So How's The Battle Against The Pandemic Going So Far?

Die For Him Grampa by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday ALG Research e-mailed subscribers with the results of their own tracking of the pandemic. They wrote that the U.S. currently has a patchwork of restrictions in place [a highly ineffective way to deal with the pandemic]. The whole country has to be shut down-- and really shut down-- for this to work. Right now, Democratic governors who have taken at least some action in that direction are in these states:

Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Louisiana, Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. Three Republican governors in blue states have also ordered shutdowns-- New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts-- and 5 Republican governor in red states have also taken action-- Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Idaho and Alaska.

Do shutdowns work? Yes, if they retreated seriously. Statistical proof.

Local governments are also taking action in states with governors who are part of the Republican Party death cult-- like Birmingham in Alabama and all over Texas and Florida. Meanwhile "school closures have impacted 55 million students, more people are working from home or furloughed, unemployment claims have skyrocketed, and news covering the virus has completely captured the attention of the American public. According to Gallup two-thirds of Americans say that coronavirus has disrupted their lives either a great deal (30%) or a fair amount (36%), and more than half expect things to remain this way for a few more months.

In terms of behavior, polling done by Ipsos in partnership with Axios has found that as weeks go by, more people are under self-quarantine, have stopped attending large gatherings, have cancelled travel and have stopped going out to eat and visiting friends. (This poll is part of a weekly tracking survey fielded on the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, and will be useful in following changes in daily life (and emotional state) that we need to be on the lookout for.)

The latest numbers from a Washington Post-ABC News poll show that roughly 9 in 10 say they are staying home "as much as possible" and say they have stopped going to bars and restaurants. About 6 in 10 say they have stockpiled food and household supplies at home. Their poll was conducted March 22-25, just after the Ipsos poll, so we're able to see how people's personal activities and behaviors continue to change, seemingly overnight, as fears grow.

An Emerson College/Nexstar National Poll finds a large majority of respondents (70%) are somewhat or very worried that they or an immediate family member may catch coronavirus.

Americans' are even more concerned about their personal finances. A plurality (42%) are very concerned about their personal finances, 36% are somewhat concerned, with 33% not so concerned.

Navigator Research found that 58% of respondents under 45 know someone who has lost their job, and 20% of Americans' now say they are dipping into their savings.

According to the Ipsos/Axios poll mentioned earlier, sharply increased numbers of Americans report worsening mental health (35% worse vs 22% last week) and emotional well-being (43% from 29%).

...FiveThirtyEight's polling average today has Trump's approval rating at 45.8%, with disapproval at 49.6%. According to a recent CBS News poll, a majority say President Trump is doing a good job handling the outbreak (53%), and 54% are optimistic about his administration's ability to handle it from here.

Trump has experienced a rise in popularity-- with some polling giving him 49% approval, the highest of his presidency-- which some attribute to a "presidential approval rally effect." Per Gallup, presidential job approval has historically increased when the country is faced by a national threat. Every president from Franklin Roosevelt (World War 2) through George W. Bush (9/11, +35 point bump) saw their approval rating rocket at least 10 points after a significant national event of this kind.

New York Magazine has a story called Trump's Approval Ratings Are Up, But for How Long? that speculates on how the pandemic and the corresponding economic fallout could impact Trump's hopes for re-election. It's impossible to predict what will happen in November, but this story looks at data and trends and is an interesting read.

Most Americans (57%) say the nation's efforts to combat the coronavirus are going badly right now, and most see a months-long process before it is contained.

Gallup conducted polling on the coronavirus response and found that state governments (i.e., Governors) are the real leaders on responding to the Coronavirus. They receive an 82% approval rating-- 22 points higher than the President.

In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer (60% pos/22% neg job rating) is outperforming Trump (45% pos/45% neg job rating) in a statewide poll. And in North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper (63% pos/19% neg job rating) is also outperforming Trump (49% pos/45% neg job rating).

The Gallup chart below shows that the partisan divide is small when looking at approval ratings for hospitals and state governments, but a huge gap exists when looking at Trump, Pence and the news media.

And while most people consider this pandemic to be a crisis, CBS News found that Americans' are optimistic about a few things: scientists' ability to find a vaccine or a cure (82%), their local hospitals' ability to handle an outbreak (65%), as well as in Americans' ability to do what's needed to stop the spread of the virus (59%).

No one knows for sure how things will look in the coming weeks and months. Trump said that he wants to re-open America at Easter, and the New York Times has a piece on what would happen if we did.

Remember, the voices most opposed to the shutdowns, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Koch network, will always choose lucre over lives. Lee Fang wrote for The Intercept this week that "Americans for Prosperity, the pro-corporate pressure group founded and funded by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, wants employees to return to work despite desperate pleas from public health officials that people should stay home as much as possible to help contain the spread of the coronavirus. As states began to order nonessential businesses to shut down last week, AFP released a statement calling for all businesses to remain open. 'Rather than blanket shutdowns, the government should allow businesses to continue to adapt and innovate to produce the goods and services Americans need, while continuing to do everything they can to protect the public health,' said Emily Seidel, chief executive of AFP, in a press release.

AFP’s position, which directly contradicts the advice of medical experts who say that social isolation is essential to curbing the spread of the coronavirus, comes after the group lobbied the Trump administration in 2018 to rescind $1 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Much of AFP’s recommended cuts to government programs, which included CDC money for infectious disease control and global health, became part of the official White House budget request, though most were not adopted by Congress.

The cuts, AFP argued, would “relieve the burden overspending is placing on all taxpayers.” The CDC is now one of the front-line organizations dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, which has impacted nearly 70,000 people in the United States and has claimed over 1,000 lives.

The libertarian advocacy network has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and reductions to social welfare programs, particularly state Medicaid programs. This aggressive advocacy record has come into focus in recent days as Americans confront the coronavirus pandemic. Medicaid funding is seen as a critical tool for treating sick patients, and many are now questioning the wisdom of reductions to the CDC’s funding and staff.

Internal memos from AFP reveal the size and scope of the organization, which employed 650 staff members during the 2016 election and has successfully worked to block Medicaid expansion in at least four states. During the 2016 election, the group also aired negative advertising sharply criticizing Hillary Clinton and Senate Democrats, an electioneering push that dramatically shaped the current balance of power in Washington, D.C.

The group has since used its government influence to slash environmental rules, retreat from the Paris Climate Accord, and demand cuts to federal programs. It also helped secure $1.5 trillion in tax cuts as part of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul.

Let's go back, for a moment to the findings about how Americans trust governors on COVID-19 far more than they trust the dysfunctional narcissistic excuse for a president. The same appears to be true in Brazil, where neo-fascist Trump crony, Jair Bolsonaro, is doing virtually nothing to combat the pandemic threatening his country. Governors to the rescue-- "defying his call to reopen schools and businesses, dismissing his argument that the cure of widespread shutdowns to contain the spread of the new coronavirus is worse than the disease," something Bolsonaro picked up from Señor Trumpanzee.

Like Trump, "Bolsonaro contends that the clampdown already ordered by many governors will deeply wound the already beleaguered economy and spark social unrest. In a nationally televised address Tuesday night, he urged governors to limit isolation only to high-risk people and lift the strict anti-virus measures they have imposed in their regions... he country’s governors protested on Wednesday that his instructions run counter to health experts’ recommendations and endanger Latin America’s largest population. They said they would continue with their strict measures and, in a joint letter, nearly all of them begged the federal government join forces with states. The rebellion even included traditional allies of Brazil’s president."

This week Sasha Abramsky noted a similar pattern here in the U.S.-- governors acting while Trump dawdles on TV and twitter. The entirely incompetent Trumpist Regime "appears frozen in its tracks. With no universal health care system," she wrote, "it is flailing as to how to contain an epidemic when containment strategies rely on early identification of virus carriers. It has struggled to coordinate a national strategy for securing medical supplies. It has shown a shocking inability to even get test kits out to the states. It has no guaranteed paid sick leave-- let alone the concept of guaranteeing wages in exchange for temporarily shuttered companies not firing their workers... Trump, who only reluctantly, and extremely late in the day, was forced to recognize the severity of the pandemic, has dithered and put out scientifically untenable statements, resisted national standards for how to enforce social distancing and expressed his disdain for the notion of stay-home orders and bans on large gatherings. In his public appearances, including an interview on Fox on Tuesday in which he advocated reopening the U.S. for business by Easter, he routinely seems more concerned about the stock market and his own political standing than he is about people’s lives. As a result, it has fallen to state governors and city mayors to try to craft their own responses in order to flatten their local infection curves."

Can Unions Make Right-Wing Democrats Who Voted With The GOP Against The Working Class Pay A Penalty?

A few weeks ago, we looked at the vote in the House for the PRO Act-- Protecting the Right To Organze (H.R. 2474)-- which passed 224-194. There were seven anti-union Democrats who voted against the bill:

• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)

Last Thursday, the Communications Workers of America sent a letter to DCCC chair Cheri Bustos urging the committee to end campaign support for the 7 incumbents who voted with the Republicans and against unions.

The union says that these Democratic members voted against strengthening workers’ rights, a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party, and therefore should not receive campaign support from the DCCC moving forward.

The seven Democratic House Members who voted against the PRO Act are: Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Rep. Joe Cunningham (SC-01), Rep. Kendra Horn (OK-05), Rep. Ben McAdams (UT-04), Rep. Lucy McBath (GA-06), Rep. Stephanie Murphy (FL-07), and Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR-05). The letter comes after CWA members last week protested outside the offices of Reps. Cuellar, Murphy, and McBath to hold the Members accountable for voting against the PRO Act.

“I urge you to deny DCCC services to the seven Members of the House of Representatives who caucus with House Democrats and betrayed working people and America’s Labor Movement by voting against the final passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act,” wrote CWA President Chris Shelton in a letter to DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week voted in support of the PRO Act, a historic piece of legislation that would make it easier for workers to join a union, protect strikes and other bargaining activities, and weaken “right-to-work” laws. The legislation passed after tireless work of CWA members and a broad coalition of labor, civil rights, environmental, religious immigrant rights, and women's groups, who fought to ensure that the voices of working people would finally be heard.

“The PRO Act is a continuation of the long history of the Democratic Party’s policies to strengthen workers’ voices in the U.S. economy and create a level playing field and an engine for millions of workers to reach the middle class and, therefore, a stable and comfortable life,'' added Shelton. “Those who voted against the PRO Act have betrayed this fundamental principle of the Democratic Party. And due to those votes, it is impossible for CWA to urge our members to support any of these seven candidates. They must be denied the support of the Democratic Party for refusing to stand with working Americans.”

The letter outlines how the Democratic Party has long recognized that the ability for workers to organize, join a union, and bargain for their fair share has been critical to building a strong and vibrant middle class. However, corporate special interests are trying to exert their influence and push their anti-worker agenda in the Democratic Party-- with the latest example being the Democratic members who voted against the PRO Act. CWA has vowed to defend against these efforts, and hold Democratic members accountable for putting the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of working people.

Bustos is reported to have crumpled up the letter from the 700,000 member union and thrown it in the trash can, cursing and spitting. The DCCC is heavily supporting Kendra Horn, Joe Cunningham, Henry Cuellar, Ben McAdams and Lucy McBath and has said they will step in if Kurt Schrader or Stephanie Murphy look like they win up in jeopardy.

Our old friend, Tom Guild, an Oklahoma City progressive so busy trying to get Bernie over the hump that he hasn't even had time to officially announce his own campaign for the seat held by anti-union Blue Dog Kendra Horn, one of the conservative fake-Democrats who voted against the PRO-Act. When I asked him why he had decided to run again, he told me that Horn's vote against the PRO-Act was one of the top reasons. "I’m very disappointed that Ms. Horn voted against the PRO-Act. Her vote is an unpardonable sin and damages the rights of working people. To achieve a healthy economy and further economic justice, workers must be able to effectively organize, join unions, and bargain for their fair share of the fruits of their labor and hard won economic gains. That will build and sustain a strong and vibrant middle class. It is tragic when conservatives cripple workers’ rights, and much worse when members of the Democratic Party collaborate with powerful corporate interests and strengthen their anti-worker agenda. Americans should hold members, especially Democratic members of Congress, accountable at the polls for crippling the interests of working people. The DCCC should not support these anti-worker congresspersons by giving them aid and comfort and funding their campaigns. Enough is enough. A key question in 2020 is whose side are you on. The Democratic Party should stand unapologetically in solidarity with working people to lighten their load, and make it easier for workers to join unions, engage in strikes and pursue other essential bargaining activities. To do otherwise betrays the better part of a century of standing beside and supporting America’s beleaguered workers."

In the South Texas district where progressive Jessica Cisneros is battling DCCC Blue Dog Henry Cuellar, likely to be the next Jeff Van Drew, the labor movement has backed Cisneros and the Chamber of Commerce and the Koch brothers have backed Cuellar. The Kochs are funneling money to his campaign their their front groups and PACs. Their outright endorsement of Cuellar marks the first time they’ve ever openly backed a Democrat in a federal race. They've now launched a massive sewer money campaign on TV to destroy Cisneros, largely to repay Cuellar for his anti-union vote. So we have the Koch Brothers and Cheri Bustos' DCCC marching hand in hand into hell. "Congressman Cuellar siding with his big corporate donors over working people in our district once again shows why he’s Trump’s favorite Democrat," said Cisneros. "Workers deserve the right to negotiate for proper pay, good working conditions, and benefits they deserve. I’m proud to have the support of workers in our district and local unions, who have our back because they know we have theirs."

Mark Gamba, the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon is taking on one of the most virulently anti-union Democrats in Congress, Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "You have to ask yourself," said Mark, "what the DCCC stands for? What's important to them? Is it the lives, and livelihood of working class people? Obviously not. Is it a healthy economy (which can only come from a strong middle class)? Obviously not. Is it holding bad employers responsible for their actions? Obviously not. This bill only begins to claw back some of the rights workers used to have. Rights that have been slowly worn away by the republicans and the corporatist, millionaire, Democrats-in-name-only that support the Republicans. If someone like Schrader doesn't support the working people, and therefore the middle class, what is he doing in the Democratic Party?  People in our district call him "traitor Schrader" because he votes with Republicans on so many critical issues. He talks about representing a purple district and reaching across the aisle. But this bill doesn't benefit working people on the Republican side either. It only benefits the giant corporations that line his pockets and in turn those of the DCCC. Which then answers my original question. The DCCC doesn't stand for anything. But it will bend over for a fat corporate check. Just like traitor Schrader will.  I would have voted for the PRO-Act. I would have co-sponsored the PRO-Act. I would have used political capital and twisted arms for the PRO-Act because I believe in protecting the rights of workers and in making the middle class. and therefor our economy, the strongest it can be."

If you'd like to help Mark and Jessica replace their anti-union/anti-worker opponents... that's what the thermometer is for. Just click and contribute what you can to their campaigns. (Tom will take a few minutes out of campaigning for Bernie to file his candidate papers with the FEC... soon. We'll let you know when he has his ActBlue page up and ready for contributions.)

Cheri Bustos, Koch brothers ally against working families

Urgent Culture For A Foot-Dragging Congress

The Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

-by Skip Kaltenheuser

Two Washington exhibits, terrifyingly timely for the stark options before us, demand attention from the recently returned 116th Congress. The Warmth of Other Suns, an exploration of the plight of migrants and refugees, at the Phillips Collection, departs Sept. 22nd. The David H. Koch Fossil Hall-- Deep Time, at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum is, like its fossils, here for the long haul. Connect the troubling dots between the two exhibits. Understand the coming Tsunami of climate refugees if the pressures driving it aren’t arrested.

A thirty-five million dollar contribution landed the late David Koch’s name on the Smithsonian exhibit. On the contributors’ plaque, his status is equal to the US Congress. That’s fitting. He should also be on plaques for offices of many in Washington for whom David and Charles Koch paved their way.

Snap of top of contributors' plaque for Fossil Hall

The impressive exhibit fills in parts of the last 4.6 billion years some might have missed, from mass extinctions to fossil fuel formation, to disappeared myriads of species from mankind’s sprawl.

Snap of the Young Koch Brothers Horsing Around

There’s authentic angst over scientific institutions accepting funding from controversial figures like the Kochs, given their role institutionalizing denial of mankind’s climate impacts.

But here David Koch’s funding is a teachable moment. His contribution is minuscule next to vast, often murky fortunes the Kochs spent over decades, building a seamless web of anti-regulatory strategies, organizations and well-placed minions-- twisting federal and state governments and even the judiciary-- in lockstep with denial of fossil fuels cooking us.

Some might criticize the exhibit’s message on greenhouse gases as too light, too scattered or too dwarfed among crowd pleasers like a T-Rex munching a Triceratops. In messaging, points can be shaved many ways. But take the museum at its word that donors didn’t determine content. The exhibit is an eloquent statement on mankind’s impacts.

Snap of video at Fossil Hall

Those taking time to fully absorb the exhibit should feel hair rising on the back of their necks. Of millions walking through every year, many will pause at a multimedia presentation of polar ice-core evidence. A line of atmospheric carbon dioxide rockets like a Roman candle, rising temperatures riding shotgun. Ponder mass extinctions from toxic gases belched from fissures in Siberia, or from an asteroid whack, creating new forks in the road. Sea life starts from scratch. Dinosaurs morph into birds. But absent an abracadabra asteroid, major changes follow very long time lines, as do successful adaptations of flora and fauna. Visitors realize the children many have in tow won’t speedily evolve into Aquaman.

Snap of video in the Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

For the Phillip’s The Warmth of Other Suns, the second part of the title is Stories of Global Displacement. That’s the key phrase for holding both exhibits in mind. Widely varied works from around the world convey a visceral grasp of desperate people struggling to improve family prospects, not just for bettered lives, but often for survival.

Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

People on the move emerge beyond statistics. One sees their commonality with six million African-Americans who migrated from a Jim Crow South, with midwesterners who fled the horrors of the Dust Bowl, with the multitudes moved through Ellis Island. Contemplate the many thousands recently perished, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arizona desert; the stilted, malnourished lives of children in occupied lands and internment camps.

Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

This art is important. What kind of people will we be if we’re so overwhelmed we lose our capacity for empathy, if desperate people become invisible? That, one fears, is a quicker evolution. How much precious time will be squandered on the folly of walls as people start moving in unimagined numbers because of a failure to decisively act on climate?

Snap of video from the Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

The creation of climate refugees is already underway from drought, failing crops, water shortages and punishing heat waves from India to Australia. They already include many people heading north from Central America.

The Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

How vulnerable is a human population that doubled in a mere forty-six years, nearing eight billion? No wonder that, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, in the last two decades the rate of carbon dioxide increase has been 100 times faster than prior natural increases. Vast numbers, including those in most of the world’s mega-cities, live by rising seas.

Snap of video in the Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

A heating climate isn’t an expressed theme in the Phillips exhibit, but there is an undeniable connection between diminishing resources and fewer viable human habitats to civil strife and the tensions that seed oppression and war.

Taken together, these two very different exhibits pound home the message that the unthinkable can happen. Environments can collapse and with them civilizations. Bellwethers are on the gallop: buzzsaw hurricanes, record heat, melting Arctic ice, thawing permafrost, oceanic heat waves, toxic algae blooms, dying corals, acidifying oceans. The Amazon under assault. What surprise natural phenomena is mankind lighting the fuse for that will double-team us?

These are not timid times. Timid solutions need not apply. There is no breather for political leadership to avert its gaze, to turn bold plans to mush to jockey campaign contributions. Mankind is up against it. Stop pretending otherwise.

Snap of video in the Warmth of Other Suns exhibit

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Maybe he said it. Maybe he didn't, but you know he thought it and he dedicated his evil essence to the thought. Now David Koch is dead and the ever-growing line to piss in his urn already stretches from the Earth to the Moon.

So, now, we're halfway there. David Koch's death was decades overdue. Who says all the news is bad? Now all we need is the hard part ie. the Democratic Party apparatus finding the moral fortitude to get behind a 2020 candidate worth voting for. Meanwhile David Koch, polluter of the world and polluter of society, is on his way to a hell that ironically simulates the burning Amazon of his dreams. May he soon be reunited with his brother Charles.

Can George Soros And Charles Koch Really Turn U.S. Foreign Policy Away From War?

Over the last month there have been several rumors of a Koch-Soros alliance. The Observer reported it was to fight online extremism under the aegis of the After Charlottesville Project. Right-wing media outlets fretted they would be financing censorship. But over the weekend an OpEd in the Boston Globe by Stephen Kinzer, a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, In an astonishing turn, George Soros and Charles Koch team up to end US ‘forever war’ policy, filled in the blanks about Soros teaming up with Charles Koch to save the U.S. from the scourge of permanent war. He wrote that they haven’t had much in common— until now. “Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal liberal. The Koch brothers are fire-breathing right-wingers who dream of cutting taxes and dismantling government. Now they have found something to agree on: the United States must end its ‘forever war’ and adopt an entirely new foreign policy.” Are billionaires going to change the country and the world?

Will the Military Industrial Complex take this lying down? What about all those lobbyists thrown out of work. Does no one have any compassion for them and their families?

In one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history, Soros and Charles Koch, the more active of the two brothers, are joining to finance a new foreign-policy think tank in Washington. It will promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. This is a radical notion in Washington, where every major think tank promotes some variant of neocon militarism or liberal interventionism. Soros and Koch are uniting to revive the fading vision of a peaceable United States. The street cred they bring from both ends of the political spectrum— along with the money they are providing— will make this new think tank an off-pitch voice for statesmanship amid a Washington chorus that promotes brinksmanship.

“This is big,” said Trita Parsi, former president of the National Iranian American Council and a co-founder of the new think tank. “It shows how important ending endless war is if they’re willing to put aside their differences and get together on this project. We are going to challenge the basis of American foreign policy in a way that has not been done in at least the last quarter-century.”

Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it’s appropriate that the name of this think tank harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence Day in 1821 declared that the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy based on that live-and-let-live principle.

The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors— Soros’s Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation— have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway. Among Parsi’s co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran, and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim; and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.

“The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized approach to policy,” Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. “We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore the pursuit of peace to the nation’s foreign policy agenda.”

In concrete terms, this means the Quincy Institute will likely advocate a withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and Syria; a return to the nuclear deal with Iran; less confrontational approaches to Russia and China; an end to regime-change campaigns against Venezuela and Cuba; and sharp reductions in the defense budget.

It aims to issue four reports before the end of 2019: two offering alternative approaches to the Middle East and East Asia, one on “ending endless war,” and one called “democratizing foreign policy.” Its statement of principles asserts that the United States “should engage with the world, and the essence of engagement is peaceful cooperation among peoples. For this reason, the United States must cherish peace and pursue it through the vigorous practice of diplomacy... The use of armed force does not represent American engagement in the world. Force ends human life, destroying engagement irreparably. Any resort to force should occur only as a last resort and should remain infrequent. The military exists to defend the people and territory of the United States, not to act as a global police force.”

The depth of this heresy can only be appreciated by recognizing the meretricious power that nourishes Washington’s think-tank ecosystem. These “talk shops” employ experts who pop up to advise politicians, journalists, Congressional staff members, and the public. They write opinion columns and bloviate on news channels. In foreign policy, all major Washington think tanks promote interventionist dogma: the United States faces threats everywhere, it must therefore be present everywhere, and “present” includes maintaining more than 800 foreign military bases and spending trillions of dollars on endless confrontations with foreign countries. That, with some variation, is the ethos that moves conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation as well as liberal ones like the Center for American Progress and the Brookings Institution. Just as pernicious as their relentless support of the global-hegemony project is the corruption that lies behind it. Many Washington think tanks are supported by industries and foreign powers eager to inflate threats in order shape American law, policy, and public opinion. Their “experts” are often paid shills who cloak themselves in institutional respectability so they can masquerade as independent analysts.

When foreign crises like the war in Yemen break out, critics of US policy emerge and are given space to air their views. These protests, however, are episodic. Little continuity ties one burst of outrage to the next. The Quincy Institute aims to offer a corps of experts in Washington who will promote a unified foreign-policy paradigm based on statecraft and cooperation. Its founders plan to become involved in grass-roots campaigns, especially in minority communities. They hope their specialists will eventually move on to populate Congressional staffs and the executive branch— as alumni of pro-intervention think tanks have been doing for decades.

“Some interesting currents are emerging in American politics and we want to capture this moment, but we’re in it for the long haul,” said Parsi. “We’ll be a failure if in 10 years we’re still criticizing. In 10 years, we want to be driving the bus.”

Help Stop The Koch Brothers From Buying The Democratic Party, The Way They Bought The GOP-- Support Working Class Warrior Eva Putzova

You may recall that a few weeks ago, a Koch brothers’ spokeswoman announced that their network is now willing to finance political campaigns for Democrats who are "in step with Koch policies." Koch policies? Koch policies are first and foremost their business bottom line. Any study of their pattern of political giving shows what being in step with the Koch policies means: slashing government regulations that protect workers and the environment. And that is perfect for the Democrats who make up the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the New Dems and Blue Dogs— like, for example, Tom O’Halleran, an “ex”-Republican Arizona legislator who switched parties and it now a member of both the New Dems and the Blue Dogs. In fact, he’s a Blue Dog co-chair… and no one has to beg him to support Koch policies. Tom O’Halleran has been doing that for his entire political career.

His primary opponent, a progressive Democrat from Flagstaff and former national Bernie Sanders delegate to the Democratic National Convention, is Eva Putzova, who made her bones fighting against Koch policies— and the Koch brothers themselves… and winning.

This week I received a letter from Marilyn Weissman, who has known Eva since they were both board members of Friends of Flagstaff’s Future. She explained why she is supporting Eva’s challenge to O’Halleran in the Arizona primary. “We need Eva in Congress,” she wrote, “to lead on issues such as raising the minimum wage, fighting climate change, keeping us out of wars, and protecting women’s reproductive rights. Eva's bold leadership has proven she’s a strong advocate for the people of Flagstaff. She worked hard to gain a seat on the council and brought a progressive perspective to local issues.” Marilyn was urging her fellow Arizonans to vote for Eva in the2020 August primary.

They worked together on the $15 Minimum Wage Campaign here in Flagstaff, where, in her words, Eva “was a tireless advocate and campaigner for restaurant and other low wage workers. In the face of much criticism from the Chamber of Commerce, Eva was fearless and never backed down. Eva stood up to the Koch-network-funded efforts in Flagstaff’s minimum wage fight and will stand up to them and other big money interests when she is in Congress. We in Arizona have an opportunity to add another progressive woman to Congress in 2020. Let’s be as fearless as Eva and work to make that happen!”

Eva was born and raised in Slovakia, made Flagstaff her home in 2000 and became a U.S. citizen in 2007. She started her professional career in the renewable energy sector and, in 2003, began working in higher education. During her 14-year tenure at Northern Arizona University she held a number of positions, including Director of Strategic Planning and Executive Director for Marketing and Strategic Communications. She was elected to the Flagstaff City Council in 2014. Today, she is the National Communications and Technology Director for Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, working to raise wages and improve working conditions for the country’s 13 million restaurant workers.

Her website emphasizes themes that any progressive Democrat would be behind— and that have been opposed by Tom O’Halleran. One especially caught my attention: "Over the last 30 years, wages have remained flat for most workers while corporate profits have soared. One reason for stagnant wages is the loss of workers’ bargaining power as labor unions have been decimated by corporate attacks. The other reason is the low federal minimum wage. I will support legislation to allow workers to more easily unionize and to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour."

After decades of stagnating wages and an inadequate federal minimum wage policy, communities around the country have been taking actions into their own hands. To raise wages in red states like Arizona, your only option is a ballot initiative. Republican lawmakers not only refuse to raise the minimum wage legislatively, they would prefer to get rid of it completely, taking us back to the era of total labor exploitation.

In 2016, in Flagstaff, Arizona, I led a local citizen initiative raising the minimum wage to $15, gradually increasing the subminimum tipped wage to the full minimum wage, and establishing local enforcement-- another key provision in states where your governor does not believe in enforcing the law against wage theft and corporate greed. Shortly after the local success in the 2016 election, the Koch outfit American Encore initiated a repeal of the voter-approved minimum wage law. They called their misleading amendment the “Sustainable Wages Act” and collected signatures to get it on the next ballot by simply lying to people. From the beginning, the biggest opposition to raising wages came from the restaurant industry because the local law finally increases the subminimum tipped wage. Living almost exclusively off tips forces the mostly female restaurant workforce to put up with inappropriate behavior from customers, managers, and co-workers.

At the same time when Flagstaff passed its One Fair Wage covering tipped workers under the same minimum wage rate rules as the rest of the workforce, so did voters in Maine. While Arizona and Flagstaff enjoyed the protections of the Voter Protection Act and initiatives can’t be overturned by legislative action, people in Maine were not so lucky. The National Restaurant Association, the “other” NRA, is a trade lobby that spends millions of dollars influencing legislation in order to keep wages low and uphold their greedy corporate agenda. The “other” NRA piloted a new lobbying tactic in Maine, fronting a fake grassroots group called the Restaurant Workers of America, in which white male servers from fine dining establishments argue against increasing their own wages. The astroturf group managed to get enough faux Democrats in the Maine legislature to overturn the people’s will.

In addition to astroturfing, the restaurant lobby buys legislators when they can-- as was the case recently in DC where the City Council repealed the voter-approved Initiative 77, or in Michigan, where legislators adopted the voter-initiated ballot measure rather than sending it out to the voters which would have tied their hands. They gutted the law in the lame duck session and left tipped workers way behind-- with $4.58 per hour by 2030 instead of $12 by 2022 that the Michigan voters petitioned for. [More recently], in New Jersey, legislators cut a deal with the Governor to raise the minimum wage to $15, carving out tipped workers and farmworkers, with the tipped wage going up from an embarrassing $2.13 to an insulting $5.13 in five years. All over the country, people support raising the minimum wage and raising the subminimum tipped wage. It’s the legislators who are behind.

The 2018 campaign in Flagstaff to repeal the minimum wage was in its final stages funded by other dark money shops-- America Revived and Market Freedom Alliance who worked hand in hand with the local Chamber of Commerce and a local Restaurant Association. While we may never know what they spent-- as their reporting is as shady as their donor base-- we estimate they outspent our local NO campaign protecting the minimum wage by a 4-to-1 margin. We ran a fearless campaign knocking on the doors, proving that organized people can defeat organized money. We protected the local law by a greater margin than we won initially in 2016. Thanks to Flagstaff voters (and a well-run defense campaign), $140 million will go every year to the pockets of workers instead of their corporate bosses.

It’s disturbing how so many of our so-called Democrats are willing to defy the will of the voters and support the subminimum tipped wage policy-- a policy that is nothing more than institutionalized gender and racial discrimination because more than 65 percent of restaurant workers are women and many are people of color. And yet, One Fair Wage has been in effect for decades in seven states-- California, Nevada, Oregon, Minnesota, Montana, Washington, and Alaska. These one-fair-wage states have half the rate of sexual harassment as the 43 states with subminimum tipped wages. In addition, they have higher restaurant sales per capita in the industry (proving that paying people well is good for the bottom line), higher job growth, and the same or higher tipping averages than the 43 states where tipped workers still get paid the subminimum wage rate.

What stands between workers and their ability to enjoy a decent life with a stable paycheck is too often just corporate greed enabled by a subservient legislature. But we can do better. I will fight for just, generous, and inclusive America as hard as I fought for Flagstaff workers against the Chamber allied with the Koch network and their dark money tentacles.

All the other Democrats in Congress from Arizona— Raul Grijalva, Ruben Gallego and even Ann Kirkpatrick— have signed on as co-sponsors of Bobby Scott’s Raise the Wage Act. But O’Halleran, typical Republican that he is, has refused— like all the Republicans have. There are now 235 Democrats in Congress. As of today, 205 are official co-sponsors of the $15 minimum wage legislation. Only 30 oppose it. Does Tom O’Halleran think workers in Flagstaff, Winslow, Tuba City, Maricopa, Casa Grande, Safford, Holbrook, Ganado... don’t want and need a raise?

Eva Putzova isn’t one of the Democrats the Koch brothers networks is planning on supporting in this year's primaries— quote the opposite… nor is she interested in pursuing their sewer money. Her platform is not and will never be "in step with Koch policies." O’Halleran represents their interests. Eva is fighting for peoples’ interests against the Koch brothers bottom line. Please consider contributing to her congressional campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Primary A Blue Dog thermometer on the right. Cheri Bustos and her renegade DCCC are doing all they can to protect Tom O’Halleran from Arizona Democrats instead of working with local Democrats to end the career of this fake-Dem by replacing him with someone who embodies the values and vision of the Democratic Party as it was crafted by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt to make it a protector of American working families— not a protector of Wall Street banksters and multinational corporate interests. FDR knew who the enemy was— and so does Eva Putzova. Cheri Bustos doesn’t and neither does Tom O’Halleran.

How Soon Before The Koch Brothers Are In A Position To Buy Cheri Bustos The Speakership?

A few weeks ago, I had dinner with an old friend, an author who had recently interviewed David Koch for a book he's working on. He told me the Koch brothers planned to support Democrats as well as Republicans this cycle. We went back and forth about that and then let it drift. Then, on Friday the news started filtering out that the Kochs are indeed looking to gain influence inside the Democratic Party, the way they have inside the Republican Party.

The Kochs are willing to finance Democrats "in step with Koch policies?" Don't be deceived by the Koch affinity for DREAMers. That isn't what "in step with Koch policies" is about. About a week ago, in an unrelated story, Common Dreams published a piece by Jake Johnson about what the Koch agenda is and has always been: pushing a polluter-friendly agenda... their business bottom line. "The Koch network's dark money manipulation of our nation's colleges and universities," wrote Johnson, "has been proven to harm communities of color, dismantle protections for workers, and obstruct environmental protections... George Washington University's ostensibly neutral Regulatory Studies Center is in fact a "key cog" in the Koch family's fight to slash government regulations designed to protect workers and the planet... [T]he Regulatory Studies Center (RSC) 'is the Fox News of the regulatory policy world, except it still clings to the fiction that it is fair and balanced. The center is a microcosm of the strategy that Charles Koch has honed since the 1970s to finance deceptively named university centers to generate faux scholarship in support of Koch's anti-regulatory views.'... [M]uch of RSC's work revolves around providing 'scholarly rationales against government regulation' of corporate America, with a particular focus on the fossil fuel industry--where Koch Industries makes much of its profits while financing campaigns to spread doubt about the reality and urgency of the climate crisis."

Translate that into politics and what you will have is millions in right-wing sewer dollars flowing right into the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- to finance a take-over of the party by elements that are already largely in calling the shots. And what a coincidence that reactionary Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, the moment she seized control of the DCCC, immediately undermined the ability of progressives to challenge reactionaries like herself, reactionaries likely to be the beneficiaries of filthy Koch campaign largesse. Believe me, the Koch brothers are more interested in stopping candidates like AOC than they are in helping DREAMers.

These are some of the headlines I caught on Friday and Saturday about the Koch brothers new "bipartisan" approach to taking over the American political system entirely:

TIME: Coming Soon to a Democratic Primary: Candidates Backed By Charles Koch

Politico: Koch Network Floats Backing Democrats In Revamp Of Influence Operation

Open Secrets: Koch Brothers Float Possibility Of Backing Congressional Democrats In 2020 Primaries

National Review: Koch Network Willing To Back Dem. Candidates In 2020

Jack Crowe, writing up the story for National Review reported that "Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the political arm of the billionaire Koch brothers’ sprawling influence network, which has traditionally confined its support to Republicans, plans to pursue a 'bipartisan approach' when determining which candidates to back in the 2020 election cycle. In a memo distributed to employees Thursday and obtained by CNBC, AFP CEO Emily Seidel announced that the group will evaluate candidates entirely based on their support for its preferred policies without respect to party affiliation. 'AFP or AFP Action [the group’s super PAC] will be ready to engage contested U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state-level primary races, including Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise, to support sitting legislators who lead by uniting with others to pass principled policy and get good things done,' Seidel’s memo said."

The Kochs are creating 4 new PACs with 4 policy agendas. One, for example, is the Economic Opportunity PAC, which will back candidates opposed to increased regulation on business. OK, who inside the Democratic Party would happily sell their asses for opposing increased regulation on business? That is, after all, a perfect description of the New Dems, including notorious corporate whores like Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Pete Aguilar (CA-- who also runs Bustos' DCCC recruitment committee), Derek Kilmer (WA), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Scott Peters (CA), Charlie Crist (FL), Henry Cuellar (TX), Brad Schneider (IL), Ami Bera (CA), Jim Cooper (TN), Ron Kind (WI), Tom O'Halleran (AZ), Kurt Schrader (OR), Tony Cárdenas (CA), Denny Heck (WA), David Scott (GA), Jim Costa (CA), Ed Case (HI), Gregory Meeks (NY)...

A little warning to low-IQ right-wing Democrats from, of all places, Politico: "But North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, was an early test case for the Koch’s bipartisan approach to election spending during the general 2018 elections: After she voted in favor of a bill relaxing some financial regulations in the Dodd-Frank law, the network ran digital advertisements in Heitkamp’s favor. It later decided to eschew supporting Heitkamp’s Republican opponent in the race, then-Rep. Kevin Cramer, saying he was insufficiently supportive of Koch priorities like free trade-- saving Heitkamp from artillery in the form of what could have been millions of dollars worth of television ads and other election spending." The Kochs had already spent around $500,000 beating up on Heitkamp for not supporting Trump's tax cuts for the rich-- and in North Dakota $500,000 buys an immense amount of propaganda. and it was far more than the crumbs the Koch network sent Heitkamp's way in return for the anti-regulatory votes that soured progressives on her.

The Koch Industries PAC spent 1,464,000 on congressional Republicans and $24,500 on congressional Democrats. To get a better idea of where Koch money is likely to flow this cycle, look at who they helped finance last cycle-- all extremely right-wing Democrats who vote with the GOP frequently and who were not being targeted by the NRCC:

• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $2,000
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- $7,500
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $10,000
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog- OR)- $5,000

Kara Eastman, an Omaha grassroots progressive is in a primary with an establishment shill recruited by the DCCC. Kara has been very firm about not accepting corporate PAC money and came within a couple of points of beating GOP incumbent Don Bacon in 2018-- 126,715 (51%) to 121,770 (49%)-- beating him outright in Douglas County. The last thing the Koch brothers want to see is a Democrat winning a House seat in Nebraska-- and the last thing Cheri Bustos wants is a progressive winning in Nebraska-- or anywhere else. "Rejecting corporate PAC money is not enough for a candidate," Kara told us last night. "We have to stop allowing large corporations and the very wealthy to have such influence in all levels of electoral politics. In my last race, I raised more money than any other Democrat had raised in this district and did it from small dollar contributions. I also pledged that I would represent the people of Nebraska-- not the corporations who do not need my voice. It’s time to change this corrupt system and it starts with candidates like me."

Kathy Ellis is running for a congressional seat in southeast Missouri, the 8th district, the 11th poorest district in America. People should be voting overwhelmingly for Democrats but instead, it's the reddest district in the state. Obama lost badly there both times he ran and in 2016 Trump beat Hillary 75.4% to 21.0%. Ellis has seen the Koch brothers come in and buy up the Republican Party in districts like hers. This morning she warned us that "no self-respecting Democrat, either a progressive or otherwise, should make a deal with the Koch brothers. This is just another way to infiltrate our Democratic values with poison.

Jon Hoadley, candidate for Congress in MI-06, is in the Michigan legislature, so he's already seen the kind of damage the Koch network does. "The Koch brothers and their network unleashed untold harm on our political system," he said. "In an effort to protect their own narrow business interests, their sponsored candidates and shadowy nonprofits weakened laws meant to protect the voices of individual voters against the influence of wealthy and powerful special interests. The Kochs have assaulted the basic institutions and important norms that reinforce stability in our democracy. This is exactly why people don’t trust their elected officials. I call on every candidate asking to earn the public’s trust-- Republicans and especially Democrats-- to reject contributions from the Koch brothers."

There Are Different Kinds Of Democrats-- Some Are Appreciated, And Paid, By The Koch Bros

In a post entitled How Many Democrats Are The Koch Brothers Backing in November? for IVN this week, W. E. Messamore asserts that the Kochs and their appendages are "staunchly anti-war... and support gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose." Yet they-- or their money-- were key in electing an unchecked war-mongering, homophobic, anti- Choice government. Messamore also points out that they support some Democratic candidates "if they hear from any who speak their language." What language is that? The Kochs want what they call "pro growth federal policies such as sound fiscal policies and deregulating the financial industry." Does that mean climate catastrophe and large scale financial fraud are "pro-growth?" Well, there are some Democrats in one of both of those camps. The Democrats, after all, don't have a massive and growing Republican wing for nothing.

A Koch-financed ad that ran in North Dakota a couple of months ago, thanked right-of-center Democrap Heidi Heitkamp "for her leadership role in working on the Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act." So far this year, the Kochs have given a direct cash contribution to just one Democrap: Collin Peterson, who votes more frequently on crucial roll calls with the GOP than with the Democrats. "He’s a fiscal conservative," understates Messamore, "who supports tax cuts and the FairTax (a national sales tax plan to replace the income tax), so it’s no wonder that Koch Industries likes him." You gotta love this reactionary tax policies that take from the poor to give to the rich!

The Kochs are doing ads for right-of-center Democraps Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), Raul Ruiz (New Dem-CA) and Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA). Oh, yeah... and Pelosi's DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján (NM).

Yesterday, Will Bunch wrote a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer about a Democratic Party fractured into 3 wings. "There is," he wrote "a huge disconnect within the Democratic Party right now-- a rift that was critical to 2016's shock election of President Trump. The re-emergence of the one modern Democrat who could glue many of these broken pieces together-- Barack Obama, who brings his energetic push for the party's 2018 candidates to Philadelphia on Friday-- and a looming midterm election in which anger over an autocratic president can be channeled into state and local races are likely to paper over this Democratic family feud… for now."

But when voters wake up on November 7, they'll hear the gong to start the sure-to-be-insane national election of 2020, with as many as 20 or more candidates from delusional billionaires to congressmen you've never heard of prepared to yank hard on every gaping fault line within the party of Andrew Jackson, FDR and JFK. Those cleavages could give Trump a second term in much the same unlikely way that he won his first one. And yet when you put your ear to the ground and listen to the Democratic rumblings, the various sides still don't understand each other, or even know how to talk to each other without yelling.

Here's a quick field guide to the three Democrats you meet on Twitter, or in the voting booth… or sitting on their couch when they should be voting:

The Bernie Sanders Democrat

@IronStache

The Bernie Sanders Democrat very often doesn't even call himself or herself a Democrat, preferring terms like progressive or democratic socialist or, increasingly, registering as an independent, as Sanders himself does. Although you find them everywhere, this species of left-of-center voter predominates among the under-30 electorate, in cities and especially in gentrifying neighborhoods; it tends to be somewhat more male than female. Animated by the holy trinity of Medicare-for-all, free college and the $15 minimum wage, they are leftists who may engage in Democratic politics but spend most of their time complaining about Democrats, or at least Democratic elites, as too tied to big corporations and big donors and too happy to bend over for Wall Street.

The Hillary Clinton Democrat

Hillary

The Hillary Clinton Democrat, a cohort that is overwhelmingly female, tending to be white, suburban, and middle or even upper-middle-class, often with a college degree. Some of them even voted Republican back in the 1980s or '90s for the low taxes-- but started drifting away after Anita Hill in 1991 or as they saw the GOP get more Southern and then more crazy. These voters felt existential shock and despair when they saw America (technically, the Electoral College) reject a qualified woman-- whose life struggles mirrored their own-- in favor of a man whose non-stop lying and admission of sexual assault was now their worst nightmare in the Oval Office. Their profound sense that the world has betrayed them has made them the backbone of the so-called Trump Resistance.

The John Lewis Democrat

Andrew

The John Lewis Democrat, in honor of the 1960s civil-rights icon still in Congress, although you could also call them Andrew Cuomo Democrats or Dianne Feinstein Democrats, since their votes tend to keep these establishment figures in power, despite the derision from the far left. Tending to be older and often (but not exclusively) non-white, this group reflects the growing conventional wisdom that the real base of the Democratic Party is older, church-going African-American women. These are the Democrats who-- quite unlike the Bernie Sanders crowd-- are proud to identify as Democrats, having grown up revering tales of FDR or JFK. They tend to prefer politicians who can cut deals and win resources for their communities over those with lofty but impractical ideas. And they cherish their right to vote and show up at the polls religiously, which is what gives them such outsized influence.

So which of these groups do you think the Koch-Democrats come from? Hint, not the first category, that's for sure. And which wing do these congressional members belong to? Personally, I only look at the Democratic Party as two wings-- the Democratic wing, generally about accomplishing progressive goals for working families, and the Republican wing, generally corrupt careerists who don't real believe in much of anything.