Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lefties for Obama: The Final Round
My column "Lefties for Obama" evoked a storm of criticism from readers who see no real difference between the two major parties. "Lefties for Obama: Round Two," listing a bunch of issues where some real difference seems apparent, got a somewhat better reception. Since I see a trend here, and since desperate times call for desperate appeals, I'm moved to offer one last round of Lefties for Obama.
This one is for those of you who live in battleground states and still say that, when it comes time to make policy decisions, the two parties will almost always act as one. OK. Let's suppose that's true.
But the President of the United States does a lot more than make decisions about specific policies. He (or she) is an immensely powerful symbol, doing more than any other person to set the mood and tone of political life for the whole nation, as well as signaling to the whole world what the USA is really all about.
Symbolism and mood-setting are a huge, though often overlooked, part of the president's role. On that score, there would be such a huge difference between a President Obama and a President McCain, it seems impossible to overlook.
The biggest difference of all is the most obvious one: race. Though any mention of race opens one up to the charge of "playing the race card," there are some more or less objective facts to be considered.
Racial barriers have always been the social foundation of American life. We have had so little class consciousness because we didn't need it: The economic as well as social hierarchy has been pretty firmly shaped by racial distinctions since the first British immigrants set foot on North American soil. White superiority has remained etched in the stone of our social structure. Even the tremendous gains of the civil rights movement made only relatively small dents in that stone.
But just the sight of a black family moving into the previously oh-so-White House would be by far the biggest step ever toward smashing our historical legacy of racism. The minute that the Obamas enter the White House might do more to change the tone of American life than everything else a President Obama could do in four, or even eight, years.
And it's not just about race. The racial barrier is merely the most firm and towering of a whole set of barriers that keep some Americans down, while those on the "right" side of the barrier can rise to the top of the socioeconomic ladder. You know the list: gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and all the rest.
The huge crack in the racial barrier symbolized by a President Obama would be a revolution of literally incalculable magnitude. An African-American president would make it seem not just legitimate, but inevitable, that we will move much faster to dismantle all those other barriers. That would be a major blow to conservatism in this country, regardless of what policies an Obama administration did or did not pursue.
On the other hand, the symbolic message of a McCain victory would be unmistakable: White privilege triumphs again. White privilege would seem more unshakeable than ever. By extension, all the other oppressive barriers would seem equally unchallengeable. All the gains made by movements for social and economic justice since the ‘60s would be set back. By how much? No one can predict. But the national mood would feel stuck firmly in the past, with all its injustices.
Yes, that's unreasonable. But symbolism always is. There's no way to stop such irrational psychological effects from taking their toll.
Speaking of the ‘60s, look back to the symbolic impact of John F. Kennedy. Though the 1960 election was virtually a tie, Nixon and his conservatism were quickly forgotten for a few years. From his first day in office, JFK symbolized a mood of youth, change, and new beginnings. Though none of his policies offered any radical change, the mood was stronger than the policies. Many factors contributed to the radical tone of the late ‘60s. But without the symbolic impact of JFK, it's hard to imagine that decade turning out as it did.
When Nixon made his comeback in 1968, the election was again a virtual tie. But again the loser was quickly forgotten. Though a Humphrey administration might not have differed much from Nixon's own policy, the tone was dramatically changed. Instead of the wishy-washy mood that Humphrey symbolized, a nasty, take-no-prisoners, Nixonian law-and-orderism came to dominate American political life.
When Nixon fell, Ronald Reagan was ready to take his place. Once again, even those who see little difference on policy should admit that there was a major difference between the tone of a Carter and a Reagan. Once again, it was the symbolic difference between a mood of somewhat flexible boundaries, signaling at least the possibility of change, and rigid boundaries keeping the oppressive hierarchies firmly in place.
Every presidential election since the ‘60s has really been a choice between those two symbolic styles. And there is no middle ground. It's a winner-take-all contest. The loser pretty much disappears.
On September 11, 2001, for example -- just nine months after the Supreme Court robbed Al Gore of the presidency he had actually won -- no one paid the slightest attention to him. All eyes turned to George W. Bush, making him the single most important person shaping American life for years to come.
True, the once-mighty Bush has now fallen so low. But in that respect, too, he is the most potent symbol of the prevailing mood about our public life. Gore's impressive successes in the last few years, culminating in a Nobel Prize, are still just a small blip on the radar screen of American politics compared with the tremendous scale of Bush's failures.
In the same way, if Obama loses he won't disappear. He will still be a senator and a contender for the 2012 Democratic nomination. But everything that he symbolizes will disappear, or remain just a small blip, totally overshadowed by everything that McCain -- and Sarah Palin! -- symbolize.
Don't forget that if the 73-year-old McCain wins, it will also send a message to the American public and to the world that someone with all the appalling qualities of a Palin is acceptable as President of the United States. The bar for public office will be lowered so far that we may as well just throw that bar away and let anyone at all take charge. And the kind of crude, redneck conservatism signaled by McCain's choice of Palin will be legitimized, while the thoughtful consider-all-the-possibilities style of Obama will fade back to the left-hand margin of society.
Yes, these are all very intangible considerations compared to the hard facts of a war in Afghanistan or multi-billion dollar bailouts for the corporate sector. But intangible mood plays a great role in determining how much the public will stand for the conservative policies of the Republocrat ruling elite and how much the public will consider progressive alternatives.
The story of American political life since the Nixon presidency has been pretty much the same: On specific issues, the public is usually well to the left of the ruling elite. But the pervasive mood of conservatism -- the fear of moving or even questioning the familiar boundary lines -- makes the public afraid to stand up and demand that its will be turned into policy on those specific issues. That can't begin to change until there's a widespread perception that the political center is moving back to the left.
An Obama presidency would not guarantee any progressive improvements, unless we the people demand them forcefully enough. But the day Obama steps into the White House would signal that the political center is moving back at least a bit to the left. That symbolic message would begin to open up real possibilities for change that we could capitalize on, if we know how.
The symbolism of a McCain presidency would move the center even more to the right and insure that the conservative tone of American life would continue for years to come. It would force us to use all our energy, not to work for positive change, but just to respond to emergencies and try to prevent the very worst excesses. We've had eight long years of that. Do we really want another four, or more?
- Posted in
448 Comments so far
Show AllI must say that I liked and agreed with your two previous essays on Lefties for Obama, but this one was better left unwritten. The only thing that an essay like this does it further the "Race Card" arguement. In the times we are living in, it should not be about if Obama is black, white, or pink, but what he plans for this country is what matters.
The onyl way we as a country can get passed the racial barrier is to stop using it in debates like this presidential one. By Obama winning the presidency without having to use the race card truly demonstrates a victory over racism. The fact that he won because he was best suited for the job at hand, not as some symbol against racism is the right view of this moment at hand. We cannot think that Obama must win so that we can overcome the racial barrier, we must think that he must win because he is the best fit for the job, and by being the best fit and also part african he has broken the barrier.
"I want to be the white man’s brother, not his brother-in-law."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
In an ideal world, perhaps, but there is no denying the ugly undercurrent of racism--no matter how many times the right claims there is no racism.
Several problematic assertions in this article. First, it's clear that a number of regular contributors on CD are part of the catch-and-divert apparatus, to bring progressives to the "right", to even perpetuate the mythology of some poetic left/right axis in the first place. Let's cut to the chase and talk about rich/poor, powerful/powerless, corporate/individual, plutocratic/democratic. Objectively speaking, the Democrats have COVERED for Bush in the past 8 years. They took impeachment off the table, voted for his war requests, and were among the first to rush to his aid in calling for a Wall Street bailout. They will suppress single-payer health care, real electoral reform, and their solution to health care will be to subsidize the cause of the problem -- the insurance industry.
As for Gore, Ira is better off not bringing up the '00 election as "lost". With Liebermann a solid supporter of the neocons, and Bush foreign policy, progressives must revise their "loss" in '00. May well be that there was not much lost after all. What was going through Gore's mind in running with Liebermann?
As for race, Ira's simpleton argument doesn't hold water. Was Margaret Thatcher a great boon to progressive feminism in the UK? Were Condie Rice and Clarence Thomas great boons to African American race relations? Let's not confuse tokenism with genuine policy, unless confusion is our intention. The rules of getting elected have not changed -- one must take big money, get the kosher stamp from the corporate media, and pay the usual lip-service to powerful political blocs. Better to have an albino in office who genuinely understood the plight of persons of color than a person of color who may -- or may not -- have that compassion/empathy and solid policy suggestions. Suggesting that color = policy is demeaning and racial in its own right. I can't answer for Obama specifically here, who can? Symbolically, it may be an important victory, but this isn't fiction or Hollywood here. Real people need quite a bit more than symbolism in their daily lives.
Obama's chief responsibility will be to make sure we remain a nation of socialization for the wealthy, capitalism for the poor. We really need look no further than their bailout of Wall Street or health care. Forced subsidy of the industry, rather than direct aid to people.
What was going through Gore's mind in running with Liebermann?
______________________________________________
The devolved, depraved, two-dimensional political strategy & tactics practiced by our para-corporate political elite under the auspices of professional handlers-- the sordid gamesmanship that drives out principle and-- to borrow Joe Galloway's term from another article-- the better angels of our nature.
Lieberman was Gore's Febreze or Airwick; back then, before Holy Joe's monstrous self-serving sleaziness was plain to everyone, he was seen as a highly moral, pious, principled senator-- just the person to ensure that the stink of Bill Clinton's testosterone and that blue dress wasn't wrapped around Al's feet.
Like so many here who proudly characterize themselves as "realists" and "pragmatists", Gore bought into the same ends-justify-the-means approach used by every candidate produced by the Duopoly™.
I agree about the problematic assertions, although I don't understand what you mean by the "catch-and-divert apparatus".
The two party hegemony that's existed for a couple centuries in our experimental nation's history has allowed each party to play the foil of the other. In a sense, there's a perpetual race to the bottom. When one lowers expectations, it does the other a "favor". For instance, Bush can run a 100% criminal presidency, and the other can look like an "improvement" by being only 80% criminal. In other words, much less real progress, vision, course correction is needed to represent an improvement. Indeed, my cat could probably run the country in many ways that would be a genuine improvement over Bush's open hostility toward the majority of Americans, and laborers around the globe for that matter.
Both parties are corporate-run, with powerful corporate media vetting behind them. I've noted that the Dems encourage working "reaching across the aisle". In other words, capitulation with the criminal class. The People's Weekly World, ostensibly the commie rag, regularly endorses Dems -- and of course Little Labor (I'd say Big Labor, but that era has ended) endorses Dems. In a nutshell, everyone's tacit support of the Dems is a sort of groupthink capitulation away from ideals, progress, solidarity, etc. basically a rope that they hang themselves with when the expectations in the gallows are lowered. I've been concerned that many on CD, such as Ira here, Dave Lindorff, etc. have other motives at work. Either they've got very particular ideologies in the mideast/Israel, operate mainly on fear (fear of martial law, fear of Palin, etc.), or they just haven't read their history. The Democrats do NOT go after Republicans. They brought us to Vietnam, rushed to bailout Wall Street, etc/ they will not substantially change course anywhere. Most young/idealistic liberals today, I'm afraid are still smoking Reagan's dope about how ultra-liberal that party (he was once a member) was supposed to be.
I, personally, don't believe any person, company or organization can be competitive if it believes it has entitlements, or wins every time. It may well take the opposition to the Rethugs 3 losses, 5 losses, even 10. I'm willing to wait half a century. If genuine class consciousnesses cannot materialize in this country, and the best we can do is support a corporate media vetted candidate who wraps himself up in better rhetoric and symbol manipulation, we really deserve to lose. Obama and the Democrats just can't deliver on what this country really needs. For instance:
* single-payer health care
* socialized education to the PhD level
* immediate protection to all old growth biomes
* Range or IRV voting, deep electoral reform
* Shut down the School of the Americas
* Shut down nuclear power, switch to clean alternative energy
* Call for a shortened work week 24 or 32 hours, let the working-class finally cash in on mass automation, global communications, etc.
* massive clamping down on corporate/white-collar fraud, prosecution of the outgoing Bush administration.
The Dems aren't ideologically set up for any of this. And the simple fact that they OPPOSE all of this, speaks volumes. They're on board with most/all of it themselves.
By catch-and-divert, I mean that whether it's big labor, Air America, the People's Weekly World, The Nation, etc. they all aim people at the Democrats. I genuinely believe that Bush, and any other western tyrant, is only as strong as his opposition is false, co-opted, or weak.
So long as people like Pelosi inhabit the Democrats, I'll have nothing to do with them. They need about a 90% house-cleaning.
Excellent post!
Third time's a charm!
Still, methinks thou doth protest too much.
.
Nader said."Obama doesn't represent real change, This guy is the biggest con artist in our generation by far."
.
Amen to that!
I'll judge Mr. Obama NOT by the color of his skin but by his policies.
To do otherwise, valuing the symbolism you call for, is nothing short of racism.
Shame on you for that.
Would you be supporting Condi Rice with the very same arguments?
What was it Bellafonte referred to them as? The house slaves? Not quite the same spirit, I think.
What happened to you, welshterrier2? Used to admire your sound judgement on DU. Must've been a very long time ago.
Ah, argument by personal insult.
I think I'll not respond in kind.
I agree - so rude. This is one of the reasons I left these boards. They are so rabid.
Why do you ignore the obvious racism that defines American history? Do you deny that it will be a huge leap forward for this nation to elect an African-American president?
I, in no way, "ignore the obvious racism that defines American history." I value the day that a person of any race will be valued for who they are and for what they offer.
We must separate, however, the views and values of society that such a day would reflect from the views and values of the candidate. The two are not the same. That symbolic value might be gained from electing a minority, in my view, goes without question. We are in full agreement on this point. To elect someone, even in part, because they come from a minority group, conflates the ends with the means. To vote for any candidate, again, even in part, because they are black is racism.
The standard should be merit; not race. If you disagree, answer the question about Condi Rice.
The Right went ballistic when Colin Powell endorsed Obama, accusing him of "ingratitude," since he had risen to his positions through appointments. Likewise Rice, likewise Clarence Thomas.
Obama has risen by virtue of his skills and discipline, organizational skills plus brilliant rhetorical abilities plus the ability to persuade people not to fight in the mud or from a sense of grievance.
Well said.
Obama has risen, whether I agree with him or not, based on the perception of his merit - not his race - perhaps even in spite of his race.
If one values his accomplishments and his views and values and policies, one should vote for him. To do so because of his race, would, in my view, be racist. That is why you make the distinction between Obama compared to Rice or Thomas.
Electing a black man might well, symbolically and otherwise, reflect social progress among the US populace. It does not, however, create the social progress; it just reflects it. That a candidate of any race might achieve such status and power is a result; not a cause.
Obama rose because he and Hilary Clinton were the biggest corporate money whores in the Dem primaries. Also because a lot of people hate Hilary Clinton more than Unknown Quantity X. Also because the Dems disenfrancised voters in two of their own primaries. Also because he ran against no one until the last minute in the IL senate race. Also because he's been stabbing the little guy in the back throughout his short senate career, and this earns corporate dollars.
There are a lot of people of all backgrounds who have a heck of a lot more "merit" intellectually, morally and organizationally who didn't rise because they weren't as willing to advocate and do evil for the rich and powerful.
other than your use of the word "whores", which I find a bit inflammatory, unnecessarily so as the acts you describe are quite enough to raise one's ire on bare facts alone, I agree with your analysis completely - well put. I find it interesting that Rice and Thomas are dismissed as examples of Rep. affirmative action, while Obama got where he is "on merit".
I would prefer to do as MLK,Jr. suggested and judge a person on the content of his character and not the color of his skin, and using that criterion, I find Obama, at least in terms of the courage of his politics, the quality of his analysis, and the thrust of his purpose, sorely lacking. I think he is a mile wide and an inch deep, which for purposes of contemporary Amer. politics seems to make him eminently qualified in the eyes of many. I personally do not feel a need to prove my bona fides in terms of people of "colors" different from my own by voting on that basis when I truly believe this fellow will not, in any meaningful sense, advance all of our interests, and in fact, by serving the interests of the financial elite, will only make things worse. Actually, by lulling us into a sense of self-satisfied complacency for having elected a "black" man, I think this particular corporate apologist will make it MORE difficult for us to make the fundamental changes we desperately need to make as we will be more reluctant to criticize or oppose him when he continues the status quo, if our definition of progress is so easily satisfied by having a person "of color" in the WH, especially when that person has a silver tongue to boot.
Taking this article's line of argument to its logical conclusion, must we wait for peace and decent health care and all those other things until we have elected a woman, a Latino, an Asian, a Jew, a gay and a member of any number of other discriminated against groups regardless of how lousy their politics are? Wall St. won't have a problem backing any one of them as long as they toe the line, as Obama has done. This article is one of the worst I have read and seems to me to indicate how threadbare the arguments for Obama have become. Pitiful.
I realize Nader's a "white" guy, but, shucks, he can't help that. In spite of it, he has more political courage, more clear-eyed analysis, and much better prescriptions for our many nat'l maladies than Obama ever will. I truly look forward to the day when there will be a non-male, non-white person in the WH, but only if (s)he is the best candidate.
I agree. And well stated.
Have to admire your effort, but if they can't or are not willing to recognize the differences by now--all you will manage to accomplish is stirring up the righteous knee-jerk polarity reactions of the insulated and sullen who would condemn the lesser while completely ignoring the unthinkable. McCain-Palin (or is it Palin-McCain?) couldn't hope for a more accomodating Left.
1. The "no differnce" line is a pure Stawman put up by people like you an Chernus.
2. Insulting the people you disagree with is a sign that you have no actual arguments.
3. Obama is ahead by large margins for the Popular Vote, and ahead by large enough margins in individual States to ensure an Electoral College victory.
4. You attacking your "fellow" Lefties is a sign of a NON-accomodational Left how, exactly?
Best one of the three Ira. Your passion is much appreciated.
“But everything that he [Obama] symbolizes will disappear”
What does he symbolize again? FISA? Wall street bailout? War On Pakistan? I forget… Oh wait I remember, change!! Woo Hoo!
“An Obama presidency would not guarantee any progressive improvements…”
Uh huh, Let me summerize this article for you very briefly. –Obama is only a symbolic token for whatever you dream him to be, but vote for him anyway, please, pretty please.
Bring on round four, Ira.
All three articles fail to take on the most important issue of the moment: climate change. Nor does the redundancy address Obama's inimical environmental plan, voting record, and his cozy relationship with the bio fuel industry, coal, and nuclear. Throwing money into any of these industries will hasten our demise as a species. The incrementalists just don't get it!
I don't see how Mccain/Palin expect to win as they're not even trying to reach out to moderates or independents. Even Bush tried. First, let's vote and see what happens and then the what ifs.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
They don't expect to win.
Everyone who is paying attention can see that this will be a large Obama victory and a small landslide for the Dems in the Congress.
People like Mr. Chernus who continue to harp on the Left to vote Obama -as if Obama wasn't busy AT THIS MOMENT sucking hundreds of thousands of voters away from the Right- are either:
A) Being disingenuous, and are looking for an even WIDER margin of victory.
or,
B) Morons.
Do you think Mr. Chernus is a moron?
I don't.
No, this election is going to be VERY CLOSE. That is why you are hearing from Mr. Chernus and others trying to make sure you understand that fact.
Check out this site from my granddaughter:
http://www.nick.com/shows/specials/kpp_07/?_requestid=133662
Yes it's Nickelodeon, but I'll believe a bunch of kids before I believe a pollster. Two percent is NOT ENOUGH.
matti @3:46pm
"2. Insulting the people you disagree with is a sign that you have no actual arguments."
I dont think Mr. Chernus is a moron but im beginning to think you are.
I enjoyed the mini-history lesson going back to Humphrey, as I blame Eugene McCarthy for the whole sordid mess of the last 40 years. As right-leaning as the country is now, I believe had Humphrey been elected in 1968 the ball would have started rolling in a leftward direction and we'd be very much left-leaning now. I believe 40 years on we have another chance to start moving the country leftward with Obama. No way to prove it, I know, so don't try to argue - it's just my gut. Perhaps my dislike of McCarthy does fuel my distrust of 3rd parties, though.
Except Eugene McCarthy was NOT a 3d party candidate! He was a (D) party contender for the (D) nomination, and after RFK was killed he actually let all the steam out of his campaign.
George Wallace was the (I) candidate for president in '68, and although most of his support was from the south, he may have taken enough of the old racist Dixie-crats with him to cause Nixon's slim victory.
So, on the one hand, I'm not sure why you blame McCarthy and not Bobby Kennedy, too and why you ignore the real possible culprit, Wallace.
Of course (irony of ironies), as despicable as he was, Nixon may have given us a more progressive eight years than the Hump ever could've-would've.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
"Except Eugene McCarthy was NOT a 3d party candidate!"
Yes, yes, I know, but he refused to concede after the notorious Democratic convention of 1968. It was my first opportunity to vote for a president, and his actions must have had a defining effect on me. I still feel that had McCarthy told his supporters, largely the idealistic anti-war youth, to back Humphrey he might have won. I admit that my rationale might be faulty and my memory clouded, but I have always blamed McCarthy for Nixon's 1968 victory. I never meant to make a scholarly analysis of that past event, but I just wanted to express my gut feeling and how it may have affected my current attitude toward third parties.
What bothers me about most of the threads along this line is that folks seem to assume that there is some sort of 11th Commandment that requires "lefties" to vote Dem no matter how lousy or how corporate the Dem nominee is, and if we do not do so, then we are, ipso facto, sinners worthy of great opprobrium. Forgive me, but surely you can understand why I find this idea downright silly, or rather would if it did not so often result in the dismissal of good candidates who DESERVE the support of "lefties". Perhaps the problem is that US politics has gone SO far to the right that someone who has been described as to the right of Nixon is described as a "lefty".
Race is always the proverbial 800 pound gorrila in America's living room. It is impossible to coherently and intelligently American history and politics without addressing it. Don't fool yourselves, everything from Nixon's "Southern strategy," to Reagan's "States' Rights," to "Willie Horton", to question "who really is Barack Obama?", and to promoting a white "Joe the Plumber" all had and have had either direct and indirect ways of playing on our racial prejudices.
It is impossible to exagerate the historical symbolism of an Obama presidency. An Obama presidency would tell the world that America is still looking to the future and not to the past. A race who merely only a few decades ago could not even vote in many parts of the country progressed to now having a member of that race leading the nation is simply extraordinary, and it exprsses to the world America's promise.
If Obama was a fool and an incompetent, I would not vote for him, but he is anything but. I don't agree with him on many issues, and some of his positions concern me. Still, a McCain presidency would be a disaster, and the world would shake its head at us and turn away if we have that unstable, belligerent, peevish nut job in the oval office.
Obama '08
Holy cow, in the time it took me to think about this article and compose replies, 200 more comments were added! No political apathy here!
Chernus says: "But just the sight of a black family moving into the previously oh-so-White House would be by far the biggest step ever toward smashing our historical legacy of racism." Well, it's got to be a bigger step than the elevations of Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, the effect of which was negligible. The tactic of letting a few not-so-black blacks* rise into the middle class and blaming the rest for not doing so is an old one. If Obama is elected, poor blacks will be told "One of you made it all the way to the White House, so quit your stupid whining."
*Has anybody else noticed that the picture of Rice on the State Department website shows her considerably paler than actual photos of her, such as the time when she was confronted by a CodePink activist with red-stained hands?
Rich, you are one of the few people along with Hedges worth reading on this site anymore. Well done, bro
Good points, RichM.
I need to ask, after such a reasoned arguments, what people do BESIDES voting. If neither candidate is to our liking, and say, our preferred candidate will not win - what do we do with this knowledge? Seems a waste for all those well-reasoned ideas (and I agree with much of it) to just sit there while a less than perfect political _system_ grinds us to pulp. How do we change the system? And what do we do for the people who will undoubtedly suffer even more with a McCain administration?
I'm really interested in learning what others do besides debate about the fecklessness of the evil 2-party system.
"So, what are you going to do about it?" David Byrne
I've tried to organize locally where i live but it's incedibly difficult to do without say party support or some way of getting people together. We are scattered. It CAN be done. My own view: we need a Progressive Party that can work locally and build build build towards a progressive majority. How do get it started, I haven't been able to do it where i live. I'd love it if Ralph Nader would help and other progressives, too. (I'd love it if the few progressive Democrats in office would abandon the party and join us, too).
The Green Party isn't enough?
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Hmmm...socialism. Well, in my heart, I'd like to see more socialism. The problem is getting around the Tragedy of the Commons problem. I'm just not sure humanity is up to it.
Concepts like socialism aside, I really wonder what the realistic possibility is of affecting real, progressive, change in our system. I don't know, and maybe it's all academic as we all have slightly differing views of what progressive change is.
So, back to square one for me: Doing what I can and not angsting too much about the imperfections.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Hardin was full of shit. That's a no-brainer. Even Greenspan is starting to see the light.
I was asked this exact question in another thread.
You can read my "first stab at it" in two posts (longer than 1000 words) in this article. My post was made at 2:59 pm (ET) today. Scan the thread for the string "1000" if you have trouble locating it.
I'd be interested in your feedback. For those not interested in following the link, I'm afraid we're not quite ready "to do" much of anything. I think we need to start writing something like "Common Sense" pamphlets or calling for a Constitutional convention AFTER we've reached a consensus on a group of core values we hope to promote.
To organize political parties or to fight for this legislation or against that legislation, while warranted in many instances, seems like folly right now. We need to define ourselves and unify around a common set of values. Then, and only then, do we "go public" and join the political battle. The name of the game right now is definition. Stage two is education. Stage three is organization. Stage four, when all that fails, is revolution.
Stages one thru three have been tried - at least, here in Maine. I was part of the Green Party here and a board member of an educational offshoot that sought to teach green values. Neither are effective organizations now - victims of the system and egos.
That leaves Stage four. Well, maybe. I don't think we will achieve what we want to with revolution, other than to get rid of one set of tyrannical assholes.
We do need to organize, but around what? Can you imagine organizing just the progressives here on Common Dreams? I'd rather herd cats - better success and more fun!
I honestly don't know the answer, and I'm afraid, neither does anyone else. So, that leaves me where I find myself - voting for the best realistic opportunity (Obama), and working my ass off for a better opportunity.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
I'd say the best hope is in going local, and concentrating on concrete realities that really affect that locality -while keeping an eye on the larger picture and staying informed.
By local I mean your block first, then everything else.
An alternative to this would be organizing by extended family or socially created "family".
My two cents.
Very much in line with what I'm part of, matti. I've been part of a small group that comes together twice a month to talk and say what's in our hearts and just bear witness to our lives and help each other out. Kind of like a small, intimate community, but not within the same block.
The other group is about permaculture and resource sharing. The first meeting is this week and I expect it will form into a community as well.
Neither are on my block, but are centered around common values and interests.
Both of these groups are extended families, in a way. These are things we can all be doing. God knows we need more community and support!
Common Dreams is a very difficult environment in which to strive for unity and progress. It forces "movement builders", all who comment in fact, into a responsive posture relative to the base article. Those who seek a sustained dialogue on movement building are shoe-horned into all sorts of semi-relevant topics and continuity is way beyond impossible.
Are there other, better, forums for this sort of activity?
I won't engage the dead-end discussion of voting for Obama versus voting for third parties. Frankly, what's the point.
On the larger question, the one about building a movement, I'm not sure consensus would be all that hard to find. When I say that, I'm referring only to what I called the "definition" phase. Is there anyone on CD who would not like to see citizens more empowered and corporations and mega-money less empowered?
I think we need to build consensus around what I view as shared values. If we jump way ahead to arguing tactics, like whether to vote for Obama or whether to "work within the Democratic Party for change" or whether we must "oppose capitalism in any form", we can't possibly get anywhere. Find some common ground and try to educate citizens that the values we're promoting are so basic, so "common sense", that we should demand that each new law and policy, and even the existing ones, should be measured against the standards we raise.
We need to do tons of homework before we will be ready to organize and compete. The bottom line, to keep this short, is that, as Neil Young said "everybody knows this is nowhere." In terms of tactics, once we have at least some statement of simple core values, we should look to promote them. Organize letters to the editor. Highlight how current policy issues comply with or violate the basic values. We need to ingrain this process for all decision-making. So, we publish or perish.
Gradually, worked into the national discourse, is the idea of a re-energizing of the founders' vision. Perhaps we call for a new Constitutional convention. We cannot let the "we evolved to where we are" blind us from where we should be or from where we intended to go in the first place. Through billions of tiny "transactions", we now find ourselves way off course. While each in and of itself may have seemed harmless, the result is that we have built a society far from the ideals of the founders. It's time for US 2.0.
Just to address your question on "...other, better, forums...".
I've been thinking that this is precisely what we need!
As website that would actually be designed for debate, dialogue, and discussion on these issues -as opposed to "cramming it in" as CD and others have tried to do.
I'm working on such a site now, but am in the very early (EARLY! Like pre-natal.) stages.
Does anyone know if there is anything like this already up and running?
Dunno. I've wondered about this as well.
CD is okay, but terrible for any cohesive movement, let alone thought. It's all so reactive. Alternet used to be decent, but I think their format made it difficult as well.
I'd love to be part of something like you have in mind, matti.
I think it's called "friendship." And family. Work. Play. School. Volunteerism. Neighborhood. All personal contact forums (fora?) where relationship is more important than competition, and is the means by which change is made. Don't rely on the disembodied internet to make a change in emotions, which are body-based, or thoughts, which proceed from emotions as much or more than vice-versa.