Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiChanging Obama's Mindset
We are citizens, and Obama is a politician. You might not like that word. But the fact is he's a politician. He's other things, too-he's a very sensitive and intelligent and thoughtful and promising person. But he's a politician.
If you're a citizen, you have to know the difference between them and you-the difference between what they have to do and what you have to do. And there are things they don't have to do, if you make it clear to them they don't have to do it.
From the beginning, I liked Obama. But the first time it suddenly struck me that he was a politician was early on, when Joe Lieberman was running for the Democratic nomination for his Senate seat in 2006.
Lieberman-who, as you know, was and is a war lover-was running for the Democratic nomination, and his opponent was a man named Ned Lamont, who was the peace candidate. And Obama went to Connecticut to support Lieberman against Lamont.
It took me aback. I say that to indicate that, yes, Obama was and is a politician. So we must not be swept away into an unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of what Obama does.
Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders. It was good that we were cheerleaders while he was running for office, but it's not good to be cheerleaders now. Because we want the country to go beyond where it has been in the past. We want to make a clean break from what it has been in the past.
I had a teacher at Columbia University named Richard Hofstadter, who wrote a book called The American Political Tradition, and in it, he examined presidents from the Founding Fathers down through Franklin Roosevelt. There were liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. And there were differences between them. But he found that the so-called liberals were not as liberal as people thought-and that the difference between the liberals and the conservatives, and between Republicans and Democrats, was not a polar difference. There was a common thread that ran through all American history, and all of the presidents-Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative-followed this thread.
The thread consisted of two elements: one, nationalism; and two, capitalism. And Obama is not yet free of that powerful double heritage.
We can see it in the policies that have been enunciated so far, even though he's been in office only a short time.
Some people might say, "Well, what do you expect?"
And the answer is that we expect a lot.
People say, "What, are you a dreamer?"
And the answer is, yes, we're dreamers. We want it all. We want a peaceful world. We want an egalitarian world. We don't want war. We don't want capitalism. We want a decent society.
We better hold on to that dream-because if we don't, we'll sink closer and closer to this reality that we have, and that we don't want.
Be wary when you hear about the glories of the market system. The market system is what we've had. Let the market decide, they say. The government mustn't give people free health care; let the market decide.
Which is what the market has been doing-and that's why we have forty-eight million people without health care. The market has decided that. Leave things to the market, and there are two million people homeless. Leave things to the market, and there are millions and millions of people who can't pay their rent. Leave things to the market, and there are thirty-five million people who go hungry.
You can't leave it to the market. If you're facing an economic crisis like we're facing now, you can't do what was done in the past. You can't pour money into the upper levels of the country-and into the banks and corporations-and hope that it somehow trickles down.
What was one of the first things that happened when the Bush Administration saw that the economy was in trouble? A $700 billion bailout, and who did we give the $700 billion to? To the financial institutions that caused this crisis.
This was when the Presidential campaign was still going on, and it pained me to see Obama standing there, endorsing this huge bailout to the corporations.
What Obama should have been saying was: Hey, wait a while. The banks aren't poverty stricken. The CEOs aren't poverty stricken. But there are people who are out of work. There are people who can't pay their mortgages. Let's take $700 billion and give it directly to the people who need it. Let's take $1 trillion, let's take $2 trillion.
Let's take this money and give it directly to the people who need it. Give it to the people who have to pay their mortgages. Nobody should be evicted. Nobody should be left with their belongings out on the street.
Obama wants to spend perhaps a trillion more on the banks. Like Bush, he's not giving it directly to homeowners. Unlike the Republicans, Obama also wants to spend $800 billion for his economic stimulus plan. Which is good-the idea of a stimulus is good. But if you look closely at the plan, too much of it goes through the market, through corporations.
It gives tax breaks to businesses, hoping that they'll hire people. No-if people need jobs, you don't give money to the corporations, hoping that maybe jobs will be created. You give people work immediately.
A lot of people don't know the history of the New Deal of the 1930s. The New Deal didn't go far enough, but it had some very good ideas. And the reason the New Deal came to these good ideas was because there was huge agitation in this country, and Roosevelt had to react. So what did he do? He took billions of dollars and said the government was going to hire people. You're out of work? The government has a job for you.
As a result of this, lots of very wonderful work was done all over the country. Several million young people were put into the Civilian Conservation Corps. They went around the country, building bridges and roads and playgrounds, and doing remarkable things.
The government created a federal arts program. It wasn't going to wait for the markets to decide that. The government set up a program and hired thousands of unemployed artists: playwrights, actors, musicians, painters, sculptors, writers. What was the result? The result was the production of 200,000 pieces of art. Today, around the country, there are thousands of murals painted by people in the WPA program. Plays were put on all over the country at very cheap prices, so that people who had never seen a play in their lives were able to afford to go.
And that's just a glimmer of what could be done. The government has to represent the people's needs. The government can't give the job of representing the people's needs to corporations and the banks, because they don't care about the people's needs. They only care about profit.
In the course of his campaign, Obama said something that struck me as very wise-and when people say something very wise, you have to remember it, because they may not hold to it. You may have to remind them of that wise thing they said.
Obama was talking about the war in Iraq, and he said, "It's not just that we have to get out of Iraq." He said "get out of Iraq," and we mustn't forget it. We must keep reminding him: Out of Iraq, out of Iraq, out of Iraq-not next year, not two years from now, but out of Iraq now.
But listen to the second part, too. His whole sentence was: "It's not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq." What is the mindset that got us into Iraq?
It's the mindset that says force will do the trick. Violence, war, bombers-that they will bring democracy and liberty to the people.
It's the mindset that says America has some God-given right to invade other countries for their own benefit. We will bring civilization to the Mexicans in 1846. We will bring freedom to the Cubans in 1898. We will bring democracy to the Filipinos in 1900. You know how successful we've been at bringing democracy all over the world.
Obama has not gotten out of this militaristic missionary mindset. He talks about sending tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.
Obama is a very smart guy, and surely he must know some of the history. You don't have to know a lot to know the history of Afghanistan has been decades and decades and decades and decades of Western powers trying to impose their will on Afghanistan by force: the English, the Russians, and now the Americans. What has been the result? The result has been a ruined country.
This is the mindset that sends 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and that says, as Obama has, that we've got to have a bigger military. My heart sank when Obama said that. Why do we need a bigger military? We have an enormous military budget. Has Obama talked about cutting the military budget in half or some fraction? No.
We have military bases in more than a hundred countries. We have fourteen military bases on Okinawa alone. Who wants us there? The governments. They get benefits. But the people don't really want us there. There have been huge demonstrations in Italy against the establishment of a U.S. military base. There have been big demonstrations in South Korea and on Okinawa.
One of the first acts of the Obama Administration was to send Predator missiles to bomb Pakistan. People died. The claim is, "Oh, we're very precise with our weapons. We have the latest equipment. We can target anywhere and hit just what we want."
This is the mindset of technological infatuation. Yes, they can actually decide that they're going to bomb this one house. But there's one problem: They don't know who's in the house. They can hit one car with a rocket from a great distance. Do they know who's in the car? No.
And later-after the bodies have been taken out of the car, after the bodies have been taken out of the house-they tell you, "Well, there were three suspected terrorists in that house, and yes, there's seven other people killed, including two children, but we got the suspected terrorists." But notice that the word is "suspected." The truth is they don't know who the terrorists are.
So, yes, we have to get out of the mindset that got us into Iraq, but we've got to identify that mindset. And Obama has to be pulled by the people who elected him, by the people who are enthusiastic about him, to renounce that mindset. We're the ones who have to tell him, "No, you're on the wrong course with this militaristic idea of using force to accomplish things in the world. We won't accomplish anything that way, and we'll remain a hated country in the world."
Obama has talked about a vision for this country. You have to have a vision, and now I want to tell Obama what his vision should be.
The vision should be of a nation that becomes liked all over the world. I won't even say loved-it'll take a while to build up to that. A nation that is not feared, not disliked, not hated, as too often we are, but a nation that is looked upon as peaceful, because we've withdrawn our military bases from all these countries. We don't need to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars on the military budget. Take all the money allocated to military bases and the military budget, and-this is part of the emancipation-you can use that money to give everybody free health care, to guarantee jobs to everybody who doesn't have a job, guaranteed payment of rent to everybody who can't pay their rent, build child care centers.
Let's use the money to help other people around the world, not to send bombers over there. When disasters take place, they need helicopters to transport people out of the floods and out of devastated areas. They need helicopters to save people's lives, and the helicopters are over in the Middle East, bombing and strafing people.
What's required is a total turnaround. We want a country that uses its resources, its wealth, and its power to help people, not to hurt them. That's what we need. This is a vision we have to keep alive. We shouldn't be easily satisfied and say, "Oh well, give him a break. Obama deserves respect."
But you don't respect somebody when you give them a blank check. You respect somebody when you treat them as an equal to you, and as somebody you can talk to and somebody who will listen to you.
Not only is Obama a politician. Worse, he's surrounded by politicians. And some of them he picked himself. He picked Hillary Clinton, he picked Lawrence Summers, he picked people who show no sign of breaking from the past.
We are citizens. We must not put ourselves in the position of looking at the world from their eyes and say, "Well, we have to compromise, we have to do this for political reasons." No, we have to speak our minds.
This is the position that the abolitionists were in before the Civil War, and people said, "Well, you have to look at it from Lincoln's point of view." Lincoln didn't believe that his first priority was abolishing slavery. But the anti-slavery movement did, and the abolitionists said, "We're not going to put ourselves in Lincoln's position. We are going to express our own position, and we are going to express it so powerfully that Lincoln will have to listen to us."
And the anti-slavery movement grew large enough and powerful enough that Lincoln had to listen. That's how we got the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
That's been the story of this country. Where progress has been made,
wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it's been because
people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn't just
moan. They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary
to bring their situation to the attention of people in power. And
that's what we have to do today.
Thanks to Alex Read and Matt Korn for transcribing Zinn’s talk on
February 2 at the Busboys and Poets restaurant in Washington, D.C.,
from which this is adapted.
94 Comments so far
Show AllJeevee
Too many words! Too little checking of false & vague campaign promises, and literally CHECKING where the money to fund the campaigns came from. Are we too addicted to consumer greed and to "untruth"?
What does changing Obamas mindset have to do with the above article? Obama's mindset cannot change, only ours can. Leaders in our day and age, by their nature cannot change a thing they can only go along. But followers can easily change. That tide which carries the elite, that wind so relied upon to fill their sails can shift in the blink of an eye. Their power rides upon our tide and they are helpless to it's flow and we should follow the course most likely to do the people the greatest common good.
Dear Fowler,
Please, by all means, feel free to view, discuss, debate the merits of "120 Days… " with my former “progressive liberal-radical” friend, or whatever and with whomever you wish. (I can give you his name and number, and the two of you can have a grand old time of watching yourselves aped on the screen, forced to grovel like dogs, eat shit from your Democratic Party’s master’s arses, etc. I would only advise bringing a strongly built, capacious vomit bag if you do.)
Anyone who would swallow the line “We are citizens, and Obama is a politician. You might not like that word. But the fact is he apolitician. He's other things, too-he's a very sensitive and intelligent and thoughtful and promising person. But he's still a politician.” without choking on text worthy of a fifth grader’s essay assignment on Obama deserve each other. God only knows that the typical milktoast served up on CommonDemocraticPartyDreams.org pleasingly jibes with both of yours perception of reality.
Surely reading David Sirota’s incisively perceptive “Health Care's Enigma-In-Chief” ( …among the profiteers at the White House event were insurance companies, which have raised premiums by 119 percent since 1999, and one obvious question is why -- why would Obama engage those particular thieves? It's a difficult query to answer, because Obama is a health care mystery, struggling to muster consistent positions on the issue.) will immensely enlighten that reality further, making you all the more productive to the “progressive movement.”
Forgive those of us who refuse to bend on knee to Lord Obama and his minions, and reject your smiley face world view. Have mercy on us, Fowler. I know, to paraphrase another blistering report herein: We oughtta be ashamed!
"the reference to the 120 Days of Salo is not a recommendation that you see the film. I would in fact strongly advise against even a partial viewing."
Bravo! I avoid anything that doesn't jibe with reality or conflicts with my point of view. I've read everything and I'm confident that most alternative veiw points are just naive and counter productive to the progressive movement.
Self-serving, fulsome, idolatrous, unmeasured, lionizing, knee jerk hero worshipping at its worst.
On the sole evidence of this column, the very idea of Howard Zinn being a radical becomes laughable on its face. No one has been a more faithful slave to the Democratic Party (and thereby, to bi-partisan rule) than this hollowed out fraud. The panegyric apologia of Obama posted above might very well be licensed by a pharmaceutical company as an anodyne psychotropic emetic, gently inducing vomiting with every thought of casting a vote for the Greens or Ralph Nader. DIRECTIONS: read once an hour, vomit; repeat once an hour as necessary until grey matter is numbed.
At every quadrennial presidential election of significance he and his fellow ditto head across the river have rolled out their most turgid prose to extol the myth of Democratic Party “progressivism” as being our greatest hope for social change, even as far more outstanding alternative candidates were being shoved off states’ ballots, effectively disappeared from the voter’s consciousness. Chomsky’s argument that the Democratic Party is somehow “less violent” is a particularly imbecilic example of the bullshit I have seen and heard regurgitated by innocent “progressive” minded “liberals”, young and old alike.
But what to call the drug? Salozinn? Salonoam? (As in the “120 Days of Salo?”) The comparison seems apt: These uber fascists earn a comfortable living as para-shills for bi-partisan rule, sleeping and dreaming deeply in their beds at night as white phosphorous and 500 pound bombs rain down on the innocent other; as bloodied bodies rent by torture are dragged screaming (or limp with death, as the case may be) overnight across the planet to their Gitmo modeled American Gulag cells.
And how apt is it that these two fraudsters get limitless airtime on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Party Now! or reams of column space on the equally wretched CommonDemocraticPartyDreams.org to push their brand of Obamalaid? Who’s doing the brainwashing?
Yes, Salocilic HCl, available in two affordable generic forms. And both covered by Big Pharma’s Medicare Part D.
Eat shit Howard and Noam. You deserve to choke on it…
* * * *
PS: the reference to the 120 Days of Salo is not a recommendation that you see the film. I would in fact strongly advise against even a partial viewing. A former friend of mine, a self styled “progressive liberal-radical” who voted for Obama, invited me over his house one evening to see the picture after its release by Criterion. He loved it. Thought Salo very profound indeed. He wanted to even discuss its key points after the movie finished. He still can’t understand why I walked out before then and why I won’t return his calls since. Such an idiot. But that is precisely what you Democrats are, the useful village idiots-of-fascism.
For those seeking an antidote to Howard’s defiled vision of enlightenment I would strongly recommend a saunter over to Black Agenda Report. Any one weekly update (on Wednesdays) is worth years of this kind of CommonDemocraticPartyNightmares.org bullshit.
Howard Zinn's searing critique of the domination of the US by the rich and powerful, A People's History of the United States, was a major force in shaping my political views and inspiring my activism when I read it back in the early '80s, as was his wonderful biography You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train. A self-proclaimed anarchist who wrote a play on the life of Karl Marx, if anybody "got" the nature of ruling class domination in the US and the world, it was Howard Zinn. He really had a powerful--and good--influence on the way I viewed the world.
So, it's extremely disappointing to see what has happened to his political outlook over the last few years. He has so bought into the necessity of "lesser-evilism" that it took a lot of arm-twisting from his acquaintances to get him to vote third-party instead of Obama even though he lives in Massachusetts, where Obama won by 26 points!
This Common Dreams article is further evidence of his clouded vision. It took him aback that Obama would support Lieberman over an anti-war candidate? His conclusion from Obama's action was that "we must not be swept away into an unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of what Obama does"? WHAT? Since when should people uncritically accept what ANYONE does, especially a mainstream politician from one of the US's two corporate-dominated parties?
Continuing in the same vein, he says: "Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders. It was good that we were cheerleaders while he was running for office, but it's not good to be cheerleaders now." How in the world is it EVER good to be a "cheerleader" for Wall Street's anointed Presidential candidate? To be sure, Zinn winds up saying what any radical should, that it's up to ordinary people to organize and agitate for change. But Zinn exhibits an extraordinary degree of naivete about who Obama--and the Democratic Party as a whole--really is and represents, and it's bizarre as well as sad to see that from somone who taught so many (including me) so much about what's WRONG with the Democratic Party and the capitalist toadies (or just plain capitalists) who dominate its ranks.
Howard, we don't need to and aren't going to "change Obama's mindset." We need to stand for and demand justice on our own two feet. Forget Obama. He's a corporate tool, always has been, and always will be.
Diss Zinn? Understand instead of posturing. Don't take the lazy route out. Get out of ghetto politics! Most of the US actually thinks Obama is a threat for Chrissakes. "Don't believe in protest like Zinn and just tear the house down?" Go ahead but recognize you get lucky rarely - real activism, the activism that actually tears the unholy house down - it's fighting inch by freaking inch.
Impatience is good, but it's meaningless without organization, strategy, and activism beyond ghetto politics. Don't try to look militant. BE SUBVERSIVES. Zinn's lived this way his whole life, till this freaking minute.
What about you?
Professor Zinn says, "we want the country to go beyond where it has been in the past. We want to make a clean break from what it has been in the past."
And he focuses a lot on needing to change our thinking and be more demanding of politicians like Obama and 'the powers that be'.
I believe that the 'powers that be' (and their front-men politicians) are guilty of "Empire thinking" --- and that if we do not break free we can also become accepting of this "Empire thinking" and lose sight of democracy, empathy, and humanism.
[BTW, Professor Zinn's writing is sounding more like a favorite humanist on mine --- Kurt Vonnegut]
Today I saw and heard something on the "This Week" talking-heads show that made me think of how close we are to allowing "Empire thinking" to prevail, and how close we are to allowing Obama to cave to such "Empire thinking" --- even if he hopefully doesn't want to.
James Carville on "This Week" very clearly and shockingly signaled the real story beneath these last "Seven Days in May" when he said, "I don't think that Democrats really want to be at war with the CIA. We had that, you know, before and that's not particularly productive. "
Naturally, Carville did not have to specify that that Democratic President was JFK, nor that that war with the C.I.A. was the president's refusal to be rolled by the Empire of the national security state to engage in the Bay of Pigs invasion, nor the outcome of that war between that elected U.S. president and the ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire' which then (and now) controls what has variously been called several things; by Eisenhower the military industrial complex, by Chalmers Johnson the national security state Empire, and by many (including myself) the ruling-elite corporate financial Empire hiding behind the facade of its two-party, sophisticated 'Vichy' sham of democracy.
Never has the outcome of this last election and the battle it has unleashed been so clear in a public forum on TV.
Unfortunately Obama campaigned for the highest office in our supposed democratic Republic without telling the American people, who might vote for him, that he would have to confront the corporate financial Empire that actually runs what they think of as 'their country', and now that he IS the president of a supposedly democratic Republic ruled by the sovereignty of the people and by laws (and particularly the Constitution of that democratic Republic) he is encountering the existential conflict incumbent in just that dilemma between political facade and operational reality.
Obama won the popular vote for the political office of president of the United States of America which he campaigned for, but he did not acquire the popular mandate to confront the indivisible political-economic and military control that Empire exhibits over this fading nation-state nor the global system of control that currently rules the world from its tripartite headquarters in the US, UK and Israel.
Obama could have explicitly campaigned on the seminal promise to confront this Empire (as Ralph Nader did, and as our forefathers did against the global British Empire of combined political-economic and military power).
But Obama chose to run only for the limited political office of president, and worse --- accepted the aid of the global Empire in winning that political front office.
Now, if Obama wishes to confront and correct the "sorrows of Empire" which are the single and seminal cause of all our 'single issue' symptoms, diversions, and problems (as Hannah Arendt warned so presciently of the Nazi Empire "abroad" AND "at home") then Obama is going to have a much more comprehensive fight on his hands --- and unfortunately he will not have the open support of the American (nor global) citizens to aid him, since he never trusted, informed, nor shared with them the truth that he was really going to be inevitably facing.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Howard, you're kind.
I'm willing to go for kind if you don't ask for patient.
This Land is My Land
http://www.wilypython.net/This%20Land%20Is%20Your%20Land%201182009.asp
Howard Zinn wrote:"Changing Obama's Mindset"
What mindset??!! Obama's mind was made many years ago
in preparation to be groomed and selected to be president?
All his campaign promises were just election campaign
bullshitting, plain and simple.
He is beholden to big Money/Business and the status quo.
He is rolling exactly on the same tracks that W Bush was rolling on. That is a REAL change.!! Ha. Ha.
"What's required is a total turnaround."
"We are citizens. We must not put ourselves in the position of looking at the world from their eyes and say, 'Well, we have to compromise, we have to do this for political reasons.' No, we have to speak our minds."
I spoke my mind at the ballot box. I Ralphed, and you should have thrown your support to Mr. Nader as well. All the rest is crying over spilled, pragmatic milk.
I do not have the education that you have, but I could see that it was going to be Barack MoreoftheSame Obama. You must have had your eyes closed or were being politically pragmatic. Being politically pragmatic results in more of the same. Now, all we can do is be in the world not of the world, or we will go crazy because there is a politician in the White House.
I agree with Zinn/Chomsky about voting democratic in swing states, if Nader got into congress as a democrat he still would've had an independent vote, right? If the republican party can completely reverse their position why not reform the dems? Seems to me Zinn/Chomsky have been consistent and shouldn't be losing your support. ron paul loves capitalism-don't support him!! just get more progressives into congress by organizing your local community. There needs to be a reading list on this site of the best arguments against capitalism.
On a slave plantation, just as in a Slave Republic (as we were founded to mirror the Roman Slave Republic before the Gracchi) the latter day Overseer has two jobs: Xfer all wealth to Master by any means necessary; and debase and degrade the plebs into obedience and submission...
Klinton played his part, GWB played his part, BHO is playing his part...the rest is just theater, and as everyone knows, "theater is dead". So are we, the gross momentum of the beast merely gives the illusion of volition in the final "seconds" but the beast is already dead. We are arguing with a corpse. Just stay out of the way until it stop kicking...
Piece...
As much as I admire Mr Zinn's work, I was sadly disappointed when him and Mr Chomsky fell for the "Anyone but Bush" camp. I myself voted Nader despite the difficult climb he had. If more of our intellectual commentators really wanted to see some change, and not say "here we go again", they should have looked to the alternatives to "typical" politicians. There were several. Its not as much about having to fight congress and the media once your in. Then its about a national leadership, someone to invigorate the people into taking the power back into there own hands. So, for Mr Zinn to say "be careful not to forget he is still a politician", I say "Duh!" that's what you voted for. All our politicians are the same color, stained green from the money they sleep with. Lets stop voting in politicians and start voting for American people who want better for this lost nation. Leadership is a hard job, and integrity should be absolute.
Who are you that we should even care?
What direct action have you ever taken?
How many people have you organized to join the IWW?
You cannot change the systems from the inside; you can only organize direct action from the outside and force change where you are.
Really what a fuckin' wasteland these bloggers have made sitting instead of marching being the tired assed rugged individualists. The lumpen of Common Dreams. org
To my old friend Howard Zinn: Where are the comments about Obama's abandonment of civil liberties, his abdication of those rights that have been part of our heritage since the Magna Carta in 1215? Where is the criticism of Obama's continuation of military tribunals, of covering up evidence of torture, of his arguments in court in favor of executive secrecy? Where are the objections to Obama turning the economy over to the robbers who robbed and destroyed the economic security of those approaching retirement now? Of his continuation of the Bush policy of "bailing out" the corrupt bankers but abandoning the poor and middle class who are losing their jobs, their homes, their retirement monies? Howard, you are far too kind politically to Obama. Love the sinner but hate the sin, no? Obama hasn't been far different from Bush/Cheney, and you (and we) need to realize this clearly. Nice guy, Obama? Sure. But so what? If Pinochet or Mussolini were nice to their dogs, that hardly bears mentioning as mitigating against the harm they caused as political leaders.
The same goes for your sorry story:
Who are you that we should even care?
What direct action have you ever taken?
How many people have you organized to join the IWW?
You cannot change the systems from the inside; you can only organize direct action from the outside and force change where you are.
Really what a fuckin' wasteland these bloggers have made sitting instead of marching being the tired assed rugged individualists. The lumpen of Common Dreams. org
I agtree with you sentiments. Direct action gets the goods.
I am tired of the nonviolence-purist-cultists.
Last winter in Oakland, the city didn't do a thing toward getting that killer BART cop to justice until there a few riots. Ironically, the nonviolence-types were very upset at the riots, saying "all their work was ruined". They would have been quite happy adhering to this ridiculous property-damage-is-violence approach even if time and time again it produced no results.
Direct action does not rule out non-violent action which is very effective since the establishment has all the violence and guns on its side. Emma Goldman's ANARCHISM: WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html
Poverty is the worst form of violence. - Gandhi
Unless we all do it collectively together and this requires millions of voters, we cannot change Obama's mindset when the monied interests already have him entrenched under their control. I voted last year for him and promised myself I'd see what he does and if he really pushes for change for the better. I didn't expect much from Obama myself and was even gonna vote for Nader but on Nov 1, 2008, my wife and I gave up and changed our minds very reluctantly. Now, all we can do is see how Obama turns out in these 4 years. The control is not in our hands and no amount of blogging will change that.
P.S.: Here's what convinced my wife and I to vote Obama:
1. I'm white and even though my wife is kinda mixed since her parents came from India although she was born here and is almost white, we had that feeling of feeling race guilty because we don't know if we'll ever get to vote a black into the White House ever again.
2. I live in VA, now a swing state, and felt like helping to turn it blue at least just once since it never voted Democrat since 1964. The Hampton Roads area where we live turned out to be dynamic and swing for the first time. Increasing the voter turnout in Northern VA and tilting Hampton Roads closer to blue would be enough to turn the state blue.
3. I liked Nader while my wife liked Mckinney. Since both had a lot in common, neither of us could really decide which to keep. We just decided to give it up and hand our votes to Obama.
4. Support for Nader in my state was minute to say the least. It was always military votes vs new voters. Seeing that Nader was getting nowhere in support, my wife and I finally gave it up.
5. Nader, or for that matter Mckinney, still had the same goons in Congress to face as would Obama. Even if Nader or Mckinney had won the presidency by some miracle, the Ds and Rs in Congress were prepared to rip that president in no time. They have the power to impeach and remove and Congress would definitely show its spine so suddenly. If that wasn't enough, the media and the courts were on their side.
6. Whatever party was competing for the White House needed support from not only Congress but also state and local level party affiliates. What has to happen is that 3rd parties need to build their infrastructure from local levels and move on up. I decided to change my focus to local level pols. Did you know that most people never ever pay attention to local elections that affect them the most? Think about it. Your mayor has a bigger impact on its voters than does a president of the country. We need to seriously improve our local election turnouts first and pay more attention to our races closest to us. From that point, we can build better state parties and leaders and eventually Washington will be within reach.
I too was a laughing stock for changing my vote on the last minute but so far my wife has calmed me down on it and reminded me of why she and I backed out on the last minute.
P.S.: I haven't voted 3rd party before but last year was my first daring attempt at it. Maybe this time, I'll get it right. I don't want Obama to fail but if he pushes me to not supporting him, I'll just sit home if there's no good 3rd party candidate to look forward to or vote 3rd party if there is.
Ok, feel free to shoot me.
A lot to think about here. There is no easy answer.
Joe
"there was huge agitation in this country, and Roosevelt had to react."
Uuuuh, I don't know. I haven't heard anyone else say that. We all voted for change. Just be patient and change will come. Zzzzzzzzzzz.
Some comments consider Zinn to be a detour from better tactics in his current article, atypically weak, irrelevant, or an apologist for the latest mouthpiece for the oligarchic cliques that constitute the highest levels of the MIC. A couple of others suggest Zinn is helping to agitate for rioting that will fail to even stimulate higher levels of consciousness while he and similar agitators remain warm and safe. It seems to me that he is trying to appeal to very average minds that are uncomfortable with so much policy continuity in a long winded ritual of cautiousness that nevertheless does come around to planting a seed of civil disturbance that young marginalized black people have been particularly exemplary in manifesting over the past half century, though not always for political ends -- rioting.
I just want to project some imperative serious radical change for America several decades ahead, not soon, and not due to any rhetoric or organizing. I do think rhetoric and organizing can produce some changes, but usually only small changes in limited areas that may mostly just help to quiesce some of the restiveness of the masses and allow organs like the NYT to claim MIC America does keep working. A thoroughly lower middle class of wage slaves, a colored majority of America due to continued demographic transformation and monopolistic corporate exploitation may recreate America in a new Constitutional Convention two or three generations from now.
Until then, terrorism, even including the use of arms of mass destruction in the U.S. by different foreign elements may be the only source of acting out of violent strategies to
defeat the U.S. military-industrial-organized crime complex. I am not advocating this, but the American system cannot be seen from abroad as simply a devastating, oppressive, exploitative and even evil system just to Americans. Zinn's call to citizens might have more meaning if he means to include citizens of the American Empire or citizens of the planet.
i think the worst problem is "we"- us smart people who know what this country should be doing different-and are ready to march- are now so very few. Howie and me go back to Vietnam days when we had a movement. Never quite got to where we wanted it, but it was sure there, you could see us and hear us. Not now. Anti-war is very nearly silent now. Anti free trade even quieter.
sometimes i think we are wearing ourselves out blogging, and cannot muster the will, or most essentially the numbers, to make them listen.
in principle this cyberspace medium should make it possible for us to raise a mighty resistance movement. so far it's been pitiful. I mean think of what a monstrosity bushcheney was- if we couldn't get enough people fired up to stop them, and we sure didn't, then how are we supposed to stop obomber?
i have no idea what to do about this.
"sometimes i think we are wearing ourselves out blogging, and cannot muster the will, or most essentially the numbers, to make them listen.
in principle this cyberspace medium should make it possible for us to raise a mighty resistance movement. so far it's been pitiful. I mean think of what a monstrosity bushcheney was- if we couldn't get enough people fired up to stop them, and we sure didn't, then how are we supposed to stop obomber?"
You know what? You're right. Blogging only distracts us all. I don't think our ancestors would have saved this country from the Vietnam shit if tv, radio, and the internet were there to keep us distracted. There's so much nonsense to look through that posting often isn't worth crap. I'll have to see what this site is worth though.
Obama is smart and charming and all that, but he is betraying the young people and minorities who put him in office. They may not realize it yet but they surely will by 2012 and many of them will never trust a politician again. And that's probably a good thing.
Zinn is getting very old he hopes to close his eyes for the last time seeing a world that is better than the one that that he first opened his eyes to.
I lost him when he started talking about how, because he was politician, he had to support Lieberman over Lamont. Why?
I presume he also quietly supported the independent Lieberman against Lamont in the general election too?
We need a Treasury Secretary that can identify with working men and women and who is able to fight for the needs of all working people.
http://www.wilypython.net/Geithner%20must%20go.asp
These great old voices --Zinn, Nader, Pete Seeger-- have certainly got the right goals and understand the problems well but from a tactical perspective they are so out of touch. I want to slap my forehead every time Nader launches yet another doomed "citizen activist" group hoping to change the game in Washington. Rather than despair, however, here is a real alternative for a person looking to do something that matters:
Your vote in Presidential and Congressional elections means very little, and you only have one. You have tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, however, with your money and your voice and your time. Years ago I not only stopped buying the New York Times, but I made it a point to ask anyone I saw reading it, "don't you know that thing rots your brain?" and to trash it as a propaganda organ every place I could. Today that company is dying - to the point where bloated Senate whales like John Kerry are ranting about how we need to save those lying shills. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Not claiming I personally had any great impact on their fortunes, but a lot of people have tuned the NY Times out after getting wise to their propaganda and they are now inches from insolvency.
Now how effective do you think it would have been to try to protest in front of the New York Times building, or to try to pass legislation outlawing the Times' use of CIA assets like Judith Miller for their stories? How effective to God forbid to take up arms against the editors and staff for being liars and shills for the MIC? How far would that have gotten?
Forget about protesting! Go if you want to, but it's clear that the media has effectively shut that out and it disrupts no business so it causes no pain. Your better bet is to BANKRUPT THESE MOTHERF*CKERS. And then go further. Go beyond living below the level at which you'd need to pay taxes and use every government service you are eligible for. Be a complete leech - not because you hate America like some right wing Islamic fundamentalist driven insane with rage-- but because you love it and want the dead hand of The Market and imperial militarism removed from around its throat.
Boycott. Tell everyone you can how shitty and evil these corporate products are. Starve the media and its corporate sponsors to death. They are already dying fast and in huge numbers -newspapers, television, magazines-- we're witnessing a great die-off of these liars and manipulators because the internet is destroying them. Help deliver the death blow. Withhold your money. Halt your subscriptions. Boycott the sponsors and let them know about it.
Then make your own music and movies and plays and share them with everyone you can. Spend time with your family and friends rather than going to corporate ball games and movies - which are all basically military recruitment advertisements now. Be expensive in every legal way you can think to them and run up their costs. Make them waste their money chasing your business to the point they are insolvent and out of business. If you haven't already done so, yank your money out of any corporate bank and put it in a good local credit union.
What money you spend - spend it on local organic food growers, local entertainers and artists, local cooperatives and small family-owned businesses. Ditch your car if you possibly can and use bikes and public transit. Vote YES to the good, sustainable, humane things with your dollars. The horror and dread you will cause in corporate boardrooms across the land will dwarf anything you could possibly cause by waving a poster-board around. They cannot force you to spend your money, and they cannot force you tow work. If you are forced to do prison labor in the US prison system destroy every item and piece of equipment they let you near because prison labor is slavery.
You want America's imperial military bases closed? You want the troops home? You want this madness stopped? Bankruptcy kills empires dead. Dead! And imperial America is nearly there.
I agree with the point of your post, and have called for similar actions many times.
If I have any disagreement with you, it is that while our votes may not matter in terms of positives, they sure matter in terms of negatives.
Witness:
"WASHINGTON – A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft can't face a lawsuit from a former Sept. 11 detainee who argued they were responsible for his restrictive confinement because of his religious beliefs." http://tinyurl.com/o9fvfa
As you can guess, the justices who voted in favor of preventing Mueller and Ashcroft from being sued were the neo-cons.
Now, a justice is going to retire (Souter) and another will be chosen. While Souter is a moderate and sides with the liberals on many occasions, imagine if McCain were president. Instead of another moderate/liberal in the High Court, we would wind up with another neo-con making their majority a sure thing for years and years to come.
Sometimes, a bad choice is as good as we can hope for as what is bad can definitely get worse.
Pretty much sums it all up. I hated to pull the plug on my monthly purchase of toothpaste of "Tom's of Maine" after finding out who owns them. So you ask, who "owns" cool little folksy "Toms"? Why Colgate-Palmolive, Inc.
Every little bit helps....er, hurts.
Bravo! Yes - let's kick 'em while they are down. This is the best time ever to do it.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw
....
The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being.
Emma Goldman
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw
Indeed.
Somewhat like what Obedient Servant says in his thoughtful post above I say too:
you can respect Zinn's lifelong efforts while recognizing that advanced age now undercuts his clarity and vigor.
Out of sentimentality or weariness or whatever, I think Zinn is increasingly giving bad advice.
Zinn is ignoring the fact that Americans just elected a president whose campaign rhetoric not only rejected the values of oligarchy, but loudly promised to use the presidency to help organize and lead a re-empowerment of The People -- yet who, from Day One, has instead done almost entirely the opposite. Scoundrel that he is....
Zinn apparently fails to see that Obama has already fatally pissed-away the momentum of whatever modestly progressive mandate he'd gained by being elected -- Obama instead choosing, almost from Day One, to backslide toward and suck-up to the same personalities, same policies, and same illicit power-forms he so loudly electioneered against.
By suggesting that Obama's electors should now simply deal with -- thru humble begging? -- yet another decency-betraying, asshole politician at this penultimate stage in our republic's death, Zinn's recommended approach becomes, -- well--- indecent in itself.
Let us remember you as you were at your best, Howard, god love you!
But please, don't now sentimentalize and rationalize-away the fire that others now need in themselves -- which for most of your life you nobly held in yourself.
Another "smart" man in the Whitehouse doesn't mean squat if he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the monied interests. Mr. Zinn had to have known that Obama wasn't that man, long before he voted for him. Does he really beleive that he will change now just because enough of us protest?
"It took me aback. I say that to indicate that, yes, Obama was and is a politician. So we must not be swept away into an unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of what Obama does."
Very well said, professor.
I would add that we also must not be swept away by what Obama does, and does not do. While they define his presidency, his actions do not define the situation: politicians do what politicians have always done. What has been lacking from the whole equation for, what...40 years or so, is that citizens have not done what citizens are supposed to do - speak and act up!
It's as if after the civil rights and anti-Vietnam protests and actions, the citizenry turned to fashion and Valium and tuned out of the whole gig. Hey, we're overworked and tired and there's teevee to watch and comments to be left on Common Dreams, we're too danged busy to be citizens!
Politicians are politicians. Write that in your diary, on your wall, on your forehead (backwards). Expecting the political system to not be itself is idiocy. So is endless "I told you so's" when in reality, no one knows who will do what or how much worse things can really be.
It is time, at long, long last, for us to grow up. Stop expecting milk from a bull. Please.
One way to bring the system to a halt without having to try to change the hearts and minds of politicians, is to tell young low-income people the truth about the war so they won't sign up to be its foot soldiers. We are working with a program (and there are many out there) which use returning vets to speak to kids from poor communities about the realities of the military to counter-act the influence of military recruiters on their campuses and in the malls. These education programs are very effective. If we could reach a critical mass of the young and the poor, we could make it very problematic to continue an economic system that must have war to survive.
Check out the counter recruitment programs run by the Quakers at the American Friends service commitee.Network with F.C.N.L. for actions on this issue.You can deliver opt out forms to your local high schools to remove kids from the recruiter call lists that are provided to the millitary. peace
Let me know when Zinn starts to talk about re-investigasting 9/11 and throws away that gate key..then I'll start to deal with his "pseudo naivete".
That is beyond Zinn's expertise and capacity (no offense, but how old is he now?). Leave that to David Ray Griffin, check him out on youtube.
I'm very familiar with DRG. My point is that Zinn is a gatekeeper like Amy and Nohm. Thanks....
Get some DVDs at 911DVDproject.com and check out
ae911truth.org.....and if you have the time, consider.........
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral
_Damage_911.pdf
If Zinn is an apologist for the Right, the fact that he has been blacklisted by PBS as well as Amy G., Noam, Naomi K. and they are considered as radical leftists, what does that say about the de-facto situation on the ground? Let's face it, we live in a one party state where democracy is purely a PR stunt. What is to be done? It all boils down to collective action and the dilemma.
I still think it is an exaggeration to classify Zinn this way, the article yes, but People's History is classic and his critique of the US govt. system, the founding fathers, and the two-party winner takes all election system is dead on the money. Instead of smearing the man, dispute specific claims he makes.
David Harvey's analyses are right on as well.
Not smearing or disputing his history....just asking him to get on the 9/11 bandwagon and help out the cause......of course, that's his choice.....Collective action is the key, I totally agree. Join us in a march on DC next year......This fellow, Tony seems to be getting it organized.....sandnton@comcast.net
It could be that jumping on the 9/11 bandwagon hurts the cause because it distracts people from real issues with a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory.
Whoops. Am I part of the conspiracy now? Am I a gatekeeper like Noam and Amy and Howard.
Isn't reality (the fact that the incompetence of the Bush Administration allowed a preventable atrocity to take place, which they then used to their political advantage to implement a vast array of atrocious policies) bad enough without having to invoke cherry-picked facts to support some "controlled demolition" theory that holds about as much sway as arguments put forward by creationists that the world is a few thousand years old?
But you can't argue with creationists and you can't argue with conspiracy theorists. Their minds are already made up irregardless of the facts and everyone who disagrees is in league with either Satan or the conspirators.
Now how about you do the left a favor and help us be taken seriously by giving the 9/11 BS a rest.
(PS I apologize if your belief in a "controlled demolition" is not why you think we should be investigating 9/11 and I've confused you with a conspiracy theorist )
The Part Zinn Got Right ...
"That’s been the story of this country. Where progress has been made, wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it’s been because people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn’t just moan. They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary to bring their situation to the attention of people in power. And that’s what we have to do today."
The Other Part ...
Howard Zinn has a much more benign picture of who Obama is than I do ... I believe Obama is doing exactly what the Banksters and the Military Industrial Complex want him to do ... I believe Obama is a front for TPTB and the work and the organizing and the rioting will have to be enormous, involve tens of millions of people and may even result in a police state.
Let's face it, we already have fascism light. Severe crony-capitalism, giving the banksters trillions and the people peanuts, secret surveilance of our lives, secret no-fly, no hire lists, police departments already enlisted and trained as storm troopers armed with assault rifles and "no tell" warrant-less search and seizures.
I see a much bleaker picture than Zinn. The economy is crashing yet the lies about green shoots and recovery keep on coming. Those in the know are squeezing the last drops of blood out of the people.
Zinn has the right ideas for action but to be honest I think there is a better than 50% chance we'll end up with a police state. The PTB know that the stakes are too high, the threat to their power and wealth too great to chance anything but a brutal, repressive fascist response.
Until we meet in the streets ... " buena suerte"
Oregoncharles
Why go to "the streets" where you can be zapped by tasers, tear gas, and rubber bullets. Can you be arrested for not going to work for a couple of days? for dropping your helath insurance plan?
I agree that going to the streets is virtually useless. I say "virtually" because it does have its merits, but it's not the solution... or even a big part of it. What has worked in the past no longer works as power has become more and more concentrated.
What we need to do are all things that none of us can be prevented from doing or arrested for. We need to change people's minds and inform people through personal dialogs.
But in addition WE MUST start building an alternative to the system. The system will take care of itself in the long run. We all know the inevitable outcome is collapse... it's just a question of when. We can't reform something that's intrinsically wrong in every way and is built on a flawed view of humanity's place in the world.
Rather than focusing on all that is wrong with the system and getting swept up in this left vs. right political nonsense, we need to build local self-sufficient community structures to provide for our basic needs. Food. Shelter. Healthcare. Even entertainment. The sooner we start providing all of these things for ourselves on a community level, the sooner the corporate machine will grind to a halt. None of us will have any use for it anymore.
Part of the problem is that there are now laws on the books, thanks to the Patriot Act, that make any act that threatens the status quo an act of terrorism. And they have deputized a massive citizen militia with authority to shoot to kill in order to protect "vital infrastructure" -- so, I suppose if you tried to shut the freeway down, block the ports, the borders, etc. (all the stuff they do in France -- and they don't do it for a day -- they do it for weeks, sometimes even months!), you can get arrested, you can even be killed. Hell, we saw during the RNC convention, the kids who were just planning basic civil disobedience acts and support services for activists were rounded up and arrested having done NOTHING at all. We do live in a police state. We just don't notice it so much because everyone is so frickin' compliant.
And I see we think alike on the answer! We can all learn from the Zapatistas!
But I thought we had freedom of assembly and freedom of speech guaranteed by something called a Constitution. Oh, I forgot that it is only for the ruling classes and corporations.
I agree, if everyone called and cancelled their "health" insurance plan; those that still had jobs called a general strike including police, fire, teachers, as well as the workers who build the weapons systems at Raytheon, GE, Lockheed Martin, Boeing et al. That would get someone's attention very quickly. The problem is collective action.
Right - the problem is there is no solidarity in this country. It isn't even a value. Rugged individualism -- hell, we don't even think we should have to take care of our parents when they get old. Indeed, we are under no obligation whatsoever. The problem is we all benefit from the system we deplore.
This concept -- depriving ourselves of healthcare to get healthcare for all, plunging ourselves into financial ruin (strikes) to fight corporate power -- I don't see that happening. And the corporate/political establishment won't go down peacefully, that's for sure.
However, if we somehow managed to organize ourselves within our communities to take care of our own needs, if instead of trying to change the world, we simply created a new one -- we could possibly just make them irrelevant.
But first, we need solidarity. I am starting to think the first, most radical act we could do toward this end would be to pull our kids out of school. Refuse to indoctrinate them further, and teach them the values of community, working together and taking care of our home -- the real skills they need to create a peaceful, sustainable world.
Zinn is largely on target. Obama is good on many progressive issues but less good on Wall St,and Afghanistan. But he knew how to get ELECTED. Lets remind him where we stand on the big issues.
Oregoncharles
shach
Please list the things on which Obama is Progressive. Please do not include rhetorical "things."
Thanks.
a populace that will allow itself to be herded into "free speech zones" isn't ready to change the system, by whatever means.
utah phillips put it this way:
"freedom isn't something that somebody gives you. it's something you're born with, something you assume, like your eyes or your nose.
"some day, somebody may try to take your freedom away. the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."
Obama walked into the top job as a new cog in a machine fueled by money. That money, more than any other entity, has his ear. This state of affairs has been a long time in the making. And the wheels at the top do their utmost to preserve it. It's all they know. It's all they can embrace.
The ordinary citizen is acutely aware of the disconnect between himself and his government. And this usually precludes any chances of action on his part.
Effective citizen protest is unlikely. There is far too much fear. Even nonviolent actions are not tolerated. The US' pre-emptive war doctrine extends even into domestic policy. We have always shot first and questioned afterwards; though today there is no questioning, just an assumption of intent to disrupt business as usual. Given how brittle and fragile is the public mood and the level of peace, any disruption of "normal" proceedings is cause for police action. Look at the recent Senate meeting on health care. A handful of people who spoke out for single-payer were immediately taken from the room by police as Max Baucus joked about needing more police. Talk about a country-club mindset: the US Senate is absolutely corrupt.
The thing is, national consciousness has got to change. How that change will come is anyone's guess. Without catastrophe, the change will come gradually. It's not hopeless because there are so many changes in the works that are simply beyond the ken of simple-minded politicians. Oil, energy, the environment, the emergence of new centers of power and new ways of doing things, including business and all its aspects—the rug is being pulled out from under the prevailing order so quickly that the only thing these moneyed interests can do is try to hold on to what they've got.
Change is inevitable. Let's hope it is orderly and not too destructive.
Oregoncharles
Obama didn't "walk in," he was "placed in." There's a difference.
Arundhati said: Why play their game where they make all the rules and have all the power. Why not identify where our own power lies and design our own power game?
How many progressives would stop paying their health insurance plans for a few months?
Turnabout Is What It'll Take
"Why?
"Time is running out."
"Based on?"
"Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday."
"The answer being?"
"That we rise up en masse."
"And do what?"
"Turn our world into a place where there are no wars no more, nowhere, never, not even one; where each of us is in charge of his (or her) own destiny and where there are no have-nots nor left-outs."
"And the role of President Obama and the other politicans in bringing this about?"
"Go along or get out of our way."
"Based on?"
"Yes we can."
People do not change.
Accept Obomba the way he is--or get rid of him.
There are no other choices.
The problem is if we get rid of Obama, what other choice can our system offer us? Gingrich? Palin? No one will get any press or air time if they don't toe the line, we have seen that time and time again.
where do you start? Mind control in this country is pretty complete, disassociation from reality, I know folks who will argue in favor of the forces that are destroying them and then wonder why we're all going down...the veils need to fall and people need to see where they are truly standing...but it won't happen until everyone is starving, out of work, denied health care, and money stops flowing uphill, because until then, the media has us all down for 'hunky dory', unless of course something is 'wrong' with you..."must be one of those socialistic gay commies huh?"
There was a plan when Obama was voted in. First off, Bush and his party were unbearable, if the Republicans had won because the independents had split off onto different candidates (such as: McKinney, Nader and Dr. Paul) the neo-cons would have won the election, again... And yes, some people would feel great because of their clear conscious while the neverending war would continue to be pushed down their throats.
We voted for Obama because he was the next logical step. Now that people are getting fed up with Obama's unwillingness to follow through with what was expected of him, it is time to go for the candidate which embodies the dream of most Americans, that of a society where we are not at war, where we are not at the mercy of government surveillance, a society where we use common sense instead of pandering to interest groups when we make decisions. At the moment, the internet is opening up possibilities for this type of model, the truth exists, logic is logical and it is only a matter of time before direct democracy becomes a viable solution in the world. We can see that governments, especially in Europe have been threatened by this possibility and therefore are creating rules to govern and monitor web usage in order to keep power in the hands of the few interest holders.
We need to start making demands.
Iraq needs to be ended, its not difficult.
Afghanistan needs to be ended, everyone knows that Osama is dead and that should bring about a quick end to the regime there. We have to realize as a people that our best weapon against tyranny is the truth and openness, we have to wield it and make sure it is heeded in all corners of the planet, when this happens, petty governments will not be able to rule over the enlightened masses.
The biggest threat to our Common Dreams is mass surveillance which is already generally accepted in the USA, there are many European countries where this battle is being fought and I feel that I stand on the front lines in Sweden, though I really do plan on moving back to the states in a short while.
Now is the time to apply pressure to Mr. Obama, he is starting to falter in the face of Republican pressure and this is unnecessary and wrong. We need to restore the Constitution and restore personal integrity at all levels. Its time for a massive protest to show that we are not pleased with the current turns of events, we are not pleased with a compromised Constitution and we are not pleased with being at War on the other side of the planet because of a Texan plant.
Sorry about planting this comment again, I just need it to be heard.
I am taking the liberty of reproducing a comment from below that belongs here, with a footnote from Your Humble Narrator:
______________________________
DaveBronstein May 16th, 2009 2:03 pm
- Yeah, that's exactly right. Despite his long & admirable service to the cause, the Zinn article published on CD today is lousy, & suggests Howard is losing his touch. In the article, he sounds like a common liberal, not like someone who has come to analytical grips with the disgusting deficiencies of liberalism.
For a liberal, the main issue is simply whether the president seems like a "nice man." If he's a "nice man," he supposedly can be prevailed upon by "the people" to do the right thing.
This is a thoroughly false conception, as Zinn himself knows (or once knew). The president doesn't do what he does because of his personality or his "lovely family." He is selected by what is essentially a corporate-military system, & can only follow the dictates of that system. If he tries to disobey or challenge the dictates of that system, the system will promptly bring him down -- either by shooting him (JFK) or destabilizing his public image (Eliot Spitzer).
Furthermore, the idea that the president, if he's a "nice man," can be prevailed upon by the people to do the right thing -- this is utter horseshit. Too many weakling liberals are parroting the little anecdote about FDR supposedly saying, "OK, I agree with you -- now make me do it." This is all bullshit. The president of a corporate-military system CANNOT be prevailed upon to "change his mindset" by the people. The president of such a system is simply a frontman for that system. He cannot possibly get elected in the first place without convincing the dominant interests that he will reliably defend their interests. And once in office, he has no choice except to carry out the dictates of the system, under threat of being removed if he doesn't obey.
It is not in the interests of the corporate-military system to permit government leaders to "listen to the people," so we may be absolutely certain that any leader chosen by this system is not going to produce a leader who really listens. From the system's point of view, the best possible government figurehead is someone like Obama -- who on the one hand does a clever theatrical imitation of a potential "tribune of the people," but who in reality is utterly subservient to the real power-holders.
______________________________
OS: Sometimes dittoheadedness is thrust upon one; I again agree with Dave, who got here first.
I also want to emphasize that it is possible to disagree with Dr. Zinn's current opinions without losing affection and respect for him.
The same is true of Chomsky, another icon who is difficult to criticize without defenders assuming that disagreement evidences disrespect and even malice or rancor.
When I watched Zinn the other night with Amy Goodman, and Chomsky a week or so ago, I felt towards them as one might feel for a truly kind, wise, and lovable uncle or grandfather who is no fool, and who speaks with uncommon thoughtfulness, deep knowledge, and a stout heart.
Still, it's true that both Zinn and Chomsky are ever-so-faintly "organization men" in the sunset of their distinguished careers. Nowhere near Establishment apologists, to use a term which has regained currency. But men who have, after all, worked in and for Establishment institutions for decades.
There's a certain instinctive or unconscious comity and politic demeanor that is universally present in academics-- even "gadflies".
So I continue to look forward to their opinions, and continue to reject those opinions on their merits, if warranted, without rejecting the men.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Ageed ,A clasic case of hopefull projection.Something I am guilty of as well as my mentors Zinn and Chomsky.We still need to hold the President accountable and call him on broken campaign promises. peace
While O'Bamba is by default loyal to his current masters, the elites, that obedience may be easily broken by a critical mass of people pressure. Easily, because the Demok party claims to serve the people. Despite the party's miserable failure to uphold this claim, it will lurch back opportunistically at the first moment it detects an imminent change of masters, when it hears the dull thud of the battery ram to the gates. A few royal acrobats will do handstands and cartwheels, the media will crank up the circus music, and throngs of elites will race offshore with boatloads of booty. But O'Bamba will serve the people if/when the people decide to compel him, though they should instead dismiss him and run the government themselves, as most of the tools are available. But none of this will happen while their credit cards still work, and they can still realize their dreams of new $30,000 bathroom upgrades.
Very well stated, O.S., and Bronstein too.
Bring America Back !!!!..........Correct the title to read:
.....Changing Obama's Terrible Mindset.... is much better and accurate.
****So far, Team Obama has given us the third term of
King George and the Tyrants. No change for the better !
****To match that atrocity of a mindset, our own mentality
must be that this Prez gets only 4 years in Office, not 8 !
Or, less than 4 years, if an Impeach Obama mindset can be justified ! Continuing the war crimes is a war crime !
Jeevee
RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! And again. RIGHT!!!!
I have the deepest respect for Mr. Zinn.
My only contribution would be what most of the readers have learned to expect from me.
America, if the election of Mr. Obama proved anything it proved that anything is possible in America. It also proved that until you remove the "money guys" from the political process, you will never have anything else than you started out with; a Plutocratic Oligarchy.
People voted for him for change---and they got change---but superficial change. The fact that nothing has changed that really means change for all of America seems to be ignored.
But now you have major problems---all of them of your own making, because you either did not recognize that your Plutocratic Oligarchy had "time limits" attached to it by the rest of humanity; or you just did not care. Your enemies have grown at your own insistence, and by your own creation.
The ones on the outside and the others that you owe vast sums of your precious "dollars" will simply cut off your credit lines and leave the slaughter---your slaughter---- to your "other enemies" and the most dangerous to you are the "home grown" enemies that you have nurtured yourself for several generations now---and they will most likely devour you.
You may have the time to make the needed changes---but this
observer does not give you the credit for having the courage or the integrity to make the changes----and so----
America, until you remove the 'money guys' from the political process, you will never have a democracy----and your Plutocratic Oligarchy is falling apart this very moment.
Your time is running out.
If not me, then my children's children's children will ride their horses through your empty cities, and you will have emptied them----------- all by yourselves.
I have to disagree, if you read People's History and listen carefully to what Zinn has to say in a whole host of interviews and lectures, you would realize he is just trying to remain optimistic in a dismal situation, in this case.
His talk at the Progressive magazine's 100 anniversary was great.
Zinn has made some of the most blistering critiques of the election systems, the two-party system, the MSM, US politicians of both parties of the ruling oligopoly.
I'm not sure you are making an argument here, other than you like Zinn. I do, too.
Regarding his critiques, this is also true. And nowhere do I disagree with Zinn on his critique of American power.
I *do* disagree with Howard on the issue of change, although not entirely.
For example, you ask me (I'm assuming sarcastically) if I'm ready for the AKs and molotovs. Well, it's not that simple, and there's no reason to be either that derisive or patronizing, especially if you're going to run around with the nick "socialist".
There are two components of resistance and rebellion: the first is the component of efficacy (will it work?) and the second is the moral component (are x methods necessary and morally justifiable to reach our goals?).
Where the American progressive movement is most in a quandary is the second half of that calculus, because it limits their options in the first component.
So to answer your first question, yes, I'm ready for molotovs and AKs, BUT the moral requirement for anyone believing in social justice is to make every authentic attempt to try non-violent tactics first. That seems fairly uncontroversial (except for principlled pacifists, who have thier own laundry to clean in any event). But what's hard is trying to soberly construct boundaries under which non-violence may transition to violence with moral legitimacy. That's what we're not doing, and in my opinion, this is what is giving the establishment the most comfort to be able to write off popular displays of disaffection. They are, in short, under no real threat.
Just as the state never takes any options off the table, neither should we. But we need to understand how much pressure is required to force power to concede, because short of that, the most you'll ever get are a few crumbs to keep things going.
Skip, you say, "But we need to understand how much pressure is required to force power to concede" -- which reminds me of a very revealing scene from the movie "Havana", wherein Raul Julia answers Robert Redford's question of why the revolutionaries actually need to fight the Batista proto-fascist regime that is fronting for the US gambling and corporatist Empire, and he answers:
"But they will not leave by asking NICELY"
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Oregoncharles
How many progressives for single payer health care would all on the same day drop their health insurance?
My argument is pretty clear: Zinn has at other times been very critical, so controversial he is blacklisted from the MSM and even PBS, as is Chomsky and many others.
I see my half-sarcastic comment elicited a reacton and I largely agree. Now that you have articulated your point, I will join you in advocating non-violent civil disobedience first, which I believe can be highly effective. It seems to work fairly well in France, for example, however not in the UK. In the US, we have not seen any real protest in recent years (at least in terms of per capita rates), so it is difficult to make a judgement. It seems material conditions have not deteriorated enough to spur a critical mass of people into action. That day may come, despite every effort of diversion, propaganda, economic blackmail, and other tactics used by the Elite to keep the pot from boiling over
I'm not ready for molotov's and AK's either. We can't even get true-blue progressives to vote for a candidate who stands for everything they agree with (Nader or McKinney) over a candidate who stands for almost nothing they believe in (Obama). Given that we can barely get people to attend a protest on a Sunday afternoon, I don't think we're ready for violence. Not that the elites don't deserve a revival of the guillotine.
"It seems material conditions have not deteriorated enough to spur a critical mass of people into action."
How true. We've all had loans, credit cards, and the cheap crap at Walmart to keep us placated. However, when the bottom gives out and large numbers of Americans are forced to live in third world conditions (Are we already there? Hurricane Katrina?) I'm afraid there is something in our culture that will still make a revolution of social justice impossible. We live in one of the most indoctrinated societies in the world (although we share that status with many other countries). It's hard to imagine the onset of extreme poverty making the average American more intelligent or better informed. Especially when some of our poorest communities are some of the most religious and right-wing. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Because the financial system looks dangerously close to collapse.
It's an interesting question though, what would it take to turn the American electorate into a citizenry that would vote for a Chavez, a Morales, a Correa, or an Ortega. Possibly it would take domestic death squads (a common thread in the Latin American countries where "change" took place), because a rapidly expanding police state and three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, not to mention deposing Aristide in Haiti, funding Israel's wars, funding the war in the Congo etc...) didn't faze them in terms of who they were willing to vote for.
Socialist writes:
"My argument is pretty clear: Zinn has at other times been very critical, so controversial he is blacklisted from the MSM and even PBS, as is Chomsky and many others."
It's still not an argument for Zinn being right or wrong. As for being blacklisted from the MSM, I'll assume you'd agree with me the bar for such a thing is pretty low and not a major accomplishment.
"I will join you in advocating non-violent civil disobedience first, which I believe can be highly effective. It seems to work fairly well in France, for example, however not in the UK. In the US, we have not seen any real protest in recent years (at least in terms of per capita rates), so it is difficult to make a judgement."
This is the meat of your argument, and it's largely the argument you'll find in most liberal-left and soft-red circles. I'm not saying that with disresepct, either. It's Zinn's position, as well as Chomsky's.
What I'm asking you is to tell me and those you wish to get "on board" the protest/direct action train, what your standards are for opening up your options? What would *you* have to see to make you say "okay, this doesn't work, and we have an intrinsic right of rebellion". This is where I think we need to get some sort of agreement on. I'm not wasting another second on another ignored, polite, and marginalzied protest. I've concluded that this method has been thoroughly coopted by the state and the private sector.
I do think that there is still some good non-violent, direct action ground to be covered. I'm not a hothead (too old, too well read). But I also want to win, not be content with just demonstrating my moral superiority to the public.
Speaking of France, btw, the good guys are still losing there. No doubt they're holding on, and no one can do a riot like the French, but still...the French are not advancing in progress it seems. It looks more like they're fighting a bunch of grinding holding actions, which is opening up the landscape for the new racist politics of Sarkosczy and his ilk to divide workers (as it is doing here).
What say you?
Bottom line: we are stuck in a classic "collective action dilemma". Let someone else do the dirty work and we can benefit. A vicious cycle. A critical mass of people have not been hit hard enough to spur action, violent or peaceful. We as a country are still lazy, apathetic, ignorant, materialistic and selfish. Economic hardship may wake some from slumber.
The MSM yes, what about so-called public television? What about what Zinn writes in People's History? Have you read it?
The French have done quite a better job of maintaining social provisions than the UK or the US: compare health care systems; working hours; vacation time; distribution of income and wealth (Gini coefficient or other indicator) So, while utopia will never happen, they have us beat hands down on these issues.
Comments are back up.
Zinn, whom I adore, is wrong about the one thing he most needs to be right about. He incorrectly believes that protest works as a method to bring about social change.
I wish he were right, but the record is poor, and most of the gains made in two and a half decades of mass protest and mild unrest have all been eroded or rolled back.
We cannot repaint this house. It must be torn down and rebuilt.
What is the alternative in this dilemma? Are you ready to pick up your AK and grab some Molotov cocktails?
see below.
i've heard zinn speak on several occasions in boston, at BU etc., charming, funny, and loved "people's history", but he really needs to retire. these apologias for obama diminish his legacy.
Agreed.
It's also time to ditch the concept that "we can push Obama into doing the right thing, he will listen to us".
There is also no reason to believe that Obama is secretly to the left of his policies.
He's not left; that's WHY we need push. He sells policy to gain power. We must require policy to grant power.
We vote once on election day. We vote most times we pull out our wallet.
no evidence either, we should not be surprised. But the liberal elite told us we have to give him a chance, benefit of the doubt and all that.
I still think Obama will do it as he promised... and I will continue to think that no matter what he does... in fact, unless he comes to my house and takes away my couch in front of me, I will always support Obama... no matter what... I'm a liberal.
Hey, he might NEED that couch. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
see below. the problem isn't strictly Zinn. This is an old academic dispute. It revolves around the question of how societies change. It is there that we have to address the serious issues, not dwelling on personalities and what so-and-so says in a column.
We need to learn quickly what methods work and what don't, but even then, we can only do that when we understand exactly what change it is that we want. Cosmetic? or substantive? Temporary, or enduring?
Your answer will determine whether you believe the US is reformable or not. The key lies in the distribution of power.
RE:Your answer will determine whether you believe the US is reformable or not. The key lies in the distribution of power.
These are two very important sentences. The second answers the first. Democracy, literally means, the people rule. If the people rule, then power is dispersed equally among all. The distribution of power IS critical. Once power becomes concentrated, even in a "representative", then the possibility of corruption arises. In our society, power equals wealth. The more wealth, the more concentrated power and concomitantly, the diminution of democracy. Our highly unequal distribution of wealth indicates a highly undemocratic society. Things may have been better in the past, but wealth has always been very unequally distributed in the US. We have never been a democracy. This means to me that the US is UN-reformable.
Our society is nowhere near revolution -a great change- at this time. With all the amazing and creative things that humans do it continually surprises me that more of us cannot imagine a better world. "There is no alternative" is deeply embedded. People are too indoctrinated. We need to create a culture of imagining a better world. We need to discuss in living rooms and coffee houses how we would go about doing it. If the progressive movement is to progress, we need to start thinking a lot bigger about progress.
To quote Funkadelic: "free your mind and your ass will follow."
Tom, you very accurately say, "Our highly unequal distribution of wealth indicates a highly undemocratic society."
Yes, Tom, by many measures, and particularly by economists' standard measure for judging inequality of money-power, the GINI coefficient of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. is quite literally 'off the charts' with respect to any of the functioning post-WWII and post-Empire 'social democracies' of Europe and Japan.
The U.S.'s extremely high GINI index of inequality is only matched by what used to be South American 'banana republics', African dictatorships, and Middle Eastern royal-family oil plutocracies.
The US GINI index of 0.49 (and rising fast) is quickly approaching that of Robert Mugabe's war-torn kleptocracy of Zimbabwe (at 0.53). In fact, the US GINI is well above the level where our own CIA in its country case book warns that countries above the level of 0.45 are subject to civil unrest and revolution.
By all measures of citizen participation in self-government and power, economic justice, health care, absence of police state tyranny and spying, the US is, by rational review, not a functioning democracy at all --- but is following the policies and operational style of an EMPIRE, both 'at home' and 'abroad'.
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned of the Nazi Empire, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home."
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Only by acknowledging that Empire (and 'Empire thinking') is the central pathology causing all other 'single issue' symptoms and sorrows of our condition can we make the "clean break" that Professor Zinn talks about, and choose democracy over Empire -- just as our forefathers did those 233 years ago against the combined political-economic and military British Empire.
"We need to create a culture of imagining a better world."
Got your movie script written? Got yourself a movie camera? Got the whole project setup? A picture of that "better world"?