Poor People's CampaignBy This Love: Part Two

A Sermon From the Nation’s Capital by Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II: As the 40 Days of Action for the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival continues across the nation, Co-Chair, Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II continues sharing God’s message of love from National City Christian Church in Washington, DC.

This is a preacher for me. A preacher who preaches action for the people: for action helping the marginalized, the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the sick instead of being satisfied with quietly complaining about the status quo while perpetuating that very status quo.

 This transcription is my attempt to help spread the message that is central to Rev. Wm. Barber’s life and ministry. It is also a call to action for any and all who can afford to and/or who can make it to DC for the big push in the POOR PEOPLE’S CAMPAIGN on June 23. This transcription is also only the last portion of Rev. Barber’s sermon that day.

Straight people can’t just stand up for other issues and leave the LGBT community, NO, IT’S FUSION!!! BY THIS LOVE, we must challenge all systems of hate and violence. Some people just want a love that’s limited, but if we are to change society we need “This Love”. That’s why we need you on June 23rd all over the country to show up in DC big. At the Mall when we stand together. TOGETHER against “systemic racism”. TOGETHER against “inequality” and trying to undermine “equal protection under the law” regardless of “race, creed, color or sexuality”. TOGETHER against “systemic poverty”. TOGETHER against denying “healthcare”. TOGETHER against “immigrant injustice” and “attacks on the indigenous population”. TOGETHER against those who would block “living wages”. TOGETHER against those who would give tax cuts to the greedy while they would hurt the progress and the possibilities of the needy. TOGETHER against those who promote “war and militarism” and TOGETHER against the FALSE CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM that says, “if you’re against the gay community, for prayer in school, against abortion––for tax cuts and for gun rights” then somehow “you are promoting the agenda of God.” Somebody has to stand together and say, “THAT IS A LIE,” because we heard Jesus when he said, “When I was hungry did you ‘feed me’? When I was naked did you ‘clothe me’? When I was sick did you ‘care for me’? When I was ‘a stranger”? When I was ‘different’––did you welcome me in? Because BY THIS LOVE ALL PEOPLE will know you’re my disciples.”

And then, lastly, not only does “THIS LOVE” receive and “THIS LOVE” resist–– “THIS LOVE” redeems. “THIS LOVE” reclaims. “THIS LOVE” reaches. Down in the “old church” it says “it reaches to the highest mountain, and it reaches to the lowest valley.” “THIS LOVE” is a love I can hasten to “God’s throne” no matter… In fact, it’s even beyond that. “THIS LOVE” is so powerful it’ll bring the throne to you. 

Y’all don’t hear what I’m saying, “JESUS CAME DOWN through 42 generations ‘to reach and reclaim and redeem’. Even when Judas betrayed him he didn’t call him “enemy” he said, “FRIEND,” you can come back even from this. Even when Peter denied him and he got up out of the grave he said, “Go find Peter”, “go find Peter.” “THIS LOVE” redeems. “THIS LOVE” reclaims. “This love” reaches. In our text the disciples are afraid. “You ever been afraid, teacher” is heavy. “You ever been afraid, you ever seen things fall apart?” Looks like these narcissistic, dominating, lying people got all the control, all the mics, all the sound, all the TV stations… you ever been like that? It’s kind of how they work. In the midst of that Jesus knelt down and washes, not some of this disciples’ feet, but all his disciples’ feet. Washes the whole community’s feet. In essence he reminds them that they are all redeemed and reclaimed. And God wants to reach everyone of them. And the struggle intensifies as the text ends with Peter’s denial and the Bible says, when Jesus got up… [interesting, this is the kind of love that’ll reach you]. He didn’t say, “Go get Peter, James, John.” He said, “Go get my disciples and Peter.” Jesus said… this kind of community is the kind of community that understands that every now and then the best of us can internalize what’s against us. Y’all don’t you hear what I’m saying? Every now and then internalized “racism” can get to the best of us. Internalized homophobia can get to the best of us. But I need a community that operates by THIS LOVE. The kind of love that doesn’t give up on you. Then when he found Peter he didn’t say, “I told you you were going to deny me. I told you you were…” He just said, “I need to know something, Peter, cause I understand all of us have our moments, I just need to know ‘do you live me? Do you care about me? Do you still want community?”

And when a whole community of people are persecuted just because of who they are… I’m so glad that “THIS LOVE” will redeem and “THIS LOVE” will claim you. If you fall away “THIS LOVE” will reach you and give strength to hold on just a little while longer.

When hate wants to pull you down to hate those who have hated you, I’m glad that “THIS LOVE,” ahhh, will redeem you. THIS LOVE of Christ will reclaim you. “THIS LOVE” will reach down and pull you up when people reject us and want to hold us back. “THIS LOVE” redeems. “THIS LOVE” reclaims. “THIS LOVE” reaches us just… just when we need it most. 

I said it last week. I need to say it again to you and to the nation because I know in this room there are some who have faced rejection. You’ve been rejected because of your sexuality. You’ve been rejected because of who you love. You’ve been rejected because of how you were born. You’ve been rejected because somebody needed to be somebody and feel good about themselves by trying to beat up on you. There are folk in this room who’ve known rejection… rejection because of income. Do I have a witness? Rejection because of faith. Rejection because of a lack of faith. Rejection because of somebody decided in their own ideology that they had a “right” a “false mandate” to redeem your humanity. “I’m strange, I’m… I’m sorry, pastor, I thought you said I could be myself, so…” I need a few folks that’s been rejected to come to the alter. I need the nation to understand… Have you been rejected? Has anybody here been rejected because of your “sexuality”? Rejected because of your “blackness”? Rejected because of… come on, don’t be scared. Walk right on up here… Anybody here been rejected you’re female, rejected because you’re male, rejected because you’re abused. Come on somebody that’s been rejected. Come on. Anybody been rejected because your friends didn’t understand you, your momma didn’t understand you. Come on up here. Come on right here. Just turn around and let… I want the nation to see that we ain’t scared. That nobody ain’t scared. We out of the closet now because THERE IS A LOVE that has redeemed us. “THERE IS A LOVE that has reclaimed us. “THERE IS A LOVE that has reached us. “THIS LOVE”, it came down from heaven. “THIS LOVE” died on Calvary’s Cross. “THIS LOVE” went down in the grave. “THIS LOVE” got up early one Sunday morning. “THIS LOVE” has all power. That’s why we can sing, “We are one in the spirit.” I wish somebody give God praise. We are “One in the Lord.” We are “One in the Spirit.” We pray that our unity will one day be restored and they will know that we are Christians by our love. By our love they will know we are Christians. We will work with each other; we will work side by side. And we will guard each person’s dignity and save each person’s pride and they will know we are Christians by THIS LOVE. And they’ll know all over America: all over the world. From every mountain top, from every hamlet, from every valley. AND THEY’LL KNOW we are Christians. Mark 7:30

In this address you may become concerned about a call to “step up to ‘the plate’.” Consider that the plate referred to is, as much as anything else, the “batter’s plate” where action is required. Either we stand idly by or we swing at the ball. 

Time Mark 10:45
You know as preachers we love to preach and to pray, but I’ve got to say that it is during the time of offerings and during the time when we get ready to walk out into the street that we have the time y’all all of us to respond together and say, “We’ve heard the call from scripture. We know what Jesus said; we’ve heard the word preached and we’re ready ‘cause our hearts are revived… to show that we know what it is and what it means. It’s when we walk up to the plate, up to the offering plate and when we prepare to walk into the street that we, in this year, that’s the 50th since the 60s, where we remember the feet that Dr. Martin Luther King called to be in this very place to give courage then, and the kind of feet that are still attentive to give courage to the rest of us to step up.
We remember Dr. King’s quote when he said, “We oughta come into this city, in mule carts, old trucks, any kind of transportation that people can get their hands on. People ought to come to Washington, sit down, if necessary, in the middle of the street and say, “We are here. We are poor. We don’t have any money. You have made us this way and we’ve come to stay until you do something about it.

I reckon that you, like me, continues to feel courage but those who have the most at risk who are the most willing to walk up to the plate. I saw it again this Friday night when congregations went up to Fredrick outside of a detention center to stand together in support of a woman married to an immigrant from the Central African Republic, she’s a citizen… and he’s got his paperwork in process, but that process didn’t seem to matter. And, so he’s been detained and they attempted to deport him two weeks ago, and he dug his hands in so deep and said, “I will not return because if I do return to the CAR if I do I will die.” And so his relatives and his friends and his church members joined together on Friday night and went up to the edge of the fence and they called out in English and his native language, “You are not alone. We are here. We love you. We see you.” God does not forget. So let us consider. What do we bring besides our “offerings”. Which are… really the money part only to start, what else will we bring in our commitment… which politicians will we contact… which policies are we willing to change… which provocations are we ready to be a part of… which persecuted communities will we dare to stand with. No matter what tension it raises, regardless of whether our family or our friends turn away from us because we do it… Because THIS LOVE, THIS LOVE demands it. Let us walk to the plate with the commitment of our hearts in this moment.

Time Mark 20:20
As you come to the table do so with the knowledge and belief that love is indeed a powerful thing. Praises God’s love and God’s creation, a creation which God saw witness, a creation which is made in God’s image that compelled God to send a Savior, Jesus, whose life, ministry, life, death and resurrection secured our salvation and restored our relationship with God, himself. But in sending Jesus God demonstrated a new way that we, as humans, are to be in relationship with each other. Jesus showed us that “love” is just something that you just talk about, but it is something that you act on and live out. When you see injustice you root it out, you speak truth to power, you work for righteousness, you change the status quo in society. Love is something that compels us to help our neighbor who are in need. Love is something that will not allow you to see people who are hungry and without healthcare and do nothing. Love will not let you sit idly by and see those who are on the margin, women, children, LGBTQ folks, workers or immigrants suffering treated without dignity or respect, or denied their civil rights. 

Come to this communion table praying that these elements, this bread and this cup, in which you partake will enliven you and strengthen you from the inside out with the power of the Holy Spirit to show love, inclusiveness and justice to everyone in radical ways that you meet. Let us pray.

Loving Lord, thank you for sharing your love for us through the gift of this day and the opportunity to come to your table of remembrance. As you children we humbly seek your guidance to fully accept love and to extend love as Christ commanded. His examples of loving and caring for those who are forgotten are extensions of perfected love. As we partake of this bread let truth and actions of Christ’s love be inspired in each of us. This we pray in Christ’s name.

As we continue in prayer: Heavenly Father, we gather here to give thanks for the sacrifice of your son, Jesus Christ, who was crucified and died on the cross. His blood shed for the remission of our sins which is represented by the wine in this cup. As we partake the wine, we realize and acknowledge that the sacrifice of your son was the ultimate act of love for us. May we use this love to further the mission of this church administering to the poor, easing the pains of hunger and lifting spirits with the good news that if you believe in Jesus Christ you will have everlasting life. We pray this in the name of our Lord who loves us unconditionally. Amen

On the night that Jesus was betrayed he took the loaf and broke it and said, “Take and eat. This is my body given for you.” In like manner he took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood as often as you drink of it do so in remembrance of me. During this service we will have communion by invitation, which means that as you come forward you will take a piece of bread and dip it into the cup. If you prefer to remain seated in your pew, please do so, and you will be served communion there. The table is set.

Now listen to Rev. Barber deliver his portion for there is no possibility of conveying his impact with the written word:

When Corporations Rule: Prologue-A Personal Journey––synopsis


This book was originally published in 1995, but a new edition was released in 2015.

Politicians and the press display little awareness of life beyond the façade and even less understanding of the root causes of poverty and unemployment, inequality, violent crime, family and community breakdowns, and environmental collapse. Our leaders seem unable to move beyond blaming their political opponents and promoting the same old ineffectual solutions––accelerating economic growth through deregulation, cutting taxes, removing trade barriers, giving industry more incentives and subsidies, forcing welfare recipients to work, hiring more police, and building more jails.

I find it is often the people who live ordinary lives far removed from the corridors of power who have the clearest perception of what is really happening. Yet they are often reluctant to speak openly what they believe in their hearts to be true, because it is too frightening and differs too dramatically from what those with more impressive credentials and access to the media are saying. They feel isolated and helpless.

The questions nag: Are things really as bad as they seem to me? Why don’t others see it? Am I stupid? Am I being intentionally misinformed? What can I do? What can anyone do?…

The more interesting part… has to do with my gradual awakening to a troubling truth: that conventional economic theory and practice is a leading cause of––no the solution to––poverty, exclusion and environmental system collapse.…

In 1961, a summer in Indonesia immersed me in the heroic struggle, spiritual grounding, and generosity of people who live in desperate poverty.…

[E]fforts by government, business, and voluntary agencies to improve the conditions of the urban and rural poor… often (carry) a disturbing message: Externally imposed “development” [is] seriously disrupting human relationships and community life––often causing severe hardship for the very people it [claims] to benefit.

By contrast, when people [find] the freedom and self-confidence to take control of their own economic lives, they generally [fare] far better.

[Real] development can be purchased with foreign aid. Development depends on people’s ability to gain control of, and effectively ue, the real resources of their localities––land, water, labor, technology, and human ingenuity and motivation––to meet their needs. Yet most development interventions transfer control of local resources to large centralized public bureaucracies that are unaccountable to local people and unresponsive to their needs. The more money that flows through these central institutions, the more dependent people become, the less control they have over their own lives and resources, and the more rapidly the gap grows between those who hold central power and the local people an communities seeking to make a living using local resources.

I came to see a yawning gap between actions that increase economic growth and those that result in better lives for people. This difference raised a basic question: What would development look like if, instead of being focused on growth and money, it were truly people centered––making people both its purpose and its primary instrument?…

[We need] a theory of sustainable societies that [will] apply to Northern and Southern countries alike. Second, the theory must go beyond the sterile formulations of mainstream economists and explain why human societies have chosen to so disrupt the natural self-organizing processes of living communities…

The Western scientific vision of a mechanical universe has created a philosophical alienation from our inherently spiritual nature. This is reinforced in our daily lives by the increasing alignment of our institutions with the monetary values of the marketplace.

The more dominant money becomes in our lives, the less sense we have of the spiritual bond that forms the foundation of vital human communities and binds us to the rest of Living Earth’s community of life. The pursuit of spiritual fulfillment has been increasingly displaced by an all-consuming and increasingly self-destructive pursuit of money––a human artifact without substance or intrinsic value.

It [seems] evident from our analysis that to reestablish a sustainable relationship to a living Earth, we must break free of the illusions of the world of money, rediscover spiritual meaning in our lives, and root our economic institutions in place and community.… the task of people-centered development in its fullest sense must be the creation of life-centered societies in which the economy is but one of hte instruments of good living––not the purpose of human existence. Because our leaders are trapped in the myths and the reward systems of the institutions they head, the leadership in this creative process of institutional and values re-creation must come from within civil society.…

Development as [understood] thirty years ago, and as it is to this day vigorously promoted by the World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund),… and most of the world’s powerful economic institutions, isn’t working for the majority of humanity. And the roots of the problem are not found among the poor of the “underdeveloped” world. They are found in the countries that set global standards for wasteful extravagance and dominate the global policies that are leading our world to social and ecological self-destruction.…

[America’s] “success” is one of the world’s key problems. Indeed, the ultimate demonstration of this assertion is found in America itself.…

[The] same policies the United States has been advocating for the world have created a Third World within its own borders. This is revealed in its growing gap between rich and poor, dependence on foreign debt, deteriorating educational systems, rising infant mortality, economic dependence on the export of primary commodities––including the last remaining primary forests––indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes and the breakdown of families and communities.…

[The powerful have consolidated the nation’s wealth in their own hands and absolved themselves of responsibility for their less fortunate neighbors. Labor unions have withered as American workers desperate to keep their jobs have been forced to compete with the even more desperate unemployed of Mexico, Bangladesh, and other Third World countries by negotiating for wage cuts with corporations that may still bear American names but honor no national allegiance.…

Only when we in the United States are prepared to assume responsibility for changing ourselves will others be able to fully reclaim the social and environmental spaces we have appropriated from them and recover their ability to meet their own needs within a just, democratic, and sustainable world of cooperative partnerships.…

[There is a] truth that the corporate PR machine sought to obscure with false promises of growth, jobs, and prosperity for all: far from advancing universal democracy and prosperity, the true intention of “free” trade agreements is to consolidate corporate control of the world’s resources, markets, labor, and technology for short-term profits.

Instantly, [after 9/11] the threat to freedom and democracy posed by trade agreements paled in comparative significance.

Outflanked, upstaged, and lacking a rallying focal point for public protests, the global resistance against the advance of corporate empire through deceptively labeled and surreptitiously negotiated free trade agreements lost its momentum, visibility, and focus. Contrary to appearance, however, the social energies it focused did not die; they scattered. As the scattered, they sparked countless new but less visible, less clearly connected initiatives, creating the foundation for a deep transformation of institutional power far beyond simply blocking the abuse of trade agreements that undermine democracy and deepen corporate rule.

Every successful social movement builds around a perceived gap between what is and what can be. Some participants focus on resisting and discrediting the stories and institutions that drive the status quo. Others focus on the stories and practices that build the new. Some address both. A key is to recognize that while resistance is essential to limit the damage, resistance alone is a losing strategy.

[A] viable human economy must organize the way the rest of nature organizes. Yet mainstream biologists [seem] to work only within the narrow “competition for survival” frame of Neo-Darwinism used by market fundamentalists to legitimate their life-destroying theories. They [seem] as out of touch with life’s deeper processes as the economists who embrace market fundamentalism.

[Mae-Wan Ho and Elisabet Sahtouris… advocates of the new biology… study living systems as self-organizing place-based cooperative communities. They observe that the evident competition within and between species is only one element of far more complex and fundamentally cooperative processes by which life organizes to maintain the conditions essential to its own existence. The underlying organizing principles of living communities in fact align to a remarkable extent with the principles of the community-based market economies… 

[We] should stop trying to fix a phantom-wealth Wall Street economy dedicated to expropriating real wealth it had no role in creating. Instead, we should create real-wealth Main Street economies populated by businesses that provide good jobs producing beneficial goods and services in response to community needs.

In March 2012… [during the] Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development… corporatists (those who promote corporate rule) proposed that to save nature we must put a price on her.

[Indigenous leaders’] position was clear and unbending. Earth is our Sacred Mother and she is not for sale. Her care is our sacred responsibility. Her fruits must be equitably and responsibly shared by all. A number of nonindigenous environmental and economic justice groups embraced the Living Earth-mother theme and joined with the indigenous groups to promote a legal recognition of the rights of nature. 

[For] Wall Street, Earth is simply a pool of salable commodities. To reduce its use, raise the price. They fail to mention that this limits its use to those best able to pay.

For indigenous people, Earth is a living being, a self-organizing community of life that maintains the conditions essential to life and provides sustained flows of nutrients, water, and energy that all its members––including humans––require. It is our sacred human duty to assure the health of her generative systems. Their health and productivity must never be compromised. The services these system (sic) provide are a common birthrights of all and their fruits are rightfully shared.

[These] two contrasting stories [define] the essential difference between a phantom-wealth economy and a real-wealth economy.

[What most economists peddle as settle science is grounded in moral bankruptcy and intellectual fraud. This is strong language, but our ability to navigate our way to a viable and prosperous human future requires that we confront uncomfortable truths with open eyes and truthful voices.

[The systemic forces nurturing the growth and dominance of global corporations are at the heart of the correct human dilemma [and] to avoid collective catastrophe we must radically transform the underlying system of business to restore power to the small and local.

[Each] person has access to an inner spiritual wisdom and that our collective salvation as a species depends, in part, on tapping into this wisdom.

[As] we reawaken to our true nature as living beings, born of and nurtured by a living Earth born of a living universe, we may achieve the creative balance between market and community, science and religion, and money and spirit that is essential to the creation and maintenance of healthy human societies.

[We] live in a complex world in which nearly every aspect of our lives is connected in some way with every other aspect. When we limit ourselves to fragmented approaches to dealing with systemic problems, our solutions are certain to prove inadequate. If our species is to survive the crisis we have created for ourselves, we must develop a capacity for whole-systems thought and action.

Whole-systems thinking calls us to be skeptical of simplistic solutions, to cultivate our ability to see connections between problems and events that conventional discourse ignores, and to find the courage to delve into subject matter outside our direct experience and expertise.

This book presents [the author’s] synthesis. [He claims to be] learning as you are learning. Exercise your own independent critical judgment. Construct your own synthesis. Always bear in mind that we are all participants in an act of creation. None of us can claim a monopoly on truth in our individual and collective search for an understanding of issues that in some instances are so complex they defy human understanding.

Prologue: A Personal Journey
David C. Korten
Copyright © 2015 by The Living Economies Forum

Synopsis by
Roger Willis Mills, II

On Building A Progressive People’s Party

We are one- understand empathy

For those who think that the way to create a “progressive people’s party” is to mimic the Republicans and elect school board members, city councilpersons, city alderpersons, county supervisors, etc:

Disclaimer: Yes, this needs to be done and it needs to be done with a vengeance, but that is not the way the Republicans accomplished the take over of the American political scene. 

Critique of a friend: Michael J. Motta thinks (and he is correct) that this post doesn’t go far enough. He is tired of such terms as “The 1%” and “The Billionaire Class”, etc. That we should refer to them as what they are THE RULING CLASS, which is what they are (or in the words of George Carlin ‘The Owners of this Country”).
And that we have to be all about electing PEOPLE ORIENTED candidates and parties who do NOT accept corporate/PAC monies thereby being LESS LIKELY to SELL us, the “common person” OUT !!! (As it happens I full agree with my friend, thus I here include his comments.)

Before I begin let me make a statement as to my  faith in the redemptive capacity of either of the major political parties nor in the process of this failed (supposedly) democratic process within which we labor. If anything of this experiment in American democracy (small “d”)  is to survive I believe a completely new system of electoral process will be necessary. Perhaps something along the lines of a Ranked Choice Voting where all campaigning is done according to predetermined schedules and where the candidates are required to pay nothing either to be eligible or to participate might serve as a template.

First: it was not the Republicans who took over the American political scene. Republicans were at one point in American history the more progressive of the two parties. It wasn’t Republicans who took over the American political scene and it wasn’t the Republicans who took over the Republican Party: it was those who were enervated by the “Billionaire Class” to ensure the continued resurgence of Massive Wealth Inequality which benefits none but the to 10% or 20%, but primarily the top 1% and more especially the top 0.1% wealthiest Americans. It was those who, inaccurately, call themselves, and are called by most CONSERVATIVEs. To illustrate let me refer you to the 1956 Republican Party Platform:

Eisenhower’s Republican Party was very different from today’s.

In anticipation for its convention next week, the Republican Party has drafted what one committee member called “the most conservative platform in modern history.” The draft platform includes tenets like calling for women to be excluded from combat roles in the military and support for the Arizona anti-immigrant law.
But things weren’t always this way. The Republican platform was at one time surprisingly progressive — in 1956. Let’s take a look at some key planks of the party’s platform that year:
On Labor and Wages: The platform boasted that “the Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen’s compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.” It called for changes to the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act to “more effectively protect the rights of labor unions” and to “assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.”
On Welfare and Health: The platform demanded “once again, despite the reluctance of the Democrat 84th Congress, Federal assistance to help build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.” It emphasized the need to continue the “extension and perfection of a sound social security system,” and boasted of the party’s recent history of supporting “enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.”
On Civil Rights, Gender Equality, and Immigration: The platform supported “self-government, national suffrage and representation in the Congress of the United States for residents of the District of Columbia.” With regards to ending discrimination against racial minorities, the party took pride that “more progress has been made in this field under the present Republican Administration than in any similar period in the last 80 years.” It also recommended to Congress “the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for men and women.” Its section on immigration actually recommended expanding immigration to America, supporting ”the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict.”
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are…a few…Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid,” wrote Republican President Dwight Eisenhower to his brother in 1954. Unfortunately, this splinter group is now in charge of this once-respectable political party.*

As should be easily comprehensible the 1950s Republican Party was easily as far left as the Democratic Party of today. Some would suggest-further left. Thus, it was not Republicans who overtook their party & the American political scene: it was, what we today call, the Billionaire Class––the 0.1% richest Americans who took over the Republican Party and the American Political Scene. What’s more they also took over the Democratic Party. The only “dyed in the wool New Deal Democrat” left in Congress is not even a Democrat: He is an Independent–Senator Bernie Sanders. Yes, there are others who adhere to “bits and pieces” of the New Deal, but I question their actual motivation because few of them are willing to fight “tooth and nail” for those principles. They use the excuse “We must compromise because we are so weak.” Why are they so weak? I submit it is, in part, because circa 1972 Democrats as a “Party” made the conscious decision to appeal, for their campaign war chests, to that very Billionaire Class. I further submit the real reason Democrats rely on the Billionaires is because they, the Democrats in Congress, love being Millionaires.

However, this is only part of the story. In fact it is but a small part of the story. It is the result of the real story. The real story is much darker as it involves a very long history of “dark money”, of hidden agendas involving the establishment of “Charitable Trusts and Foundations.” All of which, as far as I have been able to determine, were created by the Billionaire Class. This was to ensure something the Founders and Framers feared nearly as much as a “Standing Army”. That something was an “Inherited Aristocracy.” 

Nearly all these foundations were “Tax Havens”. They were a means by which the Billionaire Class could manipulate their money for socio-political purposes with very little to no oversight. The oversight was considered forego-able because these “Trusts” and “Foundations” were “Non-Profits”. Some examples are “The American Enterprise Institute,” (a Koch Brothers Think Tank); The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, and many, many more none of which are benign. They were created to “shape American’s thinking” about but not limited to: the evils of the “social safety net”, the need to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation and yes, the privatization (destruction of) Social Security.” It was and is necessary to eliminate these and similar programs because they offer the common person a minimum level of independence from the “Billionaire Class” not because they are evils in and of themselves. Of course they are presented as inherently evil, but from the “Billionaire Class’s” perspective the evil is that money they claim the right to is shared with commoners: people with no “class” nor “dignity” nor integrity.

Of course we, the common people, cannot donate what we do not have, “Billions of Idle Dollars” just waiting to be put to “good use,” so we will have to use what we have–numbers: “We are many and they are few.” But…, if we rely on the institutions that “Jack Built” (Jack being a euphemism for money) including the current political parties we will continually be subverted from the goal of creating a “progressive people’s party.”

My prescription: Find and support truly progressive candidates (regardless of party affiliation) and encourage those who hold truly progressive views and values to become candidates. This is how the Regressives (faux Conservatives) took over American politics. This is the only way we, the common person can recreate this nation and this world making them a place where ordinary, common people can live with dignity, honor and integrity.

As long as we have a bipolar dichotomous political choice which is run by power in any of its many forms including corporate money any reclaiming of the big “D” party will be temporary itself. Nonetheless, I hope like hell that the “reformers” can achieve their goal, temporary as it may be. I am not against buying time as many of my friends are. I think there is value in “buying time” because transformative change rarely occurs “overnight”. Transformation is a process not wholly unlike evolution by natural selection.

The ideas and positions which Bernie has represented most, if not all, his political career can be traced to many of the “third parties”. Third parties which so many of my friends disdain. Therefore it can be argued that those “third parties” have been essential in postponing the development of a “human-valued” politics (I see quite the opposite in this, personally). When we look at the socio-political reality of the eons: over the past 200 or so years we see a general expression of progress toward a human-value politics which values humans as beings in and of themselves for any sustained period over the history of what (for lack of a better term) can be expressed as the “spiritual evolution” of humanity. This is my estimate of the world despite the several resurgences of mass murder and extreme oppression which many loose their sense of vision within. One must not allow oneself to loose sight of the fact that these devolutions are much more visibly and consistently in mass awareness thereby raising the socio-psycho-emotional and political consciousnesses.

But then I am an admitted “ideologist”. I believe that ideas drive the course of history (yes, even historical dialectics). The problem for so many is that the world of ideas is just like other spheres of influence. It is a complex. A manifold of competing ideas and their workings are overdetermined. Another difficulty for those who wish to see progress toward a human-value politics is obtaining a mass communication of these ideas while several of the “competing ideas” have their outlets which limit or, even, deny the value of valuing humans as worthy in and of themselves.

Ultimately, it’s not about winning any given election. I see no evidence that such a short-term strategy has ever profited the common person. Therefore, we have to be about electing PEOPLE ORIENTED candidates. Candidates who will be LESS LIKELY to SELL us, the common person, OUT !!!

I have often heard that we will have to have some type of “vanguardist” movement candor political party assume power before we can progress to a POLITICS OF SANITY. I will not totally abandon this system as long as I can see efforts to modify the system such that money and the influence bought by money is to be eliminated and this does not mean just limited. This doesn’t mean that I have any great faith that it can be done, but if it fails it will not be because I refuse to try.

As to a vanguardist party I, also, have little, if any, faith in them. If we change the POWER OF MONEY with the POWER OF AUTHORITY what essential quality will we have changed? What I most advocate is the building of a democracy based as far as possible in the communities wherein the decisions to be made will have impact: that is, if a decision impacts people only in a single town, or small community, then only those in that towner community, should have a say, but if it also impacts those in the neighboring communities (the next town, county, state, etc.) then everyone in those communities should also have equal voice.

But, as to the economics of the society, if we replace a system where workers go to work and produce what a capitalist (tens, or hundreds or even thousands of miles way) tells them to, with equipment the capitalist provides for them to use in the production with whatever is produced, with materials provided by the capitalist to be transformed into whatever is to be produced and where the capitalist claims the proceeds/profits of that production with a system where some government functionary (call him or her whatever one wishes) replaces the capitalist and the worker still goes to work each day producing what someone from “on high” tells them to with the equipment and materials provided them from “on high” and where the proceeds still devolve to whomever is “on high” then we will not have changed the condition of the worker. We will only have changed who is “on high” and the conditions of the worker will not have been altered in any essential way. This will be because whatever is given by the authority (whether that authority is called a capitalist or a vanguardist) is not the possession of the worker. This is important because if we do not have DEMOCRACY IN THE WORKPLACE we will never be able to maintain DEMOCRACY in our governance.

As far as simply utterly restructuring any system is concerned, everyone who participates in the deconstruction and the reconstruction must be careful to observe the ancient maxim: BE CAREFUL THAT YOU DON’T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. I agree this particular bathwater is very, even extremely filthy, but that only makes it all the more pertinent to take care to guard against throwing the baby out.

I often hear that we need to return to the Fairness Doctrine so we might dispense with the hate and vitriol. The often unrealized truth about the Fairness Doctrine is that it only ever applied to Broadcast Media. It never applied to Newsprint, Cable nor internet nor any other form of mass communication. Therefore a simple return to it would not benefit as such a tiny portion of News/Propaganda is transmitted over the Broadcast Media. I will, however, agree it should have been expanded and creating an expanded version of it could greatly benefit us, but it would have to be an entirely new doctrine. 

Also, many criticize Bernie Sanders, but I withhold criticism of Bernie for he is like unto the rest of us: as far as I can see- he is doing all he understands is available to him to promote some shift toward a politics of sanity. I would that he had or that he still would take a different tack but I can’t feel that I can afford to criticize, too much, anyone who is working to create an environment where a POLITICS OF SANITY might be capable of developing. But, for those who think they are working toward this end by promoting establishment Democrats and Neo-liberals I can’t criticize you enough for it was they who helped prepare the ground from which Donald Trump and the National Socialists in and around his administration sprouted.

We have to have (or develop) long term strategies which do not depend on short-term goals like just WINNING THE NEXT ELECTION for that is a key aspect of how the political environment in which we now live was created. The “so-called” left only wanting to win today so they could offer us a better future which never was offered because the same ruling elite owns both parties and have since at least 1973.

P.S. There were two things the FOUNDING FATHERS and the FRAMERS of the Constitution feared with nearly equal trepidation: 

  1. A Standing Army – which a king could use to subjugate the people. And, 

  2. An inherited Aristocracy which is exactly what the likes of the Koch Brothers, John M. Olin, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Walton Family and a group of other ultra wealthy (nearly all male) individuals have become. These individuals want no constraints placed on themselves. They have essentially become feudalistic lords for whom there is no law but their personal desires. 

In conclusion allow me the great privilege to quote one of my favorite thinkers and person of vision: Chris Hedges from his Turthdig article “The Coming Collapse” on what must be done:

We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state.**

P.P.S. In answer to the question: Is there a official Progressive party and platform?
I reply: I think one can find quite a few. Most are rather local. But one really doesn’t need an official Progressive Party to advance progressive ideals and ideas. Run as an independent or as a major party candidate. Just be sure to run on as progressive a platform as you feel is right for you. And/or encourage and aid others to run. The important thing I see is to get these progressives ideas before the people as often as possible and as boldly as we can.



Featured image from
Understanding Empathy image from
File:Day 14 Occupy Wall Street September 30 2011 Shankbone.JPG
Created: 30 September 2011



Roger Willis Mills, II

Righteous Indignation vs. Faux Outrage

I have a question for Democrats and supporters of MSNBC. For the record I watch a good deal of MSNBC (not so much by choice rather by circumstance. I see a great deal of outrage about a comment made by a staffer of the Trump White House concerning a tasteless comment she made about John McCain and his suffering brain cancer. Don’t misunderstand me as I think anyone who would utter such tasteless comments as she did in official settings should be thoroughly reprimanded and perhaps even discharged.
My problem is not with this so much as with a contrasting lack of commentary of the physical abuse of a person who served in the CIA for 27 years and who served at the highest levels with distinction. Where, on MSNBC and/or other “liberal media” organs, is the outrage at the dislocation of the arm of an 87 year old man, who served his government (and the same government those senators now form and which is the same government MSNBC claims to be so concerned with the direction of) with honor and distinction. This location of Ray McGovern’s arm was done by police inside the capital building as numerous Senators of both parties, (all of whom should know McGovern by sight as he is such a well know figure in their closed world) watched without any demands for the end of this indecent treatment of a man who had served in US government for decades and who before their very eyes allowed without comment as to the inappropriate treatment of a citizen exercising his constitutional right to protest the actions of his government. In fact, Gina Haspel’s being brought before the Senate for conformation hearings is an outrage that should have every honest citizen of this nation in a state of outrage and that without the added insult to our “way of life” as was perpetrated on camera before the senate as was done to Ray McGovern.
My question is: Why is MSNBC wasting viewers time complaining about a tasteless comment when they have aired virtually nothing (nothing at all, as far as I have seen) about this very real outrage?
Now consider others whom the Democrats and MSNBC have supported who were equally responsible for torture and illegal “extraordinary rendition” (a.k,a., kidnapping) many, many innocent persons in the name of “national security”. For instance, John Brennan who served GW Bush as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center from National Counterterrorism Center
Please, those of you who think the Democratic Party is worth salvaging and who consider MSNBC a “legitimate” news source, don’t hesitate to help me understand this propaganda by omission which, btw, is the way propaganda works most of the time. That is, by telling partial truths (lying by omission) and leaving out essential elements of the back story and/or simply what should be considered pertinent information.

January 13, 2018 Report from DiEM25


We’re kicking off the new year with some exciting news: if our members approve it, DiEM25 could participate in its first electoral contest as soon as this March!

After our membership-wide vote* last November to activate an ‘electoral wing’ and bring our movement’s progressive agenda to ballots across the EU, our local group (DSC) in Amsterdam got hands-on and has now registered a political party there.

Here’s how they did it:

•As per the procedure outlined in the approved electoral wing proposal**, and upon consulting with DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective (CC), DSC-Amsterdam held various meetings last month to discuss their potential participation in this year’s municipal elections (March 2018).

•Once they polled the local members and agreed to take DiEM25 to the ballot, DSC-Amsterdam contacted the CC again to further consult on the following steps, namely: register DiEM25 as a political party (the deadline to register ahead of the municipal elections was December 27), and begin drafting the programme, list of candidates and overall proposal that DiEM25’s members in every corner of Europe will need to vote on.

•Of course, registering a political party does not mean that DiEM25 will definitely participate in any electoral contest. This is just a first step!

Thus, DSC-Amsterdam will soon present their full proposal and seek our members’ support via our usual internal voting procedures.

At the end of 2017, we outlined our achievements*** thus far, as well as our desire to turn 2018 into the year we prepare to confront the Establishment head-on. And while the 2019 European Parliament elections continue to be our electoral wing’s main focus, we are very excited, proud and encouraged by DSC-Amsterdam’s initiative to take our struggle to their municipality: A bottom-up struggle to challenge the incumbents, defy the establishment and turn Amsterdam into a rebel city!

Today it’s Amsterdam, tomorrow? It’s begun!

Carpe DiEM25!

Luis Martín
>>DiEM25 Communications Coordinator

*   DiEM25 prepares to compete in elections
The results are in: With 72.98% turnout, our members voted an overwhelming ‘YES!’ to whether DiEM25 should be able to compete in elections. This vote is the result of an immense exercise of consensus building after months of passionate internal debate, hundreds of amendments and proposals from members across the world, two Facebook Live chats, a Q+A, and several articles.
Crucially, this does not mean our movement will transform into a political party — rather, we now have the option of being both! Today’s decision is a go-ahead from our members to set up an ‘electoral wing’, with which we may compete in future elections. DiEM25 members do not have to join our electoral efforts if they prefer not to… but every DiEM25 member will continue to take part in shaping DiEM25 policies across Europe!
So what’s our next step? While the Establishment arrests politicians in Catalonia and artists in Serbia, and looks the other way while the rich evade taxes, we continue to build alliances with progressive political actors at all levels — national, municipal and regional — to bring our European New Deal proposals to ‘a ballot box near you’. Like Razem in Poland, The Alternative in Denmark, the Czech Republic (where two of our members were recently elected to parliament) and progressive politicians in Italy, France, Spain, Croatia and beyond.
But now, empowered by our members’ landmark decision today, we’re also poised to potentially register political parties in key battlegrounds where alliances may not be possible or desirable.
As ever, our members will decide. Thanks to all who voted. These difficult times just became a little more hopeful — join us and let’s take back Europe!
(Quick details of the vote: Only full members who verified their identity, accessed their account in the last three months and joined us before the vote was called, could vote. The total number of people that fit this criteria were 8,312, out of 60,000 total members. Turnout was 72.98%, therefore 6,066 people.)
**  Not Just Another Political Party
A proposal from the Coordinating Collective for a DiEM25 ‘electoral wing’ Europe’s only transnational political movement puts forward the idea of a transnational political party as one of its tools for democratising Europe
We consider the model of national parties which form flimsy alliances at the level of the European Parliament to be obsolete. While the fight for democracy-from below (at the local, regional or national levels) is necessary, it is nevertheless insufficient if it is conducted without an internationalist strategy toward a pan-European coalition for democratising Europe. European democrats must come together first, forge a common agenda, and then find ways of connecting it with local communities and at the regional and national level.
—Extract from DiEM25’s Manifesto
From the day DiEM25 was inaugurated in Berlin, in February 2016, we have been saying that we have no urge to contest elections, in the daily hustle of what passes for “politics”. We would rather continue in our chosen areas of activism, while supporting existing progressive political parties./big>
Alas, Europe’s crisis and slow descent into a quagmire of incompetent authoritarianism does not give us the right to do so. The window for us to effect change is closing and this has become even more pressing after the recent German election, which killed off the last remaining hope for a federalist democratic push by Macron and Merkel. Time is running short. If DiEM25 is to make any impact on the 2019 pan-European (EP) elections; if our movement really wants to act before Europe disintegrates; if we want to redress climate change or the dominance of xenophobia before it is too late… we must decide soon.
In our first year, DiEM25 worked hard to generate a Progressive Policy Agenda for Europe. One that would confront head-on “Euro-TINA”, the toxic belief that there can be no alternative in the EU. At our Rome event on March 25, 2017, we introduced our European New Deal (END) a strong answer to the question: “What should be done?” On that occasion, we promised to turn immediately on the next question: “Who should do it?”
We need to seize every opportunity available to us. This is especially important for our ‘European New Deal’ economic agenda – our proposals to (a) stabilise the Eurozone by measures that can be implemented without treaty changes or new institutions, and (b) forge closer integration with other European countries either in the EU (but not in the Eurozone) or in the periphery of the EU (or moving out of the EU, e.g. the UK).
So while our critique of party politics and the obsolete nature of current political formations remains valid, enabling Europeans to vote for DiEM25’s proposals will allow us to add an additional tool through which our movement can influence the political landscape.
Existing options to present our agenda to European citizens/voters
The European political landscape is vast and varied. If we want to take our agenda to the ballot box, we must be flexible and adaptable. Here are the means we have employed so far:
•Asking candidates to sign a charter committing them to DiEM25 policies (and holding them accountable to their word!)
•Endorsing candidates, parties or coalitions with a clear-cut political programme that is in line with our Progressive Agenda
•Working for a progressive alliance whenever possible
•Creating a quasi-permanent partnership with local parties that might act as our ‘electoral wing’ in a given state, region or municipality (a movement that is setting out to attract parties, rather than the other way around)
The proposal
We now propose to add a further option to those mentioned above:
Creating a DiEM25 ‘electoral wing’ which will enable our movement to act as a catalyst that brings about a transnational, pan-European party list, uniting political actors who are ready to embrace DiEM25’s agenda. This will enable DiEM25 supporters all across Europe, as well as parties, social movements, NGOs and citizens’ groups that support our principles and agenda, to join hands in a pan-European political revolution. DiEM25 will thus remain a movement, whose members guide its policies as they do now, while developing an electoral wing which catalyses political developments.
The nature of DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’
• A revolutionary, historic first: DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ will take in each country the form of a political party that represents our transnational, pan-European political movement in selected electoral contests. It will not necessarily contest elections, preferring to support other political actors (e.g. entering an electoral alliance with them) or simply abstaining, but it is also ready to contest elections if DiEM25 members all over Europe decide that the conditions in the said country are ripe.
• Transnationality: DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ will be the first transnational party list with a genuine transnational decision-making structure, a truly pan-European campaign, and election manifestos, as well as policy papers in general, for each country party being approved by all DiEM25 members across Europe. DiEM25 thus remains the transnational movement which authors the manifesto and policies of each member-state manifestation of our ‘electoral wing’. As an example, our German, French, Italian etc. members will have to approve our Greek election manifesto, and our Greek, Italian, French etc. members the German one.
• Inclusive and participatory in policy design: DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ will campaign in each country within the scope of our Progressive Agenda for Europe and its seven pillars. Our inclusive and participatory White Paper process will continue at pan-European level, as today, feeding into the manifestos of our ‘electoral wing’ in different countries. The task of the ‘electoral wing’ will be to reach the mainstream and to imbue national politics with this transnational DiEM25 agenda.
• Transnational candidates: DiEM25 will consider cross-national candidacies, beginning with the May 2019 European Parliament election. E.g. a German DiEM25 member running in Greece, a Greek in Germany, an Italian in France, a Belgian in Spain etc. (electoral legislation constraints notwithstanding). Thus, we will put into action transnationality in a manner that helps create the European Demos that Europe’s future democracy necessitates.
• Non-Partisan: At the heart of our political mission lies the simple truth that if Europe is not democratised, it will disintegrate. DiEM25’s call has been answered by women and men of various political backgrounds, brought together by the aim of driving through a transformation to our political system, and an upgrade to our democracy. Hence, DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ is not ‘partisan’ in the traditional political sense of being guided by political tribalism. The scale and importance of our mission instructs us to look beyond political cleavages and petty party politics, and instead support any and all who agree with us that Europe can and must be democratised, and join us in forming the force that ushers in the internationalist democracy of the future.
• Optional membership: True to our promise of non-partisanship, and as a demonstration of how DiEM25 challenges the standard relationship between movement and members, there will be absolutely no compulsion of DiEM25 members automatically to become members of its ‘electoral wing’ in their country of residence: membership of any political party or alliance set up by DiEM25 will be on an opt-in basis for each of its members.
• Multiple membership: DiEM25 members will not only have the option of not joining our ‘electoral wing’ in their country of residence but will also retain the right to continue to belong to other political parties, as long as the latter’s principles and policy agenda do not clash with DiEM25’s Manifesto.
• All-member debates and votes: The electoral manifesto and charter of national parties under the DiEM25 ‘electoral wing’ will be debated and approved via all-member DiEM25 internal votes — including, naturally, all DiEM25 members independently of whether they have joined the electoral wing or not.
• Mobilisation: Any pan-European movement without an electoral presence (at least in the forthcoming European Parliament elections) tends to impotence. And a pan-European party list without a coherent transnational pan-European movement behind it can only repeat the failures of the past. We need both. By acquiring an ‘electoral wing’, DiEM25 will not lose its character as a movement. On the contrary, it will gain strength by effectively pushing its policy agenda on the canvas of pre-election campaigns and, later, within parliamentary processes. The unprecedented overlap of major crises facing Europe calls for, concurrently: (i) a comprehensive political response and (ii) the transnational mobilisation of social pressure on governmental institutions to ensure change. We conceive a ‘party’ as a mechanism to facilitate and expedite social mobilisation, giving a clear end-point to our demands for change. Our transnational party list will, besides seeking to win electoral support from voters, serve to provide a clear theory of change to our mobilisations on the ground and to facilitate those at European level.
The option of forging an alliance that promotes DiEM25’s Progressive Agenda for Europe in Brussels comprising existing nation-state-based parties does not exist. Most progressive parties are already divided, with sizeable factions within them clearly opposed to our radical Europeanism. If we insist on such an alliance we shall get trapped in opportunistic alliances that condemn DiEM25’s Progressive Agenda for Europe to obscurity and DiEM25 to a certain eclipse.
We are, of course, open to creating alliances. But to create alliances that put DiEM25’s Progressive Agenda for Europe at their centre, DiEM25 must develop its own electoral instrument, its own ‘electoral wing’. Once DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ is up and running, collaboration with political actors genuinely interested in DiEM25’s Progressive Agenda will become more feasible and honest.
• Step 1: DiEM25 registers a political party in as many European (not just EU) countries as it is feasible. These parties will have a new name consisting of a title selected for the particular country, accompanied by ‘DiEM25’ e.g. ‘XXXXX-DiEM25’. (The option of calling the party simply ‘DiEM25’ remains.)
• Step 2: DiEM25 seeks alliances with existing political parties in the specific country. If an agreement is reached, along the lines of our Progressive Agenda for Europe and European New Deal, the party list presented to voters will be labelled YYYYY-DiEM25, where YYYYY is the name of the party with which the alliance has been struck. (E.g. ‘Razem-DiEM25’ in Poland.)
• Step 3: If no such alliance is possible, DiEM25 members across Europe will decide, in an all-member vote, whether ‘XXXXX-DiEM25’ will contest the elections on its own or not at all in the said country.
• Transnational candidates: DiEM25 will consider cross-national candidacies, beginning with the May 2019 European Parliament election. E.g. a German DiEM25 member running in Greece, a Greek in Germany, an Italian in France, a Belgian in Spain etc. (electoral legislation constraints notwithstanding). Thus, we will put into action transnationality in a manner that helps create the European Demos that Europe’s future democracy necessitates.
Coordination: DiEM25’s Electoral Forum
To ensure that the transnational party list and the various country-specific manifestos are in line with the above and with DiEM25’s principles and procedures, DiEM25 will inaugurate an Electoral Forum comprising members of the Coordinating Collective (CC), the various National Collectives (NCs) and representatives of the political actors with whom DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ is collaborating.
Which elections? Our horizon must be 2019
The question of which elections we contest, and which not, will always be decided by our members on a case-by-case basis. However, a splendid start would be for DiEM25 to aim for the 2019 European Parliament elections. General/parliamentary elections will be harder to contest before DiEM25 parties are well established and have done the necessary preparatory work.
The 2019 elections offer us a chance to harness Europe’s only transnational democratic moment. While traditional parties remain visionless, trapped in the limits of national competition, DiEM25 can make the pan-European electoral process its platform for Europe’s first genuinely transnational campaign. This will be a stupendous chance to show that another Europe already exists and is ready to make its presence felt from the ground up. All across our continent.
[This document is the result of discussions among our membership that started in Spring 2017 and concluded on October 20, 2017 (when the amendments process ended). It reflects amendments from all DiEM25 members that submitted them.]
*** DiEM25’s 2018 will prepare for TINA’s demise in May 2019
Almost two years ago, we got together under DiEM25’s broad umbrella to challenge old-style politics, to shatter TINA – the Establishment’s ‘There is No Alternative’ doctrine – at the pan-European level, to turn Europe’s democratisation into a radical, realistic, uniting project.
2017 was an awful year for European democracy. But it was an amazing year for DiEM25. We:
• Rallied tens of thousands of people in cities including Amsterdam, Athens, Brussels, Berlin, Dublin, Hamburg, London, Paris, and Rome, and toured the breadth and length of Greece and Italy, demonstrating that There is An Alternative; that Another Europe Is Already Here!
• Nurtured our activists. There are now 70,000 DiEMers in almost every country on the planet!
• Launched and pushed specific campaigns to expose the Establishment’s worst abuses – and we just filed a lawsuit against the European Central Bank to force them to release #TheGreekFiles
Launched our European New Deal, our concrete social and economic Policy Agenda, crowd-sourced from DiEMers and experts across the world
• Influenced elections with our interventions, like in Germany, France and the UK, and supported/partnered with candidates or parties that embraced them, like in Catalonia, Zagreb, Denmark and Poland.
• Welcomed progressive leaders to our movement, like Naomi Klein and Richard Sennett
Kickstarted the process for taking the European New Deal to a polling station near every European – at the Volksbühne Theatre, in Berlin
• Began electing our Coordinating Collective
• Presented the Real State of the Union – in Brussels, at the Bozar Theatre
• Set in motion the ‘Not Just Another Political Party’ endeavour
Elected our first National Collectives, taking to new levels our ambitious experiment in grassroots transnational democracy – with all members (despite nationality) voting for different national collectives
And we did this by working our hearts out, supported only by you, our members, with modest donations!
2018 will be another difficult year for European democracy. So, let’s make 2018 DiEM25’s year. Let’s work hard to:
•Establish our electoral wing as a significant transnational political force across Europe, in preparation for the May 2019 European Parliament Elections
•Deepen democracy within our movement
•Make DiEM25 the first movement that uses the electoral process to change Europe, rather than allowing the electoral process (the old-style grubby way of ‘doing politics’) to change us
2018 will be no ordinary year. Recently we decided with a huge majority of our members that we should be able to compete in elections to bring our Progressive Agenda to the people of Europe. Our focal point is, naturally, the European Parliament Elections in May 2019.
That means we have just 17 months to make an impact! During these 17 months we must:
•Grow our activist base like never before
•Finalise our Progressive Agenda and adapt it to specific countries, regions and cities
•Consolidate alliances with progressive partners who stand behind our proposals — or run for elections on our own.
In short, we need to build a political machine that will make electorates in 2019 sit up and take notice. And do this while keeping that ‘machine’ subservient to our movement; in accordance with our collective decision that DiEM25 does not become a political party but, instead, creates political/electoral wings so as to use elections as one of its tools for bringing change about across Europe.
It’s only people like you, our committed members and activists who can do this.

Are we an Aristocracy or a Capitalist Society?

In response to a friend who wrote, “I do use “progressive” because it seems better than a lot of other options, but it’s certainly overused by those who aren’t. I wish we could win elections in Rankin county saying syndicalist, socialist or anarcho-communist, but that doesn’t seem likely.”

I know, I understand. I don’t have a problem with others using these terms as long as they are reasonably close to what they present themselves to be.

I like to present myself as “not being” ideological, but because I tend to call out others on their ideological-nesses and refuse to buy into their personal “progressive-istic-ness” I am often labeled as being ideological. I guess I am ideological because if it hurts a mass of people then I view whatever it is as bad; however, I like to consider myself as something more than the “casual political observer”, thus it is often difficult to persuade me unless you have a very well thought out marxian analysis.

Once again I don’t often refer to myself as a marxist. That is a pretty large field and the depth of my understandings in economics is pretty shallow (the dismal science, you know.) But the baseline for me seems to be how does something effect “average, ordinary, everyday, people” vis-à-vis the “ruling class” with a small intermediating “middle class”.

I tend to shy away from typical “leftist” language. I hate to be called “comrade”, for instance, because the majority of people I know who “love” to use that term simply want to “clothe” themselves in the mystic of… of… of whichever branch of the “brotherhood” (can I refer that to something so exotic as “humanity” and get away with it) thereby lifting themselves into some illusory “seventh heaven” of some body of socialist perspective with at best a rudimentary identification with the greater whole. I say a rudimentary identification with the greater whole as nearly to a person they have a visceral hatred for some segment of humanity. I don’t believe we can hate and love at the same time. Oh, yes, I know the Goebbels children loved “Uncle Adolf” and he loved them, but that is my point: that it, for the Aristocratic/capitalist class to “love anyone” they have to break the whole into segments. They simply don’t have the capacity to “love everyone”. How can we separate ourselves from others if what we do in the end is to replicate their ideology? That is to say, “If we behave as they behave, then we become as they are, perhaps toward a different “us” to their “them” but no essential difference.

It seems to me if “Socialism” (big “s” or small “s”, no matter) to succeed in the final analysis it will have to bridge all gaps and span all chasms and heal all wounds. For that to occur we have to all recognize that we are all one and not just those “like” us. This “us vs. them” dichotomy must come to an end and the fact that so many ostensibly within the “socialist or leftist” camp still insist on viewing everything in this “Aristocratic/capitalist class” worldview of an “us vs. them” dichotomy bothers me. Yes, yes, yes… we have to deal with the fact that they see things that way, as well as, the fact that the Aristocratic/capitalist class wants us to view the world this way, also. “But,” I ask, “why should we do what the Aristocratic/capitalist class wants us to?”

No, I am not defending “capitalists” I’m defending humanity. I will gladly condemn “capitalism” or “aristocracy” or any other system that pits human against human, but I will not the people in those classes. We all exist somewhere on the path together and at the same time. Some are either a little farther along than others and some a little farther back than others and when we reach the goal we will reach it together or we will fail to get there at all. The question is “Can we identify with everyone, including the “the Aristocratic/capitalist class” without loosing our connection with anyone else. I have been using the term “aristocracy” because we are well beyond anything resembling “capitalism” now. We live in a “rentier” society. A financialized society. We no longer live in a “producing” society. But this is a blog for another time.

Allow me a slightly different spin on this topic:

What I am suggesting is that only when we, the ordinary folk come to understand that we are all the same and that their money is part and parcel of the whole and that they hoard it and they THAT THEY, THE “GREEDY PIGS” HAVE TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE FOLD instead of being allowed to convince themselves and us that they are special in some way will we as a race, the human race, come to the fullness of our potential.


Roger Willis Mills, II

On the Nature of Fake News

#FromADearAndTrustedFriend from the Land of Rainbows
The war between free thought and social conformity, verging on dictatorship these days, has been fought for quite some time. The propaganda machines and their special rhetorical forces have continually divorced people from their ability to consciously think for themselves by mass dissemination of misinformation and disinformation. There is still resistance to allowing free access of quality information with which average people can use to formulate their thoughts in regard to their natural and human rights.
My fear is this. In a classic military battle you have offense and defense both fairly easy to identify and counter, but this system of disinformation produces the sly option of evasion. This form of evasion through the use of misinformation and disinformation is the weapon of the ruling elite which I think has the most impact. It is far to easy for the exploiters of the people to overwhelm the people’s conscious awareness so as to prevent the public to focus on the intent to completely redirect their mental focus because of a technique that often is so subtle as to be imperceptible.
I fear when people who should be able to see eye to eye and fight for the common goal are thereby completely incapable of such a concerted effort because they have become fixated on some little thing like a word (and it’s possible social ramifications), or trigger topics. I view this as a technique which could be termed “evasive rhetoric”. “Trigger words” placed as if they are landmines arrayed in order to keep the “warriors of the righteous” from reaching their common goal by causing separation and descent. And I certainly believe that the other side is capable of placing them, planting these ideas into the minds of their confronters. What do you think?
This post is to some degree a reaction to the preceding piece by my very good friend who must remain anonymous due to the repressive nature of the exploiters from whom he must eek out a living. It was also inspired by a conversation with my very best friend and brother Steve. And it has been informed by all the books I have read, the people I have engaged with and the experiences of my life.

The most powerful force in politics is the psychic (mind-tinged with emotion; or emotive thought) energies of the people, primarily of the “working-class” (many of whom have been sold the idea that they are in the so-called “middle-class”. Make no mistake about it if you earn your living working for someone else and are not in their management team (1) then you are working-class no matter how well you get paid or what neighborhood you live in. This will comprise between something like 60%-80% of the population (2). Traditionally the ruling elite have comprised between 1% and 5%. By some analyses I have read suggest the ruling elite in mid- to late-18th century Europe (specifically England) were about 5% of the population. The “middle-class,” the “entrepreneurial class” or, more anciently, the “merchant-class” tended to comprise about 5%-20%… This traditionally left upwards of 80% of the population who were responsible for the actual creation of wealth which they have never been permitted to keep as the ruling elite held the “monopoly of violence” by which they extracted the produce of the “producing class”. On these figures I am providing gross estimates which should serve as a general guide and they should be read as just that: a general guide: I stand to be corrected on the precise figures. To do this required they, the ruling elite distribute some portion to a buffer class traditionally called the “merchant/artisan class”. I am here choosing not to address the fullness of the “First Estate” which traditionally included not only the King and Queen but the higher ranking clergy. This subject will have to await another post.

The common method of controlling this enormous psychic force seems to be divided into two primary strategies:

Firstly, to pit one group of the working-class against one or more other groups within the working-class which divisions are usually artificial divisions. The perennial “other”: of which the most common version in this nation has nearly always been the Indian (indigenous or “first peoples”), the African Diaspora (which as served as the “slave class” to this day if you consider the exception contained in the 13th amendment to the US constitution) and Latinos (3).

Secondly, either to misinform, to disinform or by not informing (that is, to withhold information from) the mass of the population about what is happening in their society. One additional method is simply to bury the overburdened producing class in an overabundance of a combination of all these forms of persuasion.

This second method often goes hand in glove with the first. When the ruling elite are in the process of stealing the wealth produced by the working-class or when those elites fear the working-class might start to figure out what is being done to them, their children and their children’s children. In efforts to control the psychic energies of the working-class their attention is often directed toward some “nefarious other” as the culprit of the ills suffered by the workers’, that is, the vast bulk of what composes society thereby manufacturing some combination of these methods into a unified and coordinated attack against the interests of the working-class, that is, “the people”.

While it is only one example the following story is a prime example of how this process works. The propaganda industries, in particular, the “liberal” news media, is not there to inform us of the actual events occurring in our society. Events which impact us, the average person on the street, in every aspect of our day-to-day lives. This misdirection by the various branches of the great “propaganda machine” which all too often is used to dilute the solidarity of the actual produces of the world’s wealth. Said in another way: these so-called “liberal news media” are here to distract us and/or to outright lie to us about what is who is siphoning off the wealth of our nation and ultimately of the world at large.

This post involves the so-called “Russia-gate” scandal where we are told that Russia interfered with our “sovereign democratic process”. While I have exceedingly little doubt that Putin attempted to interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election this is, in my opinion, merely being used as a distraction from those who are and have for more than 35-40 years been engaged in a intricate pas de deux or dance which is designed to appear as if the two sides are fencing when in fact they are simply fighting to see who gets to “guard the ‘King’s Treasure’, that is the wealth extracted from the actual producers.” These media, News and entertainment actually serve only as a venue for disinformation about why we presently have a Nazi in the White House, ahhh… excuse me Nazis (plural). This distraction about the interference in other nations’ sovereign right to choose its own government is a method nations have used for centuries, nay, for millennia. It has been an ongoing process for so long it predates the existence of the “nation-state” itself. One of the best examples of this was Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg, or simply Otto von Bismarck, whose practice of Realpolitik shaped the very world we live in to this day.

No, no, no… NO! please, don’t misapprehend me here. This is a vital point. I am not condoning the practice of any nation interfering with any other nation’s internal politics, but if we dare to condemn “them” for interfering with ours; how dare we interfere with theirs. I state this because the most egregious violator of “not” interfering with the national sovereignty of other nations is our very own national government which is manifested as imperial overreach. None of this is to condone interference by “foreign powers;” it is simply an attempt to place this issue in some perspective. 

The real problem with American “democracy” is that the united States of America was never intended to be a democracy. The founders and the framers abhorred democracy; democracy scared the hell out of them because it was a power they could not have controlled. They considered democracy to be “mob rule”. For those who are among the more acute observers of American political theater should recall this term being as it was applied to the US’s, then current, form of governance in the not too distant past. It was used by the ideological predecessors of the very people who just bankrupted this nation with the most massive transfer of wealth in this nation’s history, and arguably, in the world’s history dating back to perhaps the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. They freely admit that over the next 10 years, a single decade, their “wealth transfer bill”, their presumed, Tax Reform Bill, which was just signed into law will place this nation in debt to the tune of, at least, 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS (4).

To return to the prime point: the real problem with American democracy is that the ruling elite within both major parties have been working to undo what democratic process had creeped into our system over the course of our nation’s existence. For instance, when the ruling elite of the Democratic Party lost their bit to have Eugene McCarthy receive the nomination in 1972 they instituted the now infamous “super-delegate” system as a means of countervailing the will of their parties constituency. Since then we have had no Democratic Party nominee who was not throughly bedded with the corporate elites. Take the Clinton’s for instance. Bill was initially promoted to national prominence with the financial backing of, among other corporate master, Charles and David Koch. Yes, those Kochs, the enemies of the DNC, climate science and the welfare of average Americans. Doesn’t that seem curious to you? It surely does to me.

In an attempt to return to what is intended to be the central focus of this piece which is the use of the “liberal news media” to misdirect the psychic energies of the masses. I here submit the following short interview of American journalist, author, constitutional lawyer and co-founder of “The Intercept”, an online news publication dedicated to what it describes as, “adversarial journalism” by “On The Media” produced by WNYC Studios where he discusses the “fake news” of CNN, NBC, MSNBC and possibly others just this past week concerning “smoking gun” reports about collusion between the Trump Election Campaign Team, Russia and Wikileaks (5).

FOLLOW THIS LINK: On The Media interview with Glenn Greenwald (6)


(1) Overseeing the work of the producers of wealth.
(2) When the lumpen-proletariat are included, aka the poverty stricken.
(3) Many of whom has an ancestry that dates to the earliest involvement of Europeans on this continent. Much to the dismay of many between a third and a half of what we think of as the US was stolen from Mexico in a war of aggression during the mid 1840s and of Texas about a decade before. With this theft came a huge population of Latinos, but they have always been considered by the Euro-Americans (as is their wont) as illegitimate inhabitants of the land their fore-bearers had inhabited for generations at the time of the theft.
(4) Try to keep in mind these estimates nearly always prove to be overly optimistic thus we might easily find it proves to be more in the order of $3 Trillion. If history is any predictor, which in this case it rather likely, as this same process has been practiced here in excess of 35 years. It has also been practiced in Europe for over two decades and in England for over 40 years. It has also been practiced in Latin America since, at least, 1973, and throughout the developing world ever since to this present day. September 11, 1973 to be precise when the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile was overthrown by a CIA orchestrated coup d’etat. This is often referred to as “Disaster Capitalism”, TINA (There Is No Alternative), trickle down economics, and supply-side economics to name some of the more common appellations applied to this system of wealth transfer. There has, to my knowledge, never been a case where the result was different.
(5) Again, please don’t misapprehend me here because I am fully aware that FOX (FAUX) NEWS is probably a more egregious violator of this than even MSNBC. And as stated earlier I have no doubt that Trump is not only a full fledged Nazi but is a throughly corrupt and despicable personality. My point here is that there is much more than enough to condemn Trump with without resorting to FAKE NEWS.
(6) Other sources that might provide insight and quality analysis are:
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Global Capitalism: December 2017 Monthly Economic Update
With a brief synopsis below:
Education: Top in education year in and year out is Finland who teaches children to cooperate before competition. Zero tuition at all levels from grade school to higher education. No private schools because that is to have a two-track system which is anti-democratic.
Worker coops: This is not some utopian fantasy about the future. This is something people have been doing all around the world, including the US. Coops are not invisible, tiny or marginal.
Paid parental leave: That’s when a government, society passes a law that says every employer must give paid leave to people who are parents. Number one on the list is Estonia with 87 weeks of paid leave-nearly two years to help raise your child. This is a kind of “family value”. Coming in at number two in the world is Bulgaria at 77 weeks paid leave to parents to express their commitment to family values. Third country: Hungary. At number four: Japan. Fifth is Lithuania. Sixth is Austria. Seventh is Czech Republic. Then Latvia, Norway, then down to number 41 the only country of the 41 countries followed by the OECD, (the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) which has no paid parental leave–you’re here.
Movable housing, aka, RVs are bought by two groups, the retirees and the 25-34 year-olds because with the modern “Gig Economy” there is no security to be able to make the commitment necessary to purchase a house so they buy a movable house so they can move from town to town. When you hear the word “recovery” and you see a statistic look at the increasing production of this. You are not observing a recovery; you are observing a downward ratcheting of the standard of living.
In 2006 Mohammed Yunnus won the Nobel Peace Prize by coming up with a theory stating that what is holding back people in poor countries is they don’t have capital, money. If they had money they could start and build a business. Mr. Yunnus’ solution is called “microcredit”. Enter large commercial banks to make loans to people they could draw interest from whom they had not thought of before. Essentially this produced a system of economics called “supply-side economics”. It was a disaster because no one thought of the need for the demand. This lovely model is lovely precisely because it allows governments to help businesses without saying they are helping businesses.
What is the rationale for cutting taxes for corporations in America: that is what (has now just) been done.
Supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, liberating the entrepreneur––these are rationales for shifting the distribution of wealth and income from the middle and the bottom to the folks at the top. You can’t possibly have democracy with this level of inequality; the two don’t go together.
The decision by the US to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Why is the “revolt against sex abuse” happening now? Why not at some earlier date?
The Tax Bill: The fundamental purpose and function of this law is to redistribute wealth and income from the middle and the bottom of this country to the top. What this is all about is a redistribution of wealth rationalized by catch-as-you-can arguments that they hope people won’t think through enough to realize they are being had. Here’s the worst one. The Republicans, sad as they are, have been busy for the past 25 years undoing the New Deal, undoing the vast collection of social welfare that was enacted in the aftermath of the collapse of the 1930s. And the rationale they had, why they had to cut food stamps and cut welfare. Remember Clinton? “The end of welfare as we know it.” – all that sort of bombastic stuff. Which by the way the Democrats did as well as the Republicans – the rationale behind it, let’s remember, was America had a deficit. We owe so much money we can’t afford a welfare system. We can’t afford to do all these wonderful things. We just can’t afford them, because if we did them we’d have to borrow the money and that would increase the deficit of what we owe we can’t do that. That’s what Republicans have been using as a rationale for 30 years. That’s why its awkward now that the very tax bill they (have now passed and signed into law) to cut taxes on business they can’t figure out––in the early years, at least––how to do that without massively cutting social programs.
By the way, to not borrow money to enable them to cut taxes on corporations, that would mean cutting your Social Security. That would mean taking away your Medicare and Medicaid-not all of it, but big chucks of it which, by the way they are planning to do next year anyway. They are going to keep spending roughly what they are spending this year, cut the taxes and borrow the money instead. The Party that said the deficit was the worst thing you could have – so bad that you had to cut school lunch programs – is now the champion of bigger deficits.
But here comes the best part: when the government cuts the taxes on corporations and the rich and then has to borrow the money to maintain what the government’s programs are because it’s not getting that money from the corporations and the rich – it has to borrow that money from the corporations from those same corporations and rich folks. They will not, instead of paying taxes will now lend it to the government.
The ruling class will have to come up with rationales as to why this tax cut didn’t work for the average American and that will be in the form of scapegoats just as it has been for the last, well… forever: the scapegoats will be the immigrants, the African Americans, the people who aren’t white, intellectuals, urban people, northerners etc. It will be “those people have done it to us”.
And at:
On the Real News, we’ve been doing a lot of coverage, stories, about the battle within the Democratic party between the Sanders wing and what I would call the oligarchic ring, otherwise sometimes referred to as the Clinton wing or the Clinton/Obama wing, sometimes called the Corporate Democratic wing.
Well, we want to go back a bit in history and talk about the origins of this fight. At least, one of the critical turning points. We’re not going to go way back to the beginning of the Democratic party. Kind of go back to Roosevelt and the New Deal and Henry Wallace, who became Roosevelt’s vice president from ’41 to ’45, what happens in 1944 when Wallace gets dumped as Roosevelt’s vice president, and Wallace represents perhaps the most progressive politics that a vice president certainly ever had. Maybe the most progressive politics that someone ever made it to that kind of power ever had in the United States.
We’re going to go through over the course of a few segments how this battle unfolded and put the Sanders fight and Sanders wing of the party’s fight with the Corporate Democratic wing in some historical context.
Undoing The New Deal Index Page
Beginning with a speech made by then Vice President Henry Wallace at:
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Henry Wallace Speech
Then a program published by THE REAL NEWS titled “Undoing the New Deal” published on March 10, 2013
On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of Roosevelt’s election and the introduction of the New Deal, Jennifer Taub and John Weeks discuss the post-war period and how successive administrations dismantled it.
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Preliminary Video
Followed by “Undoing the New Deal: The 1944 Coup Against VP Henry Wallace (pt1)” published on December 4, 2017
Historian Peter Kuznick and Paul Jay discuss the historical context of the fight between the Sanders’ progressive wing against the oligarchy within the Democratic Party; the overthrow of Vice President Wallace by an alliance of party bosses and Southern racists was a turning point in the decades-long process to roll back the New Deal
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Part 1: The 1944 Coup Against VP Henry Wallace
Then “Undoing the New Deal: Truman’s Cold War Buries Wallace and the Left (pt2)” published on December 7, 2017
Historian Peter Kuznick says Truman bought into the Republican’s post-WWII campaign against Russia and used the hysteria to purge the Democratic Party and defeat former VP Henry Wallace in the ’48 Presidential election; with host Paul Jay
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Part 2: Truman’s Cold War Buries Wallace and the Left
Then “Undoing the New Deal: Roosevelt Created A Social Safety Net, Not Socialism (pt3)” published on December 10, 2017
Historian Peter Kuznick says the New Deal created necessary programs and regulations that mitigated the effects of the Great Depression, but he wouldn’t nationalize the banks or challenge private ownership
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Part 3: Roosevelt Created A Social Safety Net, Not Socialism
And “Undoing the New Deal: Truman Embraces the Cold War (pt4)” published on December 14, 2017
Historian Peter Kuznick says that while Truman supported the New Deal, he paved the way for its undoing by fueling the anti-communist, anti-socialist fervor which played into the hands of the right; with host Paul Jay
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Part 4: Truman Embraces the Cold War
Then “Undoing the New Deal: African-Americans, Racism and the FDR/Johnson Reforms (Pt5)” published December 18, 2017
Historian Gerald Horne says that to pass the New Deal legislation, FDR allowed discriminatory practices to appease the racist Dixiecrat section of the Democratic Party; the reforms of the 60’s that responded to the upsurge of the civil rights movement helped Black Americans, but have been undone by Democratic and Republican administrations since
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Part 5: Truman Embraces the Cold War
Undoing the New Deal: Clinton Rolled Back the Deal, Obama Blew a FDR Moment (pt6)” published December 20, 2017
Historian Gerald Horne says that President Clinton’s “reforms” were a staggering blow to the social safety net; President Obama had a rare political moment where he could have created a modern New Deal, but he wouldn’t do it
FOLLOW THIS LINK: Undoing the New Deal Part 6: Clinton Rolled Back the Deal, Obama Blew a FDR Moment


Roger Willis Mills II