Not There Yet

by: Mike Lux

Thu May 07, 2009 at 15:00


In my new book (The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be), my speaking tour about the book, and my blog posts over the last several months, I have been arguing that the stars are aligned for another Big Change Moment: an era like the 1860s, early 1900s, 1930s, and 1960s where a lot of big transformational changes happen in a very short period of time. The polling is clear that the American people are ready for big progressive change, the progressive movement is stronger and more cohesive than it has been since the 1970s, and there are big problems which can only be solved by big ideas and bold change.

But every day there's another reminder that we are not there yet, that- as in all other Big Change Moments in our country's history- big change will not come without a big fight. As Frederick Douglass said in perhaps the greatest single quote in American history:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will... men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get.

It took the horrors of a civil war to finally end slavery.

It took 90 years of mockery and civil disobedience and organizing to get women the right to vote.

It took a banking panic, 25% unemployment, and sit-down strikes to get New Deal reforms.

It took children dying in church firebombs, and having German shepards and firehoses set on them, to end Jim Crow.

And we struggle today against the power of massively wealthy special interests- big oil, big insurance and pharmaceutical companies, big banks- to make big change. The struggles aren't always as dramatic as they were in past times, but the nature of those fights is very much the same. We don't have the same level of physical violence, but the economic and political violence is just as real as in those historical struggles.
You want specifics? I'll give you specifics:

  • The defeat of banking legislation that would have let 1.7 million homeowners restructure their mortgages

  • The warnings of Arlen Specter and Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe- and, of course, the health insurance lobby- against including a public health plan option in health care reform

  • The complaints- by some Democrats!- against being able to pass health care reform measures with 51 votes in the Senate

  • The trouble Obama's energy/climate change legislation is already running into in both the House and the Senate

  • Complaints against Obama's plan to help students get better deals on college loans at the expense of lenders

  • Complaints from some Democrats about Obama's plan to tax overseas investment and outsourcing of American jobs


The powers that be, who have bestowed millions of dollars in campaign contributions to their friends in the House and Senate, are fighting big change with everything they have.

I'm glad we have a President who is fighting for big change on most of these issues (in spite of my periodic complaints about his banking policies), and I'm glad the Democratic leadership in Congress is on the right side of most of these issues. What we need now is some more Senators who will stand on the right side of history, and who will say yes to big change. And we need a progressive movement that rises up and battles the powers that be every inch of the way.

Mike Lux :: Not There Yet

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not There Yet | 18 comments
To really change the financial system (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps you need to force a bank that is "too big to fail" to fail spectacularly and cause a lot of collateral damage as it goes down.  And you have to let the collateral damage occur in order to create an urgent and pressing perception of immediate catastrophe.

Maybe you can't have big change without a catalyst.  Maybe you really do need another Great Depression in order to get another New Deal.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


Interesting concept. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think we are out the woods yet with "too big to fail" financial conglomerates.

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

[ Parent ]
There is no need for a bank 'to fail' (4.00 / 2)
The government of the United States, and the UAW, own
General Motors. What would it have served if GM 'had been allowed to fail' - I think what you mean is to stop "giving away all our money that we can't afford even if we wanted to do it" -- We have been told for a generation that "times are different now, we cant afford that" - now we know that we have plenty of cash for keeping the system operating, so long as it isn't allowed to serve the interests of working and middle class people.

Unless I am missing something about your point. The wonderful Elvis Costello, one of my favorites, had a song "I like the sound of breaking glass" about the end of a relationship. Is this what you mean?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
What I Mean Is (0.00 / 0)
If you want massive shifts like the New Deal or the end of slavery, you probably need political stimulus as massive as the Great Depression or the Civil War.  I don't think we're to that point yet.  I'm suggesting that a massive bank failure that does things like take down some pension plans along the way might be a necessary pain if you want to fix things.

Either the current system is fixable or its not.  If you think it's not fixable, then you had better be prepared to burn everything down in a revolution and let the current regime implode because I don't think a painless transition is possible.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Although there are many examples of systems that require what you suggest.. (0.00 / 0)
There are more examples that point to alterations that come about without imposed crisis. The crisis itself is enough. Lots of talk has happened around The Shock Doctrine and the conservatrive's, the powerful, who use upset and disaster to install whatever they want upon the less powerful. Because what is the right, who are conservatives except the powerful in any society, using their levers of power to protect and expand their power.

But the crisis itself is enough. Crisis is not, as I have posted before, is not confusion or random acts or upset or anger or fear. A Crisis is a choice. It is the natural outcome of what is, the natural outcome of the contradictions inherent in the system about to alter itself.

Crisis Cri"sis\ (kr?"s?s), n.; pl. Crises (-s?z). [L. crisis,
  Gr. to separate. See Certain.]
  1. The point of time when it is to be decided whether any
     affair or course of action must go on, or be modified or
     terminate; the decisive moment; the turning point.
     [1913 Webster]

I would point you to all the various societies where the achievement of a social good, such as the healthcare systems of France Brittan or Canada, that were achieved because the contradiction was obvious and the solution an outgrowth of that. Although for example there was a Doctors' Strike in the first province for example in Canada to try annd stop single payer, it was ended with the arrival of a single planeload of Doctors hired in Europe.

Greater clarity, more communication, more respect for a population, more involvement of a population these are the paths to ending a crisis. The path to a population that chooses.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
There will come a time in which (4.00 / 5)
President Obama will be required to lead by going over the head of obstructing congress folks to the people.  Otherwise, even the minimal changes he seeks are far a way.

It may not be this year, but there will come a time.  If the President chooses not to risk, then the corporate powers will win this battle.

Your suggestions are right.  We need a better Congress.  Another reason that Sestak would be an upgrade to Specter.  It's a move left.  Not fully, but better.  


I Think The Time For Obama To Give A Serious (4.00 / 2)
speech, like the one on race, would be a bold--and ultimately--wise thing to do.  Lay it out there:  the good, the bad, and  the ugly.  

Tell the American people that the banks and financial sector are so damm powerful, showing concrete reasons how and why it happened.  The American people are mature to handle the ugly truth; we already no it already.  This will free Obama to talk more about campaign reform in realisitic terms.

Then, he along with different leaders (Adam is doing excellent w/ Change Congress; Mike lead out a broad vision yesterday; and others in the progressive and liberal grassroots and netroots are doing excellent work) can over time really push for campaigns publicly financed.

Personally, I don't Obama will give some speech--at least not now. But, at some point, he must take bolder actions.  He should just follow Durbin's lead:  "Frankly, the banks own this place."


[ Parent ]
Mike this is a wonderfully hopeful and detailed diary. (4.00 / 2)
During FDR's time there were "New Deal" Democrats as well as other types, including Dixiecrats, and they could be counted on to push the Presidents agenda.

It seems to me now that Obama may want to move to a place where the country wants him to push his agenda, and push the candidates that support his efforts. I think Obama has brilliantly outflanked and scuttled the floundering Republicans (I have said this before, I know it is a far from popular viewpoint hereabouts), and it may be time for Obama to create the conditions where he will be able to call for support from the American people through candidates that support the Obama change. America needs progressive change Democrats.

There needs to be a rallying issue, and I think its public healthcare. I think we need to demand real healthcare for Americans, and we need to demand it from Obama, and I think Obama has to say "I can't this alone, I dont have the votes, I need Change Democrats".

Please be assured that I already hear all the posts that say 'yeah right' and 'dreamer' and cool aid etc.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


"through candidates that support the Obama change" -- like he did w/ Specter, for instance? (4.00 / 1)
i don't see how people can assume that he's at all unhappy w Congressional Dems as they are, or that he doesn't share their priorities (which aren't us)  --  his actions show otherwise -- continually.

And it's beyond impossible to believe that he would ever call for primary challenges to any sitting Democrats.

Obama's agenda is not identical to the country's - and on healthcare it most certainly isn't.  


[ Parent ]
Well kinda yes. (4.00 / 1)
Our job is to get more information to voters, help them organize themselves to achieving what they need. Make the demand for solutions like single payer grow out of that organization around that solution, each solution.

Forcing Obama to do something comes from organizing demands among the people that demand those changes. It is our job to make the call for someone to replace Spector to be someone who will call for public healthcare. Each of the fights have to about the crisis we face.

Although your accurate description of a path that won't work is pointed, FDR didn't campaign against his own par4ty he merely said he needed support in congress, and New Dealer's took it from there.

I think Obama can be pushed. The job is to organize the pushing. Our job is to organize the pushing. Long term, deep community organizing, where communities gather more and more confidence and more willingness to demand solutions that come out of their own experience.

I think is understood now, Obama needs pushing. There are lots of reasons why that is true, some good some not so good. But push him we must. And push means organizing citizens to their power and rights, and making sure that sources of information about the crisis are open and widely communicated.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
you're right about pushing -- all of them -- but evidence shows corp and big-$$ pushing counts more to them-- (0.00 / 0)
-- and it's partly because there's no cost to elected Democrats ignoring all pushes from voters and those who don't fund them -- Corporations and lobbys withdraw their money (as they've done to the GOP) if they don't get what they demand -- Democratic voters (and online sites and groups) keep on rewarding DC Dems -- even tho they don't give us what we demand at all and lie to our faces daily.

[ Parent ]
Well -- impefectly, we challenged Lieberman, he wont be around next time - (0.00 / 0)
We have chased the Repubs off the hill, and Spector may very well get primaried into retirement.

Nonew of this is either rocket science or impossible, however, the people that need to be informed, the people who have to make demands are in their homes and on the street. They ned to know, they need respect, they need the encouragement and  organizing to stand up, and then keep standing up.

Merely because we have put together a coalition of fairly disparet parts, does not mean that all parts of the coalition is up to speed, or wants to be up to speed, on all the issues that matter to whoever gets to call themselves the 'true progressive' today.

Just one example, the worst treated people in America for the last 200 years are the indigenous peoples. They still are. Their water is filthy the unemployemnt is staggering and the only avenues afforded out of common poverty is gambling with all those attendant miseries. But that is a rare topic on the blogs.

We need to remember we are a coalition, we need to remember, we didnt get into this because one person elected would solve all our problems and we could go back to deconstructing film theory. This is a permant job. Now we are citizens, and we have a job to do. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut: "You have been sick, now you're well again, and there's a lot of work to do!"

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Health-Care Reform W/ A Public Option Is A Must (0.00 / 0)
    I couldn't agree more.  Again, he needs to give a long, serious speech that will be cast on U-Tube pointing out the savagery of the health-care industry, and why it does not make sense to listen to their lies!

[ Parent ]
Personally I've always thought the opposite (0.00 / 0)
Most positive change comes from technology.

Struggle always exists no matter what.  

Its easy to say "Hey look feminism struggled and it produced all these freedoms".  But women always struggled before that as well.  The fundamental differences that produced those freedoms were birth control and kitchen appliances.

The reality is that most cultural shifts are simply adaptations to new technologies that come out.  

The main obstruction to change is that those senators simply do not understand the world they live in.  They just kind of pretend that they know and try to relate everything to the world that they know.



http://transgendermom.blogspot....


I don't know what planet you live on but no toaster (4.00 / 1)
ever gave me the right to vote.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I'm on board. (4.00 / 3)
We should coalese around the bills as they get introduced and starting running ads against those 12 Democratic Senators.  We need to bloody them up in their own districts and let their constiutents know how much their Senator hates them.   We also need the rest of the Dems to speak out including Obama.  If we are going to fight this fight, we need all hands on deck.  I'm sure Gov. Dean and Bernie Sanders would be delighted to help.   Vermont is a very special place.  I bet MSNBC would also come along.  

I don't believe we will get a better congress without (4.00 / 1)
civil rebellion.

I think the bailouts will be a waste of financial and political capital and the right wingers will get elected again.

My blog  


bailouts (0.00 / 1)
There were helpful to GM workers.Los Angeles Car financing

Not There Yet | 18 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox