Connect with us

Politics

Will Americans Vote for a Democratic Socialist?

Published

on

In this photo taken May 20, 2015, Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., poses for a portrait before an interview with The Associated Press in Washington. For Democrats who had hoped to lure Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into a presidential campaign, independent Sen. Bernie Sanders might be the next best thing. Sanders, who is opening his official presidential campaign Tuesday in Burlington, Vermont, aims to ignite a grassroots fire among left-leaning Democrats wary of Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is laying out an agenda in step with the party's progressive wing and compatible with Warren's platform _ reining in Wall Street banks, tackling college debt and creating a government-financed infrastructure jobs program. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

In this photo taken May 20, 2015, Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., poses for a portrait before an interview with The Associated Press in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Lawrence Wittner, Time Magazine via HISTORY NEWS NETWORK

 

 

WASHINGTON (TIME) — The recent announcement by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed “democratic socialist,” that he is running for the Democratic nomination for President raises the question of whether Americans will vote for a candidate with that political orientation.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the idea of democratic socialism — democratic control of the economy — had substantial popularity in the United States. At the time, the Socialist Party of America was a thriving, rapidly-growing political organization, much like its democratic socialist counterparts abroad — the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democratic Party, the Australian Labor Party, and numerous other rising, working class-based political entities around the world. In 1912, when the United States had a much smaller population than today, the Socialist Party had 118,000 dues-paying members and drew nearly a million votes for its candidate, Eugene V. Debs, the great labor leader, for President. (The victor that year was the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, who drew six million votes.) Furthermore, the party held 1,200 public offices in 340 cities, including 79 mayors in 24 states. Socialist administrations were elected in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Butte, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Schenectady, New York, and all across the country. In 1912, the Socialist Party claimed 323 English and foreign language publications with a total circulation in excess of two million.

Of course, this socialist surge didn’t last. The Democratic and the Republican parties, faced with this threat to their political future, turned to supporting progressive agendas — breaking up or regulating giant corporations, curbing corporate abuses, and championing a graduated income tax — that stole the socialists’ thunder. In addition, after U.S. entry into World War I, an action opposed by the socialists, the federal and state governments moved to crush the Socialist Party — arresting and imprisoning its leaders (including Debs), purging its elected officials, and closing down its publications. Moreover, one portion of the party, excited by the success of revolutionaries in overthrowing Russia’s Czar and establishing the Soviet Union, broke with the Socialist Party and established Communist rivals. Co-opted by the mainstream parties, repressed by government, and abandoned by would-be revolutionaries, the Socialist Party never recovered.

 

 

READ MORE

###

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Commentary

Harris Dominates First Presidential Debate as Trump Struggles to Defend Record

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Vice President Kamala Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class. “I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their first presidential debate Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Photo: Screen capture from ABC News feed of the debate.
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their first presidential debate Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Photo: Screen capture from ABC News feed of the debate.

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

Vice President Kamala Harris decisively took control of the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, delivering a performance that put Trump on the defensive for much of the evening. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News kept a tight handle on the debate, significantly improving from CNN’s June handling of Trump and President Joe Biden.

The debate began with a surprise as Harris approached Trump to shake his hand and introduced herself as “Kamala Harris,” an unusual move that set the tone for the night. Trump’s trademark scowl stayed in place throughout the debate, as Harris pressed him on his legal woes and diminished his record. Displaying her prosecutorial skills, Harris consistently turned the conversation toward Trump’s convictions, his business fraud case, and his role in the January 6 insurrection.

Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class.

“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Trump, by contrast, criticized the Biden-Harris economy, calling it “the worst period of time” he had seen. He defended his tariff policies and took aim at Harris, labeling her a “Marxist” while also accusing her of copying his economic policies. “I was going to send her a MAGA hat,” Trump quipped.

Abortion rights were another major focus of the night. Trump, when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban, declined to answer directly, stating, “I won’t have to,” and arguing that the end of Roe v. Wade had satisfied everyone. Harris, in turn, vowed to restore Roe’s protections through federal legislation if elected.

“I pledge to you: when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” she said.

As the debate went on, Trump repeated several conspiracy theories, including a claim that migrants were eating pets in U.S. cities, which Muir quickly fact-checked. Trump doubled down, citing “people on television” as his source. Harris largely let Trump’s more outlandish statements pass, opting to stay on policy while allowing the moderators to address his factually inaccurate remarks.

In one of the most heated moments, Harris invited viewers to attend a Trump rally for themselves, commenting, “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter and windmills causing cancer. You’ll notice people start leaving his rallies early—out of exhaustion and boredom.”

Trump, visibly irritated, retorted that he holds “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics,” but the debate soon returned to more substantive issues like crime and inflation.

The night clearly contrasted Biden’s earlier debate with Trump, as Harris managed to keep Trump on the defensive. Trump continued to fixate on conspiracy theories and past grievances, while Harris stayed focused on presenting her vision for the future.

With fewer than 60 days until the election, the debate sets the tone for what will likely be a hard-fought campaign. As the debate ended, Harris closed with a message to the American people: “This is about who we are as a country. The choice is clear—between chaos and leadership, fear and hope.”

Continue Reading

Commentary

Opinion: In First Presidential Debate, Harris Exposes Trump’s Inadequacies

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States. If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job. She belongs in the White House.

Published

on

Screenshot from Presidential Debate.
Screenshot from Presidential Debate.

By Emil Guillermo

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States.

If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job.

She belongs in the White House.

Harris not only bested Donald Trump in arguing the facts; she showed how totally inadequate Trump is to again be our country’s Commander-in-Chief.

Harris deftly made her case on issue after issue, while baiting and manipulating Trump on the economy, on abortion, and on immigration.

Imagine how Putin and other world leaders play Trump. Harris exposed Trump for all to see. It wasn’t exactly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. It was more like “the twice impeached, convicted felon on 34 counts” has no business running for president. Trump is unfit mentally for the job, if not unfit morally.

It must have been a disappointment for deep MAGA to see their candidate so incapable of holding his own against Harris. At one point, she had him defending the crowd size at his rallies after she said people were leaving because he was boring.

And then instead of real policies that impact our lives, the former president spoke passionately about… his crowd size.

When that happened, I think everyone could see: Harris ate his lunch.

Going into the debate, the consensus in this tight race was that it was a virtual tie with Trump one point ahead.

But after their first meeting ever in a head-to-head-match up, CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning the debate well beyond any margin of error, 63 percent to 37 percent.

There’s more distance between the two than previously understood. The debate exposed that.

TRUMP’S LIES

At the beginning of the week, I said the only way Trump could win the debate was if he “played nice.”

But the bully just couldn’t do it.

Acting presidential was just one lie Trump couldn’t pull off in another debate night mired in Trump lies.

Did his administration really do “a phenomenal job in the pandemic” when over a million Americans are dead? Is Kamala Harris “a Marxist and everybody knows it”? And what about those cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, where every local official confirmed to news organizations that the story was false. There was even a lie on that Trump lie, when the former president said the immigrants were eating cats AND dogs. No, it’s just one lie. Just cats is enough.

And all that was just a fraction of the lies Trump told in the 90-minute debate.

Still, even with all that, I wouldn’t say Kamala Harris “whooped” Donald Trump.

It was more like general domination.

In fact, she had him at “Kamala Harris.”

When Trump seemed to dismiss the possibility of an opening handshake, Harris forced the issue. She walked toward Trump’s podium, reached out her hand, and introduced herself by name.

That gesture put Trump on the defensive all night.

About the Author

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. See his micro talkshow on YouTube.com/@emilamok1

Continue Reading

Bay Area

Mayor Sheng Thao Issues Executive Order to Shut Down Homeless Encampments

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao issued an executive order on Monday directing all city departments to enforce the 2020 encampment management policy and begin a much more diligent approach to homeless encampment sweeping. “Being homeless is not a crime in Oakland, but it doesn’t give the right to break other laws,” Thao said in a video statement.
The order comes months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass v Johnson decision to allow local municipalities the right to close encampments even if no shelter is available.

Published

on

The encampment policy prohibits camps in “high sensitivity areas” such as schools, businesses, walkways, recreational centers, and parks.
The encampment policy prohibits camps in “high sensitivity areas” such as schools, businesses, walkways, recreational centers, and parks.

By Magaly Muñoz

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao issued an executive order on Monday directing all city departments to enforce the 2020 encampment management policy and begin a much more diligent approach to homeless encampment sweeping.

“Being homeless is not a crime in Oakland, but it doesn’t give the right to break other laws,” Thao said in a video statement.

The order comes months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass v Johnson decision to allow local municipalities the right to close encampments even if no shelter is available.

The encampment policy prohibits camps in “high sensitivity areas” such as schools, businesses, walkways, recreational centers, and parks.

Thao said that prioritizing which camps will close down immediately will come down to where they are located, such as the high sensitivity areas, and the public safety concerns the camps attract, such as fires, violent crimes, and illegal dumping.

Oakland joins other California cities, including their Bay Area neighbors San Francisco and Berkeley, in a calculated approach to cracking down on the homelessness crisis.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed has been vocal in her decision to increase sweeping and get people off of the streets, which many have criticized as a political ploy as she seeks reelection this fall.

Thao followed up her executive order with another video Tuesday afternoon, where she and Assistant City Administrator Harold Duffey walked through the Martin Luther King Way encampment, stating the city recently cleared out 40 tons of debris from the littered area.

The city began clearing out the encampment early last week with some reports saying that staff threw away people’s personal belongings, including a wheelchair.

The mayor’s office did not respond for comment at the time of publication.

About 40 people were living in the camp, according to the City. Sixteen people received shelter, nine enrolled in a county medical respite program, and 12 individuals declined offers of shelter and self-relocated. An individual with two broken legs was also taken to the hospital.

In the video, Duffey explained that two weeks prior to an encampment closure, outreach teams are asked to visit the site and pair people with services and offer temporary housing.

Although there are offers of shelter being made at sweeps, Thao’s executive order states that in no way will “emergency or urgent closures be delayed for shelter unavailability,” meaning sites can be closed down and people will have to disperse even if they have nowhere else to go.

Duffey clarified that although workers cleared out a massive amount of debris from the MLK site, the city is aware that the illegal dumping is often coming from individuals targeting encampments to litter the area because it’s easier to place blame on the people already living there.

Thao shared her experience of homelessness in both video statements, saying she lived in her car with her son after she escaped an abusive relationship. She added that she never once thought about “pitching a tent on the streets.”

Advocates are upset at the recent order, arguing it will exacerbate the harm to unhoused Oaklanders.

Talya Husbands-Hankin, founder of Love and Justice in the Streets, said the order will force these vulnerable residents into unsafe conditions because of the failure to provide permanent housing. She added that this action is aligning itself with values of a Trump-appointed Supreme Court and is “contrary to the values of justice and equity that Oaklanders want to uphold.”

“We know that sweeps are not the answer, and we urge Mayor Thao to redirect all resources into immediately opening public land for community-led solutions and funding permanent housing to uplift human rights for all Oakland residents,” Husbands-Hankin said.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.