Showing posts sorted by date for query bill fletcher. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query bill fletcher. Sort by relevance Show all posts

08 August 2013

Bob Wing : The Battlelines Are Drawn in the South

Demonstrator at Moral Monday protest, Raleigh, N.C. Image from newsobserver.com.
The battlelines are drawn:
Right-wing neo-secession
or a third Reconstruction?

In this war for the heart and soul of the U.S., the battle for the South stands front and center.
By Bob Wing / The Rag Blog / August 8, 2013

DURHAM, North Carolina -- The heartless combination of the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act, the House Republicans flatly shunning the immigration bill, and the Trayvon Martin outrage should be a wake up call about the grave dangers posed by the far right and may give rise to a renewed motion among African-Americans that could give much needed new impetus and political focus to the progressive movement.

The negative policies and missteps of the Obama administration are often the target of progressive fire, and rightly so. But these take place in the context of (and are sometimes caused by) an extremely perilous development in U.S. politics: an alliance of energized right-wing populists with the most reactionary sector of Big Business has captured the Republican Party with “the unabashed ambition to reverse decades of economic and social policy by any means necessary.” (1)

The GOP is in all-out nullificationist mode, rejecting any federal laws with which they disagree. They are using their power in the judiciary and Congress to block passage or implementation of anything they find distasteful at the federal level. And under the radar the Republicans are rapidly implementing a far flung right-wing program in the 28 states they currently control. They have embarked on an unprecedented overhaul of government on behalf of the one percent and against all sectors of the poor and much of the working and middle classes, undermining the rights of all.

The main precedent in U.S. history for this kind of unbridled reactionary behavior was the states rights, pro-slavery position of the white South leading up to the Civil War. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called out the attempts at nullification in his famous “I Have a Dream" speech, and the movement of the sixties defeated it.

As shown in the ultra-conservative playground that is the North Carolina legislature, the new laws and structures of today’s right-wing program are so extreme and in such stark contrast to the rest of the country that I believe both their strategy and their program should be called “Neo-Secession.”

This nullification and neo-secession must be met by a renewed motion for freedom and social justice. The great scholar-activist Manning Marable, the leader of the powerful fightback in North Carolina NAACP President Rev. William Barber II, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, and others have called for a Third Reconstruction that builds on the post-Civil War first Reconstruction and the Civil Rights/Second Reconstruction. (2)

We are now at a pivotal point in this fight. The battlelines are drawn: Reactionary Nullification and Neo-Secession or Third Reconstruction?

Like the first secession, this second neo-secession is centered in the South even though it is a national movement with unusual strength in the upper Rocky Mountain and plains states in addition to the South. (3) Similarly racism, especially anti-Black racism, lies at its foundation even as the right-wing assaults all democratic, women’s, immigrant and labor rights, social and environmental programs. Progressives in the South are rising to the challenge. But, deplorably, most Democrats, unions, progressives, and social justice forces barely have the South on their radar and rarely invest in it. This must change, and change rapidly.

A shift in progressive priorities and intensification of on-the-ground organizing are crucial to defeating the right’s neo-secessionist agenda as well as to forge a sufficiently powerful “Third Reconstructionist” political force to successfully push back against the corporate leadership of the Democratic Party in the battles that must be waged against them along the way. We can righteously roast Obama all we want, but unless we can build a truly powerful force to his left that can simultaneously unite with moderates to break the political stranglehold of the far right, we will be spitting into the wind.


Neo-secession and Third Reconstruction

Both the right-wing strategy of Nullification and Neo-Secession and the peoples fight for a Third Reconstruction are deeply rooted in U.S. history.

Nullification was born in the nineteenth century as the slaveholders’ legal theory that states have the right to ignore any federal legislation, judicial decision, or executive order that they disagree with. In practice it meant court decisions like Dred Scott, congressional filibusters, and reactionary legislation, and the consolidation of the slaveholders’ power in the states. It was the prelude to Secession and Civil War.

Post Civil War, the victorious Union alliance with Blacks in the South then decreed Reconstruction, the most democratic, progressive, and racially just program in U.S. history up to that point.

By the 1880s, however, the Southern racists and their allies overthrew Reconstruction and set up another white supremacist regime characterized by legalized racial discrimination in all facets of life, the virtual reenslavement of Black labor, and a white monopoly on voting and political power. This regime even survived the New Deal and was not dismantled until the Civil Rights movement won passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

This Second Reconstruction not only finally ended the white dictatorship in the South but also ignited the anti-Vietnam War, Chicano, Asian American, Native American, women’s, and gay rights movements. Together they gave rise to the War on Poverty and won unparalleled national rights and programs for workers, women, immigrants, the poor, and others.

Today the right wing is once again spewing out this racist legal theory of nullification and invoking a new civil war, hardly bloodless though not involving clashing armies, in an attempt to overthrow the Second Reconstruction. More important, they are putting it into practice at the federal, state, and local levels.

Due to decades of control of the presidency, they occupy most of the federal judiciary where they are systematically stripping away progressive laws, regulations, and rights -- even public education, the historic bedrock of the middle class. They control Congress through political hardball, gerrymandering and abuse of the rules. With control of two of the three branches of the federal government and the malevolent abuse of the filibuster and mass refusal of executive political appointments, they are strangling the Obama presidency. (4)

Meanwhile the Republicans control 28 states and numerous local jurisdictions in which they are moving to nullify federal legislation with which they disagree, qualitatively cut back on and privatize government and public education, drastically roll back the rights of people of color, women, workers, children, and gays and eliminate progressive income taxes in favor of regressive sales taxes. Lara M. Brown recently reminded us that “the vast majority of the laws under which each of us abide are state laws, not federal laws.”

The recent Supreme Court decision invalidating the most powerful parts of the Voting Rights Act has opened the floodgates to voter suppression laws that heretofore have been ruled unconstitutional. Although there are still numerous Black legislators, David Bostis and Thomas Edsall assess that Republican gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Black legislators’ loss of clout and committee chairs means that, “At the state level, Black voters and elected officials have less influence now than at any time since the civil rights era.” (5)

Meanwhile the Great Recession has greatly increased already unacceptable levels of racial income and wealth inequality. The Trayvon Martin case traumatically revealed, once again, the grave dangers to Blacks living amidst white racism.

Outright secession would be political suicide since the right-wing led states clearly lack the power to win. But if they have their way the difference between Blue and Red states will soon be so stark as to be the modern analogue to the free and slave states or the legally segregated versus non-legally segregated states of the past.

This time the right wing wants it both ways: to benefit from staying in the Union yet at the same time to recreate numerous states in their own ideological image. This is why I think it is historically justifiable and politically useful to brand today’s right wingers as nullificationist and neo-secessionist.

Nullification is one of the principal tactics of the right wing; neo-secession is its strategy and its program.

Since the Nixon and especially the Reagan administrations, the right wing has sought to rout both the New Deal and the Civil Rights reconstruction, and replace it with an updated version of racism and reaction. The right reached both a new level of power and new level of extremism in reaction to the election of Barack Obama. It is our fight to defeat them and bring forth a new, Third Reconstruction that will make further strides toward ending racism and bringing justice for all.


Nothing could be more neo-secessionist than North Carolina

North Carolina is a true purple state: Obama won the state in 2008 by less than one percent and lost it by two percent in 2012.

But through a combination of good luck and smart strategy, not to speak of state Democratic lethargy, Republican gerrymandering and the largesse of the right-wing retail mogul Art Pope, North Carolina has been the site of the Tea Party’s most dramatic political victories and its most draconian legislative and social agenda. Pope’s foundation finances 90 percent of the income of the state’s leading right-wing groups (6)

Yet, in 2012 the Republicans won the governorship and a majority in both houses of the legislature for the first time since the first Reconstruction. In fact they boast a supermajority in both houses. “Since then,” says The New York Times, “the state government has become a demolition derby, tearing down years of progress in public education, tax policy, racial equality in the courtroom and access to the ballot.”

In just its first two weeks the new legislature: (1) made North Carolina the only state to nullify all federally-mandated and funded extensions to unemployment, affecting 170,000 people. It also slashed the maximum unemployment benefit for new claims from $522 to $360 per week and the maximum length to 20 weeks. North Carolina has the fifth highest unemployment rate in the nation; (2) refused the federally-funded Medicare benefit that would have provided health care to an additional 500,000 North Carolinians; (3) moved to enshrine existing anti-union “right to work” laws in the state constitution; (4) passed voter ID laws, cutback early voting by half, and eliminated same-day registration; (5) legalized and subsidized fracking; and (6) passed a bill to purge state commissions and Superior Court judges they don’t like.

Rev .Dr. William Barber II, the North Carolina State President of the NAACP and the main leader of the growing fightback, gives further details about what he calls the “vicious war on the poor”:
Piling further indignities on the poor, they also want to require people applying for temporary assistance or benefits to submit to criminal background checks, and force applicants to a job training program for low-income workers to take a drug test, for which they have to pay. Now the legislature wants to increase and expand taxes on groceries, haircuts and prescription drugs. They're even taking aim at poor children with a bill to lower the income requirement for North Carolina's prekindergarten program, making it off limits to nearly 30,000 children who would have previously qualified. (7)
In addition, the legislature is moving to privatize Medicaid, slash public education funding to 2007 levels, end teacher tenure and place charter schools under separate governance; shut down most abortion clinics; and establish outlandish rules for ex-offenders to restore their voting rights.

This reactionary avalanche of neo-secession is being met by a burgeoning fightback. The North Carolina NAACP and the wide progressive coalition it has built called Historic Thousands on Jones Street (where the state capitol is located,) is fighting for what Rev. Barber enunciates as a Third Reconstruction. T

his year they launched “Moral Monday”: every Monday a demonstration against the legislature is followed by civil disobedience in the state house. In 11 such events so far, more than 700 people have been arrested, usually supported by thousands at the rallies. HKonJ and its member groups have flanked Moral Monday with a statewide and sectoral organizing campaign. (8)

Moral Monday protester. Image from Millard Fillmore's Bathtub.

Fighting neo-secession

The neo-secessionist strategy poses a highly complex set of challenges, distinct from a straight-up secession. The right must be defeated in public opinion, in the streets, in workplaces, and at the polls. And it must be defeated in numerous discrete congressional and legislative districts, as well as county and city races, governorships, legislatures, the Congress, and the presidency.

This will be protracted guerrilla political struggle. We must prepare ourselves to take advantage of big opportunities to mobilize the public and reshape public opinion when they are presented but also drill down into the electoral fights district by district. Only a gigantic and determined coalition of everyone who opposes the right can do this, not just in presidential elections but all levels of government.

However we also need a massive and well-organized progressive force to the left of Obama Democrats with a social justice left that can root this force among people of color, union, and other poor folk that can provide the backbone that the elite Democrats consistently show they lack. This is crucial not only to win all of these battles, but to make sure the right-wing program is eventually buried at every level and forever, and replaced by a Third Reconstruction.

This is not an ideological projection but a historically based reality of today’s politics. I have detailed it, most recently; in “Can We Defeat the Racist Southern Strategy in 2012?” (9) Strikingly, African-American voters are dynamically growing and are the most progressive voting bloc in the country, and the even faster-growing Latino and Asian American populations are increasingly moving in the same direction. In 2012 Black voter participation exceeded that of all other groups. And no other demographic group votes in such a unified liberal-progressive way.

Yet, it often appears that the leadership and membership of social justice nonprofits and progressive organizations, editorial boards, and actions are more racially segregated than the Fortune 500.

People of color are the anchor of what is now being called “the new majority” or the “rising American electorate” together with unmarried women, labor, and youth. Increased class gaps among seniors, married women, and the middle class also provide important organizing opportunities.

Of course the battle for a Third Reconstruction takes place in a vastly different global and national context than Reconstruction I and II. In this era of imperial decline, social austerity, and looming environmental catastrophe today’s radical reconstruction would encompass not only the fight for racial justice but also intersect with labor battles and anti-cutback efforts, fights for immigrant, women’s and LGBT rights, peace, and climate justice in new ways. Getting there will be complex but the potential exists for a social change movement in the U.S. that is both broader and more radical on a host of issues than previous progressive upsurges.


The importance of the South

In this war for the heart and soul of the U.S., the battle for the South stands front and center.

Written off as redneck, ignorant Bible Belt country by too many liberals, the South is actually a heated center of battle against the right. Historically the defining feature of the South was the plantation economy and the racially-coerced labor that it was founded upon. However, plantations are now a thing of the past. Worldwide capitalist competition, technology, migration and immigration, gentrification/white flight and exurbs are transforming the Southern landscape, at different rates and in different ways. (10) Indeed Maryland and Virginia now rank in the top 10 in median household income while Southern states also occupy nine of the bottom 12.

The South (remember that both Texas and Florida were part of the Confederacy) has more population, more Black people, more poverty, more military installations, more congressional seats, and more electoral votes than any other region of the country, and it is growing. Despite right-to-work laws, it is also the only area besides California where union membership is growing.

The poison that lingers, however, is that Southern whites are far more conservative, Republican, and prone to white political solidarity than elsewhere. Nationally, anywhere between 55 percent and 60 percent of whites vote Republican in presidential elections. But Southern whites do so at a 70 percent-plus clip, rising to 90 percent in much of the Deep South in opposition to Obama.

On the flip side there is a far greater percentage of African-American voters in the Southern states than elsewhere, topping at 35 percent in Mississippi. And like Blacks throughout the country, they consistently vote 90 percent Democratic. Black remigration to the South means that there is a higher percentage of African-Americans in that region than in many decades.

In fact the South has been wrongly stereotyped as a Republican monolith since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Actually it was not until 1994 that the Republicans won a majority of the Southern congresspersons. There are way more African-American officeholders in the region than in any other part of the country. Democrats are generally stronger at the state and local levels than they are in presidential elections. New Deal and populist politics still exist among some working class whites and small farmers, and Latino and Asian immigration is growing.


No more solid South

Even in Mississippi the Republicans hold only a three-seat majority in the state’s House. A proposed state constitutional amendment defining “personhood” as beginning at conception and prohibiting abortion “from the moment of fertilization” was defeated by 55 percent of voters in November 2011. And the longtime Black and human rights activist Chokwe Lumumba was just elected mayor of Jackson, the state’s capital and largest city. (11)

Maryland long ago turned Blue, Virginia and North Carolina are now true battleground states. After North Carolina, Georgia was the most competitive state won by Romney. And Texas and Mississippi are within shouting distance -- and a lot of smart, hard work -- of becoming battleground states. Progressive political forces and mass rumblings can be heard in every Southern state. This is where a broad coalition centered around African-Americans must be unleashed and the right wing routed in its own backyard.

The South is also the site of some of the most exciting social justice organizing in the country. (12)

The defeat of the Personhood amendment and the election of Chokwe Lumumba as mayor of Jackson highlight the growing power of groups like Mississippi One Voice, the Mississippi Black Leadership Summit and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement in Mississippi.

Virginia New Majority has burst on the scene with the state’s most dynamic political field operation and as a key organizing force in the Virginia legislature. It may be the first social justice group to embark on an exciting new strategy of identifying, training, and fielding progressive candidates in key areas of the state. Florida New Majority has built one of the largest social justice electoral formations in the country as well as a potentially powerful alliance with the Service Employees International Union and other unions in this crucial battleground state. It is now making important new initiatives to develop its capacity to communicate regularly with the hundreds of thousands of people they meet at the doors as well with the organization of Freedom Clubs as a grassroots organization.

The battle for the South together with other purple and red states is once again likely to determine the future of this country. Next year’s 50th Anniversary of the Freedom Summer provides an opportunity for people around the country to contribute to the battle in Mississippi and throughout the South.

The 50th Anniversary of the historic March on Washington will be marked by a landmark rally in Washington, DC on Aug. 28, 2013. Hopefully the anniversary will give breadth and depth to the emerging political motion ignited by the regressive Voting Rights Act decision and the Trayvon Martin travesty. The emergence of a renewed mass African-American-led grassroots motion would be a major step for the progressive movement as a whole as we take on the task of fighting to defeat neo-secession and forge a Third Reconstruction for jobs, peace and freedom.

Special thanks to my lifelong colleagues Max Elbaum and Linda Burnham and to Jon Liss, Lynn Koh, Carl Davidson, Ajamu Dillahunt, Raymond Eurquhart, and Bill Fletcher Jr. for their comments, critiques, and suggestions.

[Bob Wing has been a social justice organizer and writer since 1968. He was the founding editor of
ColorLines magazine and War Times newspaper. Bob lives in Durham, North Carolina, and can be contacted through Facebook.]

Footnotes:

(1) Even the Brookings Institute centrist Thomas Mann and the American Enterprise Institute conservative Norman Ornstein are alarmed by what they call the Republican’s “new nullification” strategy. They have devoted an entire book to this subject: It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism (2012).
(2) Manning Marable, “The Third Reconstruction: Black Nationalism and Race in a Revolutionary America,” Social Text, Autumn 1981. Reverend William Barber II: http://www.storyofamerica.org/reconstruction3. Melissa Harris-Perry: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-roush/2013/07/08/msnbc-harris-perry-claims-we-are-third-reconstruction-after-voting-rig .
(3) Bruce Bartlett does a great job of tracing the origins of today’s struggles to slavery days: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/05/04/Americas-Return-to-Political-Polarization.aspx#page1
(4) In order to promote political stability, the framers of the U.S. Constitution created a unique fragmentation of the government into three branches (plus the Federal Reserve the military) and a distinctively powerful division of power between the federal, state, county, and city jurisdictions. Combined with the decision to disperse and stagger elections, this system makes the governmental system of the U.S. uniquely stable. But, in an unintended consequence that Mann and Ornstein detail, it also makes it vulnerable to sabotage and nullification by a powerful political force like today’s Republican Party which rejects the culture of compromise that is absolutely crucial to make tour very divided national governmental system work.
(5) Bostis is quoted in Thomas Edsall, "The Decline of Black Power in the South," http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/the-decline-of-black-power-in-the-south/?emc=eta1
(6) Much more on Pope at: http://www.southernstudies.org/person/art-pope
(7) http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/opinion/barber-north-carolina-protest
(8) A big question is how this increased street motion can not only be greatly increased but also translated into the electoral power necessary to strip away the Republican supermajorities and governorship in that state.
(9) Bob Wing, “Can We Defeat the Racist Southern Strategy in 2012?” http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/community-organizing/item/728-can-we-defeat-the-racist-southern-strategy-in-2012
(10) Bob Moser, now the executive editor of American Prospect magazine, advances an interesting and optimistic analysis of the political potential of the South in his 2008 book, Blue Dixie and in a recent special feature of American Prospect magazine entitled “The End of the Solid South” (http://prospect.org/article/end-solid-south ).
(11) Bob Wing, “From Mississippi Goddam to Jackson Hell Yes’: Chokwe Lumumba is the New Mayor of Jackson”: http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/06/voices-from-mississippi-goddam-to-jackson-hell-yes.html
(12) There are many more important groups but the following are the social justice organizations with major civic engagement operations I am currently most knowledgeable about. Each of the groups I highlight is grounded in racial justice, new majority, and/or rising American electoral politics and strategies.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

02 July 2013

RAG RADIO / Thorne Dreyer : Author and Labor/Social Justice Activist Bill Fletcher Jr.

Rag Radio podcast:
Noted author and activist Bill Fletcher Jr.
Bill Fletcher Jr. is a longtime author, commentator, and labor, racial justice and social/economic justice activist, and an international solidarity leader.
By Rag Radio / The Rag Blog / July 2, 2013

Noted author and activist Bill Fletcher Jr., was Thorne Dreyer's guest on Rag Radio, Friday, June 21, 2013.

Rag Radio is a syndicated radio program produced at the studios of KOOP 91.7-FM, a cooperatively-run all-volunteer community radio station in Austin, Texas.

Listen to or download our interview with Bill Fletcher Jr. here:


Bill Fletcher Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Sudies, an editorial board member and columnist for BlackCommentator.com, and past president of TransAfrica Forum. A graduate of Harvard University, Fletcher is a longtime labor, social and economic justice, and racial justice activist and an international solidarity leader.

After graduating from college, he went to work as a welder in a shipyard and has worked for several labor unions and served as a senior staffer for the national AFL-CIO. Over the years he has been active in workplace and community struggles as well as electoral campaigns.

Fletcher is the author of "They’re Bankrupting Us" and Twenty other Myths about Unions, co-author (with Peter Agard) of The Indispensable Ally: Black Workers and the Formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1934-1941, and the co-author (with Dr. Fernando Gapasin) of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social justice.

He is a syndicated columnist and a frequent commentator on radio, television, and the Internet. Find articles by Bill Fletcher Jr. on The Rag Blog.


Rag Radio is hosted and produced by Rag Blog editor and long-time alternative journalist Thorne Dreyer, a pioneer of the Sixties underground press movement.

The show has aired since September 2009 on KOOP 91.7-FM, an all-volunteer cooperatively-run community radio station in Austin, Texas. Rag Radio is broadcast live every Friday from 2-3 p.m. (CDT) on KOOP and is rebroadcast on Sundays at 10 a.m. (EDT) on WFTE, 90.3-FM in Mt. Cobb, PA, and 105.7-FM in Scranton, PA.

The show is streamed live on the web by both stations and, after broadcast, all Rag Radio shows are posted as podcasts at the Internet Archive.

Rag Radio is produced in association with The Rag Blog, a progressive Internet newsmagazine, and the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Tracey Schulz is the show's engineer and co-producer.

Rag Radio can be contacted at ragradio@koop.org.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

13 June 2013

RAG RADIO / Thorne Dreyer : Mother Jones' Tom Philpott on Big Ag and the Politics of Food


Sustainable food writer Tom Philpott at the studios of KOOP-FM in Austin, Texas, June 7, 2013. Photo by William Michael Hanks / The Rag Blog.
Rag Radio podcast:
Mother Jones' Tom Philpott on
sustainable ag and the politics of food
"As a writer for Grist and now Mother Jones, Tom Philpott draws links between your kitchen, your food sources, your government, and the earth. An organic farmer, he knows how to pull weeds as well as yank the chain of Big Ag. " -- Utne Reader
By Rag Radio / The Rag Blog / June 13, 2013

Tom Philpott, sustainable food and agriculture correspondent for Mother Jones magazine, was Thorne Dreyer's guest on Rag Radio, Friday, June 7, 2013.

Rag Radio is a syndicated radio program produced at the studios of KOOP 91.7-FM, a cooperatively-run all-volunteer community radio station in Austin, Texas.

Listen to or download our interview with Tom Philpott here:


Tom Philpott writes about sustainable agriculture and the politics of food for Mother Jones and is the cofounder of Maverick Farms, a center for sustainable food education in Valle Crucis, North Carolina. As Utne Reader said, Philpott "knows how to pull weeds as well as yank the chain of Big Ag."

Among the issues Philpott addresses on Rag Radio are the extensive abuses of big agribusiness, especially in the meat industry and in the GMO seed business -- and the failure of government oversight in both. On the positive side, he points to the growing role played by community farming and cooperatives.

For five years, Tom Philpott served as a columnist, food editor, and senior food writer for the online environmental site Grist. His work on food politics has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, Orion, OnEarth, Gastronomica, and the Guardian, and he has been interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. Philpott also worked as a financial journalist in Mexico City and New York, most recently for Reuters.com.

Tom Philpott.
Maverick Farms has been featured in Gourmet and The New York Times, and in September 2008, Food & Wine named Philpott one of "ten innovators" who "will continue to shape the culinary consciousness of our country for the next 30 years." In 2011, Utne Reader named him one of "25 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World."

A graduate of the University of Texas, where he co-founded and ran the radical investigative magazine Polemicist in the late '80s/early '90s, Philpott currently divides his time between Austin and the farm in North Carolina.

Leslie Hatfield wrote at EcoCentric: "A path that led from a restaurant kitchen in Austin eventually took Tom Philpott -- by way of Mexico City and Brooklyn, New York -- to North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Mountains, where he now serves as co-founder/core group member at Maverick Farms, while also dishing out what may be the most consistently awesome food policy reporting in the blogosphere."

Tom Philpott and the Real Food Media Project’s Anna Lappé spoke on “Busting Food Myths” at the 5604 Manor Community Center in Austin, Friday, June 7, 2013.


Rag Radio is hosted and produced by Rag Blog editor and long-time alternative journalist Thorne Dreyer, a pioneer of the Sixties underground press movement.

The show has aired since September 2009 on KOOP 91.7-FM, an all-volunteer cooperatively-run community radio station in Austin, Texas. Rag Radio is broadcast live every Friday from 2-3 p.m. (CDT) on KOOP and is rebroadcast on Sundays at 10 a.m. (EDT) on WFTE, 90.3-FM in Mt. Cobb, PA, and 105.7-FM in Scranton, PA.

The show is streamed live on the web by both stations and, after broadcast, all Rag Radio shows are posted as podcasts at the Internet Archive.

Rag Radio is produced in association with The Rag Blog, a progressive Internet newsmagazine, and the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Tracey Schulz is the show's engineer and co-producer.

Rag Radio can be contacted at ragradio@koop.org.

Coming up on Rag Radio:
THIS FRIDAY,
June 14, 2013: Peruvian social psychologist Cristina Herencia, official observer at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Friday, June 21, 2013: Bill Fletcher Jr., African-American scholar, writer, and union organizer.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

30 May 2013

RAG RADIO / Thorne Dreyer : Economist Gar Alperovitz Asks, 'What Then Must We Do?'

Rag Radio podcast: 
Political economist Gar Alperovitz,
author of 'What Then Must We Do?'
“Like a picture slowly developing in a photographer's darkroom, the potential elements of a new system, of something meaningful and very American, are beginning to emerge." -- Gar Alperovitz
By Rag Radio / The Rag Blog / May 30, 2013

Political economist Gar Alperovitz, whose new book is What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution, was our guest on Rag Radio, Friday, May 10, 2013. Rag Radio is a syndicated radio program produced at the studios of KOOP 91.7-FM, a cooperatively-run all-volunteer community radio station in Austin, Texas.

Listen to or download our interview with Gar Alperovitz here:


On the show, Alperovtitz talks with host Thorne Dreyer and The Rag Blog's Roger Baker about issues raised in his new book, What Then Must We Do?.

In the book, Alperovitz speaks about “why the time is right to democratize the ownership of wealth to strengthen our communities and our nation, through local cooperatives, worker-owned companies, and independent business, as well as larger publicly-owned enterprises and reinvigorated institutions.”

Alperovitz told the Rag Radio audience that "we are living in a systemic crisis, not simply a political crisis... You see that the long, long trends -- for 30 years or more -- simply don’t much change if you elect this politician or that politician."

"Over the last 30 years," he said, "real wages for most people have simply not moved up or down more than a few pennies. The top one percent has increased its income share over that 30-year span, from 10 percent to more than 20 percent. Over 30 years the top 1 percent has taken just about all of the gains of the economic system."

And, he added, "That’s extraordinary."

The new book, he says, documents "trend after trend after trend where the big picture keeps getting worse -- or nothing gets better. Poverty increases, the incarceration rate has gone up dramatically... CO2 production has gone up 30 percent... On many many fronts, the trends don’t much change, and things get worse, and that tells you that something deeper in the system is at work."

"And," Alperovitz said, "I don’t think its going to change until we actually begin slowly but steadily evolving... and moving towards what can only be called a different system in the United States, something different from corporate capitalism. And certainly different from state socialism or communism. Something that has an American flavor and development."

"And," he added, "the book suggests that, partly because of the pain levels, and because things aren’t working for people, if you look closely there’s a lot of developments that are going in a new direction. And a lot that the press certainly doesn’t report on."

Alperovitz believes that many encouraging things are happening largely under the radar in this country, including the burgeoning workers' cooperative movement and other public experiments that are addressing democratization of the economy.

"Like a picture slowly developing in a photographer's darkroom, the potential elements of a new system, of something meaningful and very American, are beginning to emerge," he writes.

According to Daniel Ellsberg, "For decades, Gar Alperovitz has been at the forefront of attempts to understand what could lie beyond our increasingly broken system of corporate capitalism," and his new book "offers by far the most serious, intellectually grounded strategy for system-changing yet to appear."

University of Texas economist James Galbraith calls Alperovitz's book a "cooperative and democratic manifesto," and says, "May his ideas and ideals flourish."

And Bill Fletcher Jr. wrote in a review of What Then Must We Do?, published on The Rag Blog, that Alperovitz "proceeds to identify actual examples of different struggles and projects that have been undertaken by progressives that show that a different way of organizing life and the economy is not only a great idea, but living reality."

Fletcher writes that, "The reforms proposed are both clear and compelling and, in many cases, achievable."

But he also suggests that Alperovitz's strategy as incomplete: "The struggle for structural reforms and survival presented by Alperovitz is essential in cornering the political Right and changing the 'common sense' of the U.S. political arena. But it is not enough to wound the rabid beast; one must ultimately bring it down."

According to Fletcher, "Alperovitz’s platform is at best one component in a much more long-term socialist strategy."

Gar Alperovitz has had a distinguished career as a historian, political economist, activist, writer, and government official. He is currently the Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland; was co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative; and is a former Fellow of Kings College, Cambridge University, Harvard’s Institute of Politics, and the Institute for Policy Studies; and a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution.

He is the author of critically acclaimed books including America Beyond Capitalism and The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, and his articles have appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, The Nation, and the Atlantic, among other popular and academic publications.

Also see Roger Baker's review of Alperovitz's earlier book, America Beyond Capitalism, at The Rag Blog, and listen to the podcast of our February 3, 2012, Rag Radio interview with Gar Alperovitz.


Rag Radio is hosted and produced by Rag Blog editor and long-time alternative journalist Thorne Dreyer, a pioneer of the Sixties underground press movement.

The show has aired since September 2009 on KOOP 91.7-FM, an all-volunteer cooperatively-run community radio station in Austin, Texas. Rag Radio is broadcast live every Friday from 2-3 p.m. (CDT) on KOOP and is rebroadcast on Sundays at 10 a.m. (EDT) on WFTE, 90.3-FM in Mt. Cobb, PA, and 105.7-FM in Scranton, PA.

The show is streamed live on the web by both stations and, after broadcast, all Rag Radio shows are posted as podcasts at the Internet Archive.

Rag Radio is produced in association with The Rag Blog, a progressive Internet newsmagazine, and the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Tracey Schulz is the show's engineer and co-producer.

Rag Radio can be contacted at ragradio@koop.org.

Coming up on Rag Radio:
THIS FRIDAY,
May 31, 2013: Philosophy scholar Bill Meacham, author of How to Be an Excellent Human.
Friday, June 7, 2013: Mother Jones correspondent Tom Philpott on agricultural sustainability and the "Politics of Food."

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

13 May 2013

BOOKS / Bill Fletcher Jr. : Gar Alperovitz and Visions of a New World


What Then Must We Do?:
Political economist Gar Alperovitz
and visions of a new world
The struggle for structural reforms is essential to changing the 'common sense' of the U.S. political arena. But it is not enough to wound the rabid beast; one must ultimately bring it down.
By Bill Fletcher Jr. / Jacobin / May 13, 2013
Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do?, will be Thorne Dreyer's guest on Rag Radio, Friday, May 17, 2013, from 2-3 p.m. (CDT) on KOOP 91.7-FM in Austin, and streamed live to the world. They will be joined by Rag Blog economics writer Roger Baker. The show will be rebroadcast by WFTE-FM in Mt. Cobb and Scranton, PA, Sunday morning, May 5, at 10 a.m. (EDT), and the podcast will be posted at the Internet Archive.
[What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution, by Gar Alperovitz (2013: Chelsea Green); Paperback; 224 pp; $17.95.]

I read Gar Alperovitz’s What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution with a level of skepticism. He set out to make an argument as to what can be done right now to demonstrate to a growing population weary of neoliberal capitalism that another world is not only necessary and possible, but that one can already see the first glimmers of that new world.

Alperovitz’s views are shaped by several assumptions. First, that actually existing capitalism is not working. Second, that socialism, as we have known it in the 20th century did not work. Third, that people need to actually see what an alternative world would look like in order to be encouraged to fight for one.

He then proceeds to identify actual examples of different struggles and projects that have been undertaken by progressives that show that a different way of organizing life and the economy is not only a great idea, but living realitiy.

Alperovitz spends little time critiquing 20th century socialism. For the most part he is interested in demonstrating that capitalist dogma, in particular neoliberal capitalist dogma, is both a myth as well as fundamentally unworkable. He suggests that there are projects that can be undertaken -- like worker cooperatives -- that will build power for the everyday person and actually move towards social transformation.

Advocating for these institutions, Alperovitz helps the reader to understand the differences that exist under the rubric of worker ownership, showing that there are forms of alleged ownership that really do not amount to control while at the same time there are processes that can be undertaken that alter workplace dynamics as well as the relationship of an enterprise to the broader community.

Alperovitz links his proposed process with what he sees as the next American Revolution. In that sense he believes that it is critically important that new transformative change in the United States must be rooted in lived reality in the country and also viewed by the public as “American.” For that reason, demonstrating to the “99%” that alternatives are underway and that they are not the creatures of foreign ideologies and foreign powers is absolutely essential.

What Alperovitz proposes are the equivalent of what has been traditionally known as “structural reforms” or in some cases “non-reformist reforms” along with a variation on what the Black Panther Party once called “survival programs.” This is reason enough that this book should not only be read but studied carefully.

The structural reforms and survival programs that Alperovitz is suggesting respond to the irrationality of neoliberal capitalism and the inability of the existing system to meet the needs of a growing percentage of the population. The reforms proposed are both clear and compelling and, in many cases, achievable.

In reading What Then Must We Do? I found it less a platform for revolutionary change than a platform for a frontal assault on neoliberal capitalism. To borrow the terminology of activist Carl Davidson, it is a program of a “popular front” against finance capital. It is the sort of platform and approach that can help to unite a broader progressive movement and make it more than the sum of its parts.

Alperovitz’s concern that the “99%” needs to see examples of the future is not grounded in 19th century utopian socialism. This book is not suggesting that various alternative experiments can be built, exist alone, and somehow convince the larger population -- by their example -- that this is the way to go. Rather he is suggesting that progressive and left forces undertake a multi-decade process of expanding democracy at all levels, within which the various experiments in alternatives are actualized.

Again, this is very much in line with certain more traditional leftist strategic directions regarding structural reforms and survival programs that can be fought for within the context of democratic capitalism.

But is this enough?


In the fall of 1988, I had the opportunity to tour Northern Ireland, meeting with the leaders of Sinn Féin. One of the areas to which I was introduced were worker cooperatives that had been established by Sinn Féin or its allies.

I arrogantly asked Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams what these cooperatives had to do with the liberation of Ireland from the British. Adams, very patiently, explained to me that, while these cooperatives would not liberate Ireland, at the same time the nationalist population was impoverished and needed a way to survive. With my tail between my legs I acknowledged the profundity of his point.

One of the strengths of What Then Must We Do? is that, much like Sinn Féin in the late 1980s, it is responding to an immediate challenge among the population. It is suggesting that there are things that can and must be done right now particularly within sectors of the population that have been largely written off by either the state or by private capital. The “dead cities” of this country come to mind, like Camden, which have become modern reservations for redundant populations.

A second strength is that the objectives that would fall more within the rubric of structural reforms actually do link with a larger democratizing movement that is necessary to take this country away from its drift toward neoliberal authoritarianism (or, for that matter, right-wing populism).

If thought of as part of a larger strategy, struggles around genuine healthcare reform, banking reform, or alternative economic development become battlegrounds not only in favor of the “99%,” but sites where the people are actually engaged in their own liberation.

But Alperovitz does not answer key questions. What, for example, is neoliberal capital doing while we are moving this democratization process? Alperovitz acknowledges that there remain dangers from the Right, including the use of violence. But this factor is critically important for all leftists and progressives.

The ruling power bloc has largely consolidated around a notion that huge chunks of this population -- at least 47%, according to Romney -- are nothing more than parasites and should be written off. They see no need, at least at the present time, to construct anything approaching an alliance with the working class generally, or organized labor in particular, along the lines of the New Deal coalition. Rather they seek to either crush the organized forces of the working class altogether or completely marginalize them.

While Alperovitz is correct to argue that this platform can be critical for a progressive movement, he may understate the challenges that face the Left. At each moment when we win, the forces of reaction not only seek to overturn the victory, but they also seek to overturn the means through which the victory was actually won.

None of this is to suggest that anything other than a movement for consistent democracy should be proposed. Rather, that the struggle that is undertaken in the name of structural reforms, survival, and democracy will inevitably reach a fundamental impasse with capital over the basic rules of society. At that point there should be nothing to lead anyone to believe that capital will handle this peacefully and humbly.

As a result What Then Must We Do? seems incomplete. I was persuaded by Alperovitz that a glimpse into the future is critical largely due to reality of the failure of 20th century socialism, or more accurately, what is better described as the crisis of socialism.

We are not, in other words, starting off with a clean slate. There are experiences with socialist and so-called socialist projects and those experiences are uneven in their outcome, and failed over the longer term to provide an alternative to capitalism.

Yet this does not mean that an evolutionary path into the future is realistic. That may sound contradictory since the direction proposed by Alperovitz is one that I praise. But one must remember the context: his book serves as a platform for a popular front against finance capital. It is not, however, a platform for a new society.

Where Alperovitz and I disagree seems to be on the question of how “elastic” democratic capitalism is and will be over the coming years. I think that democratic capitalism is far more flexible in adjusting to circumstances and crises than many of us on the political Left have believed over the decades.

At the same time, the combination of the economic and environmental squeeze leads me to believe that the ruling elite is on a mad dash to secure as much as it can while it can. If this means political disenfranchisement of millions through voter suppression and other efforts, or more direct forms of terror, there is nothing in the history of capitalism that leads me to believe that they will fail to exercise such an option.

Given this, Alperovitz’s platform is at best one component in a much more long-term socialist strategy. By this I mean not only the vigorous fight for structural reforms, but a level of popular organization and mobilization that ultimately pushes for a different constitutional framework, a fundamentally different arrangement in favor of empowering working people, an end to imperialism, and a new relationship between humans on planet Earth.

Such change necessitates a revolutionary transformation and an active process of eliminating the forms of oppression central to capitalism.

In using the term “revolutionary” I am emphasizing a break with actually existing capitalism rather than a slow transformation away from the current toxic system. Such a break, however, is not something that can be led by a small yet spirited sect, and neither is it something that is simply proclaimed. In that sense what Alperovitz suggests at the level of timeline is correct; we are speaking about a process over decades that is then followed by a process of actual transformation lasting decades into centuries.

For many this may all seem like a distinction without a difference, but the importance of clarifying this lies in both matters of expectations as well as strategy. The “Chilean option” succeeded in part because the forces around Allende underestimated what it would take to defeat the political Right. The struggle for structural reforms and survival presented by Alperovitz is essential in cornering the political Right and changing the “common sense” of the U.S. political arena. But it is not enough to wound the rabid beast; one must ultimately bring it down.

This article was first published at Jacobin / a magazine of culture and polemic.

[Bill Fletcher Jr. is a racial justice, labor and international writer and activist. He is the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum; a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies; and an editorial board member of BlackCommentator.com. His latest books are They’re Bankrupting Us!: And 20 Other Myths about Unions and Reimagining Labor Unions: Busting Myths, Building Movements. Find more articles by Bill Fletcher Jr. at The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

09 January 2013

Bill Fletcher, Jr. : 'Flip the Script': Jobs over Deficits

Image from The Fiscal Times.

The Republican lock on Congress
means a strategy for the cities
If we are to fight it out on the economy, this will not happen in the Republican Congressional Districts. It is a fight that we will have to take up in cities around the country. It means social protests which are disruptive.
By Bill Fletcher, Jr. / The Rag Blog / January 9, 2013

There is a strategic question that faces progressives, one that is receiving increased attention. Due to the 2010 elections and the Republican domination of state legislatures, Congressional Districts have been gerrymandered in order to guarantee a lack of any significant electoral challenges. In other words, these Districts have Republican Congresspeople who are not worried about opposition.

As we saw in the lead up to the "fiscal cliff" negotiations/resolution, most Republicans felt no internal pressure to compromise. It is quite likely that they will feel little pressure in their districts for at least 10 years. As a result the sort of pressure that they must feel must transcend their districts and actually be more at the societal level.

What this means is that while progressives absolutely need an independent electoral strategy that builds locally-based organizations capable of successfully running candidates for office -- both inside and outside of the Democratic primary system -- that is insufficient.

In fact, it is the Occupy Movement that pointed us in the direction of the other leg of such a movement. What the Occupy Movement accomplished, among other things, was to change the social discourse. Despite every effort by the mainstream media to dismiss the Occupy Movement, it not only grew but forced the country to start to address the question of economic inequality.

In the current context the implications should be clear. If, for instance, we are to fight it out on the economy and specifically on unemployment, this will not happen on the basis of fights in the Republican Congressional Districts. It will be a fight that we will have to take up in cities, including but not limited to state capitols, around the country. It means social protests which are disruptive.

In order for this to happen we must actually re-train many social movement activists and thinkers in the lessons of the 1930s labor movement, the 1950s-1960s freedom movements (including but not limited to the Civil Rights Movement), the movement against the Vietnam War, and the work of the early environmental movement.

Occupy, in that sense, was onto something. We must carry out a fight for space as part of the fight for power. Land occupations, eviction blockades, boycotts, as well as mass demonstrations, are all critical. [Note: in fact, we need, right now, a series of REALLY mass marches for jobs.] In other words, the sort of pressure that needs to be brought about must be something that Republicans AND Democrats feel, and in fact, becomes a serious source of concern.

Before we find ourselves wallowing in self-pity as we worry about the Republican "lock," let’s rethink our strategy and tactics. We may be able to flip the script, and sooner rather than in the distant future.

This article was originally published at billfletcherjr.com and was distributed by Progressive America Rising.

[Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a racial justice, labor, and international writer and activist. He is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, an editorial board member of BlackCommentator.com, the co-author of Solidarity Divided, and the author of They’re Bankrupting Us: And Twenty other Myths about Unions. He can be reached at billfletcherjr@gmail.com. Read more articles by and about Bill Fletcher on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

18 October 2012

Jay D. Jurie : A Free School for the 21st Century

The Professor, his own self. Graphic treatment by James Retherford / The Rag Blog.

A free school for the 21st century:
The Online University of the Left
The OUL is dedicated to 'changing our thinking, changing opinion, changing the world.'
By Jay D. Jurie / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2012

Are you interested in learning more about society and the world we inhabit, how it all got to be the way it is, and of most importance, how it might be changed for the better? If so, there's a new school at your fingertips, a good place to search for some answers, one that doesn't saddle its students with a lifetime of loan debt.

Officially opened on January 1, 2012, the Online University of the Left (OUL) made its website debut in April at the Left Forum, an annual gathering of left-wing academics and organizers in New York City.

Dedicated to "changing our thinking, changing opinion, changing the world," the OUL is largely the brainchild of Carl Davidson, twice a national officer of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the 1960s, and currently co-chair of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) and a regular contributor to The Rag Blog. OUL was created by wedding the "free schools" of the 1960s, the radical education project of SDS, and older expressions of democratic and left-wing education, with present-day technology.

Growing up in Pennsylvania, Davidson had an early interest in science and technology. This was followed by an interest in the philosophy of science, which led to philosophy and then Marxism, and eventually a return to his roots. He began using technology in media outreach and other political work that included teaching computer repair and internet skills to ex-offenders and former gang members. In Chicago, Davidson was a founder of a face-to-face "Open University of the Left" that sponsored class meetings and events at locales throughout the city.

For eight years he was the lead organizer of the Midwest Radical Scholars and Activist Conference. For 16 years he was a participant in the "Chicago Third Wave Study Group" which put some of its classes online. This background pointed toward the possibilities of a broader online university which could be facilitated by greater speed and broader reach.

These possibilities were coupled with the awareness that many working people with busy lives, even if they can afford it, don't have the time to devote to learning in a traditional classroom setting. Influenced by the writings of Italian social theorist Antonio Gramsci, Davidson perceived that people can become "organic intellectuals" capable not only of learning but participating in the events that shape their lives. OUL's online approach readily lends itself to these forms of exploration and growth.

Among the "top video courses" displayed on the OUL's home page is a dialog about capitalism, socialism, and related topics between Charlie Rose, David Harvey and Richard Wolff; a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street Movement entitled "Rise Like Lions"; a talk by Angela Davis about slavery and the prison-industrial complex; and a discussion of Gramsci by the recently-deceased British historian Eric Hobsbawm.

One of the most captivating videos is "The U.S. in 2012: What's Class Got to Do with It?" a roundtable discussion with Bill Fletcher, Jr., Juan Gonzalez, Bob Herbert, Frances Fox Piven, and Michael Zweig. Also shown on the home page are "top course outlines and materials," including a Todd Nigel article comparing and contrasting Gramsci and Mao on the role of organic intellectuals, a link to the Solidarity Economy web site, and "Learning About Unions" by the AFL-CIO.

Presently featured on the OUL site are 20 academic departments, including political economy, solidarity economy, African American Studies, English & Literature, Womens Studies, History, Gay & Lesbian Studies, Global Studies, Psychology, Latino Studies, and Urban Studies, among others. In other words, something for almost everyone. Some of the departments offer subdivisions.

For example, the Science and Discovery department provides an Ecology and Energy subdivision, in which can be found a video entitled "The Story of Cap and Trade" moderated by Annie Leonard. Most of the material found in the departments consists of videos. Given its origins, OUL could be stronger on "hard science" and technology offerings.

There is a blog feature that consists of videos as well as written blog articles, including writings about the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc, and the crises of capitalism. There's a section on books, which links to a page on the Goodreads site. Other links lead to World News from CEO Express, Arts & Letters Daily, U.S. Colleges and Universities, Left Parties of the U.S. & World and other sites.

One of the most fascinating blog entries is "Conquering a New Popular Hegemony," an essay by Marta Harnecker, a Chilean sociologist and political theorist. Harnecker tells us that much of Latin America is in the process of adopting a 21st Century Socialism:
a new socialism, far removed from the Soviet model... We knew more about what we didn't want in socialism than what we did want. We rejected the lack of democracy, totalitarianism, state capitalism, bureaucratic central planning, collectivism that sought to standardize without respect for differences, productivism that emphasized the expansion of productive forces without taking into account the need to preserve nature, dogmatism, intolerance toward legitimate opposition, the attempt to impose atheism by persecuting believers, the need for a single party to lead the process of transition.
Essays like this underscore the important role OUL can play in disseminating such ideas throughout North America.

A "classes" section features live video conferencing, with opportunities for questions and answers. One recent entry is a report-back on a trip to Cuba by philosophers and economists. An upcoming session will feature environmentalist Ted Glick on the topic of climate change.

A particularly interesting section is "archives," with writings, audio, film, and video about Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Rosa Luxemburg, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Black Panthers, open access to the Public Library of Science on science and medicine, and numerous other topics.

A study guides section consists of syllabi and course outlines, some in annotated bibliography, and others in slide show, power point, and multi-media formats. For example, one entry shows nine syllabi in U.S. history for courses taught by Allan Kulikoff of the University of Georgia History Department. Another provides course outlines and handouts for a course on the political economy of capital accumulation taught by Jonathan Nitzer of the Political Science Department of York University in Toronto.

Since its inception, OUL has continuously expanded its offerings, and awareness of its existence has grown. According to Davidson, by September 17th, 1,500 users had subscribed for regular updates, and over 70,000 had visited the site. OUL has reached over 15,000 in seven countries, including Serbia, Turkey, India, and Indonesia. OUL's Facebook page has received 1,675 "likes."

Potential for expansion is virtually limitless. Given re-thinking of old concepts and fresh new approaches, as exemplified by 21st Century Socialism, combined with the continued decline of neoliberalism and its resultant production of austerity, the audience is bound to grow. To facilitate this potential, OUL might consider widening its appeal a bit.

While information is provided on the site about other left tendencies such as anarchism and council communism, OUL presently bills itself as a Marxist school. Of course this is its prerogative, but if the desire is to be a genuine "left unity" project, the explicitly Marxist label might be loosened a bit to attract those who may not wholly subscribe to that identity, as well as broaden its appeal to others who have not yet formed firm political convictions.

An exponential expansion in distance learning and online education means that this audience can be reached ever more readily. According to Babson College Prof. Elaine Allen (not affiliated with OUL), "the rate of growth in online enrollments is 10 times that of the rate in all higher education." In fact, OUL may face a certain amount of competition as more colleges and universities move not just into online teaching but move into offering more free online classes.

Pioneered by some of the top-tier universities in the U.S. an approach known as Massive Open Online Classes (MOOCs) is doing exactly that, which means this is a trend likely to spread. However, that should present no threat in the foreseeable future to OUL, which Davidson would like to see grow by a factor of 10, with 500 teachers, 10,000 students, and 100 classes in left bookstores in major cities across the country.

An impressive amount of work has been done in getting OUL off to a very auspicious start. There is every reason to believe this project will have a bright future. If OUL does realize its potential, it will not only open doors of discovery to countless new users, it may well serve as an essential platform for social change.

But even in the 1960s "free schools" were not free, as they had operational expenses such as rent, maintenance, utility, and repair costs. These expenses are somewhat ameliorated these days through the online environment, but there are still charges for operating a web site. OUL was initially funded by a start-up grant, which will run out soon. For these reasons, regular site users are asked to contribute or subscribe for a modest $5 per month.

To visit the OUL site, go here.

[Jay D. Jurie, who attended the University of Colorado at Denver, is a resident of Sanford, Florida. He researches, writes, and teaches in the areas of public policy, public administration, and urban planning. Read articles by Jay D. Jurie on The Rag Blog.]

For more about free schools:
http://coopcatalyst.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/free-schools-revisited-revolution-vs-transformation/

See also:
Ron Miller, Free Schools, Free People: Education and Democracy After the 1960s. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2002.

For more about distance/online learning:
Going the Distance, Online Education in the United States, 2011
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011
 
For more about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/education/top-universities-test-the-online-appeal-of-free.html

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

21 August 2012

Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Carl Davidson : What Should Progressives Do in November?

Dynamic duo. Graphic by DonkeyHotey.

What to do in November, and beyond
The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history. And it will have little to do with Obama's record... which is why we are voting for him.
By Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Carl Davidson / AlterNet / August 21, 2012

[There has been substantial discussion on the Left of late about the proper role of progressives in the upcoming presidential elections -- and whether it's appropriate, or politically correct, to support a "lesser evil" Barack Obama. The Rag Blog's email discussion group has been abuzz with this debate. Many believe, for a number of reasons, that the elections should be boycotted or even actively opposed. Bill Flether, Jr. and Carl Davidson address these issues here. It's a long piece, but highly relevant and well worth the read. -- Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog.]

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember. It is not just that this will be a close election. It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance. Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the U.S. political system.

It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the Left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.


U.S. Presidential elections are not what progressives want them to be.

A large segment of what we will call the "progressive forces" in U.S. politics approach U.S.elections generally, and presidential elections in particular, as if:
  1. we have more power on the ground than we actually possess, and
  2. the elections are about expressing our political outrage at the system. Both get us off on the wrong foot.
The U.S. electoral system is among the most undemocratic on the planet. Constructed in a manner so as to guarantee an ongoing dominance of a two-party duopoly, the U.S. electoral universe largely aims at reducing so-called legitimate discussion to certain restricted parameters acceptable to the ruling circles of the country.

Almost all progressive measures, such as Medicare for All or Full Employment, are simply declared "off the table."  In that sense there is no surprise that the Democratic and Republican parties are both parties of the ruling circles, even though they are quite distinct within that sphere.

The nature of the U.S. electoral system -- and specifically the ballot restrictions and "winner-take-all" rules within it -- encourages or pressures various class fractions and demographic constituency groups to establish elite-dominated electoral coalitions. The Democratic and Republican parties are, in effect, electoral coalitions or party-blocs of this sort, unrecognizable in most of the known universe as political parties united around a program and a degree of discipline to be accountable to it.

We may want and fight for another kind of system, but it would be foolish to develop strategy and tactics not based on the one we actually have.

The winner-take-all nature of the system discourages independent political parties and candidacies on both the right and the left. For this reason the extreme right made a strategic decision in the aftermath of the 1964 Goldwater defeat to move into the Republican Party with a long-term objective of taking it over.

This was approached at the level of both mass movement building, e.g., anti-busing, anti-abortion, as well as electoral candidacies. The GOP right’s "Southern Strategy" beginning in 1968 largely succeeded in chasing out most of the pro-New Deal Republicans from the party itself, as well as drawing in segregationist Democratic voters in the formerly "Solid South."

Efforts by progressives to realign or shift the Democratic Party, on the other hand, were blunted by the defeat of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964, and later the defeat of the McGovern candidacy in 1972, during which time key elements of the party’s upper echelons were prepared to lose the election rather than witness a McGovern victory.

In the 1980s a very different strategy was advanced by Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow insurgencies that aimed at building -- at least initially -- an independent, progressive organization capable of fielding candidates within the Democratic primaries. This approach -- albeit independent of Jackson himself -- had an important local victory with the election of Mayor Harold Washington in Chicago. At the national level, however, it ran into a different set of challenges by 1989.

In the absence of a comprehensive electoral strategy, progressive forces fall into one of three cul-de-sacs:
  1. ad hoc electoralism, i.e., participating in the election cycle but with no long-term plan other than tailing the Democrats;
  2. abandoning electoral politics altogether in favor of modern-day anarcho-syndicalist "pressure politics from below"; or
  3. satisfying ourselves with far more limited notions that we can best use the election period in order to "expose" the true nature of the capitalist system in a massive way by attacking all of the mainstream candidates.
We think all of these miss the key point.


Our elections are about money and the balance of power.

Money is obvious, particularly in light of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. The balance of power is primarily at the level of the balance within the ruling circles, as well as the level of grassroots power of the various mass movements. The party that wins will succeed on the basis of the sort of electoral coalition that they are able to assemble, co-opt, or be pressured by, including but not limited to the policy and interest conflicts playing out within its own ranks.

The weakness of left and progressive forces means we have been largely unable to participate, in our own name and independent of the two party upper crust, in most national-level elections with any hope of success. In that sense most left and progressive interventions in the electoral arena at the national level, especially at the presidential level, are ineffective acts of symbolic opposition or simply propaganda work aimed at uniting and recruiting far smaller circles of militants.

They are not aimed at a serious challenge for power but rather aim to demonstrate a point of view, or to put it more crassly, to "fly the flag." The electoral arena is frequently not viewed as an effective site for structural reforms or a more fundamental changing of direction.

Our politics, in this sense, can be placed in two broad groupings -- politics as self-expression and politics as strategy. In an overall sense, the left needs both of these -- the audacity and energy of the former and the ability to unite all who can be united of the latter. But it is also important to know the difference between the two, and which to emphasize and when in any given set of battles.

Consider, for a moment, the reform struggles with which many of us are familiar. Let's say that a community is being organized to address a demand for jobs on a construction site. If the community is not entirely successful in this struggle, it does not mean that the struggle was wrong or inappropriate. It means that the progressives were too weak organizationally and the struggle must continue.

The same is true in the electoral arena. The fact that it is generally difficult, in this period, to get progressives elected or that liberal and progressive candidates may back down on a commitment once elected, does not condemn the arena of the struggle. It does, however, say something about how we might need to organize ourselves better in order to win and enforce accountability.

In part due to justified suspicion of the electoral system and a positive impulse for self-expression and making our values explicit, too many progressives view the electoral realm as simply a canvass upon which various pictures of the ideal future are painted. Instead of constructing a strategy for power that involves a combination of electoral and non-electoral activity, uniting both a militant minority and a progressive majority, there is an impulsive tendency to treat the electoral realm as an idea bazaar rather than as one of the key sites on which the struggle for progressive power unfolds.


The shifts within the Right and the rise of irrationalism

Contrary to various myths, there was no "golden age" in our country where politicians of both parties got along and politics was clean. U.S. politics has always been dirty. One can look at any number of elections in the 19th century, for instance, with the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 being among the more notorious, to see examples of electoral chicanery. Elections have been bought and sold and there has been widespread voter disenfranchisement.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century massive voter disenfranchisement unfolded as part of the rise of Jim Crow segregation. Due to gains by both the populist and socialists is this era, by the 1920s our election laws were "reformed" -- in all but a handful of states -- to do away with "fusion ballots" and other measures previously helpful to new insurgent forces forming independent parties and alliances.

What is significant about the current era has been the steady move of the Republican Party toward the right, not simply at the realm of neoliberal economics (which has also been true of much of the Democratic Party establishment) but also in other features of the "ideology" and program of the Republicans.

For this reason we find it useful to distinguish between conservatives and right-wing populists (and within right-wing populism, to put a spotlight on irrationalism). Right-wing populism is actually a radical critique of the existing system, but from the political right with all that that entails. Uniting with irrationalism, it seeks to build program and direction based largely upon myths, fears and prejudices.

Right-wing populism exists as the equivalent of the herpes virus within the capitalist system. It is always there -- sometimes latent, at other times active -- and it does not go away. In periods of system distress, evidence of right-wing populism erupts with more force. Of particular importance in understanding right-wing populism is the complex intersection of race, anti-immigrant settler-ism, "producerism," homophobia, and empire.

In the U.S., right-wing populism stands as the grassroots defender of white racial supremacy. It intertwines with the traditional myths associated with the “American Dream” and suggests that the U.S. was always to be a white republic and that no one, no people, and no organization should stand in the way of such an understanding. It seeks enemies, and normally enemies based on demographics of "The Other."

After all, right-wing populism sees itself in the legacy of the likes of Andrew Jackson and other proponents of Manifest Destiny, a view that saw no inconsistency between the notion of a white democratic republic, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and a continental (and later global) empire. "Jacksonian Democracy" was primarily the complete codification and nationalization of white supremacy in our country’s political life.


Irrationalism is rising as an endemic virus in our political landscape.

Largely in times of crisis and uncertainty, virulent forms of irrationalism make an appearance. The threat to white racial supremacy that emerged in the 1960s, for instance, brought forward a backlash that included an irrationalist view of history, e.g., that the great early civilizations on earth couldn’t have arisen from peoples with darker skins, but instead were founded by creatures from other planets. 

Irrationalism, moreover, was not limited to the racial realm. Challenges to scientific theories such as evolution and climate change are currently on the rise. Irrationalism cries for a return to the past, and within that a mythical past. A component of various right-wing ideologies, especially fascism, irrationalism exists as a form of sophistry, and even worse. It often does not even pretend to hold to any degree of logic, but rather simply requires the acceptance of a series of non sequitur assertions.

Right-wing populism and irrationalism have received nationwide reach anchored in institutions such as the Fox network, but also right-wing religious institutions. Along with right-wing talk radio and websites, a virtual community of millions of voters has been founded whose views refuse critique from within. Worse, well-financed and well-endowed walls are established to ensure that the views are not challenged from without.

In the 2008 campaign and its immediate aftermath, we witnessed segments of this community in the rise of the "birther" movement and its backing by the likes of Donald Trump. Like many other cults there were no facts that adherents of the "birthers" would accept except those "facts" which they, themselves, had established. Information contrary to their assertions was swept away. It didn’t matter that we could prove Obama was born in the U.S., because their real point, that he was a Black man, was true.

The 2012 Republican primaries demonstrated the extent to which irrationalism and right-wing populism, in various incarnations, have captured the Republican Party. That approximately 60% of self-identified Republicans would continue to believe that President Obama is not a legitimate citizen of the USA points to the magnitude of self-delusion.


The Obama campaign of 2008 at the grassroots was nothing short of a mass revolt.

The energy for the Obama campaign was aimed against eight years of Bush, long wars, neoliberal austerity and collapse, and Republican domination of the U.S. government. It took the form of a movement-like embrace of the candidacy of Barack Obama. The nature of this embrace, however, set the stage for a series of both strategic and tactical problems that have befallen progressive forces since Election Day 2008.

The mis-analysis of Obama in 2007 and 2008 by so many people led to an overwhelming tendency to misread his candidacy. In that period, we -- the authors of this essay -- offered critical support and urged independent organization for the Obama candidacy in 2008 through the independent "Progressives for Obama" project. We were frequently chastised by some allies at the time for being too critical, too idealistic, too "left," and not willing to give Obama a chance to succeed.

Yet our measured skepticism, and call for independence and initiative in a broader front, was not based on some naïve impatience. Instead, it was based on an assessment of who Obama was and the nature of his campaign for the presidency.


Obama was and is a corporate liberal.

Obama is an eloquent speaker who rose to the heights of U.S. politics after a very difficult upbringing and some success in Chicago politics. But as a national figure, he always positioned himself not so much as a fighter for the disenfranchised but more as a mediator of conflict, as someone pained by the growth of irrationalism in the USA and the grotesque image of the USA that much of the world had come to see.

To say that he was a reformer does not adequately describe either his character or his objectives. He was cast as the representative, wittingly or not, of the ill-conceived "post-Black politics era" at a moment when much of white America wanted to believe that we had become "post-racial." He was a political leader and candidate trying to speak to the center, in search of a safe harbor. He was the person to save U.S. capitalism at a point where everything appeared to be imploding.

For millions, who Obama actually was came to be secondary to what he represented for them. This was the result of a combination of wishful thinking, on the one hand, and strongly held progressive aspirations, on the other. In other words, masses of people wanted change that they could believe in. They saw in Obama the representative of that change and rallied to him.

While it is quite likely that Hillary Clinton, had she received the nomination, would also have defeated McCain/Palin, it was the Obama ticket and campaign that actually inspired so many to believe that not only could there be an historical breakthrough at the level of racial symbolism -- a Black person in the White House -- but that other progressive changes could also unfold.

With these aspirations, masses of people, including countless numbers of left and progressive activists, were prepared to ignore uncomfortable realities about candidate Obama and later President Obama.

There are two examples that are worth mentioning here. One, the matter of race. Two, the matter of war. With regard to race, Obama never pretended that he was anything other than Black. Ironically, in the early stages of his campaign many African Americans were far from certain how "Black" he actually was. Yet the matter of race was less about who Obama was -- except for the white supremacists -- and more about race and racism in U.S. history and current reality.

Nothing exemplified this better than the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, followed by Obama's historic speech on race in Philadelphia. Wright, a liberation theologian and progressive activist, became a target for the political right as a way of "smearing" Obama.

Obama chose to distance himself from Wright, but in a very interesting way. He upheld much of Wright's basic views of U.S. history while at the same time acting as if racist oppression was largely a matter of the past. In that sense he suggested that Wright's critique was outdated.

Wright's critique was far from being outdated. Yet in his famous speech on race, Obama said much more of substance than few mainstream politicians had ever done. In so doing, he opened the door to the perception that something quite new and innovative might appear in the White House. He made no promises, though, which is precisely why suggestions of betrayal are misplaced. There was no such commitment in the first place.

With regard to war, there was something similar. Obama came out against the Iraq War early, before it started. He opposed it at another rally after it was underway. To his credit, U.S. troops have been withdrawn from Iraq. He never, however, came out against war in general, or certainly against imperialist war. In fact, he made it clear that there were wars that he supported, including but not limited to the Afghanistan war. Further, he suggested that if need be he would carry out bombings in Pakistan.

Despite this, much of the antiwar movement and many other supporters assumed that Obama was the antiwar candidate in a wider sense than his opposition to the war in Iraq. Perhaps "assumed" is not quite correct; they wanted him to be the antiwar candidate who was more in tune with their own views.

With Obama's election, the wishful thinking played itself out, to some degree, in the form of inaction and demobilization. Contrary to the complaints of some on the Left, Obama and his administration cannot actually be blamed for this.

There were decisions made in important social movements and constituencies to
  1. assume that Obama would do the 'right thing,' and,
  2. provide Obama 'space' rather than place pressure on him and his administration.
This was a strategic mistake. And when combined with a relative lack of consolidating grassroots campaign work into ongoing independent organization at the grassroots, with the exception of a few groups, such as the Progressive Democrats of America, it was an important opportunity largely lost.

There is one other point that is worth adding here. Many people failed to understand that the Obama administration was not and is not the same as Obama the individual, and occupying the Oval Office is not the same as an unrestricted ability to wield state power. "Team Obama" is certainly chaired by Obama, but it remains a grouping of establishment forces that share a common framework -- and common restrictive boundaries. It operates under different pressures and is responsive -- or not -- to various specific constituencies.

For instance, in 2009, when President Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a coup, President Obama responded -- initially -- with a criticism of the coup. At the end of the day, however, the Obama administration did nothing to overturn the coup and to ensure that Honduras regained democracy. Instead the administration supported the "coup people."

Did this mean that President Obama supported the coup? It does not really matter. What matters is that his administration backtracked on its alleged opposition to the coup and then did everything in its power to ensure that President Zelaya could not return. This is why the focus on Obama the personality is misleading and unhelpful.

Image from Toonari Post.

No struggle, no progress

President Obama turned out not to be the progressive reformer that many people had hoped he would be. At the same time, however, he touched off enough sore points for the political Right that he became a lightning rod for everything that they hated and feared. This is what helps us understand the circumstances under which the November 2012 election is taking place.

As a corporate liberal, Obama's strategy was quite rational in those terms. First, stabilize the economy. Second, move on health insurance. Third, move on jobs. Fourth, attempt a foreign policy breakthrough. Contrary to the hopes of much of his base, Obama proceeded to tackle each of these narrowly as a corporate "bipartisan" reformer rather than as a wider progressive champion of the underdog. That does not mean that grassroots people gained nothing. Certainly preserving General Motors was to the benefit of countless auto workers and workers in related industries.

Yet Obama's approach in each case was to make his determinations by first reading Wall Street and the corporate world and then extending the olive branch of bipartisanship to his adversaries on the right. This, of course, led to endless and largely useless compromises, thereby demoralizing his base in the progressive grassroots.


While Obama's base was becoming demoralized, the political right was becoming energized.

It did not matter that Obama was working to preserve capitalism. As far as the Right was concerned, there were two sins under which he was operating: some small degree of economic redistribution and the fact that Obama was Black. The combination of both made Obama a demon, as far as the right was concerned, who personified Black power, anti-colonialism and socialism, all at the same time.


The upset Right and November 2012

We stress the need to understand that Obama represents an irrational symbol for the political Right, and a potent symbol that goes way beyond what Obama actually stands for and practices. The Right, while taking aim at Obama, also seeks, quite methodically and rationally, to use him to turn back the clock. They have created a common front based on white revanchism (a little used but accurate term for an ideology of revenge), on political misogynism, on anti-"freeloader" themes aimed at youth, people of color, and immigrants, and a partial defense of the so-called 1%.

Right-wing populism asserts a "producer" vs. "parasites" outlook aimed at the unemployed and immigrants below them and "Jewish bankers and Jewish media elite" above them. Let us emphasize that this is a front rather than one coherent organization or platform. It is an amalgam, but an amalgam of ingredients that produces a particularly nasty U.S.-flavored stew of right-wing populism.

Reports of declining Obama support among white workers is a good jumping off point in terms of understanding white revanchism. Obama never had a majority among them as a whole, although he did win a majority among younger white workers.

White workers have been economically declining since the mid-1970s. This segment of a larger multinational and multiracial working class is in search of potential allies, but largely due to a combination of race and low unionization rates finds itself being swayed by right-wing populism. Along with other workers it is insecure and deeply distressed economically, but also finds itself in fear -- psychologically -- for its own existence as the demographics of the USA undergoes significant changes.

They take note of projections that the U.S., by 2050, will be a majority of minorities of people of color. They perceive that they have gotten little from Obama, but more importantly they are deeply suspicious as to whether a Black leader can deliver anything at all to anyone.

Political misogynism -- currently dubbed "the war on women" -- has been on the rise in the U.S. for some time. The ‘New Right’ in the 1970s built its base in right-wing churches around the issue in the battles over abortion and reproduction rights, setting the stage for Reagan’s victory. In the case of 2012, the attacks on Planned Parenthood along with the elitist dismissal of working mothers have been representative of the assertion of male supremacy, even when articulated by women.

This in turn is part of a global assault on women based in various religious fundamentalisms that have become a refuge for economically displaced men and for gender-uncomfortable people across the board.

The attack on "slacker," "criminal," and "over-privileged" youth, especially among minorities, is actually part of what started to unfold in the anti-healthcare antics of the Tea Party. Studies of the Tea Party movement have indicated that they have a conceptualization based on the "deserving" and "undeserving" populations.

They and many others on the right are deeply suspicious, if not in outright opposition, to anything that they see as distributing away from them any of their hard-won gains. They believe that they earned and deserve what they have and that there is an undeserving population, to a great extent youth (but also including other groups), who are looking for handouts.

This helps us understand that much of the right-wing populist movement is a generational movement of white baby-boomers and older who see the ship of empire foundering and wish to ensure that they have life preservers, if not life-boats.

The defenders of the 1% are an odd breed. Obviously that includes the upper crust, but it also includes a social base that believes that the upper crust earned their standing. Further, this social base believes or wishes to believe that they, too, will end up in that echelon.

 Adhering to variations of Reaganism, "bootstrapping," or other such ideologies, they wish to believe that so-called free market capitalism is the eternal solution to all economic problems. Despite the fact that the Republican economic program is nothing more or less than a retreading of George W. Bush's failed approach, they believe that it can be done differently.


Empire, balance of forces and the lesser of two evils

The choice in November 2012 does not come down to empire vs. no-empire. While anyone can choose to vote for the Greens or other non-traditional political parties, the critical choice and battleground continues to exist in the context of a two-party system within the declining U.S. empire. The balance of forces in 2012 is such that those who are arrayed against the empire are in no position to mount a significant electoral challenge on an anti-imperialist platform.

To assume that the November elections are a moment to display our antipathy toward empire, moreover, misses entirely what is unfolding. This is not a referendum on the “America of Empire”: it is a referendum pitting the “America of Popular Democracy” -- the progressive majority representing the changing demographics of the U.S. and the increasing demands for broad equality and economic relief, especially the unemployed and the elderly -- against the forces of unfettered neoliberalism and far right irrationalism.

Obama is the face on the political right’s bullseye, and stands as the key immediate obstacle to their deeper ambitions. We, on the left side of the aisle, recognize that he is not our advocate for the 99%. Yet and quite paradoxically, he is the face that the right is using to mobilize its base behind irrationalism and regression.

That’s why we argue that Obama's record is really not what is at stake in this election.

Had the progressive social movements mobilized to push Obama for major changes we could celebrate; had there been progressive electoral challenges in the 2010 mid-term elections and even in the lead-up to 2012 (such as Norman Solomon's congressional challenge in California, which lost very narrowly), there might be something very different at stake this year.

Instead, what we have is the face of open reaction vs. the face of corporate liberalism, of "austerity and war on steroids" vs. "austerity and war in slow motion."

This raises an interesting question about the matter of the "lesser of two evils," something which has become, over the years, a major concern for many progressives. Regularly in election cycles some progressives will dismiss supporting any Democratic Party candidate because of a perceived need to reject "lesser evil-ism," meaning that Democrats will always strike a pose as somewhat better than the GOP, but remain no different in substance.

In using the anti-‘lesser evil-ism’ phraseology, the suggestion is that it really does not matter who wins because they are both bad. Eugene Debs is often quoted -- better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you oppose and get it. While this may make for strong and compelling rhetoric and assertions, it makes for a bad argument and bad politics.

In elections progressives need to be looking very coldly at a few questions:

Are progressive social movements strong enough to supersede or bypass the electoral arena altogether? Is there a progressive candidate who can outshine both a reactionary and a mundane liberal, and win? What would we seek to do in achieving victory? What is at stake in that particular election?

In thinking through these questions, we think the matter of a lesser of two evils is a tactical question of simply voting for one candidate to defeat another, rather than a matter of principle. Politics is frequently about the lesser of two evils. World War II for the USA, Britain and the USSR was all about the lesser of two evils.

Britain and the USA certainly viewed the USSR as a lesser evil compared with Nazi Germany, and the USSR came to view the USA and Britain as the lesser evils. Neither side trusted the other, yet they found common cause against a particular enemy. There are many less dramatic examples, but the point is that it happens all the time. It’s part of "politics as strategy" mentioned earlier.

It is for these reasons that upholding the dismissal of the "lesser evil-ism" is unhelpful. Yes, in this case, Obama is aptly described as the lesser of two evils. He certainly represents a contending faction of empire. He has continued the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His healthcare plan is nowhere near as helpful as would be Medicare for All. He has sidelined the Employee Free Choice Act that would promote unionization. What this tells us is that Obama is not a progressive. What it does not tell us is how to approach the elections.


Approaching November

The political Right, more than anything, wishes to turn November 2012 into a repudiation of the changing demographics of the U.S. and an opportunity to reaffirm not only the empire, but also white racial supremacy.

In addition to focusing on Obama they have been making what are now well-publicized moves toward voter suppression, with a special emphasis on denying the ballot to minority, young, formerly incarcerated, and elderly voters. This latter fact is what makes ridiculous the suggestion by some progressives that they will stay home and not vote at all.

The political right seeks an electoral turnaround reminiscent of the elections at the end of the 19th century in the South that disenfranchised African Americans and many poor whites. This will be their way of holding back the demographic and political clocks. And, much like the disenfranchisement efforts at the end of the 19th century, the efforts in 2012 are playing on racial fears among whites, including the paranoid notion that there has been significant voter fraud carried out by the poor and people of color (despite all of the research that demonstrates the contrary!).

Furthermore, this is part of a larger move toward greater repression, a move that began prior to Obama and has continued under him. It is a move away from democracy as neoliberal capitalism faces greater resistance and the privileges of the "1%" are threatened. Specifically, the objective is to narrow the franchise in very practical terms. The political Right wishes to eliminate from voting whole segments of the population, including the poor. Some right-wingers have even been so bold as to suggest that the poor should not be entitled to vote.

November 2012 becomes not a statement about the Obama presidency, but a defensive move by progressive forces to hold back the "Caligulas’ on the political Right. It is about creating space and using mass campaigning to build new grassroots organization of our own. It is not about endorsing the Obama presidency or defending the official Democratic platform.

But it is about resisting white revanchism and political misogynism by defeating Republicans and pressing Democrats with a grassroots insurgency, while advancing a platform of our own, one based on the "People’s Budget" and anti-war measures of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In short, we need to do a little "triangulating" of our own.


Why do we keep getting ourselves into this hole?

Our answer to this question is fairly straight forward. In the absence of a long-term progressive electoral strategy that is focused on winning power, we will find ourselves in this "Groundhog Day" scenario again and again. Such a strategy cannot be limited to the running of symbolic candidates time and again as a way of rallying the troops. Such an approach may feel good or help build socialist recruitment, but it does not win power. Nor can we simply tail the Democrats.

The central lesson we draw from the last four years has less to do with the Obama administration and more to do with the degree of effective organization of social movements and their relationship to the White House, Congress, and other centers of power.

The failure to put significant pressure on the Obama administration -- combined with the lack of attention to the development of an independent progressive strategy, program and organizational base -- has created a situation whereby frustration with a neoliberal Democratic president could lead to a major demobilization. At bottom this means further rightward drift and the entry into power of the forces of irrationalism.

Crying over this situation or expressing our frustration with Obama is of little help at this point. While we will continue to push for more class struggle approaches in the campaign’s messages, the choice that we actually face in the immediate battle revolves around who would we rather fight after November 2012: Obama or Romney? Under what administration are progressives more likely to have more room to operate? Under what administration is there a better chance of winning improvements in the conditions of the progressive majority of this country?

These are the questions that we need to ask. Making a list of all of the things that Obama has not done and the fact that he was not a champion of the progressive movement misses a significant point: he was never the progressive champion. He became, however, the demon for the political right and the way in which they could focus their intense hatred of the reality of a changing U.S., and, indeed, a changing world.

We urge all progressives to deal with the reality of this political moment rather than the moment we wish that we were experiencing. In order to engage in politics, we need the organizations to do politics with, organizations that belong to us at the grassroots. That ball is in our court, not Obama’s.

In 2008 and its aftermath, too many of us let that ball slip out of our hands, reducing us to sideline critics, reducing our politics to so much café chatter rather than real clout. Let’s not make that mistake again.

[Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a racial justice, labor, and international writer and activist. He is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, an editorial board member of BlackCommentator.com, the co-author of Solidarity Divided, and the author of the forthcoming “They’re Bankrupting Us”: And Twenty other Myths about Unions. He can be reached at billfletcherjr@gmail.com

[Carl Davidson is a political organizer, writer and public speaker. He is currently co-chair of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a board member of the U.S. Solidarity Economy Network, and a member of Steelworker Associates in Western Pennsylvania. His most recent book is New Paths to Socialism: Essays on the Mondragon Cooperatives, Workplace Democracy and the Politics of Transition. He can be reached at carld717@gmail.com.]

Read more articles by and about Bill Fletcher, Jr., and Carl Davidson on The Rag Blog.


The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.