“The struggle for our future is between those trying to move toward partnership and those pushing us back to rigid rankings of domination.” - Riane Eisler

Equality:

Nurturing:

Policies for Nurturing"

The Battle is Joined

Make no mistake: Texas, with its 38 electoral votes, is now a battleground state. More and more political analysts, incumbents and candidates are seeing Texas as a tossup in 2020. The parties and the major donors are poised to funnel significant resources into Texas once the dust settles from the primaries (unlike in previous years where Texas was used like an ATM machine to fund campaigns out of state). And like the state itself, Galveston County is at a tipping point; come November 2020, we will be in a dead heat with the Republicans. Victory will go to the party that works the hardest, the smartest, and turns out the vote. Our chances have not been this good for decades.

What’s required to activate and unify voters on the left?

Kochkash Increases Inequality:

America’s political and economic policies have moved from greater equality after WWII and through the 70s to massive inequality in the decades since. This has happened surreptitiously, , without the backing of a majority of America’s citizens. Fear mongering, mass misinformation, and voter suppression funded by billions of Kochkash dollars have foisted this shift upon America.

The laws passed under FDR and LBJ, and improvements for people of color and women since, helped advance our political and economic equality. Since then, neoliberal economists, corporate boards, and SCOTUS have reduced equality by empowering and protecting the oligarchy.

Introduction

Welcome to the second issue of our newsletter. We are excited to share these new updates and upcoming events with you all. 

Progress toward promoting the GCDP and the 2020 election includes participating in the Juneteenth parade, supporting the USW workers at DOW, campaign statements from Democratic candidates, fundraising efforts, and recruiting local candidates for 2020.  Details are included below as well as an editorial on the moral values that are the foundation of the divergent policies between us and our opponents.  

Thank you for your ongoing support of GCDP.

Fallacy of Inconsistency

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

False equivalences are used to create confusion, over simplify, hide the truth, divide coalitions, and delay action on economic, social, racial, and environmental abuses of citizens. The best example of this is global warming or climate disruption caused by humans. The false equivalency is perpetrated presenting the issue with one spokesman for and one against. The fact that 97% of the experts are in agreement with one side over the other is ignored. This example is brought to life in this video:

Climate Change Debate Without False Equivalence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Evaluating the fallacy of inconsistency in equating left and right extremists requires considering a couple of factors. One factor is the authoritarian personality and where it resides in this left/right spectrum. Another factor is the consequences from the moral beliefs of the two “extremes." Who's impacted the worst/least?

History helps get around the distractions - religious freedom, separation of church & state, non-profit tax exemptions - that keep us from seeing the hidden threat to our form of government.

“Far from wanting to keep politics out of the charitable realm, government’s primary concern in the era before our present federal tax code was keeping these voluntary associations out of politics. Both Presidents George Washington and James Madison saw private associations as posing an actual danger to popular government and to the country itself—special interests whose views, desires, and aims did not necessarily reflect the common good. The existence of these associations also seemed somehow incompatible with democratic institutions; many feared that as these groups grew in size and stature, they would attract both political power and financial resources, which could tip the balance of power in their favor to the detriment of individual citizens.”

These historic concerns have proven valid since, but laws were passed to push back.

In 1934, “Congress abolished the tax deduction for certain previously allowed philanthropic contributions, specifically those going to organizations where “a substantial part” of their activities consisted of “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.” This effectively prevented any organization that wanted to maintain the deductibility of the contributions it received from engaging in direct political action.

Twenty years later, “Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson offered his famous 31 words further limiting the activity of charitable organizations: ‘ … and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’ ”

Getting rid of the Johnson Amendment is all about giving more “power and influence” to the oligarchs via non-profit organizations. The oligarchs are already “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation” via profit-based ‘persons.’ Eliminating the Johnson Amendment would expand the Citizens United decision to non-profits so more money will buy more politicians.