Progressive Thinking

Kamala Harris is the right choice for the Democratic Party, and rallying behind her can lead America toward a more inclusive and prosperous future.

LAKE GENEVA, WI - Kamala Harris represents the future of the Democratic Party, making her the ideal candidate for the presidency in 2024. Her extensive experience as District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California, U.S. Senator, and Vice President demonstrates her qualifications and commitment to justice, equity, and reform. Harris embodies the diversity of America, being the first woman, first Black woman, and first person of South Asian descent to hold the office of Vice President. This representation is crucial for energizing the Democratic base and ensuring high voter turnout, particularly among women and people of color.

To defeat Donald Trump, Harris must unite the Democratic Party by bridging the gap between its progressive and moderate wings, ensuring all voices feel heard and represented. She must engage key demographics, including young voters, women, and people of color, by addressing their specific concerns and presenting a compelling vision for the future. Economic concerns will be central in the election, so Harris needs to present a clear plan to address inequality, create jobs, and support working families with accessible healthcare, affordable education, and fair wages.

Emphasizing her competence, stability, and commitment to democratic norms will contrast sharply with Trump’s chaotic and divisive tenure. Her vice-presidential experience under President Biden provides a strong foundation for presenting herself as a steady leader. Additionally, Harris should highlight her dedication to restoring America’s standing on the global stage, appealing to voters concerned about national security.

A robust strategy to counter disinformation is essential, leveraging social media and grassroots organizations to ensure clear and consistent messaging. Kamala Harris is the right choice for the Democratic Party, and rallying behind her can lead America toward a more inclusive and prosperous future.

Joe Biden has served the country with dedication and distinction. However, given the current circumstances, I believe it’s time for him to step aside and allow a new candidate to take the lead.

LAKE GENEVA, WI - As a long-time member of the Democratic Party, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what Joe Biden should do next. Given the current state of his campaign and the significant challenges he faces, I believe Biden should consider stepping aside for the sake of the party and the country.

First, let’s address voter concerns. Many people feel that Biden, who will turn 82 in the fall, is simply too old for the presidency. This perception isn’t going away and could seriously harm his chances, as well as the Democratic Party's prospects in 2024.

Biden’s approval ratings have dropped to around 37%, which is historically low for an incumbent president at this stage. It’s a significant uphill battle, and it might not be one that can be won.

There’s also the impact on down-ballot races to consider. Biden’s struggles could drag down other Democratic candidates, making it difficult for the party to win control of Congress. A new candidate might energize the base and improve the chances for other Democratic candidates.

The Democratic strategy for 2024 was to focus on Trump’s flaws. But with Biden struggling, the race is becoming a choice between two unpopular candidates. A new candidate could shift the focus back to highlighting Trump’s vulnerabilities.

The problem seems to be specific to Biden. In key states, he’s trailing behind other Democratic candidates, suggesting the party might do better with a new, more dynamic leader who can inspire and unite the party.

By making the decision to step down early, Biden could ensure a smooth transition to another Democratic candidate, giving them plenty of time to campaign effectively and build momentum. He could also play a crucial role in selecting and endorsing a successor who embodies the values and vision of the Democratic Party, ensuring continuity and stability.

Stepping aside would allow Biden to preserve his legacy as a leader who prioritized the country and the party’s future over personal ambition. He can continue to support the new candidate through endorsements, campaign events, and by leveraging his extensive political network.

Joe Biden has served the country with dedication and distinction. However, given the current circumstances, I believe it’s time for him to step aside and allow a new candidate to take the lead. This move would not only give the Democratic Party the best chance to retain the White House and win control of Congress but also ensure a brighter future for the country. It’s a difficult decision, but one that might be necessary for the success of the party and the nation.

As he runs for Speaker, a Green Bay progressive discusses Jim Jordan and his dubious qualifications.

GREEN BAY - I've spent a considerable amount of time diving into the world of politics, observing individuals and their actions. Jim Jordan, a Congressman from Ohio, has caught my attention on numerous occasions, but for all the wrong reasons. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the actions and behavior of Jim Jordan raise serious concerns about his integrity, both as an individual and as a representative of the American people.

1. The Ohio State Scandal

First, let's talk about the Ohio State scandal. During his tenure as an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University, there were allegations of sexual misconduct by the team doctor, Richard Strauss. Multiple wrestlers have come forward, claiming that they reported the abuse to Jordan, and he did nothing. It's deeply concerning that someone in a position of power and responsibility could overlook or ignore such grave allegations. If these claims are true, it reflects a lack of moral responsibility on his part.

2. The Freedom Caucus and Ideological Extremism

Jim Jordan is a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, a group that has often been criticized for its hardline stance and resistance to compromise. While it's essential to hold onto one's beliefs, it's equally important to understand the necessity of collaboration in a democratic system. Jordan's approach with the Freedom Caucus has been about digging in heels, often at the cost of progress and to the detriment of the American people.

3. The "Big Lie" and January 6

One of the most concerning aspects of Jordan's political career is his support for the "Big Lie" – the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. By perpetuating this unfounded claim, he contributed to the events that led up to the horrific attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. This wasn't just about a differing opinion or political strategy; this was about undermining the very foundation of our democracy: the belief in free and fair elections.

4. Boehner's "Terrorist" Remark

John Boehner, a fellow Republican and former Speaker of the House, referred to Jordan as a "legislative terrorist." This strong descriptor from someone within his own party highlights the divisive and confrontational tactics Jordan employs. It's alarming when a colleague feels compelled to use such language.

5. Liz Cheney's Perspective

Liz Cheney, another Republican representative, has been vocal about the importance of truth and integrity within the GOP. While she didn't call out Jordan by name, her insistence on holding members accountable for perpetuating the "Big Lie" and for their roles in the events leading up to January 6 speaks volumes. When individuals within the same party voice concerns, it's essential to sit up and take note.

6. Opposition to Bipartisanship

One of the pillars of a successful democracy is the ability of politicians from opposing sides to come together for the greater good. However, Jordan has frequently shown a lack of interest in bipartisanship. For instance, he voted against the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. This was a deal crafted by both parties to prevent another government shutdown and increase spending caps. Voting against such a measure demonstrates an unwillingness to work across the aisle for the nation's benefit.

7. Disregard for Health Care

In 2017, Jordan was at the forefront of pushing for a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without a clear replacement. The ACA, for all its controversies, provided millions of Americans with health coverage. Advocating for its repeal without a comprehensive replacement plan shows a disregard for the well-being of many citizens.

8. Skepticism on Climate Change

In a time when the majority of scientists worldwide are raising alarm bells about climate change, Jordan's position remains skeptical. He's made statements questioning the human role in global warming and has consistently voted against environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions. At a time when urgent action is needed, such a stance is both radical and dangerous.

9. Contempt for Congressional Oversight

Jordan has often been in the spotlight for his combative stance during Congressional hearings, especially those aiming to hold individuals accountable. Whether it was during the impeachment hearings for former President Donald Trump or questioning witnesses during the Benghazi hearings, Jordan's aggressive approach often seemed more about creating a spectacle than genuine oversight.

10. Stance on Gun Control

In the wake of numerous tragic mass shootings in the U.S., there have been widespread calls for tighter gun control to prevent further loss of life. However, Jordan remains an ardent defender of expansive gun rights. He has consistently opposed measures such as universal background checks, which have broad public support.

11. Obsession with Impeaching Joe Biden

Since the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Jim Jordan has been vociferously vocal about impeaching him. This isn't based on clear evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors – the Constitutional requirement for impeachment – but appears to be more of a political vendetta. It's important to understand that impeachment is a grave and consequential process that shouldn't be used as a tool for political retribution. Using such a critical constitutional tool in this manner undermines its gravity and can erode the public's trust in our democratic processes.

12. Relentless Pursuit of Hunter Biden

Jim Jordan's interest in Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, has also raised eyebrows. While it's essential for politicians to be held accountable, there's a thin line between legitimate inquiry and political witch-hunting. The relentless focus on Hunter Biden, especially in the absence of concrete evidence of wrongdoing tied to Joe Biden, has often been viewed as a retaliatory move, especially in light of the investigations into former President Donald Trump and his associates. This pattern of "tit for tat" politics isn't what our nation needs. Instead of focusing on genuine issues affecting everyday Americans, such distractions serve to further polarize and divide.

13. The Prospect of Jordan as Speaker of the House

The role of the Speaker of the House is one of great significance. As the leader of the House of Representatives, the Speaker wields considerable influence over the legislative agenda, and they play a pivotal role in guiding the nation's policies. With Jim Jordan's track record, his ascension to this role could be problematic for several reasons.

Given his history of deeply partisan behavior and confrontational tactics, Jordan as Speaker might further deepen the divide in an already polarized political landscape. Instead of fostering an environment of collaboration and bipartisanship, there's a genuine concern that under his leadership, the House could become even more fractious.

Moreover, his penchant for pursuing personal vendettas and retaliatory politics, as seen in his obsession with impeaching Joe Biden and investigating Hunter Biden, raises questions about his ability to prioritize the nation's needs over personal or partisan grudges.

The Speaker's role is also to represent the House on the national and international stage. Given Jordan's controversial stances on various issues, from climate change skepticism to his association with the "Big Lie" about the 2020 election, having him as a representative voice could send the wrong message about where America stands on critical global issues.

14. Jordan's Stance on Ukraine: A Dangerous Path

Last, but certainly not least, is Jim Jordan’s vow to not to fund Ukraine. In the complex web of international relations, Ukraine holds a crucial position, particularly given its ongoing conflict with Russia and its strategic importance to Europe and NATO allies.

By vowing not to fund Ukraine, Jordan not only undermines a key ally in a volatile region but also sends a message that the U.S. might be wavering in its commitments to its allies. This could embolden adversaries, such as Russia, to take more aggressive stances, knowing that Ukraine might lack the support it needs from powerful allies like the U.S.

The repercussions of such a decision could be manifold:

Increased Instability in Eastern Europe: A less-supported Ukraine might be more vulnerable to external pressures and aggressions, leading to increased instability in the region.

Strain on NATO: U.S. commitment to its allies is a cornerstone of NATO. By not supporting Ukraine, it could strain relations within the alliance and raise questions about the U.S.'s commitment to collective defense.

Loss of U.S. Credibility: Other allies around the world, seeing the U.S. not stand firmly by Ukraine, might begin to doubt America's reliability. This could weaken diplomatic ties and make international collaborations more challenging.

Potential Humanitarian Crisis: A less secure Ukraine could face intensified conflict, leading to potential humanitarian crises, with increased displacements of people and civilian casualties.

Strengthening of Adversaries: A weakened alliance between the U.S. and Ukraine might embolden not only Russia but other global powers looking to challenge U.S. dominance in various regions.

Wrapping Up

In the intricate dance of international diplomacy, every decision, every stance taken, sends ripples across the global stage. Jordan's vow against funding Ukraine isn't just about one country; it's about upholding the values, commitments, and strategic interests of the U.S. on the global front. It's a dangerous path, one that could have repercussions far beyond the borders of Ukraine, affecting the very fabric of global geopolitics and America's place within it. We need leaders who understand these nuances and act with foresight, ensuring that the U.S. remains a strong, reliable force for good in the world.Leadership positions, especially one as crucial as the Speaker of the House, require individuals who can rise above party lines, unify differing factions, and work towards the collective good of the nation. Based on Jim Jordan's past actions and stances, there's a genuine concern that his leadership might steer the House, and by extension, the nation, in a direction that amplifies division rather than healing it. The American people deserve leadership that is balanced, thoughtful, and prioritizes the well-being of its citizens above all else.

With Aaron Rodgers out for a game for testing positive for COVID-19, progressive activist Laura Kiefert speaks out on the community responsibility to get vaccinated.

GREEN BAY, WI - I’m sick and tired of the vaccination debate and just as tired of keeping my frustration on the subject to myself. So here goes. I think that as a society, we have an obligation to safeguard one another. Yes, you get vaccinated to protect yourself – but you also get vaccinated to protect those around you. And we do this in order to control or eradicate diseases that ravage our population.

I believe everybody who is eligible should be required to get vaccinated if they want to engage with others in public spaces. In the interest of public health, vaccines or a recent negative test should be required to enter virtually all public spaces. If you want to go to a restaurant, bar, train station or concert, for example, you need to show proof of vaccination or a recent negative test.

If a person chooses not to get vaccinated, they should stay home because no one has the right to infect others with a potentially deadly illness. I believe it is the ultimate act of selfishness to decide that your individual decision must take precedence over the literal life and death of the people around you.

We are talking here about someone choosing an unhealthy diet – something you could argue only affects an individual. We're talking about a very contagious disease that is so easily transmissible it's killed more than 750,000 Americans and millions of people around the world have died. And, it isn’t over yet.

Vaccination is not only a matter of individual choice because there are immunosuppressed Americans who do not have full immunity from the vaccine and there are many people, including our young children, who aren’t vaccinated, yet. How is it right that someone can opt to not be vaccinated and then spread the illness to vulnerable groups who did not make the choice to be so vulnerable?

So vaccination cannot be perceived as an individual choice. Instead, we need to equate it much more so to drunk driving. You can drink in private – that's your choice – but you can't just decide to get behind the wheel because you feel like it and don't think you'll get hurt. We have laws against drunk driving, since individual choice to undertake a dangerous public activity cannot override the need to protect the public from deadly harm.

We all want want our kids to go to school without being sent home constantly due to positive cases and the need to quarantine. We want workplaces to come back without the need for masks and distancing. We want our economy to thrive and travel to return to pre-pandemic normal. If we want those things to happen, then it's necessary for all people who are eligible in those environments to be vaccinated.

Woman, lifelong proud feminist, comments on where contemporary feminism seems to be going.

GREEN BAY, WI - This post might be particularly interesting to fellow Democrats. It’s part of the reason I’ve chosen to no longer be a member of my local chapter, the Democratic Party of Brown County Wisconsin .

I am proud to have been part of the women’s movement throughout my lifetime. A movement that won women the rights to vote, have credit cards, not be legally raped by their husbands, use birth control and generally be considered people instead of property, among other things.

As a result, issues such as basic inequality, sexual discrimination, the epidemic of domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse are now being addressed much differently and many freedoms have been won that had been denied to generations of women before mine.

However, I’m concerned about where contemporary feminism is going, and whether I can be part of it anymore. I’ve gotten old, but I’m still as passionately angry as ever about women being denied abortions, or treated like a piece of meat by lecherous bosses, or beaten up in their homes by husbands. I know what it feels like to have a loaded gun held to my head by an abusive husband, to be propositioned at work, denied a promotion solely because I was a woman. I have suffered my share of inappropriate comments and innuendoes from the opposite sex.

Regardless, I have always considered myself a survivor rather than a victim. I refuse to just assume I need protection from any person who doesn’t have a vagina. Being on guard and becoming enraged at every slight a man makes isn’t the most conducive way to effect change. And often, it turns the offender into he victim.

Outrage is easy to channel, hard to bottle up and at epidemic levels in so many areas of society that it’s difficult to take a step in today’s world without causing controversy. Moral certainty and intolerance are the vices that drag us into the worst of humanity’s sins. They do not provide the path towards a better future. Generalization is the mistake we make every time we set about changing the world by making enemies of those we feel have offended or insulted us in any way, or simply don’t agree with us.

Over the past few years mainstream feminism, like other forms of identity politics, has become obsessed with victimhood, in what I consider a seriously disempowering way. It has begun to feel like a religion, with its own strict rules about what women are permitted to say, do and think. And just as important, about what men are permitted to say or do, or behave.

In this world, a compliment, or a rude joke is harassment. A pat on the back is sexual assault. Asking someone out for a drink is abuse. Let me be clear: A violation of these rules may be unpleasant, but is NOT traumatic. Suggesting otherwise only diminishes the experience of those women who have indeed, suffered trauma.

For me, being a feminist has always meant supporting women’s freedom to be whoever they want to be, regardless of whether anyone else approves or not. I have come to believe that identity politics, taken to its extremes, is essentially divisive. The emphasis is on difference – what separates us from one another, not what unites us. Why would any confident, strong, capable woman want her identity wrapped up in being a victim?

In the highly competitive race for ultimate victimhood, contemporary feminism is already fractured along lines of class, race, sexual orientation, disability, and more. Women have become so enraged with the oppression they experience that they can’t hear anything but the muffled sound of their voices trying to escape from the victim blanket they have wrapped themselves so tightly in.

So, my advice is to stop raging. Solutions are not found when we are incensed. Instead of living in expectation of the next slight, try imagining that the vast majority of men want the same thing. The dream of a world more female shaped will only be realized using predominantly feminine qualities, such as reason, patience, endurance and emotional sensitivity. For that we need to be calm, rational and ready to listen, not in a state of rage. And, not by assuming the role of victim.

Laura Kiefert
Green Bay Progressive