Search
Home Blog Page 5

Don’t expect another attempted coup– it may not be necessary

Nick Licata
-
0
Don’t expect another attempted coup– it may not be necessary
President of the Russian Federation and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

Was there really an attempted coup?

Bennie Thompson, chair of the House of Representative’s select committee investigating the insurrection at the US Capitol, said, “January 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup.” This conclusion was also from numerous journalists in mainstream media and on the left. Conservatives and Republicans deny any such tag. 

Sally Denton wrote in the Guardian about a 1930s Coup Attempt Against FDR; there had been a former such attempt. The retired US Marine Corps Maj Gen Smedley Butler testified before Congress that a group of Wall Street financiers recruited him to lead a fascist coupagainst FDR. None of the financiers appeared before Congress, and the Roosevelt Administration took no action on the General’s claim. It has slipped into a footnote in history. 

The mob of a thousand trying to stop Congress from functioning on January 6th could squeeze into a definition of a coup. Still, it was not a military takeover of a democratic government which is a classic definition of one. Those coups happen regularly across the globe, as in Spain (1936), Chile (1973), Burma (1988), and Egypt (2013). 

Focusing on a “coup,” a single violent action to overthrow an existing government, ignores the more significant practices that endanger our republic. Democracies have collapsed without being toppled by the military or even a rioting mob.

The Concentration of Political Power sets the stage

The most insidious threat is an elected leader and a single political party bending the rules to alter the balance of power between the executive, the legislature, and the courts. An executive can apply newly gained power to direct those institutions and the national bureaucracy to muzzle government critics by restraining a free press and tilting the electoral process.

Becoming an authoritarian ruler is not a solo act. Dependency on an elite of wealthy benefactors is necessary but not sufficient. A populist uprising against the status quo is also an essential ingredient. Most citizens need not revolt, but the dissatisfied must be the loudest, best organized, and plurality of the voting population.

A Young Democracy Fails

Last month, Tunisia became the most recent example of a democracy slipping into authoritarian rule when political power is consolidated at the top.  

A referendum handed over ultimate authority to its President Kais Saied, passing with over 94 percent approval. Although the referendum retained the Tunisian Constitution’s clauses concerning rights and liberties, they could be effectively ignored because the president alone would now appoint government ministers and judges and reduces parliament’s authority.            

The election followed with Saied consolidating his powers over the previous year as he mainly ruled by decree. He suspended parliament and fired his prime minister. As a result, he slanted the election process to favor the referendum. In response, there were mass boycotts, and many citizens were resigned to not voting on a predetermined result. Then, Tunisia was seen as the only democracy to survive the revolts that swept the region in the Arab Spring uprisings a decade ago. That is now only a memory. 

An International Hero for Strongman Governing

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC. He received repeated enthusiastic applause, notably when he told them they were “in a battle to protect Western civilization against the forces of liberalism and mass migration.” 

On the other hand, mainstream media tags him as the poster child for how a democracy can be converted into an authoritarian government. Of course, CPAC didn’t advertise his appearance that way, but they liked his message and admired his ability to win elections. CPAC spokesman Alex Pfeiffer told NBC News, explaining why they invited him, “The press might despise Prime Minister Orbán, but he is a popular leader.” And there is some truth to that.

Two years before becoming Prime Minister, more than 80 percent of the electorate approved a referendum to abolish fees for doctor and hospital visits and university tuition enacted by the government. Orbán’s Fidesz partyinitiated it. Providing benefits in a down economy can rally reactionary populists to push for a strongman to lead a nation. As a result, Orbán’s party solidly beat the ruling Socialist Party in 2010. 

Since then, his Fidesz party has controlled their parliament. While Orbán has gained both national support and international attention with his anti-immigrant policies, his political success in winning reelections is due to him undermining democratic institutions.  Over the past 12 years, Orbán has converted a republic into a top-down government that effectively silenced the critics and stopped their legal and political challenges to its authority. As a result, Orbán’s goes down a well-worn road toward authoritarian rule. Nevertheless, his accomplishments have brought cheers from other autocrats and those attending the CPAC conference.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson describes Hungary as a “small country with a lot of lessons for the rest of us.” Are those lessons on how to pass laws that discriminate against non-European immigrants, non-Christian religions, and non-traditional families under the banner of preserving Western Culture? Is Tucker also including how to obtain and retain political power by hollowing out obstructive democratic institutions?

By crippling the independent media, the judiciary, and the legislature, Orbán doesn’t have to call in the military to eliminate them. However, by significantly narrowing the powers of these institutions but keeping them still around, an authoritarian government arises while maintaining the illusion of a functioning republic outside Hungary.  This allows world leaders like President Trump to welcome him into Oval Office, saying, “Viktor Orbán has done a tremendous job in so many different ways. Highly respected.” And he met with him again this year, proudly shaking his hand for the cameras. 

Carlson was right; Orbán has some lessons that “the rest of us” could learn to obtain permanent and dominant political power.  In Hungary, those lessons were methodically put into practice. Is that happening in America? 

Strangle Media outlets

In Hungary, a team of European Union NGOs specializing in Press and Media Freedom investigated Orbán’s government’s treatment of the media in 2019. They found that Orban had created a pro-government media empire, financed by allies, to allow the Fidesz party to hold on to power. The report concluded that “The Hungarian system of media control was deliberately designed to deter scrutiny and provide its rulers with superficial deniability.” Hungarian journalist Paul Lendvai said that “80% of the news is in the hands of the government.”

 A year after the report was released, in 2020, the Fidesz-controlled Parliament overcame objections from opposition to granting Orbán emergency power to rule by decree, suspending elections, and providing no end to Orbán’s expanded capabilities. It  mandated harsh penalties for disseminating false news, such as jail for up to five years, “anyone who intentionally spreads what the government classifies as misinformation.”

The few remaining left- and right-wing independent media are labeled as “Hungary-haters,” foreign agents, or traitors, and their private advertisers are harassed.

In America, there has been a dramatic decline in independent newspapers. According to a report by AdWeek, in June 2022, there was a loss of an average of two newspapers per week between late 2019 and May 2022, leaving an estimated 70 million people in news deserts. If the trend continues, a third of newspapers will be lost by 2025, according to the 2022 study published by Northwestern University. 

Accompanying the loss of independent newspapers is the concentration of ownership among a few businesses with similar objectives. Thom Hartman in American Oligarchy argues that “roughly 90 percent of American media (by viewership, readership, and listenership) is owned by only six companies.” Title Max reports that about 15 billionaires and six corporations own most of the US media outlets. They own 77 percent of the 100 largest online news sources. Pew Research found that about four in ten Americans often get news online, which goes to half for those younger than 50. 

What needs to happen?

The concentration of media outlets does not mean they are all playing the same tune. There are some clear distinctions in their politics. But, as a whole, they reflect the political orientation of their owners. Steps can be taken to stop a further drift toward a national media market having even fewer owners who could share a common political agenda, such as promoting particular businesses, religious values, or a political party’s beliefs. 

The Fairness Doctrine, which was dropped by the Reagan administration and then eliminated under the Obama administration, should be revived. The Telecommunications Act signed by Clinton, which allowed media concentration, should be repealed. Legislation already introduced to provide tax incentives for locally owned media could be pursued. 

Appoint the Court Justices & Change the Constitution

In Hungary, according to Human Rights Watch, “In its eight years in power, the Orbán government has packed the Constitutional Court with its preferred justices and forced 400 judges into retirement.” In 2018, the Hungarian Parliament brought the courts further under his control by creating a parallel court system controlled by the Orbán.

His justice minister will control the hiring and promotion of its judges. All politically sensitive cases concerning electoral law, corruption, and the right to protest will have to come before it as a “public administration” matter. The existing judiciary will have a reduced mandate with no oversight of these new Administrative Courts. 

            A Hungarian government spokesman defended the new Administrative Courts saying that many European countries have them. However, Cas Mudde, a University of Georgia professor who is an expert on populism, said that they would put the Orbán government in complete control of the elections. With no independent judiciary oversight, Hungarian elections will no longer be free and fair. 

            In the US, after the first 100 days in office, President Trump blamed the constitutional checks and balances built into US governance for his legislation stalling. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” Consequently, his appointments to the federal courts were checked for conformity to the Federalist Society’s reactionary beliefs. 

The result has become more laws that Democrats have passed being trimmed or nullified by federal courts. Challenges to those decisions appealed to the Supreme Court are then in the hands of a majority of justices aligned with the Federalist philosophy. 

Senate Republicans manipulated the process for appointing a Supreme Court Justice to tilt SCOTUS to endorse a reactionary policy agenda. Without breaking any laws but ignoring Senate norms going back hundreds of years, they refused even to hold a hearing for Obama’s nominee because they said the next presidential election was only eight months away. However, it took only 30 days from when President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court for the Republican-controlled Senate to approve her. They ignored that the next presidential election was less than two months away.

What needs to happen?

            Republican appointments have dominated the Supreme Court for over a half-century. Democrats have been a minority on the Supreme Court since 1970. Trump did not change the party makeup of SCOTUS, but he did enlarge the reactionary wing of conservative justices on it. They set about to reverse previous court decisions, which the majority of its justices now consider liberal aberrations of the constitution. These activist justices see their mission as protecting values that reflect the beliefs of the nation’s founders. However, they overlook how those beliefs harbored and protected inequalities among citizens based on race, gender, and economic status.

The Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision provoked societal outrage among non-slave-owning Americans. We see similar discontent from both the left and the right, as SCOTUS interprets the constitution in a context that preserves the biases and prejudices that were part of the nation’s original beliefs. The last time that approach was taken, the Supreme Court was expanded to counter that effort. And there are suggestions by members of Congress they should do it again. 

Congress decides the size of the Supreme Court. That changed six times since the court was formed in 1790. It has had nine justices since 1869, after the Civil War. However, increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to balance philosophical views could invite a never-ending intervention. More immediately, the Supreme Court would be seen as a partisan body to be dominated by the political party in power, carrying on the practice of the Trump presidency. 

            By Executive Order, President Biden in 2021 established a 36-member Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court to provide an “analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.” The final report was issued at the end of 2021. It did not endorse any specific changes, but it reviewed, analyzed, and recommended further steps to consider if the expansion or alteration of the current structure of the Supreme Court were pursued.

            Proponents and opponents of Congress changing the Supreme Courts’ design and scope of work should use the commission’s report as a shared baseline to discuss seriously if any such changes are needed and effective in protecting our democracy.

Suppose America is to avoid a collapse of our democracy. In that case, there must be Presidential and bi-partisan congressional leadership guiding an open and fair discussion of how to protect the Supreme Court’s legitimacy and our federal courts’ independence from political manipulation. If political leaders continue to inflame the national debate by accusing each other of being the enemy, our nation will tear apart. 

Where does America go from here?

            Democratic governments, which are democratic republics more in name than in practice, have drifted into authoritarian rule because their government’s executive office weakened their legislatures and media outlets. Our culture must believe that democracy can work to halt that trend. That belief is shaken by political leaders who attack the reliability of election results. Their messaging leads to a society that will tolerate the rise of authoritarian power. Because they believe their democracy has already been lost. 

            To effectively resist the social and political forces that promise a peaceful society under a one-man rule, or some variation of that, there must be a coordinated national effort to pursue a rational and thoughtful discussion on how democracies are not utopias; they are messy and chaotic at times. But they are accountable to the many, not the few. That message must be shared for all to hear. Remaining silent will only encourage those yelling the loudest that the end has come.  

Nick Licata is the author of Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties. Now available on Amazon as a Kindle edition

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter, Citizenship Politics

Could ethnic minorities save the Senate for the Democrats?

Nick Licata
-
0
Could ethnic minorities save the Senate for the Democrats?

Two different approaches to shaping America’s future

The Republican Party, through Donald Trump and their primary system, has repeatedly fanned fears among white Americans of crime coming from urban gangs of minority ethnic youths and drug cartels run by South Americans. They describe the steady increase of immigrants as an uncontrolled illegal invasion that only a wall can stop.

Democrats since WWII moved toward accepting a more ethnically diverse democratic society. And while they often fall short in pursuing one, they have rhetorically embraced a multicultural society. As a result, regardless of who controls Congress or the presidency in the next two elections, immigration and birth rates over the past half-century will soon result in an America with a population of less than half from European descendants.

The clash of these two views is at the heart of the debate between the Democrat and Republican parties. Candidate Donald Trump’s message was and still is wanting to Make America Great Again. It looks back to when European ethnic groups were shaping America’s future. 

In contrast, President Joe Biden’s theme, like other Democrats, is focused on an all-inclusive future. They saw ethnic minority groups as citizens who should have the same opportunities as most Americans to achieve social, political, and economic power. 

There is a visual and real stark difference between President Trump’s appointments to his White House Cabinet and the courts to Biden’s appointments. Trump was overwhelmingly staffed with whites, while Biden made minority appoints to these positions more than ever before, except for former President Barak Obama.

Democrats are heading into troubled waters

It is largely acknowledged, although not certain, that the House will flip over to Republican control. Control of the Senate is also likely to change. With inflation at a historic high, shooting over 9 percent at the end of June, the party controlling Congress will be blamed. Polls have repeatedly shown inflation to be the number one concern among likely voters. The last time inflation was a major campaign issue was in President Jimmy Carter’s reelection in 1980. Ronald Reagan won every state but one. 

Aside from runaway inflation, a historical trend would slim the Democrat’s chances of maintaining control of Congress this November. The number of voters going to the polls in midterm elections drops from the previous presidential election, regardless of what party controls the presidency. To counter that drift, each party works to have fewer supporters sitting out the election than the other party. 

Republicans have been playing the long game by strategically targeting state legislature races. As a result, they now control both state legislative chambers in 30 states, while Democrats control both in 18 states. Consequently, Republicans have passed more gerrymandering measures than the Democrats. 

While gerrymandering will not impact the statewide votes for Senators, suppression measures can. To reduce the Democratic vote, Republicans have zeroed in on issues like eliminating or restricting the number of voting boxes and voting stations that urban voters use more than rural voters.

Both gerrymandering and voter suppression measures passed by white-dominated legislatures are designed to beat down voter turnout from Democrats’ most reliable voting base, urban-based ethnic minorities. The Brennan Center found ample evid­ence that the sorts of barri­ers being intro­duced this year by Republicans  dispro­por­tion­ately reduce turnout for voters of color.

Nevertheless, Democrats have also had a measurable loss of support from this constituency. In the last three presidential elections, Hispanic voters went from 70 percent to 61 percent and Black voters dropped from 97 percent to 90 percent. Asian support has consistently remained slightly above 50 percent.

A combination of more restricted access to voting and lower motivation may account for voter turnout from minority ethnic groups being less than that from white voters. For example, in 2020, the turnout of white voters ranged from 8 percent higher than Black voters to 17 percent higher than that of Hispanic voters. 

Nevertheless, organized efforts to get out the vote among key supporters is how any political party wins elections. It just becomes more challenging with laws that make voting a chore that competes with working hours or transportation limitations of lower-income voters. In addition, a disproportionate number of them are ethnic minorities. 

Ethnic minorities in three key swing states could keep a Democratic Senate

Republicans are focusing their organizing and money on defeating the Democrat incumbent senators in Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia. 

Arizona incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Kelly is a former astronaut and has just served two years in the Senate. He defeated incumbent Sen. Martha McSally (R) in a special election after the Republican Governor appointed her to a vacant seat. McSally was a white, retired Air Force colonel. The Republican Senate candidate has yet to be chosen for November, but all Republican contenders are white, very conservative males. The three top support banning abortions and deny that Trump lost his election.  

Donald Trump won Arizona in 2016 with a 3.6 percent margin; Biden skimmed by to win the 2020 race by 0.3 percent, while Kelly’s margin was 2.4 percent that same year. So, Kelly would seem to have a good shot at being reelected. However, he will have to maintain or expand the 2020 voter turnout, which was very high. Hispanic voters provided the largest minority voters at 18 percent of the electorate. However, according to Pew research, the turnout still has room to grow since the percentage of the eligible share of Hispanic voters in Arizona is 24 percent.

At least maintaining, if not expanding, the Hispanic and other minority ethnic vote is critical in securing Kelly’s Senate seat. His campaign must work outside the Democratic Party to mobilize voters. Kelly would benefit from the work of community organizations Living United for Change in Arizona, LUCHA, and the MiAZ coalition, which are aiming to mobilize one million voters of color and young voters.  The campaign organizer for LUCHA says they have registered more than half a million people to vote this year alone, knocking on 1.5 million doors across Arizona.

Although Arizona’s total Black and Asian populations are much smaller, consisting of 5 percent and 4 percent, they too are being organized. Collectively community-based organizations, including Our Voice, Our Vote Arizona, and Progress Arizona, say that 60% of Arizona’s Black registered voters cast ballots in 2020. They also have room to expand voter participation in 2022. And future expansion will happen since the current minority population in Arizona is 47 percent, with a more significant percentage of ineligible young voters than the white population. 

Nevada Incumbent Democrat Sen. Cortez Masto is challenged by Trump-endorsed former state Attorney General Republican Adam Laxalt. He caught Trump’s attention by leading legal challenges to overturn the presidential election results. Laxalt has been endorsed by two prominent anti-abortion groups Nevada Right to Life and National Right to Life.

Although Nevada voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last two elections, they were by slim margins. Joe Biden won the state by just over 2 percent, as did Hillary Clinton in 2016. Consequently, Trump and the Republican Party are aiming at Masto as beatable. 

Like other November Democratic candidates, Masto is burdened by President Biden’s low approval ratings dragging down her vote. His disapproval rating was 52 percent in Nevada at the beginning of the year. So, Masto is avoiding a debate about Biden and focusing on state issues she has supported, like delivering Justice Department grants to local police departments and promoting funding to combat wildfires and drought in the infrastructure law. While those issues cut across all ethnic groups, minority groups will play a significant role in getting her reelected. 

About a third of Nevada’s total population consists of minority ethnic groups, with Hispanics being about twice the combined size of Black and Asian populations. At 20 percent, Nevada has the second highest percentage of eligible Hispanic voters of any state. And it’s expected to increase by 5.8 percent in 2022 compared to the most recent 2018 midterm election, which saw a record national turnout of Hispanic voters. About 36 percent of this expanded total of eligible Hispanic voters are expected to turn out in 2022. This level of participation would provide nearly 17 percent of the state’s total vote, just a point behind the Hispanic slice of voters in Arizona’s 2020 election.

Like Arizona, Nevada Democrats can benefit from working with broad-based community organizations to educate voters on the issues and encourage them to vote. The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) is a significant one, with a membership of nearly 30 organizations! Two of its main issues are Civic Engagement and Economic Justice, which will be largely shaped by the Senate next year.

Georgia’s first Black Senator, Incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock, is being challenged by Trump-endorsed former football star Republican Herschel Walker.  Attracting female voters may be difficult for Walker. Women have accused Walker of violent behavior, and he told reporters at the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame, “There’s no exception in my mind” for banning abortion. However, he did not mention making exceptions for rape, incest, or saving the mother’s life.

Georgia swing voters in the latest Axios Engagious/Schlesinger focus groups strongly support abortion rights. However, before the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe they said that issue alone probably would not decide who they support in November’s midterm elections.

Unlike Arizona and Nevada, Hispanics make up only 6% of residents in Georgia, while Black residents are at 33%. Luckily for the Democrats, of all ethnic groups, Black voters in Georgia had the most significant increase in registration from 2016 to 2020. This trend is in line with national numbers, which show the growth of eligible Black voters moving to 12.5% of the US electorate, up from 11.5% in 2000. 

This growth appears to be coming from younger, more educated voters, particularly noticeable in Georgia and Arizona.  On the downside, Black voters’ perception of Biden being sympathetic to their concerns has slipped from 74 percent in 2020 to 66 percent in 2022. And this disappointment has been measured to be highest among the youngest voters. 

More so than any other ethnic group, including whites, Blacks see religion and morality as vital civic virtues.  Most black Democrats (57%) say churches and religious organizations do more good than harm. And the majority also believe that morality is linked to a belief in God. Democrats must consider that belief when addressing the issue of abortion. Saving a mother’s life or considering a pregnancy due to incest and rape are all conditions that appeal to the morality of terminating a pregnancy.   

Georgia has a robust organization to help overcome the state legislature’s newest voter suppression bill SB 202,which, among other things, criminalizes Georgians who give a drink of water to their neighbors while waiting in line to vote, attacks absentee voting, and allows the state to take over county elections. To counter it, the Fair Fight Actioncommunity-based political organization, led by Democrat Stacey Abrams, is in the field encouraging voter participation in elections and educating voters about elections and their voting rights. 

Democrats Can Keep Control of the Senate if they do two things 

Democrats have the votes to retain their most vulnerable Senators in November’s elections. And, data fromCatalist makes it clear where they can get them. First, they must continue to retain white college-educated voters. Over the last three presidential elections, Democrats’ support among white college-educated voters increased by 16 margin points. 

Second, they must halt the decline in support from nonwhite working-class voters, which decreased by 19 margin points over this same period. A recent Times/Siena poll shows Democrats holding a 20-point advantage over Republicans among white college-educated voters — but are statistically tied among Hispanics going into this November’s midterm elections. 

The big picture of saving our Democracy, as epitomized by Congress’s Committee on January Six hearings, is resonating with college-educated voters. Meanwhile, working-class nonwhites are more concerned about their public safety and finances. Democrats have thankfully stepped away from the “defund police” mentality and have moved toward emphasizing more police accountability, which can provide safer and more respectful police conduct in black neighborhoods. 

Banning abortion is a passionate national issue and denying access to any abortions is widely opposed. But abortion has not registered as the top issue for the Black and Hispanic communities, even though studies show that banning abortions has a significant financial burden on minority families. Accordingly, Democrats must also frame abortion as an economic issue to attract voters beyond those concerned with abrogating a constitutional right.

There is a path forward for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate and perhaps even the House. But it is a narrow one that requires discipline in messaging understandable and believable solutions and not relying on slogans. 

Nick Licata is the author of

Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties.

           Now available on Amazon as a Kindle edition for $9.99

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter, Citizenship Politics

Passion for overturning the Abortion Ban outweighs Anger over Inflation        

Nick Licata
-
0
Passion for overturning the Abortion Ban outweighs Anger over Inflation        

SCOTUS has lit a fire under the Democrats and Independents to get out and vote

 
 

        Passion, not facts, drives voters to the polls. Republicans and Democrats are attempting to tap into America’s most passionate issue. 
 
        The Republicans are focused on anger with high inflation. Non-Trumpian conservative adjunct lecturer at Hillsdale College, Henry Olsen, wrote in his Washington Post column that inflation is even worse than the official numbers suggest. Citing statistics from an American Farm Bureau Federation survey, he sees prices for goods people regularly purchase rising much faster than for things they don’t. For instance, food used at home, rose by almost 12 percent over the past year; eggs in particular cost more than 32 percent. These numbers are real and alarming. 
 
            Democrats, on the other hand, are highlighting the large demonstrations resulting from SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice organizers said there were more than 380 protest events in cities including Washington DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago against the decision to eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to determine if she wants to be pregnant. 
 
         Although the biggest turnouts were from large cities dominated by Democrats, a  Washington Post-ABC News poll just before the court’s rejection of Roe showed that 54 percent of Americans think the 1973 Roe decision should be upheld, while 28 percent believe it should be overturned. Consequently, a large pool of voters could be motivated to vote against those supporting the SCOTUS decision. 
 
            Both issues are igniting passion. However, passion is sustained when there is a visible opponent to fight against.
 
          Inflation does not have a single advocate to fight against. There is no public body that is directly responsible for inflation. President Joe Biden will be blamed, but so will the Federal Reserve Board for raising interest rates and oil companies for making billions in more profits while gasoline prices have jumped 50 percent from a year ago. However, banning abortion rests solely with the Supreme Court and the Republican Party, which appointed the justices who voted for it. They make for visible opponents, particularly as they embrace that decision. 
 
               Before SCOTUS stripped women of their privacy, fewer Democrats than Republicans were apt to vote in this coming November’s elections for Federal and State offices. A March 2022 NBC News poll showed Republicans with a 17-point advantage in enthusiasm, with 67 percent of Republicans indicating a high level of interest in the midterms (either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale), compared with 50 percent of Democrats planning to vote. 
 
          According to Roll Call, the four incumbent Democratic Senators in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and New Hampshire are most likely to lose. However, they can win if they offer voters a clear choice to the voters. Do people want a government demanding how citizens should behave in their personal lives? It’s not about some secret deep state cabal making decisions about policies. This is about publicly forcing a woman who becomes pregnant to give birth based on a religious doctrine, not on science or civil law. 
 
               Republicans are saying women’s rights should not be determined by the federal government but by state governments. This is faulty logic. The federal government is constrained by the US Constitution, as should the states. The SCOTUS decision, made by six reactionary justices, said there is no express constitutional right to abortion. Therefore, the people of each state are free to decide to deny those rights.
 
               The justices’ decision reduces a citizen’s freedom, not protect it. The Constitution intends to defend our freedoms, as long as they do not impinge on the rightful freedom of others. Wendy Parmet, the director of Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law, described the SCOTUS decision as “Nothing of this magnitude have we seen since the Civil War.” A similar Supreme Court decision made over a hundred years ago, the Dred Scott decision, inflamed a dynamic movement to free Black citizens from enslavement. 
 
               In that era, Republicans led the movement to treat Black citizens as free people, not property; today, they support a philosophy that treats women as property, not as people free to choose how to live. The majority of Americans do not share the justices’ philosophy. While 78% of Republicans approve of the SCOTUS decision, a recent CBS News/YouGov reaction poll showed that 59% of Americans disapprove of that decision, with 67% of women disapproving.
 
            Once the SCOTUS decision came out, only 38% of independent voters, who play a critical role in the swing states, approved of it. Before that decision, a March 2022 NBC News poll found that 41% of independents preferred a Republican-controlled congress versus only 31% of them preferring a Democratic one. This indicates that if Republican candidates push for banning abortions, independents are more likely to vote for Democrats over Republicans.
 
           Inflation will not disappear overnight, no matter who is elected to Congress in 2022 or president in 2024. But those elected to Congress this November will have the power to codify Roe as the constitutional law initially approved by the Supreme Court, or they could force a ban on abortion in all states. 
 
          Protecting the rights of citizens to lead private lives will trigger more passion on which candidates to support this November than electing those promising to solve inflation that cannot be legislated away with a single vote.
 
 
Nick Licata is the author of
Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties.

Now available onAmazon as a Kindle editionfor $9.99

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter, Citizenship Politics

The Biden Problem and the Midterm Elections

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>The Biden Problem and the Midterm Elections</strong>

            To win the midterm elections, Democrats must address the problem of President Biden’s poor approval ranking with voters. The public’s support of a candidate for office is based on their perception of their personality and competence. But for over 90% of the voting population, that perception is tied to the party they represent, Republican or Democrat. In the 2020 election, less than 3% voted for a presidential candidate outside those two parties. 

            As sitting president, Joe Biden is the head of his party. Although former President

Donald Trump is out of office, the public still sees him as the Republican party’s leader. Consequently, their stature shapes how voters value that party and their party’s candidates in the midterm elections.

Although Biden and Trump are not on the ballot this November, speculation abounds on whether either will run in 2024. Despite their extreme policy differences, they are more alike than any of their potential in-party challengers, except for 80-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders. They are old men. Only three years separate Biden, who is 79, and Trump at 76. Their legacies and persona will help or hinder their party. Consequently, they present a challenge for candidates campaigning in local districts and states.

Regardless of Biden’s optimism, the generally accepted view by those inside and outside either party is that the Democrats are likely to lose majorities in both Congressional chambers. This expectation, in part, is due to the historical trend where the president’s party losses seats in the midterm elections. Since World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House and an average of four seats in the Senate. Moreover, President Obama’s first midterm election saw the largest number of seats lost in the House (62) since FDR’s midterm in his second term when the Democrats lost 72 seats in the House.

Biden’s plummeting approval rating reinforces the belief that this trend will continue. His rating is about on the same level that Trump had when he lost his reelection, and the Republicans lost both houses of Congress in 2020.

In a January 2022 Quinnipiac University survey President Biden’s job approval was rated at 35% by all voters. The lowest they found for Donald Trump as president was 33%. Senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende, is not optimistic for the Democrats. He sees a Biden rating at or below 42% as giving virtually no chance for Democrats to hold the Senate and predicts a loss of four seats as the most likely outcome. Even if Biden’s job approval falls below 51%, Trende sees a likely Republican-controlled Senate in 2023.

Biden’s support by democrats has also fallen from 82% last year to 73% in April of this year. Some candidates facing tough federal elections have avoided calling in Biden to help. One of them is Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan, who is running in a high-profile race against Trump-endorsed author J.D. Vance for the open senate seat.

Biden’s support among his strongest supporters, Black and Hispanic voters, has weakened since being in office. In the 2020 presidential election, Biden received 92% of Black and 59% of Hispanic voters. 

A Washington Post-Ipsos poll  found that the share of Black voters who say they are “absolutely certain to vote” this November has dropped from 85 percent in 2020 to 62 percent this year, a 23-point drop that is larger than the 12-point drop among White voters. The poll also showed that 12 percent of Black voters say what President Biden had been doing in office is somewhat or very bad. If that percentage of disgruntled voters with the Democratic party is reflected in Ohio and Georgia, which have many black voters, the Democrats will not win those Senate seats. 

Meanwhile, more than any other racial or ethnic group, Hispanics have drifted away from Biden, according to FiveThirtyEight’s aggregation of all available polls. In one recent survey from The Wall Street Journal, Hispanic voters were about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats on the question of which party they intended to support in next year’s midterms.

Since a disproportionate percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are lower-paid wage workers, they were most affected by Covid restrictions. A recession may cause them to think twice about whether the Democrats can best help them.

Equis Research is a progressive data firm dedicated to analyzing Hispanic voters. Their 2021 poll found that two-thirds of Hispanic 2020 voters voiced approval for Donald Trump’s position on reopening the economy, while 55 percent endorsed his view that Americans should “live without fear of COVID.” In addition, many Hispanics work in industries adversely impacted by shutdown orders, such as hospitality and food service.

Concern about the economy may be affecting minority young voters in particular since they are just entering the job market for less-skilled jobs. In 2020, Biden won college-educated Hispanic voters 69% to 30%. But Biden’s advantage over Trump among Hispanic voters who did not have a college degree was far narrower (55% to 41%). These voters could feel disappointed by Biden since the future is not as bright as he promised. For instance, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll, younger Black Americans are significantly less enthusiastic about the president than older ones.

Biden has achieved a remarkable turnaround from an economy sinking under the Covid pandemic’s impact. He dramatically increased job creation and reduced unemployment. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.2% when he took office to 3.9%. That was the biggest single year drop in American history. In addition, when the Biden took office, over 18 million were receiving unemployment benefits; as of January 2022, only 2 million are. Again, that is the biggest single year drop in history.

Although an economist poll taken this June found that 56% of Americans believe the US is currently in a recession, a May Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 86% of Americans are still satisfied with their lives. 

The impact of inflationary prices is easily noticed at the gas pump and the grocery store. However, suppose the Democrats can build on most Americans’ satisfaction. In that case, they have a chance of placing inflation in the context of an overall better life for most and helping them win elections.

Democrats need to build on Biden’s message that the Democrats can turn America back to normal. A more stable society and economy can be created with less political divisiveness. Neither has been achieved, but Democrats have made valiant efforts. They can reasonably argue that the Republicans, although not controlling Congress, have blocked them. That may be factually true but blaming the Republicans can only go so far. It doesn’t inspire people; it’s seen as an excuse for failure. 

If a recession and growing inflation continue to dominate the media, Biden will be blamed no matter what he does. But, as the president, the buck stops with him. That means the Democrats must graciously acknowledge his leadership and present a new, more vibrant message for their campaigns this November. 

 If they champion their popularly accepted and rational abortion access, gun control, immigration protocols, and criminal reform policies, they can hold onto their base among minorities. That approach will also repeat Biden’s success in attracting more independent and Republican-leaning voters than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, allowing Democrats to win their elections. 

Looking down the road, the Democrats need to encourage Biden to guide their party to select a new messenger in 2024 if he cannot sharpen his image and message.  

And the Republicans – face an even greater problem with Donald Trump!

Nick Licata is the author of

Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties.

           Now available on Amazon as a Kindle edition for $9.99

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter, Citizenship Politics

Democrats need the Independent Voters to keep the Senate

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>Democrats need the Independent Voters to keep the Senate</strong>

If the Democrats can keep the support of Independent Voters, they can win key swing States and maintain control of the Senate. But who are they? And what do they want?

A popular image of an independent voter is a white middle-class suburbanite. But that image, if it was ever true, is far more complex. 

One surprising finding that came out of a Pew Research study of independent voters was that they had a most significant share of those under the age of fifty (62%) compared to the Democrats (50%) or the Republicans (44%). That younger slice of the voting population is why the following policies rank within the top ten issues of importance to Independents: debt-free state college, a $15 minimum wage, and legalizing marijuana. Democrats attract independent voters that they lead on these issues, not the Republicans.

Another research finding was that more men than women identified as independent voters. Pew reported: Men constitute a majority (56%) of independents. That is higher than the share of men among Republican identifiers (51% are men) and much higher than the share of men among Democrats (just 40%). Democratic candidates must consider the prominent presence of independent male voters when they approach all issues. Candidate Joe Biden made more significant headway in getting male voters. He evenly split their vote with Trump, unlike in 2016 when Trump won men by 11 points

On the downside for Democrats is a growing trend of more minority voters becoming independent voters. A Gallup poll from 2012 found that many independent voters are indeed white. However, non-Hispanic whites comprise 89% of Republicans while Indies are at 70% Republicans. Democrats are 60% white.

The largest minority appearing among Independent Voters is Hispanic, comprising 16%, where only 6% of Republicans are Hispanic, and Democrats are at 13%. Although, as early as 2012, half of Hispanics identified as independents, their voting pattern is noticeably 

drifting away from supporting Democrats. 

According to FiveThirtyEight’s aggregation of all available polls, Hispanics have turned away from Biden more than any other racial or ethnic group. Moreover, their distancing from the Democrats began before Biden became president. The Democratic data firm Catalist figured that the GOP gained eight points among Hispanic voters in the November 2020 elections, with overall support for Democratic House candidates down from over 60 percent to 37 percent in a year.

If this trend continues, Democrats will face more challenging elections to win. This is particularly true since the Hispanic share of the electorate has increased by about 30 percent from Obama’s first presidential election to Biden’s election.

Black voters have also been slipping away from the Democrats to a much smaller degree during this period. A Gallup found that 8% of Independents are Non-Hispanic Blacks — compared to 22% for Democrats and 2% for Republicans. However, an independent study found that about 30% of Blacks self-identify as independent voters. Moreover, although Blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Democratic presidents in the last three elections, from a high of 97% in 2012 for Obama to 90% for Biden in 2020, close to a third consider themselves independent of the Democratic Party. 

Aside from the mistaken belief that independents lack ethnic diversity, another false perception sees them as a single group. In fact, they consist of three groups. Pew Research in 2017 found that independent voters that decline to lean toward a party make up less than 10%, and they are the group with the lowest voter turnout. The balance is roughly divided in half. Various polls have given an edge to the D or R but looking at the results over the last three decades leaves those leaning to either party roughly equal.  

Nevertheless, Pew discovered that even if independents lean toward one party, they often hold beliefs that conflict with the party toward which they lean. Democrats need to recognize how to approach issues that would move Republican-leaning independents to vote for them.

Take gun control as an example. While most Rs, Independents, and Democrats oppose a total ban on guns, not banning them was the third-most important issue for independents. Nevertheless, Independents are far more open to considering restrictions on access to guns than Republicans. They ranked universal background checks before gun purchases as eighth in importance and had the support of 93% of all independents. 

This issue could favor Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, who will be facing a Trumpian Republican to replace the moderate Republican Sen. Patrick Toomey, who is retiring this year. Toomey worked with Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin to expand background checks, but the Republicans blocked it in 2012. That was the closest the Senate got to passing a gun-control measure in a decade. Fetterman can take this same position and force the Republican candidate to accept it or face the wrath of the NRA. Moreover, Fetterman will win over Independents no matter how the Republican candidate responds. 

Of higher importance is independents opposition to completely banning abortion which is ranked the fourth-most important issue for them, with 77 against prohibiting abortion. Democrats were 87 against it, and Republicans were at 65 percent against it. However, Republicans ranked completely banning abortion at 13 in importance. Republican-leaning independents will support retaining Roe, while the Republican candidates fuel the message of anti-abortion groups that label Democratic Senate candidates as abortion extremists.

An anti-abortion group has a $1 million statewide ad campaign attacking U.S. Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona. He is accused of being a pro-abortion extremist because he voted for, like all Democrat Senators, the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which the anti-abortionists label as the “Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act.” 

The Act retains the intent of the language in the Roe ruling, which allows for abortions if deemed necessary by the “appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The legislation has similar language. It allows abortion if “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” There is no practical difference, yet all Republicans in the Senate voted to overthrow the Roe policy that has been a constitutional right for fifty years. 

Supporting gay marriage is another clear distinction Pew uncovered between Republican-leaning independents and Republicans. As of 2017, a narrow majority of Republicans (54%) opposed same-sex marriage, while 58% of Republican-leaning independents favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and 70% of all independents favored it.  

Consider how efforts by the most conservative Republican leaders interpret a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe vs. Wade as also outlawing gay marriages. Democrat candidates could force Republican candidates to part ways with this effort and show how a Democrat protects the rights of all citizens. 

Some Democrats argue that they need to get more of their base out to win elections. But unfortunately, voter suppression measures passed by Republican legislatures will make that a more difficult task for Senate races, which are not impacted by gerrymandering. 

Fortunately, research shows that attracting independent voters does not necessarily water down the Democrats’ agenda. Instead, their policy objectives are sharpened by focusing on specific measures that can implement their basic principles. And importantly, that outreach also provides them a way of bringing in new independent voters and retaining prior ones who had previously not voted or voted for Republicans.  

A strategy that secures and expands the movement of independents to vote for Democrat Senator candidates is necessary to ensure their control of the US Senate. Suppose they push for measures that don’t recognize the nuanced positions independent voters take. In that case, the Democrats can expect to lose the Senate and have Biden’s legislative initiatives be confined to taking losing votes in Congress. That will demonstrate how brave they are and how ineffective. That’s not a winning strategy for winning the next presidential election.  

Nick Licata is the author of

Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties.

           Now available on Amazon as a Kindle edition for $9.99

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter, Citizenship Politics

Messaging Abortion Rights in Swing States Will Determine Who Controls the Senate in 2021

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>Messaging Abortion Rights in Swing States Will Determine Who Controls the Senate in 2021</strong>

Wisconsinites rally at Capitol in support of abortion rights after leaked draft opinion | Wisconsin Public Radio – Creator: Angela Major

With the Democrats blocked from codifying the protections provided to women by the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision, they must now turn their attention to organizing state-level elections this coming November. But not in all states — only in those with reasonably winnable seats.

The Democrats’ strategy of relying on national polls, even accurate and reliable, would continue to lead to defeats in the Senate. As I argued in To Save Roe in Congress, the D’s Must Change Their Strategy, that strategy fails to target critical races that can sustain or enlarge the Democrat’s presence in Congress. It also fails to recognize that being pro-abortion does not mean the same thing to all who oppose banning abortion.

The D’s must consider how the abortion issue affects the Democrats to keep control of the Senate. They need to protect four incumbents listed by the non-partisan Roll Call website as the most vulnerable Democrats to lose in November: Mark Kelly in Arizona, Cortez Masto in Nevada, Raphael Warnock in Georgia, and Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire. Biden won all four states only by slim margins.

If the status of all Senate seats is not changed, losing just one of these races will turn control of the Senate over to the Republicans. To obtain a margin of safety, the Democrats must gain seats. They have a reasonable chance of taking three seats from the Republicans. Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson holds the most likely seat. Two incumbent Republicans chose not to run for reelection: Ohio’smoderate Republican Rob Portman and Pennsylvania’s conservative Pat Toomey.

Although an abortion ban will happen almost immediately in four of these seven states, Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and Wisconsin, a national future prohibition would apply to all states. That is a real possibility if the Republicans gain 60% of the seats in the Senate or if the filibuster is removed by the Republicans. With they increase their seats by one above their current number they could amend the filibuster rule without Democrats blocking them.

Democrats must frame their abortion position as protecting constitutionally protected personal rights. However, embracing the right to have an abortion any time before birth may lose those Senate elections. An MSNBC poll shows that while 58% of voters oppose overturning the Roe decision, support for abortion dramatically decreases with having an abortion in the third trimester. Support for legal abortion in most or all cases is at 61% for the 1st trimester, 34% for the 2nd trimester, and 19% for the 3rd trimester.

In approaching future elections, the debate over the right to have an abortion has become a cultural war between the parties. The Republicans accuse the Democrats of murdering human life, a position that Justice Alito references as common law. The Democrats accuse the Republicans of returning women to being second-class citizens.

Organizers, mostly from Planned Parenthood, UltraViolet, and MoveOn, initiated more than 380 protest events demanding that the right to an abortion is a protected right under the constitution. The immediate intensity and national breadth of support for retaining Roe demonstrate the energized core of pro-choice voters. If organized, they could replace anti-abortion Republicans with pro-abortion Democrats.

The anti-abortion movement has not ignited similar massive rallies to Justice Alito’s leaked majority opinion. Although his opinion validates conservatives’ belief that the Roe decision was “egregiously wrong,” as Alito opined, protest rallies have garnered a much larger response than celebrations. Democrats’ more visible demonstrations are evidence of greater passion but not as proof that more Republicans will be voted out of office for their anti-abortion stance.

Nevertheless, polling shows that the Republicans’ overthrowing the Roe decision may motivate more Democrats to vote in November. Ayman Muhyiddin of MSNBC shared a new poll on May 6 showing that overturning Roe would make 45% of Democrats more energized to vote in November. Still, only 25% of Republicans will be more energized. If that poll is correct, it will help the Democrats overcome some strong headwinds. According to conservative columnist Marc A. Thiessen, the Ds “face a massive 17-point enthusiasm gap going into the midterm elections. The last time Republicans demonstrated so much more zeal was in 2010 when Democrats lost more than 60 seats in the House.”

But getting more Democrats to vote may not be enough to win elections, considering that independents and former Trump supporters helped elect Biden in 2020 by a very slim margin. So will they vote again for Ds based primarily on abortion rights?

Emma Hurt in Axios reports how Georgia swing voters in the latest Axios Engagious/Schlesinger focus groups strongly support abortion rights. However, they say that issue alone probably won’t decide who they support in November’s midterm elections.

The focus groups consisted of 13 Georgians, all from the greater Atlanta metro region, who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, then Joe Biden in 2020. Three identified as Democrats, six as Republicans, and four as independents. Although focus groups are not statistically reliable, they reveal subtleties that raw data often miss. For instance, consider a recent poll taken by the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The UMass poll was conducted immediately following the Supreme Court leak of Alito’s opinion. A nationwide sample of a thousand people gauged their feelings following that leaked opinion recommending that Roe be overturned. Fifty percent of the respondents thought the Supreme Court should not overturn Roe v. Wade and 40% were unhappy if they made that ruling. However, there is not a clear path ahead because while 45% said they want to see a law passed that would make abortion legal in all 50 states, 39% want to see that decision left up to individual states. Polling results based on aggregate totals do not help guide political strategy if you do not know from which political districts and states they originate.

Those most committed to the cause lead the charge into battle in most wars. But unfortunately, that while passion may win a particular action it may not win the war. Such is the case in the current abortion battles. The side that has the most to lose is the side that succumbs to being led by those that are most adamant about pursuing a total victory.

The Republicans are being led down that path by the Republican leaders that make no exception to abortion for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts came out to support a no-exemptions ban on abortions. Stitt later agreed to allow them if a police report was filed. But now, he is preparing to sign a new law bill that would ban abortions from the moment of “fertilization,” which would effectively prohibit almost all abortions in the state.

Total rejection of abortions goes against traditional Republican policy. Every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, including former President Donald Trump, said that there should be exceptions to abortion bans in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. In addition, Republicans, in the past, had adhered to the principle of “vulnerability” for living outside the womb not fertilization as the threshold for not proceeding with an abortion.

The Democrats, meanwhile, need to avoid taking a position that defines abortion as being completely unrestricted. If the Republicans successfully tag Senate Democrat candidates as supporting abortion up to the time of birth, Democrats retaining control of Congress diminishes dramatically.

Should the Democrats maintain control of Congress, they may be able to codify the Roe and the subsequent Casey rulings. It’s a conservative position in that it preserves a law that has been depended on for half a century. On the other hand, should the Republicans take control, they may be able to pass a national abortion ban, which would be a radical position — placing women in a role that they have not been in since the 1800s.

The challenge for Senate Democrat candidates in these seven swing states is to rationally discuss abortion rights outside of the cultural framework of only accepting perfect solutions. If the Democrats are the more reasonable party, they will win.

Nick Licata is the author of Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties, available as a Kindle edition

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Citizenship Politics

To Save Roe in Congress, the D’s Must Change Their Strategy

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>To Save Roe in Congress, the D’s Must Change Their Strategy</strong>
BACORR Clinic Defense at Planned Parenthood on Valencia | Flickr

On Wednesday May 11, the Senate, for the second time this year, defeated Democrats’ legislation to protect abortion rights under federal law. The legislation went down 51-49 on the newest version.

Progressive lawmakers have pushed the original bill since 2013, and it went further than codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law. It barred states from enacting restrictions that have been allowed under that ruling. In February, it was previously defeated by the Senate 46-48, with Sen. Joe Manchin joining the Republicans against it as he did again on the second vote.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal sponsored the most recent version of the Act. He stripped out non-binding statements linking abortion restrictionsto “white supremacy” and “gender oppression.” The new version also eliminated, emphasizing that the protections apply to women and “transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others.” So, while it did not extend Roe’s protections, it did retain them.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pressed ahead with the second vote to put Republican senators on record. He continued the strategy to turn public opinion, especially women voters, against the Republican Senator’s anti-abortion stance. Schumer had warned the Republicans that their support of the Supreme Court Justices’ banning abortions would cost them at the polls. On the Senate floor, he said, “the elections this November will have consequences because the rights of 100 million women are now on the ballot.”

Democrats have reason to believe that they have a winning approach. Polls have shown that most voters don’t want to see the supreme court overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that protected abortion rights.

            William Saletan writing in The BulkWork, relies on polling to overwhelmingly conclude that overturning Roe is terrible for Republicans. In February, a Yahoo News survey found that most voters supported “a constitutional right that women in all states should have some access to abortion,” while only about 30 percent agreed that “states should be able to outlaw” abortion.

            Polling for retaining Roe is surprisingly strong across the political spectrum. In a Fox News poll this month, May 3, most Democrats and Independents (both over 70%) voted to let it stand. Even 60% of Republicans were of that opinion. 

Another recent poll in May taken by Politico found that nearly 50 percent of voters want Congress to pass “a bill to establish federal abortion rights granted through Roe v. Wade, in case the Supreme Court overturns the ruling.” And only about 30 percent oppose overturning Roe.

Vice President, Kamala Harris, was spot on when she told reporters that the Senate is “not where the majority of Americans are on this issue.” So how could the Republicans possibly think they can be re-elected if they vote against what most Americans want? 

The answer is simple. Do the math. When a poll shows whatever most voters want, they often miss the most significant factor: converting that poll into Congressional votes by district or state. That’s because most of those favoring pro-choice are not evenly distributed across the country. Instead, they are concentrated in the most populist areas, states, or cities. 

The Senate does not represent the nation’s population equally. Republican senators currently represent 43.5% of the country’s population. Democrat senators represent 56.5% of Americans. 

Repeatedly relying on the majority sentiment of the public on pro-abortion to be reflected in the Senate is foolish if not misleading. This expectation allowed the progressive wing of the Democrats to believe that they could pass President Biden’s Build Back Better Plan. They rightfully pointed to widespread support for many elements within it. Therefore, they concluded Republicans would be forced to vote for it. However, there was no coordinated effort to organize pro-choice support within swing Republican states.

Regrettably, Senate Democrats face a severe challenge in codifying Roe into federal law. The only open path is to bring onboard some Republicans, along with Manchin, if the legislation is bipartisan. 

The only Republican Senators that may join the Democrats are from states where they could either lose to a Democrat or honestly believe in voting on principle and possibly losing their next primary election. Currently, that would be two women Republican Senators who are the least Trumpian and reflect traditional conservative horse-trading Republican politics.   

Although Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins has voted to stop the Democrats from moving forward, she is working with fellow Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski to draft new legislation. According to Collins, it would put protections from the Roe v. Wade decision and the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision into law. They have publicly supported pro-abortion rights but within a narrower framework than the Democrats have championed. Democratic leadership has been reluctant to engage, saying they hadn’t seen their legislation before voting on Blumenthal’s version. Even getting a majority vote might not happen if progressive Democrats see the final version as seriously flawed.  

The last and most significant hurdle is to obtain the needed 60% vote in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. Those most opposed to any abortions or any restrictions on abortion could comprise just over 40% of the Senate and defeat any abortion legislation. 

Progressive Democrats have repeatedly called for eliminating the filibuster, which has often been used to stop past progressive issues, like protecting civil rights. Donald Trump as president, agreed with them in abandoning the filibuster. As a result, the party that can muster a bare majority in the Senate could pass sweeping legislation. 

Sen. Mitch McConnell told reporters that “Historically, there have been abortion votes on the floor of the Senate. None of them have achieved 60 votes,”. He concluded that with the filibuster, “no matter who happens to be in the majority, no matter who happens to be in the White House,” no abortion legislation will pass. 

Of course, if the Republicans gain the majority in the Senate without a filibuster, which is likely, they could pass a national ban on abortions. Ironically, as I wrote, Democrats say eliminate the filibuster, but they use it more than the Republicans.

If Congress, in its current makeup, is unable to protect the right of women to have some freedom over their choice in having a child, then the Democrats will have to focus on state politics. They must craft a message on abortion that will assist their candidates in select states to retain or expand the number of seats in that chamber. That will be hard work, but it will be taking the advice of Justice Alito when he wrote in his opinion that abortion should be decided “by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” 

The Senate, as organized, does not represent a balanced representation of its citizens, so the decision must be returned directly to the citizens. 

Nick Licata is the author of

Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties.

           Now available on Amazon as a Kindle edition for $9.99

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Citizenship Politics

A Political Disinformation Campaign Is Threatening Our Democracy 

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>A Political Disinformation Campaign Is Threatening Our Democracy </strong>

We are in an era of disinformation. That term is thrown around by all political persuasions to accuse their opponents of not being truthful. The systematic dissemination of disinformation, however, is more than just lying. It is a political strategy in a war to take control of public power. Its intended purpose is to create confusion, which leads to rejecting government institutions entrusted to deliberate over verifiable facts. 

There is a significant difference between lying about a particular action or product and a disinformation campaign to undermine public trust in a democratic republic. A classic example of the former is how the tobacco industry lied or created doubt about scientific findings that demonstrated that smoking caused lung and cardiac diseases. Up to the mid-Fifties, the tobacco industry had succeeded in elevating smoking to be one of the most popular, successful, and widely used items of the early 20th century.

 In response to the mounting evidence that smoking cigarettes damaged one’s health, the tobacco industry hired the nation’s leading public relations firm. The industry followed the consultant’s advice and focused its efforts on disrupting the usual processes of knowledge production in medicine, science, and public health. Consequently, the leading tobacco companies embraced the scientific discourse that assumes there is always more to know. 

The tobacco industry’s strategy was to exaggerate that principle in order to spread doubt and uncertainty about the known facts. The tobacco industry’s campaign did not attack the validity of scientific institutions to analyze the facts; instead, they accused scientists of not wanting to find the correct data.

Eventually, the tobacco industry lost its battle by paying over $206 billion through a court settlement. However, that punishment was only achievable because it was delivered by an independent court system that fairly weighed the facts. 

Borrowing a page from the tobacco playbook, Donald Trump has not directly attacked the concept of democracy; instead, he undermines the creditability of democratic institutions by accusing them of not treating him and his supporters fairly. For example, he attacked Congress for not throwing out Biden’s electoral votes, and he condemned the courts for them tossing out his 60 cases challenging the outcome of the election. His repeated message was that the election was rigged. 

All politicians and political parties can be justly accused of lying from time to time about their accomplishments or their intent to accomplish things they have no power to do. However, past efforts from major political players have stayed within a sandbox of playing with democratic institutions. 

Trump stepped outside that sandbox on the night of the 2012 presidential election when he tweeted, “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!” He mistakenly thought that Obama had won the election without the majority popular vote. 

Four years later, Trump won his presidential election without winning the popular vote, but he didn’t mention that fact. Instead, when the polls indicated that he might lose the 2016 election to Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, he claimed it would have been rigged if she had won. Then, even after winning, Trump made the unfounded accusation that millions of illegal votes were cast for her. That claim never received any factual support from his supporters.  

He has insisted that government institutions allowed Biden to steal the election, a claim that he has not substantiated. Consequentially, as he and his supporters see it, not only are the institutions corrupt but so are their leaders. And what do you do with corrupt leaders? You jail them.

At a campaign rally 12 days before Election Day 2020, Trump called for locking up his opponent, former V.P. Joe Biden, his son Hunter and tossing Hillary Clinton into the clink. His daughter-in-law Lara Trump excused her father-in-law’s encouraging rally attendees to chant “lock her up” as just him “having fun.” Perhaps, but then again, elected Presidents in other countries, who gained authoritarian powers, have locked up their political opponents so they could not run for election. President Russian President Vladimir Putin jailing Alexei Navalny for unproven fraud charges is the most famous recent example. 

But Trump lost the election, and his opponents took office. Our democratic electoral process worked. Nevertheless, after the results were counted, Donald Trump tweeted, “I won this election by a lot…watch for massive ballot-counting abuse…Remember I told you so!” Trump never acknowledged that all fifty states had certified the election results, with the Republicans controlling more state legislatures than Democrats. 

His campaign of disinformation has been continuous since the presidential election.

Resulting in convincing close to half of the population that he, not Biden, won the election. Two months after the November election, a poll showed that only 55 % of Americans believed that Biden was legitimately elected. Particularly disturbing is that only 52% of independent voters agreed that Biden was a legitimate president. 

How did we get to the point where the current disinformation campaign has undermined trust in our electoral process more than any single effort in the past century? Two attempts are currently underway to that answer that question. 

            Economic Justice and Labor Educator Mark McDermott has introduced a webinar: “We Must Win the War for the Truth to Preserve and Strengthen Our Democracy.” He provides a history of past efforts at disinformation in and outside America. Those efforts are designed to undercut democracy by dividing people, feeding their emotions, destroying their ability to recognize truths, and undermining their capacity to find them. 

McDermott uses the following quotes to illustrate how these strategies are pursued.

            “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” August 28, 2012, Lindsay Graham, former GOP Presidential candidate and current U.S. Senator. 

            “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party

            “Voters are basically lazy…Reason requires a high degree is discipline…The emotions are more easily aroused.” William Gavin, a Nixon media advisor

            “The goal isn’t to sell an ideology or a vision of the future; instead, it is to convince people that the truth is unknowable, so you need “to follow a strong leader.” Peter Pomerantsev, a Russian propaganda expert

Paul Loeb, the founder of Campus Election Engagement Project (CEEP), said they havw published a Do Not Be Deceived: Detecting Disinformation guide. It advises readers to start reading news by putting its information in context, zooming out to get a broader picture. Also, if you post a story that you later learn is false, go public with your discovery. Your admission can help rebuild trust with your online community. 

Overall, Loeb’s guide shows how social media is a spawning ground for disinformation. For instance, in the three months leading up to the 2016 election, the top 20 fake election stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the 20 best-performing stories from major news websites.

Political disinformation efforts date to the Roman Empire and will continue indefinitely. So, a democracy must learn to live with it. However, a democratic society can rebuff attacks on its institutions if citizens are educated. As I have argued in Teach Civics In Schools or Face More Insurrections, students should learn how to evaluate the reliability of all information they receive, regardless of the source. Accepting verifiable knowledge pours water on enflamed irrational fears. 

Nick Licata is the author of

Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties.

Now available on Amazon as a Kindle edition for $9.99

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Citizenship Politics

How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times</strong>
Monica Guzman Author of Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times

            With the public gravitating toward insular hostile camps, bipartisan cooperation is rare in our current politics. Mónica Guzmán building a bridge between such groups. She has experience in doing so as the director of digital and storytelling at Braver Angels, a nonprofit dedicated to bridging the partisan divide in our democratic republic. 

            Guzmán argues that creating and sustaining a discussion is very achievable in her book I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times. Guzmán shows we can participate in less hostile conversations if we are open to listening and understanding why others have different beliefs.

            This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How do you have a conversation with someone who sees the left’s agenda being akin to communism, something dark and destructive?

            In the same way I have a conversation with anyone who holds views I don’t share and struggle to understand: by getting curious not just about the perspective but the person. What led them to that view? What have they done or seen that points to it? I’ve had this particular conversation with several people and have found things I can relate to by asking not why they believe what they believe but how they came to believe it. 

Is there a bias in the narrative of mainstream media that contributes to our national divide? For example, Eddie, a man in rural Kentucky, told you he’s tired of the news lecturing him as if he were a racist.

            What we call our mainstream media does tend to lean left in its views, when they arise, and what we call conservative media does tend to object and react to those views. The hostility we see between these two amplifies the already exaggerated hostility each “side” sees in the other. A majority of working journalists are liberal. That doesn’t mean we’re incapable of truly listening to people like Eddie. But when we’re this polarized, we’re going to have to work harder to do it. And fast.  

Why were you afraid to tell your fellow Seattle liberals that you speak to and understand your Trump-supporting parents? 

            I was afraid that the liberals in my life would look at me differently and with suspicion — especially in 2017, when our anxiety about the country’s future had reached soaring new heights. It was one thing to tell them that I knew my parents’ reasons for voting for Trump. It was quite another to say that I’d come to understand and accept them. I don’t mean to imply that I agree with them (ha!), or that I’ve stopped sharing my own political views, fully. We don’t change each other’s minds on big questions when we talk, but we often see each other’s views as less threatening — and less divided than we thought. 

You point out that social media platforms enhance the opportunity for people to sort themselves into groups that have the same political philosophy. Since that sorting significantly contributes to a divided nation, is there a need to limit social media from feeding this trend?

            Yes, but I hesitate to point the finger at technology and media. They’re part of the problem, but when we throw it all on them, we miss how each of us — in our own assumptions, conversations, and actions — contributes to the broken, incurious culture that to me is the biggest threat of all. The internet is a nonplace that makes us into nonpeople. We need tech platforms to come up with creative ways to help us see each other clearly again, immediately. As businesses, they have to give users what they want. So where we go, our social media platforms will follow. 

Researchers found in a 2020 study that Republicans and Democrats think the other despises them about twice as much as they do. Could public education encourage more one to one discussions?

            Yes! We can’t pretend to be informed when we’re not informed about each other, and the more aware we are of how warped our view of the “other side” has gotten, the more likely we’ll be to get curious enough to fix it. Whoever is underrepresented in our lives will be overrepresented in our imaginations, so we have to talk with each other instead of just about each other. Not on social media, but in contained one-to-one conversations where we stand a better chance of being honest, clear, and most importantly, heard.

You say that bridging can lessen our nation’s divide into hostile camps. How does bridging work? 

            We are Sorting into like-minded groups, Othering people who are different from us, and Siloing into spaces that amplify our favorite voices and drown out so many others. It’s an SOS — a call for help — and the only way to answer it is to take steps toward each other even when so much is pushing us apart. That’s bridging. We each move on our own terms — no one else’s. But here’s the good news: The most important thing you can do with a bridge is to keep it, not cross it. So as long as you can have another conversation with the same person about the same topic, you never really left it, and bridging is still possible.  

“Mind the gap” means that your curiosity seeks to fill the gap between what you know and don’t know, it’s a thirst for knowledge. From your experience, who is more curious: liberals or conservatives?

            Curiosity is a practice, not a personality trait, and I’m not convinced that whole groups of people are more or less curious. Many liberals I’ve talked to assume that they are more curious than conservatives, but based on my conversations with conservatives, I just don’t think this is true. People can only hear when they’re heard, and I’ve found that all people I’ve talked with — conservatives, liberals, and everyone between and off that spectrum — are capable of practicing curiosity as long as they feel heard, respected and never condescended to.

Nick Licata is the author of Becoming A Citizen Activist and Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties. He is the founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of over 1,000 progressive municipal officials.

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Citizenship Politics

Could there be a regime change in Russia?

Nick Licata
-
0
<strong>Could there be a regime change in Russia?</strong>

            White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said President Biden was not advocating for regime change in Russia when reporters asked. The US has done it in the past, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and other nations, so it is a fair question. In those instances, we have taken direct military actions or manipulated others to eject their leaders. However, it may have to result from their internal politics in Russia.

            There are serious political conditions brewing that threatens 69-year-old Vladimir Putin’s 22-year autocratic control over Russia. Moreover, its current economic collapse coincides with percolating discontent despite massive censorship. 

THEIR ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING 

            Russia’s economy is entering a free-fall resulting from the US lead financial punishments. On March 15, Wharton finance professor Nikolai Roussanov said that the ruble is now worth less than a penny, and the economy is teetering. He said the disappearance of goods from supermarkets coupled with rising prices will be very unpleasant in the short run and will likely lead to jobs disappearing. 

            Russia is behind payments on billions of dollars in foreign debt. Consequently, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on March 13 that the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the Western democracies will trigger a deep recession there this year. In light of these predictions, the Yale-educated economist head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, reportedly has resigned and told Putin that his invasion of Ukraine has plunged the Russian economy into a ‘sewer.’

            A shrinking economy hurts working families and businesses and cripples the state from raising money to finance a stalled war. These were the same conditions that eliminated 300 years of Russia being ruled by the Czars.  Nicholas II was forced to abdicate a century ago. While his army was losing massive amounts of soldiers in WWI, the economy was collapsing, and his nobility was deserting him. 

            However, economic penalties are not enough to dislodge an autocratic regime. America has levied complete embargoes on Iran and Venezuela, bringing hardships to their citizens, but not toppling their leaders. Even the participation of foreign companies halting their businesses in Russia could have a limited impact. According to The New York Times, Putin said assets of those companies should be put under “external management” and transferred “to those who want to work.” Cutting to the chase, he’s talking about nationalizing them.

            Sanctions must be linked to discontent to push Putin off his throne. And that movement must involve both the upper and lower levels of Russian society.

PUBLIC DISCONTENT IS ONCE AGAIN BEING SUPPRESSED

            Public discontent, even if it is widespread, failed to topple Putin with the massive protests of 2017–2018. The timing of these protests occurred in the aftermath of Russia’s two-year financial crisis. The current economic sanctions could lead to similar discontent, but street protesting is being more suppressed now.

            Over  100 cities in 2017 saw thousands of citizen protestors sparked by the investigative film He Is Not Dimon to You. It exposed the corrupt activity of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. It had more than 23 million views on YouTube. 

            Putin was the president at the time. The non-governmental polling and sociological research organization, Levada Centre survey, showed that 38% of surveyed Russians supported the protests and that 67% held Putin “entirely” or “to a large extent” responsible for high-level corruption. Tens of thousands protested in central Moscow, and riot police detained more than 1000 of them.

            In the summer and fall of 2017, there were more large protest gatherings; It was estimated that 60,000 people took part in anti-corruption protests across 80 Russian towns and cities. Hundreds of protesters were detained, including the creator of the expose on corruption Alexey Navalny. Additional protests continued in 2018, including protestors against the government-planned retirement age hike.

            These massive protests show that Putin is still in power, and Navalny is in prison after Putin failed to have him assassinated. Putin has been able to hang onto power through police suppression of any dissent and control or limit all the public’s information.

            Police suppression has reached a new level with the war on Ukraine. Instead of arresting 1,000 protestors as in 2017, police arrests have amounted to over 14,000, according to a post on the website of OVD-Info, an independent media project on human rights and political persecutions in Russia. Although most arrested were released, individuals could still be charged under a new law that passed unanimously in both houses of Russia’s parliament. 

            Spreading false news about the military, such as Russia invading Ukraine, could result in fines or three years in jail. If a statement resulted in “severe consequences,” a person could face 15 years in prison. The speaker of their lower parliamentary house said that they passed the law “to protect our soldiers and officers, and to protect the truth.”

HOW TO GET THE TRUTH TO THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE

            The question is, how would Russians receive the truth? To grasp the enormity of that task, look at the demographics. You have a population of 143 million, which is less than half of the US, but in an area nearly double ours. 

            When network pundits blithely suggest that the Russian people must get rid of Putin, they must be ignoring the demographics, history, and current political suppression of the news that exists. For a nation’s citizens to successfully challenge the power of their government, they must have reliable knowledge and an opportunity to share that knowledge with others openly. Unfortunately, Russians face severe obstacles to having both.

            Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, its government prosecutors had the Russian media watchdog restrict access to several media broadcasts from western democracies, including BBC and the Russian-language website of the United States-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Russia complained that Radio Liberty’s Russian service had spread “obviously fake” socially significant information about the alleged Russian attack on Ukrainian territory.”

            To get past Russia’s blocking of BBC’s popular Russian language internet news site, BBC has introduced shortwave radio, whose radio uses frequencies carry over long distances. Blocking shortwave transmissions is labor-intensive and takes time and experience, so the BBC’s programming is getting through. However, reception is limited to shortwave portable sets, not commonly found in households.

            Despite the Russian constitution providing freedom of speech and press, Putin’s administration has forced the press to exercise self-censorship. This practice has constrained the press’s coverage of controversial issues. For instance, Al Jazeera reported that Russia’s Novaya Gazeta newspaper, whose editor Dmitry Muratov was a co-winner of last year’s Nobel Peace Prize, would remove material on Russia’s military actions in Ukraine from its website because of censorship.

            Putin has also moved to curtail internet content that criticizes the government. As a result, TikTok users can see only old Russian-made content, and all non-Russian content is blocked. Also, adding new content originating within Russia is banned or heavily censored. 

            A Russian court banned Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, for “extremist” activities, making its work in Russia illegal. The ruling was precipitated by Meta relaxing its rules against violent speech by people inside Ukraine, which was directed at the Russian military invasion of their country. Meta does not permit calls for violence, harassment, or discrimination against Russian people. Russian authorities have also restricted access to Twitter under a federal law regulating calls for riots, extremism, protests, and the spread of false information.

            Russians circumvent these restrictions and bans by using virtual private networks or VPNs in response to these multiple restrictions and prohibitions. Their use has increased almost by 3,000% since the war began. One app being used is Psiphon, a free and open-source Internet censorship circumvention tool that uses secure communication and obfuscation technologies. 

            One of the most unique and potentially powerful mediums to reach Russians is Reface, a viral face-swap app from Ukraine that adds anti-war push notifications. As of the end of February, their anti-war campaign has targeted specific messages to its 5.5 million users in Russia. They provide a link to a slideshow of war imagery from inside Ukraine — including images of burnt-out and bomb-damaged buildings and photos of civilians trying to shelter. More potent than words, images do not need to be in Russian to convey a message.

            Meanwhile, Russia’s RT platform had over a million subscribers in the European Union before Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok dropped Russia’s RT off their platforms. Their action followed the EU imposed sanctions on the Kremlin-backed media network for distributing disinformation. However, the Telegram platform, which has massive audiences, still carries RT in Europe.  

            Putin’s regime has shaped the internet pipeline into the country. Only an unchallenged narrative is presented to the Russians where the Ukrainian conflict is a minor police action to attack a stronghold of Nazis. Putin augmented his internet dominance with a massive rally in a Moscow stadium last Friday. 

            City police said more than 200,000 people gathered in and around the stadium. He spoke for just five minutes. Although photos showed a flag-waving crowd, the speech was not interrupted. Reuters and several Russian outlets reported that state employees had been ordered to attend. 

            Could there be some discontent with a war that is dragging on? Is there some unease with restricted access to their bank savings underneath this passive acceptance of turning out to wave flags as required? Is news of the possible 12,000 Russian troops killed in Ukraine spreading word-by-mouth among the general public?  Even the pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda posted that 10,000 had died, quickly removing that post.

RUSSIANS NEED A SAFE PLACE TO GATHER 

            Mass rallies or solo internet surfing do not provide the needed ingredient to allow Russian citizens to exchange and discuss the limited amount of critical information that is getting through to them.

            Although people could gather in their homes, they might feel that their homes and families could be threatened if any criticisms were leaked to the government. However, coffee houses have provided a gathering place in the past that welcomed open and intimate discussions among friends. Like other momentous civilian movements, the American Revolution owes its origins to such a setting. 

            The US could promote coffeehouse environments to allow for some fermentation of ideas on how Russian citizens could regain some control over their government. Ironically, that effort could be nourished by Starbucks reopening a limited number of its 300 venues. The ones selected to be reopened could be in just five cities: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Samara, Kazan, and Nizhny Novgorod. A third of all Russian universities are in these cities. Students and youth would most likely be Starbucks customers. If Starbucks provides settings like those in the US, discussions could flow naturally among these young, probably news-conscious customers. 

            Starbucks would not have to lift a finger to encourage discussions. Doing so might alert the authorities to the possibility of seditious activity. These coffeehouses merely need to operate as a business that serves the needs of their customers to drink coffee, read whatever they wish, and talk among their friends. 

            This approach has a chance of allowing citizens to think about what is happening in Ukraine and share their thoughts with others. Students are also likely to be in that tiny 5% of Russians that speak English, which is the language that carries critical information about the Ukraine War into Russia. So, yes, a multi-national corporation could serve to stimulate democratic ideas within an autocratic state. 

PUTIN’S KREMLIN IS CRACKING

            Students attending the best Russian colleges, located in these five cities, would have the most influential people in Russia be their parents:  government and military leaders or business oligarchs that are becoming seriously bothered by the economic sanctions. Just as the sons and daughters of America’s leaders in the sixties brought home their ideas about the need to stop the Vietnam War, Russia’s youth could do the same regarding the war in Ukraine. They could be the seeds that break the ground upon which Putin stands.

            And recent reports indicate that Putin is on shaky grounds. He fired eight generals due to his military losses in the invasion of Ukraine coupled with the Russian invaders facing severe shortages of fuel, food, and ammunition. One of those fired was his deputy chief of Russia’s National Guard, accused of leaking information. 

            Furthermore, according to Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russia’s military and security services, a top Russian intelligence official has been put under house arrest along with his deputy. Even Russia’s defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, has lost his standing with Putin. In protest of the war, Russian climate envoy Anatoly Chubais resigned and left the country.

            These and other top-level firings, still to be revealed, may portend a reenactment of Joseph Stalin’s purging of his closest subordinates. Putin’s public announcements called for Russia to get rid of “scum and traitors” as “a necessary self-purification of society.” Oligarchs and those in the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) who profiteered from Putin’s kleptocracy may be targets more than any street protestors. They serve as visible scapegoats for a failing war and the corruption that has been a source of huge public demonstrations in the recent past.

            Putin shaped the FSB from its predecessor, the KGB, the Soviet Union’s security agency. He is most aware that the KGB attempted to depose President Mikhail Gorbachev in a failed coup d’état. Consequently, Putin has a keen interest in keeping FSB leaders in check by either detaining, arresting, or demoting them. Moreover, they hold the secured knowledge of who has the political, economic, and military power to challenge Putin. 

            Putin’s arrests of those with power around him and his attempts to project himself as Russia’s champion against the elites could be his play to block any coup. However, as the war drags on, his efforts may consolidate opposition more than diminish it. So, the race may have begun to determine if Russia’s internal high-level opposition will be mobilized and act before Putin can end the war with some measurable victory, no matter how small of a fig leaf. 

Nick Licata is the author of Becoming A Citizen Activist and Student Power, Democracy and Revolution in the Sixties. He is the founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of over 1,000 progressive municipal officials.

Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Citizenship Politics

1...456...17Page 5 of 17

More from CN

Contact