When Newt Gingrich suggested that America impose a poll test in U.S. history as a requirement for native-born citizens to vote, it was too much even for black Tea Party Congressman Allen West (R-FL). "That's going back to some times that my parents had to contend with," West said of the notion of a Jim Crow-style literacy test. "I think that we need to do a better job educating our young men and women in school, but we don't need to have a litmus test, no."
For Gingrich, who recently called Obama a "food stamp president," this is part of a pattern of racially offensive remarks, policy positions and affiliations -- against African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims and others. But Gingrich is merely a spoke in the wheel. There is nationwide effort by the Republican Party to suppress voter turnout in next year's presidential election. Devoid of any ideas to beat Obama and win over the electorate, and crippled by a roster of candidates consisting of empty suits, wingnuts and the otherwise unelectable, this is their election strategy for 2012.
And it is a game-plan perfected by Dixiecrats in the days of segregation, and for the same reasons. Segregationists employed the poll test, poll tax, threat of physical violence and other tactics to keep blacks out of the political process and maintain Jim Crow rule. Such a regime would become untenable once African-Americans were able to exercise their right to vote, and the racists in power knew that.
In a healthy, authentic democratic system, we benefit from broad and inclusive participation. Sadly, throughout this country's history, this land of the free, the right to vote was secured for more and more people through protest. People were compelled to struggle for the franchise through hardship, bloodshed, and in some cases martyrdom.
As the party of the Southern Strategy from the 1960s onward, the GOP assumed the mantle of white Christian conservatism, and with it, a mindset characterized by racial resentment over the gains of the civil rights movement, and the continued presence of blacks, Latinos and others. This resentment was then disguised as opposition to taxes, social programs and big government, on the grounds that people of color benefited more from these programs.
Often an effective means to divide and conquer in the short term, the Southern Strategy has revealed its fatal flaw: In an increasingly diverse nation such as the U.S., Republican dependence on a dwindling demographic of angry, rightwing Tea Party folks for their electoral victory leaves them with only one of two options: Fade into oblivion, or, as thugs would do in corrupt regimes and banana republics, suppress the vote. And that's why the GOP, predicting their own failure to prevail on the merits of their positions before a national audience, has taken it to the gutter.
This time, it's called Voter ID. This year, conservative lawmakers in 20 states such as Montana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin are pushing bills that would require voters to produce an ID, typically a driver's license, state-issued ID, passport, Legislation recently passed in the Florida and Texas legislatures, and the governors of Kansas and South Carolina just signed Voter ID bills into law. And 13 of 27 states that already have such a law are considering beefing up their requirements.
The stated reason for the need for such laws is the ever-present scourge of voter fraud. But as the Brennan Center for Justice points out, fraud is extremely rare, the way that being struck by lightning is rare, except that voter fraud is even less common. Moreover, these policies, which are costly to implement, would disenfranchise millions of voters without tackling any real problem.
But for Republicans, there is an unstated problem that the Voter ID bills address -- those pesky black and Latino voters who have the nerve to want to go out and vote, not to mention those seniors, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. These groups are less likely to possess a government-issued ID. And it is no accident that they are traditional Democratic constituencies, so this law is for them. And to that end, the GOP plays the role of the bully who beats you up every day and takes your lunch money.
In a normal world, when you want to win an election, it's all about "Get Out The Vote" efforts. But when your goal is to snatch victory from the gutter, "Block The Vote" will do.
May 13, 2011
America's "Shoot 'Em Up, Lock 'Em Up" Mentality Is Its Undoing
Remember all the talk of a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War? Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? Since that time, U.S. defense spending has ballooned, nearly doubling since 2001.
Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, it will be hard for the war hawks to defend keeping American troops in Afghanistan. But they will, even as a majority of people want to cut military spending in order to reduce the deficit, rather than cut important social programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. There's lots of money in the Pentagon, and a group of experts has recommended cutting almost $1 trillion from defense over the next decade. People know that the military-industrial-complex is a drain on the nation's economy -- a threat to economic security, and a parasite that is eating its host bit by bit.
It is hard to shake off bad habits and the U.S. has a number of them. This addiction to remaining in a permanent state of war is one of the largest and most problematic. There is the war on terror and the war on drugs. The former is used to justify the behemoth that is the national security apparatus. Meanwhile, the latter facilitates the growth of the prison-industrial-complex, and the incarceration of predominantly poor, uneducated black and Latino men, in a country with no jobs for them. These two systems are equally exploitative and destructive to human lives, and corporations have found their niche in profiting from the suffering of others.
And while profiting in such a manner is an unsustainable model for the long-term success of a nation, some remain undeterred from pursuing this path. America spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world -- combined. We imprison more people than any other nation, including the most repressive dictatorships you can imagine. In fact, the land of the free is home to only 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
Here, we lock 'em up and shoot 'em up. And we'll go visit someone else's backyard and lock 'em up and shoot 'em up too. And our voracious appetite for guns at home perversely complements our lust for senseless war abroad. With 90 guns for nearly every 100 people, the U.S. is the most armed nation on the planet, and we have shocking homicide statistics to prove it. The second amendment is used as a pretext for an astounding level of gun proliferation that is unheard of in -- and incompatible with -- a stable democratic society. But we know that the National Rifle Association, which, by the way, is increasingly allied with right-wing extremists, militias and domestic terrorists, is funded by the gun industry to the tune of millions of dollars. This, as illegal firearms ravage our urban communities
If so-called American exceptionalism is to be found in war, then Americans are in deeper trouble than they realize. The U.S. has the most advanced military weaponry and high-tech toys for its soldiers to kill and destroy, while American cities crumble under the weight of their low-grade, early-twentieth century infrastructure. Europe and Asia are decades ahead in high-speed rail because they actually have it, and this nation elects politicians who attack high-speed rail as some big government welfare giveaway program. And the rest of the world laughs as we wage war on ourselves, with culture wars, a war on intelligence and progress, and assaults on women's rights, workers and immigrants.
Sounds like a winning strategy, if your goal is to fail miserably -- exceptionally miserably.
Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, it will be hard for the war hawks to defend keeping American troops in Afghanistan. But they will, even as a majority of people want to cut military spending in order to reduce the deficit, rather than cut important social programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. There's lots of money in the Pentagon, and a group of experts has recommended cutting almost $1 trillion from defense over the next decade. People know that the military-industrial-complex is a drain on the nation's economy -- a threat to economic security, and a parasite that is eating its host bit by bit.
It is hard to shake off bad habits and the U.S. has a number of them. This addiction to remaining in a permanent state of war is one of the largest and most problematic. There is the war on terror and the war on drugs. The former is used to justify the behemoth that is the national security apparatus. Meanwhile, the latter facilitates the growth of the prison-industrial-complex, and the incarceration of predominantly poor, uneducated black and Latino men, in a country with no jobs for them. These two systems are equally exploitative and destructive to human lives, and corporations have found their niche in profiting from the suffering of others.
And while profiting in such a manner is an unsustainable model for the long-term success of a nation, some remain undeterred from pursuing this path. America spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world -- combined. We imprison more people than any other nation, including the most repressive dictatorships you can imagine. In fact, the land of the free is home to only 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
Here, we lock 'em up and shoot 'em up. And we'll go visit someone else's backyard and lock 'em up and shoot 'em up too. And our voracious appetite for guns at home perversely complements our lust for senseless war abroad. With 90 guns for nearly every 100 people, the U.S. is the most armed nation on the planet, and we have shocking homicide statistics to prove it. The second amendment is used as a pretext for an astounding level of gun proliferation that is unheard of in -- and incompatible with -- a stable democratic society. But we know that the National Rifle Association, which, by the way, is increasingly allied with right-wing extremists, militias and domestic terrorists, is funded by the gun industry to the tune of millions of dollars. This, as illegal firearms ravage our urban communities
If so-called American exceptionalism is to be found in war, then Americans are in deeper trouble than they realize. The U.S. has the most advanced military weaponry and high-tech toys for its soldiers to kill and destroy, while American cities crumble under the weight of their low-grade, early-twentieth century infrastructure. Europe and Asia are decades ahead in high-speed rail because they actually have it, and this nation elects politicians who attack high-speed rail as some big government welfare giveaway program. And the rest of the world laughs as we wage war on ourselves, with culture wars, a war on intelligence and progress, and assaults on women's rights, workers and immigrants.
Sounds like a winning strategy, if your goal is to fail miserably -- exceptionally miserably.
May 10, 2011
The Incompatibility of Christianity and American Capitalism
A very thought-provoking poll was released recently on Americans and their attitudes toward Christianity and capitalism. The survey found that more Americans believe that Christianity and the free market are in conflict (44 percent) than those think they are not (36 percent). This holds regardless of religious affiliation. Women, Democrats and those of low income are more likely to believe the two are incompatible. Meanwhile, Tea Party members, Republicans, college-educated and more affluent people were more likely to believe the two are not at odds.
White evangelicals are more likely than the general population to believe unregulated businesses would behave ethically. Meanwhile, Christians of color overwhelmingly (76 percent) want the church to speak out on social justice matters, and economic issues such as foreclosures devastating the community.
So what should we make of this? At first glance, it tells me that there is hope. Today's economic troubles are opening the eyes of Americans, perhaps. The inequality in this nation -- and the flagrant manner in which concentrated power flaunts its excesses -- is so perverse that it offends the moral sensibilities and belief systems of everyday folks. If there is any chance of reforming or changing our institutions, it all begins with asking if we expect -- or demand -- moral and ethical institutions that bend towards justice. Like the flailing, bankrupt Communist system in the final days of the USSR, American capitalism has revealed itself as a sham religion that promises much and operates under deceptive rhetoric, yet ultimately benefits a scant few. Right now, the system seems to be thriving perversely on the economic inequality that is eating society alive. Wall Street profits and executive bonuses are up, rewards for their plunder of the rest of us.
And yet, isn't this the way it was supposed to be? Did capitalism ever have a moral compass? And haven't capitalism and Christianity always operated in tandem for centuries?
Slavery has to be the ultimate example of unfettered, unregulated markets, laissez faire in its purest sense. The Church blessed slave ships and expeditions to rape and pillage indigenous peoples, and one slave ship was even named Jesus. Earlier forms of the Christian Right endorsed the economic exploitation of slavery and Jim Crow segregation and found justification in the Bible. Even today, some so-called Christians give their stamp of approval on cuts in crucial government programs that serve poor families, or the despoliation of the land by oil companies in the name of economic growth. They even compare the hand of the free market to the hand of God. After all, gun manufacturers have to make a buck, too, the way Jesus wanted it.
So, is capitalism at odds with Christianity? I suppose it all depends on which Christianity you use as your point of reference. The Christianity of the right wing is the imperial, status quo Christianity that helps prop up the rich and the powerful. Then there's the other side of the coin -- the Christianity that believes in social justice, liberation theology and caring for the least of these. This is the Christianity that believes it is easier for the camel to pass through an eye of a needle than it is for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God, and is the Jesus who drove the money-changers, the Wall Street bankers of the day, out of the temple. Adherents to this school fought for the abolition of slavery and struggled for racial and economic equality in the civil rights movement. Like Martin Luther King, they fought for sanitation workers.
The early twenty-first century is not the first time that capitalism has run roughshod over the people's rights, nor, sadly, will it likely be the last. The problem is that the counterbalance to capitalism -- call it a social safety net, social welfare, the New Deal, socialism or what have you -- has eroded in the U.S. And while good people of faith (or no faith at all) struggle to restore it, other so-called people of faith welcome its demise, if they do not manipulate their religion to justify that demise. Sadly, that is as much a condemnation of religion and the way it is practiced as it is an indictment of capitalism.
It is easy for Americans to point to the oppression in certain Muslim nations and shake their heads in disbelief. It is quite another thing to look inward at the injustice, the poverty, the hunger and the unemployment that is tolerated in a nation where so many would preach to others about Jesus Christ.
Regardless of faith, Americans should be challenged to expect better from government and from society. Many followers of the cult of capitalism drank the kool-aid, believing in the virtues of chasing a dollar above all else. They were convinced, as some still are convinced despite the lack of evidence, that by redistributing the nation's money in an upward direction, it would trickle down. And why would you want to tax the rich when capitalism has convinced you that you will become rich someday? Of course, for most of us that won't happen in the land of opportunity, which is the least economically mobile society in the developed world. Moreover, the Tea Party-infused GOP has convinced its followers to vote against their own interests. The diehard followers of the right wing oppose healthcare and social programs that ameliorate the effects of capitalism on the grounds that blacks and Latinos will benefit the most.
Rather than blindly place our faith in institutions that are paving the way for our downfall -- yet we dare not touch them because we deem them sacrosanct -- America must strive to build systems that nurture us and make us whole. We can create whatever we want. The propped-up, broken structures need to be fixed or replaced. Capitalism as practiced in the U.S. -- under-regulated, unaccountable and based on winners and losers and short-term gain -- is a system of privatized profits and socialized risk. And it is killing us. But should an economic system be moral? I certainly hope so.
White evangelicals are more likely than the general population to believe unregulated businesses would behave ethically. Meanwhile, Christians of color overwhelmingly (76 percent) want the church to speak out on social justice matters, and economic issues such as foreclosures devastating the community.
So what should we make of this? At first glance, it tells me that there is hope. Today's economic troubles are opening the eyes of Americans, perhaps. The inequality in this nation -- and the flagrant manner in which concentrated power flaunts its excesses -- is so perverse that it offends the moral sensibilities and belief systems of everyday folks. If there is any chance of reforming or changing our institutions, it all begins with asking if we expect -- or demand -- moral and ethical institutions that bend towards justice. Like the flailing, bankrupt Communist system in the final days of the USSR, American capitalism has revealed itself as a sham religion that promises much and operates under deceptive rhetoric, yet ultimately benefits a scant few. Right now, the system seems to be thriving perversely on the economic inequality that is eating society alive. Wall Street profits and executive bonuses are up, rewards for their plunder of the rest of us.
And yet, isn't this the way it was supposed to be? Did capitalism ever have a moral compass? And haven't capitalism and Christianity always operated in tandem for centuries?
Slavery has to be the ultimate example of unfettered, unregulated markets, laissez faire in its purest sense. The Church blessed slave ships and expeditions to rape and pillage indigenous peoples, and one slave ship was even named Jesus. Earlier forms of the Christian Right endorsed the economic exploitation of slavery and Jim Crow segregation and found justification in the Bible. Even today, some so-called Christians give their stamp of approval on cuts in crucial government programs that serve poor families, or the despoliation of the land by oil companies in the name of economic growth. They even compare the hand of the free market to the hand of God. After all, gun manufacturers have to make a buck, too, the way Jesus wanted it.
So, is capitalism at odds with Christianity? I suppose it all depends on which Christianity you use as your point of reference. The Christianity of the right wing is the imperial, status quo Christianity that helps prop up the rich and the powerful. Then there's the other side of the coin -- the Christianity that believes in social justice, liberation theology and caring for the least of these. This is the Christianity that believes it is easier for the camel to pass through an eye of a needle than it is for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God, and is the Jesus who drove the money-changers, the Wall Street bankers of the day, out of the temple. Adherents to this school fought for the abolition of slavery and struggled for racial and economic equality in the civil rights movement. Like Martin Luther King, they fought for sanitation workers.
The early twenty-first century is not the first time that capitalism has run roughshod over the people's rights, nor, sadly, will it likely be the last. The problem is that the counterbalance to capitalism -- call it a social safety net, social welfare, the New Deal, socialism or what have you -- has eroded in the U.S. And while good people of faith (or no faith at all) struggle to restore it, other so-called people of faith welcome its demise, if they do not manipulate their religion to justify that demise. Sadly, that is as much a condemnation of religion and the way it is practiced as it is an indictment of capitalism.
It is easy for Americans to point to the oppression in certain Muslim nations and shake their heads in disbelief. It is quite another thing to look inward at the injustice, the poverty, the hunger and the unemployment that is tolerated in a nation where so many would preach to others about Jesus Christ.
Regardless of faith, Americans should be challenged to expect better from government and from society. Many followers of the cult of capitalism drank the kool-aid, believing in the virtues of chasing a dollar above all else. They were convinced, as some still are convinced despite the lack of evidence, that by redistributing the nation's money in an upward direction, it would trickle down. And why would you want to tax the rich when capitalism has convinced you that you will become rich someday? Of course, for most of us that won't happen in the land of opportunity, which is the least economically mobile society in the developed world. Moreover, the Tea Party-infused GOP has convinced its followers to vote against their own interests. The diehard followers of the right wing oppose healthcare and social programs that ameliorate the effects of capitalism on the grounds that blacks and Latinos will benefit the most.
Rather than blindly place our faith in institutions that are paving the way for our downfall -- yet we dare not touch them because we deem them sacrosanct -- America must strive to build systems that nurture us and make us whole. We can create whatever we want. The propped-up, broken structures need to be fixed or replaced. Capitalism as practiced in the U.S. -- under-regulated, unaccountable and based on winners and losers and short-term gain -- is a system of privatized profits and socialized risk. And it is killing us. But should an economic system be moral? I certainly hope so.
May 5, 2011
What Will It Take to Bring Obama Home? Making Him Realize There's No Other Choice
The following is part of the ongoing "Moving Left" series in BlackCommentator.com:
When it comes to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the mistake people made was mistaking voting for activism. I believe that before we have any discussion on whether and how we can bring Obama home to progressive values, we must first come to terms with this reality.
It's not as if you can blame them. After eight years of a disaster that was the Bush administration, voters wanted and needed a major change in the direction of the country. We needed to wipe the slate clean and set a new tone for America. A new man for the times came on the scene. He was a person of color, clean and articulate, and with lofty rhetoric. And he provided hurting, hungry people with hope and promises of change. In fact, he was the embodiment of change.
Now, in 2011, things are a little different. Main Street is hurting, and unemployment is high and seemingly intractable. Meanwhile, as poor and working people struggle and fail to keep their necks above water, Wall Street and the corporate elites never had it so good. Profits are at a record high, and the gap between the richest of Americans and the rest of us is higher than at any time since the first Great Depression.
In the midst of this, the current administration has lacked the backbone, the heart and the intestinal fortitude to fight for ordinary folks. There have been some successes for progressives over the past few years, to be sure, but sprinkled among a larger host of disappointments and missed opportunities. The President made no attempts at a public option or single payer health insurance system, opting instead for a watered-down compromise plan that has proven itself as a giveaway to corporate interests. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this nation, and embraces budget cuts that support the fraudulent Republican narrative of austerity and trickle-down economics. The Bush military policies continue, as does the practice of rendition and detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo. And when the President goes to the bargaining table to negotiate with the Republicans, he gives away the store right away and asks for nothing in return. Democrats, progressives and other Obama supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief. Where is the fighting spirit, the will to work hard for our values?
Part of the problem is that Obama took the Goldman Sachs money in the presidential campaign, and has to play their tune. He stacked his inner circle with Wall Street water carriers and Clinton-era neoliberals with a deregulation fetish. These are the people who helped create the country's economic mess, in which the plenty greedy were allowed to plunder America's resources by gambling it all away at the casino.
The other part of the problem is Obama's quixotic journey to the political center. There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and road kill, and you'd better believe it. Although his campaign rhetoric was progressive, this president chooses to govern from the middle. That decision in itself is questionable for a number of fundamental reasons:
If the disgruntled Obama supporters thought they would get everything they wanted from this White House - without lifting a finger other than to cast their ballot in the voting booth - they were sorely mistaken. Elections are important, but are no substitute for the hard work of building movements, coalitions and institutions. At the same time, diehard Obama supporters and apologists who say he is just one man and cannot do it alone must realize that he is not doing it alone. He has an administration filled with intelligent, capable individuals. Yet, Democrats have not put enough pressure on Obama, which is why we are here today. But Democratic leaders--including progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee(PCCC) are pushing back, challenging the President to reject the Republican budget agenda, and not to cut programs for low income people.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. That is precisely what today's progressives must do with Obama. They must build the infrastructure of an independent movement that supports the President when he deserves it, and pressures him out of love, like a wayward family member, when necessary. Most of all, this movement must look toward the future, with the goal of surviving beyond an Obama administration or any other presidency.
Progressives must also craft a media narrative that places their ideals squarely in the political center, with the President having no choice but to embrace them. Justice for union workers, a living wage and benefits, a clean environment, social safety net and fighting against wealth inequality are mainstream policies. Triangulation is both unnecessary and counterproductive for a president who already enjoys support among moderates, who have fled the GOP in droves. The once mainstream Republican Party is now dominated by conspiracy theorists, crackpot Birthers in the mold of Donald Trump, self-righteous religious zealots and morality police, and Neo-Confederates. They want to turn extremism into the mainstream, and make ignorant the new smart. It is hard to imagine finding common ground with a party whose core constituencies include hate groups.
Further, the base must remind President Obama that the Republican goal is to run the economy into the ground -- and his presidency with it -- all for political gain. Therefore, he has no choice but to come home. And progressives should make it clear that if he wants a second term, he most certainly must come home in order for his supporters to come out next Election Day. That is not to say the Obama voters will flock to a viable challenger from within or outside the Democratic Party. Rather, many of them, demoralized and lacking in enthusiasm, simply will stay home and, by default, bestow victory upon the Republicans. That's what happened in the 2010 midterms, and the rest is history.
When it comes to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the mistake people made was mistaking voting for activism. I believe that before we have any discussion on whether and how we can bring Obama home to progressive values, we must first come to terms with this reality.
It's not as if you can blame them. After eight years of a disaster that was the Bush administration, voters wanted and needed a major change in the direction of the country. We needed to wipe the slate clean and set a new tone for America. A new man for the times came on the scene. He was a person of color, clean and articulate, and with lofty rhetoric. And he provided hurting, hungry people with hope and promises of change. In fact, he was the embodiment of change.
Now, in 2011, things are a little different. Main Street is hurting, and unemployment is high and seemingly intractable. Meanwhile, as poor and working people struggle and fail to keep their necks above water, Wall Street and the corporate elites never had it so good. Profits are at a record high, and the gap between the richest of Americans and the rest of us is higher than at any time since the first Great Depression.
In the midst of this, the current administration has lacked the backbone, the heart and the intestinal fortitude to fight for ordinary folks. There have been some successes for progressives over the past few years, to be sure, but sprinkled among a larger host of disappointments and missed opportunities. The President made no attempts at a public option or single payer health insurance system, opting instead for a watered-down compromise plan that has proven itself as a giveaway to corporate interests. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this nation, and embraces budget cuts that support the fraudulent Republican narrative of austerity and trickle-down economics. The Bush military policies continue, as does the practice of rendition and detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo. And when the President goes to the bargaining table to negotiate with the Republicans, he gives away the store right away and asks for nothing in return. Democrats, progressives and other Obama supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief. Where is the fighting spirit, the will to work hard for our values?
Part of the problem is that Obama took the Goldman Sachs money in the presidential campaign, and has to play their tune. He stacked his inner circle with Wall Street water carriers and Clinton-era neoliberals with a deregulation fetish. These are the people who helped create the country's economic mess, in which the plenty greedy were allowed to plunder America's resources by gambling it all away at the casino.
The other part of the problem is Obama's quixotic journey to the political center. There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and road kill, and you'd better believe it. Although his campaign rhetoric was progressive, this president chooses to govern from the middle. That decision in itself is questionable for a number of fundamental reasons:
- First, the people who elected Barack Obama did not want a centrist who stands for nothing, sees how the wind is blowing and splits the difference. They wanted bold, decisive leadership, not a referee-in-chief.
- Second, such a strategy hopes to garner support from undecided independent voters who want Democrats and Republicans to play nice together, while ignoring the base. Sometimes, compromise is not a prudent step, particularly if your opponent has an unacceptable point of view. These voters live solely in the minds of inside-the-Beltway prognosticators and pundits.
- Third, governing from the center is a tough proposition when you fail to define what the center actually is. Ultra-rightwing Christian fundamentalism is driving the center in its traditional sense rightward. So, if your desire is to be Republican-light, be forewarned that when a fake Republican runs against a real Republican, the Republican always wins.
- Fourth, President Clinton was able to get away with triangulation, but that was Clinton's style. Plus, Bill had the benefit of a booming economy. So, although the base was angry when he sided with the Republicans to end welfare as we know it, he remained popular. But there is a sense today that voters are done with the foolishness. And the protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere point to a pushback against a conservative onslaught that would dismantle the New Deal-Great Society legacy.
If the disgruntled Obama supporters thought they would get everything they wanted from this White House - without lifting a finger other than to cast their ballot in the voting booth - they were sorely mistaken. Elections are important, but are no substitute for the hard work of building movements, coalitions and institutions. At the same time, diehard Obama supporters and apologists who say he is just one man and cannot do it alone must realize that he is not doing it alone. He has an administration filled with intelligent, capable individuals. Yet, Democrats have not put enough pressure on Obama, which is why we are here today. But Democratic leaders--including progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee(PCCC) are pushing back, challenging the President to reject the Republican budget agenda, and not to cut programs for low income people.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. That is precisely what today's progressives must do with Obama. They must build the infrastructure of an independent movement that supports the President when he deserves it, and pressures him out of love, like a wayward family member, when necessary. Most of all, this movement must look toward the future, with the goal of surviving beyond an Obama administration or any other presidency.
Progressives must also craft a media narrative that places their ideals squarely in the political center, with the President having no choice but to embrace them. Justice for union workers, a living wage and benefits, a clean environment, social safety net and fighting against wealth inequality are mainstream policies. Triangulation is both unnecessary and counterproductive for a president who already enjoys support among moderates, who have fled the GOP in droves. The once mainstream Republican Party is now dominated by conspiracy theorists, crackpot Birthers in the mold of Donald Trump, self-righteous religious zealots and morality police, and Neo-Confederates. They want to turn extremism into the mainstream, and make ignorant the new smart. It is hard to imagine finding common ground with a party whose core constituencies include hate groups.
Further, the base must remind President Obama that the Republican goal is to run the economy into the ground -- and his presidency with it -- all for political gain. Therefore, he has no choice but to come home. And progressives should make it clear that if he wants a second term, he most certainly must come home in order for his supporters to come out next Election Day. That is not to say the Obama voters will flock to a viable challenger from within or outside the Democratic Party. Rather, many of them, demoralized and lacking in enthusiasm, simply will stay home and, by default, bestow victory upon the Republicans. That's what happened in the 2010 midterms, and the rest is history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)