Pence, Potential '24 Candidate, Floats Some Privatizing of Social Security

By Solange Reyner    |   Friday, 03 February 2023  - NEWSMAX

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who has been quietly huddling with donors and building a political operation ahead of a potential 2024 White House run, on Thursday floated reforming Social Security and instituting private saving accounts for recipients.

"There are modest reforms in entitlements that can be done without disadvantaging anybody at the point of the need," Pence told an audience at the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors summit in Washington, D.C., according to a video of the speech obtained by the Democratic tracking group American Bridge 21st Century.

"I think the day could come when we could replace the New Deal with a better deal — literally give younger Americans the ability to take a portion of their Social Security withholdings and put that into a private savings account."

Former President Donald Trump in January warned against cutting funding for the program, saying "under no circumstance should" lawmakers vote to "cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security."

Pence at the event suggested the idea in terms of cutting into the federal debt.

"It's absolutely essential that we generate leadership in this country that will be straight with the American people, that will take us off this trajectory of massive debt that we're piling on the backs of those grandchildren," Pence said.

Some Republicans have floated the idea of slashing some domestic programs, including the major entitlements, to lower the federal debt. 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy this week said every program will be scrutinized for potential cuts, including defense.  

"I want to make sure we're protected in our defense spending, but I want to make sure it's effective and efficient," McCarthy during an appearance on CBS. "I want to look at every single dollar we are spending, no matter where it is being spent."

Robert Reich: US Jobs Report May Spook The Fed (But It Shouldn’t) – OpEd

February 4, 2023
By Robert Reich

Surprising most analysts and forecasters, employers added a whopping 517,000 jobs in January, according to Friday’s monthly labor report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This was almost twice the growth from December’s 260,000 jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 3.4 percent, the lowest since 1969.

What does this mean?

It may mean very little. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’s monthly report can bounce around a lot, depending on seasonal weights and samples. Next month’s job number could be far lower.

Also, keep your eye on wage growth. Average hourly earnings climbed in January at a slower pace than in December — by an annualized 4.4 percent, down from 4.8 percent in December. With prices still rising faster than wages, most workers continue to suffer a decline real wage – that is, in their purchasing power.

But the strength of the labor market is likely to worry the Fed, which last Wednesday raised interest rates for the eighth time in a year – although only by a quarter of a percentage point this time.

“The labor market continues to be out of balance,” Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said earlier this week. He stressed that we won’t have a return to his target 2 percent inflation in the service sector “without a better balance in the labor market,” adding “I don’t know what that will require in terms of increased unemployment.”

As I’ve said many times over the past year, this worry is misplaced. Most of the upward pressure on prices domestically is coming from big corporations with the market power to raise prices faster than their costs are rising. Much of the rest is coming from continuing supply shocks abroad, including Putin’s war’s effects on global energy and food prices, and China’s lockdowns followed by COVID.

And, as today’s report shows, wage gains are slowing and they lag behind price increases.

The basic reality is American workers don’t have the power to raise their wages. Big American corporations have the power to raise their prices. The Fed should not be aiming to increase unemployment as a means of slowing prices.

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

Hiring surges but trends show more working-age men dropping out of labor force

PBS NEWSHOUR

Feb 3, 2023 



By — Paul Solman

By — Ryan Connelly Holmes

Job growth surged last month, shaking off fears of a hiring slowdown. Employers added 517,000 jobs in a hiring boom far stronger than anyone had expected. The jobless rate dropped to 3.4%, the lowest level in 53 years. The report underscores the challenges facing Federal Reserve officials who remain focused on slowing inflation. Economics Correspondent Paul Solman reports.

Read the Full Transcript

Amna Nawaz:

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

We are following two major stories tonight. Defense Department officials are tracking a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that is making its way across the Central part of the U.S.


Geoff Bennett:

And job growth surged last month, shaking off fears of a hiring slowdown.

Let's delve first into the economic news. Employers added 517,000 jobs last month, a hiring boom far stronger than anyone had expected. The jobless rate dropped to 3.4 percent. That's the lowest level in 53 years. The latest jobs report also underscores the challenges facing Federal Reserve officials, who are focused on slowing inflation.

And, as economics correspondent Paul Solman tells us, it fuels more questions about a labor market that's proven more resilient for months now.


Julia Pollak, ZipRecruiter:

A big surprise.


Paul Solman:

Labor economist Julia Pollak on today's jobs report.


Julia Pollak:

So many leading indicators turned sharply negative in the fourth quarter. Investment has been slow. Consumer spending has also been relatively sluggish. And yet, against that backdrop, job growth is exploding.


Paul Solman:

In fact, the latest jobs report found widespread hiring, particularly strong in hospitality, leisure, and health care. The latest revisions also found job growth was stronger than first reported in the past two months.

But the pace of wage growth slowed in January, something the Federal Reserve wants to see more of before it stops raising interest rates.


Julia Pollak:

This report is sort of the stuff of economics fiction. At a time of rapidly rising interest rates, to have both falling inflation and falling unemployment is almost unheard of. It's almost as though we're in the world with $20 bills on the sidewalk and free lunches.


Paul Solman:

President Biden didn't go quite that far this morning, but he did take credit for a surge of hiring since he took office.

Joe Biden, President of the United States: We have created more jobs in two years than any presidential term in two years. That's the strongest two years of job growth in history, by a long shot.


Paul Solman:

And yet employers still need more workers, a reported two job openings for every officially unemployed person in America.

That's why the Fed may be concerned about the hiring boom announced this morning. The slowdown it wanted to see hasn't happened yet. But a major puzzle remains. The cost of living is up substantially, and yet the labor force participation rate is even lower than it was before the pandemic, which helps explain why there ere are millions of jobs unfilled.

So, why the shortfall?


Julia Pollak:

The main reason is a huge decline in participation among older workers. And part of that may be driven by long COVID. We have seen an increase in the number of people reporting disabilities, especially cognitive disabilities.


Paul Solman:

Now, a bigger factor may be the work force exit of healthy prime-age working men between the ages of 25 and 54. One familiar explanation, says Pollak.


Julia Pollak:

The U.S. economy has experienced a hollowing out of the jobs in the middle, high-wage jobs with strong retirement benefits that used to be common among men without college degrees. Now software has eaten many of those jobs. And so non-college educated men have actually seen their working prospects fall.


John Lilly, Job Seeker:

I do have lots of friends who just stopped working. They're not even trying. They have fallen off the work force.


Paul Solman:

Fifty-four-year-old John Lilly, recently laid off and looking for work, has a few friends without degrees who have just given up.

But how can they afford it?


John Lilly:

I think they're just couch-surfing on their parents' couches at 50 years old, waiting for people to die, so they can inherit the house and that sort of thing. It's just a really bizarre situation right now.


Paul Solman:

And some of his peers simply balk at conforming to new workplace norms, he says.


John Lilly:

Something like the pronouns, the gender pronouns, seem stupid to a middle-aged person. But it's not stupid if you want to get a job. If you want to get along with the work culture, you have to keep up with culture in general.


Paul Solman:

But a hollowed-out labor market as the main cause of the male worker shortfall seems a stretch to economist Nicholas Eberstadt, who published "Men Without Work" in 2016, now in a post-pandemic edition.

Nicholas Eberstadt, Economist and Demographer, American Enterprise Institute: The received wisdom is that economic and structural change is driving the decline in work force participation for men, outsourcing, decline of manufacturing, less demand for less skilled work.

All of that is fine as far as it goes, but it's really only part of the story, and I don't think it's even most of the story.


Paul Solman:

And most of the story is?


Nicholas Eberstadt:

Disability payments, dropouts, unintended consequences of our social welfare guarantees, and the invisible ex-con population, which is now maybe 25 million people in the United States.


Paul Solman:

And when you say ex-con, you mean they are formerly convicted, not necessarily formerly incarcerated?


Nicholas Eberstadt:

Only one in 10 persons who has a felony conviction in their background is currently serving in prison. It's an order of magnitude bigger than our incarceration situation in the United States.


Mike Tyner, Chicago Resident:

It's been almost impossible to get a job that pays a living wage.


Paul Solman:

Mike Tyner is one such American, though he did serve time on a bank robbery conviction. A college grad with a 3.7 GPA, even some grad school, he's had six actual job offers, all rescinded because of his felony conviction.


Mike Tyner:

I get it. You don't want me working in a bank if I robbed a bank. I get you don't want me working around money if I have had an issue with money in the past. But I can't clean a bus?


Paul Solman:

OK, felony convictions, a hollowing-out economy, government benefits, long COVID, a long list, but even that's not all.


Tom McFarland, Missouri Resident:

Childcare is very expensive and hard to acquire right now.


Paul Solman:

Thirty-three-year-old new stay-at-home dad Tom McFarland offers yet another reason.


Tom McFarland:

Financially, it turned out to be where childcare was basically going to take up our whole paycheck. So I chose to become a stay-at-home parent.


Paul Solman:

His wife, a veterinarian, supports the family on her salary. No surprise, as women keep outpacing men in college degrees, and thus in earning potential.


Tom McFarland:

In our case, it made financial sense and good professional sense.


Paul Solman:

Has he noticed more men his age becoming house husbands?


Tom McFarland:

Mm-hmm. Yes. It made me feel more comfortable making the decision.


Paul Solman:

And how does he respond when asked why he's not working?


Tom McFarland:

I'm currently working. I'm just working as a parent at home. I'm very proud to become — to be a stay-at-home parent. I'm very proud to be a father.


Paul Solman:

So, the moral of this story is pretty clear. Prime-age men have dropped out for lots reasons, contributing mightily to the curious case of a high-cost-of-living economy with not enough workers to go round.

For the "PBS NewsHour," Paul Solman.

Markey Demands Answers From American Geophysical Union About Scientists Punished Over Climate Protest

The senator noted the organization acknowledged it received funding from oil giant Chevron as recently as 2020.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) speaks during a press conference in Washington, D.C. on January 24, 2020.
(Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY
Feb 03, 2023

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey on Friday joined thousands of scientists from across the globe in demanding that the American Geophysical Union answer for its decision in December to expel two climate researchers from its Fall Meeting after they staged a brief, peaceful protest urging their colleagues to engage in climate activism.

In a letter to the AGU, the Massachusetts Democrat denounced the organization's "gross overreaction" and warned that it could "have a chilling effect on scientifically informed activism by climate scientists."

As Common Dreamsreported last month, Rose Abramoff and Peter Kalmus walked on stage in between speakers at the meeting on December 15 in Chicago, and displayed a banner reading, "Out of the lab and into the streets."

The protest lasted roughly 30 seconds, but officials responded by ripping the banner out of the scientists' hands and, according to Kalmus, taking their badges and removing them from the meeting.

"It is as baffling as it is disappointing that AGU apparently paired its important efforts to promote global understanding of climate change with efforts to suppress actions taken in furtherance of it."

HEATED reported in late January that Kalmus and Abramoff were threatened with arrest if they returned and were told that their workplaces would be contacted. On January 3, Abramoff was fired from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

"A source with knowledge of the AGU ethics process implied [an organization official] had not contacted [Oak Ridge], and that the tip off had come from a colleague at Oak Ridge," HEATED reported. "But AGU would not confirm that on the record, citing the ongoing investigation."

Markey noted in his letter on Friday that, "discordantly," the conference welcomed comments by former Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado Quesada about the "ethical and moral responsibility" scientists have to place their research and knowledge at the "center of political action," even though it may be "very unpopular."

"Sadly, AGU's response to Drs. Abramoff and Kalmus appears to have validated former President Quesada's prescient warning," wrote Markey. "It is as baffling as it is disappointing that AGU apparently paired its important efforts to promote global
understanding of climate change with efforts to suppress actions taken in furtherance of it."

The senator, who co-sponsored Green New Deal legislation with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), called on the AGU to answer a number of questions about their actions, calling for clarification about whether officials threatened the scientists and contacted their workplaces as well as asking about potential conflicts of interest at the organization.

"AGU acknowledged funding from Chevron as recently as 2020, and previously voted to continue receiving money from Exxon," wrote Markey. "Does AGU currently accept sponsorship or any other form of funding from fossil fuel companies for the annual Fall Meeting or any other activities? If not, when did AGU stop taking such funding? If yes, what safeguards are in place to ensure that AGU is not influenced by such funding in how it responds to climate protest?"

More than 2,300 scientists have signed a separate letter condemning AGU's actions.

‘Woke capitalism’ is simply capitalism — and it’s good for business

BY RANDELL LEACH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 02/03/23 

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on June 27, 2022, in New York City.

The backlash against so-called “woke capitalism” is fundamentally anti-capitalist. Companies that prioritize positive environmental and social impacts in addition to profit are responding rationally to the market and to a business case that’s been proven over decades. It’s hypocritical and short-sighted for political leaders to coerce the market to align with their interests, rather than what’s good for people, our economy and our planet.

In his annual “Letter to CEOs”, even BlackRock chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote that stakeholder capitalism “is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper.”

Stakeholder, sustainable, conscious, “woke” — whatever you choose to call it, this is the free market in action — aligning and adapting to efficiently create value in changing market conditions. Businesses constantly analyze market data and trends to inform decisions about what products to offer, which customer segments to serve, and how to stay competitive. Profit is important, but it’s not the only data point for smart business leaders. Maximizing revenue (by adapting to the values-based preferences of customers) and minimizing costs, waste, and risks are key for investors. Insulating companies from risks — whether systemic, reputational or financial— and competing for labor and finite resources are also part of this complex calculation. Market participants are increasingly recognizing the value of acting in alignment with a broader set of stakeholders. Market transparency and access to information has increased as has the consequences of misalignment.

Politicians may disagree with the results of these analyses. But they should not deploy the power of the government to stifle competition that benefits employees, customers, suppliers and communities, as some are attempting. In fact, they too have a duty to align their agencies to protect people, our collective natural resources, and the market.

Instead, critics should ask themselves: Why have more and more businesses integrated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into their models over the last decades? The answer is that they are simply aligning their resources with their stakeholders’ interests — which is efficient, profitable, and both economically and environmentally beneficial.

The fact is that triple bottom line models have been proven successful in a meta-analysis of more than 2,000 studies. Nearly two-thirds of these studies showed a positive correlation between ESG and financial performance, while less than 10 percent showed a negative correlation. The hypothesis: these firms are innovating, adapting to the market, and competing for resources and talent.

What’s more, many consumers prefer businesses that demonstrate impact or align with their values. A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers customer loyalty survey found that younger consumers (Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z) are more likely to intentionally support like-minded brands. These generations collectively account for 62% of the U.S. population — a huge consumer market that will only increase spending as they age and build wealth. Businesses must be able to compete freely for this market share, including by demonstrating social and environmental impact that attracts customers.

The banking industry offers a good case study on why the anti-ESG backlash is actually anti-capitalism. Like any other business, banks are free to make operational decisions based on expertise, risk, and reputation, as long as those decisions don’t contradict existing anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. But lawmakers in Texas are now requiring banks to certify that they don’t restrict lending to firearms and weapons manufacturers before they can do lucrative business with the state. West Virginia has done the same with banks that restrict lending to coal and other fossil fuels.

Requiring all banks to lend to all industries — no matter their model, expertise, or customer base — doesn’t make business sense. Corporate lending is complex and nuanced. A bank that specializes in residential lending can’t apply that same expertise to financing tar sands refinement. These are unique industries with varying revenue, asset volatility, and risk models. If a bank doesn’t build the necessary expertise in its specific lending verticals, it exposes depositors to risk.

While this current backlash is playing out state-by-state in an inefficient patchwork, federal action is not out of the question. Under the Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed a supposed “Fair Access” rule that would have prevented big banks ($100+ billion in assets) from refusing to lend to controversial sectors. The rule was rescinded when the Biden administration took over, but some Republican lawmakers are still trying to codify it via legislation. This sweeping interference in financial markets would be disastrous for the sector and our economy.We can’t ignore the toll the pandemic has taken on the health of our kidsTobacco control is not a zero-sum game

Of course, this is not to say that ESG or stakeholder capitalism are perfect concepts. Critics are right to say that definitions and disclosures are inconsistent, and that a lack of transparency enables greenwashing. But the solution to that is to improve standards, regulations and reporting, not toss it all out. We’re pleased to see a group of lawmakers form a caucus advocating for sustainable investing. This is the kind of movement we need.

Burying your head in the sand is not a viable approach in a market with finite natural and human resources, changing consumer demands, and increasing climate risk. Companies that prioritize social and environmental impacts while still generating returns for their shareholders are a model that we should applaud and replicate, not villainize. They represent capitalism as it’s meant to be: productive, responsive, innovative, forward-looking, and free.

Randell Leach is the CEO of Beneficial State Bank, a state-chartered, federally insured and for-profit bank whose economic rights are majority-owned by the U.S. Treasury and nonprofit Beneficial State Foundation, both of which are permanently governed in the public interest. Beneficial State Bank is one of the world’s top Certified B Corporations.

Republicans launch group to combat ‘threat’ posed by ESG investing

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 02/03/23 

FILE – In this April 23, 2020, image from video, Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., speaks on the floor of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (House Television via AP, File)

House Republicans are creating a new working group to further their pushback against environmental, social and governance investing, known as ESG. 

A press release from the House Financial Services Committee announcing the group said it will be aimed at combating what they described as a “threat to our capital markets.”

The group will be led by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.).

It will seek to “develop a comprehensive approach” to the ESG issue and “hold Biden’s rogue regulators accountable,” Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said in the release. 

The press release did not give specifics as to how it would do so, and a spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions from The Hill.

ESG investing is a broad term for attempts to invest ethically and can include actions by the government, investment firms and banks or individuals. 

Huizenga, in the press release, specifically called out a proposal from the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require companies to disclose their contributions to climate change. 

Both this proposed rule and ESG in general have gotten pushback from Republicans, who have raised concerns about its impacts on the fossil fuel industry, as burning fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change. Republicans have also raised concerns that ESG could push money managers toward choosing social issues over profits for their clients. 

The GOP has been widely expected to take on the issue with their new House majority, with McHenry previously telling The Hill that his committee will “work together to conduct appropriate oversight of activist regulators and market participants who have an outsized impact.” 

Proponents of ESG argue that it is possible to do good for the planet and well financially at the same time. A 2021 meta-analysis from New York University found ESG to be generally associated with better financial performance for stock holders.

› Featured Investigations › ALEC Expands Private Board of Directors with Woke Capitalism Fighters
CRC Advisors Senior Vice President Mike Thompson (left) and 1792 Exchange CEO Paul Fitzpatrick.

By David Armiak |
February 3rd, 2023

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has expanded its private sector board of directors—or what it calls its “Private Enterprise Advisory Council”—to include operatives in the right-wing’s fight against “woke capitalism.”

ALEC states on its website that the board of directors composed of state lawmakers “enlists an advisory team of private-sector industry leaders” so that it can draw from their “real-world business experience” to “better promote the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.”

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) tracks changes in ALEC’s various boards as part of its ALECExposed project.

Historically, the private board has been composed of corporate and trade group lobbyists. However, ALEC’s 2023 board is taking a different approach by expanding the advisory council from 14 to 20 individuals and appointing 1792 Exchange CEO Paul Fitzpatrick and CRC Advisors Senior Vice President Mike Thompson.

Both Fitzpatrick and Thompson play important roles in the Right’s manufactured crisis around environmental, social and governance initiatives (ESGs) and promote government retaliation against corporations as a solution to what they term “woke capitalism.”

The two appointments highlight an internal rift within ALEC between far-right policy groups and fossil fuel interests on the one side and financial interests on the other. After ALEC’s energy task force voted unanimously to adopt the Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act as a model policy last December, the board declined to approve the measure on January 20 and sent it back to the task force for reconsideration due to a “lack of agreement among members of the ALEC Task Force on Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development.”

The American Bankers Association (ABA), state bankers associations and others led the challenge. “Government should not be dictating business decisions to the private sector, which is what the draft model policy proposed. We appreciate the strong vote by the ALEC board to send this proposal back to the task force for reconsideration,” ABA stated following the vote.

Fitzpatrick’s 1792 Exchange describes its mission as “to develop policy and resources to protect and equip non-profits, small businesses and philanthropy from ‘woke capitalism,’ to educate Congress and stakeholder organizations about the dangers of ESG… policies, and to help steer public companies in the United States back to neutral on ideological issues.”

The organization maintains an online tracking tool called the Spotlight Report, which grades companies on their “policies, practices, and other relevant criteria to determine the likelihood a company will cancel a contract or client, or boycott, divest, or deny services based on views or beliefs.”

Through its website, 1792 Exchange also offers its allies model contracts to use in the fight against ESG, such as these two obtained by CMD: a template called Request for Proposal for Banking Services Template and a primer on Addressing Vendor Contract Language in Regard to Religious Freedom.

In addition, 1792 Exchange shares research files, including examples obtained by CMD on abortion travel benefits companies provide, ESG backgrounders, and a Big Tech Scorecard prepared by Napa Legal for its so-called religious freedom and free speech warriors.

The group solicits donations as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, but it is not registered with the IRS.

Before leading 1792 Exchange, Fitzpatrick was deputy chief of staff for former U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and chief of staff for former Congressman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). He also served as director of development for the billionaire Koch brothers’ Freedom Partners (now Stand Together), and worked for almost 20 years for the Christian Right activist group Family Research Council.

In addition, Fitzpatrick sits on the board of the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF), a weaponized group of Republican treasurers, auditors, and financial officers in 28 states that is aligned with ALEC and is dedicated to fighting “woke capitalism” and “defend[ing] the market economy” against the growing ESG movement among corporations to also consider community interests and impact in their pursuit of shareholder profits.
Operating Under the Radar

In 2020, Greg Mueller and Leonard Leo, who played an integral role in Trump’s effort to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judges, founded CRC Advisors—the group Thompson represents—to “funnel big money and expertise across the conservative movement.”

Although he manages to stay under the radar, Thompson is an important Christian Right operative who plays multiple leadership roles in campaigns and communications.

When he participated in the panel presentation “After Roe, Then What?” at a February 2022 meeting of the secretive Christian Right Council for National Policy, anti-abortion activist Marjorie Dannenfelser introduced Thompson as a “unique and gifted convener of coalitions,” and as the “vice president for communications for CAP, the Conservative Action Project, a group of conservatives who meet every Wednesday morning very, very, very, very early to talk about next steps.”

Like Fitzpatrick, Thompson is active in SFOF, as CMD first reported. CRC Advisors is deeply involved in manufacturing and sustaining the ESG crisis as a public relations firm for SFOF. The organization sent the largest number of staffers outside of financial officers and their staff to SFOF’s November 2022 meeting, with at least nine identified by CMD, including Thompson.

SFOF’s CEO Derek Kreifels consults with the “CRC folks” on op-eds, and an agenda prepared for Louisiana Treasurer and 2023 SFOF National Chair John Schroder obtained by CMD shows that CRC was coordinating media interviews for Schroder on the topic of “anti-ESG.”

CRC Advisors is screening information requests and placing media for Schroder’s office, according to emails obtained by CMD.

CRC Advisors is also consulting with other SFOF members, emails obtained by CMD demonstrate. In April, CRC’s Mike Martin coordinated and wrote talking points for 2022 SFOF National Chair John Murante, the state treasurer of Nebraska, for an appearance on Fox News where he attacked the current administration’s energy policies with snappy quips like, “Joe Biden’s policies are sucking the energy out of Americans.”

In May, CRC’s Jay Hopkins arranged for Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks to appear on the cable talk show Ringside Politics on Real America’s Voice.

CRC Advisors also has been paid close to $1 million (2018–21) for “public relations” by Consumers’ Research, which has spent millions of dollars on a campaign attacking BlackRock for its ESG investment practices and is a top-level sponsor of SFOF.

The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) also pays CRC Advisors $7,500 per month. Together with its affiliates, the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF) and the Center for Law and Policy, RAGA runs a cash-for-influence operation that coordinates the official actions of Republican state attorneys general and sells its corporate funders access to those AGs and their staff.

RLDF has an ESG Working Group for state AGs and their staff, and RAGA held an ESG and State Engagement panel at its 2022 Fall National Meeting in November, documents obtained by CMD detail.

Republicans AGs have collectively taken multiple actions in the anti-ESG fight.

ALEC also added lobbyists from Multistates Associates, the National Federation of Independent Business, Learn4Life, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, PhRMA, and StateLinx to its private board for 2023 and removed lobbyists from IBF Hospitality and the National Association of Manufacturers.

NetChoice President and CEO Steve DelBianco will serve as the national chair this year.

About David Armiak

David Armiak is research director with the Center for Media and Democracy. David joined CMD in 2015, has conducted extensive investigations on dark money, corporate corruption, and right-wing networks, and is responsible for filing and analyzing hundreds of public records requests every year. David has a strong research interest in social movements and political power, and has delivered many talks on the subject. He has a Bachelor's degree in philosophy and anthropology from Boston University and a Master's degree in Anthropology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
All articles by David Armiak

Palestinian teenager dreamt of being a chef before attack, teachers say

13-year-old Palestinian Mahmoud Aleiwat [@Silwanic1/Twitter]

Reuters
February 3, 2023 at 8:04 pm

In the middle of last week, 13-year-old Palestinian Mahmoud Aleiwat was pressing his teachers for the school report he needed so he could go to a Jerusalem college to train as a chef.

Three days later, he was lying unconscious in hospital, accused of opening fire at a group of Israeli passers-by in Jerusalem's Silwan district.

Two people were critically wounded, and Aleiwat was shot and wounded by one of the group. Police have not publicly named a suspect, but his lawyer said they accuse Aleiwat of opening fire and attempted murder, accusations his family rejects.

Police, who called the shooting a terrorist attack, have said it was carried out by a 13-year-old, prompting widespread shock and underlining fears of so-called "lone wolf" attacks by individuals with no links to political or militant groups.

People who knew Aleiwat are puzzled about what could have prompted him to carry out such an act.

Although he grew up in Silwan, a cauldron of Palestinian-Israeli tensions near Jerusalem's Old City, Aleiwat had not shown an interest in politics, teachers, relatives and children from his area told Reuters.

They described a popular teenager with a strong personality, a passion for football and an ambition to be a chef.

"He was making a visible effort. Since the beginning of this term, he has aced three of his classes: social studies, mathematics and religion. That's why (the news) was so shocking for us," said Souhair Mikkawi, 57, his school principal.

READ: HRW: Sealing Palestinian homes as collective punishment amounts to a war crime

She said: days before the incident, he had been pushing for his report so he could transfer to college, telling her: "Miss, please, I won't go home until I get my report card. If I miss the application deadline, I'll be devastated."

The 28 January attack in Silwan is part of a recent surge of violence in Jerusalem and the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

The night before, a Palestinian gunman killed seven people in a part of Occupied East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel after the 1967 war. The previous day, an Israeli raid in the West Bank city of Jenin killed 10 Palestinians including eight gunmen, the largest single-day death toll in what Palestinian officials had already declared as a bloody month.

Tensions over Silwan

The lawyer, Mahmoud, said the parents and two brothers were detained after the attack. The parents and one of the brothers were subsequently released after questioning. The parents were barred from speaking to the media for 30 days, Mahmoud said.

"He did not carry out the attack," Mahmoud said. "The family says that he happened to be there and was shot at."

An Israeli police spokesperson said an investigation was ongoing, declining to give details.

Footage on social media appears to show a person firing a pistol at a group walking along a street before at least one fires back, apparently hitting the shooter. Reuters could not independently verify the video.

Silwan, where the incident occurred, has long been a site of tension between Israelis and Palestinians. It lies in the shadow of Jerusalem's walled Old City, which was captured by Israel in 1967 and annexed with other parts of East Jerusalem – a move not recognised internationally.

Israel deems the whole city its "eternal and indivisible" capital. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state made up of the West Bank and Gaza.

Many Jews believe the ancient City of David stood on the site of Silwan and Jewish settlers have bought properties there, which Palestinians see as part of a policy to drive them out.

About 600 settlers now live among 50,000 Palestinians in Silwan, according to Aviv Tatarsky at Ir Amim, an Israeli organisation that monitors Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem.

Violence had flared in Silwan a few days before the 28 January incident, when Wadi' Abu Ramuz, a 17-year-old Palestinian who lived on Aleiwat's street, was wounded during protests with Israeli security forces. He later died.

Israeli police said explosives and fireworks had been hurled at police during rioting and an officer, who sensed his life was in danger, fired at and wounded two suspects. It said the suspects, who were not named, were found to have a flag of Hamas, the Palestinian group that runs Gaza.

'I can't believe this'

Abu Ramuz's mother, Hadeel, said her son did not participate in protests, but was shot when trying to drag a wounded friend to safety. She said three Palestinians were wounded.

Posters of Abu Ramuz with the logo of Fatah, the dominant Palestinian faction in the West Bank, were plastered to walls in Silwan when Reuters visited the neighbourhood this week.

Zaki Abbasi, Aleiwat's uncle, said he did not think his nephew knew Abu Ramuz well, noting their age difference.

Abbasi said the family had no links to Palestinian political movements and had not been looking for trouble, saying Aleiwat's older brother was preparing to get married.

After the 28 January attack, Israeli Forces took control of Aleiwat's family home and the government ordered it sealed. It marked a change of policy, as Israel usually only orders such action after fatal attacks.

"I can't believe this is happening," Abbasi said about Aleiwat. "Young people see things on social media. No one knows what may have gotten to him."

Abbasi's two sons, close to Aleiwat's age, described their cousin as compassionate and said he played football after school most days, often taking a lead in organising teams.

Abbasi and other relatives said Aleiwat's family had, for years, feared their home would be demolished because it was built without the required Israeli permissions.

A Jerusalem municipality spokesperson said a demolition order was issued about 20 years ago over "building violations".

Last year, 10 houses in Silwan were demolished for illegal construction, the spokesperson said, adding demolition orders were regularly enforced across the city in line with the law and in coordination with police.

READ: Sometimes Alqam (wormwood) is sweeter than honey

The Israeli group, Ir Amim, says 24 Palestinian structures were demolished in Silwan in 2022, while rights groups say building permits are almost impossible for Palestinians to secure in East Jerusalem.

Aleiwat's father, who works in a hotel washing dishes as one of two jobs he has to make ends meet, did not comment on politics to colleagues, said Mahmoud Mir'i, the hotel head chef.

The administrator at Aleiwat's school, Hayat Al-Husseini, said the 13-year-old's passion was football.

"'I want to be like Messi', he would say. That's what he cared about. What happened, what went on in his head, we don't know."

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Palestine too has a right to self-defence


People march during a protest organised by Chicago Coalition for Justice in Palestine against the killing of 9 people in the Jenin refugee camp during an Israeli military operation as police take security measures on January 29, 202, in Chicago, Illinois, United States 

[Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu Agency]

Anjuman Rahman
AnjumanAleena
February 3, 2023 

Last week, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, tweeted then retweeted: "Israel has a right to self-defense." This bold statement seems to be missing a crucial detail: Palestine too has a right to self-defence.

In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.

Nevertheless, the statement perfectly encompasses the world's impression and reaction to Palestinians exercising the same right, which is heavily warped in inequity, double standards and injustice.

The tweet came in response to an attack carried out in the illegal settlement of Neve Ya'akov, where seven settlers were killed and three wounded. In an attempt to condemn the attack the former US envoy wrote: "I'm heartbroken over the news coming out of Jerusalem tonight. Only a monster would open fire on a crowd of innocent worshippers praying in a synagogue. This act of evil only emboldens the Jewish people's resolve and we must stand with them against all terrorism. #PrayForJerusalem"

READ: UN Rights Chief calls for halt to illogical escalation in Israel, Palestine

But, the attack did not take place in a place of worship.

In fact, the illegal settlement of Neve Ya'akov, based in occupied East Jerusalem, serves as the Israeli military's central command centre for the occupation of the West Bank, known as Fort Nehemiah.

Established in 1972 on land illegally seized by the Israeli occupation authorities, the settlement strategically links the belt of Jewish-only settlements, based in the centre of East Jerusalem to the western part of the city, resulting in the fragmentation of Palestinian communities.

Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 and has built dozens of settlements and outposts in the region which are considered illegal under international law, along with most of the international community, considered to be a major obstacle to peace.

Noticeably absent from her chain of tweets is Israel's four-hour-long massacre in the Jenin refugee camp just a day earlier. The bloodshed marked the day as the deadliest Israeli military raid in the West Bank in years, which left at least nine Palestinians killed and 20 others wounded, including children and a 61-year-old woman after the Israeli military forces invaded the crowded, built-up neighbourhood.



Palestinians rise up again to defend Jenin camp from Israeli aggression

 – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/Middle East Monitor]

A 10th Palestinian was shot dead later that day near Al-Ram, north of Jerusalem.

Home to some 15,000 Palestinians, whose families fled or were expelled from cities and villages in what is now northern Israel during the 1948 Nakba, Jenin camp has witnessed an increase in violent incursions by the Israeli army.

Just days before the deadly raid, two Palestinian men were shot dead by Israeli soldiers in the very same camp. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Jawad Fareed Bawaqneh, a 57-year-old father of six and teacher at a local school, was shot directly in the chest and 28-year-old Adham Jabareen was hit in his stomach.

READ: Blinken put pressure on Abbas to accept US security plan for Jenin and Nablus

A large number of Israeli occupation forces with more than 70 armed vehicles raided the Jenin refugee camp and attacked several residents with live fire and tear gas, triggering protests from locals.

These historical and social contexts are blatantly ignored not only in Nikki Haley's tweets but the majority of the news reporting on the Neve Ya'akov shooting. They are, however, crucial to understanding the event as a whole and acknowledging the ongoing Israeli brutality under which Palestinians live and to which the media remains silent.

Implicit in this double standard is reinforcing the idea that Palestinians should simply submit to their own murder, assault and dispossession; that resistance, in the case of Palestine, is a crime.

But it is not just the Israeli aggression on Jenin or the recurring raids across the occupied West Bank which have led to Palestinian anger; Palestinians have been living under an apartheid system which leaves them few rights.

In January alone, 35 Palestinians including five children were killed. This was after 2022 was branded the deadliest year for Palestinians – especially in the West Bank – since 2005, with over 226 Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces, including 49 during a three-day-long bombing of the Gaza Strip. With 35 lives lost already this year, the momentum of last year's violence by the Israeli occupation seems set not only to continue but to increase in 2023, averaging an execution a day.

Yet, despite the brutality, Palestinians who resist are repeatedly demonised and labelled "terrorists". While the aggressor, Israel, continues to tighten the noose it has placed around them.

READ: Hamas criticises 'biased', 'contradictory' EU resolution on two-state solution

Palestine needs to stop being alienated from the fundamental right to self-determination, freedom and independence, recognised under international law. For Palestinians suffering under decades of illegal military occupation, this includes the right to resistance in any form necessary.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Tunisia Labour Union accuses President of fear-mongering


Tunisian President Kais Saied. 

[TUNISIAN PRESIDENCY/Anadolu Agency]

February 3, 2023 

Tunisia's President has resorted to intimidating the nation's people, the head of a major labour union in the country said on Friday, Anadolu News Agency reports.

"President Kais Saied chose the path of intimidating the people and calling them, directly or indirectly, to fight," Secretary-General Noureddine Taboubi said at an emergency administrative meeting of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT).

Saied chose "the wrong path at a time when the country is going through situations at all levels," Taboubi underlined, adding that the President was supposed to "address the people for unity, work and solving thorny issues".

"Instead, he addresses his people with threats and intimidation from the army barracks," he stated.

READ: Tunisia: ex-president calls for dismissal of Saied and restoration of democracy

There was no immediate comment from Saied's office.

On Tuesday, the President visited the barracks of the North African country's National Guard in the El-Aouina area of ​​the capital, Tunis, where he called on military leaders to "confront those who conspired against the state."

Tunisia has been in the throes of a deep political crisis that aggravated the country's economy since 2021, when Saied ousted the government and dissolved parliament.

Since then, Saied held a referendum to draft a new Constitution last July, and parliamentary elections last December.

While he insisted that his measures were meant to "save" the country, critics have accused Saied of orchestrating a coup.

Thomas Friedman shows that liberal Jews have no reason left to defend Israel


Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist and bestselling author Thomas L. Friedman.

 [Photo by Sean Zanni/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images]

Nasim Ahmed
Nasimbythedocks
January 26, 2023

I watched the recent discussion between Thomas Friedman and Peter Beinart with great interest. Friedman, a New York Times columnist and arguably the journalist who has most shaped the US debate over Israel-Palestine in recent decades, was invited onto Beinart's podcast to talk about Zionism, the two-state solution and Israel's latest far-right government.

Friedman spoke at length about the evolution of his thinking about Israel-Palestine and Zionism over the course of his life, and whether he thinks the two-state paradigm still makes sense, subjects which he has addressed in his many books on the Middle East and were not of much interest to me on this occasion. I was more interested to hear if he had anything more to say about his recent columns in the New York Times which highlighted powerfully a growing wedge between American Jews and Israel.

In his latest piece, Friedman urged US President Joe Biden to "save Israel" from becoming a bastion of zealotry. "Israel is on the verge of a historic transformation — from a full-fledged democracy to something less, and from a stabilising force in the region to a destabilising one," said Friedman. "Can Joe Biden save Israel?" he asked, with the looming possibility of it turning into an "illiberal bastion of zealotry". In December Friedman wrote another piece in the NYT under the headline "The Israel We Knew Is Gone". In another column he asked, "What in the World Is Happening in Israel?"

READ: The Israel you knew, has not 'gone' it never existed

In his interview with Beinart, Freidman was more cautious with his words than one would have expected after reading his NYT columns. For example, in "What in the World is Happening in Israel?" he argued that "the prospect for a two-state solution has all but vanished." He even acknowledged that no one wants to formally declare it dead and buried, because categorically ruling it out would have enormous ramifications. Hence, diplomats, politicians and liberal Jewish organisations pretend that it still has a faint heartbeat.

In his remarks about the two-state solution during the Beinart interview, Friedman was not so keen to declare it dead and buried. He cited Palestinian pollsters to argue that it's still the only viable option. "How do you make a difference which make this [Israel and Palestine] better for people on both sides on more days and in more ways?" That's the principal which guides him, he said, while insisting that two states for two people inside historic Palestine remains the best option.

Both Friedman and Beinart are liberal Jews. Unlike Beinart, though — who has had a very public political conversion regarding Israel and Zionism — Friedman has been less willing to part company with his past loyalties. That, however, does not mean that he has not become disillusioned over the direction that Israel is taking. I sensed that the main reason Freedman is less trenchant in his views over Israel than Beinart is because, as one of the main commentators in the US on the Middle East, the NYT columnist is less concerned about the rights and wrongs of "the conflict" as much as he is about his audience. "Do you want to make a point, or do you want to make a difference?" is another of his key principals, Freidman said, shooting back with a prickly response when Beinart presented him with a charge sheet of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, beginning with the ethnic cleansing in 1948 through to the crime of apartheid.

Having spent most of his professional career covering Israel and Palestine, usually in defence of the occupation state, Friedman has come to see himself as someone with influence not just in the US, but also in Israel, and therefore does not want to say anything to undermine his position. Being at the centre of the debate where one can influence the views of people one disagrees with is better than shouting from the outside. That is the logic, I guess, but it looks as though it's the only thing that's keeping Friedman from making a political conversion similar to Beinart's few years ago.

OPINION: Is Rishi Sunak really going to appoint critic of IHRA UK's free speech tsar?

The flaw in this is obvious. For a start, Israel's trajectory since its founding has been moving away from everything liberals claim to value and respect. Despite their number and influence, liberal advocates of Israel have failed miserably to halt its transformation into an apartheid state. Instead of being a check on Israel's behaviour, they checked-in their own values and principals. What difference has it made being "within" and part of the conversation, I'd like to ask Friedman and others like him. It seems to be a perfectly apt question.

Friedman did offer a possible explanation for Israel's behaviour. The people he is "most angry" with are pro-Israel lobby groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other American Jewish organisations. He accused them of doing the bidding of far-right Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Explaining Washington's inability to hold Israel to account, he said that the US administration is where it is with regard to Israel because pro-Israel lobby groups "at every turn use their power and influence" to prevent America from adopting a "more serious and vigorous" policy. "Bibi [Benjamin] Netanyahu was able to speak to the US Congress because it was bought and paid for by AIPAC," he said, underlining the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

During their discussion, Friedman and Beinart spoke briefly about the allegation that Israel practices apartheid and the claim that criticism of Zionism is anti-Semitic, a view which is being pushed through the adoption of the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. The view that Israel practices apartheid should not be controversial, said Friedman. He has used the term himself, and many Israeli leaders have warned that the state would preside over an apartheid system if it failed to grant Palestinians their rights. As for criticism of Zionism being ant-Semitic, he said he just won't go there, because such a proposition is ridiculous.

This was an interesting discussion. In agreeing to take part, Thomas Friedman has demonstrated that liberal Jews have no reason left to defend Israel.

OPINION: Jewish supremacy is state policy, says Netanyahu

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

‘B4’ It’s Too Late: The Socialist Left’s Role in Fighting Autocracy

B4—the Broad Front Opposing the Right—can’t be about the status quo. While it must be aimed at defeating all attacks on our democratic rights, its thrust must be to expand democracy and shift US domestic and foreign policy.

By Bill Fletcher

January 6, 2023

Photo by Brett Davis, licensed CC BY-NC 2.0

Midterm wins bought organizing time for pro-democracy forces, but MAGA authoritarianism still menaces US politics. In “Pro-democracy Organizing Against Autocracy in the United States,” scholar/activists Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks map the threat and steps that could help defeat it. Convergence interviewed the two and will be publishing reflections and responses to the report. Bill Fletcher Jr. kicks off the series with thoughts on the particular role for socialists in building the anti-authoritarian front. We invite readers to contribute to the discussion; please query us here.

I found myself watching the Netflix series Babylon Berlin over the last several weeks. Netflix has three seasons of this German-made look at 1929 Weimar Germany. Though technically a mystery revolving around a German police detective, this is a story of the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the growing strength of the Communists as well as various right-wing currents within the republic, including but not limited to Nazism. As such, it is chilling and cannot but force a US viewer to reflect upon the growth of right-wing populism and right-wing authoritarianism in the US.

It was within this broader political and media context of the growth of right-wing authoritarianism that I read Pro-Democracy Organizing against Autocracy in the United States (PDOA for short). This is an amazing, comprehensive, and sobering look at what needs to be considered and undertaken in the face of virulent right-wing authoritarian mass movement.

By way of preface, it is important to be clear that the right-wing populist/authoritarian movement that has become energized since 2009 did not appear out of nowhere. The history of the US as a racial settler-colonial project laid very firm foundations for the periodic rise of nefarious movements of the political Right, movements that are regularly racist, sexist, xenophobic and irrationalist. The current incarnation of right-wing populism aims to create a future for the US based on a reconfigured US, something akin to the pre-1912 country, if not being a 21st century version of the Confederate States of America. A neoliberal right-wing combined with a far-right semi-fascist tendency has resulted in the development of what can be understood as a “neo-Confederate” political bloc. This is a complicated and contradictory alliance that shares the objective of establishing a semi-apartheid system in the US along with the suppression of basic democratic rights up to and including the possibility of gutting and redoing the Constitution.

Pro-Democracy Organizing Against Autocracy in the United States takes, as its starting point, the possibility of the successful capture of government by right-wing authoritarian forces. It does not treat this as inevitable, nor does it suggest that all is hopeless should such a scenario come into existence. But it does argue that in order to prevent the success of right-wing authoritarians and undermine a right-wing authoritarian hegemony, there must be a new practice introduced by progressive forces. In sum this includes:Building and maintaining a large-scale, multi-racial, cross-class pro-democratic united front
Protecting, holding and building local community power through alternative institutions
Building pressure to create splits and defections within the Right
Preventing, deterring, and strengthening resistance to state security force and/or paramilitary violence.

The paper also suggests specific steps in this direction that include information networks, education and training efforts, international outreach and, interestingly, development of conflict resolution mechanisms for handling contradictions within the broad front.

Rather than reiterate the excellent points raised in the paper, points with which I am largely in agreement, I believe it necessary to focus on the particular role and vision that a socialist Left can advance in our current situation and in building resistance to right-wing authoritarianism.
Clarity on the nature of the enemy

PDOA is unapologetic in identifying the principal enemy at this juncture being what I described earlier as the “neo-Confederate bloc.” To say that it is the principal enemy does not mean that it is the only enemy. It means, however, that strategy must focus, first and foremost, on taking down the principal enemy and that all else is secondary.

There should be nothing surprising in this assertion. Whether in war or politics, one must first ascertain who or what is the main enemy and then figure out the steps—and alliances—necessary in order to bring them down. A failure to attain that clarity can mean a dispersal of resources and, ultimately, failure.

Starting here is critical since there are many forces on the US Left that refuse to identify the neo-Confederate bloc as the principal enemy. They remain obsessed with taking down centrist Democrats or believing that these two opponents are equally dangerous, as if the centrist Democrats are trying to destroy abortion, voting rights and the recognition that the Earth is round. If one cannot identify the principal opponent, the approach elaborated in PDOA is futile.
The need for “B4”—before it is too late

As PDOA suggests as its first point, there is a need for what I would term a “Broad Front Opposing the Right,” i.e., “B4.” The authors suggest that efforts towards such a front need to be started immediately through a series of summits. Let’s step back for a moment, however.

Using the term “broad front” aims to convey both the scale and scope of this project, but also to avoid unnecessary discussions that disarm the Left over whether one is building a “united front” or a “popular front.” In the context of 21st century US, what is being proposed is a “broad” front that has a focus on overcoming and smashing the far-Right, i.e., demolishing the neo-Confederate bloc. PDOA is correct in saying that this must be multi-racial/multi-national and cross-class. It cannot be an alignment of the Left alone nor can it be limited to those who are in total agreement with a left/progressive agenda.

B4 must first of all be defensive in that it is actively opposing the thrust from the far-Right. It is aiming to put the breaks on the neo-Confederate offensive. Thus, the question that must be asked by those trying to bring such a front into existence—which is hopefully the socialist Left and our immediate allies—revolves around identifying who that should include. To answer that, there must be a broad mapping of liberal, progressive and left forces across the US.

There is a prior step, however. The socialist Left and left/progressive forces need to have a convening to ensure that there exists a critical mass of organizations and individuals committed to this path. Building B4 will involve considerable political, organizational and diplomatic work. This core will need to take responsibility for moving the B4 process, though a broader left/progressive configuration will be necessary in order to actually convene a full-blown B4 process.

A socialist Left core that has an analysis of the larger national picture, will need to undertake the diplomatic work involved in initiating the sorts of convenings that PDOA suggests.
B4 needs to be convened by organizations and individuals with a real base

There are too many left and progressive convenings that have involved noted individuals and interested people who have no base. Even a large gathering of people is next to irrelevant if they lack a base. Thus, there is a need for groups such as the Working Families Party, Progressive Democrats of America, as well as a host of state-based and locally based left/progressive groups that have a real mass base to play the leading role in a convening. The socialist Left, through its work in such groups, must fight for a united front orientation and against sectarianism and small-group mentality.
Principles that unite and the need to reject purity

The Right is far better at united fronts/broad fronts than the Left. They make it easy for people to join their mass movements and set very few preconditions. Their assumption, proven over and again, is that they will win people to their overall framework through the course of their work in one of their fronts.

The Left, on the other hand, insists on raising the bar for entry into our various projects. We tend to set purity tests of various sorts and identify why we cannot unite, rather than determining what steps are necessary in order to unite.

B4 necessitates principles of unity that distinguish it from both the neo-Confederate bloc and the Democratic National Committee. This does not mean that it should take a sectarian stand towards the Democratic National Committee. Rather, it must be far broader in content but also in its strategic and tactical approaches. More about that below.
Establish clear strategic objectives

It is one thing to convene a gathering (no matter how difficult); it is another to establish clarity on strategic direction. B4 needs to have a set of strategic objectives in terms of what it seeks to accomplish at the national, state and local levels over the next 10 years. Those objectives, we should note, should not be restricted to electoral cycles. They should aim at winning broad left/progressive power at the national, state and local levels through defeating the Right and presenting a program that breaks with the status quo.

This last point cannot be overemphasized. B4 cannot be about the status quo. While it must be aimed at defeating all attacks on our democratic rights, its thrust must be to expand democracy; a program of consistent democracy. As such B4 must aim to shift US domestic and foreign policies, combatting the Right domestically and globally.
Encourage splits within the Right

One of the most insightful and courageous points raised in PDOA is the need to encourage defections from the neo-Confederate bloc. For many leftists, such an idea is an anathema to our general approach. Yet, in order to defeat our opponents, we must ascertain means of provoking splits within their ranks and demoralizing component parts of their blocs.

To use a strange analogy, I was once engaged in protecting a meeting from the intrusion of provocateurs. The provocateurs showed up and said—openly—that if they had to bust into the meeting, they needed to attack my colleague first and not me. That was a brilliant move aimed at destabilizing the alliance with my colleague and trying to get me to fight less.

B4 must employ a similar approach. That means that there will be Republicans, independents, etc., with whom we have no strategic unity, but with whom we may have tactical unity in opposing the far-Right. Under those circumstances, we must find means for united action or, at a minimum, aim to neutralize them.
And B4 does what?

Left and progressive forces regularly form coalitions and then nothing happens! Usually this is connected with lack of strategy and, specifically, the inability to prioritize. B4 will need to coordinate activities among its constituents; provide on-going information as well as counter the propaganda of the Right; and engage in various campaigns (electoral and non-electoral). This work includes:Building up electoral fronts on a state-wide basis
Mounting electoral assaults or counterassaults against the Right
Overturning efforts being undertaken by the Right to convene a Constitutional Convention
Utilizing ballot initiatives in order to destabilize the Right, consolidate progressive opinion, and build base areas in Republican-dominated states
Constructing social media strategy focused on mobilization and information provision
Organizing mass mobilizations that go beyond ‘Saturday in the park’ rallies. Specifically, countering mass mobilizations carried out by the Right; building defensive mass actions when the far-Right makes is appearance
Building legal assistance networks when progressive and liberal forces come under attack, e.g., when rightwing elected leaders move against so-called Antifa elements and BLM elements
Building various levels of self-defense.
Conflict-resolution within B4 and resolving “contradictions among the people”

So many progressive coalition efforts are undermined by rumor-mongering, miscommunications, and the heightening of contradictions until differences result in splits. We have little successful experience in internal mediation with an aim of resolving differences.

While some differences are actually splitting differences, a new approach can be introduced in order to sustain and build B4. Among the understandings and practices in this approach:Allegations do not equal the truth. When allegations are offered, whether regarding personal behavior or a political stance, B4 needs to have a conflict-resolution policy and mechanism to surface issues and address them directly. Allegations must be accompanied by facts rather than remain as feelings and opinions.
Presume good will. Despite what will inevitably be major differences, B4 participants should start from an assumption of positive intent. Internal differences should not be treated as equivalent to differences with our opponents.
There should be protocols or agreements on acceptable and unacceptable behavior within B4.
Organizations within B4 should not act unilaterally on any matters that the broader front is attempting to resolve—or act upon—except and insofar as B4 is incapable of making a decision.
B4 should anticipate that contradictions and problems will emerge along racial, ethnic, gender and religious lines. These should be handled according to the prior approach. Individuals and organizations should be encouraged to hold back on jumping to conclusions. And, where errors have been committed, a process of rectification should be put into place in order to correct the underlying problem.
Is the socialist Left up to the challenge?

Therein lies the question. The socialist Left vacillates between grandiosity and myopia. We often cannot conceive of winning because winning necessitates broad alliances with forces with whom we are frequently at odds. Additionally, we quickly elevate every difference to one of principle rather than deciding what issues/matters can and must be resolved at any given moment and what can be placed on hold.

If we can agree that B4 is essential, and if we can agree on the overall approach offered by PDOA, then we can proceed with all deliberate speed, in organizing to weather the coming storm and build a countercurrent advancing consistent democracy.

Related PostsOrganizing Against Autocracy in the US
Erica Chenoweth -- November 12, 2022
A Socialist Response to the American Fascist Threat
Mark Harris -- October 18, 2022
Amusing Ourselves to Autocracy
David Corn -- April 28, 2022
In Louisville, a Socialist Candidate Speaks to an Abandoned Working Class
Robert LeVertis Bell -- April 24, 2022
The Democratic Establishment Hates Socialist Gabriel Acevero. He Won Reelection Anyway.
Gabriel Acevero -- September 02, 2022