With “Better Alpha Energy”: Can A Squad of Progressive Vets Storm Capitol Hill in 2026?

By and

During the mid-term election next year, the Democratic Party hopes to regain lost ground on Capitol Hill by running a new crop of  “service candidates”—men and women whose campaign bios stress their past experience in the military and national security agencies.

One booster of this approach is Elissa Slotkin, a business-friendly Democrat who won a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan last year. She first entered politics, as a successful candidate for the House in 2018, after three tours of duty in Iraq as a CIA analyst and then working as a top-level Pentagon official, whose responsibilities included “ensuring Israel’s qualitative military edge.”

In a candid interview with Politico, she  urged Democrats to ditch their reputation for being “weak and woke” and field more candidates, like herself, who have “goddamn Alpha energy” and can “fucking retake the flag.” In pursuit of this objective, her mainly male ex-colleagues in the House who served in the military have created a  Democratic Veterans Caucus (DVC), co-chaired by Representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA.), Pat Ryan (D-NY.) and Chris Deluzio (D-PA).

The DVC wants to create “a pipeline for the next generation of veteran and national-security-expert elected leaders.” Its favored candidates will get much financial help from the wealthy donors behind VoteVets, a DP-aligned Super PAC which showered $30 million on candidates like Slotkin last year. (Slotkin has also benefited from more  $650,000 in campaign spending by AIPAC.)

The DVC is rightly concerned about MAGA threats like President Trump’s “politicization” of the military and unlawful multi-state deployment of the National Guard for domestic policing purposes. According to Deluzio, a former Navy officer, it’s now a very “powerful thing for us to organize, as Democratic veterans, on some of those issues where we can’t reach compromise, and nor should we. We should fight for our values where we can.” 

That “fight for our values” did not last long. In a vote taken soon after the DVC was formed, a majority of its members–including Deluzio—folded completely when House Republicans pressured them to back a resolution honoring “a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility.” 

The recipient of this official praise was a deceased non-vet from Arizona named Charlie Kirk. In the same Orwellian language, Kirk was lauded by 85 other House Democrats as a model citizen engaged in “respectful, civil discourse,” who “worked tirelessly to promote unity.”

Three DVC members voted “present” and two were recorded as not voting at all on this mis-representation of Kirk’s “life and legacy” as a right-wing bigot, 2020 election results denier, and defender of January 6, 2021 rioters. Only 46-year old U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton—now an announced primary challenger to 79-year old Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) next year—and two others had the courage to vote against the measure because of Kirk’s long history of being an openly racist, misogynist, and homophobic immigrant basher.  

This revealing performance was the latest reminder that most successful service candidates quickly become part of the bi-partisan status quo in Washington. Whether elected as “moderate Democrats” or, more often, as MAGA Republicans, veterans on Capitol Hill rarely challenge U.S. foreign and military policy. 

Instead, they regularly rubber-stamp ever-bigger Pentagon budgets. They have voted, nearly unanimously, for $22 billion in military aid for Israel, during its genocidal assault on Gaza. And too many have been past supporters of privatizing essential services from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which Ivy League-educated officer class vets like Moulton or DOD Secretary Pete Hegseth, rarely need themselves.

Another “service candidate” short-coming, in both major parties, is a shared dependence on corporate funding. Consider, for example, the recent career trajectory of Ruben Gallego, an Iraq war vet from a working-class Latino immigrant background from Arizona. As a House member, he was a defender of the VA and signed a Sanders-Warren backed “End the Forever War” pledge, circulated by Common Defense, the progressive veterans’ group.

When the former Marine geared up for his successful run for the Senate last year, he let his membership in the House Progressive Caucus lapse (claiming that its dues had become too high!) After that drop out, Gallego’s votes on anything related to US support for Israel’s war on Gaza got progressively worse. 

Gallego ended up winning his Senate race with the help of wealthy backers seeking less regulation of crypto currency; their “independent expenditures” on him alone exceeded $10 million last year. Total crypto industry spending on his campaign, Slotkin’s, and others involved in tight 2024 races was $130 million. 

That industry investment paid off this year when Gallego and Slotkin joined sixteen other Senate Democrats in voting for the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.” As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren warned, this Trump-backed legislation provides inadequate protections for consumers and the banking system, while allowing tech companies to issue their own private currencies and “take control over the money supply.”

Fortunately, heading into the 2026 mid-term elections, there are some military veterans, from working class backgrounds, trying to challenge big money in politics by ousting some of its most devoted servants.

Nebraska Senatorial candidate Dan Osborn is one of 5 candidates promoting “Paycheck populism” in Red and Purple states.

With plenty of “alpha energy,” they are promoting what Nebraska Senatorial candidate Dan Osborn calls “paycheck populism,.”  In five red or purple states, they are appealing to blue collar voters (including those with Trump voter remorse). They are trying to recruit a grassroots army of volunteers and raise enough “small dollar” donations to beat corporate Dem opponents in 2026 primary races and then well-funded Republican incumbents in the general election.

Osborn, a Navy and National Guard veteran from Omaha, Nebraska, has already proven it’s possible to become a viable candidate without a professional-managerial class background. The former local union president and Kellogg’s strike leader by-passed his state’s 2024 Democratic primary and ran as a labor-backed independent. To the shock and awe of many, Osborn garnered 47% of the vote in a red state that Kamala Harris lost by 59 to 39 percent last November.

Osborn’s challenge to Republican Deb Fischer, a corporate-funded, two-term Trump-loving incumbent, was initially given little chance of success–even without a Democratic Party vote-splitter on the ballot. When Osborn recently announced his second run for the Senate, as an independent, the state Party again wisely and helpfully bowed out of the race (although any Nebraskan could still grab its November, 2026 ballot line by entering and winning an otherwise uncontested primary). 

Osborn’s new sparring partner is “Wall Street Pete” Ricketts, a former governor and ultra-rich Republican businessman who voted for President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” in July. According to Osborn, that second term legislative triumph provided an “historic tax cut for the 1 percent,” while taking billions “away from social services and healthcare for hard working people” dependent on Medicaid. 

On the campaign trail, Osborn is again blasting both major parties for being “bought and paid for by corporations and billionaires.”  And like other progressive, labor-oriented vets profiled below, he’s highlighting the gross under-representation of workers in a Congressional “country club full of Ivy League graduates, former business execs, and trust fund babies.” 

Nathan Sage is a working-class veteran of the Marines, the Army, and three tours of duty in Iraq who went to college on the GI Bill, and is now running for the U.S. Senate in Iowa.

Osborn’s campaign did not go unnoticed in neighboring Iowa by 40-year old Nathan Sage. He’s a working-class veteran of the Marines, the Army, and three tours of duty in Iraq who went to college on the GI Bill. Before anyone else thought MAGA Republican Joni Ernst, might be vulnerable at the polls in 2026, Sage declared his candidacy for her Senate seat. 

Raised in an Iowa trailer park by a factory worker father and nursing assistant mother, Sage began hammering Ernst even before her infamous April, 2025 town hall meeting comment about federal budget cuts not being such a threat to the longevity of the poor since “we all are doing to die.” After a popular backlash about that, other Iowa Democrats–holding current state or local elected offices— joined the fray, making for a crowded primary field in 2026, for what is now an open seat, because Ernst  decided not to run for re-election,

None of Sage’s rivals for the nomination share his singular orientation as a “voice for every Iowan who struggles to get by.”  The former radio station news director and now small-town economic development promoter is a fierce critic of big business. His campaign platform targets insurance industry rip-offs, big pharma abuses, price gouging by private equity owned healthcare providers, and VA privatization.

“People understand that government’s not working for us,” Sage told us. “We’re the richest country in the world, and over 60% of our population lives paycheck to pay-check…We’ve got to get big money out of politics, by over-turning Citizens United, so elections are not just a pay-to-play scheme and more working-class people actually have a chance to win.”  

Former Marine Zach Shrewsbury launched his second campaign for the Senate in West Virgina.

Like Osborn, former Marine Zach Shrewsbury launched his second campaign for the Senate, after losing to a different Republican in 2024. Like Sage, he decided to take the Democratic primary route. If successful on that hostile terrain, he would be up against incumbent Senator Shelley Moore Capito whose family, he says, “has ruled West Virginia for decades like feudal lords passing power down like heirlooms while our towns crumbled and our people suffered.”

Shrewsbury’s grandfather was a union coal miner but he grew up in a Republican family. After military service abroad, he became an organizer for Common Defense and got involved in progressive electoral politics and then environmental justice campaigning in a state long plagued by poverty and pollution. His current project is Blue Jay Rising, which integrates voter registration and community engagement with much-needed mutual aid initiatives.

As a Senate candidate, Shrewsbury will again draw on his military background to speak truth to power about how billions of tax-payer dollars that could be better spent at home have helped fund Israel’s “illegal, immoral, and massive attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure…to drive Palestinians out of Gaza.” 

41-year old Graham Platner, who works as an oyster farmer, is challenging Republican Senator Susan Collins. Platner says. “Healthcare is a disaster, hospitals are closing. We have watched all of that get ripped away from us…”

As part of her “war plan” to elect more like-minded corporate Democrats next year, Michigan Senator Slotkin has sternly advised candidates not to use the term “oligarchy.” In Maine, one Marine Corps and Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, did not get that memo from party headquarters.

When 41-year old Graham Platner, who works as an oyster farmer, announced his challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins, he declared that the enemy of the vast majority of Americans “is the oligarchy.” Like Osborn, Sage, and Shrewsbury, Platner is taking direct aim at the big money in politics deployed by “the billionaire class” to thwart much needed change. 

“Why can’t we have universal healthcare like every other first-world country?” he asks. “Why are we funding endless wars and bombing children? Why are CEOs more powerful than unions? We’ve fought three different wars since the last time we raised the minimum wage.”

On his campaign website, Platner has pledged to support Medicare for All, protect Social Security, push for a “billionaire minimum tax,” a regulatory crack-down on polluters and “urgent action on climate change.” “Nobody I know around here can afford a house,” Platner says. “Healthcare is a disaster, hospitals are closing. We have watched all of that get ripped away from us…”  

At a Labor Day Rally in Portland, Platner welcomed the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders and told a cheering crowd of 6,500 that “our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza.” In a social media post the next day, he doubled down on that message, saying: “It’s not complicated. Not one more taxpayer dollar for genocide.”

This did not go down well with 75-year old Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer. He strongly urged termed out Maine Governor Janet Mills, a 78-year old ready for retirement from politics, to join the Senate primary race. Despite a corporate Dem/MAGA Republican smear campaign against him, Platner is polling well against Mills so far.  He’s also drawing large and enthusiastic local crowds of people who want to send someone to Washington who is not another geriatric “moderate,” like the nearly 74-year old Collins (who embraces that same label as a Republican).

Richard Ojeda began his twenty-five-year Army career as an enlisted man and then went through officer training after completing college; he retired with the rank of major

Richard Ojeda began his twenty-five-year Army career as an enlisted man and then went through officer training after completing college; he retired with the rank of major. In 2018, Ojeda became the West Virginia politician most supportive of the pay and benefit demands of the twenty-five thousand public school teachers who staged an illegal statewide walk-out. 

He spoke on the strikers’ behalf at many rallies and, inspired by their “red state revolt,” decided to take his own populist working class politics to Congress, via an uphill 2018 fight against a right-wing Republican. After his defeat, Ojeda started a PAC called “No Dem Left Behind,” to aid other candidates, like himself, running in rural, conservative districts, with not much support from the DNC. 

He moved to North Carolina, where he has now launched a political come-back as a Democratic primary candidate in that state’s deep red 9th Congressional district. In his current campaign against Rep. Richard Hudson, a well-connected House Republican, Ojeda defends the rights of immigrants and workers, supporting public education and Medicaid expansion, rather than cuts, and rallying fellow vets against DOGE-driven threats to VA jobs and services. 

On the veterans’ affairs front, Ojeda took an unusual step for a political candidate. He collected 90,000 signatures on a petition protesting Trump Administration attacks on VA patients and their unionized care-givers. Then, he personally delivered it to agency officials in Washington and demanded that VA Secretary Doug Collins “reject the unlawful executive order by Trump which rips out long-standing civil rights protections and opens the door to denying VA care based on marital status, sexual orientation, religion, or even voting for a Democrat.”

On the campaign trail, Ojeda finds encouraging signs that others who once voted for Trump (as he did in 2016) are having second thoughts as “they look around at the wreckage so far, the ICE kidnappings, the censorship, and the economic pain.” More people, he believes, “are realizing that they were pawns in the oldest con in the book—blame immigrants, blame workers, blame anyone who doesn’t look or pray or live the day you do.”

“People are waking up,” Ojeda says. “They’re fed up that they’ve been lied to. They’re angry and they damn well should be.  Our job now is to meet that anger with something stronger than shame, because mocking people who got conned won’t win anything. The only way to defeat a movement based on fear and division is to build one rooted in courage and care.”

About the author

Steve Early

Steve Early is a NewsGuild/CWA member who supports Sara Steffens’ campaign for CWA president. He is a former CWA staff member in New England and also served as Administrative Assistant to the Vice-President of CWA District One, the union’s largest region. He is the author of five books about labor and politics, including Save Our Unions: Dispatches from a Movement in Distress (MRP, 2013) which reports on efforts to revitalize CWA and other unions. He can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com View all posts by Steve Early →

Suzanne Gordon

Suzanne Gordon is a co-founder of the Bay Area-based Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. She and journalist Steve Early are co-authors of Our Veterans: Winners, Losers, Friends and Enemies on the New Terrain of Veterans Affairs, from Duke University Press, which reports on the Vanessa Guillen case. They can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com View all posts by Suzanne Gordon →

Comment on With “Better Alpha Energy”: Can A Squad of Progressive Vets Storm Capitol Hill in 2026?

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , ,

  RAMBLING THOUGHTS ON COURAGE

By

Editors Note:  On Saturday, July 19th my friend Mike Miller celebrated his 88th birthday at the 7 Mile House on Old Bayshore Avenue not far from the Sunnydale Housing Projects where he grew up. The party was great food and a beautiful mixture of Mike’s colleagues, friends and family. One grandson saluted Mike by proclaiming: “I love Mike, he made me Mac and Cheese once but he forgot the cheese!” That brought down the house.

Others saluted Mike’s work and influence on their development as organizers. I told MIke as he was leaving the event that I always esteemed his courage in going South as a Freedom Rider and braving the mortal dangers of the early civil rights movement. I asked that he write something about those experiences and he has kindly complied. Here below are his thoughts on courage.

Peter Olney


This flyer is for an event a year after the events Mike has written about below

Some weeks ago, maybe even months, Peter Olney asked me to write a piece on “courage.”  I’ve started writing these thoughts numerous times.  It turned out to be a more difficult subject than I think either of us realized.

I don’t now recall what prompted Peter’s request; it may have been the fact that I was one of two whites who spent the Summer of 1963 in Greenwood, Mississippi as a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) field secretary.

That was a year before “Mississippi Summer,” when nearly a thousand northern, mostly white, volunteers came to the State in response to a call from the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), largely staffed by SNCC, to break down its wall of racism.  Earlier experiences of whites working in the Delta were accompanied by an increase in violence against local people.  The question was intensely discussed by SNCC staffers Jim Forman, Bob Moses and Sam Block.  The compromise agreement was that we would stay close to the office.

After only a week-or-so there we were picked up a couple of blocks from the SNCC office by a cop. Outside the jailhouse, he yelled up to white prisoners looking out a cell window on flight up, “Got me some nggr lovers here, boys.”  Dick Frey and I were scared.  Waiting at the booking desk, we could hear the muffled voices of the arresting officer and Chief Larry, but couldn’t make out what they were saying.  A couple of minutes turned into five, then ten.  They seemed like hours.  The arresting cop came out of the Chief’s office door and told us to get back in the car.

Now we were in a panic.  Was he taking us to the river to shoot us and dump us in its waters?

No, he wasn’t.

“You see that school over there, boys, we built that for our nigras (he’d modified “nggrs”).  He repeated that performance at a new recreation park.  The next thing we knew, we were back at the SNCC office.  We entered to laughter and applause!  What prompted it is that Project Director Sam Black had called the Chief and bluffed:  “Chief, don’t mess with those boys, they know the Governor of California.”  We didn’t.

Going to Mississippi from the student movement context at U.C. Berkeley didn’t seem to me to be courageous at the time.  I was in a campus “movement’ culture that fully supported me.  Indeed, going gave me a kind of special status when I returned.  I admit to enjoying it.

In those days, I thought (and still think) all the SNCC workers in the south were courageous.  Sam Block and Willie Peacock, the first two field secretaries to work in Greenwood, slept in their cars for several months before any local family opened their home to them.

Local Black people challenging racism took their lives in their hands. Those who opened their doors to civil rights workers, attended “mass meetings” (often only a handful of people) and finally went to the Courthouse to attempt to register were perhaps even more courageous:  Sam and Willie were there by choice.  “Local people” were by definition not.  They risked firing, house burning, beating and death.

Rev. Aaron Johnson was the first to open his church to SNCC meetings.  He lost members as a result. He stuck by his civil rights commitments.  That was courage.

Refusing to go along with the crowd when you think the crowd is wrong is another form of courage.  I’ve been courageous in such circumstances, and I’ve not been in others.

In my junior high school in San Francisco, I was President of  the scholarship society (a group of students who got good grades).  We had an afterschool dance one day, attended by our only Black member.  While others danced, she sat at the edge of the dance floor.

I asked her to dance. In the context of my largely white working class school with very few Black students, I think that was courageous. I stepped up, risking raised eyebrows and gossip behind my back.  I stood up for my values.

In my civics class, I reported on a San Francisco Milk Wagon Drivers’ strike and called those who crossed the picket lines “scabs” — the word routinely used by my left-wing parents to describe strikebreakers.  Homeroom teacher, Miss Madden, was offended by that, and asked me, “Are you a Communist Michael?”  (That was 1950, at the peak of the McCarthy era.)  I was quick on my feet:  “Yes, I am, and Mike _______ is vice-president and Karl _______ is secretary of our group here at Denman.”  (They had earlier expressed support for the strikers.)  My classmates laughed; Miss Madden blushed.  At the time, and now, I thought that was a risky thing to do.

Other times in junior high, and senior high I didn’t do so well.  When Fred ________ used the word “kike,” I didn’t challenge him.  I could have.  We were a group of friends spending a week-end day at Berkeley’s Lake Anza.  Silence was prompted by the fear of speaking against a common slur used in those days.  Why didn’t I?  I think it was a lack of courage, a fear of being different.

A lot of people take daily risks in their work: racing drivers, coal miners, police, mountain climbers.  Are they courageous?  I don’t want to use the word here though I can’t quite tell you why.

Take it to an extreme:  are the Sherpas who accompany people seeking to climb Mt. Everest courageous?  It’s hard not to think of them that way.  On the other hand, economic necessity is typically the driving force in their choice of work.  Does that diminish their courage?  Something in me wants to limit “courage” to acts freely taken, not those born of necessity — economic or otherwise.

What about men at war?  When a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade tossed into a foxhole he shares with others, he gives his life to save theirs.  I think that’s courageous.  But why aren’t the others in the foxhole who were volunteers also courageous?

Are spies who infiltrate Iranian atomic research sites to learn who the physicists are so that their Israeli employers can assassinate the scientists, courageous?  If caught, they are probably summarily executed, perhaps after torture.  Here’s another place where I’m reluctant to use the word.

At some point risk becomes foolhardiness.  How is the line between them drawn?  By whom?

At another point, failure to take risk is undue fearfulness.  The likelihood of danger is exaggerated in the mind of the fearful.  It justifies inaction when the justification is without merit.

I think so.  When a conservative student speaks up in a liberal classroom, that’s as courageous as the radical speaking up in a conservative context.  

Here’s a tricky one:  I think the group that attempted to assassinate Hitler in 1944 was courageous.  What about the man who assassinated Gandhi?  Or the assassin of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy?  Is “courage” only applied to those whose acts we support?  I don’t think so, but I hate to think of King’s assassin as courageous!

If pressed here, I can find no justification for limiting the notion of courage to acts taken by people on our political side of the fence.  That is both a defining characteristic of it, and why courage is not enough.  It is possible to be courageous and immoral.


Postscript: In subsequent discussions, Mike has identified other worthy present day courageous historical actors: The activists who sailed on the Pro Palestine freedom flotillas and the people on the streets defending immigrants against ICE attacks. Peter Olney

Warren Mar Remembers Kent Wong

By

Long time labor leader and educator Kent Wong died in the early AM of October 8. Labor councils, community organizations and prominent political leaders are saluting the multiple contributions that Kent made to reshaping Los Angeles and California. Most recently he helped to spearhead the July nonviolent direct action training at the LA Convention Center to promote resistance to the Trump occupation. Warren Mar has a long history with Kent and here he reflects on the loss of this exemplary leader. The Editors


It was with great sadness when I opened my email, which I check less and less these days and saw a posting about the passing of Kent Wong, who served as the Director of the Labor Center at UCLA for over 30 years.  Like most baby boomers, I have gotten used to losing friends and acquaintances on a regular basis, but somehow, I thought guys like Kent would just chug along forever or at least longer than most of us.

I heard about his passing from an email from the retiree chapter of the AFT: American Federation of Teachers, Local 2121, and for a period in between organizing stints I was a faculty member of the Labor and Community Studies Department at City College of SF.  In a sense it was a notification about the passing of a colleague, and while I also did a stint at the Labor Center north at UC Berkeley, Kent was always more than another labor academic to me. 

I became reacquainted with him, when I was hired as the Western Regional Recruitment Coordinator, for the Organizing Institute (OI).  Under the Sweeney-Trumka regime in the early and mid-90’s, the national federation was trying to revitalize organizing non-union workers, and the OI was the carrot; the federation would foot the bill (for us) to recruit and train young organizers off college campuses and put them on campaigns with field staff trainers.  When they finished the unions had the right to hire them on or throw them back into the pool.  It was a bargain for most locals or regional affiliates who had some gumption to organize, often with lukewarm international support.  I was lucky or unlucky when I was hired on at the OI, because there was also a hole in the southwest and for a time, I covered all of California, Oregon and Washington state.  But covering Los Angeles gave me the opportunity to reconnect with Kent Wong. 

Why do I say reconnect?  Kent came out of the new left, as did I. He was with a different group of Asian leftists when he was an under-grad and later a law student in the mid-late 70’s.  He made his first pilgrimage up to SF Chinatown during this time when we were fighting against the final eviction of the I-Hotel, in 1977.   I was a tenant organizer at that time and already a cadre with the I Wor Kuen (IWK) which would later morph into the League of Revolutionary Struggle (LRS).  SF Chinatown was then primarily our turf and the other major left group was the Revolutionary Union, later Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which had an Asian Community Center in the basement of the Hotel next to the Chinese Progressive Association, which the IWK help start in 1973.  But we were full of ourselves as were most left groups those days, and we did not welcome, outside organizers, even those who were from another area of the Asian American left.  His group never hung around long, never got a foot hold in Chinatown.  They dissolved a couple of years before the LRS, so by the time we reconnected in Los Angeles, in the 90’s, he not only remembered my past, but welcomed it.  We laughed about our sectarianism and also how foolish we often were.

I always appreciated that Kent never hid his past politics from me. Even when I worked at the Labor Center in Berkeley he always treated me as a fellow traveler from the left, not just another labor organizer or labor educator.  While he could walk the academic tight rope, he never fell into the trap of what was popular to study and write about in a particular year, or the expediency of who was in power in a particular union or the university’s over lords in Sacramento who held the funding strings.  He never wavered in the need for UCLA to be involved with immigrant worker centers, the undocumented, dreamers who were his students and the multitudes of unorganized workers of color, who were the parents of his students.

Kent was also a realist about the unions who he was trying to help regain their prominence, and Los Angeles was always a much weaker union town than San Francisco.  Yet we both agreed that like the radical history of UC Berkeley both the academy and Labor movement were living off past glories.  In the case of S.F., the general strike of the 30’s and in the case of UCB the radical student movement and 3rd World strikes of the 60’s.  Kent always said they could not rest on these laurels, and he knew things had to change from the ground up.  Like his mentor and fellow traveler from the 60’s, Reverend James Lawson Jr, Kent knew that the main resistance against capitalism would come from the most oppressed: BPOC people, immigrants and slaves from the former colonies.  He knew and always fought for immigrants and people of color as a part of the working class.  That we had been excluded in the past had more to do with the fault of the unions and U.S. racism, than it was due to our ancestor’s willingness to organize.  Kent knew that BPOC and immigrants self-organized in spite of past exclusions from unions and legal policy barriers.

He knew that the shrinking unionized workforce could not be the entirety of the labor movement.  It is no accident that much of UCLA’s Labor Center stretches as much into communities of color, immigrant worker centers, black workers centers, Day Laborers. These sectors that have built the United States, have been the focus of the Labor Center’s work under Kent’s leadership.  He used the University to give them voice, connections with other workers across, craft, industry and jobs.  He made the formal union leadership see solidarity with the communities of color as key to their own survival, a better bet than the past government deals they benefited from.  His contributions to multi-national unity here in the U.S. and international solidarity particularly with Asians and Latinos; many former colonies of the United States will be his contribution and legacy.  Kent not only made the Los Angeles labor movement stronger by building solidarity with communities of color but forced the past political machines to give labor leaders inroads.  While Los Angeles has elected officials directly from unions and communities, San Francisco, has moved further to the right by directly having billionaire tech bros dominate municipal government.  A resounding reflection on the North – South divides between race and class.  Our state is a reflection of the global mirror.  Kent understood this, which is why L.A. stands today as the beachhead for Trump’s federal invasion into California, an invasion meeting constant resistance..  He made UCLA Labor’s Center a real peoples academy, a worker’s academy.  It was not an accident that the UCLA Labor Center was built in a largely immigrant/POC community opposite McArthur Park, with programs accessible to the young and working class.  Kent not only changed the academy for the better, but the labor movement and municipal government where he worked. 

Rest in Peace comrade,

Warren Mar

About the author

Warren Mar

He is a labor organizer and was long active as a member of Local 2 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE). Before joining labor Warren Mar worked for a decade as a community organizer. He was the co-founder of two organizations which are still in existence today in SF Chinatown: Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) founded in 1973 and the Chinatown Youth Center (CYC) founded in 1969. He has served on the board of the CT Resource Center and helped organize , as an unpaid organizer, tenants at two Chinatown SRO’s. View all posts by Warren Mar →

Comment on Warren Mar Remembers Kent Wong

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: ,

DSA Graphic History: Learning From Our Past

By

If past is prologue, then understanding history is key to understanding the present, charting a course for the future.  Raymond Taylor (writer), Noah Van Sciver (illustrator) and Paul Buhle (editor) collaborated on Democratic Socialists of America: A Graphic History which, in its 24 pages, touches on essential points of DSA’s political evolution.  It is particularly relevant as we seek how best to respond to the fascist threat posed by the Trump Administration and emboldened corporate reaction; how we build upon the possibilities afforded by growing mass resistance and an open socialist presence unseen in ages.

Given DSA’s massive growth from its nadir at the start of the new millennium with only a few thousand members to the tens of thousands who have joined since 2015 some people have concluded that it is really a new organization, its past is of little value, an albatross that needs to be sloughed off.  DSA is, of course, not the same in 2025 as when founded in 1982; only a moribund organization would remain unchanged over the course of forty plus years. The relevant question is to ask why, amongst all socialist organizations, DSA is the one which has grown so dramatically.  

It is a question the Graphic History helps answer. Although constrains of size meant that some areas of DSA’s past received less attention that they should have, those aspects chosen provide a framework to connect the dots between before and now.

Opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, participation in Occupy Wall Street in 2011, support for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2016 are the three movements the Graphic History identifies as laying the basis for DSA’s subsequent growth.  Precursors to each – opposition to war and U.S. militarism, grassroots organizing on behalf of economic and social security, independent electoral action primarily through the Democratic Party — show the continuity of “old” and “new” DSA that is too often forgotten.

Iraq: In the face of aggression and injustice, DSA remained steadfast in its commitment to peace, justice and solidarity

Most of those who founded DSA had been part of the movement against the Vietnam War, a commitment to peace remained central thereafter.  One of the first initiatives of DSA’s Youth Section was to organize against selective service registration (which resumed in 1980 after being ended in 1975).  DSA members in the 1980s joined local solidarity committees opposed to US funding and arming of the Contras in Nicaragua and the violently repressive governments in El Salvador and Guatemala.  DSA unionists challenged AFL-CIO leadership support for U.S. imperial policies in Central America and elsewhere.  

By the late 1980s, however, anti-war movements became weaker and new rationalizations for U.S. military actions abroad developed within liberal political circles, academia and the media.  With the Cold War ending, there was an attempt to portray U.S. foreign policy as having changed, as being essential to a “rules-based” international order. “Irrational” authoritarian government, by which commentators meant newly independent states in Asia and Africa, especially those majority Arab and/or majority Muslim, were deemed the major threat to world peace (such definitions rested on the false assumption of a supposedly more civilized, democratic “West”).  

A test of convictions arrived in 1991 when the first Gulf War was launched after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The invasion and annexation of a neighboring country was clearly illegal and immoral.  Most Democratic Party liberals and some former anti-war activists took the position that the U.S. should respond by force of arms. Significant debates took place within DSA as to our position.  The result: overwhelming condemnation of the US military invasion.  That debate clarified and solidified DSA’s politics, laid the framework for unequivocal opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and for current solidarity with Palestine.

Occupy:  Occupy Wall Street erupted as a grassroots protest against the injustices of capitalism.  DSA worked alongside organizers, lending support and expertise to help advance the movement’s demand for economic justice and equality.

Occupy began in 2011 as a direct action protest against corporate greed and inequality. DSA, without hesitation, joined in New York and other cities as the spirit of resistance spread. Decentralized, made up of relatively autonomous chapters, DSA had a natural kinship with the movement as a form of organizing reflecting the socialist feminist influence at DSA’s origins.

That was exemplified in the 1990s by DSA’s response to the “feminization of poverty,” itself a consequence of the destruction of jobs and communities by the mass layoffs in the 1970s, intensified by systemic pay inequity between women and men (and further intensified by the even greater wage gap faced by African American and Spanish-speaking women).  

Some of this work was national in scope – such as DSA’s opposition to the Clinton Administration’s destruction of existing welfare programs.  Most of the work, however, was locally-based mutual support engagement and metropolitan-wide public policy initiatives alongside workshops and forums highlighting the reality of increased poverty women and children faced.  DSA unionists backed AFSCME’s campaign for “comparable worth” (i.e. raising the wages of women-dominated occupations to the equivalent of better-paid male-dominated jobs).

DSA chapters organized for low-income housing, rent control, expanded mass transit, public education, low-cost childcare while opposing the burgeoning war on drugs and pro-developer urban budgets/tax policies.  The other side of such work was a response to the New Right’s assault on women’s rights.  DSA members were active in abortion clinic defense mobilizations to protect patients and staff from “Operation Rescue’s” harassment and violence, supported ACT UP’s protests to change federal policy of neglect/hostility toward victims of AIDS.  Similarly, diverse forms of local organizing characterized DSA’s approach to labor solidarity, public health, environmental protection.

Member-initiated campaigns against the array of social and political forms of injustice flowing from inequality anticipated DSA’s embrace of Occupy and its growth in its aftermath.

Sanders: In 2015, DSA’s Run Bernie project helped convince Bernie to run for president.  In the modern era, it was the first time people seriously talked about democratic socialism.  

DSA had long supported Sanders, including an independent initiative to support his first Senatorial campaign in 2006.  As the 2016 presidential election took shape, it became clear that political change was in the wind. Donald Trump, with his demagoguery and racist rhetoric spoke to anger without hope, while Sanders spoke to hope and anger rooted in social solidarity. DSA as the socialist organization whose political perspective most closely mirrored his, benefitted by an upsurge in membership.

DSA had prior experience in supporting that kind of popular insurgency when backing Jesse Jackson’s second presidential campaign in 1988 and developing a close working relationship with the associated Rainbow Coalition.

Some members supported Jackson and the Rainbow during his first campaign in 1984, but DSA did not endorse him.  Working within the Democratic Party was initially conceived as building coalitions with mainstream labor, civil rights, women’s, environmental and other social justice organizations.  Jackson challenged that by organizing on those same issues from the bottom up with an expansive agenda rather than a least common denominator program.  The Rainbow Coalition brought those elements together in an on-going movement beyond election cycles – opposing corporate anti-union, anti-egalitarian policies espoused by the Reagan Administration, a politics mainstream Democrats failed to sufficiently combat.

Some in DSA feared that supporting such a campaign would alienate potential allies, some in DSA were concerned about Jackson not being sufficiently socialist.  Jackson’s explicit anti-racism was central to his working-class agenda, a connection which some members believed would weaken a focus on universal economic issues.  Moreover, affirmation of Palestinian rights, rejection of anti-Communism as an ideology, and overall challenge to US imperial foreign policy was not supported by all in DSA. 

A lengthy and protracted debate ensued concluded by 1986 in a Convention decision to endorse Jackson and make work with the Rainbow a national priority.  A full-time organizer was hired to implement the decision. Those politics came to the fore again during Sanders’ presidential runs.

Many left organizations similarly opposed the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq, engaged in community-based organizing and helped spread Occupy, supported Jackson and the Rainbow then supported Sanders.  But DSA is the organization which survived fully intact, in position to expand to its current strength.  Significantly, debates over the first Gulf War, the Jackson campaigns, or other issues did not lead to splits, to people leaving or being forced out.

Key, as the Graphic History notes, was DSA’s founding based on a shared vision for a multi-tendency left in recognition that programmatic unity could emerge out of disagreement.  Members and leaders of DSA at its birth had different world views, political histories, political priorities – the Graphic History mentions Dorothy Healey, Barbara Ehrenreich, Michael Harrington, Rep. Ron Dellums and Harry Britt as reflective of that diversity. A common program and orientation emerged without any expectation of ideological conformity. That flexibility, however, was based on several principals: support for peace, equality, unionism, democratic participation and accountability. 

DSA’s politics developed out of the work of the membership, rather than as a set of prescriptions emerging out of a pre-developed analysis. Working people don’t inherently look at the world through the same lens, activists in unions, churches, community groups, tenant, peace and environmental organizations frequently differ amongst themselves and between each other yet can come to a shared perspective, shared engagement, shared goals. DSA’s commitment to function as a multi-tendency organization mirrors this process.  Class consciousness or socialist understanding can’t be imposed; such awareness develops in the context of experience in political/social struggles and education through organization. 

Solidarity, at the core of working-class strength, similarly, emerges when discovering points of commonality and building structures that reinforce that understanding.  This is always fraught – mutual support is what sustains an ability to overcome the centrifugal forces of class society and systemic forms of racial and gendered oppression.

An organization that encourages different forms of engagement coinciding with different prior experiences and outlooks proved welcoming as it provided room to join others across a wide spectrum of issues and varying levels of commitment.  Sustaining that unity lay with recognizing the connection between base-building grass-roots initiatives on one hand with institutional leadership (elected public officials, union officers, leaders of large membership or funded organizations) on the other, without attempting to conflate them.  Organizing on the ground creates possibilities otherwise lacking, while organizing through institutions create frameworks within which systemic challenges to power relationships can take shape.  The two are interdependent albeit with different impulses. 

The Graphic History underscores what this means in practice – images abound on its pages, “Protect Our Schools,” “Power to the Tenants,” “My Body My Choice,” “Youth Autonomy,” “No One is Illegal,” “Trans Rights is Human Rights,” “Planet Before Profits,” “Healthcare not Warfare,” each signifying issues where DSA members are organizing.  So too, DSA’s support for Starbucks unionizing and teacher strikes, pro-labor legislative initiatives for one fair wage, union rights and other forms of worker solidarity are highlighted. Those slogans and campaigns speak to our times. Insecurity and uncertainty, debt, precarity, assaults on personal liberty and collective rights, are realities which have given birth to wider streams of political radicalism and form the social base behind DSA’s membership rise.

Activists are motivated by some combination of personal experience, moral outrage, strategic analysis. That often leads to different emphasis or approach as does the community being engaged – outreach in an election campaign or a union organizing drive will differ, so too will work to defund police, to force action on climate change, build solidarity with migrants, stop evictions. Socialists will, or should, seek to bring these together (and bring together those mobilized within each) but that is only possible by recognizing and working to resolve the contradictions that can emerge within them.

The openness to ideas rooted in different streams of political engagement – and rooted in the social base of people impacted by the economic and spiritual crisis of contemporary society – has been the basis of DSA’s electoral successes.  The Graphic History highlights three:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whose election in 2020 helped ignite DSA’s growth; her participation in anti-Oligarchy tours with Bernie Sanders has brought the fight against Trump, for environmental justice and economic equality to millions. AOC’s politics are embodied in her Green New Deal Legislation, support for Medicare for all, call to defund ICE.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian American women elected to Congress is a powerful advocate for Palestinian lives and opposition to U.S. support for Israeli apartheid.  She co-introduced the Breathe Act to divest from discriminatory and brutal policing and reinvest in alternative means to ensure community safety.  Tlaib has worked to promote racial justice, immigrant rights, worker rights, full equality for all.

Rep. Cori Bush, a nurse, played a leading role in the protest movement in Ferguson, MO after a police officer wasn’t charged for the murder of an unarmed teenager.  Her focus in Congress was on housing justice, healthcare reform, and criminal justice reform – including introducing the People’s Response Act (supported by Black Lives Matter) that would fund an inclusive, health-centered approach to public safety.

Each of them has been subjected to vicious misogynistic and racist attacks, been in conflict with mainstream corporate Democratic leadership; each has combined legislative and community outreach with support of mass mobilizations. Yet differences have emerged amongst them, in particular over how to oppose US military support for Israel (though there are far more points of convergence than divergence).  Although those differences have divided DSA members, each retains the strong support of the DSA locals where they live and the support of working-class communities they represent in Congress.  

Based on their principled stances and relationship to their constituents both AOC and Tlaib have survived attempts to defeat them and emerged with greater support than ever in their Bronx/Queens, and Detroit home communities.  

Cori Bush, despite serving with a militancy long absent in her St. Louis district was defeated in 2024 – the combination of corporate Democratic opposition, right-wing attacks, pro-Israeli money proved decisive. That fit a pattern. For decades, African American elected representatives who refuse to be coopted by establishment politics have been targeted.  DSA member India Walton was similarly defeated when Democratic officials joined Republicans to defeat her campaign to become mayor of Buffalo after winning the Democratic primary. So too, Representative Jamal Bowman (criticized by some for his voting record on Israel for reasons similar to criticisms of AOC) lost his reelection bid, facing the same enemies. Bush, Walton, Bowman, have all stood in support of each other.

DSA’s history (and the history of labor and socialism) underscores the importance of supporting DSA identified public figures, notwithstanding disagreements, for transformative politics depends on multiple streams of resistance and advocacy reinforcing each other.  Solidarity internally is a sign of class and societal solidarity, each dependent on mutual support and mutual respect across lines of difference.  Such questions become of greater importance as the number of DSA members holding public office increase, and as the possibility of winning executive office looms – most promisingly with Zohran Mandami’s mayoral campaign in New York City and Omar Fateh’s in Minneapolis.  

From prison abolition to mutual aid, from housing justice to environmental sustainability, immigrant rights, and reproductive justice and DSA’s trans rights and bodily autonomy campaign, DSA members are actively involved in a variety of working groups, each dedicated to advancing socialist principles and building socialism from the ground up.

Past may be prologue, but the future is unwritten. There is no guarantee that, like other left organizations, DSA won’t split, dwindle in size and influence. That danger is intensified by assaults on democratic and constitutional rights, urban military deployments, ICE raids, union-busting and budgetary policies that will increase inequality and poverty.

Sharp debate on organizational issues at DSA’s Convention this past August revealed cleavages within the membership, while an underlying unity was reflected in near unanimous support for political resolutions. DSA’s divided leadership now faces a challenge – building upon the organization’s roots as a multi-tendency organization or retreat into a sectarian posture by jettisoning presumed “reformist” or “ultra-left” tendencies.  DSA’s future depends upon a shared commitment to the organization while sustaining connections to the communities members come from, are part of, are organizing within.

Bearing this in mind, three final thoughts make explicit what is implicit in the Graphic History as needs facing tomorrow.

Alliances: DSA’s strength as a multi-tendency organization lies not only in how we organize ourselves, it lies with how we relate and connect with others around us. Other socialist and left organizations with a different conception of how organize for systemic change have their own validity.  So too do larger, broader liberal and progressive organizations and associations, so do unions, tenant associations, churches and a whole panoply of networks and groups all of which form part of the wider world seeking social change. 

DSA needs to retain the flexibility to work with the whole range of political organizations – be they liberal be they further left, be they mainstream or on the margins – where it connects with organizational priorities and the work of our diverse membership.  That doesn’t mean accepting others positions as our own; programmatic not ideological unity is central in coalition as it is amongst members.  Being part of varied alliance – just as being part of varied neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and regions — is how we oppose hatreds which divide, how we build toward a socialism that is democratic in fact, not just word.

Facing Fascism: The fascist threat today is real; it is a threat embodied by Trump but ought not be reduced to him.  The transformation of the Republican Party reflects the authoritarian danger within our political culture; as is the rise of openly racist, openly fascistic organizations.  So too, Agenda 2025 reflects a long-standing drive of key sections of capital to weaken formal democratic rights to “free” corporations from regulatory limitations, “free” U.S. imperial power from all constraints, “free” capital from worker demands and societal obligations.

This means being cognizant of, and opposed to the anti-unionism, anti-labor aspect of Administration policy – it’s assaults on immigrant workers, on federal workers, on workplace DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs are an opening wedge to an assault on all union rights.  It means resisting the intensified racism of “anti-crime” rhetoric and policies, the racism of the celebration of amoral military violence by the Trump Administration – fighting the violence of fascism means opposing the celebration of war and violence abroad of a U.S. foreign policy of long-standing bi-partisan support.

A response needs to tackle the immediate danger posed by the Trump Administration by defending civil liberties and constitutional rights, and the long-term political threat posed by extreme right-wing politics becoming mainstream, and the underlying systemic danger of unmoored financialized capital seeking to impose direct role over existing national and international representative bodies with all who stand similarly opposed notwithstanding fundamental disagreement on program, perspective, goals.

The strength of a socialist organization lies not in enhancing contradictions amongst working people or within broad popular movements, but in organizing to find points of concurrence, to build a broader basis and wider support for structural reforms that challenge the roots of reaction. Rather than pitting one against the other, organizing ought to be conceived as unifying various avenues of resistance and affirmation.

Cohesiveness and Coherence: DSA, as the Graphic History amply demonstrates, has a rich history.  Accounts of DSA in its early years often bear little resemblance to what members experienced partly because we wore our public profile lightly – it’s not the least of its virtues that the Graphic History in readable and visually arresting form presents a fuller picture than usually emerges.  

DSA’s past struggles are frequently not recalled because a lack of cohesiveness all too often meant that the sum of the parts or our organizing was less than the whole. Cohesiveness is foundational to centralized organizations; the challenge for DSA is to accomplish this while maintaining a heterogenous character. Key is for members to realize that being “correct,” and divided is to undermine the struggle – part of the premise of being “correct,” is the ability to achieve agreement (a truism for an organization internally as it is for social justice organizing).  Unity is needed, uniformity is not.

Coherence, in turn, means developing a positive conception of socialism around which to build support for an alternative able to counter Trump’s incoherent patriarchal militarized white nationalism that has built support by touching on deeply felt grievances. Elements of that alternative are already visible in calls for “Abolition Democracy,” a “Third Reconstruction,” the “Green New Deal” which each give shape to a vision of mutuality deeply rooted in our country’s past — yet as something new, something that can engage people in their work, in their sense of the future.

DSA’s vision ought to combine and build upon these as the basis for coherence and convergence of a movement fighting for the political power of a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, working-class.   The essence of democracy lies in the shared striving for peace, workers rights, equality and freedom. 

 Even though left-wing organizing has grown, there is a looming threat.  The far right has grown. We live in a dangerous time with an uncertain future.  But the spirit of socialist struggle is alive and well! The only way forward is through collective struggle and empowering working people.  United in the struggle against capitalism and all the oppressions it entails, it is working-class people – you, me, all of us – who today are building the beautiful future we all deserve.

Democratic Socialists of America: A Graphic History, written by Raymond Tyler, illustrated by Noah Van Sciver, and edited by Paul Buhle was published by DSA Fund, June 2025.  All italicized passages are quotes from the (unpaginated) booklet. An on-line copy is available at DSA Political Education.  For a print edition, please contact Raymond Taylor at Raymondtylercomics@gmail.com

About the author

Kurt Stand

Kurt Stand was active in the labor movement for over 20 years including as the elected North American Regional Secretary of the International Union of Food and Allied Workers until 1997.  He is a member of the Prince George’s County Branch of Metro DC DSA, and periodically writes for the Washington Socialist, Socialist Forum, and other left publications. He serves as a Portside Labor Moderator, and is active within the reentry community of formerly incarcerated people. Kurt Stand lives in Greenbelt, MD. View all posts by Kurt Stand →

Comment on DSA Graphic History: Learning From Our Past

Share your opinion, currently 1 reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged:

The Politics of Assassination

By

Thoughts Prompted by a Lengthy 9/28/25 New York Times Exchange Between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi-Coates on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a general consternation about this matter among people of good will.

There is now a great deal of confusion among people of integrity about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I believe many ideas voiced against his killing give him a legitimacy and respect he does not deserve.

The country and world are better off without Charlie Kirk’s poison rhetoric.

His assassination has had the effect of giving his ideas a bullhorn for wider dissemination and was, therefore, a politically mistaken thing to do.

It also gives MAGA a martyr, another political mistake.

Whether it was an immoral thing to do is a separate question to which I will return in my conclusion below.

He should not be treated with the dignity of  having a “different point of view.”  He was a political foe of democracy who, and whose ideas, need to be democratically defeated,  not murdered.

The “isms” of race, gender, nationality and others are outside the framework of legitimate debate in a democratic society because they deny the humanity of a category of people that is based on nothing that group of people have said or done to harm anyone else.

For at least two reasons, spokespeople for these ideas should not be denied First Amendment rights.

Protecting the First Amendment requires the creation of an unbreakable wall between it and “politics” as the term is usually understood.

This wall has nothing to do with the validity of bigoted ideas; it has to do with a suspicion of state power and an understanding that if it can be used for “our side” so can it be used against us.  Indeed its suppression has far more often been of radical democratic ideas than of authoritarian anti-democratic ones.

The public, political, societal question for those who disagreed with Kirk and continue to disagree with those who share his views is how to defeat their power—that might or might not involve “responding” to them—which is a tactical question carefully to be evaluated by those who want to marginalize Trump, MAGA and its spokespeople.

The essence of that evaluation is to determine why those ideas have appeal, the answer to which is to be found in cultural, social and economic realms not in the realm of rational debate.  Mitigate and remove the underlying conditions that make a Charlie Kirk appealing and the support of his ideas will substantially diminish if not evaporate.

No.  It saddens me that a wife has become a widow; that parents have lost a child; that children have lost a father (I lost mine when I was 13; it still haunts me); and that others grieve the loss of a family member, friend, colleague or team mate.

These are personal reactions; they extend to the entirety of humankind.

Don’t confuse the private with the public.

There are times when assassination is warranted.  

This was not one of them.

They are rare.  The July 20, 1944 attempted assassination of Adolph Hitler was one.

The sacredness of human life does not mean everyone has an absolute right to it. In Hitler’s case, tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved had the assassination attempt succeeded.

Nonviolence is not an absolute.

About the author

Mike Miller

Mike Miller’s work can be found at www.organizetrainingcenter.org. He was a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee “field secretary” from late 1962 to the end of 1966, and directed a Saul Alinsky community organizing project in the mid-1960s. View all posts by Mike Miller →

Comment on The Politics of Assassination

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check |

“Your Party”, Will it happen?

By

When considering left wing politics in the U.K. there is often an assumption that people in working class communities naturally swing to the left when deciding who to vote for. That has been an accepted narrative for decades, since Attlee came to power in 1945 leading to unhelpful terms like ‘the Red Wall’ – mostly areas of post-industrial England which could be relied on to return Labour MPs, out of habit rather than ideology, even when the rest of the country had turned blue. The simple reality is that most of this is a myth. British people haven’t elected a truly left-wing government, with a working majority, since Harold Wilson in 1966. Britain isn’t a left-wing country, working class people here aren’t naturally left-wing inclined and never have been.

When Margaret Thatcher abandoned industry and introduced draconian anti-union legislation in the 1980s, she broke the main routes to political activism for most working-class communities. Many of the problems with Britain today can be traced back to Thatcher, from blighted post-industrial communities to sewage in the rivers, from obscene levels of wealth inequality to the reinvention of the Labour Party by Blair as a pale reflection of Thatcher’s neoliberal ideals.

In parallel with this around 90% of the media here is owned by right wing billionaires, and right-wing political influence over the BBC has never been greater. In 1948 Nye Bevan, Labour statesman and architect of the NHS, described the U.K. press as “the most prostituted Press in the world, most of it owned by a gang of millionaires” and with the rise of social media the consolidation of right-wing control over what people see and hear in this country has never been greater.

Free speech protest. Photo: Marc Davenant

We have to consider the creation of a new left-wing party here, and its likelihood of success, with all of the above in mind. Current polling shows the right-wing populist party of Farage/Reform would win 311 seats in Parliament if there was an election today, just 15 seats short of an overall majority. The breathless reporting about Reform on the BBC by their political editor makes me wonder whether he is their PR manager, and everywhere we look the news reports are that a Reform government is an inevitability. Meanwhile Starmer’s Labour Party has taken a stance that everything Reform is saying is right, but people should ignore that and vote for his Thatcherite version of Labour instead. It is a naïve strategy that validates Reform’s positions and is doomed to failure. 

In addition to this the first past the post system of voting makes it extremely difficult for a new party to gain seats or exercise any form of true political influence unless backed by the media. These are the barriers that the new party of Corbyn and Sultana is going to have to overcome, relentless negative reporting on them versus endless push pieces by the media on the rise of Reform.  This is all happening against a backdrop of an exponential increase in race-related hate crime and a breakdown in social protocols over the use of racist language in public, targeted at minority groups.

There is no doubt that there is an appetite for a new form of politics on both the left and right in this country, but the likelihood of Your Party ever being able to wield true political power seems vanishingly small. If they can make it work then they will no doubt win some seats at the next election, most likely in constituencies where the electorate are appalled by the Government’s stance on Gaza, but unless there is a hung Parliament, and Your Party holds the balance of power with its few seats, it seems the most likely outcome will be that they will split the left-leaning vote and trip the marginal constituencies to either Reform, the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats.

There are 15 million people living in poverty in the U.K. today and the numbers are rising. Meanwhile wealth inequality has never been higher with just 50 families here hoarding as much wealth as 50% of the population. Bevan wrote in 1952 that poverty, great wealth and democracy were fundamentally incompatible elements in any society – either poverty would use its political freedoms to destroy wealth, or wealth would use its power to destroy democracy. We just have to look at what is happening in America under Trump to see that playing out in real time. My pessimistic view is that the U.K. is heading down the same path, and the rise of a new party on the left will just be bows and arrows against the lightning. I hope I am wrong.

About the author

Marc Davenant

Marc Davenant is a working-class social documentary photographer who works with marginalised communities and uses photography to highlight social inequality. His Outsiders project on homelessness and substandard housing has had critical acclaim and has been turned into a book and a touring exhibition. Two-time winner of the Portrait of Britain competition, his work has been exhibited across the UK, internationally and inside the Houses of Parliament. Davenant’s current project is called Rebellion! and is a celebration and exploration of peaceful protest as an essential part of British cultural identity in the face of draconian anti-protest legislation. An exhibition of the photos and stories from Rebellion! will open in Newcastle in 2026 and then be toured around the U.K. View all posts by Marc Davenant →

Comment on “Your Party”, Will it happen?

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , , ,

What the Heck Do We Do Today? – A UK Snapshot through an American’s  Eyes

By

On a muggy September Saturday I attended the Peace and Justice Project  (PCP) Annual Conference in East London.  The group, headed by former Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, is among the efforts of progressives in the UK to advance the interests “of the many, by the many.”  The working class and left in the UK has problems very similar to ours, but the movement in the UK is ahead of us in many ways, both in theory and practice. Given my confusion about ways forward in the US, and armed with frequent flyer miles, I flew over to the UK to see what I could learn. 

My friend and Stansbury Forum co-editor, Peter Olney, asked me to write a bit about the conference.  Let me begin with two disclaimers: I did not attend every session over the two-day conference and second, I am not an expert on the UK left. I am sure there were many currents under the surface that I did not see.  

Jetlagged, I got lost on my way to the conference and ran into a crew of workers erecting scaffolding around a job site.  Because my legal job includes legal representation of representing unionized scaffold workers in the South, I felt  an instant familiarity with their work.  When I asked for directions to the conference site, they asked why I was there. I told them about the conference, but also asked if we could make a deal.  Donald Trump was in town, and the UK King and Prime Minister were meeting him on bended knee. I proposed a trade: they could keep Trump and send us Corbyn.  They laughed, thought about it a bit, and one guy agreed, but only if we took the current UK leader, Keir Starmer, too.  Because Starmer, like those before him, foists neo-liberalism on the British working class, and his administration is  genuflecting to the global coterie of tech billionaires, I wondered who was getting the better part of the trade.  We all laughed; they gave me my directions; and I was on my way.

The conference was held in East London, part of which is predominantly  Muslim. At the conference we were told that in the 1930s this area was  a battleground over fascism.  In response to a fascist march directed against the Jews and the Irish, the workers of the area held a larger anti-fascist march, essentially ending the open fascist activities in the neighborhood. 

The Peace and Justice Project considers itself a “powerhouse of ideas.”  Unionized powerhouse workers are another group I represent in the South, so I enjoyed the framing.  Used here, the concept signifies a willingness to talk, to “cuss and discuss,” and to consider ideas that can move society toward a better future. The participants even look at certain US news, and are considering how to translate the wave of enthusiasm for the NYC Mamdani mayoral campaign.

The conference filled a large university lecture hall and was live-streamed as well.  The crowd was diverse in age and gender, though mainly white.  Many of the sessions consisted of panels of “experts.”  University lecturers, authors, and others spoke on panels which considered humanitarian concerns of the left: climate justice, health, housing, AI, education, and other topics of concern. 

The initial panel, “War and Building Peace,” focused on the Gaza Genocide.  It  was spectacularly good.  We were treated to a live feed from a boat in the “Sumud Flotilla.” These hardy sailors, from over forty countries, know full well what the Israelis, backed by the US and EU, have in store for them.  Their courage was exemplary.  Next came a Zoom with Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. She gave a clear presentation on the various international law issues, such as the meaning of a nation’s “right to exist.”  

Worker issues were always front and center at the conference.  There was little of the carping of “why don’t unions” do this or do that, that is often heard from many left intellectuals in the US. But a number of contentious issues were openly considered, such as how to deal with the jobs of workers in the arms industry. 

Years ago I represented UAW members at a plant in Tulsa which built B-1 bombers.  I remember the conflicted feelings of workers then, and the same feelings are present today in this industry.  At the recent meeting of the Trades Union Conference, the UK’s AFL-CIO, a resolution against the arms industry narrowly passed, with unions of metal workers generally voting against it and the academic unions in favor of it. How to deal with the arms industry is a tough question because the first goal of any worker is to earn what is necessary for a sustainable life.  A “Just Transition” for these workers is on labor’s table; this lofty goal, however, has utterly failed in other areas in which working class life has been disrupted by large scale corporate changes. Advocates for Clinton’s NAFTA, for example, and those who promote a capitalistic “sustainable finance” response to climate change, have promised that workers would not be forgotten. Profit centered capitalism, however, will not allow this solution. It is unlikely to be different in the arms industry.  

The UK conference highlighted the lives of gig workers.  Throughout the world, these workers generally consist of marginalized people of color.  One of the sorry exercises of the American union movement over the last decade has been the open submission to the Ubers and Doordash models by the Machinists in NYC and the SEIU in California on the issue of whether gig workers should have protection of what is left of the US social safety net.  With some exceptions, like UC Irvine Law Professor Veena Dubal in California, many leftists have been silent on this capitulation. Outlets, like the New Labor Forum, have been weak as well, covering these submissive tracks.  

Several issues which have organizational and programmatic components stood out in the sessions I saw. Considering workers as community members and as union members was a constant theme. Today, the UK movement is well ahead of the US on why and how to organize communities.  Further, the Project hopes to help rebuild a progressive and creative culture in local communities.  The Project sponsors poetry readings in many cities and has strong support among non-capitalist music makers.  Its “Music for the Many” concerts have been a great success, and more are planned. 

Recent events outside the conference were surely on the minds of the attendees.  First, a huge right-wing demonstration, similar to US MAGA rallies, had been held in London the week before.  Many were shocked at its size, and are still processing its meaning.  The UK press spends an inordinate amount of time propping up the MAGA-type formations in the UK, a stance which magnified the fears from this rally.

Second, this Peace and Justice Project is loosely allied with a movement to start a new electoral party, now named “Your Party.” As in the US, the question of how to deal with a neo-liberal “center left” party is a topic of many conversations.  Regular folks want something done about their problems.  With few exceptions, no mainstream electoral party in the US or UK has done much here, unless it was on an issue that would also benefit the billionaires on their team.  Finding real solutions within today’s capitalism is a complex endeavor, There is hope that Your Party can play a significant role in this effort.  

In the US, we know that in the next few months we going to bombarded by forces, from Ezra Klein’s Abundance crowd to the Shumer/Jeffries Democratic Party leadership, telling us how we have to forego left politics to come together to beat Trump and his minions. Like the “long haired preachers” in Joe Hill’s song, The Preacher and the Slave, we are constantly assured that we will get “pie in the sky when you die.” I have heard this refrain dozens of times and it is clear what this philosophy has gotten the working class in the US: almost nothing.

In the UK there has been great enthusiasm for the Your Party. Over 800,000 people signed up on-line to be members.  A founding conference well be held in November. Yet, on the day before the conference a leadership dispute became public between Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, a strong independent left MP.  Unfortunately, Sultana tossed out a piece of media click bait while I was there; her issue was that Corbyn and his team were a “sexist boys club.” She provided little explanation of programmatic difference. This framing reminded me of one of the current problems in the US left today: the tendency to argue that when considering an important issue, it is not what is said, but who says it that matters.  Certainly, one’s identity and history influences one’s experiences and positions, but to say that identity and history always predominates over the exact positions is wrong.  On this question, we can all learn from the wonderful US intellectual Adolph Reed, Jr., whose sophisticated takes on race, class, and identity should be required reading for all who want change.  

The mainstream UK media feasted on this kerfuffle, and is sure to repeat this “sexist boy’s club” line over and over.  Because of this, the Your Party efforts are already a “shit show,” one paper gleefully bleated.  Green Party membership is “surging” now, it said, as 1000 new members have joined.  Even the left Novara Media piled on, predicting the demise of the party because of this one organization dispute. “Is the New Left Party Over Already?” it wrote.  Maybe this media response reflects the nature of the UK news outlets and their brand of snarkiness, but the issue would have been handled differently in the US, I think.  

Disputes on the left, properly advanced, are necessary.  Making change against the oligarchic system is hard.  There are bound to be disputes.  The question is whether they can be approached in a principled manner.  Watching from afar with little background, it seemed to me that Sultana had failed her first test.  But by the evening of the second day of the conference she had changed her position, and seemingly rejoined the fold.  

Also clear at the conference and within the Your Party preparations, there is a struggle over the question of how to have a democratic movement and also get things done. Party building is tough, and the difference between useful internal democracy and anarchistic non-organization is often not so easy to see. In the US, this contradiction arose in the Occupy movement and in efforts toward a Labor Party.  A couple of weeks before the conference I had read a helpful piece in Sidecar exploring this tension in the UK.

To conclude: two lines stood out for me. The overall mantra of the conference —  “for the many, from the many” – is a great starting point.  Those in the US who believe division is the primary contradiction in the country facing progressives, should remember this slogan. For all the social media noise and the Drudge Report style of news, the vast majority of problems that concern the working class are the same for Trumpites as they are for anti-MAGA opposition.  If a movement argues “for the many” and powerfully imbeds the “many” in the movement, progress can be made.

Finally, in the first panel, an Irish political leader from Galway, referencing Irish struggles against English colonialism, reminded us that, “They tried to bury us, but they didn’t realize we were seeds.”  Oppression and exploitation have always brought resistance. It will be no different today.

About the author

Jay Youngdahl

Jay Youngdahl grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas in the aftermath of the struggle to integrate Central High School. There he was drawn into the maelstrom of movements over Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, and was drafted in the US Army in 1972.  He has been a member of and organizer for several unions, and has made his living for the past four decades as a union and civil rights lawyer in the South.  Beginning in middle age he worked to academically analyze his experiences, earning a Master’s in Divinity at Harvard University in 2007, and serving as a Fellow in Ethics and Responsible Investment at Harvard for nearly a decade.  For many years he wrote a column for the Oakland-based newspaper, the East Bay Express, and in 2011 he wrote, “Working on the Railroad, Walking in Beauty,” a book about the rich and complex relationship of Navajos workers and American railroads in the desert southwest.  He received a MFA from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in 2021. View all posts by Jay Youngdahl →

Comment on What the Heck Do We Do Today? – A UK Snapshot through an American’s  Eyes

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , , , , ,

Rhode Island AFL-CIO is fighting for the Revolution (Wind Farm)

By

As part of Blue Frontier’s Rising Tide Ocean Podcast, I recently interviewed the AFL-CIO’s Legislative Director for Rhode Island Erica Hammond. Erica is also a member of ‘Climate Jobs Rhode Island,’ a coalition of labor, environmental, and community groups working for an fair and equitable pro-worker blue economy. Which makes sense given Rhode Island is “The Ocean State.”

Our Blue Frontier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

One of the projects they support is Revolution Wind the almost 80 percent completed $5 billion dollar 704-megawatt offshore wind farm built by the Danish company Orsted slated to power 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut starting next year. That was until the Trump administration issued a stop-work order August 22nd. Then, on Monday September 22, after a month of protests and lawsuits, a federal judge in D.C. issued an injunction allowing the wind farm’s construction to resume.

Earlier this month, after the Trump administration canceled $679 million in federal funds to support the growing offshore wind industry it took the extraordinary next step of instructing half a dozen federal agencies to find ways to thwart the country’s growing offshore wind industry.

Trump has been against offshore wind since 2013 when Scotland approved a wind farm off of his Aberdeen golf resort. Plus, he promised big oil executives that if they’d contribute a billion dollars to his 2024 campaign, he’d do their bidding including ongoing attacks on their wind and solar competition. So what does your typical (or exceptional) labor advocate think?

David Helvarg (DH): So, Erica how did your professional career come about?

Erica Hammond (EH): After college I found my way to the local ‘Jobs with Justice’ here in Rhode Island, an organization that works very closely with community and labor organizations. And from there I met many different individuals in the labor movement and I became very interested in working with them.

So, I found my way to the Institute for Labor Studies and Research, that’s the training and education arm of the labor movement here in Rhode Island. And then we launched our ‘Climate Jobs Rhode Island’ coalition. And when that launched, I said ‘I wanna be working on that.’

So, I shifted over as their field director. And that coalition is really where I learned much more about the environmental movement. I had so much background on the labor movement and workers’ rights and social justice campaigns but for me, a lot of environmental campaigns were new.

DH: A lot of the history of politics in this country is ‘divide and conquer’, and there’s certainly been a historic division that’s been pushed by those in power between environmental activism and labor activism. So how did the climate jobs coalition come together in Rhode Island?

EH: That’s exactly why it came together. It came together back in 2021 when some labor leaders here in Rhode Island got together with some legislators and environmental advocates who had been doing this work for a long time. And it was just agreed that, you know, we could be getting so much more done if we’re working together rather than focusing on the things we disagree on. There’s so much that we do agree on. So, the coalition came together focusing on climate justice and jobs. Is it good for the climate? Is it good for increasing local jobs and are we making sure that the work we’re doing is decreasing economic injustice throughout the state?

DH: So that triple bottom line of environment, economy, and equity.

EH: Exactly.

DH: So, was Revolution, the offshore wind farm, a precipitator of this? What specifically in 2021 got this coalition rolling?

EH: Really our work with offshore wind started back in 2007, 2008. And it was largely pushed by labor leaders, specifically our Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council on the Block Island Wind Farm (the first commercial offshore wind farm in the U.S. that generated 30-megawatts). But then when you fast forward to the Climate Jobs Coalition, it really centered around the first campaign for the Act on Climate. The Act on Climate law was passed in 2021 and it sets (greenhouse gas) emission reduction mandates for the state to meet in 2030, 2040, and then ultimately net zero by 2050.

We had really three pillar campaigns that we worked on in our first two years. The first was the labor standards on all renewable energy projects. We wanted to make sure that those jobs are not a race to the bottom, so strong labor standards. And then make sure they pay prevailing wages. And we want to have partnership utilization (with the state, employers, unions and community groups training a clean energy workforce), which is how we bring more individuals into the trade from different communities.

DH: So, your coalition came together. When did Orsted and Revolution come on the scene?

EH: They had been on the scene when the coalition formed. And both labor, specifically the building trades, had a very good relationship with them, has been an avid supporter of that work. So, Revolution Wind was 80% complete, but they’d been working on this project for about 9 years.

DH: And of course, being a Danish company, they realized, unlike a lot of American companies, that organized labor is a benefit in doing construction, not something to oppose.

EH: Yeah. And Orsted was the first developer of offshore wind to form an agreement with the national building trades unions as well, and to make sure that they’re using strong labor standards in all of the work that they do. And that was a perfect example of how we can do this together.

DH: I’ve been on a number of offshore oil rigs and the skills of roughnecks and roustabouts also translate pretty easily to linemen and you know, wind turbine technicians and so forth.

EH: There’s a lot of transferable skills. Absolutely.

DH: So what crafts are involved in building large scale offshore wind facilities and their onshore power links?

EH: So many. We have the laborers, the painters, the iron workers, the carpenters, and the millwrights. There’s also work for the elevator constructors who are part of the building trades as well. There’s the cement masons also have work there. There’s just so many.

DH: How many workers are engaged in this particular project?

EH: So far, Revolution Wind specifically has had over 2 million work hours. That’s for union workers alone. So, it translates to about 1000 local union jobs, not including plenty of other workers on the job who are not union.

DH: So, are rate payers going to save money by switching from fossils to offshore wind?

EH: This seems like it gets lost in a lot of the misinformation, how low the electricity rate came in for Revolution. When Revolution Wind was permitted it came in at just under 10 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity. And that’s for a 20-year power purchase agreement. So last year alone, our winter rates, which in Rhode Island runs from October to May were at just over 16 cents per kilowatt hour. And the year before that, the winter time rates were just over 17 cents per kilowatt hour. So, we’re saving a lot of money at 10 cents. And that’s for a 20-year agreement. With the volatility of the global fossil fuel market, we don’t know what our cost of fossil fuels are going to be in 20 years. But in 18 years with Revolution Wind, we know it will (still) be at 10 cents.

DH: The rates would be as consistent as offshore wind is consistent.

EH: Exactly (although to be fair even wind patterns are beginning to change – as they have off of South Africa – with fossil-fuel fired climate change – dh).

DH: Were there warnings before this work stop order?

EH: Yeah. I keep saying anyone that’s surprised by this wasn’t paying attention for long enough. Since before he was elected, Trump had been talking about his disdain for offshore wind. Of course we were all, you know, hopeful because of the cost of the electricity and because of the significant amount of work that has gone into this, the job opportunities, the investments in our local communities. We were all hopeful that this would continue moving forward. But then on Friday, August 22nd the federal government issued a stop work order.

So, we had several hundreds of trades workers who were working on Friday night and then woke up on Saturday, because when you’re offshore, you work seven days a week (seven on, seven off). They woke up on Saturday morning to phone calls saying you’re not working today. And more (workers) had their bags packed to go out on Thursday, the following week, ready to go for their turn.

DH: Seven days out there, seven days off onshore. A lot like the oil industry.

EH: And so now they have to wait for a phone call. ‘Which port are we going to? Where are we leaving out of? When are we leaving, when are we getting picked up?’ (by boat or helicopter). And they never got that call…We have people who’ve been shifted to other jobs because you can’t simply keep waiting, not knowing when you’re going to go out. So, people are still waiting (actually waited a month until the judge just ruled they can start working again).

DH: Before we get to how people are able to respond, let’s talk a little more about how the coalition came together.

EH: So, for climate jobs, something that we often talk about is moving at the pace of trust. It’s incredibly important. We all have our own priorities. For the labor movement our number one priority is our members. We have to make sure we keep our members working, not just today, not just tomorrow, but five years from now. And for our environmental partners, depending on the different organization that they work for, they have their own priorities as well. We all know that a cleaner, healthier future for all of us is incredibly important.

So, there is a way that we can get to that while maintaining each of our priorities. It was difficult because there was a lot of learning opportunities. Our environmental partners, many of them didn’t know what an apprenticeship was, didn’t know what a project-labor agreement was or a labor peace agreement or labor neutrality. Many of our environmental affiliates didn’t know what it meant to be a union member and have the labor movement supporting you.

And our environmental partners were able to teach many of our labor partners about this industry. Not just the industry of offshore wind, but many different environmental fights that they’re working on as well (like) the renewable energy standard, which sets a standard for Rhode Island of 100% electricity generated by renewable energy by 2033. There were a lot of question marks about what that even means. There was a lot of question marks about what net zero means, decarbonization, you know? So, there’s been a lot of opportunities for learning and there’s been a lot of trust built in that.

We also have some community organizations that have been working with us. We’ve always had a very close relationship with Fuerza Laboral that specifically worked on exploitation of migrant workers throughout the state. They are a part of our coalition. We work with Groundwork Rhode Island, which is a community organization working with so many different communities on environmental projects and even workforce development. There’s a lot of overlap between some of our labor partners and some of our environmental partners that we didn’t even know already existed.

DH: So, what’s the thinking strategically now with this stop-work order? (This interview was conducted before the court injunction allowing work to continue was issued) How is the coalition going to move forward?

EH: Since the night it happened, we’ve been working with our congressional delegation, the governor’s office, our labor affiliates and Attorney General Peter Neronha, who had a press conference and issued a new lawsuit with the Connecticut Attorney General about this specific project’s stop work order (as did Orsted whose suit is the one the DC Judge responded to).

DH: I assume your two senators and two Congress members are also fairly outraged about what’s happening here (Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed and Representatives David Cicilline and Seth Magaziner).

EH: They are very outraged and I would put our congressional delegation up against anyone’s congressional delegation across the country. We have the best!

DH: What’s Orsted’s position? Are they saying anything about how long they’re willing to stay in the game now that they’re under attack?

EH: Just as they’ve been throughout this whole project process, they’ve been a great partner. We are now doing everything that we can as a labor movement to mobilize our membership and really, share the nitty gritty details about what’s happening here so we can show this collective outrage around this decision. Orsted have already issued their own lawsuit so, we’re still working in lockstep with them. They have not issued any sign of backing down.

They’ve put so much investment across three ports, one in Connecticut, two in Rhode Island. And also, in workforce development. Investments that they’ve put into Rhode Island whether it’s the Global Wind Organization training at CCRI (Community College of Rhode Island) so that Rhode Island can be a hub for training is really something to be proud of. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Building Futures. They’re an amazing organization here in Rhode Island that has been working on apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship they were able to (carry out) with investments from Orsted and the state and the labor movement.

They were able to train 220 tradespeople on global wind certification, training on basic safety helicopter underwater training (for how to escape when your transport helicopter overturns in the ocean as they always do when they hit the water), all these things to be able to send people offshore. Orsted’s commitment to Rhode Island and commitment to our workforce has never wavered.

DH: This is all about an attack on a needed and economically beneficial transition from dirty fossil fuels to clean energy, no?

EH: Yeah, even our energy grid (utility), ‘ISO New England’ issued a statement about their disappointment in this decision because they were relying on this energy to come onto the New England grid next year. They’ve been planning on it.

I’ll be honest, this stop work order is just another punch. We’ve been rolling with the punches since January. We knew that they were going to come when the election went the way that it did in November. So, we said we’re not getting out of election mode, talking to members as much as possible about what’s at stake come the midterms because we have nothing to lose at this point.

What’s happening at the federal level has a direct impact on their work. And not just in the construction industry, in every industry. We see what’s happening with healthcare and our healthcare workers. So, we are continuing to do what we do best, which is get boots on the ground and mobilize our members to turn out.

And with our climate jobs team they’ve been working to figure out what’s next. We want to make sure that we don’t lose the momentum …because there’s so much misinformation that’s generated and fueled by social media and just trying to break through that noise, it’s really difficult. You see well-intentioned people who are maybe in opposition to offshore wind because of some misinformation that has been shared with them about its impact on marine life (whales) and our oceans. And we need to figure out how to cut through that noise because the science continues to point otherwise.

DH: As labor’s legislative director for Rhode Island what’s your next battle?

EH: Our next legislative battle is seeing how the impacts of this one big ugly bill (Trump’s giant spending package) is going to hit Rhode Island. We’re gonna have a lot of work to do when it comes budget time next year. There’s a lot of uncertainty around how hard Rhode Island will be hit. Not just with things like Medicaid and Medicare, but also our workforce.

There’s been a significant number of attacks on workers at the federal level. But we have very strong state labor relations with our ‘Baby Wagner Act’ (Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act). We were able to really shore that up last year during the legislative session, but there’s a new ruling that’s coming out of the federal government that may impact that. 

So, I think we are going to have to make sure we do everything we can to continue to protect workers here in the state and across the country, really. 

We will work on what we can control here in the state. And I think we’ll be fighting, pushing against a lot of the crap, really, that’s coming out of the federal government.

Between the Rivers: A brief history of resistance

By

Andrew Spellman/The Spirit of Jefferson

Running from protest to protest as I do weekly, and standing holding signs with neighbors and talking — sometimes deeply with smart, principled, committed people I respect — the conversation always turns to: how did all this chaos and destruction happen?  Where did the violence come from? And the desire to dominate and control others?

The violence and threats of violence began at the beginning of American history as Europeans began to move across the American continent.

The natural landscape as America grew seemed empty, inviting desperately poor people to try to farm it with their families.

Conflict erupted, continued and turned into all-out war on the plains and in the western deserts. 

Driven by white supremacy and the Monroe Doctrine declaring U.S. colonization of this continent, the US Army attacked more savagely as the conflict moved westward with white pioneers and settlers.

Between the War for Independence and the genocide of indigenous Americans, our nation was born and grew in violence and struggle, as well as the desire for freedom and democracy.

We are a product of white supremacy that led us literally to slaughter and imprison indigenous people,  including the horrific Trail of Tears, when all southeastern tribes were forced to walk or herded to Oklahoma, losing any way to make a living or practice their culture, destroying entire societies of native people. Ten thousand indigenous people died in the forced march across half our continent.

That same white supremacy led to building an agrarian economy and white wealth on the evil practice of African enslavement. That white supremacy still envelops us. I’m still shocked at white supremacists who condemn John Brown, who raided the Harpers Ferry armory for weapons to arm a slave rebellion. They call him a terrorist as if three centuries of working and “owning” people with the consequent casual rape, murder, vicious whippings and separating families were not terrorism.

Our most vicious and violent war was our own Civil War, which took the lives of some 700,000 of our people in the horrific conflict to free enslaved people.

Our history has been a struggle to overcome our flaws and faults amongst a people who were and are armed and proficient with firearms.

Abolitionists, both Black and white, toiled tirelessly generation after generation for an end to slavery.

Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Sojourner Truth and William Lloyd Garrison became heroes. 

After the end of chattel slavery, abolitionists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony moved to the freedom struggle for women, especially the right to vote, the suffrage movement. They struggled for decades and generations until American women won the right to vote.

The American Industrial Revolution started with the technology improvements and rapid manufacturing of war materiel for the Civil War. Workers began to organize in the new railroads, mines and factories. Again American workers suffered greatly to win union organizing and collective bargaining.

Ours is the most violent labor history in the industrial and post-industrial world. 

The massacres cover our massive landscape with workers’ blood. Homestead, Pa.; Ludlow, Colo.; Chicago at Republic Steel; The River Rouge fight. All the sit-in strikes were to win the right to organize and bargain collectively.  Workers in America still must struggle for human rights and livable wages. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while supporting a strike for union recognition and collective bargaining. Cesar Chavez died in part because of the cost to his body of the fasts he endured for a farm workers union and improving conditions.

Through it all, freedom lovers fought, sacrificed, lived and died for freedom, democracy,  equality, equity and peace. All our generations have struggled.

All our victories have come at a great cost.

Our government and private wealth have used brutality, vicious violence and blood lust to subjugate some of us to serve and sacrifice for the rich and powerful.

Now the story of domination, greed and violence is being played out again.

We will resist as we have constantly since the inauguration until we strengthen our tattered democracy and defeat the latest of American violent charlatans.

About the author

Stewart Acuff

Stewart Acuff, a Shepherdstown resident, is a co-chair of the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign. He retired in 2016 after a 40-year career as a union and community organizer. He also served as vice chair of the Atlanta Human Rights Commission and a member of the Atlanta Federal Reserve Advisory Board. View all posts by Stewart Acuff →

Comment on Between the Rivers: A brief history of resistance

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged:

Why Los Angeles Must Resist

By

I was born in Los Angeles. My mother was born here. Her father and grandfather were born here. Four generations of my family have called this city home. We are Los Angeles.

And now I see soldiers on our streets. ICE vans in our neighborhoods. Federal agents in unmarked cars are seizing citizens and activists in broad daylight. Marines and the National Guard deployed not to protect, but to control. The city that raised me—this dazzling, sprawling place of freedom and invention—is under siege.

Los Angeles has always been more than a city. It is the great experiment of America itself: the most diverse county in the nation, home to immigrants from every corner of the world, more than 200 languages spoken on its streets, one of the largest LGBTQ+ communities in the country. Its economy is vast, its cultural power unmatched. It is a place where reinvention has always been possible—where anyone, no matter their past, can become someone new.

That freedom is now being choked. When citizens are “disappeared” into unmarked vans, when a nurse monitoring ICE raids is dragged away without rights read, when a teenager is seized walking his dog, when whole neighborhoods live in fear of masked agents—it is no longer policing. It is the machinery of authoritarianism grinding into place.

The poet and prophet James Baldwin warned us long ago:

What we are facing now in Los Angeles is not simply a crisis of law enforcement. It is a crisis of democracy. Because if the most diverse city in America, the living embodiment of freedom and reinvention, can be occupied and silenced, then no city in this country is safe.

For generations, my family has claimed Los Angeles in that way. We have loved it radically. But today, the image being remade is not freedom—it is fear.

That is the truth we must face. The occupation of Los Angeles is not a local story. It is the rehearsal of a national tragedy.

But this city has a history of resistance. From Zoot Suiters who refused to be erased, to Chicano students who walked out demanding education, to the countless organizers who built solidarity across languages, colors, and neighborhoods—Los Angeles has never accepted silence. We cannot start now.

Los Angeles must resist. Not only for itself, but for America. For all that this country claims to stand for—freedom, equality, and the right to be. If democracy is to survive, it must be defended where it is most under attack. And today, that place is here.

About the author

Max Benavidez

Max Benavidez, PhD, is the author of several books, including Gronk, the definitive study of the Los Angeles artist, and was the first art critic to bring the avant-garde Chicano collective Asco into the mainstream. He has been an art critic and essayist for The Los Angeles Times and a longtime contributor to The Huffington Post and Bomb magazine in New York City. He holds a PhD in New Media, has taught at UCLA and the USC Annenberg School of Communications and Journalism, and was both a 2016–2017 U.S. Fulbright Scholar and a 2005 Getty Arts Scholar. A playwright and now first-time film director, Benavidez has dedicated his career to exploring how culture, politics, and democracy are bound together. View all posts by Max Benavidez →

Comment on Why Los Angeles Must Resist

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , , ,