41 Years After Roe, Women's Rights Are Still at Risk

Jan 24, 2014Andrea Flynn

As we mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should acknowledge the right's battle to eliminate a woman's right to choose as well as the proactive measures coming from the pro-choice movement.

As we mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should acknowledge the right's battle to eliminate a woman's right to choose as well as the proactive measures coming from the pro-choice movement.

This week marks the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established women have a constitutional right to an abortion. While the status of American women has, by many counts, improved greatly in the years since, our ability to make choices about our bodies – a fundamental condition of our overall physical, social, and economic well-being – has recently eroded. For many women in the United States today, access to a safe and legal abortion is as far out of reach as it was 41 years ago.

During the past three years, conservative lawmakers in many states have imposed transformative restrictions on access to reproductive health care generally, and on abortion specifically. As the Guttmacher Institute recently reported, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted in the past three years, while 189 were passed during the entire previous decade (2001–2010). In 2013 alone, 70 anti-choice measures took effect in 22 states.

North Dakota and Texas banned abortions after 20 weeks. South Dakota passed a law that mandates a 72-hour waiting period, exempting holidays and weekends, forcing some women to wait up to six days before receiving the procedure (the 72 hours, plus a three-day holiday weekend). Iowa now requires the governor to personally approve each payment to a hospital or clinic that provides an abortion to a Medicaid patient. Arizona passed a ban on abortions after 12 weeks (which was recently overturned by the Supreme Court). In a case currently being considered by the Supreme Court, clinics in Massachusetts risk losing their ability to institute buffer zones necessary to protect the safety of their patients.

As NARAL Pro-Choice America recently detailed, laws in other states have restricted funding for Planned Parenthood, prohibited abortion coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges, imposed mandatory and medically unnecessary ultrasounds, and required physicians to jump through countless – and often impossible – hoops in order to perform the procedure. Some of these laws have been overturned, but many remain in place and effectively prevent women, particularly poor women, from accessing care.

Republicans lost the votes of single women by a decisive 36 points – and women overall by 12 points – in the last presidential election. Losing a key voting block by such a wide margin would be reason for some politicians to consider changing course. Not the GOP. In their post-election autopsy, Republican strategists themselves sounded an alarm and advised their ranks to change course – to lighten up on matters of choice and instead remind voters of the “Republican Party’s historical role in advancing the women’s rights movement.” Instead of listening to women, Republican lawmakers remain intent on punishing them.

As my colleague Tara Culp-Ressler of Think Progress wrote, Republicans have seized on abortion with a renewed zeal and will continue to advance their anti-choice platform in the months and years to come. At the RNC annual meeting this week – which conveniently overlapped with the annual anti-abortion March for Life – party leaders introduced a resolution encouraging lawmakers to push for a host of additional abortion restrictions, including parental notification laws, late-term abortion bans, and mandatory waiting periods. As Zoe Carpenter of The Nation pointed out, Republicans will use re-invigorated anti-choice messaging – delivered by female candidates – to excite their conservative base in the mid-term elections. They remain confident that further restrictions are palatable to voters and will use them, in addition to stale (and weak) arguments about taxpayer funding for abortion, to attempt to sway undecided voters.

State legislatures and local governments are thus seen as fertile ground for waging assaults on women’s health. But contrary to Republican expectations, this year those same sites could be promising frontiers for advancing policies that protect and advance women’s health and rights instead of restricting them.

Even as heartland states delivered setbacks for women in 2013, important victories emerged out of progressive states. California enacted a law, for example, that allows nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to provide early abortion services. Lawmakers in San Francisco, Austin, and Baltimore passed laws that hold Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) accountable for false and misleading practices and require them to clearly indicate the limited nature of their services. Portland, ME instituted a buffer zone policy around abortion providers, and Dane County, WI now requires all county contractors to provide comprehensive health care information, preventing CPCs from receiving funding if they mislead their patients. We must dedicate our energy and efforts to replicating these successes across the country.

Even as we celebrate gains in progressive states, we must continue to make our voices heard nationally. In November, a group of Democratic members of Congress introduced the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would, if passed, keep states from further restricting access to abortion and preventing physicians from acting in the best interests of their patients. While the bill has little chance of being passed in a Republican-controlled House, it provides an important model for national legislation that could protect a woman’s right to choose if partisan alignments shift.

On this anniversary of Roe v. Wade, most especially, let’s remember the heavy toll women pay when abortion is unsafe and illegal. Let’s remember that many women will lose that right all together unless we step forward and take action. We must strengthen alliances of pro-choice lawmakers across the nation, provide them with case studies of what has worked in other cities and states, and muster up more financial resources and political will to proactively protect women’s right to choose. 

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. She researches and writes about access to reproductive health care in the United States. You can follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Photo via ThinkStock.

Share This

The Right Takes Aim at Public Sector Unions in a New Supreme Court Case

Jan 23, 2014Richard Kirsch

A dispute over whether home care workers in Illinois can be required to pay union dues is part of a much larger strategy to undermine the progressive power base.

A dispute over whether home care workers in Illinois can be required to pay union dues is part of a much larger strategy to undermine the progressive power base.

You have to hand it to the right wing: it understands the importance of institutional power more than much of the liberal establishment. It took down ACORN, the organization that registered the most low-income voters of color in the nation, and Democrats in Congress and many big liberal foundations went along with it. Its relentless, decades-long campaign against the labor law that protects private sector organizing has slashed the share of unionized private sector workers to less than 7 percent, while a succession of Democrats in the White House and Congress have stood by.

Since 2010, the right has been focusing its attacks on public sector workers, one-fourth of whom are represented by unions with collective-bargaining rights. It has aimed to weaken bargaining rights in Midwestern states with long histories of union representation and has had (too) much success. This week, it brought that fight to the Supreme Court, in a case that could destroy the financial base of the biggest remaining source of support for government and vital domestic services.

The case is Harris v. Quinn, in which a group of home care workers in Illinois is challenging the state's requirement that the workers pay union dues. The workers are employed by individual patients but are funded by Medicaid. Having unions, in this case SEIU, represent home care workers is part of an admirable strategy of extending collective bargaining to workers who are publicly funded even if they do not work directly for the government. Since federal law does not provide collective bargaining rights to either public employees or domestic home care workers, using state law to organize these workers, who typically get low pay with no benefits, is vitally important to their own well-being and to building a middle-class driven economy.

However, the debate among the Supreme Court justices yesterday did not focus on the narrow question of whether Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich had the power to categorize the home care workers as public employees. Instead, the justices debated whether, because issues of wages and benefits for public employees are inevitably and intrinsically matters of public policy, compelling workers to pay union dues would be an infringement on free speech and association.

The Illinois workers are represented by the National Right to Work Foundation, whose attorney, William Messenger, was eager to expand the case, which suggests it was developed as a political weapon, not a true complaint by a handful of workers about paying dues. Messenger argued, as Lyle Denniston explains at SCOTUSblog, that “anything a public employee union does is an attempt to shape matters of ‘public concern,’ and it should not be able to compel support — even for part of the monthly dues — from workers who oppose the union’s public policy ambitions.”

Just so nobody missed the ideological stakes at the heart of this legal argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that workers who favor shrinking the size of government would have their First Amendment rights trampled if the union argued to expand the workforce. The same logic would apply to the union defending the current size of the workforce or how much workers get paid.

Logically, it is impossible for a public sector union to represent its members’ interest in keeping their jobs or in how much they get paid without affecting public policy. This point was made by SEIU’s attorney Paul Smith, who said, “Any outcome of a negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement involving public employees will involve the expenditure of public money in a variety of ways.”

Of course, public employee unions' interest in defending their members is why those unions support increased taxes and funding of government programs. The union positions are not always progressive. Unions sometimes support regressive tax increases. Sometimes AFSCME, which represents corrections officers, lobbies for stricter sentencing or against closing of prisons. But on the whole, in advocating for their members, public employee unions support maintaining and expanding public services, oppose privatization, and are a major source of organizing, funding, and lobbying for those policies and an absolutely vital part of the progressive infrastructure. Hence they are a big target for the right.

When these issues have been debated in the past, the Supreme Court has recognized the legitimacy of required union dues for public employees while insisting that political contributions be voluntary. As Adam Liptak explains in the New York Times, “In 1977, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court said that teachers who declined to join a union could nevertheless be required to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure ‘labor peace.’ But workers may not be forced to help pay for a union’s purely political activities, the court said.”

That argument may explain why Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. agreed that advocating for increased Medicaid reimbursement would not be by itself a permissible union activity, but argued that the state’s interest in designating a union to maintain labor peace was the determining factor in supporting the mandatory dues. Verilli’s argument may be a good one before this Court, but it defies logic and avoids the real issue of the interwoven nature of public policy and public worker bargaining. The Court should recognize that the effective right of association in public employee unions depends on the unions engaging in public policy to improve their members’ working conditions.

The Supreme Court reporters whom I read all agreed that the Court is unlikely to overturn Abood and outlaw mandatory dues by public employees, with one pointing out that the Court affirmed that position in 2007 in an opinion written by Justice Scalia. There is some reason to think that Chief Justice Roberts could avoid the issue by narrowing the ruling to the question of whether Illinois can designate the home care workers as public employees.

However, a decision to overturn mandatory dues collection by public employees would be a body blow to Americans who believe in establishing collective responsibility for common goods by raising taxes and spending public dollars on government. 

Public employee unions, and unions that are working to develop new ways to represent workers in the private sector who are paid with public dollars, are a leading force for creating opportunity and security in an America that works for all of us. They will continue to be a target of the right. Progressives at every level must support them and work to expand, not restrict, their reach.

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

 

Image via Thinkstock

Share This

Daily Digest - January 3: Progressives Have a Lot to Celebrate – and Fight For

Jan 3, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The 25 Best Progressive Victories of 2013 (HuffPo)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The 25 Best Progressive Victories of 2013 (HuffPo)

Peter Dreier highlights real accomplishments from the progressive movement last year, ranging from momentum on the minimum wage to continued pressures on Wall Street. He plugs the Roosevelt Institute for its involvement in the fight to reduce student debt.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Field Strategist Joelle Gamble writes about student-led proposals for addressing the student loan crisis.

The great story (CJR)

Dean Starkman argues that a shift in journalism practices from investigative reporting to access reporting, which involves obtaining inside information from powerful people, caused mainstream financial journalism to miss the signs of the financial crisis in 2008.

Finally, Some Conservative Ideas to Solve the Jobs Crisis (The Daily Beast)

Jamelle Bouie praises Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute for putting forward a real plan for ending mass unemployment from a conservative perspective. Unfortunately, the GOP's brand of conservatism doesn't include these kinds of proposals.

The Strange Case of American Inequality (Project Syndicate)

J. Bradford DeLong argues that this economic crisis and its impact on America's productive capabilities is actually worse than the Great Depression. The lack of political reaction leads him to suggest that American democracy could be as damaged as the economy.

Low-wage workers’ movement looks to build on banner year (MSNBC)

Ned Resnikoff sees the new labor tactics of 2013 as a possible source of revival for unions. The question is whether alternative labor groups organizing one-day strikes at fast food restaurants and at Wal-Mart can maintain momentum.

Meet the Americans Who've Lost Their Unemployment Benefits: "I'm Thoroughly Petrified" (MoJo)

Dana Liebelson collects stories from people who have been out of work for more than six months, and therefore lost their unemployment benefits when Congress failed to extended emergency benefits. All of these workers have been job hunting; it just hasn't worked out yet.

Senate Democrats Plan Fast-Track Fix to Reinstate Lost Unemployment Benefits (The Guardian)

Paul Lewis and Dominic Rushe explain the bill that the Senate hopes to vote on early next week, which would extend benefits through March. There's little question the bill will pass the Senate, but no one knows what will happen in the House.

New on Next New Deal

Looking to 2014: The Emerging Movement for the Next New Deal

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch is optimistic about what the progressive movement can accomplish this year. He sees growing support for the fight against economic inequality and smart strategies developing at the grassroots level.

Share This

Looking to 2014: The Emerging Movement for the Next New Deal

Jan 2, 2014Richard Kirsch

The rise of a new progressive organizing is cause to believe that economic reform and a shift toward broadly shared prosperity are within reach.

The rise of a new progressive organizing is cause to believe that economic reform and a shift toward broadly shared prosperity are within reach.

Thomas Edsall, who now is capping off his long career writing insightfully about the relationship between economics and public opinion as a blogger for The New York Times, concluded a piece in late December by saying, “Progressives are now dependent on the fragile possibility that inequality and socioeconomic immobility will push the social order to the breaking point and force the political system to respond.”

Edsall’s bleak prognosis raises the biggest question facing not only progressives, but the future of our democracy: is the political system in the United States capable of responding to the escalating crisis of stagnant wages, shrinking benefits, dissolving economic opportunity, and disappearing hopes of living anything that resembles the American Dream?

It is a question I ask myself every day. But I reach a different conclusion than Edsall, because for all his powers of observation, he misses the role that people play in changing history. I see a growing movement of Americans organized by progressives who are not waiting for the social order to break, but are instead forcing the political system to respond.

Edsall reaches his conclusion by way of two commentators, my colleague Mike Konczal at the Roosevelt Institute and Harvard economist Ben Friedman. Konczal’s analysis of the quandary is cogent, as he provided “a two part description of the liberal state” in a 2011 post:

#1 you would have the government maintaining full employment, empowering workers and giving them more bargaining power, and #2 you would have a safety net for those who fell through the cracks… I think it is safe to say that liberals have abandoned #1 and doubled-down on #2… Without a strong middle and working class you don’t have natural constituencies ready to fight and defend the implementation and maintenance of a safety net and public goods. The welfare state is one part, complementing full employment, of empowering people and balancing power in a financial capitalist society.

Friedman’s contribution is to point out, as Edsall summarizes, that “during hard times people become less altruistic and more inclined to see the poor as undeserving.” Friedman says that when people are squeezed economically, rather than identifying with those still worse off, they “enter a period of retreat and retrenchment.” That is certainly what we are seeing now, with the government cutting unemployment benefits, food stamps, and a much larger swath of the safety net in a shrinking budget.

On the other hand, Friedman says times of broadly-shared prosperity encourage “greater generosity toward those who, through some combination of natural circumstance, market forces and sheer luck, have been left behind.”

When we look at the big periods of progressive change in the 20th century through this lens, we can ask, are we more similar to the soaring post-World War II middle class that led to the Great Society, or to the wrecked economy that led to the New Deal? After the Great Recession, that’s a no-brainer.

So is Edsall then correct in concluding that the only way to get to the next New Deal is waiting for another disintegration of the economy like we saw after the Great Depression? Or is even that a misreading of New Deal history, in which decades of building a movement of working people laid the groundwork for the New Deal laws that established the right to organize unions, fair labor standards like a minimum wage, and social insurance programs like Social Security and unemployment compensation?

If we have to wait, we’re in big trouble, because as we saw in 2008, we are much less likely to see another collapse like the Great Depression thanks to the progressive accomplishments of the 20th century. The aggressive use of the Federal Reserve and banking regulations prevented a total collapse of the financial system. The safety net – food stamps, Medicaid, etc. – and the social insurance programs of unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare prevented widespread destitution. These measures allowed us to have a Great Recession rather than a second Great Depression.  

But the Great Recession also deepened the three-decade-long trend of families seeing their incomes and lifestyles squeezed by stagnant wages, eroding benefits, and the rising costs of gateways to opportunity. As a result, we are seeing an escalation of the path to the next New Deal: organizing people to demand that we create a 21st century economy of broadly-shared opportunity and prosperity.

The past year saw the explosion of organized fast food workers, from a handful of community-supported walk-outs demanding higher wages a year ago to actions involving thousands of workers and supporters in some 130 cities in December. The growing movement earned national as well as local news coverage.

Less visible, but deeper, is the emergence of new forms of worker organizing, taking place largely outside of traditional unions and the national labor law, known generally as the workers’ center movement. Domestic workers, through the National Domestic Workers Union, have won passage of laws giving them new labor protections in California and New York. Tomato pickers in Florida, under the banner of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, have won higher wages by building consumer pressure against the supermarkets and restaurant chains that buy the crops they pick. Immigrant and low-wage workers around the country, at workers’ centers that are part of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, have resisted wage theft and won basic protections in day labor and construction. The examples go on and are analogous to the emergence of the labor movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The long-simmering pressure for raising the minimum wage is now becoming a national political force, with Democrats embracing the issue. The passage of a $15 minimum wage in Sea-Tac, outside of Seattle, will be a harbinger of more local actions to define a minimum wage in ways that make sense for people’s lives, not some political calculation about what’s possible.

In New York City, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s reluctance to support paid sick days, siding with the business community, destroyed her support among the progressive base, paving the way for the election of Bill de Blasio, who rose both on his progressive platform and as the result of a decades-long base-building project in the city. These contests will continue to escalate, as we’ve seen in Philadelphia, where a Democratic mayor has twice vetoed a paid sick day ordinance approved by the City Council. As they do, Democrats who take the Quinn route will find themselves on the sidelines with her.

Cultural and demographic trends are encouraging, too. While the progressive politics of the growing numbers of the young, single women, and Latinos have garnered notice, another hopeful trend is that among non-college-educated whites, one of the most conservative groups in the country, the young are much more progressive than their older counterparts. Pope Francis has become an instant hero not just by easing back on his church’s focus on sex, but by directly challenging trickle-down economics.

In all this, history will look at President Obama as a transitional figure. He has pledged to make income inequality the defining issue of the day, but he still chooses a low-wage Amazon warehouse as a venue to address the issue. He still seeks to reconcile the destruction of the middle class with the rise of Wall Street.

Wall Street and K Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all greasing the system while stoking resentment of “the takers” and people of color, in a nation with a deep “it’s up to me and my family alone” streak, remain huge obstacles to building an America that works for all. The change we are making will take time.

What gives me hope is that, for all its flaws, we still live in a nation where popular will can make change. And we have a history of creating change from below and then electing leaders who, like FDR, drilled into the deep well of hope that has given life to the best of America, from the Revolution, through the Civil War, the Progressive era, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Great Society.

Earlier this week, on the last day of 2013, I called up Mike Konczal and asked him to reflect on Edsall’s dark conclusion. Here’s what he told me: “I’m more optimistic than I was when I wrote that piece two years ago. People are agitating, building new infrastructure. Issues like the minimum wage are gaining prominence. We’re seeing mobilizing among non-traditional workers like day-care workers.”

It is up to us to make history. Let’s get to work in 2014. 

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

 

2014 banner image via Shutterstock.com

Share This

Rortybomb's Best of 2013

Dec 31, 2013Mike Konczal

2013. The year we won the argument but lost the war. It’s better than losing both the arguments and the war, I suppose.

2013 brought us a fiscal deficit that closed far too fast, NGDP growth and inflation falling compared to previous years, and unemployment completely falling off the political radar at the same moment the argument that the deficit was a worry collapsed. Before there were elaborate arguments about how the unemployed were this or that, or uncertainty was causing the one thing and the other. Now it's just quiet out there, yet the economy remains below potential. The collapse of the counter-Keynesian position didn't revitalize a position of aggressive action; it just left a void.

But rortybomb enterprises still marches forward. Here are the top posts from this blog for 2013:

1-2) My initial writeup of the work of Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin's critical dismantling of the Reinhart and Rogoff argument for austerity crashed this website shortly after it went up. That, and the follow-up from Arin Dube arguing that the causation was certainly backwards, are two of the most read things I’ve been involved with, and I’m honored to have played a role in dismantling this argument. A nice reminder that these things matter and blogs matter too; perhaps some people in Europe aren't being pummeled into dust as a result of this place.

3) I wrote a piece taking apart what kind of problem the ACA botched roll-out is for (neo)liberalism, that got people aruging about what kinds of social insurance we want out there.

4) I discussed the minimum wage, which I'll be doing much more of in 2014, throwing down the argument that it forms an important complement to various tax-based income support measures like the EITC.

5) I also wrote about Samuel Freeman’s argument that We Already Tried Libertarianism - It Was Called Feudalism. The term feudalism was chosen to be provocative, but the real concept is that it is anti-liberal in the traditional sense, and feeds on something darker, more pre-modern, than most people give it credit for.

Wonkblog: This year I wanted to write more regular columns at other venues, and was pretty successful at that goal. I contributed a weekly column to the Washington Post's Wonkblog. My favorites, in case you missed them the first time around:

The arguments surrounding the Universal Basic Income. (I received several notes from people happy to see Gøsta Esping-Andersen name-dropped in the Washington Post.) Creating a theory of the state that went into the shutdown. What we get wrong when we describe the financial crisis. Bernanke versus austerity. The idea of public problems. Is a democratic surveillance state possible? Defending the 30 year mortgage and the Volcker Rule. We are teaching economics backwards. And an interview with Shelia Bair that was mentioned in the House by people trying, successfully, to rally House Democrats against dismantling Section 716 of Dodd-Frank.

In Other News: I also started writing some columns for The New Republic and Al-Jazeera America at the end of the year, which I'll continue into 2014. I also wrote a review of Phillip Mirowski's latest book for the New Inquiry, meaning I've completed the hat-trick of writing for TNI, Jacobin and Dissent in the past year and a half. I also co-edited a big report on the future of financial reform which I’m very proud of, and will continue to build out next year. And Thomas Edsall wrote an excellent overview of the arguments we've built here at rortybomb for the New York Times.

Here’s to a good 2014. There's some exciting stuff already in the works.

Previous editions: 2012, 2011

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

2013. The year we won the argument but lost the war. It’s better than losing both the arguments and the war, I suppose.

2013 brought us a fiscal deficit that closed far too fast, NGDP growth and inflation falling compared to previous years, and unemployment completely falling off the political radar at the same moment the argument that the deficit was a worry collapsed. Before there were elaborate arguments about how the unemployed were this or that, or uncertainty was causing the one thing and the other. Now it's just quiet out there, yet the economy remains below potential. The collapse of the counter-Keynesian position didn't revitalize a position of aggressive action; it just left a void.

But rortybomb enterprises still marches forward. Here are the top posts from this blog for 2013:

1-2) My initial writeup of the work of Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin's critical dismantling of the Reinhart and Rogoff argument for austerity crashed this website shortly after it went up. That, and the follow-up from Arin Dube arguing that the causation was certainly backwards, are two of the most read things I’ve been involved with, and I’m honored to have played a role in dismantling this argument. A nice reminder that these things matter and blogs matter too; perhaps some people in Europe aren't being pummeled into dust as a result of this place.

3) I wrote a piece taking apart what kind of problem the ACA botched roll-out is for (neo)liberalism, that got people aruging about what kinds of social insurance we want out there.

4) I discussed the minimum wage, which I'll be doing much more of in 2014, throwing down the argument that it forms an important complement to various tax-based income support measures like the EITC.

5) I also wrote about Samuel Freeman’s argument that We Already Tried Libertarianism - It Was Called Feudalism. The term feudalism was chosen to be provocative, but the real concept is that it is anti-liberal in the traditional sense, and feeds on something darker, more pre-modern, than most people give it credit for.

Wonkblog: This year I wanted to write more regular columns at other venues, and was pretty successful at that goal. I contributed a weekly column to the Washington Post's Wonkblog. My favorites, in case you missed them the first time around:

The arguments surrounding the Universal Basic Income. (I received several notes from people happy to see Gøsta Esping-Andersen name-dropped in the Washington Post.) Creating a theory of the state that went into the shutdown. What we get wrong when we describe the financial crisis. Bernanke versus austerity. The idea of public problems. Is a democratic surveillance state possible? Defending the 30 year mortgage and the Volcker Rule. We are teaching economics backwards. And an interview with Shelia Bair that was mentioned in the House by people trying, successfully, to rally House Democrats against dismantling Section 716 of Dodd-Frank.

In Other News: I also started writing some columns for The New Republic and Al-Jazeera America at the end of the year, which I'll continue into 2014. I also wrote a review of Phillip Mirowski's latest book for the New Inquiry, meaning I've completed the hat-trick of writing for TNI, Jacobin and Dissent in the past year and a half. I also co-edited a big report on the future of financial reform which I’m very proud of, and will continue to build out next year. And Thomas Edsall wrote an excellent overview of the arguments we've built here at rortybomb for the New York Times.

Here’s to a good 2014. There's some exciting stuff already in the works.

Previous editions: 2012, 2011

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

The Best from the Roosevelt Institute's Millennial Networks in 2013

Dec 27, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

The Roosevelt Institute's Daily Digest is taking a break for the holidays. We'll be back on January 2, but in the meantime, we're rounding up highlights from our blog in 2013. Today, we have some recommended reading from our Millennial networks. On Monday, December 30, we'll have highlights from the Fellows in the Four Freedoms Center.

The Roosevelt Institute's Daily Digest is taking a break for the holidays. We'll be back on January 2, but in the meantime, we're rounding up highlights from our blog in 2013. Today, we have some recommended reading from our Millennial networks. On Monday, December 30, we'll have highlights from the Fellows in the Four Freedoms Center.

Think Global, Act Hyper-Local: Campus Network Rates Colleges on Economic and Social Impact in Their Communities

Alan Smith, Associate Director of Network Initiatives at the Roosevelt Institute, introduces the Rethinking Communities project, an initiative examining how anchor institutions – like the colleges and universities attended by Campus Network students – affect their local economies. This project kicks off in 2014!

What is the Crash Generation?

Former Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow Nona Willis Aronowitz says that the Millennials who came of age during the Great Recession have the will and the desire to reshape the American economy into something that will provide better opportunity for all.

President Obama: Give Millennials a Seat at the Table on Climate Change

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment Melia Ungson argues that because Millennials have the largest stake in the long-term future of the planet, the White House should bring more young people into the policy-making process on this issue.

Corporate Education Reform Won’t Solve the Problems Caused by Poverty

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Education Raul Gardea points out that testing and test prep can’t solve the non-school factors that limit some students’ achievement, and if policymakers don’t acknowledge that fact, they won’t solve education inequality. 

Local Government is the Secret Weapon in the Fight Against Economic Inequality

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Field Strategist Joelle Gamble argues that new weapons are needed to push back against economic inequality. Cities and towns should provide innovative incentives to businesses that encourage the right kind of economic growth.

Sister Simone Campbell Shows Us Freedom of Worship is a Bipartisan Value

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Defense and Diplomacy Jacqueline Van de Velde looks at the work of Sister Simone Campbell, who was awarded the Freedom of Worship Medal at the 2013 Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Awards, and considers the bipartisan nature of religious freedom.

McCutcheon v. FEC Could Give Rich Donors Even Greater Power Over Our Elections

Jeff Raines, Chair of the Student Board of Advisors for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, explains why this Supreme Court case isn’t about freedom of speech, but instead is about how much influence individuals should have over elections in the United States. The decision on this case is still pending.

Why Trayvon Is Inspiring America to Put Stand Your Ground Laws on Trial

Naomi Ahsan, Director of Programming for the DC network of Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline, sees the Zimmerman verdict as a potential catalyst for organizing against self-defense laws that enforce racism.

Share This

Farewell to Health Care for America Now

Dec 19, 2013Richard Kirsch

The campaign that won passage of health care reform is closing up shop, but its grassroots organizing efforts will stand as a model of success for progressives.

The campaign that won passage of health care reform is closing up shop, but its grassroots organizing efforts will stand as a model of success for progressives.

Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the grassroots campaign that powered passage of the Affordable Care Act, is about to close its doors, as planned when the campaign started. But the images it generated of Americans passionately fighting to make health care a right will remain with us for years to come. The new movie Inequality For All includes dramatic footage of an HCAN supporter standing up to a Tea Partier. Another documentary released last year, Escape Fire, has stirring footage of an HCAN rally. Pictures of people holding up HCAN signs or wearing HCAN buttons still appear regularly in news magazines. 

Richard Kirsch at health care reform rallyIt makes great sense that HCAN’s actions have become iconic symbols of the fight for health justice in the United States. From its beginning, the heart of the HCAN campaign was outside the Beltway, its strategy grounded in the firm conviction that we could only win the fight for comprehensive reform if we based our campaign on grassroots organizing outside of Washington. We knew that inside the Beltway, the best we could do is provide a credible voice countering the army of thousands of lobbyists for the health care industry. But outside the Beltway, by organizing ordinary Americans, we could win.

Creating a powerful grassroots force is not easy. It took building a campaign that pushed against the culture of D.C., with the support of a funder that was committed to building progressive capacity, not just winning on an issue. Most national issue campaigns are D.C.-centric, run by campaign operatives, constrained by a narrow band of legislative concerns, with an idea of field work that is narrowly focused on generating earned media and e-mails and phone calls to members of Congress. After a lot of debate, the union and community organizing leaders who built HCAN agreed to spend almost all of its non-paid media resources on field contracts with state-based community organizations and community labor coalitions. These local organizations partnered with the local chapters of national labor unions and netroots groups.

The national strategy and tactics were relentlessly focused on empowering people at the local level to bring their personal passion, and often their personal stories, to their communities and members of Congress. Their work did generate lots of local media and calls to Congress, but it went much deeper than that, building the kind of relationships that are transformational. The campaign’s major funder, the Atlantic Philanthropies, was fully committed to the strategy, believing that even if the legislative effort fell short, their funds would leave in place a more sophisticated and robust capacity for progressive change at the local level. But because Atlantic had faith in the grassroots strategy, both of the foundation’s objectives – passing historic legislation and building capacity – were realized.

While HCAN was always envisioned as a campaign that would end with the passage of legislation, HCAN’s leadership decided to launch HCAN 2.0 to defend the new law after its passage. With many fewer resources, HCAN continued the fight, working on consumer regulations to control insurance premiums, taking part in the public battle around the Supreme Court’s hearing on the ACA’s constitutionality, defending Medicare from privatization, pushing for Medicaid expansion, and always reminding us that the opponents of the ACA are eager to return Americans to the day when insurance companies were fully able to deny them care and jack up their premiums because, indeed, we do get sick.

HCAN is now closing up shop. It may seem a funny time, with the current fracas over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but that is the point. The organization’s campaign mission was to win passage of a law, a mission extended to include “win and secure” the ACA. The debate over the shape of the ACA will continue for years to come – a struggle over how to fix, expand, roll back, or build upon the law. But as each of the millions of Americans who will enroll over the next few months sign up, another nail is hammered in the repeal coffin. Retiring HCAN, its mission accomplished, is another sign that the campaign is keeping its eyes on the prize.

HCAN affirmed my belief that people organizing together can shape history. Paul Starr, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of health policy, told me that none of the failed attempts to pass comprehensive health reform had a major, grassroots field component. Earlier this year another noted historian of health reform, Theda Skocpol, published an analysis in which she credited the success of health care reform versus the failure of climate change legislation to HCAN’s deep grassroots strategy, compared with an elite, inside strategy of environmentalists.

It is good to see those lessons being fully embraced by new leadership in the climate change movement, as seen most sharply in the Keystone pipeline fight. The campaign for immigration reform too is powered by a national, grassroots movement led by local leaders who are putting their lives on the line for change. The most energetic new labor organizing is built on helping low-wage workers take local actions, supported by their communities, as part of a growing national effort.

Still, too many issue campaigns and too many funders fail to fully grasp the respectful partnerships and movement-building essential to defeat corporate power and right-wing politics. If we are to make the kind of transformational changes America and the world need, the politics HCAN pioneered, a sharply strategic national campaign built on empowering people through organizations around the country, points the way. 

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

 

Photo: Fighting for Our Health

Share This

Daily Digest - December 18: Economic Liberalism is Not Just a Charity Project

Dec 18, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Is the Safety Net Just Masking Tape? (NYT)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Is the Safety Net Just Masking Tape? (NYT)

Thomas Edsall uses Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's blog post on "pity-charity liberal capitalism" to discuss the loss of economic liberalism in policy. They agree that without structural economic reform, the safety net is merely holding things together, not progressing the liberal project.

North Carolina Shows How to Crush the Unemployed (Bloomberg)

Evan Soltas suggests North Carolina's policies demonstrate what could happen across the U.S when the federal extension of unemployment insurance expires on January 1. The results aren't pretty; the state's labor force has shrunk, and food pantries are struggling to meet increasing needs.

Unemployment Benefits Are Ending for 1.3 Million Americans. What's That All About? (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger explains why federal emergency unemployment benefits are being cut off and what's likely to happen to the people who have been relying on those funds. In 2012, unemployment insurance kept 1.7 million people out of poverty. It's not difficult to imagine what 2014 could look like.

Washington, DC city council raises minimum wage to $11.50/hr in 2016 (Reuters)

Ian Simpson reports on the unanimous city council vote, which makes the mayor's opposition irrelevant. The city council coordinated with two neighboring counties in Maryland, and the combined region of 2.5 million residents will have a higher minimum wage than any state.

Supersize My Wage (NYT)

Annie Lowrey looks at a study on the effects of New Jersey's 1992 minimum wage increase on fast food restaurants on the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border. It showed no increase in unemployment, and advocates continue to use it to combat scaremongering about the federal minimum wage.

The Human Price of Innovation at Amazon (Policyshop)

David Callahan argues that since the most innovative big companies are often totally miserable to work for, free enterprise can't be the source of human happiness. Amazon and Wal-Mart have pioneered major changes in their industries, but they are also innovators in terrible labor practices.

New on Next New Deal

A Silicon Valley CEO's Words Can't Hurt the Poor, But Government Can Help Them

Nell Abernathy, Program Manager for the Roosevelt Institute's Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative, takes Greg Gopman's tirade about the homeless in San Francisco as a starting point to argue for the importance of government in fighting for social welfare.

Guest Post: Max Sawicky on the Liberal Case Against a Universal Basic Income

Max Sawicky argues that a Universal Base Income is actually about the dream of wiping the slate clean of our past anti-poverty programs. Instead of attempting something so fantastical, he says we need to spend more time considering the programs that are actually possible.

Share This

Daily Digest - December 12: Too Cooperative for a Tea Party

Dec 12, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

A Tea Party For Liberals (Majority Report)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

A Tea Party For Liberals (Majority Report)

Sam Seder and Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal discuss what has prevented the rise of a liberal equivalent of the Tea Party. Liberal groups would need a lot more funding before they could break the historic partnerships with moderates that have helped them beat Republicans.

US Budget Deal: What Does It Add Up To? (FT)

James Politi gives a full breakdown of the budget deal, complete with numbers. There are no tax cuts, because that's too much compromise for the GOP, so all the increases in revenue come from higher fees. (This article is behind a paywall.)

Federal Budget Deal Hits Worker Pensions (MSNBC)

Ned Resnikoff focuses on how the budget deal will affect federal workers. Even though there are no real concerns about the long-term sustainability of the federal retirement system, the deal increases employee contributions to create savings in the budget.

Don’t Deck the Halls for This One (Other Words)

Mattea Kramer compares the Murray-Ryan budget deal to polling data on what Americans want from the budget, and finds the deal lacking. When 80 percent of Americans want higher taxes on corporations, for example, why is there no new tax revenue?

Tax Dollars for Law Breakers? (Policyshop)

Amy Traub presents what may be the least-controversial policy idea ever: the government shouldn't do business with law-breakers. A new study shows that we've failed to meet even that basic standard, with many federal contractors paying large fines for labor law violations.

ALEC Has Tremendous Influence in State Legislatures. Here’s Why. (WaPo)

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network alum Alexander Hertel-Fernandez ties ALEC's success to the resources available to legislators. Lawmakers with smaller budgets and shorter legislative sessions are more likely to introduce pre-fab bills from ALEC.

New on Next New Deal

Corporate Education Reform Won’t Solve the Problems Caused by Poverty

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Education Raul Gardea criticizes the profit motive in education reform. Inequality causes many of the problems facing education, and those problems won't be solved by getting the market involved in our schools.

Share This

Think Global, Act Hyper-Local: Campus Network Rates Colleges on Economic and Social Impact in Their Communities

Dec 9, 2013Alan Smith

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network is launching a new project next month to analyze how anchor institutions such as colleges and universities affect their local economies, and help those institutions make changes for the better.

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network is launching a new project next month to analyze how anchor institutions such as colleges and universities affect their local economies, and help those institutions make changes for the better.

With the social contract failing many Americans, the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network has undertaken a new project to explore ways to reverse it. The things we, as Millennials, have long been told are core parts of the American bargain – public education, safe working environments, affordable healthcare, the basic ability to provide for one’s family – are becoming harder to achieve in the 21st century.

To address this daunting trend, students in our campus chapters are undertaking an experiment, which we call “Rethinking Communities.” It is based on the assumption that localities – cities, towns, and even neighborhoods – will drive the economies and politics of the future. This approach reflects the innovative thinking that has been a hallmark of the Campus Network for the past decade. The Campus Network has long looked to local action in many places as a means of influencing the direction of the nation. We see an intentional community-building endeavor as a start to counter issues raised by globalization, increased inequality, outsourcing of jobs, and changes in technological capabilities.

We reject a binary vision of the government and economy that holds that either government exists solely to support markets, or that government responds to societal challenges through regulation and policy change. The Millennial generation has had ample evidence that this dichotomy misses something: the Great Recession undercut the idea that markets are reliable adjudicators of the public good, and the recent government shutdown made amply evident that Washington cannot respond effectively to many of the immediate problems we face.

This is why the Campus Network will look to bring a different social pressure to bear: that of community governance, which draws on the strengths of local structures to fill the gaps left by the market and the federal systems. While the concept of trusting local groups to rule on local issues is not a new one, the possibilities of a truly networked system of community governance opens up huge new potential. Just as the Internet has driven down costs and other factors in manufacturing and production, we aim to explore possibilities for a new labor movement, new locally supported economies, and new ways of patching together shared identity and support from many small collaborating groups instead of a single top-down organizing force.

Our objective at the Campus Network is to take advantage of our physical presence in communities nationwide, and find optimal ways to rethink local economies. With the goal of reforming anchor institutions that are the backbone of these communities (anchor institutions are places like hospitals or colleges and universities), here’s what we’ll be doing in the coming year with chapters throughout our 115-chapter network:

Using the set of metrics developed by the Democracy Collaborative, an organization based at the University of Maryland that advocates for economic justice and increased access to democracy, that were expanded and refined by Campus Network’s membership, students at multiple chapters, including University of Tennessee, Goucher College, and the University of Michigan, will assess their own college or university. These metrics, which are akin to a report card (think LEEDS standards), have been built to define how well an institution facilitates local economic development, community building and education, health, safety and environment. By using the same set of metrics across the board, we will both grow our understanding of a how a specific institution can improve in its role as a local anchor, and contribute to a larger understanding of how anchor institutions compare to each other.

Based on these metrics, groups will write proposals that improve a specific weakness. Redirecting a portion of a University’s purchasing to focus on locally owned businesses, facilitating the creation of financially secure households, or working to improve the health of community residents are all projects that play to the social role of colleges and universities. While we work to implement these local fixes, the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network will collectively create a method to grade anchor institutions across the country on how they alleviate or exacerbate economic inequality. Might this comparative process put real pressure on universities – and eventually, hospitals, airports, or even sports teams – to do a better job in responding to the needs and values of the communities where they’re based? That is what we hope to examine.

We can’t be sure if we can scale the Rethinking Communities project to our national problems, in order to rebuild the robust social contract that America has with its citizens. But through the bold and persistent experimentation of the Campus Network, we aim to see how far we can go to create new self-sustaining economies that resist the economic pressures of the larger world. And in that innovative spirit, we hearken back to the values of Franklin Roosevelt that undergird all of our work: a system that is more balanced, more sustainable, and more able to support the common good.

Alan Smith is the Associate Director of Networked Initiatives at the Roosevelt Institute.

Photo via Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network

Share This

Pages