It’s good to see this is still on some folks’ agenda. I’m willing to acknowledge that I have what may be an unusual level of contempt for the Senate- I think it’s an archaic, anti-Democratic institution that does far more harm than good generally as a body- but I think it should be clear to most folks that the filibuster in particular has made the Senate nightmarishly ineffective.
The anecdotes related above may not be as broadly significant as the fact that the filibuster killed climate change legislation, and was certainly responsible for the weakening of health care and financial reform and the stimulus; but I think they do a good job of communicating the utter absurdity of the filibuster as it’s currently used. The threat of a filibuster is enough to bring legislators back to the drawing board. Senators don’t actually have to filibuster to accomplish a filibuster. Nobody had to pull a Strom Thurmond to stand in the way of financial reform, they just couldn’t come up with 60. That’s bull, and the sooner the Democrats wake up and realize it, and start flexing their muscles, the sooner we’ll start to see some returns.
It's like that episode of Mad Men, where the deceptively simple and inconspicuous message compels you to buy the product. Except this time, with voting
Billy’s got another great post up at Huff, and I’m linking here to some sample Ohio voter guides, if you want to gauge that way. I’m really excited to see our side getting so proactive about early voting and voter guides- it was that kind of excitement around seeing folks involved in the political process in ’08 that set me on the course I’m on now. Anything that helps us become a truer Democracy.
It should go without saying (y’know, but I’ll say it anyway), that this isn’t the most satisfied I could be with this crop of Democrats. You know what the solution to that is? Staying active after the elction, paying attention to primaries, and raising hell in the off-season. But right now, I do believe it makes sense to put aside the frustration (if only for a second) and make sure we continue to have a fighting chance in a couple days, because stakes are freaking high. And in some places, also high. Sorry, I had to, too easy.
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).
This is only partly glib. While the abuses of socialism at its worst rank amongst the most terriblecrimes ever committed against humanity, we impoverish our national dialogue when we equate all self-professed socialists with war criminals and monsters (and, you know, unfettered capitalism has fucked upprettymightily). As Frances Moore Lappe points out, our knee-jerk hysterical anti-socialist rhetoric goes even beyond playing to people’s fears (itself a vice), but it narrows the spectrum of what can be considered, and shuts down possibly more effective routes to equally poorly defined qualities we hold dear, like freedom. We deprive ourselves of a much-needed outside source of critique that can provide an alternative vision to what we currently have. Without that alternative, we content ourselves that this is the best we have, and what other way could there be. Capitalism, self-congratulatory and without an opposing worldview to keep it behaving, can run amok.
In that vein, here are a bunch of self-described socialists (mostly democratic socialists, you know, like you’ll find in Scandinavia, France, or Germany) who, I would argue, have done pretty swell things to advance this American project along:
Angela Davis, totally a socialist
Senator I.M. Socialist- no, jk it's Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Helen Keller, major league socialist and hell-raiser
WEB Du Bois, big honkin' socialist (and all-around brilliant guy)
George Orwell, socialist critic of socialists
Paul Robeson, fierce socialist actor
Albert Einstein, what an irreverent freakin socialist
Don't let the religion fool you, MLK was big on the democratic socialism
So can we get over the shenanigans? It’s not that big a deal yall.
A new USA Today/Gallup poll out this morning shows that more Americans blame the Democrats more than any other group when it comes to the inciting the violence and vandalism that have spread across the country in the week since health care reform became law. Fifty percent said passing the bill was a “bad thing,” while 47% said it was a good thing.*
When asked about the violence, 49% of the 1,009 adults surveyed over the weekend said the “Democratic tactics” are a “major reason” for the violent incidents. Forty-six percent said conservative media was responsible, and 43% blamed the attacks on the rhetoric of Republican political leaders.
Wait, the Democrats have tactics? Where was I?
Seriously though, I’m with Digby on this, the implications for a truly democratic (and Democratic) governance are truly disturbing. If we are at the point where an entirely legal and well-precedented procedure used to commonly break gridlock (and used far more frequently than Republicans, whose majority was smaller numerically than ours, and whose tactics for breaking Democrats to their will were far more brazen) is deemed by a plurality of Americans to be a ‘major reason’ inciting violence… I’m just really praying there’s some nuance behind some of those poll-answerers.
This is quite a testament to the Republicans Party’s successful campaign to conquer reality, or the American peoples’ perception of it. We’ve got a lot of work to do, but unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of help from the big guy on that front, you know, the retaking reality front.
Seriously, I just discovered YES! Magazine, and I highly recommend it. I just started getting into it with a couple of semi-related pieces that I’ll try to briefly excerpt from here.
The first is an interview with an epidemiologist, Richard Wilkinson, that was kind of disturbing given our current state, but also profoundly touching, about how socio-economic inequality affects our happiness, health, and the welfare of all. It’s like Martin Luther King on science:
BJ [Interviewer]: Your findings related to crime and imprisonment rates seem to be particularly illustrative of the way inequality can lead to social corrosion.
If you grow up in an unequal society, your actual experience of human relationships is different. Your idea of human nature changes: you think of human beings as self-interested.
RW [Epidemiologist-Interviewee]: We quote a prison psychiatrist who spent 25 years talking to really violent men, and he says he has yet to see an act of violence which was not caused by people feeling disrespected, humiliated, or like they’ve lost face. Those are the triggers to violence, and they’re more intense in more unequal societies, where status competition is intensified and we’re more sensitive about social judgments.
We also found very big differences in the proportion of the population that’s in prison in different countries and American states. But the differences aren’t driven by the amount of crime, they’re driven by the fact that people in unequal societies have more punitive attitudes about crime. It may have to do with fear across classes, lack of trust, and lack of involvement in community life…
If you grow up in an unequal society, your actual experience of human relationships is different. Your idea of human nature changes. If you grow up in a consumerist society, you think of human beings as self-interested. In fact, consumerism is so powerful because we’re so highly social. It’s not that we actually have an overwhelming desire to accumulate property, it’s that we’re concerned with how we’re seen all the time. So actually, we’re misunderstanding consumerism. It’s not material self-interest, it’s that we’re so sensitive. We experience ourselves through each other’s eyes—and that’s the reason for the labels and the clothes and the cars…
BJ:What’s the effect of inequality on the way we perceive our communities—and how does that perception affect how they function?
RW: Inequality affects our ability to trust and our sense that we are part of a community. In a way, that is the fundamental mediator between inequality and most of these outcomes, through the damage it does to social relations. For instance, in more equal countries or more equal states, two-thirds of the population may feel they can trust others in general, whereas in the more unequal countries or states, it may drop as low as 15 percent or 25 percent…
Lately I have been very taken with the spiritual side of our country’s need for healing, and recognizing parallels in my own emotional and empathic development. I read a Cornel West interview, or maybe it was Angela Davis… Anyway, they were talking about how Black liberation has consistently been about so much more, for so many people (not just Blacks’), than simply raising Blacks up to every other social participants’ level. That isn’t to diminish the importance of it, Black power and autonomy have been critical parts of the struggle for justice, and remain so, but I think one of the reasons I have always been so compelled by Black liberation struggles is the degree to which they encompass our country’s need to heal itself, to rid itself of the poison of indifference, the barriers that keep us from properly loving one another, and frankly, ourselves. Or did you think Jesus was just kidding when he said “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”? The route to our own realization runs through justice and peace for all. Ahem, or something. More below the flip:
The Cleveland Model, also in The Nation by Gar Alperovitz, Ted Howard, and Thad Williamson.
Why do I say that everyone must read these articles? Because right now I think a lot of us have a sense that things suck, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. The first article says that that’s just not true. There are actually ideas out there equipped to meet the tremendous difficulties that face us. The problem is one of will, not of ability.
I refuse to accept that. Everyone who refuses to accept that and demand better from those in power pushes the conversation in a more realistic direction. Because right now, we are not having realistic discussions for most people. We are fooling around while those that have always suffered continue to do so, those that have known relative security meet those perenially stuck at the bottom, and we condemn our children and future selves to a poorer condition than we have even now. Well eff that. I voted (and contributed, and canvassed, and celebrated, and cried) for change and we need to stay talking about it even as most of our leaders have abandoned anything remotely resembling it.
The second article is to keep you optimistic. There are millions of people at the ground level (and on level two also, for sure) working to better theirs and others’ conditions. They are heroes, and our politicians owe these heroes no less commitment, work, and courage than these ‘ordinary’ people have shown. Imagine if (as Pollin discusses), the resources that remain un-utilized, locked up in the Federal Reserves were finally put to productive uses? Not speculation and gambling, but real investment. How many Evergreen Co-ops could we produce, bringing wealth and empowerment to the wracked communities around the country? It drives me crazy thinking of this missed opportunity.
I’d be surprised if we managed to actually get everything that’s needed by 2012. But for God’s sake don’t accept less than the fight [nonviolently, using civic means!] for what’s necessary. We need that at the very least.
“From my perspective, having served here, having been elected seven times, I’ve never seen a time when it’s become standard operating procedure,” Biden said of the filibuster. “And I really mean this unrelated to the fact that Barack and I are sitting down in the West Wing now. For any president in the future, having to move through anything he or she wants, requiring a supermajority is not a good way to do business.”There are two important things about these statements:
By joining the calls to end the filibuster permanently, the White House is starting to build pressure on Republicans to stop filibustering. The implied threat is “if you keep filibustering, we will work to get rid of the filibuster.”
The White House is articulating a case for why the filibuster is bad for Americans in general, rather than just for their own administration. Biden points to “any President in the future,” rather than just his own. Pfeiffer talks about the filibuster preventing “honest debate,” “progress,” job creation, and better health care. The filibuster becomes an attach on the American people, rather than just a procedural obstacle that few people understand.
Combined, all of these statements actually come off as longing for a stronger, more prominent, grassroots movement to end the filibuster. This is a movement the White House would not want to lead themselves, but which would give more weight to the implied threat in #1 and broader articulation of the arguments they are making in #2.
As difficult as ending the filibuster may appear, if it has become enough of a threat to the things the White House values, then it has certainly become a major threat to things other powerful Democrats value. And, once it becomes a major threat to something the party values, then the party leadership becomes increasingly likely to join in an effort to defeat it. At this point, it seems to me that many in the party leadership are waiting for the grassroots to start building this movement, so they can jump in later on.
It’s also worth pointing out that the filibuster is of course, one of the least democratic institutions known to (Americanwhitemale) man.Anything that allows a single Senator, who is more likely to be elected for representing corporate interests than actual people, to completely derail the legislative process and block crucial executive branch position, is utter bullshit beyond being a hindrance to getting democratic work done.
Kudos to the White House for signalling possible interest here. Let’s encourage it.
I’ll admit it fully, I got a little worked up (who’s surprised?) about the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. And I still think that the ramifications of the ruling will be pretty awful. But that being said, I’ve found some articles from people whose commentary (and alignment with my own values) I’m inclined to trust as relatively well thought out and well-argued who largely agree with the ruling. Not necessarily because they’re happy about what might happen, but because they believe that the ruling faithfully held to the language in the First Amendment.
There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints…
One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions — warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs — can’t be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The “rule of law” means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don’t like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that’s the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court’s ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called “compelling state interests,” that the Court’s decision will produce “bad results” is not really an argument…
I’m also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don’t see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: ”banks own” the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions — their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold — and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can’t imagine how it could worsen fundamentally. All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical. There’s not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday’s issuance of this ruling?…
What is overlooked in virtually every discussion I’ve seen over the last 24 hours is how ineffective these campaign finance laws are. Large corporations employ teams of lawyers and lobbyists and easily circumvent these restrictions; wealthy individuals and well-funded unincorporated organizations are unlimited in what they can spend. It’s the smaller non-profit advocacy groups whose political speech tends to be most burdened by these laws. Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed.
In sum, there’s no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I’ve written volumes on that very problem. Although I doubt it, this decision may very well worsen that problem in some substantial way. But on both pragmatic and Constitutional grounds, the issue of corporate influence — like virtually all issues — is not really solvable by restrictions on political speech. Isn’t it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment — or, worse, amend it — in order to limit political advocacy?
Here’s his follow-up, also very much worth a read.
An important distinction: This case has nothing to do with contributions to a candidate. Strict contribution limits have long been upheld as constitutional. This case is about the ability of corporations and unions to act independently—to air, distribute, circulate “electioneering communications” independent of the candidate…
As an elected official who often tangled with wealthy corporations, I recognize that there is a superficial appeal in the prospect of being able to silence their political voices. Of course that is precisely why the First Amendment protects them and why I find myself sympathetic to the First Amendment absolutists in this case. What distinguishes what Citizens United did and what Bill O’Reilly on Fox News—Rachel Maddow on MSNBC—does every day? Fox and MSNBC are corporations bombarding the airwaves with political rhetoric, from the right and left, that is as close to “electioneering communications” as anything I can imagine. The McCain-Feingold statute excluded “media companies” from its limitations, a distinction that makes no logical sense. The constitutionality of Citizens United’s speech should have nothing to do with what else may or may not go on at the corporation it is part of…
Trying to limit the volume of independent voices will only generate false distinctions and bad logic, and it will also run directly against the core protection of the First Amendment: that we are all permitted—indeed guaranteed—access to the forum of public debate. If the court upholds the current law, then in October 2012, when Michael Moore tries to air a movie titled Palin Uncovered, about the Republican presidential nominee, funded in part by union contributions, he will be told he is violating federal law. What will we think then?
Like the above, I think corporatism is a creeping, insidious danger to democracy- if democracy is conceived of as a political system that faithfully represents and allows for civic participation and engagement by all its constituent members. That being said, and while I’m not by any means the most knowledgeable person about constitutional and corporate law, I can accept that if we are to aspire to truly open dialogue and discussion it does little good to simply clamp down on the other side’s right to speech. The problem we face, as always, is that the power and resources are stacked so heavily on one side that right now we lack anything resembling an equal discussion (a similar problem is faced in the climate debate, but should we bar the speech of people who are tremendous assholes who abhor transparency? Or should we figure out how to have a conversation that works more on reality-based ground?) I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s worth thinking about, even as I dread the results of this ruling.
I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
Disclaimer: I know tensions are running extremely high on this one, so I want to say at the outset, if you choose to comment on this (and I really hope you do), please be respectful. I’ll do my utmost to keep my snark to a minimum (and I know I fuck up a lot) and let’s be productive about this.
First of all, to disappointed Dems in Massachussetts: my condolences. I cannot imagine how it must feel to have a true hero of Kennedy’s stature replaced by a backward-assed Palinite. It must be absolutely awful, and for you I’m sure this is particularly bitter. That being said…
I’ve been watching the explosion of responses on Twitter, Facebook, the whole shebangabang, and I’m finding a common theme:
The voters have given up on the dream, haven’t given Barack Obama enough of a chance, are lazy and weak and don’t believe enough.
I get frustrated with the voters too. Voting for Nader over Gore? Poor choice. Ever voting Republican over Democrat? Poor choice. Not demanding more from our leaders? Poor choice.
But that being said, I can’t blame them or take fault with the voter who feels absolutely disgusted with Democratic progress over the last year. Women see their rights to reproductive freedom dangling by a thread under the best circumstances of health care reform. The LGBTQ(IQ) community sees absolute waffling on their civil rights and pandering to hate-filled Uganda-meddling demagogues. Blacks and Latinos are suffering under a depression, not a recession, and are being disproportionately ignored by the stimulus. The green jobs movement saw our shining star tarred and feathered by the rightists and abandoned by the leftists. The climate movement sees disrespect and a lack of transparency and democratic input at Copenhagen and in all climate legislation being considered. We all see billions thrown at an expanded overseas war and billions thrown at rich bankers (those that aren’t running the treasury) while millions are without work, drowning in desperation. And we see the wholesale giveaway of tens of millions of new customers to health insurance companies slavering at the chance to abuse them, the entrenchment of the very people that caused this mess.
As I have been saying for months, there are many of us who are not frustrated because we can’t appreciate the pace of change, but because we do not approve of the direction. Just look at health care.
At the end of the day it probably comes down to a combination of factors, the most salient of which is almost definitely the economy (not to discount frustration over inability to challenge the real bastions of power). One in ten Americans doesn’t have a job. One in six doesn’t have the job they want. Half of those that do have jobs don’t like em. I think our ideological paradigm is better-equipped to solve that, but I doubt most people give a shit about ideology. They give a shit about opportunity. And I just don’t see how you can blame the voter for feeling like they’ve had opportunity snatched away from them. I know I feel that way, and I’ve got a fantastic job. But I know a lot of people who don’t, and it’s bullshit that I have what they don’t because I got lucky.
I find this contempt for an ambiguous block of ‘voters’ unsurprising but a little disturbing. I will always advocate for the voter doing more to assert themselves democratically. I happen to think an energized, combative, dissenting public is the only way we’re going to get anything done around here. I try and provide leadership in my work and writing. But I just won’t lambast those that feel let down. I mean, where was the outrage when Lieberman made a mockery of ‘our’ 60-seat majority? Where was the ‘where do we go from here?’ then?
But enough about me, what do you think?
Peace,
Joel
ps. reconciliation? end the filibuster? when procedural Senate rules are able to destroy the ability to govern… DC, we got a big honkin problem.
