|
In Chris's diary, "Backroom Deals, Inexorable Right-wing Slides ", Chris described the disastrous legislative end-game of the climate change bill, and briefly indicated the sort of determined progressive opposition that would be necessary to prevent this dynamic from repeating endlessly with every major piece of legislation.
In this diary, I want review what Chris said in light of my old hobby-horse, the lack of progressive engagement in a Gramcian "culture war" (aka "hegemonic struggle")-a struggle to gain coordinated control of reality-defining cultural institutions. Expanding on his discussion of missing in our congressional battles so far-and what it would take to change that-provides an excellent re-entry point to thinking about hegemonic struggle more generally, as well as thinking about winning specific legislative battles.
In other diaries this weekend, I want to further this exploration, reflecting on the confluence of changes happening in the media, the internet, and the world at large. To begin, I turn first to Chris's description:
While environmental groups and climate change activists have repeatedly vowed that the bill needs to be strengthened, no amendments will be allowed on the floor debate that will actually allow the bill to be strengthened. Instead, the backroom deal means that coal and agribusiness get their concessions, but there isn't even a chance for green groups to try and make the bill better....
And if you want to know what the final language of the bill is before it is voted on, good luck with that. Not only is the bill already 1,201 pages, but the deal hasn't even been finalized....
[continued on the flip]
|
So, you don't get to know what is in the bill until it is too late. Further, you get no chances to improve the bill. Yet further, Collin Peterson and his corporate interests get pretty much everything they want.
Keep in mind that this is on top of a bill which will not result in any more renewable energy than the business as usual model, and that will actually expand coal. And the Senate will probably only make it worse.
Without a hardline group of progressives willing to join with Republicans and defeat Democratic legislation unless that legislation meets certain progressive criteria, every legislative fight will follow this process of backroom deals with corporate interests resulting in an inexorable right-wing slide.
This is where things stand today, and it reflects the continued lack of progressive engagement in a Gramcian "culture war"--a struggle to gain coordinated control of reality-defining cultural institutions. The lack of a hardline progressive block in Congress is just one aspect of a much larger failure to think and act strategically beyond the limits of one particular campaign, legislative battle or issue.
Chris goes on to describe what's needed to change the congressional dynamic, and what he describes--however briefly--is an excellent starting point for grasping what it would look like for progressives to finally begin responding in kind to the rightwing culture war of the past 30+ years. As Chris explains:
Further, this group of progressives, which I call a Progressive Block (and yes, the "k" is intentional), needs to publicly draw clear lines in the sand long before draft legislation is introduced. Such public announcements allow the netroots and grassroots to help organize around the line in the sand. Otherwise, given the backroom nature of these dealings, there is no way for the progressive activist base to play any meaningful role in the legislative process, and all negotiation power is ceded to corproate lobbyists.
We either have the Progressive Block, which continues to give us leverage in the health care fight, or we have this disastrous climate change bill path where already weakened legislation gets dominated by Collin Peterson. The choice is ours.
The choice is ours, but to make that choice effective--one that exists as a real, living possibility, we need to break it down into bit-sized pieces that individual citizen-activists can actually do something about. So I want to begin by picking Chris's description apart a bit to look at the different elements involved. Here's my first stab at doing that:
(1) We need a Progressive Block of legislators with sufficient numbers to block legislation that doesn't meet the basic standards they set. Without the mathematically potential nothing else makes much sense. Some totally different strategy would have to be devised. Fortunately, the Progressive Caucus does provide a large enough group of votes. Of course, this doesn't mean we can count on having such a block. But it does mean that creating such a block is at least theoretically possible with the existing Congress. This in turn means that netroots/grassroots activists can lobby existing members of the Progressive Caucus to join in such an effort, preferrentialy as a matter of principled commitment, but if not on a case-by-case basis.
(2) We need that Progressive Block to be capable of coming up with such basic standards. Just because people may agree in principle doesn't mean that they can actually reach agreement on a common set of standards for any given piece of legislation. This sort of capacity is most likely to increase with practice, as people learn to work together more effectively. It cannot be assumed to exist from the beginning, but it can be assumed that if people work on it in good faith, this capacity can be developed and strengthened over time.
(3) We need them to be willing to follow through, and actually block legislation that fails to meet their standards. This is probably the most difficult aspect of the congressional side of things to begin with. The existing dynamic so strongly favors special interests and those congressmembers who work closely with them that it's extremely challenging to get a group of progressives to be willing to walk away from legislation that gives them at least some of what they want--especially after the long drought of the Bush years. Yet, without this willingness, we have nothing. Therefore, netroots/grassroots activists can play a crucial role in helping to fortify the resolve of congressmembers, so that they are wiliing to make this commitment--and to stick by it.
(4) We need them to publicly announce these standards well in advance of drafting legislation. Compared to the first three, this should be relatively easy to achieve. But that doesn't mean it can be overlooked. Being early on the scene is vital--especially since the special interests have already been on the scene for decades prior to any conceivable legislation. No matter how early we may start our organizing, we are boujnd to be playing catch-up.
(5) We need netsroots and grassroots individuals and organizations to mobilize around the announced standards. Right now, these exist primarily in the form of potential participants. How far that potential is from reality can be seen in the spectacle of environmental groups like the LCV organizing on behalf of the highly compromised climate change bill, just to get something passed. At this point in time, it's probably the case that those most willing to mobilize in support are those with the least institutional capacity. While far from ideal, this simply reflects why this whole strategy is necessary in the first place.
We need to simply accept this as a matter of fact, and tell ourselves, "That's fine. We need all the new blood we can find." Particularly when it comes to environmental activism, local activists are a far more tough-minded lot, IMHO, and increasingly many reflect an environmental justice attitude, that fundamentally integrates race and class into its thinking.
(6) We need effective means for these activists to bring pressure to bear on Senators and Representatives in every step of committee proceedings, up to and including House/Senate conference committees, as well as on floor debates and votes. We certainly have a variety of the tools we need to do this, with varying degrees of experience in using them. The potential is there to turn our scattered experience into dependable, well-run lobbying campaigns, including public media components as well as organized lobbying efforts. Nut this will clearly take a great deal of organized netsroots/grassroots effort in order to make it successful. The upside is that the efforts involved in making this a reality will pay off in the form of organizational capacity that can make itself felt in other ways as well. For example, this sort of organizing helps create a strong foundation for supporting the development of progressive candidates who come directly from the ranks of progressive organizations.
As I said before, this is just a first stab. A bare-bones outline, if you will. There's certainly room for a good deal more detailed breakdown of (5) and (6), for example. And there's need for discussion of more general organizing principles, such as the development of messaging that's coherently grounded in progressive frameworks. On the congressional side, we would be greatly aided by the reinstatement of the Office of Technology Assessment, which provided a solid reality-based baseline for legislation prior to its destruction by Newt Gingrich in 1995. But I wanted to kick off this discussion with a relatively concise, manageable list of things we need, so as not to recreate feelings of overhwelm and helplessness. It is a big job. But it can be cut down into smaller, more manageable little jobs. And we can organize ourselves to get them done. As Chis said in his original post, "The choice is ours." |
