Food For Thought

Dave Johnson, over at OpenLeft, asks: What would a real far left look like in this country?

It bears remembering, amidst the widespread belief in Obama’s radicalism/socialism/unbearableblacknessofbeing, that there really is no such thing as a counterbalance (at least in elected office) to folks like this.  Particularly not when you see this.  That isn’t to say there isn’t inarticulate but passionate support for the counterbalance, just that it doesn’t exist institutionally, and has absolutely no voice beyond those of phantoms and bogeymen heard by rightists and media moguls.

At the end of the day I don’t know what to do about this, how to create a far left as feared and respected as the far right.  I’m not saying I think we all need to become ‘far leftists’ and that would solve everything.  It wouldn’t, because the far right exists in an environment that is supportive of their momentum, the far left has to be much cleverer, and we really still haven’t figured that out.  But we sure as hell need something to counterbalance the rightward momentum, because it is that momentum, that movement that makes Democrats the party that will own immigration failure, climate failure, social security failure, for years to come.

Peace,
Joel

Alienation And Messaging, Who Do We Need To Attract, Who Can We Afford To Piss Off?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks, because for whatever reason, this god damn interview with Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart really struck a nerve.  How do we talk about what we need to talk about without pissing off too many people?  OR, how do we talk about what we need to talk about in such a way that, yeah, we piss off some people, but we invigorate and engage enough other people to offset that?

And, for the post in which I figure everything out and save progressivism through cleverness and sheer force of will, how can we get on the same page about this?

I just read an article in Rolling Stone, an interview with David Gergen, Matt Taibbi, and Peter Hart, that really crystallizes this paradox for me (below the flip):

Obama The Conservative

So I kind of expected it when my more radical standbys were saying it (here and here).  And I’ve been kinda thinking for a while that Obama is either a really godawful progressive or a somewhat mediocre, at first difficult to read, but basically, conservative Democrat.

But I’m a little surprised to see Krugman say it in such blunt terms.  He’s normally well to the left of most, but still somewhat to the right (or more moderate, whatever) of my more incendiary folks.  I kind of expect this more from a Dean Baker type.  But here he goes:

Some readers may recall that back during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought America a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” I was among those who found this deeply troubling — because the idea that Reagan brought a transfomation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts. (There was a surge in productivity and innovation — but it happened in the 90s, under Clinton, not under Reagan).

All the usual suspects pooh-poohed these concerns; it was ridiculous, they said, to think of Obama as a captive of right-wing mythology.

But are you so sure about that now?

And here’s this, from Thomas Ferguson: Obama saying

“We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.”

As Ferguson explains, this is a right-wing smear. What actually happened was that during the interregnum between the 1932 election and the1933 inauguration — which was much longer then, because the inauguration didn’t take place until March — Herbert Hoover tried to rope FDR into maintaining his policies, including rigid adherence to the gold standard and fiscal austerity. FDR declined to be part of this.

But Obama buys the right-wing smear.

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth. [Emphasis added]

It’s why he’s still seeking bipartisanship, why there’s so much continuity between Bush and Obama on civil liberties abuses, why Health Care Reform looks like the Republican proposal form the 90s (or Massachussetts), why he pursues individual progressive policies and totally cedes any kind of progressive narrative, why he lack-lusterly defends folks like Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones, why he seems pretty much satisfied with the overwhelmingly corporatist and status-quo defending legislation that gets put out, why they sometimes just look like Republicans.  Because it’s where he’s at.

Now I’m not a ‘dump/primary Obama’ type.  We’re wedded to him until 2016 (I freaking hope) whether it’s ideal or not.  But as I’ve been saying for a while now, it is essential to how we develop our movement’s relationship to the Dem establishment.  It is not, as some of my heroes would argue, a side-issue or a distraction.  Nor has the White House been immaterial to ‘the shutdown of the hope machine’.  It may not all be about DC, but an avoidance of DC failures is not going to make them less significant or influential on our local-level conditions.  Anyway, enough ranting, you know where I’m going with this.

Peace,
Joel

Yikes!

Me, circa last night around 12:34 or so

So, in a future post I’ll get to what strikes me as the most immediate and obvious cause (at least, the one they had control over, so beyond the incredible forces arrayed against them) of the Democrats’ disasters last night, because I think that for the most part it’s pretty simple and has little to do with some explanations I’ve heard that are either convoluted, self-serving, too wedded to conventional (bogus) wisdom, or just full of fatuous, psuedo, blubber.

But for tonight, what are some implications of the results yesterday?

Well, for one thing, meaningful federal action on a host of issues (climate change/energy, immigration, truly comprehensive health-care and a return to financial reform, transportation/infrastructure, gay rights, civil liberties- Russ Feingold, I really wish you were still here) is toast for at least the next two years.  That does NOT mean that action period is over, but it does mean that such action is going to operate in a necessarily limited, and primarily statewide and local-municipal sphere.  So for instance, for transit-enthusiasts and urban renewalists, local-level initiatives will likely be the primary battlefield for the next couple of years, which is, uh, not super encouraging if you’re not on a coast…

We’re Number 1!

Kind of continuing the riff off of today’s rally, I’d like to point out that Brazil just elected its first woman President, Dilma Rousseff, from Lula’s PT, Partido Trabalhador (Worker’s Party).  I haven’t read all the details (her wikipedia page is pretty extensive), but she looks to be an interesting character.  The daughter of a Bulgarian immigrant (we like to think of America as a pretty exceptional melting pot, but Brazil is probably just as much so), a former socialist and literally an imprisoned freedom fighter against the military dictatorship that prevailed back in the day, she worked also as the Minister of Mines and Energy and Chief of Staff under Lula.

At the rally today, we heard a lot about China overtaking us in education, energy sovereignty, a number of other benchmarks of progress.  I know that using other countries as a standard by which we gauge our own scientific and military prowess, human decency, and other metrics is a time-honored nationalistic tradition, but I’ve always felt weird about the twin characterizations of ourselves as benevolent stewards of Democracy who also happen to be (or need to be) better than everyone else by a weird fluke.  But that’s getting a bit off-topic.

The point really is that we are not the only advanced country that breaks these kinds of barriers, historic and deeply powerful though Barack Obama’s election certainly was.  We have a leg up in a number of metrics, but we really need to just not kid ourselves about how we’re doing (and about the progress of others) if we want to hope to make things better.  Thankfully, we have partners out there who are pushing the envelope in decency, women’s equality, energy, scientific progress, the whole thang.  The bar for excellence is being set regularly higher, and we find ourselves at a point where low-achievement and dysfunction are the new normal.

[As a brief side-note, I would say that overcoming self-delusion would also do some significant American political parties some significant good.  Which am I talking about?  Who can say?  I don't know, take your pick]

Look, I love my country.  I love it more than I ever would have contemplated as a young anarchist, so sure that this country effin’ sucked and was a hater towards everyone else in the world.  I love it for all its eccentricity, pride, hypocrisy, occasional brilliance, vision, and yes, even being the site of what I would acknowledge as some of the premier horrors of human history.  But exceptionalism cannot hide the fact that there are things we love about ourselves that are either not true, or are even truer of other people whom we deride and refuse to acknowledge.  That’s a thing I don’t love about my country.  Exceptionalism also can’t hide, however though it tries, that other countries are beginning to embody those qualities we cherish in ourselves.  That can be taken as a compliment, a suggestive nudge in the right direction.  Take it how you will, really.

So thank you, Brazil.  The bar has again been sent, may the recalibration of our sense of selves begin, and let’s work to set the bar even higher.

Peace,
Joel

Sharing Responsibility, Looking Ahead

The above video has absolutely nothing to do with this post, it’s just stuck in my head, and I thought I’d share it with you.

Okay, neither does that one either, but I love the song and it makes me feel really amped about figuring stuff out and moving forward.

I just got done reading an article that was very challenging.  Not difficult to read, as much as a major complication of the construct I’ve been working with, oh, since Van Jones bit the political dust in early September 2009.  I highly recommend reading it.

Parry’s main point (he was, apparently, one of the first journalists to break Iran/Contra) is basically that since the rise of Nixon, liberals/progressives/unabashed leftists and the Democratic Party leadership have essentially been engaged in a reliably adversarial relationship marked by roughly the same errors committed by both parties (not Parties- Repubs have just gotten crazier and crazier), which has consistently facilitated a conservative descent and total rightist/corporatist/authoritarian/neoconservative capture of the country’s political climate and atmosphere.  He spares neither Democratic leadership, nor liberal insurgents who struggle for appreciation and to force the leaders of the Party to do better, implicating both of wholly misunderstanding the circumstances they find themselves in and thus failing to advance a progressive agenda by more than half-measures.

He argues that Democratic leaders make weak starts at getting important stuff done and acquiesce too easily to Republican dominance by avoiding bringing to light the truly despicable things their opponents do, while progressive activists take such weak starts and acquiescence as cue to start some shit, which makes the weak-tea Democrats lose, encouraging the Republicans to, well, continue to do truly despicable things.  Republicans gain power, hilarity is offshored to China, where it occasionally ensues.

I think I responded so strongly to this article because it came from a writer who clearly appreciates my, I believe, sober view of the situation (that Democratic leadership has been insufficient and lackluster, and has failed to approach their few openings to make change with the courage and a political strategy that is also more progressive and just better policy-wise that would enlarge their advantage) but totally refutes my emotional urge (to make this clear to Democratic leadership by whomping them).

More below!

One Nation Working Together: Beyond Marches And Electoral Drives?

I’m not sure whether this is just me wanting there to be a vibrant left coalition and so seeing more than ought to be seen, or if this is, you know, the actual beginning of a vibrant left coalition that can push our boneheaded party to do better.  But I’m warily excited about the One Nation Working Together movement (they call themselves that).  Pictures here.  They look like what I had wanted the Coffee Party to be a while back, and what I’d rather see out of the March for Sanity.  No offense intended to Coffee Party or Jon Stewart, I think they fulfill a valuable role as well, and there are good friends and people I trust who worked tirelessly on the CP (no, not that CP), but it just lacked the urgency and the transparency (where do you stand dangit?) I needed.

I don’t know where they’re going to go after November 2nd.  That will be the real indicator to me if this is working toward really sustainable movement building or just a ‘crikey we need to make sure we maintain a Dem majority or everything will go to hell’ thing.  Not that we don’t need to maintain a Dem majority, it’s just that we did that in ’08 and we need to take it a step further and change the game.  But if they elicit real grassroots support, real rank-and-file democracy; and get out of the insider game that, well, everyone has been playing since that was the directive sent to them from Day 1 (what was the appointment of the economic team if not a blindingly clear signal that this was how it was going to be?), and begin to directly and effectively challenge and shift the more boneheaded decisions made by the leaders on our side who sent those directives, well, maybe this thing’ll be legit.

Anyway.  I get excited reading their website, at the very least.  Anything that draws pretty unabashedly ‘Let America Be America Again‘ and the original March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (check the platform especially) demands my attention, though I know a lot of folks draw from those two in word.  The judgment will be in the deed.  Anyway.  I’ll quote directly their mission and policy principles (there’s that combination of words I’ve been missing!) and link to their supporting organizations (again, the level of real involvement and buy-in, the mobilization of membership and empowerment of member-leaders will be a really strong indicator).

Communication, Coalition-Building, And How To Tell The Truth

I’m busy procrastinating and not writing an article that touches on this very subject, but I finally read these articles by Glenn Greenwald and wanted to share, because I’ve been thinking a ton about coalition-building and communication lately, and I know a lot of you readers probably like the Daily Show (I think Jon Stewart can reasonably be called a fifth member of our family- Mom and Dad, you know what I’m talking about), are amped about the Coffee Party, or are otherwise identified with this group (I’ve heard they’re called moderates, or centrists, or middle America, or something) that is frustrated with the tone of politics, extremism, and all the hysteria.  And I get it; hysteria is exhausting, it obfuscates, it leads to stupid decisions and eliminates an environment for sober discussion, a cornerstone of Democracy.  And I think that in the grand scheme of things, these parties and groups have an important role to play in the story of American Progress, albeit a role I find myself uninterested in and less compelled by.

Here’s the but.  Sometimes I think we leftists and self-identified moderates (and some interesting and nearly-extinct rightists) go too far in assigning equal weight to this hysteria, and we need to get over it lest we forget that there are some things that are unambiguously reprehensible and wrong, and need to be contested.  No matter who does it.  I’m all for self-reflection and criticism, but let’s be judicious shall we?

Shamelessly Unoriginal, But…

Did you know that the driver of the mission was a pro in 1988, well before 2001?

So there are other posts that I’ve had on my mind for a while.  One is basically an exposition that attempts to explain (as I’ve done in conversation with friends and loved ones) where I’m at in terms of my political thinking and how I conceive of the purpose of this blog.  The other is more fun, and outlines the bike trip me and my sister are planning (and want you to join!) at the end of my VISTA term.  And those posts will come.  But I need to pause, take a brief detour, and admit to you something that’s become clear over the last few days.

I love Slick Rick.

I know that for some readers of this blog, the greatness of Slick Rick the Ruler will come as no surprise.  They’ve already come around, and they recognize the tendrils of his influence throughout rap, music in general, and our very way of life.  It’s true that his lyrics, cadences, and flavor can be felt in the ouevres of luminaries like Biggie Smalls, Black Star, Snoop, Jay-Z, The Roots, Nas and others.  And so there’s really no good reason for me to come to this discovery only now.  I was blind, found wanting, and now see.

[Note: enter obligatory acknowledgment of, yes, Slick Rick's history of violence and some admittedly shameful depictions of women that I do not endorse.]

But rather than expound my own self on what makes Slick Rick the Ruler, Ricky D so good, I’d like to let him speak for himself:

I’d like to point out that what happens in this music video is that it starts out with Slick Rick sitting on the Alice and Wonderland statue in Central Park in New York, above a bed with two women sandwiching one of the weirdest, most cartoonish looking guys I’ve seen all week.  It then transitions abruptly into a narrated silent movie with the plot of what looks to be a Charlie Chaplin flick (with a dance interlude for the two ladies).  After the completion of the narrative, the police literally chase their way out of the silent movie into real life.  All while the guy snoozes under the statue of Alice and Wonderland.

Okay, there’s a point at which I’ll admit that part of my infatuation probably comes not as much from Slick Rick as much as just the awesome videos from the 80s and 90s (I mean, look at what Tupac and Diddy were doing).  I think the below, however, make excellent cases for some of it being Rick.

And of course…

I think that one speaks for itself.

Peace,
Joel

Just As (If Not More) Important Than Democrats V. Republicans…

Is Democrats versus “Democrats”, or as I would tend to see it, democrats versus rank corporatists (I link to plutocracy because wikipedia describes what seems to me to be a definition from political philosophy, as opposed to how corporatism is being popularly defined today by many- as a slight variation on plutarchy).  As the health care battle should have demonstrated by now (and if this didn’t convince you, wait till the climate/energy boondoggle, it’s gonna be fu-un), there are some pretty wide gulfs between Democrats like Lieberman and Lincoln, and those like Brown and Sanders.  Many have pointed out that we are in an ongoing ‘battle for the soul‘ of the Democratic Party (here’s some critique and support for the piece), and in that vein I wanted to briefly highlight one primary based on some coverage by two of my favorite commentators, Digby (here and here) and Paul Rosenberg at Open Left.  Check them out, I think they give a pretty good sense for the kind of choices we need to make about what kind of party we want to be.

Winograd-Harman is one, but there are a ton of primaries going on this season before the generals in November that could have major ramifications for the composition and future of the Democratic Party, including Lincoln-Halter (Arkansas), Gillibrand-Tasini (New York), Sestak-Specter (Pennsylvania), Brunner-Fisher (Ohio), Bennet-Romanoff (Colorado), and others.  I’ll be announcing who I think rules in Ohio soon (frankly, once I’ve done a bit more research), but I just wanted to preemptively encourage folks to take this seriously.  Mentioned before, the last year and a half should have made it painfully obvious that more Democrats does not equal change we can believe in (bitterness ending… now).  We need to do what we can to stay informed and work to make this a party we can be proud of, that we really can believe in.  The opportunity is there, and it’s time to seize it.

Peace,
Joel