Top Tag

Iowa’s Socialists Are Already Over 2020

DES MOINES—Caroline Schoonover has two immediate goals. One of them is to systematically dismantle capitalism. The other is to finish watching all seven seasons of Vanderpump Rules.

“There are a lot of things that are not funny to me when I’m thinking about the state the world is in, but there is something about Vanderpump Rules,” the 28-year-old told me, referring to the Bravo reality show that revolves around a wealthy British restaurateur and her employees. “It is just purely entertaining for me, in a way that is very low stakes.”

Schoonover, who grew up near Martensdale, Iowa, just south of the state capital, is one of the thousands of Millennials across the country who joined the Democratic Socialists of America after the 2016 election of Donald Trump. I met her one evening in mid-March during a visit to Iowa, my home state, right before she led a monthly chapter meeting. Schoonover is tall, blond, and ruddy-cheeked, with a goofy sense of humor that probably comes in handy during her day job teaching children about agriculture at a local museum. She’s finishing up her second year as the co-chair of the Central Iowa DSA, a position she sees as a way “to actually do something instead of being mad and upset every day after Trump became president.”

Iowa is a state that most Americans associate with straw polls and horse-race politics, and whose residents are generally thrilled to soak up the national-media spotlight every four years ahead of the caucuses. It isn’t, in other words, where most people would expect to find participants of a budding movement to overthrow the country’s political and economic system. One popular perception of socialism in America is that it’s a sort of pastime for affluent and cerebral hipsters. A recent article from New York magazine described the DSA as feeling like a “never-ending Brown University reunion,” where “extremely online” people attend mixers and try to date each other.

Caroline Schoonover, the co-chair of the Central Iowa DSA, says that her group is “not a Bernie Sanders fan club just waiting for our chance to finally knock doors for him.”

But Schoonover and the other socialists I met in Iowa are not Upper West Siders from moneyed families, nor are they, for the most part, graduates of elite Ivy League schools. They are very much online, but they aren’t members of the left-wing Twitterati—the well-connected media types who frequent secret happy hours where they are wooed by 2020 presidential contenders. Socialism, to them, is not a trendy niche hobby or an intellectual exercise for the political-theory obsessed.

Instead, the people I spoke with see the DSA as a vehicle for changing their own immediate circumstances. They want to build a movement that transcends individual politicians, whose positions are malleable and whose tenure is temporary. And while most establishment Democrats would like to distance themselves from the label, the trajectory of America’s newly surging socialist movement could ultimately shape the party’s future.

Schoonover’s chapter, which has about 160 members, didn’t exist before 2016—none of Iowa’s DSA groups did. In the more than two years since the presidential election, membership in the organization around the country has grown dramatically—from 6,000 to 56,000—and chapters have formed across the heartland. Iowa now has five throughout the state, and at least two smaller ones being founded. Recent polling shows that a majority of the likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, 56 percent, say they would be happy to vote for a president who leans toward socialism. In February, Axios reported that several of the more moderate presidential candidates are worried about running because of the Democratic electorate’s leftward shift; one unnamed candidate’s own internal polling shows that in Iowa, socialism is viewed more positively than capitalism.

A key problem with these surveys, however, is that it’s still unclear what people think socialism means. Even the national DSA organization doesn’t have a set definition. “We have various definitions,” a spokesperson told me. “We’re a big-tent organization.” Under the DSA umbrella, one can expect to find all types of political philosophies, including Marxists, Leninists, communists, and even libertarian socialists. Socialism is a loaded term, full of history and dripping with stigma, for many Americans; the word hearkens back to Soviet Russia and conjures grim images of street riots and bread lines. That’s an impression Republicans are promoting ahead of the 2020 elections, as “socialist” has become Trump’s new insult of choice for Democrats in recent weeks.

But for the card-carrying Democratic Socialists I met in Iowa, those old stigmas hold no power.

Socialism, to them, means a fairer world—one where every person is born with a guaranteed right to things like health care and education; it looks like France’s crèche child-care system, or Sweden’s comprehensive welfare programs. “For me, it means de-commodifying most things, and especially decommodifying things people need,” explained Alex Loehrer, the 32-year-old co-chair of the Iowa City DSA, which has roughly 100 members.

It was a chilly Sunday morning in March, and Loehrer was seated at the head of a long table in a meeting room at the Iowa City Public Library. She was surrounded by 10 other chapter members, who took turns offering their interpretation of socialism between sips of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. It’s all about allowing people “to control their access to their basic needs,” said Denise Cheeseman, a 20-year-old University of Iowa graduate student with a blond pixie cut. Ryan Hall, an undergraduate student at the university and the chapter’s other co-chair, said that the key word for him in the DSA’s title is democratic: “We really are pushing for an egalitarian ownership over our economy, over our well-being, over our decision-making processes.”

All the members at the meeting had their own reasons for joining the DSA, but most of those reasons were rooted in personal financial struggle: They were drowning in an ocean of student debt, or straining to pay their rent or afford their insurance premiums. David Sterling, who identifies as gender fluid and uses they/them pronouns, works as a cashier in the city’s public-parking division. Sterling, 26, grew up in Iowa City, but has had to move farther out of town to escape the creeping rent. And they weren’t able to afford the cost of tuition at the University of Iowa after graduating high school. “I’ve dreamed about going to the university in my hometown [for] most of my life,” Sterling said. “How sad is that?”

DSA members like Sterling have concluded that the cause of their financial woes is capitalism—and that the solution is to replace it with something else. For now, members of the chapter said that they are happy to fight for more immediate reforms, such as Medicare for all, a higher minimum wage, and stronger union rights. But ultimately, they see these policies as insufficient. “Capitalism is international,” said 34-year-old Rob Shaw, Loehrer’s husband and the chapter’s social-media manager. “Domestic reforms to a system that is international aren’t going to cut it.”

The magnitude of their project is something the members across the state have been reckoning with—do they first try to take on systemic racism, or health care, or money in politics? For efficiency’s sake, all the DSA chapters in Iowa have agreed to focus primarily on housing, which means informing renters about their rights and setting up local tenants’ unions. Chapters have already established renters’ unions in Ames and Dubuque, two of the state’s mid-sized cities. The choice makes sense. Iowa City was recently ranked as the most expensive place to live in Iowa, and Millennials, on their way to becoming the largest age group in the U.S., are much more likely to rent than own their homes compared with previous generations, reports a recent study from the Urban Institute. Two reasons for this contrast, according to the people surveyed, are climbing rents and high student-loan debt.

Many members of the Central Iowa DSA think that the state’s caucus system is undemocratic, but they are preparing to confront the 2020 candidates at events around the state.

After the library meeting, the Iowa City socialists spent two hours marching between duplexes and apartment buildings in the southeast part of town, gathering signatures for the union. The people they spoke with were eager to share their stories of negligent property managers, and almost every tenant signed up for more information on how to join. We stopped at a boardinghouse to visit with one middle-aged woman who had recently begun to attend DSA meetings. She explained that her landlord planned to evict all the tenants rather than make necessary repairs to the building, and she wanted to find a way to fight back. A week before our visit, she didn’t know what democratic socialism even was. This, chapter members told me, is exactly the movement they’re trying to build.

“You don’t have to understand theory to understand Marxism,” as Schoonover, the Central Iowa co-chair, put it to me later in an interview. “You know that your boss takes advantage of you, that your landlord takes advantage of you. You know that you’re in debt, you know that you pay too much for health care. You don’t need to sit around and talk with a bunch of snobs about that to understand it.”

For the first few hours of my visit to Des Moines, I sat in a folding chair and watched the Central Iowa socialists participate in a refresher course on “bird-dogging,” the hunting-inspired term for assertively eliciting comment from a politician—similar to how reporters interrogate lawmakers in the halls of Congress. The socialists I spoke with aren’t excited, per se, about the 2020 presidential campaign beyond the possibility of defeating Trump, and many don’t plan to caucus, calling the state’s primary system undemocratic. But they are preparing to confront the candidates at events around the state. At the training, chapter members practiced framing and asking succinct questions, rehearsed the art of rapid hand-raising during candidate Q&As, and learned where and how to corner politicians after campaign stops. The chapter recently challenged Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who had considered a presidential bid, about his environmental record during his tour of the state. And they’ve already set their sights on a few other 2020 targets, including Senator Kamala Harris, the California prosecutor turned lawmaker whom Schoonover describes simply as “a cop.”

[Read: Kamala Harris’s show of strength]

The DSA members I met are frequent critics of many prominent Democrats, including—and maybe especially—some of the party’s most beloved icons. Former President Barack Obama, for example, is “complicit in American imperialism,” one told me. Ex-Representative Beto O’Rourke and his broad platitudes represent “everything that is wrong with the political systems of power in the United States.”

So it was frustrating for many of them in March when the DSA’s governing body formally voted to endorse Sanders for president. Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist, helped open Iowans’ eyes to the political possibilities of the movement with his 2016 campaign, but Schoonover and other members of the Central Iowa chapter still have issues with the senator from Vermont. For example, he hasn’t publicly backed any measures for reparations for black Americans, and he doesn’t support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, a campaign advocating financial separation between the United States and Israel.

But more important, they say, working on behalf of a single candidate will only distract from their efforts to organize tenants and build power in their communities. “We don’t talk about Bernie,” Schoonover explained. “He’s not a factor in our organizing at all.” Most of them would certainly prefer Sanders to other Democrats in the 2020 field, and individual members can volunteer for him on their own time, Schoonover said. “But we’re not a Bernie Sanders fan club just waiting for our chance to finally knock doors for him.”

The DSA chapters in Iowa have agreed to focus much of their organizing on housing issues.

The DSAers in Iowa really have only one goal ahead of the 2020 presidential election: Move the conversation to the left in the first state that gets to winnow the Democratic field.

This is, of course, the opposite of what many Democratic Party leaders want. Many of them are desperate to distance themselves from any association with socialism, worried that it will scare off the party’s more moderate voters. It’s important, they say, not to mistake the growing popularity of policy ideas that can be described as socialist for the spread of full-blown socialism. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, practically leapt to her feet to applaud when the president vowed that America “will never be a socialist country” during his February State of the Union address. And multiple 2020 candidates have rejected the label, including progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who recently called herself “capitalist to my bones.”

[Read: Elizabeth Warren’s theory of capitalism]

When I asked Troy Price, the Iowa Democratic Party chairman, how he would describe the left’s trajectory in his state, he paused. “I hate to use the word socialist,” Price said, suggesting that instead, “there is a more organized effort” to push the government “to help solve the biggest issues facing us right now.” Price further dismissed the idea that the DSA has any particular prominence in Iowa: “There’s been a rise of all sorts of different organized groups that have come up since the 2016 election. DSA is definitely one of them.”

Cathy Glasson, a nurse and the president of SEIU Local 199, was the most progressive candidate in recent history to run in an Iowa gubernatorial election, in 2018. But she doesn’t identify as a democratic socialist, and she doesn’t see Iowa moving in that direction. “I’m not sure it’s socialism we’re seeing,” Glasson told me. It’s just that “there is a tremendous eagerness” in Iowa for “bold, progressive ideas.”

But the DSA members I spoke with would contend that, at least in the short term, they are fighting for the same policy goals as progressive Democrats like Glasson. They want to expand union rights, pass Medicare for all, increase the minimum wage, and address climate change, just as she does—and just as leading 2020 presidential candidates do.

And like Glasson, the socialists, too, see an increased appetite for these ideas. It’s well established that Trump’s election served as a kind of wake-up call for Democrats. His ascendance, an affront to the sensibilities of liberals across the country, spurred a lot of them to join grassroots organizing groups or campaign for a candidate, many for the first time in their life. But it has also made admissible some ideas that were once on the fringe of public discourse. Confronted with what they perceive as the Trump administration’s radical agenda, people are now more willing to embrace radical solutions.

“There’s actually a really great quote by Lenin that says, ‘You have to be as extreme as the reality you confront,’” Casey Erixon, a 27-year-old DSA member, said one night at a bar on Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines. (The exact quote from the Russian revolutionary: “One must always try to be as radical as reality itself.”) We were at a social for socialists: Schoonover was there, along with several other members of her Des Moines–based chapter, all hunkered over beers and discussing their last meeting. Erixon, who grew up just outside Crescent, Iowa, had worked on Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012. He’d always liked Obama, he said, and assumed that the former president’s “incrementalist” approach to progress was the right one. But after Trump’s win two and a half years ago, Erixon gave up on establishment politics.

“There is a growing sense that the system is broken,” he told me. From across the table, another DSA member, 28-year-old Blake Iverson, interjected—if he’d admitted to being a socialist a few years ago, people would have been dismayed, he said. Now “it’s like, Okay, that’s a normal part of the political landscape. That’s a normal position to hold.”

This is what frustrates them both about socialism’s reputation, in some circles, as a sort of elite club for bookish rich kids. Erixon didn’t graduate from college, and he works as a career coach for people with disabilities. Iverson, too, dropped out of school, and now makes $13 an hour as a teacher’s aide. “I’ve been to Brooklyn, Iowa, more than I’ve been to Brooklyn, New York,” he said with a chuckle. It just goes to show, they told me, that the socialist movement is for everyone.

With less than a year until the caucuses, and more than a dozen Democrats officially in the mix, Iowa is overrun with candidates, who are popping up in schools and workplaces and balancing on countertops at their local coffee shops. But while in-state Democrats are focused on the present—attending candidate meet and greets to suss out which Democratic contender is most likely to beat Trump—the Democratic Socialists of Iowa have their sights set on something much bigger. Something they will be working toward well past the 2020 election.

“We are facing, as a city and as a state and country, systemic problems that require solutions all across the board,” Rob Shaw told the Iowa City chapter members before they embarked on their door-knocking mission. “The only way we’re going to do that is if we actually organize a base that can respond to more than one problem.”

What do these problems stem from?” asked Alex Loehrer, the co-chair, from across the table. “Do you want to say it for the record?”

Fuck capitalism,” Shaw replied with a smile. The chapter members cheered.

Mayor Pete: All Words Matter

Yesterday, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a presidential contender, was the Democrats’ It Boy. Today, he stands accused of the high crime of being Unwoke:

In his State of the City address that March [2015], Mr. Buttigieg said it was “time for South Bend to begin talking about racial reconciliation.”

“There is no contradiction between respecting the risks that police officers take every day in order to protect this community, and recognizing the need to overcome the biases implicit in a justice system that treats people from different backgrounds differently,” Mr. Buttigieg said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The South Bend Voice.

“We need to take both those things seriously, for the simple and profound reason that all lives matter,” he added.

Mayor Pete tells CBS News that he will no longer say “all lives matter.” Jeezy, Pete. Only in the far-left Democratic Party of 2019 would saying “all lives matter” count as possibly racist. Read it all.

Pete Wehner left the Republican Party over his loathing for Donald Trump. But in this Atlantic column, he reminds us just how berserk the Democrats have become. Excerpts:

To more fully grasp the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party, it’s useful to run through some of the ideas that are now being seriously talked about and embraced by leading members of the party—ideas that together would be fiscally ruinous, invest massive and unwarranted trust in central planners, and weaken America’s security.

  • The Green New Deal, a 10-year effort to eliminate fossil fuels “as much as is technologically feasible” that would completely transform the American economy, put the federal government in partial or complete control over large sectors, and retrofit every building in America. It would change the way we travel and eat, switch the entire electrical grid to renewable energy sources, and for good measure “guarantee” high-paying jobs, affordable housing, and universal health care. It would be astronomically costly and constitute by far the greatest centralization of power in American history.
  • Medicare for all, which would greatly expand the federal role in health care. Some versions would wipe out the health-insurance industry and do away with employer-sponsored health plans that now cover roughly 175 millionAmericans. This would be hugely disruptive and unpopular (70 percent of Americans are happy with their coverage), and would exacerbate the worst efficiencies of an already highly inefficient program.

Oh yes there’s more:

  • Abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which upholds immigration laws; protect “sanctuary cities” (local jurisdictions that don’t fully cooperate with federal efforts to find and deport unauthorized immigrants); and take down existing walls on the southern border, walls which Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred to as “an immorality.” These policies signal that Democrats don’t really believe in border security and are mostly untroubled by illegal immigration.

  • Eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the courts, and put an end to the Electoral College. The effect of these would be to weaken protections against abuses of majority power.

  • Reparations for African Americans to provide compensation for past injustices like slavery, Jim Crow laws, and redlining. (Senator Elizabeth Warren believes Native Americans should be included as well.) Reparations would pose countless practical problems and create unintended consequences, as David Frum argued in these pages.

Read the whole thing. 

Madness. And yet, the sitting Nut-In-Chief might be trying to sabotage his own re-election, according to a theory floated by Tucker Carlson. How else to explain some of the things he’s been doing lately? asks the host.

What a depressing damn year 2020 is going to be. But not dull! No sir, not dull.

Symposium: Only in America

Hans von Spakovsky is the manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Foreign observers must be shaking their heads in disbelief that adding a citizenship question to the U.S. census has proved so controversial as to result in litigation. Department of Commerce v. New York will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 23.

Predicting how the court will rule is always dicey. But given the broad authority of the secretary of the Department of Commerce under federal law to determine the questions on the census, and the extreme weakness of the legal arguments made by the lower-court judges to support their decisions against the government, it is highly probable that the challengers will lose and the citizenship question will appear on the census.

What is odd about the challenge by blue states and liberal advocacy organizations is that even the United Nations — an institution they often hold up as a model of progressivism that the United States should emulate — sides with the Trump administration on this issue. In its 2017 “Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses,” the U.N. recommends that member countries ask census questions identifying both an individual’s country of birth and country of citizenship.

A Commerce Department memorandum on this subject dated March 26, 2018, notes that countries asking a citizenship question on their census include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Yet federal district courts in New York and California have enjoined the Commerce Department from reinstating a citizenship question on the census, ruling separately that to do so would violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the enumeration clause of the Constitution.

This litigation got to the Supreme Court in near-record time. On February 15, the justices granted the government’s request to review the January 15 New York decision, skipping the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a very rare move. When another federal district court in California issued a March 6 injunction in California v. Ross, the Supreme Court agreed to also accept arguments on the second case, similarly skipping the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

This action by the Trump administration, and specifically by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, has been portrayed as somehow unprecedented and nefarious. But the first citizenship question appeared on the 1820 census after being recommended by the notoriously conservative President Thomas Jefferson. The question has been consistently on the census form ever since. In 1950, the Census Bureau switched to sending out two census forms, the short form and the long form. Most Americans received the short form, but one in six households received the long form. The long form contained a citizenship question and over 50 other questions.

After the 2000 census, the Commerce Department ended the use of the long form. But in 2005, as a substitute, it started sending out another census form — christened the American Community Survey — on a yearly basis to about 3.5 million households. The ACS has many more, and more intrusive, questions than the regular census form, including a citizenship question.

It is important to note that the Trump administration announced it was taking the ACS citizenship question and reinstating it on the regular census form. That question does not inquire about legal status; it simply asks if the respondent is a U.S. citizen.

Why transfer the ACS citizenship question back to the regular census form? The Commerce Department’s March 26 memorandum cites the major reason as being the Department of Justice’s need for better information to enforce the Voting Rights Act. As a former DOJ lawyer, I can confirm that citizenship population data is essential to fashioning remedies for Section 2 violations in vote-dilution cases, especially cases filed on behalf of Hispanics. According to DOJ, “the current data collected under the ACS are insufficient in scope, detail, and certainty.”

The lower-court opinions spent hundreds of pages trying to justify their findings against the government, even though the legal issues here are very simple. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution specifies that an “actual Enumeration” shall be done every 10 years “in such manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.” By law, 13 U.S.C. §141(a), Congress has delegated to the Commerce secretary the authority to conduct the decennial enumeration “in such form and content as he may determine” and authorizes him “to obtain such other census information as necessary.” Thus, Congress gave the secretary almost unlimited authority to conduct the enumeration required by the Constitution — what we call the census.

The government in its brief argues, quite correctly, that the lower court erred in finding that the challengers even had standing to sue. The district court found standing based on four supposed injuries: diminishment of political representation, loss of government funding, harm to the accuracy of census data and diversion of resources. But all of these “injuries” would “not occur if everyone who receives the census form fully and truthfully fills it out.” In other words, the injuries will happen only if “in light of the citizenship question’s mere presence, significant numbers of people refuse to return the census form or falsely underreport the number of people in their households.”

As the government points out, not completing a census form at all or not answering it truthfully violates federal law. And the Census Bureau regularly engages in extensive follow-up efforts with households that don’t return their census forms. In other words, the alleged injuries that give the challengers standing would be “the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court” in violating federal law and “therefore insufficient to support standing” under Supreme Court precedent.

In any event, the Commerce Department pointed out that there is no empirical evidence showing that a citizenship question will have an impact on response rates. In fact, the nonresponse data on the citizenship question on the ACS shows that it was “comparable to nonresponse rates for other questions” such as educational attainment and marriage status. As the department said in its memorandum, “even if there is some impact on responses, the value of more complete and accurate data derived from surveying the entire population [instead of just a small portion as the ACS does] outweighs such concerns.”

The government also argues that the secretary’s decision is not subject to judicial review because under the APA’s own terms, judicial review is barred for any action that “is committed to agency discretion by law.” Action is committed to agency discretion when the governing “statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.”

In a convincing argument that the Supreme Court will have a hard time disputing, the government says that “perfectly describes this case.” According to the solicitor general’s brief, “The Constitution ‘vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting’ the decennial census, and Congress in turn ‘has delegated its constitutional authority over the census’ to the Secretary,” citing Wisconsin v. City of New York.

Thus, the government argues, Ross “possesses the same broad discretion that the Constitution confers on Congress. And neither the Constitution nor the Census Act provides any standard by which to judge the lawfulness of including (or excluding) a given question on the census form.” That very same reasoning also shows why the district court’s opinion in the California case that a citizenship question is unconstitutional also fails, despite the amount of verbiage the judge applied to try to justify his injunction.

The New York district court also found that the secretary’s reliance on the Justice Department’s need for more accurate citizenship population data was “pretextual.” But the court did not identify what the supposed “real reason” was for the secretary’s decision to reinstate the citizenship question.

The federal government argues that this violates “fundamental principles governing APA review of agency action.” Supreme Court precedent says courts are supposed to focus only on the “contemporaneous explanation of the agency decision”; “judicial inquiries into legislative or executive motivation represent a substantial intrusion into the workings of other branches of government.” Ross’ decision was supported by the administrative record and “agency action does not fail APA review merely because, as is often the case, the agency decisionmaker had unstated reasons for supporting a policy decision in addition to a stated reason that is both rational and supported by the record.”

The substantive issue in this case is, of course, the most important one. But a side issue before the Supreme Court is the New York district court order compelling the testimony of Wilbur Ross. The government argues that this violates the general rule, again based on Supreme Court precedent, that “the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.” There is only a narrow exception if there is a strong showing of “bad faith or improper behavior” by the agency, and there was no such showing here.

Frankly, I will be surprised if the Supreme Court does not dissolve the injunctions and find for the government. The Constitution gives Congress almost unlimited discretion to conduct the census, and Congress has delegated that authority to the secretary of Commerce. Given the long historical precedent of including a citizenship question on the census up until the present day on the ACS, it becomes hard to conceive of the court’s reaching any conclusion other than that the executive branch acted fully within its authority to determine the “form and content” of the “Enumeration.”

The post Symposium: Only in America appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Frightwig: 1980s SF Punk Band Still Feminist & Sassy

Deanna Mitchel and Mia Simmans. Photo: Jeanne Hansen.

“California Über Alles,” Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys sang during the Golden Age of Punk. Across the Atlantic, The Sex Pistols screamed, “I am an anarchist.” At its best, Punk in the U.S. and in England expressed anti-racist and anti-authoritarian sentiments. Bands like the Ramones—who sang songs like “I Wanna Be Sedated” and “The KKK Took My Baby Away”—revived rock ‘n’ roll when rock needed reviving in the age of Thatcher/Reagan. Macho guys enjoyed successful careers, but the music industry often turned a deaf ear to the women singers and musicians. Sometimes male audiences weren’t much better.

Frightwig, a San Francisco based all-women’s band, had to fight for time and space in a male dominated culture. With grit and determination, it carved out its own territory and made a name for itself. Then the group disbanded so the two mainstays could have kids and raise families. Now, just in time for the terrors of the Donald Trump/Theresa May era, the band is back and raring to take on the powers-that-be once again. I caught up with them recently and listened to them talk about their lives on the road, music and politics and the comeback plans.

In the 1980s—when punk began to flower in San Francisco—Deanna Mitchell and Mia Simmans—Frightwig’s founders— never wore fishnet stockings, stilettos or had panda-like eyes and spiky hair, though the name of the band suggests unkempt hair that stands straight up. Frightwig never fit the stereotype of the female punk band. Maybe there never was such a thing.

Still, Frightwig lived punk as thoroughly as any of the guy bands that grabbed headlines in Rolling Stone magazine. Deanna was 24 when she and Mia first shook up the clubs where guys leered and geared. Mia was 18 and learning how to defender herself when she was hassled. Deanna’s last name was Ashley. Mia’s was Levin. That was in San Francisco before the HIV/AIDs pandemic wasted whole communities.

“It was a wild time and a horrible time,” Deanna said. “We lost a whole community of beautiful young men, mostly, and we had to learn very quickly how to deal with death.”

Over the years, Frightwig has played with several women drummers who came and went. Cecilia Kuhn, who recently died of cancer, was the heart and soul of drums and vocals. “Yeah, we lost Cecilia physically,” Deanna said. “But we’re still here.” Mia added, “We go very deep. We used to joke that we should marry one another, but we found good men, married them and raised families. And here we are, together again.”

Band members have included Susan Miller, Lynn Perko, Bambi Nonymous, Rebecca Sevrin and Eric Drew Feldman, the only male, who plays Synthesizer.

In the largely male dominated world of 1980s Punk—that stared Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious, Joe Strummer, Joey Ramone and his brothers—Frightwig was often viewed as “a female freak show.”

Mia and Deanna toured the country and cut a few records, opening for Butthole Surfers, Redd Kross, DOA and many other bands. They performed in New York, L.A., Chicago, New Orleans and all across America, as well as in Canada and Europe. In the 1980s Mia and Deanna had jobs at movie theaters like the Strand and the Egyptian that paid $3.25 an hour.

“We did what we wanted to do,” Mia said. “We paid the rent, lived on burritos, went to Rainbow, picked up vegetables that were too ripe to sell and at home made soup.”

Deanna added, “A lot of the San Francisco punk bands didn’t want to go on the road. But we’d always said, ‘Get us outta here.’ We’d pile into a car, drive to New York and do our gigs. There were places where we had the support of male bands.”

On stage at The Fillmore, Tool & Die and Mabuhay Gardens, they played mean guitars, belted out their lyrics and couldn’t help but look sexy and sound like they belonged to the world of street protest.

“I can’t write a happy-go-lucky song,” Deanna said. “They

have to be political.” Mia explained, “Writing lyrics is my favorite thing in the world to do. I’m compelled to write. All the words belong to me.”

Deanna is now 60. Mia is on the cusp of 55. “We’re crones,”

Deanna says. They’re youthful crones who are outraged by the growing gulf between the haves and the have-nots and shocked by the mushrooming detention centers along the U.S./Mexico border. They can’t not stay at home and not perform songs such as “Redistribution of Wealth.”

In fact, Frightwig is back by popular demand, as sassy as ever, and ready to take on the culture of misogyny all over again. “Smash the patriarchy is my hashtag,” Deanna said. “We need a woman in the White House to clean up the mess that men have made all over the planet.” She added, “I tell Trump to ‘Fuck off’ on his Twitter account and he can’t do anything to stop me.”

Deanna and Mia both remember that guys in the audience would look up at them on stage and shout, “Show us your tits.” They’d shout back, “Get up here and strip for us.”

Mia explained, “We weren’t into being offended. We didn’t want to play the victim.”

In some ways, Deanna and Mia were unlikely band mates. Deanna was born in Bakersfield and grew up in Fremont, California, where her mother raised her on country music, which she still loves. Mia grew up in New Jersey, Washington, D.C. and Palo Alto, California. Her hippie mom gave her a musical education in Joan Baez and the Beatles. At 16, Mia moved to San Francisco on her own steam. Despite the cultural differences between them, both women have a keen sense of humor. They also both like to dress up and give the audience something to look at. 37-years after they first came together they still dress up and give audiences something to look at.

On Mother’s Day, May 12, the newly recreated Frightwig performs at Oasis, the legendary gay nightclub that features cabaret and drag shows. It’s a benefit for RAICES, a Texas non-profit that helps asylum seekers. “The audience will be very appreciative and also very demanding,” Deanna said.

The venue, the cause, and the Mother’s Day occasion promises to bring out the best Frightwig has to offer.

Reporter says bullied by NBC top editor at 'behest of DNC'…

Dafna Linzer, MSNBC top editor, accused of bullying reporter ‘at the behest of the DNC’

New York magazine and HuffPost journalist Yashar Ali fired off a series of explosive tweets Friday afternoon accusing Dafna Linzer, the managing editor of politics at NBC News and MSNBC, of trying to bully him into delaying a story “at the behest of the DNC.”

“Yesterday, I received a call from @DafnaLinzer who serves as managing editor of NBC/MSNBC politics,” Mr. Ali wrote. “Dafna’s conduct during the call was highly inappropriate and unethical. So what was the purpose of her call? She called me to bully me on behalf of the DNC.”

Mr. Ali said he was preparing to publish an “innocuous scoop” from a trusted source about the dates for the Democratic National Committee’s first 2020 primary debates, when he received a “menacing” call from Ms. Linzer trying to get him to wait on the scoop until the DNC had enough time to notify the state parties first.

“She asked if I could hold the story and I said I couldn’t,” Mr. Ali wrote. “She was agitated, ‘why not?’ I said I’m not going to lose a scoop. Then she got angrier and said ‘Why not? It’s not a big deal, let them make a few phone calls.’ My jaw dropped.

“I realized that @DafnaLinzer, the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC wasn’t calling to advocate for her network, she was calling to advocate the DNC’s position. She wanted me to wait so they could call state party leaders,” he wrote. “I kept telling Dafna no, that I wasn’t waiting. And she kept getting more frustrated. She was exasperated…she didn’t understand why I couldn’t wait for the DNC to make their state notification calls.”

Mr. Ali said he eventually ended the call after Ms. Linzer demanded to speak with his editor.

“After the call with Dafna I published the stupid scoop,” he wrote. “Then I did a gut check and over the next two hours I called 10 experienced prominent reporters and told them the story. They were all stunned by what Dafna did and encouraged me to share it publicly.

“I’m not naive to the fact that this incident is going to be twisted by some with an agenda to discredit the media and say they collude with political parties,” he wrote. “But I think its more important to expose bad behavior then keep it under wraps. What Dafna did was unethical.”

Ms. Linzer, a former Washington Post reporter who has been managing editor of politics at NBC News and MSNBC since 2015, has not yet responded to Mr. Ali’s allegations.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Bernie Sanders Is the Frontrunner. Obviously.

The race for the Democratic nomination began in earnest over the past couple of weeks, or at least it feels that way. After flirting with a run for months, Beto O’Rourke finally made his move by jumping on a bunch of countertops. Pete Buttigieg became a Cinderella story, rocketing up the polls to fifth—ahead of Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker—in what David Brooks, to a chorus of groans across America, referred to as “the biggest star-is-born moment since Lady Gaga started singing ‘Shallow.’” Joe Biden, who leads in the polls despite not having declared his candidacy, was accused by two women of unwanted touching, prompting a reevaluation of his entire, handsy history with women. And now the first-quarter fundraising numbers are trickling in: $7 million for Buttigieg. $12 million for Kamala Harris. O’Rourke, rather than reveal his three-month total, announced that he raised nearly $10 million in just 18 days since announcing his candidacy.

That about sums up the Democratic field right now—or so you might think, based on the political conversation of late. But a certain someone is missing from this picture: the candidate who consistently polls first among declared candidates, and who, in the first quarter, raised $18 million from an astounding 900,000 donors. He is the frontrunner for the nomination until someone proves otherwise.

And yet, Bernie Sanders is being treated as something of an afterthought, as the national press and Beltway pundits hop from one shiny object to the next.


As MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt argued earlier this week on Twitter, “Anyone who doesn’t treat [Sanders] becoming the Democratic nominee as a realistic and even likely possibility is making a big mistake (and failed to learn from mistakes made in 2016).” She added:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The root of Sanders’s appeal, as Hunt points out, is his performance during the 2016 primary. He won 23 primaries, receiving more votes from people under the age of 30 than Clinton and Donald Trump combined. Some have argued, convincingly, that he won by losing: He not only pushed the Clinton campaign to the left; he pushed the Democratic Party to the left.

But for months, this strength—his profound influence over the party’s direction—has been treated as a weakness. In late December, The New York Times labeled Sanders a “victim of his own success,” arguing that he’d lost his edge because his positions on health care, Wall Street, and the minimum wage have become party orthodoxy. “Sanders may have been the runner-up in the last Democratic primary, but instead of expanding his nucleus of support, in the fashion of most repeat candidates, the Vermont senator is struggling to retain even what he garnered two years ago, when he was far less of a political star than he is today,” Jonathan Martin and Sydney Ember wrote.

Three months later, this take—echoed by other leading publications—seems to have gotten Sanders backwards. While other campaigns have rushed to embrace Sanders policies, such as Medicare for All, he remains the party’s policy pacesetter. Other Democrats who are parroting his positions, often in watered-down form, have yet to dent Sanders’s poll numbers, even as more candidates enter the race. This is even true of Warren, whose ambitious policy work has surpassed Sanders’s in detail and scope (if not in radicalism).

Reports of a decline in enthusiasm among Sanders’s supporters also appear to have been greatly exaggerated. His fundraising and poll numbers disprove the idea that he’s an also-ran. But there are other signs of his continued vitality. Despite his near-universal name recognition, and the media’s overwhelming attention lately to O’Rourke, Biden, and Buttigieg, Sanders has consistently been among the top three Democratic candidates in Google searches, suggesting continued interest in his campaign. Finally, he appears to be broadly liked throughout the party. A Morning Consult poll in February found that he was the second choice for voters who supported the campaigns of Biden, Warren, and O’Rourke, suggesting that support could coalesce around his candidacy as other Democrats drop out.

Sanders may be a victim of his own success in a different way than the Times hypothesized: His popularity is now taken for granted. O’Rourke and Buttigieg, two young and dynamic candidates, have received an enormous amount of coverage over the past several weeks in part because they are fresh faces on the national scene. Sanders, as both the 2016 runner-up and a 77-year-old politician who has served in Congress since the early 1990s, is old news—and so is the resurgence of socialism in American politics, for which he’s largely responsible.

The caucuses and primaries don’t begin until next February. Many candidates will drop out well before then, due to poor polling and fundraising—both of which Sanders has in spades. He almost certainly will be one of the last candidates standing. The coverage of his campaign will only grow, especially as the remaining candidates seek to distinguish themselves from the Man Who Remade the Democratic Party. (The Washington Post published two opinion pieces this week that represent the case that Sanders’s detractors will likely make against him: that he is “the Donald Trump of the left” and that he is unable to answer specific questions about his ambitious and expensive proposals.)

Anything is possible. That’s been the most common refrain in Beltway punditry ever since Trump shocked the world on November 8, 2016. It’s worth remembering that at this point in the 2016 cycle, Trump was more than two months away from even announcing his candidacy. So it’s possible that such a figure is waiting in the wings of the Democratic contest (Mike Bloomberg doesn’t count). It’s also possible that support will coalesce around a dark-horse candidate like Buttigieg. And it’s possible that Biden will finally enter the race and defy both his anemic performance in previous presidential contests and the emerging #MeToo narrative about his handsiness.

But “anything is possible” is, perhaps, the wrong lesson to take from Trump’s victory. After all, he took the lead in Republican primary polls barely a month after entering the race, in late July, and he never relinquished it. It wasn’t until Republican voters began casting ballots that it dawned on the media that Trump might actually win the nomination. All of the available evidence right now suggests that Sanders is the frontrunner. The pundits ignore this at their own peril.

Home Ethos About Contact
Terms Policy GDPR RichTVX
© Saeculum XXI U.S. Intelligence News