Author Archives: Josh Eidelson

Posted on by

Good news from Islamabad:

Indian and Pakistani diplomats have reached a “broad understanding” on a framework for peace talks, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said. The historic discussions between the nuclear rivals will address the longstanding Kashmir controversy, terrorism and a wide range of economic and trade issues…

Indian and Pakistani foreign ministry officials Tuesday held a second day of landmark talks, which diplomats described as “cordial and constructive.” The envoys have been paving the way for a meeting Wednesday between the two foreign secretaries, the highest-ranking bureaucrats in the rival ministries. That’s when the agenda and structure of the peace talks are expected to be made formal.

Posted on by

Today’s Wisconsin primary was, a couple weeks ago, supposed to be the make-or-break moment for the Dean campaign. The New York Times, never a friend of the candidate, gives a pretty bleak assessment:

Dr. Dean was preparing to return to his home in Burlington, Vt., to plan what shape his campaign might take now as he absorbed the loss of his campaign chairman, Steven Grossman, to the Kerry campaign and the prospect that other of his senior aides would leave as soon as the votes were counted here on Tuesday. Throughout the day, he veered between defiance — when a crowd in Madison chanted, “We want Dean,” he responded, “Well if you vote for him, you’ll have him” — and doubt about what his future held for him should he lose again on Wednesday.

“I still have some hope of being the nominee,” Dr. Dean said at one point, as he encountered repeated questions from reporters about whether he could survive the vote in Wisconsin. At another point he said: “We’re just going to have to see how we do, but, I’ll have plenty to say after Wisconsin depending on whether we win or lose.” “Let me remind you all that I have more delegates than everyone else in this race except John Kerry,” Dr. Dean told reporters, an edge of anger in his voice. “So I think the campaign obituaries that some of you have been writing are a little misplaced. ”

…Still, Dr. Dean sounded at times as if a burden was being lifted from his shoulders. He avoided the harsh criticism of Mr. Kerry that he had raised proudly the week before, instead praising both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards as “fine people.” He refused to answer a routine question about whether he would have authorized the use of nuclear weapons were he in the shoes of Harry S. Truman, his favorite president, explaining, “I just don’t feel like it.”

High-level aides in the campaign said they expect Dr. Dean to keep his name on the ballot — part of his reluctance to quit, some say, was hearing that it would be erased if he conceded. The aides also said they think Dr. Dean will use his e-mail list of supporters to raise money for other Democrats…

“I know what all of us think he ought to do,” one senior aide said. “But he needs to decide whether he should do it first, and when and how. Maybe it’s Wednesday, maybe it’s Thursday, maybe it’s Friday, maybe it’s not for two more weeks. Anybody who says they do know is lying to you. He’s going to get there eventually, but I don’t know when.”

Posted on by

Turns out that, as I posted my thoughts, (scroll down) in the early hours of this morning, on why Nader would be wrong to run and why the Democrats would be wrong to respond to a Nader run by Sister-Souljah-ing the left, my classmate Dan Munz had, a mere forty minutes earlier, posted his (brilliantly titled) thoughts on why Nader would be wrong to run, and why the Democrats would be right to respond by Sister-Souljah-ing (his reference) the left. It’s a small shtetl after all, eh?

Dan and I disagree, like many registered Democrats who fall into this debate, on both a tactical level and an ideological one, and given that we apparently both lost sleep last night setting forth our visions for the party, I won’t rehash that debate except to say again that I believe the Clinton years and the Gingrich revolution are only the most recent demonstrations of the danger in seizing the center and the power of offering a choice rather than an echo. It’s not surprising, of course, that Dan and I are each largely convinced that a party more in line with our respective ideology would also be more effective at building a governing majority (that, of course, is part of the weakness of the “electability” discourse).

Dan is right, of course, that to argue that there’s no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is a weak straw-man argument, and one that hurt Nader’s case. I would add on the one hand that it’s an argument that’s particularly easy to make from a position of relative privilege, in which the comparatively progressive reforms that Clinton accomplish – the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit, more progressive NLRB nominees, and others – make relatively little impact on one’s life. I would add on the one hand, however, that relatively few of those who condemn the two-party consensus in America would argue that there is, in fact, no difference between the parties (some of course do for rhetorical effect).

Dan goes on, however, to make an equally unfounded claim: that there’s no difference between the Greens and the Democrats. While Dan’s right that Nader’s agenda is “certainly more in alignment with Democratic than Republican values,” that isn’t saying much. It’s hard for me to imagine many of the sixteen issues Nader lists as the core of his campaign as the centerpieces of a Kerry Presidential run. “Full public financing of public elections with the necessary, broad changes for a more fair and representative election process, replacing present charades?” “Universal health insurance — single payer embracing prevention, quality and cost controls”? “A redirected federal budget for the crucial priorities of our country and away from the massive waste, fraud and redundancy of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex,” as well as the massive costs of corporate welfare”? Dan may not share these as priorities – or even as goals – but I think it’s disingenuous to argue that Nader doesn’t stand for anything the leadership of the Democratic party doesn’t.

Dan argues that “when I see an organization I don’t like, I try to join and persuade it to change. I don’t bail and get all distructive.” I’d argue that social change depends on having folks on the inside and the outside of institutions – be they the Democratic party or, say, the State Department. The system needs to be both kicked and dragged (I’ve tried to act this out with my arms and legs a few times, and I’m told it’s been amusing, if perhaps not enlightening). Dan argues that

These days, a lot of the major battles have been settled, and largely in Democrats’ favor. Both parties now admit we need civil rights, we need social security and other entitlement programs, we need better health care, we can’t be completely isolationist, &c.

To which I’d respond, along the lines I alluded to in my earlier post, that today neither party is proposing the kind of ambitious, radicial, structural change – in areas from public school funding to healthcare to the crippling effects of the drug war – demanded before we could really talk with a straight face about “starting gate equality” for Americans of color, and those who do find themselves labelled “race-baiting demagogues” and are candidates for the Sister Souljah treatment; that neither party is articulating reforms like raising the income ceiling on the payroll tax to make social security a more secure entitlement and a less regressive tax; that neither party is offering the kind of healthcare reform that has saved costs, saved lives, and saved millions from healthcare insecurity in most industrialized nations; and neither party has offered an comprehensive alternative to the use of unilateral military and economic power as American leadership in the global community. As Dan said, “One man’s homogeneity is another man’s consensus…”

Dan and I agree that Nader would be wrong to mount a 2004 Independent Campaign. And we agree that the way for the Democrats to respond to a Nader challenge would be to illustrate the real differences between them and the Republicans. The difference, maybe, is that I think to so compellingly would require more than just a shift in rhetoric.

Posted on by

From the Post:

Although Edwards’s numbers have spiked a bit, public and private polling suggests another JFK will win Tuesday — John Forbes Kerry. A recent American Research Group poll showed Kerry holding a 37 percentage point lead over Edwards, which squares with some other surveys. Edwards has vowed to stay in, win or lose, while Dean will retreat to Vermont, where aides predict he will call it quits. A top Edwards adviser hedged a bit Sunday night, suggesting the senator might reevaluate his candidacy if he does not register a “respectable” second-place showing…

“Keeping our jobs right here in this country — where it belongs — that’s what this campaign is about,” Edwards says in the ad. It does not mention Kerry by name, so voters most likely won’t realize Edwards is trying to show how he differs from Kerry. When pressed by reporters on Sunday for differences on key issues, Edwards cited his plans for housing tax credits and clamping down on predatory lenders — not necessarily the hefty issues that can bring down a front-runner or lift up an underdog. Kerry promised to provide health coverage to 97 percent of Americans, lower education costs and retain tax cuts for everyone but those making more than $200,000 annually. Drawing an implicit distinction, Edwards said the country can not afford big tax cuts and big health care programs: “People need to know the truth about what we can afford and what we can’t afford.”

It would be good to see Edwards’ “Two Americas” rhetoric translate into a more daring, more progressive set of domestic proposals. It may also be one of his few remaining shots at making a comeback…

And then there’s this deeply unfortunate move by Kerry, which demands that other Democrats find something better to offer on the issue:

Kerry gave a long-winded explanation of his position on gay marriages, suggesting he might support a constitutional amendment banning them. “It depends on the terminology because it depends on what it does with respect to civil unions and partnership rights,” he said.

The terminology is out there and – guess what – what it does with respect to civil unions and partnership rights (“the legal incidents thereof“) is exactly what Kerry took a brave stand against in rejecting the Defense of Marriage Act. Shame now he isn’t mustering the courage of, say, the American Conservative Union.

Posted on by

Lula da Silva, Brazil’s first democratically elected left-wing President, continues to face criticism over an official he fired Friday after video was released showing him cutting secret deals with a lottery kingpin:

“Lula is confronting the most delicate moment of his administration,” the daily Jornal do Brasil warned on Sunday morning. Opposition leaders have responded to the revelations by calling for a congressional investigation and demanding the immediate resignation of José Dirceu de Oliveira e Silva, the president’s chief of staff and the immediate superior of Mr. Diniz.

The president of the Workers’ Party, José Genoino, has tried to distance the party from the scandal and the damage it has done by arguing that Mr. Diniz is “not enrolled in the party.” But newspaper reports and opposition leaders have countered by noting that Mr. Diniz not only is a former roommate and longtime political associate of Mr. Dirceu but also held one of the government’s most delicate jobs, that of the executive branch’s liaison to Congress. The videotape and an accompanying transcript show Mr. Diniz, then the head of the state lottery in Rio de Janeiro, agreeing to rewrite an online lottery contract so as to favor a numbers game kingpin known as “Charlie Waterfall.” In return, the numbers game boss agreed to contribute more than $100,000 to the Workers’ Party candidates for governor in Rio and Brasília during the 2002 general election and to pay a 1 percent “tip” to Mr. Diniz.

Mr. da Silva himself has not commented directly on the new situation. But at an event in Rio on Friday night commemorating the 24th anniversary of the founding of the Workers’ Party he expressed his support for Mr. Dirceu and other party leaders. “The trademark of our party is its ethical behavior and its honor,” he said as angry demonstrators chanted outside.

Posted on by

Today marks Britain’s largest civil service strike in over a decade:

Up to 90,000 members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) began the first of a two-day strike following the collapse of pay talks, with the threat of further industrial action to come. The strike, by civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Driving Standards Agency (DSA), forced hundreds of job centres and social security offices to close, while others were only able to offer a reduced service.

…The PCS claimed the strike is the result of the government’s refusal to resolve “appalling” levels of pay and an unacceptable performance appraisal system in the DWP. Mark Serwotka, the union’s general secretary, said low pay was “endemic” in the civil service and called on government ministers to get involved in the dispute to help break the deadlock. “Civil servants are sick of the lack of recognition for their hard work,” he said. “They deliver frontline public services but are regularly exposed to contempt from politicians who fail to understand the important work they do.”

Posted on by

The LA Times reports on the difficult process of distributing money from the UFCW’s hardship fund amongst the thousands of workers who’ve been striking Vons, Pavilions, and Ralphs supermarkets since October to maintain access to healthcare:

If the scene every morning at Local 770’s headquarters on Shatto Place is any indication, many of the 14,500 members affected by the strike and lockout haven’t been able to find part-time work to supplement their strike pay. By 10 a.m., dozens of people are queued up. Armed with sheaves of unpaid bills, bank statements, rental and lending agreements and stern letters from creditors, they fill the hall decorated with murals depicting the union’s history and spill out into an adjacent waiting room.

There is little conversation. Some of those waiting have the look of refugees from a disaster who got out with just the clothes on their backs. “They are people leaving the middle class on an express train to who knows where,” said Harley Shaiken, a professor of social and cultural studies at UC Berkeley.

As of Thursday, Local 770 said it had written 4,000 checks to members’ creditors, once running out of the paper and then the ink to print them. Only someone facing eviction or foreclosure has received more than $1,000.

You can donate to the UFCW’s “Hold the Line for Healthcare” Strike Support Fund here.

Posted on by

OneWorld South Asia reports that children in Nepal are organizing against child labor:

At the recently concluded Nepali Children’s National Consultation for Children’s World Congress on Child Labor, 12-year-old child worker representative Menu Thapa, remarked that, “We are not safe in our households or in the street. There is an urgent need to take steps to eliminate child labor and protect us.”

While children in urban areas are subjected to various forms of labor, minors in villages are unsafe in their own neighborhood because of the Maoist insurgency. Recently, volunteers of the NGO, Child Workers in Nepal Concerned Center (CWIN), rescued Devendra Tamang, 12, a domestic servant, lying in a Kathmandu street on a bitingly cold winter morning. Tamang, who now stays at CWIN’s child shelter home, was severely beaten before he was thrown out of the house at midnight.

Another child Ramu Karki, 11, who worked as a helper in a private bus, was rescued by CWIN’s volunteer from a public park. Karki, who had high fever, was close to death.

Posted on by

The Post on the Wisconsin debate:

John Edwards sharpened his differences with John F. Kerry on Sunday night in the final televised debate before Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary, challenging the front-runner on trade issues and telling him, ‘Not so fast’ about asserting he will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

Although former Vermont governor Howard Dean declined to repeat some of his past criticisms of Kerry’s fundraising practices and support of the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, Edwards was more personal and pointed in his comments on the senator from Massachusetts than before.

Posted on by

The Times on the Wisconsin debate:

The decisions by Mr. Edwards and Dr. Dean to refrain from attacking Mr. Kerry reflected different calculations. Dr. Dean’s unfavorable ratings in polls here are so high that he would probably only hurt himself. Mr. Edwards has left himself little flexibility with his promise to run a clean campaign.

Posted on by

Several media sources have been reporting that Ralph Nader, who had suggested that he was likely to stay out if Dennis Kucinich (who, like me, shares much of his agenda) or Howard Dean (who shares, at least, his critique of Democratic party elites and his call for a renewed progressive populism), will announce in the next one or two weeks his decision about whether or not to run as an Independent candidate for President in November. The New York Times, never a friend of Nader’s, pointed out yesterday that the response to Nader’s website, naderexplore04.com, seems to have generated an underwhelming response, and cancelled a virtual referendum on a 2004 run after Nader started losing. Two weeks ago the editorial board of The Nation, whose perch well to the left of the Democratic party and ongoing criticism of the two-party system made its message weightier and more credible, printed a masthead editorial, “An Open Letter to Ralph Nader,” which pleaded, “For the good of the country, the many causes you’ve championed and for your own good name–don’t run for President this year.” The piece made the basic point which has become gospel in some circles over the past three years: Drawing votes away from the most viable non-Republican candidate in the short term has costs which no long-term benefit can justify. This is a point with which, perhaps reservedly, I agree. The editors as well made the optimistic assessment that the Democratic party of 2004 is a different, and better beast than the Democratic party of 2000, more angry, more grassroots, more progressive. Here too I concur that four years under a Republican President spent (with notable exceptions) throwing red meat to his base, as supposed to eight years under a Democratic President spent (with fewer exceptions) selling his base off, has left a Democratic party which is, at least, that much lesser a lesser of two evils. Finally, and perceptively, the editors argue that the embarrassing returns, given his lack of support even among progressives, likely to meet a Nader candidacy – well below the few million votes he received the last time as a Green – would be wrongly perceived by the media and some in the public as a rejection of the vision he’s rightly articulating. For these reasons, I was one of those who filled out the form on Nader’s site a few months back urging him not to run.

That said, I feel equally – perhaps more strongly – compelled to urge the Democratic party to avoid the hypocrisy, mendacity, and bile which have characterized much of its leaders’ approach to third party candidates, and voters, over the past years. As Sam Smith has frequently observed, the Democrats seem to think that the Greens are
the only constituency in history which can be won over by insulting them. The fact is that many more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader in 2000. And they didn’t do it because they were turned off by the radical liberalism of the Clinton years (Halvai, as we say in Yiddish – if only – the Clinton years offered radical liberalism to be turned off by). They did it because the Republican party learned to organize at roughly the same time that the Democratic party forgot how. It’s not the Greens’ fault that the Democratic party presided over the removal of the death penalty, of the drug war, of disarmament, of countless other issues, from the discourse within the two parties, or that the progressive taxation and universal health care preached from Nixon would today be disavowed by Democratic party leaders, while his politics of racial division have been mastered by the Republicans and copied when convenient by the Democrats as well. Democrats looking to win the Nader voters – and the far more numerous non-voters – of 2000 in 2004 will have to do so not with the Democratic strategy of 2002 but with the Republican strategy of 1994: by offering a substantive, vivid, and passionate alternative. Trotting out Nader, whether he runs or not, as a convenient scapegoat for the failings of the Democratic party won’t win over his supporters – or anyone else.