed by pro-Israel lobby groups more than a decade earlier. It recommends that strong criticism of Israel – such as describing that state’s foundation as a “racist endeavor” – should be seen as anti-Semitic.

Even the definition’s lead author, formerly a senior figure in the American Jewish Committee, has strongly criticized efforts to use it to stifle speech critical of Israel.

Yet the German government has been particularly supportive of the definition. In late 2016, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, then the German foreign minister, contacted senior EU officials to argue that the definition was a “very useful instrument for combating anti-Semitism – both for the police and in science and education.”

The definition is not legally binding. Yet 24 of the EU’s 28 governments have endorsed it. According to internal documents, police services in a number of the Union’s countries are already using the definition for training purposes.

During a visit to Israel last month, Jourova issued a joint statement with her hosts applauding the European Parliament for endorsing the definition. She encouraged governments to use it while monitoring their citizens’ activities.

Not for the first time, the European Union’s representatives are sending out mixed signals. Supposed champions of free speech are trying to muzzle dissent. Solidarity is being smeared to placate an increasingly belligerent Israeli government.

The only way to defeat Trump— and to redeem what is worth saving in liberal democracy—is to detach ourselves from liberal democracy’s corpse and establish a new Left.

Elements of the program for this new Left are easy to imagine.

Trump promises the cancellation of the big free trade agreements supported by Clinton, and the left alternative to both should be a project of new and different international agreements.

Such agreements would establish public control of the banks, ecological standards, workers rights, universal healthcare, protections of sexual and ethnic minorities, etc.

The big lesson of global capitalism is that nation states alone cannot do the job—only a new political international has a chance of bridling global capital.

Excerpt from:
“We Must Rise from the Ashes of Liberal Democracy”