Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is reportedly at the top of the list of potential running mates for Vice President Kamala Harris in her bid for the White House. But many progressives have raised alarm about Shapiro’s record, including his support for corporate tax breaks and school vouchers, his relationship with oil and gas companies, and his demonization of pro-Palestinian protesters. “He’s been actively and vocally supportive of Israel’s war on Gaza since October 7 and prior,” says journalist Marc Lamont Hill in Philadelphia. “In every conceivable way, Josh Shapiro is not a progressive candidate.” He adds that while Shapiro’s choice as running mate would be “very frustrating,” it would also clarify the choices in the election and prevent people from projecting false hope onto Harris as many did with Barack Obama. “She very clearly is a liberal, but certainly not a progressive or a radical.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you mentioned pro-Palestinian protests. Kamala Harris is expected to announce her choice for running mate any day now, by Tuesday, it’s said. Potential candidates include Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is reportedly at the top of her list. Many progressives are raising alarm about Shapiro’s record on, oh, promoting corporate tax breaks and school vouchers, raising issues about accelerating climate change, and demonizing pro-Palestinian protests. Earlier this year, Governor Shapiro called on the University of Pennsylvania to disband a Gaza solidarity encampment. He also supported the dismissal of the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Elizabeth Magill, amidst that firestorm fueled by right-wing politicians and media over free speech and support for Palestinian rights on campus. This is Governor Shapiro speaking in May.
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO: By their own admission, the leaders at the University of Pennsylvania have made clear that those protesters, those who are living in these so-called encampments, are violating the rules of the university and, in some cases, the laws of the city of Philadelphia. It has — the university has tried to negotiate and discuss the matter with those protesters. That has proven to not be effective. Over the last 24 hours at the University of Pennsylvania, the situation has gotten even more unstable and out of control. More rules have been violated. More laws have been broken. That is absolutely unacceptable.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro speaking in the rain in May. Marc Lamont Hill, you’re joining us from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. You’re co-author of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics. You’ve covered these protests extensively, as well as the Middle East, as a host on Al Jazeera. Your response?
MARC LAMONT HILL: There are so many things here. There’s a really good chance that Kamala Harris is going to choose Josh Shapiro to be her running mate. In some ways — in the most obvious way, I oppose that. Josh Shapiro challenges democratic practices. He doesn’t believe in free speech. He has warned, you know, state employees here in Pennsylvania about how they respond to the genocide in Gaza, questioning their behavior, policing their behavior. He very clearly supports Zionism. He very — political Zionism. He very clearly supports the genocidal war in Gaza. He’s been actively and vocally supportive of Israel’s war on Gaza since October 7th and prior. We can also get into school vouchers. We can get into climate justice. In every conceivable way, Josh Shapiro is not a progressive candidate. And it would be very frustrating to see her make that choice.
But in some ways, it would make our political reality much more clear. People right now are trying to project a green screen onto Kamala Harris, the same way they did to Barack Obama, meaning they want to project their radical ideologies and their progressive ideologies and imagination onto her. That’s not who she is. She very clearly supports AIPAC. She very clearly is a liberal, but certainly not a progressive or a radical. So, what Josh Shapiro as a choice would do is it will remind us of what we’re dealing with. If you’re voting for Kamala Harris, it’s not because you’re getting a radical or even a progressive. You’re voting for her because you want to keep Trump out of the White House. You can make your own political decisions about what that means, but we need to be very clear about what we’re getting and about what we’re not getting. But if you were somebody who was not voting for Biden because of him underwriting this vicious war in Gaza, then there’s absolutely no way you could justify voting for Kamala Harris if she chooses Josh Shapiro. And the two of them — it’s not just Shapiro — the two of them are just as supportive of this war machine as every other mainstream corporate Democrat.
AMY GOODMAN: And to those who say to your response that you can vote for Kamala Harris if you want to keep Trump out of the White House, that Governor Shapiro, you know, presides over a state that is a key battleground state that she would need to win?
MARC LAMONT HILL: Well, that’s the argument — right? — is that it’s — but it’s also — it’s Trump’s argument for choosing JD Vance, which he probably regrets at this point. If you want to keep Trump out of the White House, Josh Shapiro does help. I mean, that’s a great point.
But the question is: When you win the White House, what do you get? Right? There has to be a way to keep Trump away, to keep Trump out of D.C., which I support, but still not compromise all possibility of actually meeting our collective needs. Again, I’m not talking about pie in the sky. I’m not talking about an imagined future a hundred years from now. I’m saying right now we have to challenge Kamala Harris to be better. We have to challenge Kamala Harris to meet our needs. And if we don’t even hold her accountable for the vice-presidential choices she makes right now — and there are clearly more progressive options on the table — then we’ve forfeited our own kind of agency here. Let’s do both. Let’s keep Trump out of the White House, but let’s also apply some pressure. That’s all I’ve got to say.
AMY GOODMAN: Marc Lamont Hill, I want to thank you very much for being with us, member of the National Association of Black Journalists, host of UpFront on Al Jazeera English and a nightly YouTube show called Night School, also professor of anthropology and urban education at the City University of New York Graduate Center, speaking to us from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Next up, an historic prisoner swap. We’ll look at the negotiations that led to the freeing of Americans, Russian human rights activists and others jailed in Russia. We’ll speak with Katrina vanden Heuvel, Russia expert and publisher of The Nation magazine. Back in 30 seconds.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 24 hours to add 180 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.