Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
Rantings of a Radical Activist
The first left-wing movement activist to be elected President in American history.  Does a movement that hasn't had one of their own in the White House for a generation know how to work with an ally to achieve legislative victories? Are we capable of learning how to do more than complain about the guy in charge? Are we able to recognize the good faith efforts of an ally after years of being told that Democrats are one half of our two-headed enemy? Do we know how to organize to pressure Congress so that a President's progressive proposal doesn't become a disappointing compromise? The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you. That call went out on election night 2008. Sometimes, I'm woefully discouraged that the response from too many was to sit back, relax and wait for their cynicism to be validated, as if change is something they can watch happen on a screen.
When George Bush said something conservative he had an echo chamber. Fox and talk radio would celebrate it. They'd frame the debate and push it into the corporate press. That was a good thing for conservative ideas because they were lent the credibility of the Presidency and received wider exposure.
What happens when Obama says something progressive? It's ignored. The corporate press won't talk about it because that would be "liberal media bias". Fox might mention it to criticize. And even progressive pundits and the netroots ignore it because we're not supposed to do anything but hold his feet to the fire.
Let's take the BP oil disaster speech as an example. Obama made a powerful statement for a strong climate change bill and moving America off fossil fuels. He also made a direct assault on the Reagan/Bush anti-government philosophy that allowed the disaster to happen. What happened next?
The progressives statements in his speech were ignored. Fossil fuel industry employee Keith Olbermann panned it. The corporate press, that's so closely tied to the fossil fuel industry, certainly wasn't going to highlight the better parts of his speech for us. There was frivolous commentary about his style not being strong enough, as if they never heard what Obama said.
So, this is when the netroots steps in to pressure the corporate press to acknowledge our issues, right? Nope. Most bloggers were content to follow the lead of our corporate approved spokespersons who told us that he wasn't feisty enough and then add the complaint that (ZOMG!) he dared to suggest we pray about it.
The result? We missed an opportunity to improve the chances for passing a strong climate change bill. We missed the chance to have a week of conversation about Obama's comments rejecting the conservative agenda against government regulation. We missed the chance for a national discussion about the many ways in which the conservative anti-government-regulation philosophy threatens our environment and human life. We missed the chance to make it impossible for the corporate press to avoid discussing our issues. We missed the chance to advance progressive ideals about the proper role of government.
Obama opened the door for us and we blew it. All because too many left pundits and bloggers are pathologically incapable of praising Obama or admitting that he might be a progressive ally.
This doesn't just hurt Obama. It hurts the entire progressive movement and the issues we fight for. This is why we just had a national election in which most of the public had no knowledge of anything positive or progressive Obama has done. We didn't force the press to cover it.
We need to keep holding Obama's feet to the fire. But failing to also praise the positive isn't working for us. We need a different strategy for the next two years.
An SEC ruling completed action taken in the financial reform bill that gives more power to shareholders. This change was sought by unions and other groups that engage in corporate accountability campaigns. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN251240... Shareholders won more power on Wednesday to shake up corporate boards in the United States after the financial crisis exposed weaknesses in how companies were managed. The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a rule that gives shareholders an easier way to nominate company directors.
Activist shareholders who want more say on how companies are run have long sought the ability to place their nominees' names on company proxy statements. Thinking a few steps ahead, could this change set up the legal framework necessary for worker-owned and managed corporations? What if a union is able to effectively elect a company's board of directors? What if the majority of a company is owned by its employees who hold democratic elections for its governing board? Which will be the first company or union to follow the example of the South American worker-owned factory movement? http://www.zcommunications.org/factory-in-... How much impact this law will have depends on whether the progressive movement can recognize this opportunity and seize it. It could be a minor reform that puts mild pressure on a few corporate boards. Or it can be a step that leads to more dramatic change in response to a popular movement. It will take a lot more work than calling the White House to beg for top-down change.
An excerpt from Obama's speech at a factory providing green energy jobs as a result of the stimulus bill. Now I’ll be honest with you, there’s going to be a big debate about where we go. There are folks in Washington right now who think we should abandon our efforts to support clean energy. They’ve made the political calculation that it’s better to stand on the sidelines than work as a team to help American businesses and American workers.
So they said no to the small business tax cuts I talked about. They said no to rebuilding infrastructure. And they said no to clean energy projects. They even voted against getting rid of tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas so we could give those tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Wisconsin.
And my answer to people who have playing politics the past year and a half is, they should come to this plant. They should go to any of the dozen new battery factories, or the new electrical vehicle manufacturers, or the new wind turbine makers, or the solar plants that are popping up all over this country, and they should have to explain why they think these clean energy jobs are better off being made in Germany or China or Spain, instead of right here in the United States. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/16/... We've all heard the talking point that Obama needs to stop being so bipartisan and really stick it to Republicans. He did that yesterday. But I couldn't find the above quote in any of the articles I read about the speech. The fact is that Obama frequently attacks Republicans. He does it very convincingly. These comments are typical of other speeches. We shouldn't be asking why Obama doesn't criticize Republicans more. We should be asking why the corporate media censors Obama when he does. And why do so many left pundits and bloggers keep playing along?
Obama's campaign primarily focused on four top priorities: health care, climate change, getting out of Iraq, and economic recovery. He passed major legislation on all of those issues and the Iraq withdrawal is happening. His top remaining priority is passing a climate change bill through the US Senate. He has mentioned it in every major speech. In the face of this final big hurdle, the Governor of West Virginia appointed a replacement for Robert Byrd who promises to join Republicans and the anti-science climate change deniers in opposing the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House. If Byrd's replacement, Carte Goodwin, succeeds in blocking a major energy bill it will add to voter disappointment with Congress and hurt Democrats in Congressional races this year. Here's what the Senate's newest member said: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/16/16... "That being said, with regard to cap and trade, I will say this: From what I've seen of the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives and other proposals pending in the Senate, they simply are not right for West Virginia."
That answer received a round of applause from those in attendance at the press conference, including Gov. Joe Manchin (D), who appointed Goodwin. "I will not support any piece of legislation that threatens any West Virginia job, any West Virginia family, or jeopardizes the long-term economic security of this state," Goodwin said. One of Byrd's great qualities was his ability to admit his past mistakes and then make a courageous stand even if it was politically unpopular. For the last several years of his career he came to realize the mistake of his unquestioning support for the coal industry. He recognized that the transition to a clean energy economy needs to happen and that West Virginia must find a way to grow economically in the new reality rather than fight it. Being replaced by a corporate stooge for the coal industry is an insult to Bryd's legacy. Here's what Byrd said last year. To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.
The 20 coal-producing states together hold some powerful political cards. We can have a part in shaping energy policy, but we must be honest brokers if we have any prayer of influencing coal policy on looming issues important to the future of coal like hazardous air pollutants, climate change, and federal dollars for investments in clean coal technology. http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009... / Republicans know that their best opportunity in November is to keep Democrats frustrated and disappointed by blocking Obama's top legislative priorities. The Governor of West Virginia just did Republicans a huge favor with his appointment of Goodwin. No age group supported Obama by larger margins than voters under 25. Do Senate Democrats realize how important climate change is to young voters? Do they realize the consequences of not taking action on the mandate voters gave Obama in 2008? Do they realize that no one has a better plan for reviving the economy than creating millions of clean energy jobs?
Have you spoken to your member of Congress in person enough times for that? What about your city council member? State Representative? Do you know who your Democratic precinct committeeman is? Are you on friendly terms with the leaders of a local progressive organization like NAACP, Sierra Club, MoveOn, OFA, or your union? If the answer is yes, then thank you. You're surely making an important impact in your community. If the answer is no then you're not doing your fucking job. You aren't going to make a difference by bitching about national politics on the internet. Your power to influence decisions is greatest when you get local. If you answered no to all of these questions (and you don't have a disability that keeps you from getting around) then it's time to stop wasting energy on distractions and learn how to be an effective activist that gets something done! Don't whine. Organize. That's my friendly suggestion for the day. 
if there weren't such a consistent cookie-cutter template for how to pressure Obama.
1) Pick an issue.
2) Downplay or ignore anything Obama has already done.
3) Portray any small progress as a complete failure and catastrophic betrayal of the left.
4) Assume that lack of immediate action exactly along the lines of what the writer wants represents a complete abandonment of the issue by Obama.
5) Claim it's no different than Bush's policy. Then copy and paste the sensational language used to attack Bush on the same issue a few years ago.
6) Don't forget to sarcastically ask if this is hope and "change we can believe in."
More accurate, less exaggerated criticisms of Obama's policies would yield better results without needlessly alienating people and spreading counterproductive cynicism. There's so much silliness that fits this pattern that it's easy to tune out because it's predictably misleading. The people who overuse the above hyperbolic approach quickly lose any credibility they could have used to legitimately push Obama left. It's overdone to the point of being cliche.
They want money, of course. I told the caller right away that I only donate to individual candidates but she went right into her script anyway. It was some story about needing 60 Democrats. I asked if the DSCC was giving support to Blanche Lincoln. She went on with the script about needing 60 Democrats to pass important agenda items. I pointed out that the most important agenda item to pass right now is climate change legislation and some Senate Democrats are the main obstacle to that. That's why I only give to individual candidates. I'm giving the money they requested to Bill Halter instead. There's no better way to send a message to spineless Senate Democrats than to defeat Blanche Lincoln, the corporate stooge who isn't there for us on climate change, health care, or the right to organize. We need to make them more afraid of us than they're afraid of tea parties and corporate special interests. http://www.billhalter.com/
In a more autocratic country a single person could quickly deliver health care, completely change our energy economy and do everything else you think Obama should have done a week after entering office. But we don't live in a dictatorship, and I don't want anyone to have that kind of power.
Obama said in every speech that change will come from the people, not handed to us on a silver platter. Can we accept that Obama doesn't have the power to make unilateral decisions and instead put more pressure on the Senate? The Senate is the problem. I guess whining is easier than doing something productive.
Most of this was a reply in another thread but I decided to make it a new post since I write about the topic often enough.
There's a common tactic on the far left (a term which I consider a compliment) that goes something like this:
Step 1: Show why real change through the normal voting process and/or the Democratic Party won't get the kind of major, revolutionary results people want.
Step 2: Get people to take action through an alternative method such as a third party, or direct action tactics outside the regular electoral process, etc.
I'm all for direct action tactics that go beyond just voting and volunteering on campaigns. The problem with the strategy above is that Step 1 rarely leads to Step 2.
Once you convince people that it's a waste of time to fight for change through the normal electoral process and/or in support of a Democratic President the common response for most normal people is to give up hope and do nothing. That doesn't engage new people and it doesn't help the movement grow. Ralph Nader has been using this approach for over a decade and his support has steadily shrunk the entire time.
Cynicism and hopelessness are central reasons why at least 40% of the public still doesn't vote. Instead of motivating people to pressure Obama to move left or take additional action outside of the Democratic Party, which is often the intent, it leads to people doing nothing at all.
There's a reason why right wing talk radio hosts constantly push cynical attitudes about politics and point out that "both parties do it" whenever there's a scandal. They know that most people who are cynical about politics become disengaged. I understand why conservatives want an immobile public but it doesn't make sense for the left.
There's a fine line between healthy skepticism and unhealthy cynicism. I'd rather see a skeptical yet constructive essay about how we can prevent a repeat of Bill Clinton's move the the right instead of a fatalistic prediction that it's sure to happen again under Obama.
Howard Zinn is on of my favorite writers and he often points out the limitations of taking action within the Democratic Party and the electoral process. But if you notice, whenever Zinn writes about the limitations of the electoral system, he also gives examples of how people are able to succeed at accomplishing something in other ways. I wish more people who post negative, defeatist posts at DU would pay attention to Zinn's example.
So please go ahead and criticize Obama when he's wrong. Be skeptical. We need that. I'll do it too. But inaccurate exaggerations, over-the-top fatalistic predictions about our impending betrayal, and hopelessly negative cynicism doesn't help anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh. That's what I'll keep arguing against at DU even if it means people make sarcastic comments about my Che avatar.
It's OK to think that Obama might be a real progressive. It's OK to think he might do some very good things in office. It's OK to push him left without making him out to be the bad guy. It's OK to let go of the disappointments from the last 28 years since we've had a remotely liberal President. It might turn out better this time and believing that doesn't make you any less liberal.
Ralph Nader starts a so-called grass-roots organization that he funds (he has many times). But when the organization starts, it already has its goals, programs and policies determined in detail. The agenda was formed by Nader and his circle in DC, not among the people. They go to work telling people whey they should sign up for activist alerts and care about whatever issue that organization decided to work on. That's not grass roots and it doesn't respect the ability of people to create their own programs. That's the top-down authoritarian left, although in a much milder form that the Stalinist left.
The community organizing approach starts with bringing people together to talk about their common interests and then working in unity against established powers. It's focus is on empowering people to work on the issues they care about rather than telling people what issues they aught to care about or trying to solve people's problems for them.
Hillary had a top-down philosophy and argued during the campaign that she had the experience and ability to craft a government program to solve your problems for you. Obama had a very different message that constantly reminded people that THEY will be the source of change and solutions.
Although people tried to paint Obama and Hillary as the same, they do have some fundamental differences in their philosophy and approach to governing. Because of Obama's philosophy I think he'll do more for the progressive movement as President than more authoritarian thinkers who may have a more liberal policy platform. Massive change comes from mass movements more than government programs.
You'll see all of this in the Change meetings Obama held AFTER the election which asked people to gather in their communities to talk about their biggest priorities. Meeting leaders emailed the campaign to let them know what the top priorities were for their meeting. Obama is taking responsiveness to the people beyond reading polls and is making it part of a substantive change agenda.
March 2, 2008 Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet Earlier Obama had told the audience at a suburban high school rally in Dallas, Texas, that he intended to follow the example of his hero, President Abraham Lincoln, and appoint a cabinet of the talents, irrespective of party labels. “I think America deserves the best person for every job and so we are going to be canvassing far and wide if I am fortunate enough to be elected,” he said. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl... I'd like to thank Obama for being the kind of leader who does what he says he will do. Obama's cabinet picks aren't a sign that he's moving right. They're a sign that we're getting the pragmatic progressive we voted for who wants to represent all Americans. And I'd like to tell everyone who said Obama would shut liberals out of the cabinet to suck on it. You were wrong. Julius Genachowski is the latest liberal appointed to the cabinet along with Solis, Chu, Rice, Jackson, Donovan and others. Despite all the negative attention to a few high profile nominees, it looks like Obama will have a balanced cabinet with a diversity of viewpoints that leans left.
|
Profile Information Radical Activist
28561 posts Member since Sun May 9th 2004 Illinois, USA Male Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
