Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is facing criticism for launching an attack on Sen. Bernie Sanders during Tuesday night’s 10th Democratic primary debate — his critics argue the attack was also a denouncement of the political struggle that has made Buttigieg’s candidacy possible.
After Sanders responded by calling for nuance in US views toward foreign leaders — and by tying his views on Cuba to former President Barack Obama’s stance on the country — Buttigieg argued against Sanders’s position, and claimed it demonstrates why the senator is unfit to be the Democratic presidential nominee:
The only way you can [restore American credibility] is to actually win the presidency, and I am not looking forward to a scenario where it comes down to Donald Trump with his nostalgia for the social order of the ’50s and Bernie Sanders with a nostalgia for the revolution politics of the ’60s. This is not about what was happening in the ‘70s or ’80s, this is about the future. This is about 2020.
The remark drew a mixed reaction from the crowd in Charleston, and the Buttigieg campaign tweeted the line.
But on Twitter, the point was not met with overwhelming acclaim, especially among Sanders supporters. Sanders campaign spokesperson Briahna Joy Gray argued that the revolutionary politics of the 1960s were largely positive — particularly for communities of color in the US.
Wait … is it bad to have nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960s Pete?
I’m seem to recall Black people fighting for and securing some important rights during that revolutionary period. #DemDebate
The moment gave other Sanders supporters, such as senior adviser David Sirota, the opportunity to promote Sanders’s civil rights era activism, and others noted progressive political activism in the 1960s also involved the antiwar movement, the push for women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights activism.
Amid mounting criticism, the Buttigieg campaign deleted the tweet.
As Vox’s Alex Ward has explained, “Sanders has a long history of showing support for left-wing dictatorships around the world.” This history came to the fore Sunday during an interview with 60 Minutesin which Sanders said, “We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba … but, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad.”
Sanders went on to say, “When [Fidel] Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program.”
Again — as Sanders pointed out Tuesday — Obama made a similar statement, saying in 2016 as the US tried to improve its relationship with Cuba, “The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care.”
But Sanders’s argument allowed Buttigieg to reiterate a point he has tried to make in recent debates: that Sanders is too radical to be the Democratic Party’s nominee, and that he is, as Buttigieg said in last week’s Nevada debate, a “candidate who wants to burn this party down.”
The mayor’s dismissal of the “revolution politics of the ’60s” was meant to be of a kind with this criticism. Buttigieg campaign staffer Rodericka Applewhaite made this point on Twitter amid the pushback the mayor was facing online, writing that Buttigieg “was being critical of Sen. Sanders’ nostalgia for Cold War-era, authoritarian regimes. The Civil Rights movement wasn’t implied nor referenced.”
However, that the civil rights movement wasn’t referenced was what had many Sanders supporters and other observers incensed — particularly given criticisms Buttigieg has faced about his outreach to minority communities in the past.
Buttigieg has faced a number of questions about his support among marginalized communities thus far in the campaign cycle. He drew just 2 percent of the black vote in the Nevada caucuses, and the lack of support within the black community that signals doesn’t portend well for next Saturday’s South Carolina primary, where black voters make up 60 percent of the Democratic electorate.
And his campaign has drawn extensive criticism from other LGBTQ people — critics have argued Buttigieg has failed to addressthe broader needs and concerns of the LGBTQ community. His desire to find a middle ground between the social traditions of the 1950s and the revolutionary 1960s shows why.
The 1960s were a time of great political change for many marginalized communities in the US. The civil rights movement of the time gave birth to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination on the basis of race illegal under federal law and removed barriers to voting for black people. The feminist movement at the time created social change that opened the doors to new and longer careers for women.
But although Buttigieg is a white man, his attack on the time’s politics especially betrays his lack of perspective on a personal level. The life he lives now — as a married gay veteran who is a viable candidate for president — would not have been possible without the revolutionary queer politics of the ’60s.
The decade saw the birth of the LGBTQ rights movement through the Compton’s Cafeteria Riot in San Francisco in 1966 and, more famously, the Stonewall Riots of 1969 in New York City. Without the queer agitation against state power at the time, there would be no marriage equality in the US in 2020, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” restrictions on openly LGBTQ people serving in the military might still be in place.
It is those politics that Buttigieg’s statement appeared to dismiss.
He was correct, however, in stating that 2020 has a number of pressing issues — in particular, the hard-won gains of the 1960s LGBTQ revolutionary politics are in danger, with LGBTQ people are facing a renewed pushback against their rights. And the Trump administration has launched attack after attack on queer and trans rights. LGBTQ rights seemingly hang by a thread — just this week, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case that could allow adoption agencies receiving federal tax money to discriminate against LGBTQ prospective parents.
Buttigieg said he wants to focus on 2020, but perhaps queer and other minority voters could use a little bit of ’60s revolutionary politics this year.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
