Sunday, August 9, 2020

The Failure of the Podemos Model and the Future of the Spanish Left



Will and Henry Bacha August 8, 2020

https://citizentruth.org/the-failure-of-the-podemos-model-and-the-future-of-the-spanish-left/

“The Galician and Basque elections have revealed yet another example of the generational tensions – between left-wing youth and conservatively-inclined older voters – that have in recent years emerged as one of the most significant political dynamics in the Western world.”

On Sunday, July 12, voters in Galicia and Basque Country went to the polls to vote in the first regional elections held in Spain since the general election of November 10, 2019. The elections were originally scheduled to be held on April 5 but were postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The July 12 regional elections therefore marked Podemos’ first electoral opportunity following its entry into the national government as the coalition partner of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s PSOE, and the subsequent installation of party leader Pablo Iglesias as Second Deputy Prime Minister of Spain.

Against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic and social devastation, the Galician and Basque regional elections might have appeared, at first glance, to provide Podemos with an excellent opportunity to continue to build electoral power on a regional level. In the weeks and months preceding the election, the pandemic and the subsequent economic fallout had already vindicated some core elements of Podemos’ platform, from resisting and rolling back privatization of in the healthcare sector to the concept of an ingreso mínimo vital (universal basic income), a limited version of which has been approved by the Sánchez government.

Nevertheless, July 12 held no such success in store for Podemos’ Galician and Basque regional affiliates. While pre-election polls indicated that both Elkarrekin Podemos-IU (the electoral coalition composed of the Basque affiliates of Podemos and Izquierda Unida) and Galicia en Común (the alliance cobbled together by the Galician affiliates of Podemos, Izquierda Unida, and several minor nationalist parties following the dissolution of En Marea) were facing a potentially steep erosion of electoral support and parliamentary representation, even the most unfavorable polling did not foretell the magnitude of their respective defeats.

Elkarrekin Podemos-IU lost five of its eleven seats in the Basque Parliament and over 85,000 votes from its 2016 total. Meanwhile, in Galicia, four years after taking 19.1% of the vote and 14 seats in the 75-seat Parliament of Galicia during the 2016 regional elections – both exceeding the vote share and matching the number of seats won by the PSdG-PSOE, the Galician affiliate of Sánchez’s PSOE – Galicia en Común hemorrhaged over 220,000 votes, losing all of its seats in the Parliament of Galicia and failing to crack 4% of total ballots cast.

With the collapse of Podemos in Galicia and Basque Country, it is the major left-wing nationalist parties active in each autonomous community – the Bloque Nacionalista Galego (BNG) and Euskal Herria Bildu (EH Bildu) – that today represent the only viable left alternatives to the dominant right-wing ruling parties, the Partido Popular de Galicia (PPdG) and the Basque Nationalist Party (EAJ-PNV).


July 12 was one of the most successful election nights in the history of the BNG, with the party winning 19 seats and 23.8% of the vote, up from only six seats and 8.3% in 2016. Due to Podemos’ electoral disaster and the stagnant performance of the PSdeG, the BNG re-established its status as the leading parliamentary opposition party to the PPdG, which on July 12 won 48% of the vote and an absolute majority of 41 seats. Meanwhile, in Basque Country, EH Bildu likewise improved on its results from 2016, winning 27.58% of the vote and 21 seats in the 75-seat Basque Parliament.

Interviews conducted with voters in Galicia and Basque Country, both before and after the election, mirrored polls – and eventually, the electoral results themselves – that would show EH Bildu cementing its status as the leading opposition party in the Basque Parliament, and the BNG overtaking the PSdG and its mantle as the primary political alternative to the PPdG.

The subjects interviewed represent the same kind of voters – young students and workers whose lives and politics have been profoundly shaped by the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath – who have in recent years provided much of the enthusiasm, energy, and electoral muscle for left campaigns, from Bernie Sanders’ 2016 insurgent presidential run to Jeremy Corbyn’s near-victory in the 2017 U.K. general election. Therefore, it is worth asking why Podemos’ message and platform failed to resonate with left-wing voters in Galicia and Basque Country on July 12; and examining what implications this failure might have for Podemos, the Spanish left, and the future of Galicia, Basque Country, and the other peripheral nations of Spain.
Setting The Stage

In order to understand the political landscapes of Galicia and Basque Country, one must first understand the political parties that for decades have maintained a stranglehold on power in both autonomous communities. The PPdG, currently led by the President of the Xunta de Galicia (Galicia’s regional government), Alberto Nuñez Feijóo, ruled Galicia without interruption from 1989 (when they first appeared on the ballot) until 2005. The PPdG’s current reign began in 2009, and they have remained in power ever since. Significantly, despite being an affiliate of the Partido Popular, which arose from the ashes of Franco’s Falangist regime, the PPdG has sporadically and strategically embraced the cultural rhetoric of galleguismo as necessary to secure its base among older, rural Galician voters.

Similarly, the EAJ-PNV – currently led by Lehendakari Iñigo Urkullu – has ruled Basque Country since the late 1970s, with the sole exception being the period between 2009 and 2012. In contrast to the PPdG, the EAJ-PNV has deep roots and historical credibility amongst many Basque nationalists. For example, it was an EAJ-PNV government that in 2004 passed a proposed revision to the 1979 Statue of Autonomy of the Basque Country, which was ultimately rejected without debate in the PSOE-controlled Cortes Generales. In keeping with its centrist reputation, the EAJ-PNV currently leads a coalition government with the PSE-EE (the Basque affiliate of the PSOE).

EH Bildu emerged recently out of the Abertzale left tradition, a political tendency historically connected to the armed liberation struggle waged by Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) throughout much of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The party in its current form is largely a product of the Spanish state’s efforts to destroy the Abertzale left in Basque Country: EH Bildu was founded officially in 2011, in the wake of bans of the Batasuna coalition and its successor party, Sortu, issued by the Spanish Supreme Court.


The crucial significance of the Basque national question in relation to the political climate of Basque Country means that EH Bildu must fight with the EAJ-PNV for nationalist votes. In Galicia, however, the BNG has less competition for its ownership of the nationalist banner. Founded in 1982, the party reached its previous electoral zenith in the late 1990s and early-to- mid 2000s, and served as junior partner in the aforementioned coalition government from 2005 – 2009. Although the BNG’s vote-share and representation in the Galician Parliament had since been declining steadily, the July 12 elections saw the party emphatically reverse such trends. While the PPdG remains the dominant party among older voters, the BNG has successfully redefined itself as the party of the mocidade galega (Galician youth).

Such a chasmic generational divide will undoubtedly sound familiar to observers of American politics. In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, for example, the strongest support for Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism came from voters ages 18-29; meanwhile, his victorious rival, the unflappably moderate Joe Biden, racked up similarly lopsided margins among voters over 65. In Michigan – the state that gifted Sanders a shocking victory in the 2016 primary cycle, before being won narrowly by Donald Trump in the general election, one of several “Rust Belt” states in the fabled Democratic firewall that would be flipped by the Republican nominee – exit polls showed Sanders beating Biden among voters under 30 by a whopping 74%-19% margin, and losing voters over 65 to Biden, 19%-70%.

While younger voters joined Sanders en masse in his calls for a “political revolution,” older, more conservative, and more economically secure voters found themselves convinced by Biden’s modest appeals for the restoration of a pre-Trump, Obama-era stability. A similar dynamic is undeniably at work in Galicia: the oldest swaths of the electorate continue to grant Feijóo and the PPdG a mandate for their status quo-conservatism; while the youngest Galician voters, having come of age in the post-2008 era of precarity, are increasingly embracing the BNG’s politics of independence and societal transformation.
THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PODEMOS PROJECT IN GALICIA AND BASQUE COUNTRY

Why did Podemos’ message and platform fail to resonate with voters in Galicia and Basque Country? Several ideological and social issues illustrate the fundamental disconnect between the party and citizens in these regions. Many Galicians and Basques view Podemos as a party of elite, urban intellectuals who are out of touch with the issues facing the largely rural autonomous communities in northern Spain. Additionally, Podemos’ lack of a consistent stance on the question of Catalan autonomy has further amplified distrust of the party’s support for regional self-determination.

Our sources largely viewed Podemos as lacking a commitment to defending the distinctive linguistic and cultural identities of Galicia and Basque Country. In these autonomous communities, language is a contentious and politically-charged issue. Under Franco, all non- Castilian languages, including Galician and Basque, were banned from public life – prohibited from being spoken or otherwise utilized in the streets, in places of business, and in schools and universities. The BNG and EH Bildu, in contrast with Podemos, are perceived as the only left- wing parties capable of, and dedicated to, protecting and expanding the roles of Galician and Basque in their respective autonomous communities.

Basque has experienced a revival of sorts in Basque Country under the leadership of the EAJ- PNV. The percentage of Basque speakers in the autonomous community has steadily increased since the 1990s, and according to the most recently available statistics, more than two-thirds of students in the region study in Basque-medium schools and classrooms.


Unfortunately, the future of Galician is less certain. Earning a rebuke from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Feijóo’s government has spearheaded legislation to limit the role of Galician in Galician classrooms, and overseen a precipitous decline in the proportion of first-language Galician speakers across all age groups. Confronted with the possible disappearance of Galician as a vital language in Galicia, and the existential threat to Galicia’s unique cultural identity that the loss of the language would pose, many Galician interview subjects expressed concern about Podemos’ lack of commitment to linguistic preservation and revitalization efforts.

The attempts that Podemos has made to appeal to the cultural and linguistic heritage of Galicia and other autonomous regions often come across as awkward and patronizing. Pau, a restaurant worker and member of Galiza Nova (the youth wing of the BNG), recalls seeing Podemos campaign materials clumsily translated from Castilian into Galician: “It was obvious that they just used the same slogans they used in Madrid and tried to translate them, but translated them incorrectly, with so many basic grammatical errors. It was very clear that they were attempting to appeal to nationalist voters, but without putting forth any real effort.”

Pssst, while you're here...

A stated goal of Podemos is the re-definition of Spain as a “plurinational” state; even more ambitiously, the party has proposed the creation of a “pan-Iberian confederation” that would unite Spain and Portugal. In an interview with Jacobin, Podemos MP Txema Guijarro has argued for the “political refoundation of the Iberian Peninsula via a free and sovereign decision taken by all its peoples: the Basques, Catalans, Portuguese, and so on.”

To many Galicians and Basques, however, Podemos’ plurinational vision seems less like a radical reimagining of political possibilities beyond the nation-state, and more like a thinly- disguised capitulation to the dominant discourses of Spanish nationalism and the indivisibility of Spain that unite all other national parties.

Many leftists view Podemos’ calls for the construction of a plurinational Spain as a political maneuver designed to allow the party to sidestep the issue of the Catalonian referendum and independence crisis, avoiding invoking the wrath of its ardently anti-referendum PSOE governing partner. Others believe that this rhetoric constitutes a tacit endorsement of the denial of the national character of Galicia and Basque Country, and the conviction that both autonomous communities must forever be subordinate to a federalized, Castilian-speaking, Madrid-centered Spain.

Podemos was founded in 2014, emerging out of the the Indignados, or 15-M, movement – the massive waves of popular demonstrations that swept across Spain in 2011 and 2012, bringing millions of Spaniards into the streets to protest austerity, endemic high unemployment, and the corrupt capitalist financial system that had destroyed the country’s economy several years prior. However, nearly every subject interviewed for this article viewed Podemos as having effectively renounced its origins in a mass mobilization of the dispossessed, accusing the party of wholeheartedly embracing the rhetoric and politics of the technocratic, liberal center-left.


Several sources pointed out that since entering into government with the PSOE Podemos appears to have lost the populist fervor and commitment to direct democracy that characterized the early years of the party. Pau views Podemos as having exchanged the mass politics of los Indignados – “the anger that was boiling in the streets” – for a breed of mainstream procedural liberalism politically indistinguishable from that of the PSOE.

This transformation is perhaps most evident in Podemos’ recent embrace of the rhetoric of “constitutionality.” As Simón Vázquez has written in Jacobin, the Podemos-PSOE accord contains a provision referencing the Catalan crisis, which calls for “normalizing political life,” “guaranteeing coexistence,” and “encouraging dialogue by seeking bases for mutual understanding within the Constitution.” Furthermore, Podemos has continued to insist that any resolution to the situation in Catalonia can occur only “within the constitutional framework.”

Finally, multiple sources indicated a frustration with Podemos’ apparent retreat from its past support for self-determination for the peripheral nations of Spain in order to toe the Spanish nationalist line of the PSOE. Pau described Podemos’ contradictory dance with the Catalan question by explaining, “One day they are in favor of the right to self- determination, but the next day Podemos politicians from Madrid will say, ‘No, we don’t support Catalan independence.’”

According to Chema, a teacher from the Galician village of Mos, Podemos abandoned the rhetoric of “self-determination” for Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia in favor of an emphasis on the deracinated, neutral concept of patria. “At the beginning, when the Indignados movement was more active, Podemos strategically embraced the discourse of ‘the sovereignty of the people’ with regards to the Basque, Catalan and Galician nations. But later on, they basically gave up on that, and accepted the concept of national Spanish discourse, completely endorsing the idea of patria.” In the words of Iglesias, Podemos’ patria is oriented around public services, workers’ rights, hospitals, and well-funded pensions. However, the place of Galicia and Basque Country, not to mention that of Galician and Basque, in this patria remains conveniently ambiguous.

Perhaps Podemos’ recent decision to abandon discussion of the question of self-determination and sovereignty can be explained away as a strategic move necessary to preserve the party’s proverbial “seat at the table” in the national coalition government, or even praised as a step toward its vision of a “plurinational” society, united around a vibrant welfare state and world-class public services.


However, in the context of the resurgent state persecution of independentist and separatist activists in Spain – the nine Catalan officials jailed for their participation in the 2017 independence referendum, the 349 Basque political prisoners deliberately scattered in prisons across Spain and France as a means of separating them from their homeland and families, the 12 Galician independence activists facing a collective 102 years in prison – Podemos’ shift in position appears less like a justifiable political compromise and more like an abdication of principle for the sake of political expediency.
WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE GALICIAN AND BASQUE LEFT?

What lessons, then, must the left – in Galicia, Basque Country, and the rest of Spain – learn from the results of the July 12 regional elections?

In Galicia, of course, Feijóo and his PPdG continued their streak of electoral dominance, winning yet another resounding mandate. As Abel, a teacher from Brión, explained in a moment of exasperation all too familiar to many on the Galician left who have resigned themselves to the perpetual rule of the PPdG, “Things will stay like this forever.” Indeed, on July 12, any hopes that the BNG – perhaps powered by a massive mobilization of young voters in a Corbyn-esque “youthquake” that had gone largely under-detected by the polls – could ride a late surge of momentum to oust the PPdG from power were dashed.

Nevertheless, for some BNG voters and militantes, the election results contain reasons for optimism. As Jorge Armesto writes in El Salto, July 12 demonstrated conclusively that the future of the Galician left is nationalist and independentist: “There was a time when there could have been a space for a non-nationalist leftist alternative in Galicia. That time has passed … In all fairness, the BNG represents the only real possibility of social and political change.” Such a sentiment was echoed by Abel, who expressed hope that the election would encourage more Galicians to migrate into the nationalist camp and acknowledge that, “If we [Galicians] are going to change things, we have to go all the way [towards an independent Galicia].”

Chema, meanwhile, views the BNG’s performance as a vindication of the party’s uncompromising political stances and emphasis on allying with grassroots environmental, social, and labor organizations. He also urged the BNG to use its broadened political and parliamentary profile to make the affirmative case for independence – “why we think that Galicia would have more opportunity to thrive and take advantage of its potential if it was a sovereign state.”

In Basque Country, the EAJ-PNV / PSE-EE coalition government was similarly unable to be ousted; like the PPdG in Galicia, the EAJ-PNV won the favor of older voters en route to maintaining its vice-grip on political power in the region. However, EH Bildu nevertheless cemented its status as the second-largest party, the largest left-wing party, the party favored by Basque voters younger than 45, and the principal vehicle for the Abertzale left tendency in the Basque Parliament. In total, nationalist parties – the EAJ/PNV and EH Bildu – control 52 out of 75 seats, a proportion unmatched since the 1980s.

Following the elections, Iglesias struck a humble tone, promising on Twitter that Podemos would undertake “a deep self-criticism and learn from the mistakes that we have undoubtedly made.” The results of the July 12 elections must force the party to examine the failures of its own model in Galicia and Basque Country – its silence on questions of linguistic and cultural identity, its defense of a “plurinational Spain,” and its embrace of the patria concept – and grapple with with the broader implications of the consolidation of the left by nationalist parties.


Both Pau and Chema insist that, “It would be impossible for a unified Spanish republic to ever abandon capitalism. There is no way Spain can ever be ‘red,’ or socialist, if it is united. It has to be split up before any real economic and social change can happen in different parts of the Iberian Peninsula.” Such a belief – that the opposition of powerful capitalist interests will inevitably preclude any development of socialism in a federal, Madrid-centered Spanish republic; and that regional independence is therefore a necessary prerequisite to the construction of a socialist society, is shared by the Abertzale left in Basque Country, as well. In Jacobin, General Secretary of EH Bildu Arnaldo Otegi described his own conviction that defending the Basque popular and working classes will eventually require a commitment to independence: “We have always claimed that independence for the Basques … is in the interests of the great majority of people and workers.”

Podemos, obviously, has not arrived at this same conclusion, maintaining its faith in the essential compatibility of a democratic-socialist patria with a single, united Spanish state despite the contradictions inherent in such a project. As more Galician and Basque youths become engaged in the fight for independence and national sovereignty on both a political and cultural level, Podemos will be forced to reckon with the implications and inconsistencies of its vision of a plurinational patria; and reexamine its commitment to the citizens of all regions of the modern Spanish state, from urban centers like Madrid to the fishing villages of Galicia. Additionally, the Galician and Basque elections have revealed yet another example of the generational tensions – between left-wing youth and conservatively-inclined older voters – that have in recent years emerged as one of the most significant political dynamics in the Western world, from the United States, to the U.K., to Ireland, to the autonomous communities of northern Spain. The July 12 elections have offered a glimpse into this future.

Oliver Stone: It Doesn’t Matter Who’s US President, The Military-Industrial Complex Will Rule

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljOB1PIKfcw


Trump Just Admitted on Live Television He Will 'Terminate' Social Security and Medicare If Reelected in November



One progressive critic called the president's promise "a full-on declaration of war against current and future Social Security beneficiaries."
by
Jon Queally, staff writer

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/08/trump-just-admitted-live-television-he-will-terminate-social-security-and-medicare

President Donald Trump on Saturday afternoon openly vowed to permanently "terminate" the funding mechanism for both Social Security and Medicare if reelected in November—an admission that was seized upon by defenders of the popular safety net programs who have been warning for months that the administration's threat to suspend the payroll tax in the name of economic relief during the Covid-19 pandemic was really a backdoor sabotage effort.


The Trump campaign was apparently so satisfied with the public acknowledgement of the president's promise to make the payroll tax permanent—a move that would inherently bankrupt the Social Security system—that it clipped the portion of the press conference and shared on social media immediately after it concluded. The president's critics did as well, though they carried a different message:Announcing and then signing a series of legally dubious executive orders, including an effort to slash the emergency federal unemployment boost by $200 from the $600 previously implemented by Democrats, Trump touted his order for a payroll tax "holiday"—which experts noted would later have to be paid back—but said if he won in November that such a cut would become permanent.


Defenders of the program, including the advocacy group Social Security Works, were quick to point out the implication of what the president said and condemned Trump for threatening the program that has kept countless millions of people out of poverty—during retirement years or due to disability—since it was created over 75 years ago.

"We just heard it straight from Trump's own mouth," the group responded: "If reelected, he will destroy Social Security."

Commonly known as the payroll tax, those are taxes paid both by employers and employees—as dictated by the The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA)—that go to pay for both Social Security and Medicare.





"Trump's executive order, which seeks to defer Social Security contributions, is bad enough," said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works. "But his promise to 'terminate' FICA contributions if he is reelected is a full-on declaration of war against current and future Social Security beneficiaries."

"Social Security is the foundation of everyone's retirement security," Altman added. "At a time when pensions are vanishing and 401ks have proven inadequate, Trump's plan to eliminate Social Security's revenue stream would destroy the one source of retirement income that people can count on. Moreover, Social Security is often the only disability insurance and life insurance that working families have. If reelected, Trump plans to destroy those benefits as well."


As the Trump administration has foreshadowed this kind of move for months, economists on Friday warned again that any effort to undermine the payroll tax would do practically nothing to help struggling workers and families, but everything to sabotage two of the most popular and successful programs in the country.

"It's like borrowing money from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to give to employers just to hold," Seth Hanlon, a tax expert and senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, explained to Business Insider. "They're just gonna hold the withheld taxes because they'd have to pay it eventually."


As Common Dreams reported earlier this week, retirees and their advocates have vowed to fight any "attempt to gut" the program.

On Saturday, Altman called on every lawmaker in Congress to denounce what she called Trump's "unconstitutional raid on Social Security." In the upcoming election, she said, "voters should treat any Senator or Representative who is silent as complicit in destroying Social Security. Furthermore, every American who cares about Social Security's future must do everything they can to ensure that Trump does not get a second term."







Beware of Voteps! 8/07/2020

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_FmBVYGiOc


'This Is a Five-Alarm Fire': With 2020 Election at Stake, Call Goes Up for Mass Mobilization to Save Postal Service



"Can't stress this enough— if the USPS is sabotaged, this will amount to the greatest voter suppression campaign in history."
by
Jon Queally, staff writer








https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/08/five-alarm-fire-2020-election-stake-call-goes-mass-mobilization-save-postal-service

In the wake of what was dubbed a "Friday Night Massacre" at the U.S. Postal Service—compounded by news that first-class postage rates, as opposed to cheaper bulk rates, would be charged for processing mail-in ballots in November—calls overnight and into Saturday have gone out for people across the U.S. to rise up in a coordinated fashion to end what many observers warn is a blatant effort by the Trump administration and the GOP to sabotage the federal mail delivery service ahead of this year's elections.

While Republicans in the Senate and the White House negotiating team have both refused to accept Democratic demands to include massive funding for election protections in the next round of Covid-19 relief as a way to have safe and accessible voting for all amid the pandemic, the latest news about what Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a longtime GOP donor and Trump supporter, has been doing since appointed earlier this summer is prompting outrage, accountability, and calls for immediate action.

"This is how they destroy our democracy," warned progressive activist Ady Barkan while pointing to a report by The American Prospect's David Dayen which noted the looming postage hike on mail-in absentee ballots.

According to Dayen:


The Postal Service has informed states that they'll need to pay first-class 55-cent postage to mail ballots to voters, rather than the normal 20-cent bulk rate. That nearly triples the per-ballot cost at a time when tens of millions more will be delivered. The rate change would have to go through the Postal Regulatory Commission and, undoubtedly, litigation. But the time frame for that is incredibly short, as ballots go out very soon.

A side benefit of this money grab is that states and cities may decide they don’t have the money to mail absentee ballots, and will make them harder to get. Which is exactly the worst-case scenario everyone fears.

The American Postal Workers Union (APWU), which represents over 220,000 mail carriers and retirees, on Saturday said it was necessary for all constituents worried about the attacks on the USPS or the integrity of mail-in voting this fall to immediately contact their representatives in the U.S. Senate:


Other outside defenders of the Postal Service said that while agitating members of Congress was vital, the scale of the threat calls for action beyond that.




"Grind the government to a fucking halt if we have to," declared liberal commentator Brian Tyler Cohen late Friday. "I can't stress this enough— if the USPS is sabotaged, this will amount to the greatest voter suppression campaign in history. The election will effectively become void... AND THAT IS WHAT TRUMP WANTS—THAT IS HIS POINT HERE."


As veteran consumer advocate Ralph Nader said last month, "Trump's henchman Louis DeJoy took control of USPS last month and is already slowing down first class mail service to undermine Benjamin Franklin's institution. People should hold demonstrations around their local post offices."


In a video posted to the APWU's Facebook page, a longtime USPS employee in Minneapolis identified only by his first name Kevin, called on people nationwide to "come together and save our Post Office" from the attacks coming Trump's White House and DeJoy.


With vote-by-mail so crucial for ballot access this November, outspoken defenders of the Postal Service are calling it a national "five-alarm fire" and a crisis that cannot be overstated.


"The U.S. Postal Service is facing unprecedented challenges and political threats even while it is an essential lifeline for millions of Americans, especially those isolated by the COVID-19 pandemic," the People for the American Way stated this week as they launched a new video celebrating the USPS and calling for its protection.




The Time To Be A White Collar Criminal is NOW

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EAQGt-09dU


Susan Rice Has a Disclosure Problem



The vice-presidential hopeful has some explaining to do.


BY ALEXANDER SAMMON

AUGUST 8, 2020

https://prospect.org/politics/susan-rice-has-a-disclosure-problem/





One of these days, Joe Biden is going to announce his vice president. The latest turn of the rumor mill has Susan Rice as a favorite for the position. Whether or not she’s chosen as Biden’s second-in-command ultimately may not matter much; her mere consideration ensures that she’ll have a major role in the administration.

Rice differs from the other members of Congress and governors on the short list. For one, she’s never held elected office. Elevating her to the second-highest executive post in the country, and making her (like it or not) the most likely post-Biden presidential candidate, sends a strange message for that reason alone. If the Democratic Party is in the business of winning elections, and can pick anyone from its supposedly deep talent pool to put on the fast track, why is someone who’s never won a race its best bet?

More from Alexander Sammon

Here’s what we know about Rice: She’s the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and national security adviser under Barack Obama. In the Clinton administration, she served at the National Security Council and as the assistant secretary of state for African affairs. At 55 years old, that’s the entirety of her political career.

Her résumé from the corporate and government-adjacent world, however, is much lengthier. In the praiseworthy words of The Wall Street Journal, Rice “has more corporate experience than others on Biden running mate list.” Indeed, she currently sits on the board of directors of Netflix, where she’s racked up stock options on more than 5,200 shares of the company, currently worth $2 million alone (according to an August 5 filing, she’s divested about one-quarter of those holdings, netting some $300,000). That, along with a stint at American University as a visiting research fellow, makes up the bulk of her post-Obama professional activity.

Much less is known about her pre-Obama career, starting with her time at the infamous consultancy McKinsey & Company. After earning her doctorate at the age of 25, Rice served as a management consultant at the firm from 1990 to 1992, working out of the Toronto office. That’s the same corporate consultancy that got presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg in hot water during the primary, and his initial refusal to disclose the work he did for them helped stymie his rise. Political rival Elizabeth Warren demanded that Buttigieg provide a list of past clients and what he did for them, eventually resulting in him asking for a release from his nondisclosure agreement with the firm.

When he finally published that information, Buttigieg’s work for the Canadian supermarket chain Loblaws, which was known to be engaged in price fixing during that same time, gave way to a heated exchange with New York Times editorial board member Binyamin Appelbaum over whether or not he was involved in fixing bread prices, a viral clip that may have ultimately hastened his demise. McKinsey has been involved in a number of major scandals in recent years beyond just bread prices: helping elevate authoritarianism in places like Russia and China; advising OxyContin producer Purdue Pharma on how to “turbocharge” opioid sales; even hosting a summit in Kashgar, where thousands of Uighur minorities are currently locked up. If Buttigieg had to disclose his work at McKinsey to be considered for Democratic president, so, too, should Rice.





While Rice’s stint with McKinsey may not have been focused particularly on authoritarian governments, she’s been no stranger to strongmen at other points in her career. After her time in the Clinton White House, Rice went into private consulting, spending 2001 and 2002 as a managing director and principal at Intellibridge, a geopolitical strategy shop, which eventually became Eurasia Group. Again, we know next to nothing about who Rice was working for during that time, because she has largely concealed who her clients were. But, wrote Akbar Shahid Ahmed in HuffPost, “her closeness to one client whose identity is publicly known―Rwandan strongman Paul Kagame, the country’s president since 2000―has previously raised concerns among human rights groups and fellow officials.”

The lack of transparency in Rice’s work at Intellibridge may be standard for that particular foreign-consulting industry, but that’s not a sufficient explanation for someone striving to be vice president. And given that the one client of hers from that time that we know is someone widely referred to as a “benevolent dictator” and “darling tyrant” who’s been in power since the mid-1990s, there’s plenty of cause for alarm. If Rice was indeed trading off her proximity to policymakers after her White House stint with open opponents of democracy, that would make her an uneasy fit as a leader of the Democratic Party. It’s incumbent upon her, now, to disclose those relationships.

After Intellibridge, Rice moved on to the Brookings Institution, serving as a senior fellow, where “she focused on U.S. foreign policy, weak and failing states, the implications of global poverty, and transnational threats to security,” before moving on to the Obama White House, where she was dogged by subsequent disclosure problems, this time owing not to her work, but her finances.


The lack of transparency in Rice’s work at Intellibridge may be standard for that particular foreign-consulting industry, but that’s not a sufficient explanation for someone striving to be vice president.

At 44 years old, Rice was the wealthiest person in the entire Obama Cabinet upon her appointment in 2009. Her net worth clocked in between $23.5 million and $43.5 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That made her richer even than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Two years at McKinsey and two years at Intellibridge wouldn’t net that kind of cash. Rice appears to be the beneficiary of substantial family money. While her parents were scholars (her mother helped design the Pell grant system and her father was the second African American on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors), her husband Ian Cameron, a former producer for ABC’s This Week, is the scion of a Canadian lumber company.

In 2012, when Rice, then considered a rising star and Obama favorite, was up to replace Clinton as secretary of state, her personal finances proved controversial. Rice was a major stockholder in TransCanada, the company behind the recently shut down Keystone XL pipeline, which transported particularly dirty oil from tar sands in Canada to refineries in the United States. In fact, according to financial disclosures at the time, about a third of Rice’s net worth was tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and energy industry affiliates. She and her husband were also invested in Enbridge, the company behind the discharge of more than a million gallons of toxic tar sands oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 ,  the largest inland oil spill in American history, and BP, of 2010’s Deepwater Horizon spill, the largest offshore oil spill in history, period.





Coziness between TransCanada and the State Department, which was elucidated in a cable obtained by WikiLeaks, and then by leaked emails, and finally by a New York Times report that revealed that the State Department contractor tasked with producing an environmental assessment of Keystone XL had close ties the pipeline’s developer, added to outrage from environmental groups. Eventually, Rice was passed over for the job, and became a national-security adviser instead.

This didn’t lead her to rethink those investment choices, however. A 2015 disclosure report obtained by TMI, our last look into even some percentage of her holdings, shows a continued stake in TransCanada of between $50,000 and $100,000, and over $1 million in Enbridge. Between $1 million and $2 million in additional investments are split between three other Canadian fossil fuel companies developing the tar sands in Alberta. Overall, the 2015 disclosure shows holdings of between $15 million and $32.5 million in investments alone. And that’s before the Netflix board seat and whatever other income has been gained in the Trump years.


Rice is almost certainly richer now than she was in 2009, though we don’t know where that wealth is coming from.

Rice is almost certainly richer now than she was in 2009, though we don’t know where that wealth is coming from. But if that money was enough to functionally disqualify her from secretary of state in 2012, it should certainly have an impact upon deciding her fitness for a higher role. Democratic voters have a right to know who’s being put on their ticket. Certainly, a lack of transparency, financial and otherwise, has been one of the most consistent indictments of Donald Trump from the Democratic side of the aisle.

The financial-disclosure issue has little to do with Rice’s record on foreign policy, which very much merits its own consideration. Rice has coasted on progressive proximity, but has been hawkish enough throughout her career—in particular her record on the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen—to merit objections from the DNC Muslim Delegates and Allies and other parts of the party. Her elevation would also allow Republicans to dust off their Benghazi hysteria for the next 12 weeks.

Some detractors of Karen Bass, the California representative who was floated as a VP favorite last week, have claimed she’s too much of a liability after not having been thoroughly vetted by a national election cycle. That logic also applies to Susan Rice, who has never been vetted in any election cycle. If she’s going to be Biden’s number two, she needs to start with a transparency campaign quickly: not just her tax returns but her client list, as well.