Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCan You Hear Us Now?
So, let me see if I have this straight.
One year ago, the Democrats won commanding victories resulting in control of the presidency and lopsided majorities in the House and Senate.
One year ago, the Republican brand was so weak that the party was on death watch, literally capable of sliding into the history books alongside the Whigs and the Federalists.
One year ago the country was enthralled with the notion of a new president who seemed committed to solving a host of problems and, above all, offering change from a hated predecessor and his disastrously failed politics.
But now, today, that promised change seems a lot more like chump change instead.
Now, today, the Big Hope president has virtually nothing of import to show for nearly a year in office.
Now, today, that president continues to follow the policies of his horrid predecessor on everything from civil liberties to civil rights to economics and foreign policy.
And now, today, he and his comrades in Congress have squandered whatever goodwill they once had and face an angry public turning back to the right, desperately seeking solutions to their problems.
Better still, this is likely only the beginning. Does anyone think the job situation is going to get better in the next year? How about Afghanistan? Does anyone believe that the public will be enthusiastic about Obama's healthcare plans, assuming anyone can locate them, and assuming that a bill can actually get through Congress? Who out there thinks that his position on global warming will please anyone in America, even as it does next to nothing serious about addressing the problem, and even as it remains - like his healthcare ideas - playing hide-and-seek with the American public?
I am not surprised that Barack Obama - like the last two Democratic presidents - has turned out to be a conservative, corporate creature whose interest in the public interest is scarce and superficial. What does surprise me, though, is just how bad he is at playing politics, especially where his own self-interest is overwhelmingly at stake. Can this really be the same person who ran such a remarkable campaign last year, stealing the presidency from two of the great figureheads of American politics?
Obama is one of the most articulate politicians in American history. And yet, his communications strategy is the absolute worst I've seen since Carter. In fact, what's most stunning about it is that his team seems to have dismissed all the lessons learned over the last three decades - especially from masterful Republican administrations - about how to market presidents and policies from the White House. This is no longer rocket science, if it ever was. How can a guy this sharp be so clueless and, thus, adrift?
Obama is also one of the smartest people ever to sit in the Oval Office, but he has demonstrated astonishing levels of cluelessness about what the public wants, about the nature of his opposition, and about what makes a presidency successful. He doesn't understand that the public will follow you if you lead them, especially if you do so with passion. He doesn't get that the conservative movement is a lethal cancer seeking to commodify, monetize and profitize every aspect of America, and therefore is committed to the destruction of all else, including this administration, despite even that it is essentially staffed by Goldman Sachs. He doesn't understand that the most successful American presidents were the ones who brought a vision to the table, and fought for it.
Fundamentally, Obama is an anachronism. He is essentially a nineteenth century president operating in a crisis era, as the early twenty-first grapples with cleaning up after the late twentieth.
Historians sometimes debate over whether history makes the man or the man makes history. Leaving aside the sexist construction of the question, I think, manifestly, it has to be both. Almost all the great presidents served during time of great crisis, usually war. But that doesn't guarantee their place in the historical pantheon. You have to also meet those challenges of your time. Lincoln is widely considered America's greatest president. His predecessor, James Buchanan, is generally thought to be the country's worst. Both faced the same crisis of Southern secession, but they responded to it very differently, earning their respective places in history. On the other hand, had the civil war come twenty years earlier or later, we'd hardly even know their names, except as the answer to trivia questions. "Who was the first president from Illinois?!" "Who was our tallest president?" And so on.
Obama could be Lincoln - or better still, FDR - if he wanted to be. He has chosen instead to be Buchanan. Faced with crisis scenario after crisis scenario, the candidate of ‘change' repeatedly and instinctively homes in on the weakest, most centrist, most useless response possible. His stimulus bill probably stopped the economy from continuing its free fall, but it leaves the country stuck in months or even years of unyielding recession at worst, and jobless recovery at best. His healthcare bill helps in some important ways, but does nothing to hold down costs in a society that utterly wastes one dollar out of every three it spends in this area, and it does nothing to make healthcare more affordable for most Americans. He seems to have some interest in a global warming bill and a banking regulation bill and maybe even doing something about civil rights for gays. But in none of these areas is there any sense that he will do what is morally necessary. Likewise, with Afghanistan, all the indicators seem to suggest that he will opt for some numbingly anodyne middle ground.
The guy is a leaky bucket at a time when the boat has been swamped. He's an pressureless fire hose when the house is in flames. A tattered parachute when the ground is coming up fast. A rusty musket as the Huns come over the ridge. At a time when America needs a bold, powerful and wise leader in the White House - principally to undo the damage of the bold, powerful and sociopathic guy who was just in there - we have instead Mr. Rogers' pet gerbil. Complete with cardigan sweater and barbiturate-laced water supply. Obama seems to want nothing more than to be liked. In the neighborhood called Earth.
The great irony, of course, is that he is accomplishing just the opposite. Gallup recorded his job approval ratings right after his inauguration at 69 percent. Today they are down to 50. That's not 35 percent, like his predecessor, to be sure. But since when did being better than George W. Bush become the standard? A backed-up toilet was more popular than Bush a year ago today. Hell, even gonorrhea was more beloved. But the point is that dropping fifteen to twenty percent in job approval in what is likely to be the best year of his presidency, at a time when the public is likely to be most generous, is a spectacular failure of the first order. Even according to Obama's own pathetic standards. If all he wants is to be liked, he's still blowing it. This is the equivalent of having every fourth friend or family member drop you on Facebook. Not a good sign, especially if you live for popularity.
It didn't have to be this way. He could have been both a great president, a popular president, and a heroic president. All he had to do was be willing to treat the people who already hate his guts as political enemies. All he had to do was be willing to treat the people who live to fleece the country as treasonous thieves. All he had to do was to speak clearly, act boldly, and lead a broken country down the bright shining path toward repair that is obvious to anyone who is willing to look. But since that group excludes most Americans right now, this notion of bold leadership is especially essential.
In fairness to Obama, the public doesn't really know what it wants these days, and best of luck to the two new Republican governors trying to cut taxes without deficit spending. If they can do it, they will only do it by slashing government services. Idiotic voters love tax cuts in the abstract. They will most likely feel a bit less enamored of closed schools, pothole proliferation, massive prisoner releases and state parks that cost as much to get in to as professional sports stadiums now do. For the last several decades, these selfish citizens have been all to willing to be trained by one of the sickest regressive mantras of them all - that government is just some bloated pig wasting tax dollars, and therefore that they could have their tax cuts without any cost to service, or without deficit spending. Apart from occasional lip service to Jesus, there is nothing closer to the core of the regressive/Republican canon than this tax-cutting chant.
It's a complete lie, of course, and it took about five minutes into the Reagan administration to show that. Reagan slashed taxes so much that he tripled the national debt in eight years time. That problem wasn't helped by the fact that Republicans actually blow through cash faster when they control the government than do supposed "tax-and-spend Democrats".
But now the day of reckoning has arrived, especially for the states, which generally do not have the federal government's capacity to tell gigantic lies through borrowing. People in New Jersey and Virginia have been stupid, and all they had to do to see how stupid they were being is to look at what that "economic girly-man" Arnold Schwarzenegger has been doing to Caleefornya. The state government is essentially conducting a going-out-of-business fire sale, and its creditworthiness is now about as good as Bernie Madoff's. Government services are being tossed overboard as if they were lead cannonballs in a leaky rowboat.
This is the denouement of regressive fiscal policy these last decades. Lotteries won't save our state and local and federal governments anymore. Selling off land and highways and other assets no longer works, ‘cause they done all been sold. Privatization of every service from prisons to the military not only doesn't save money, it only gives you less quality at greater cost. And whodathunk that? Who could imagine that converting a not-for-profit government program into a profit-making private one would cost more? Profits don't cost anything, do they? And you know how much more efficient(!) business is than the government, right? Like health insurance, for example, where overhead is a mere thirty-five percent, compared to the outrageous two percent of Medicare.
So, yeah, in fairness to Obama, the public doesn't know what it wants, except that it wants it all. Since that can no longer be provided, it will happily pull the lever for any politician offering the sweet song of "change" from the status quo, the more vague the promise and the more aggrandizing to the voter, the better.
But that doesn't mean Obama isn't both a fool and a disaster to his country for his relentless pursuit of mediocrity in governance and tepidness in policy. He's a fool because he doesn't realize that he and his party have become the anti-change incumbent targets of the very same tool they rode to power. In 2010 and then again in 2012, they will be smashed by angry voters demanding that something be done, just as they were in elections held this week.
And he's both a fool and an American disaster because he could have written a much different story for the history books. Americans want their leaders to lead, oddly enough. Voters are incredibly lazy about understanding politics, in between their bouts of rage at the lousy politicians selected by those darned... lazy voters. That laziness means that they will follow you if you lead. They'll even follow you, for a while anyhow, if you're ideas are insane. George W. Bush is the paradigmatic case. Americans didn't want the war in Iraq. They didn't really even want the massive tax cuts. But he hammered those policies home, using every technique of the bully pulpit to masterful effect, and he got what he wanted, even when he lacked a majority in Congress. He might have gotten his Social Security theft bill through Congress as well, had he not already established himself to the electorate as a liar and a disaster-inducing idiot. (Bush should get on his knees and thank Darwin that he failed on that front. Seniors would likely be lynching him now if his bill had passed.)
Obama could have been a bold, decisive and game-changing leader, but he has chosen instead to be Bill Clinton in the time of Franklin Roosevelt. He wants to do something about the Great Depression. But not too much! He want to respond to Pearl Harbor and the Nazi threat to plunge the world into a thousand years of darkness. But only if no one would get hurt! He want to make sure Americans aren't ill-fed, ill-clad and ill-housed. But only if the Republicans literally seeking to destroy his presidency will go along for the ride!
Brilliant. He doesn't get that people want leadership from the president, that they absolutely demand that in a time of crisis, and that they will drop you like so much depleted uranium if you don't bring it during a time of big, multiple crises. Like now. This guy is fast wearing out his welcome.
The mood of the public today is anti-incumbent, and the president and his party are the incumbents du jour to be anti against. They have exacerbated their problem by failing to take the steps sufficient to really solve problems, and by focusing on problems other than the one absolutely at the top of the public's list right now - jobs and more jobs.
Most of all, though, this president has almost completely lost control of the communications high ground. For a president in the American system of distributed power - especially one who, unlike George W. Bush, is unwilling the toss the Constitution and its separation of powers into the garbage can - communications mastery is everything. You can only win by skilled use of the bully pulpit. Obama, on the other hand, has allowed himself to be defined by others, not least of which including a now revived and revanchist Republican Party, blood dripping from its fangs, a very hungry look gleaming in its eye.
So, for example, most Americans now think Obama is a liberal, despite the fact that he is actually quite conservative (except if you count as liberal spending a ton of money to clean up the regressive right's multifarious messes).
And most Americans do not consider themselves liberal.
Neither of these outcomes was necessary. A skilled and gutsy and bold President Obama would have staked out an agenda clearly in the public interest, identified just as clearly the opponents to that agenda and their motives, hammered home his relentless sales pitch to the public, twisted arms right out of their sockets in Congress, and forged a new progressive majority in America over sensible policies, leaving the minority of old white male crackers out there foaming at the mouth, forming the core of the Republican Party. Tony Blair was the model here. He aggressively painted - quite accurately - the British Conservative Party of Thatcher and Major as the source of the country's woes, and he never stopped reminding people of their disastrous reign. Meanwhile, Blair did nothing much in office, signed up for the Iraq war - totally in opposition of public sentiment, lying all the way - and helped to bring on a vicious recession. And he still bought the Labour Party more than a dozen years in office, just by reminding the public of how bad the Tories had been.
Obama is, instead, taking himself down and - in as cruel a twist as history can muster - the progressive values he long ago walked away from, along with him.
Where we go from here could be very, very ugly. The GOP right now is in the process of alienating and crushing every last scrap of moderately sensible politics from within its ranks. That means that American voters will very likely have the following choice in 2010 and 2012: On the one hand, a discredited do-nothing Democratic Party that promised change and didn't deliver; and on the other, a rabid, ultra-regressive GOP that is itself promising change from the failed former would-be change-providers.
Before you guess who would win that contest, bear in mind that this is likely to be happening under still dire economic conditions and a shrinking national standard of living.
You may be forgiven for thinking that that scenario is all too reminiscent of a certain European country in the 1930s.
75 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with pretty much everything Green said, and appreciate his passion in saying it. (Yeah, I too would have liked him to have his eyes wide open before the election, but speaking this forcefully now earns him forgiveness in my book -- plus, we STILL need all the truth-telling we can get, right??).
My only quibble is with his suggestion that GWB's ability to control the bully pulpit was a result of some natural boldness in his use of power. Remember, starting at about the fifth month of his presidency, it was already clear that Georgie was tanking fast and floundering cluelessly. And then, darn it, if some great national catastrophe didn't happen that handed him a populace desperate enough to buy anything he was willing to sell -- and he rediscovered his used car salesman skills, in spades.
That catastrophe, in other words, came just in time to hand the next 8 years to the far right despite GWB's natural gross lack of leadership ability. I have no idea how that might translate to the Obama presidency, but since I've little doubt that the same folks are still pulling the strings, it makes me shudder.
-
Has the process of voting in of the opposite political party as a way of fixing the problems supposedly created by the incumbent party been successful? If something is really resolved then why is there a need to continue to fix. We take our car to a mechanic to repair the engine and he repairs it but the new engine only lasts for one year. we return the car to the mechanic and show him that it no longer is functioning. He says it is not his fault and refuses to fix it. We then take our car to another mechanic down the street, and this mechanic claims that the first mechanic is incompetent. The new mechanic promises that he will correct the problems created by the first mechanic. He does and the car runs but only for another year, before breaking down again. We then decide to return to the original mechanic and give him another chance. He then blames the second mechanic for the failure and promises that this time the car will run correctly for at least ten years. He repairs the car and it again breaks down after six months. This scenario repeats it self for years and years. The amazing thing is not only the incompetence of the mechanics but that the owner of the car never seems to question the validity of this process. I am NOT suggesting a third party here as a means of altering this process, because even a third party would be bound by the above tendencies. I am suggesting that we entertain the possibility of an entirely new level of consciousness that contains an entirely different level of knowledge. we have used and reused all of the knowledge that is available in the present level of consciousness. There isn't anything that we have overlooked or missed. It is simply that the answers that we seek are NOT available in our present level of collective thinking. As to what this new level of consciousness would contain is unknown. if it were known, we would already be in it. We need some real courage to enter into that which seems foreign but in reality is already present inside of us and waiting to be exposed.
"For a president in the American system of distributed power - especially one who, unlike George W. Bush, is unwilling the toss the Constitution and its separation of powers into the garbage can - communications mastery is everything."
I beg to differ. He appears very willing to toss the Constitution and separation of powers into the garbage can. Examples:
1. War of aggression / occupation in Iraq violating the UN Charter
2. War of aggression / occupation in Afghanistan violates the UN Charter
3. Establishing puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Geneva Conventions (occupying powers are not allowed to fundamentally change the structure of government in the occupied country).
4. Threats of force against Iran violate the UN Charter, therefore the US Constitution.
5. Claims that the judiciary can't try cases where national security is involved - this violates the separation of powers.
6. Claims that some detainees can't be tried, but can't be released, this violates the separation of powers.
7. Drone attacks on sovereign territory violates the UN Charter, a missle attack is an act of war
8. Imprisioning thousands of inmates at Baghram without due process violates the Geneva Conventions.
9. Violations of individual's Geneva Conventions rights are violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes it a federal crime to do so. This law carries the death penalty by the way.
I'm sure there's a 10th reason.
when 0 failed to arrest the bush gang on day one he lost any semblance of credibility.
To vdb regarding Obama's decision not to prosecute members of the Bush Administration. That was never a position advocated by Candidate Obama and the public was fully aware of this. Candidate Obama wanted to create change by moving forward, not obsessing on past transgressions.
People seem to think that one man, even this president, has ultimate power in his hands. He doesn't. He is one cog in a massive machine which is driven by forces greater than any individual. The machine is greased by corporate oil, the absence of which would bring everything to a grinding halt. The people allowed this to happen because the vast majority lack the understanding and, dare I say it, the intelligence to know what to do or even if they did know, then they lack the courage to do it.
President Obama's greatest hurdle to his personal goals is the Democratic Party. The Republicans are the true anachronism, but the Democrats-in-name-only form the majority of politicians sitting in both the Congress and the Senate. Their allegiance is to those who pay them directly or through lobbyists. The only way that is going to change is if there is significant campaign finance reform. But that isn't going to happen because the very people who benefit from the corruption are those who would have to act against their own selfish interest. Bottom line, it isn't going to happen.
So where does that leave President Obama?
If he were a man with the same principles as the last occupant of his office, he would have no problem authorizing illegal and oppressive measures to achieve his goals. Barack Obama is hamstrung by his own personal integrity. And those who berate him for those principles are showing themselves to be the true hypocrites.
Yes, many of the members of the Bush Administration deserve to be prosecuted for their transgressions, but given the current state of confusion in both Houses and the propensity of hard core Republicans to rally to the cause, pushing prosecutions would only have invigorated the Republican core further, possibly making the Teabaggers look like disgruntled parents at a PTA meeting.
Look at what has been accomplished. Look at the mountain of troubles which had to be climbed in a short period of time.
He never said he would not make mistakes. Yes, perhaps his biggest mistake is not taking bigger risks, but he is responsible for 330 million people and a mistake can have dramatic consequences for many of them.
If anything, President Obama has been let down by his own base because once he was elected, everyone sighed and sat back thinking all their work was done. They sat quietly at home while all the forces arrayed against President Obama did what they felt they had to do, encouraged by a Media owned by the very forces which stand to lose by change.
People have to look in the mirror to see the real enemy. If you read this, ask yourself, what have YOU done since the 2008 election to help President Obama? Offering criticism and expressing impatience or disappointment does not count.
VDB:He lost credibility with me long before that as I knew he was just part of the same criminal gang as Bush, but Obomba had most Americans conned with his slick rhetoric and charisma. He played the American electorate for fools with the slogan: change we can believe in! Can you Obomba lovers hear me now?
Indeed, Barack's been Bush-whacked, -blackmailed and -shown the Gates!
"And most Americans do not consider themselves liberal."
The oligarchy propaganda system's greatest conservative victory.
0 does not primarily work to please a public; he works to please his sponsors.
0 does not act like FDR because he is a Chicago-school refried Friedmanite corporatist shill, like Reagan or Greenspan or Cheney's recent sidekick.
Of course, that does not mean that he wants to leave office in 2012. Apparently his team thinks they can get away with delivering nothing to the centrist-to-progressive base that elected him, or perhaps delivering some as yet unknown crumb sometime in 2012.
The insurance bill seems intended to be the bone, but it's rotten through.
If they don't bother to try to swim, it will be hard to even mourn when they sink.
Excellent analysis ... excellent ...
I have been doing a lot of "I told you so" recently. Not that I think things wouldn't be somewhat worse under McCain & the Crazy Lady (sitcom gold!) but all through the race I kept coming back to the same Bill Hicks quote:
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control."
And I really did try to tell folks. And every time, without fail, they'd say: "Oh, but this time is different!"
Newsflash: If you have a system so incurably riddled with the cancer of corruption, there can be no beneficial change for the common people.
Amen. More than any other issue, this health care fight has really shown how corrupt our government is. All of the ingredients are there. Another famous line from Obama worshipers is that it would have been worse under McCain. The only difference I could see with McCain is that the people would not have given him the leeway that Obama has gotten. McCain would not have been an object of worship. There would have been no cult of personality with McCain. The blind worship factor is very good for the real guys running the show. By the time the worshipers wake up, if they do, it will be much, much worse for the common people. Frankly, I don't know how this country is going to survive. Obama was perfect for their purposes, though. BTW, I don't believe Obama is an innocent dupe, a true puppet. I believe he is a collaborator. He is, after all, "very bright and talented."
This goes on the main and a backup hard drive, cuz there probably isn't ever going to be a better summary of "Obama the Gerbil Hearted" Or "Obama the Weasel Hearted". What a waste of time and money Barack Obama has turned out to be.
OK, folks, don't be so harsh on Mr. Green. He wasn't Obama's campaign manager, and he never said he expected real progressive action from Obama, even while we were all in anti-McCain/Palin campaign mode. I'm a Nader voter since 1996, but I never thought he'd become President. I have the benefit of living in what is today called a "safe" state (blue), and I never allow myself to forget that, because I honestly don't know how strongly I could maintain my commitment in a year like 2008, with Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in the picture, if I lived in a really close state with a lot of electoral votes. Sometimes, when the flood waters are at your roofline, you get into the first watertight rowboat that comes by, and argue with its captain about where he's going to drop you off later. Green was always clear (and still is) that that's how he viewed the Obama campaign. Don't abuse him just because he thinks that Obama's rhetorical skills and popular appeal give him a special ability to govern differently than he has. Green is clear he never really expected it. That having been said, Green's closing paragraph is the same as what I wrote in comments after Frank Rich's article earlier this week about New York's 23rd Congressional district. Here's Green's version:
"Where we go from here could be very, very ugly. The GOP right now is in the process of alienating and crushing every last scrap of moderately sensible politics from within its ranks. That means that American voters will very likely have the following choice in 2010 and 2012: On the one hand, a discredited do-nothing Democratic Party that promised change and didn't deliver; and on the other, a rabid, ultra-regressive GOP that is itself promising change from the failed former would-be change-providers. Before you guess who would win that contest, bear in mind that this is likely to be happening under still dire economic conditions and a shrinking national standard of living. You may be forgiven for thinking that that scenario is all too reminiscent of a certain European country in the 1930s."
So now it's time for me to go back into broken-record mode. Who is initiating actual organizing to counter the likelihood of this happening? The Democratic National Committee isn't doing it. Obama isn't doing it. And any other party is just way, way to small to prevent it in the ballot booth by 2012. So it's not going to be prevented in the ballot booth. And the wars and economy aren't going to be helping within that time frame, either. So it has to be done some other way, face to face, with the people who are about to embrace the other side as things deteriorate. And face-to-face can only be done house to house, block by block, since there's nobody to finance staffing it on that scale from the top down. That means we have to take matters into our own hands and do it ourselves. So ARE YOU ORGANIZING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP NOW? Are you? Someone please answer yes, and give us a hint of what it is. If you haven't started yet, or need some easy pointers at low or no cost, go here:
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
Steve
It's nice to see someone actually suggesting something that will serve to pull progressives together into a movement.
"And any other party is just way, way to small to prevent it in the ballot booth by 2012."
Very true.
"So it's not going to be prevented in the ballot booth."
Not so fast, Steve. Just because 'any other party is just way, way to small' is no reason to throw in the towel.
"That means we have to take matters into our own hands and do it ourselves."
Right. A true movement doesn't depend upon a single party that is 'way to small'. A true movement should be inclusive, should embrace all points of view to the left of center, and should get them all to pull together to escape the Demo/Repub trap.
A movement is not a party, it's an umbrella that supersedes parties. And we have three years to put our ducks in a row and form an effective movement IF WE DON'T WASTE TIME.
You've made a good start. Now it's up to progressives to put there heads together and decide upon the preferred form and substance of the umbrella, then construct it.
Not only is this activity a pressing necessity, it could be a very interesting and satisfying exercise. Is this beyond us? I don't think so. We should get together and discuss this.
Always ready to coordinate with people who organize, whether you're single issue or broad-based, just as long as you're doing something with real live people. Which brings me back to my broken record plea: please get in the habit of using your real name. There is much more to fear by not using it. Even hailing a taxi isn't perfectly safe. Hundreds of people get killed doing that every year, but that doesn't stop everyone else from hailing cabs. Same thing with organizing.
I've worked elections. I've gotten third-party and independent candidates (myself included) elected over major party candidates a few times now, as well as gotten progressive nominees to win a Democratic Caucus over centrists in a town where winning the Dem line pretty much guarantees November victory. I've worked it from all sides, and it can work.
But not so much in national elections -- not yet, anyway. Surely you know Congress is so well-gerrymandered that over 90% of seats stay in the same party all the time. That's reality. And the Presidency -- don't even think about it. So in those arenas you have to use the other tools in your toolbox -- direct action, the forms that go beyond standard freedom to assemble and wave banners. It is possible, as we've seen over and over again throughout history, for direct action to make mainstream politicians fear not listening to you more than they fear listening to you. There are numerous cases of entire countries becoming free from foreign occupation without elections even being in the picture. So the key is to be fluid. You have to be consistent and regularly present. That's the main thing. You can decide on what tactic suits which objective on a case-by-case basis. But if you're not together, at least one hour a week, in a real place with real people just bonding as people with shared values to which you're committing to action and sacrifice, it's not going to happen.
So by all means, contact me at commonplans@gmail.com, and look over my aging blog at www.commonplans.blogspot.com. But when you do, please use your real name and town. Might I be the FBI? Is that risk enough to stop you from taking the necessary steps? I hope not. You decide that for yourself. It's like hailing a cab. Google should let you know anything you'll need to mull that over. Do get in touch.
Steve
Your comments above make a lot of sense, but let's clear the air of a small matter that rubs my fur the wrong way.
You say:
"please get in the habit of using your real name. There is much more to fear by not using it."
Have you not considered that you put people off with your many suggestions that they use their real names? Of course it's quite likely that the man can find out our real names if he really wants to. Who cares?
What do you imagine Vladimir Ilyich Lenin might have told you if you pressed him for his real name?
If a person is in a situation where s/he can use an alias (such as on CD), it's his/her perfect right to do so, and I think your insistence that they do not do so looks like an attempt to infringe upon that right.
It's possible that something escapes me here. Would you care to explain why there is 'much more to fear by not using it'?
And if you haven't already answered it, why do you insist on real names?
I only work with people who use real names. That could include a stage name, like "Joey Ramone," that's openly used in real life, but not someone who insists on identifying in the virtual world by a nickname.
First of all, you don't have to be in a Child Internet Safety class to know the problem with nicknames on the 'net. It's inherently unsafe. Nobody knows who you are, where you live, associates, or your intentions. Most people who reject my requests for real names claim fear of dangerous, leftist-haters, or random psychos, or coming under FBI surveillance (as if they can't do that from your IP). But that all goes both ways. If you don't tell someone your name, or a nickname that's like a stage name, like VI, that you actually go by in the real world, they don't know who you are, or why you're concealing your identity. Given the level of surveillance and interference we now operate under, blanket agreement to incorporate those risks are foolish. My focus is organizing. I must be sure I'm organizing with real people whom I can reasonably verify. I have no idea what I'm dealing with when I see "Graceful Swan" or "Port Lookout." But when I see "Jim Glover," I can hope I'm dealing with the Jim Glover I met in Ithaca, NY, or if it's not, it at least gives me something to work with, like someone I talk to can say "sure, Jim Glover, he was in my college DSOC group" or "he drives a truck for Rite-Aid, lives here for at least 20 years," or something else real-life. BTW, if Jim Glover is reading this, and you're the one from Ithaca, I'm the Steve Greenfield who used to be a New Paltz Greens organizer who came to the Ithaca Progressive Festival with Stanley Aronowitz in 2002 when I ran for Congress. So if it is the same Jim Glover, now he has some context to work with. He can be reasonably certain of who I am. See how that works? I hope so. Because real life is the key to organizing. There's no other way to do it. The internet can -- and should -- be used as a powerful telephone & library, that is, an electronic communications and information storage and retrieval device, but you can't be an affinity group on the internet. You have to be face-to-face for that.
That's the "more to fear by not using your real name" story. Using a nic 1) means anyone encountering you on the web or on the street has no basis for trusting you, and on average, shouldn’t trust you; 2) Organizing efforts are hampered by being slowed down and size of membership sharply reduced, and lack of trust and the bonding trust fosters, and start-ups may contain as many infiltrators as organizers, which means you'll go nowhere, especially if you operate by consensus. My greatest fear is I'm going to care about an issue, sacrifice family time and other personal interests to work for it, spend money, possibly even put myself and loved ones in harm's way, and accomplish absolutely nothing. Fear of an armed teabagger or FBI agent pale by comparison. In fact, I want those groups to know who I am and what I'm up to. I don't want them assuming they're the majority. We need visibility. The left isn't going to win by having more blogs than the right, and the best leftist organizer isn't going to be the one with the most fans on the Huff Post message boards. We have to be real people, doing real things.
Reason 2: movements only grow when people perceive that people just like them not only agree with them, but are joining together to make things happen. It's easy for Rush Limbaugh to attack me on the radio as "some maggot-ingested, long-haired, dope-smoking hippie," but if I'm working in the open, with my real name, some people will just laugh and say, "Hah! That's Steve Greenfield, the firefighter, short hair, teaches fire safety to our kids, on the School Board, cut our taxes twice, never even seen him with a beer!" And maybe some other firefighter who's been staying quiet about his politics because being left-wing is strange in a rural fire department says "Hey, I'm not alone, if there's that guy, and me, there are probably others, too." Or maybe the National Alliance is recruiting youth in your town. That's kind of intimidating. But if two or three ordinary folks stand up and say "you sick monsters won't find a landing zone in our community" then others join in, and you have safety in numbers, and the neo-Nazis turn around. To be strong, you have to be real. People have to know you. They have to identify with you, feel that they're similar to you, that there's nothing weird or scary about doing what you're doing.
As far as psychos coming after you, search around and see how many times that's happened to activists. Then look at how many people get killed in vehicle crashes every year. But we all get into vehicles every day -- the justifiable fear doesn't intrude on our decision when it's something useless like getting in a car. But when it's something meaningful, like stopping fascism, even though the statistical danger is millions of times smaller than for driving, we cite fear of the crazies as the reason not to do it. As with all aspects of organizing, I do the math. That gives you a better chance of getting the best results, and getting the best results is what it's all about.
So I'm sorry if the request that we use our names is off-putting. I request it because it works. I request it because not requesting it doesn't work. I'm more than halfway through my life, and I have three kids, so I'm not wasting any more of my time doing things that don't work.
First let me thank you for the time you took to reply to my questions.
One argument I expected you'd use, but you didn't, was that using a pseudonym makes for less responsible writing. It does of course, but on the other hand it lets some people express themselves more freely which I think is more valuable and outweighs the irresponsibility.
Our discussion over this subject highlights one of the major reasons why we do not have a movement: progressives are not easily led because they like to work things out for themselves. Intellectual independence is their forte, and they rebel against others trying to shove things down their throats, as I rebel against your edict to use real names. Fear has nothing to do with it.
We're talking pseudonyms in cyberspace. When I meet someone personally, it's my habit to give my real name. I'd feel silly if I didn't.
I believe It's possible in at least one state to legally change your name once every six months. What does this tell us about the worth of a name?
It's a good idea to try to always be respectful of another's point of view provided that point of view does not impose upon anyone (we dislike right wingers because their point of view does impose upon others). I consider your outlook on names an imposition, an attempt to deprive me of a right, and it is important to me that others do not deprive me of rights. This is the one point that I made that you did not address.
I have no objection to you using your real name, or any name, or even a number if you wish. It seems to me illiberal of you not to have the same point of view. Why would you want to set yourself up as an authority on the proper use of names I wonder. We have much bigger issues to occupy our time.
I believe you are a good man, and I wish you luck in your political endeavors, but I'm sorry to say this one authoritarian quirk makes
me doubtful that we can work together.
Peace
I believe you when you say you're appreciative of the thoughtfulness of my reply. That's why it perplexes me that your response focuses on the "meaning" of names and to what degree individual autonomy is affected by their use. You're in philosophy class. All I was talking about is organizing effectiveness, which is something I know about. I am not an authority on the use of names. But in my little neck of the woods, I am an authority on organizing. We're just a handful of people, but we do the math on every possible choice we can make to its conclusion, and then we choose our tactics based on that, and then we work hard to achieve our goals. I just helped yet another unknown take office, by a nearly three-to-one margin, over the choice of the Democratic Party in my town, which has a 2-1 enrollment majority here and until 2003 had grown quite used to having its way. I've even landed corporate and Christian Coalition fish in my day, and we pushed out the National Alliance from our area, so I and the people I work with here have a taste of what it could be like to succeed beyond our borders, too.
You're absolutely right -- if you think my desire to know you by the name you use in real life is an imposition of authority over you, then we can't work together, but not because I don't want to, but because you won't let me. Which is precisely what I was talking about. I want to use practices that work. That's how an organizer thinks. Any other way of thinking is not pro-organizational thinking. Everyone's entitled to that, but if that's your sticking point, then you can't really complain much about losing to the heavily organized groups. You can't lose (or win) if you're not in it. You're not in it. You care more about how you feel about yourself then whether or not you beat the fascists.
Please don't take that as a personal attack. It's not. You are fully entitled to be a free spirit (not that the fascists will feel that way after your free-spiritedness allows them to consolidate full control), just as I am entitled to work only with people who understand organizing. I understand the anarchist spirit. I'm a musician by trade, not a lawyer or an MBA. Politically I happen to be an anarchosyndicalist. That means I'm not so attached to the "anarcho" half as to forget that it means nothing without the "syndacalist" half.
Personally I don't believe we're merely using pseudonyms in cyberspace. I believe we're real people communicating to each other. Cyberspace can be our greatest friend or fiercest foe, depending on how we use it. As I mentioned above, if we use it as a super-powerful telephone and library, it's amazing. From an organizing standpoint, any other uses are a waste of time and counterproductive. But to do that, just like in real life, we have to be our actual selves. You have ignored my comments on the correlation between what we're doing here in Cyberspace and basic Child Internet Safety. It seems like I'm talking to you, but I don't know who you are. I make it very easy for people to confirm who I am. That's because I'm communicating -- the real me, not some anonymous persona I've adopted for the Cyberworld, which would leave you unable to ever be sure that I'm not a Fed or a lunatic. That last part is why everyone I work with has to have a name. There's nothing philosophical about that. It's a tactic, and it works. As I mentioned, I don't spend any of my time doing things that don't work, or are known to work less well than other options available to me.
Lastly, there is nothing about organizing that requires anyone to submit to authority. Affinity groups are small and make decisions collectively, by consensus. Nobody goes along with anything unless they have agreed through a group dynamic that that's what they're comfortable doing. When 500 affinity groups show up to march from Lower Manhattan to the Republican National convention, and the cops arrest the first 100 groups and all the people who seemed like the "leaders" right at the assembly point, there is no disarray, the march goes on anyway, and the civil disobedience is successfully carried out, even though the "leaders" were long since in jail. It's fluid. It's powerful. Nobody communicates with more than 5 or 6 people, and nobody takes orders from anyone. That's the system's strength, and what makes it superior to the authoritarianism preferred by fascists -- the organism has no vital organs, so it's nearly impossible to kill.
Just food for thought. I return to your own words: "Our discussion over this subject highlights one of the major reasons why we do not have a movement..." I'm interested in people who understand there isn't a conflict between individuality and powerful movements, or are at least willing to not let their fear that there might be stand in the way of defeating organized fascism. Because fifty million individuals can't stop it. But just one million, organized, can. That's the story of progressive accomplishments. We all have weekends thanks to organizers, quite a few of whom died to bequeath them to us and our posterity.
Thank them. Organize.
You said:
"That's why it perplexes me that your response focuses on the "meaning" of names and to what degree individual autonomy is affected by their use. You're in philosophy class."
The "use" of names is what this whole discussion is about. If a person unknown to you sends you an email and signs it Jonathan Doevitch, you have no more grounds to accept him as a valid collaborator, even if you were able to verify that this is his real name, than if he had signed it SpacePilot. He may be a troll in either case, or not be a troll in either case. So you put people off by requiring a real name, and as if that's not enough, you gain nothing by it. It's an empty exercise which only serves to allow you to exercise authority, thereby alienating potential collaborators who, since they are leftists, detest authority. I should think you would understand this, being an anarchosyndicalist.
I'm happy to hear of your success at organizing and wish you further success. Working with affinity groups is fine, and I know putting a group together is no mean task, but there are other ways to organize a movement - complimentary ways. Look what Obama did on the internet, not only corralling followers, but practically convincing them to send him their lunch money. Internet's a powerful medium and we should use it to the hilt. Unless you are independently wealthy you must have your hands full with your family, job, firefighting and politics. My interest is in organizing via the internet, and to ask you to become involved in this would be asking you to spread yourself too thin - something I wouldn't do. We're in the same boat, pulling on different oars. If we should ever meet I'll tell you my real name - promise.
OK,let's leave it at that. You don't have to use your name. And I don't have to have Facebook or Twitter accounts, which I don't, and I won't. I think internet organizing further empowers corporations. They own the web, they make the computers, modems, cable lines, advertising-driven "free" services we all use. I don't think we can tweet our way to freedom. You think you have the tweet, but the tweet has you. Christ, it was Michael Dell who bankrolled the hotels and travel for everyone on the Bush legal and rioting teams in Florida 2000 and the Supreme Court case, and here I sit typing on one of his laptops that made him all that surpluse dough, like a chump. At least I didn't buy it -- it's a loaner because I'm on the School Board, but still. On the other hand, I did by my regular computer, and that's a Dell, too. Obama's internet success came with a $400 million price tag, which I don't think we can match, plus he was appealing to people who wanted to be followers, which you and I both acknowledge is a real issue for real leftists. There's also a whole human nature issue we haven't discussed. When someone reads a blog, instead of going "hey, this blog is full of good ideas," they go "Hey, I should open up my own blog, it's free, and then I'll be the one doing the talking." And that's the real problem. Eventually someone has to be the people who do the doing. I try to keep my internet use very narrow. You'll notice it's been over a year since I posted to my blog, and I have maybe five posts altogether. It doesn't matter, because quite obviously nobody is reading it, let alone trying to duplicate the success its tips generate. I like being face-to-face. No corporation owns that or makes money off it.
BTW I'm not independently wealthy, I'm independently poor, which I think is even more liberating. I've known some independently wealthy people, and even the few who mean well haven't been useful, because they don't have a real sense of the value of work, the actual cause and effect of working and getting something done as a result of, or in return for the effort. They're soft. Geez, now I'm going to get flamed by the independently wealthy. But I watch no TV at all which leaves me a lot of time, and I probably sleep a bit less than most people, which knocks me flat on my butt for about four hours, around once ever two weeks. I enjoy what I do. I hope you can say the same.
Yeah yeah, we hear ya' but not Obama. Only a fool would believe that puppets will listen to anyone other than there masters. DMG, shut up and join the Green Party and help us out and let Obama lose. He ain't hearing you.
FOOLPROOF BULLETPROOF
Obama is also one of the smartest people ever to sit in the Oval Office . . .
That all depends on how you define intelligence, especially in politics. Frankly, I think the man is an absolute idiot, in many ways even more crushingly bone dumb than George Wanker Bush. What Obama has done is light a stick of dynamite, then told it not to go off.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
It's noteworthy to watch how the "mainstream" corporate media paints presidents since Clinton. Clinton was labeled "brilliant,"
"one of the smartest," "a Rhodes scholar." Bush II could not credibly be praised for being smart so he was labeled "folksy," "friendly and likable," "the sort of guy you'd like to drink a beer with," "a regular guy," etc. Then they tarted up Obama as another keen intellect. Too many liberal commentators bought into this before waiting to see how these guys would actually behave in office. Clinton was a cautionary tale and Obama was a desperate toss of the dice that tumbled fascist-lite
snake-eyes.
Presidents like Clinton and Obama may be able to swallow and regurgitate lots of information in an articulate manner, but I think true smartness has more to do with the choices they make with their information than mere brain capacity. Because Obama and Clinton were both Democratic Leadership Council-approved corporatists, they have clearly branded the type of Democrat to expect from the DLC money teat.
(sorry dup posting)
I hate to jump first to a conspiracy explanation, but, what if... what if the corporate forces, whom we know are behind the Demoparty, planned this train wreck just to discredit "liberals" (I know, I know) and drive desperate people into the arms of the Beck/Hannity fascists? Anyone doubt this wouldn't advance the corporate state agenda? Anyone think they wouldn't stoop to this? Like nothing like this has EVER happened...
I firmly believe that you are absolutely correct. It explains perfectly the real status of Obama as a shill for corporate interests. His enormeus energy on behalf of wall street and war while only giving lip service to domestic concerns shows a consistent bias towards elite corporate interests that only a fool would believe is due to accident or incompetence.
My forlorn hope is that the public won't be fooled into either voting to replace democrats with republicans or voting for a fake populist when they oust the democrats. Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, Sheehan and others like them are the ones we need there. And anyone who voted to reject the Goldstone report must GO.
.
If I read this article correctly, it appears that DMG is first sounding soooo upset and shock at Obama one year ago and now. Nothing about Obama has changed. It's just that now more people realize what they did wrong last year by trusting him even when he showed himself to be a conservative no different from Dubya and Mccain. In the second half, he apologizes yet again for Obama and wishes he were a "bold, decisive and game-changing leader" and then he has the nerve to call voters stupid and not knowing what they want ?!? Helloooo, Mr. DMG wake up ! The public has been begging and crying for real change from their hearts but Obama and the Democrats have been showing their "boldness" and "decisiveness" for the corporate, war-mongering, religious bigotry, etc ... monied elites and not for the people ! I'm glad NJ voters slaughtered Goldman Sachs puppet Jon Corzine. NJ and VA Republican? Well TOUGH ! I heard that Corzine and Deeds were Republican-lites and pissed off even some of the voters most loyal to Obama. This article is totally DIVORCED from reality. The public is ready to boldly scream for real change for the people and if that means throwing out pols election after election, then TOUGH ! If the Democrats can't and won't fight for the people but instead for the monied elites, then they deserve to FAIL !
This is becoming a koolaid-drinker remorse wave: first we get savvy hipsters like Bill Mahr, bemoaning their fate, saying "Wha... What happened?" and now, predictably, we get the Professorial Class like Mr. Green, who have finally woken up to reality.
Well, Professor Green: it's too god dammed late! Many of us knew this 2 years ago - and shouted it at the top of our lungs but you and the rest of your blind, deaf and DUMB-ass arrogant crowd were too much in love to listen.
Y'know, I don't think you have the right to complain now, I'm just pissed that I have to live with the consequences of your stupidity.
Do us all a favor: stop writing about it and please don't vote any more, you've done enough damage already.
For all your disgusting gloating and moaning, what would you prefer?
John McCain? George Bush III? Ralph Nader? Ron Paul?
Or simply permanent self-righteous outrage?
I would prefer Ron Paul, regardless of his being a dreaded Conservative as Prof. Green seems to think.
Prof. Green is right. Libertarians, although they do agree with progressives on some issues, are extreme right-wingers in the sense that the liberty they desire is liberty from government regulation - the principal cause of the financial meltdown.
They detest any consideration for the less fortunate members of society and would like to see a restoration of the law of the jungle and rule by the most gifted egomaniacs.
Many seem to be able orators who are skilled at playing to the left while suppressing their fascistic tendencies.
Beware these poisonous creatures.
I would even go so far as to say that any observer of the historical behavior of America's two parties should have been able to predict precisely what has transpired...none of it has surprised me...again, although many of you are in agreement, I know, it seems odd that we have professional politicos still debating Democrat and Republican party strategies, rather than acknowledging the overarching criminal nature of our power structure, and the complicit criminality of both parties, and all three branches, of our government...
You hit the nail "right on the head!"
Great article! Obama`s problem is he likes to stick to telling the truth, which is not nearly as effective as lies, and more lies, as we are used to hearing. When we put the Republican Obstructionist party back in, we can look for the total destruction of our country. They just did half the job the last time and they will convince idiot voters they are just what we need again. Yes, the Democrats are spineless morons in political affairs, but there is still a great difference in that they want to improve things instead of wreck it for all except the rich and powerful.
Now, today, the Big Hope president has virtually nothing of import to show for nearly a year in office.
That's just not true Banka Obombya got a dog.
Prof Green sounds surprised, disappointed.... Why? Obama is exactly what many, including Ralph Nader, said he would be: a tool of large corporations (large corporations being simply the current social formation through which our ruling class manages the state). Viewed for what he really represents, Obama is a very successful and effective president. He's doing exactly the job he was hired to do, and he's doing it well.
To speak of Democratic vs. Republican parties is silly; it's only one party. Perhaps one of the most astute political thinker of our time, the late WALTER KARP, explained it well in his book, "Indispensable Enemies...." Ralph Nader said it over and over; it's not about wow, he's so smart, he's so well educated ((i.e., "educated like me, so he must understand my needs.")) No. It's about POWER. Obama, like Mccain, H Clinton, et al., are the current crop of representatives offered to us by POWER. That's what Nader really addressed, and it's what liberal Democrats like Prof Green rejected for the smart-guy. And he is a smart-guy: smart enough to get Prof Green and liberal democrats to vote for him, and that's as smart as he needs to be....
Sioux Rose
BUDDY: Excellent analysis. Green seems so stuck on history that he fails to understand the climate of the present, it's all profit/for corporations ALL the time. Any crumbs thrown to "the little people" are there as minor contrivances to keep the pack quiet.
Often in comedy clubs one performer will come on to work (or set up) the crowd in anticipation of the next act. Seems that is Obama's role. As the "moderate" placed after Bush, someone to quiet the storm of all the outrages, the clear and present dangers to American (as well as global) life, he calms the crowd. Since nothing substantial has been altered, the anger simmers on a low boil and may well move many in an authoritarian direction. Because none of the laws "erased" by the Bush neocon hit team have been regenerated, whomever takes over next, may not need to play the "Mr. Nice guy" routine while he further eviscerates what's left of our economy, legal structures, and sovereign society.
I am in New York City at the moment. Related to the article about how the Indigenous lived WITH the land, spoke WITH nature, I see in NYC the ultimate model of materialism over the life force itself. This is the quintessential marketplace taken to the level of grand metropolis. I feel like an urban sociologist here, trying to get a beat on what people actually think, and if they feel at all. So far most of what I overhear in conversations relates to objects people purchase at what specific prices, anything from shoes to real estate. There doesn't seem to be a realization as to how precipitously the natural world and its interlocking ecosystems are balanced, how close to the proverbial precipice LIFE systems have been pushed. It is a strange separate reality for me, as I always maintained the voice of the shaman and indeed can tune into the language of nature. Indeed in this nexus such sentience would be regarded as pure fiction. The beat goes on only as long as the natural world allows it. That would of course present an absolute shock to all those who think "God the father" is in charge, and/or their FATHER land governments, authoritarian bosses, father knows best family systems, etc.
"Nature is what we experience between the taxi and the hotel entrance." -Woody Allen (paraphrased)
Cities like New York are monuments to the arrogance, nature-denying and conformity-enforcing characteristics of capitalism.
Sorry, duplicate.
Most people who have visited NYC that I have talked to don't see NYC as the ultimate model of materialism. There is a lot of floating population in that city and since everything costs more, most residents don't consume a lot. The average consumption per user in NYC is a lot less compared to the average consumption per user in Florida or Kansas for that matter. The population of NYC has been decreasing more than increasing.
There are a diverse set of institutions for spiritual learning and thinking in NYC so I wouldn't say that it's all materialistic. In any urban area you go to, the feel is less spiritual on the outside. NYC may not be the perfect place for spirituality like Kansas or rural Florida but it isn't totally materialist either.
Good job pointing out Obama's "moderated" tone quietly moving his supporters in the authoritarian direction. The best way to tackle those people would be to embarrass them on their own hypocrisies and inconsistencies rather than taking an angry tone on them. Authoritarians always want anger for confusion.
Uh, dude, you're painting a way too optimistic picture of NYC. Despite the population decreasing, consumption and materialistic thinking hasn't changed much. We would need a serious crisis to enforce conservation.
Sioux Rose
When my youngest son had an opportunity to study for one semester in what was then still Leningrad (but in real fact not much longer) he was amazed how his Soviet counterparts (students) discussed the state of their country almost incessantly and fearlessly. Had he been in Tsarist Russia in 1917 he would have found a country seething in anger and debate. What you noticed in New York is indeed alarming.
NYC was always the place of materialism while the rest of the state is for those who want to break away from excess materialism. I don't foresee NYC ever being turned into a nature's paradise but it can moderate somewhat. This may surprise you but in NYC, the price of groceries often exceeds the price of eating outside. You might be interested in upstate NY. Politically, upstate NY is conservative but there is always room to enjoy nature unlike NYC.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
If the present national path is inevitably toward more militarism and more corporate privatization, then one hopeful sign on the side of nature is that the rest of the developed world is leaving our 19th century, fossil fool nation in the dust when it comes to environmental sustainability, green tech and green jobs. Over the next 10 to 15 years this, plus the rest of our fiscal insanity, will reduce the U.S. to a big pouty pre-adolescent 2nd or 3rd World nation as far as the rest of the world is concerned. We will no longer be able to afford the overly privatized global military empire we have now. Less and less people in the world will pay any attention to us except to marvel at how we grovel for all the foreign tourist money while they gawk at the splendid ruins of our monuments to the past. That will be in the boutique areas not undergoing bloody balkanization and military suppression.
There's big wind farm project underway in George Duhhbya Bush's second State of Texas. ALL the wind turbines for that project will be built in China and the project itself will be financed through Chinese banks. Behold the future. Of the ten largest manufacturers of high-tech wind turbines in the world only one is in the U.S. Of the ten largest manufacturers of solar arrays and photo-voltaics only two are in the U.S. Of all the world's manufacturers of energy conserving CFL lightbulbs, NONE of them are in the U.S. And the U.S. pioneered all these technologies. The EU is planning a massive wind farm to supply power to the Middle East and parts of the EU--the sort of thing that might actually help win a few hearts & minds in the Middle East, but he U.S. ain't doing it. Japan has another such massive energy farm planned in Africa to power countries to the East.
The Chinese will surpass the U.S. in both wind and solar technology research & development AND manufacturing in 2 years.
Our green technological lead is fading fast because of the century old lock that the fossil fuel industries have on Congress and the White House. That archaic lobby sees the only jobs program as volunteer military enlistment to fight more oil/pipeline wars for them--which will only worsen our fiscal imbalances until the entire empire implodes overnight like the Soviet Union. We could develop existing and enhanced geo-thermal energy to power all our electricity needs for an estimated 35,000 years. But we still have influential Republicans in Congress declaring global warming a hoax and relying on oil companies and munitions titans to "go out and git it!" YEEEE-HAWWW!
China is doing more to reforest the world than the U.S. is by requiring that every Chinese citizen from the age of 5 up plant three trees a year every year. The U.S. HAD a jobs program that did that and planted a billion trees. It was called the Civilian Conservation Corps. But that was between 1933 and 1940. For bold American vision for the future we can look only with fading memories to decades past. To those who declare that the situation now is so different from the New Deal era: Even if we implemented just the New Deal jobs programs and raised taxes on the very rich as FDR did we would be in much better shape than we are now. Assuming that we supported Bush's & Obama's wars: If we went to full military economic mobilization like FDR did--followed by a Marshall Plan for the region--we would also create millions of jobs and get the wars over with more decisive results than letting them drag on for decades. The U.S. role in WWII only lasted 4 years. We've been in Afghanistan for twice that time now with no end in sight.
Greenwald's most salient criticism of Obama is his failure to maintain a direct line of communication with the public; to explain to them who their real enemies are and why, and to use the bully pulpit to enlist the public's support for truly progressive programs and other measures to correct 30 years of almost uniformly bad policies. Obama should have governed from day one by treating our multiple crises as the actual national emergencies (with international consequences) that they are.
I have some doubts in my mind about green technologies being sustainable. I support solar and wind technologies but my city's demand for power far exceeds what both of those combined could deliver. Wind energy requires lots of open space land for the wind to blow effectively. Solar is better but the smog in NYC would reduce its effectiveness. We can keep the same technologies but simply cut down on energy usage where possible. If my offices would allow us to open our windows and allow some natural air and sunshine in, we could cut down on light bulb and A/C usage. Turning off our computers when we leave work I would like to do but can't do since security updates and upgrades are performed during off hours. I'm one of the few who doesn't own a car and walks to work and groceries. I am also guilty of leaving my computer and VCR timer on at my apartment. Until the idea of urban farming was brought up, I used to say yes to free trade. We could plant all the trees in the world but will they grow well this time around or will the smog hurt their growth?
Marco Nanto,
Solar, wind and wave are a big part but geo-thermal is one of the most obvious (and therefore negelected) solutions. The MAIN energy use in your house or apartment is for heat and air conditioning. The frost line, even in Alaska, lies less than 20 feet below the surface. In Vermont. even during february, it's about 8 feet. That means that, in Vermont, the soil temperature is above 32 F even when it is 15 below on the surface. Now consider the energy needed to bring your home to 68 degrees from 15 below versus raising it from 33 to 68. The difference is gargantuan. In the summer the same principle works in reverse.
The problem with the geo-thermal subject is that the PR pro-oil distorters always talk of pipe corrosion and high infrastructure costs. That's true ONLY with the hot geo-thermal plants (they sit over hot springs or volcanic vents). The passive geothermal system, where you just pump a fluid through pipes 30 feet below the surface and back to a heat exchanger in your home, is as permanent and efficient as water pipes. The break-even versus oil is a few years depending on the square feet infolved and after that it's easy street.
So why isn't it done?
Ask your selectboard member what the town thinks of your plans to dig a trench 30 feet long and 30 feet deep to cut your energy bill by 75%. Watch the zoning fireworks. Notice the local costs of trench digging go through the roof so the endeavor will no longer be attractive. Hear the wailing about "disturbing" the environment. Expect ridiculous fees for "inspectors" who paint lines on your yard telling you where the town will allow you to dig.
There are too many oil pigs in the USA. Some are your neighbors. There are myriad invisible barriers to energy efficiency placed by our corrupt culture.
The "it can't be done" folks are half the problem. The other half is the "you'll do it over our dead bodies" group. They are expensive and dangerous. It takes courage to do what is right. Our culture is wrong about just about everything. If you fit in right now, there is something wrong with you.
AGG,
I live in NYC so I don't know if geothermal technology is possible. Since I rent an apartment, I would have have to wait for my landlord to approve of switching to geothermal provided it's possible to begin with.
I won't deny that the oil propagandists will treat geothermal the same way they treat solar and wind. I am not ruling out solar, wind, and geothermal. I have heard of nano solar technologies for thinner panals that can be put anywhere and could make solar cheaper but I can't understand why environmentalists are complaining about nano-technology.
Regardless of which technology is the future, we will have to conserve in as many ways as possible. I may not drive a car but somehow I get the feeling that I too am guilty of being an energy glutton like everyone else and am outlining ways to cut back. Peak oil will force us to cut back some and then it will slowly be serious over time. The green technologies could mitigate some of the energy crunch but I take it that we will still have to cut back on energy usage.
You are right about the desperate moves the oil propagandists will throw out when something new that threatens their profits comes up.
I hear you and agree that we all must conserve.
As to geo-thermal energy, it is everywhere beneath our feet on earth. This snippet from an article on a bore hole the Russians dug will give you an idea how vast and practically endless the energy potential of geo-thermal is:
The drilling of the Kola Superdeep Borehole ceased in 1994. The hole was still 1.7 miles away from the hoped for depth, but it had reached an astonishing 7.6 miles into the Earth. It is roughly nine inches in diameter. As the drill had gone deeper, the Earth had become hotter. This was to be expected, but the temperature was far higher than anyone had predicted. Experts believed that at a depth of 7.45 miles the temperature would be 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature at that depth turned out to be 356 degrees Fahrenheit. Unfortunately, there was nothing that scientists at the time could do to regulate the heat enough to continue drilling. It is estimated that the temperature would have reached 572 degrees Fahrenheit if the drill had reached the projected depth.
It's down there and it's cheap. They are lying to us about energy for the sake of profit from burning hydrocarbons.
That's a lot of new information I have never heard about geothermal energy. The drilling part would raise legitimate concerns but you are right that the oil monopolists are hypocrites and have no right to stop geothermal from getting a chance. I hear that geothermal is renewable. Oil used to be naturally cheap when it started out but the prices have gone up and then somewhat settled. It will be interesting to see how geothermal goes in terms of costs once the technology becomes mainstream. It would make a great replacement for natural gas as I see it.
"A certain European country in the 1930s", indeed. We should stop speaking of our present political situation as though it were the Roosevelt or Eisenhower eras, when the debate was conducted as though we had a functioning constitution. Our constitution has been circumvented by the "Patriot Act", habeus corpus has been repealed, posse comitatus repealed, our local police have been militarized, taxation with representation has become the sale of office to the highest bidder, the largest corporations, who have destroyed our industrial capacity, are now looting the treasury, and our national currency, backed by nothing and based in debt, is maintained only by our fantastically bloated military machine holding a gun to the world's head. What do we produce anymore except bullshit and death? So why do we wonder why the hood ornament that our parasitic political elites have placed in the White Hose is capable of nothing but blather?
Tony Vodvarka
Pres Obama has surrounded himself with the DLC advisers, corporate insiders, conservatives and neocons.
He can't possibly get good advice from the people who created our problems.
He's making the wrong choices because he's listening to the wrong people.
If he would listen to the people who elected him, it would be different. And by the way, a lot of independents voted for him.
I would temper any judgment by saying that while he has continued the most hated policies of GW - e.g. civil liberties, war mongering, failure to promote Middle East peace - he is making some moves on other progressive agendas, albeit in a half-hearted way.
I give him a C as of this time, from a progressive perspective. If he escalates Afghanistan or signs into law a Health Insurance Bailout without a robust public option, that will become an F, of course.
In fact, on the subject of public option, when folks are forced to fork over $8,000 per year to private corporations that they aren't paying today, who do you think they'll vote for in 2010 and 2012? The Baucus bill is a moronic exercise in corporatism that could destroy the Democratic Party, if you ask me.
"If he escalates in Afghanistan"?!!! Uh, Mr Thurogood, that's old news. I guess he gets that F after all.
Ah, yes, the voters will turn out to "punish" in 2010 and 2012. I don't plan on being one of them. I will exercise my voting rights, however, but I will not vote for Repubs and anyone that is not progressive. But I would also never vote again for Obama, as I did this time, out of fear. I don't want Obama has President after 2012. I don't know how he could get my trust back at this point. He would have to totally change his stance on health care, at the very least. He would have to tell the powers that be, sorry, but I must listen to the will of the people and the people want real reform, the majority wants at the very least a clear path to single payer. Poll after poll has shown this when the question asked involves the use of Medicare as a public option.
But it's not going to happen.
DENNIS KUCINICH IN 2012! What all were looking for was right in front of us in 2008 but the corporate media and a fearful electorate gave us "Bush term III".
Dennis Kucinich is the rare honest politician and there is the problem; he has as much chance as another man with integrity, Mike Gravel. He will not be allowed the nomination in 2012 because he cannot be bought. If I was betting in Las Vegas, I would bet on the corrupt, wacko, right in 2012 as they will be endorsed by the MIC; the whore media; and the sheeple. Dennis Kucinich's chances in 2012 are between slim and none and Slim just left town! I voted third party last time and will do so in 2012 and I will vote for Dennis if he is on a third party ticket.
I am having a sort of internal debate on whether we, as progressives, should more or less ignore the national level. Should we instead focus on our local communities, county governments, and maybe state governments? It's become obvious by now that those in Congress and the administration who have the power over policy and legislation will constantly betray us to ensure corporate money for their re-election efforts. If we instead dedicate ourselves to the local level, maybe we could create strong economies and communities that can thrive no matter what's coming out of DC.
I am paying more and more attention to local elections from now on. I didn't always vote in those off-years, you know, when your town supervisor or county executive was up for reelection. I am now and I started this past Tuesday. I used to transcribe most the Assembly hearings for the State of New York, and occasionally the Senate. A lot of these names are now in the House and Senate. It starts on the local level. The voter turnout in these off-years is dismal.
Yes, the turnout is dismal. And that means an energized community of progressives can much more easily win elections and issues at the local level.
I pay attention to elections on local, state, and national levels. We should not ignore any level if we are to win. Take a look at how the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbyists, penetrates all levels of government. Some progressive causes are trying to do just that and so too is the Green Party. You raise excellent points about the need to dedicate our progressive causes to the local levels so that DC's effects are not as hard felt. I wouldn't ignore state and federal levels nonetheless lest they get in the ways of our local efforts.
Now that I know I'm staying in DC, I'm going to change my voter registration and join the DC Green Party. I'm not going to suggest others focus locally unless I do as well.
Hi zmann--I understand and echo your frustration. But we cannot ignore the national as it heavilly impacts the local. You probably know why that's so, but I offer this two-part essay because of the analysis it provides, part 1: http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/06/the-decline-of-the-american-empire/ part 2: http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/decline-of-the-empire-now-what/
Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home.
Probably the best portrait of Obama I've seen yet:
"The guy is a leaky bucket at a time when the boat has been swamped. He's an pressureless fire hose when the house is in flames. A tattered parachute when the ground is coming up fast. A rusty musket as the Huns come over the ridge. At a time when America needs a bold, powerful and wise leader in the White House - principally to undo the damage of the bold, powerful and sociopathic guy who was just in there - we have instead Mr. Rogers' pet gerbil. Complete with cardigan sweater and barbiturate-laced water supply."
All too true. Alas, alack, and wailaway!
one must add:
OBAMA is NERO FIDDLING while ROME BURNS.
after all , it fits.
HE IS the EMPEROR , the Titular Head of the "NEW ROME" - the USA EMPIRE....surrounded by a Senate that is both complicit and cowardly...all of them hectored by the Praetorian Guard for more Wars of Conquest...and the ROME -- the USA -- is distracting itself with tales of "personal remake" or Grandiose "heroic" theatre of distractions like "world" series..or who wins the next Lotto..while gorging itself on substitute Wars on video, movies, entertainment as ROME goes abroad to wage wars - all the time borrowing money it can't pay back ...only to come back to the "people" who then say collectively - along with the exhortation of their leaders :
"IT's the FAULT OF THE WORLD"...
and SO OBAMA LEADS the Orchestra and Choir and Marching Bands of America tooting and whining and screeching and banging war drums and fighting drums and "victory" drums for all kinds of things that they are ALWAYS LOSING anyway
as their ROME BURNS and , unfortunately too sadly: HAS to DRAG others in the burning of its stampede and lust for power and Glory Without Penalty forever and ever , amen.
the sad thing , ironic is, america (and i am of course merely generalizing for there are INDIVIDUALS that are not like that) is really a country where people -- high up or lowly - belong to a culture that believes in living rapaciously, without limit, BUT without penalty TO ITSELF , ONLY FOR OTHERS, for its consequences. it IS a CULTURE of Corruption. it IS a NATIONAL PSYCHE of CORRUPTION - merely dressed up with glorious high-minded concepts and words and symbols:
"democracy". "voting your conscience", "voting your interest", "self-reliance", "responsibility", Accountability, "freedom", "safety first", the FLAG, OUR this, OUR that...WE this, WE that....as opposed to everything "alien out there that wish to harm US"....which are all a collection of NUMBING panaceas against the recognition and admission that really..when it comes down to it , in comparison with many other cultures -- the "america" -- "WE" the "people"
REALLY make up the culture and the culture IS corrupt . and therefore the people who make up the culture, whether as leadership or tolerant or quiescient or ACQUIESCENT population is inherently , fundamentally, essentially :
CORRUPT.
otherwise it WOULDN"T be THE america that americans always say IT IS.
what you ARE is what you ARE.
it is the perfect definition of what Benjamin Franklin warned and described long ago:
"THE PEOPLE ARE CORRUPT".
"should this nation fall...it shall fall not because of foreign enemies or threats, real or imagined...it shall fall because the PEOPLE ARE CORRUPT".
Its beginning to look like we got Barack Obama, when what we needed was Van Jones.
Second.
Agreed.
"It didn't have to be this way. He could have been both a great president, a popular president, and a heroic president."
Wrong! It does have to be this way. Imperialist capitalism is INCAPABLE of humanitarian actions. There can be no heroic face man for the mafia that rules America. To say so is treacherous. If this sounds extreme, it is because you have been blinded to the obvious.
What do we want? Universal Peace, Sustainability, Equality and Affluence - UPSEA. Capitalism can provide NONE of the above. Ever. It is theoretically impossible, and the theory is thoroughly proven by fact. The only solution is international communism, and the only way to get there is international workers' revolution under the leadership of Leninist parties. The primary activity for true humanitarians at this moment is to build that party, here in the USA.
It's called Democratic-Socialism. If you think Bernie Sanders is one of the few voices for the people who makes sense, then you are ready to build the Dem-Soc Party in this country. You can't get any further left than Dem Soc; it is about equality of sexes, races, income, taxation, and political parity for all.
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Great article and so spot on. And we will only move further to the Right as a result of this failed Presidency and the spineless Democrats in the Senate and the House.
"You may be forgiven for thinking that that scenario is all too reminiscent of a certain European country in the 1930s."
Scary, isn't it!!!
Time to update the passport................
Think Pinochet, too -- then you have involved the same agencies, in some cases even the same personnel.