Do progressives want thoughtful positions or knee-jerk government bashing? Vote Wonder Woman

by: David Alpert

Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:00


(Properly, this should be an instance of Open Left's "right of reply" given the earlier diary for Green Lantern.  But it's more than that, so take a serious read, even if I do get a special "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" thrill out of doing this.   - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

In the New Organizing Institute's mock election, I endorsed Wonder Woman for her high-quality policy positions. This election is a fun exercise, but also illustrates a very serious issue in the way progressives interact with candidates and campaigns.

Government can be annoying. It makes you pay file complicated forms and pay money in the springtime, it sometimes closes your subway station or park for an investigation, and if you park in an illegal spot, it sometimes gives you a ticket.

The fact that government can be annoying is a big force fueling the ongoing anti-"big government" conservative movement. After all, more often the ways most people interact personally with government is of these annoying varieties, making the argument that we should just abolish it pretty appealing.

But we progressives know that government also plays an important role in making our society safer, better, freer, and more sustainable. (Besides, private sector companies can be just as annoying - just try scheduling a cable service call.) We know where we stand on health care or warrantless wiretapping, but how do we react when a new issue comes along, one we know nothing about, and where government is being a little annoying?

Do we automatically jump on a populist-sounding position if it works against broader social goals? More importantly, do we want our elected officials grabbing the easy sound bite, or do we want candidates who take the time to learn about issues and figure out a real progressive position?

This issue came to the forefront during the New Organizing Institute election, where organizers are learning to run campaigns by running mock campaigns for comic superheroes. An interest group called for the campaigns to take a seemingly populist position that's actually the opposite of a good environmental policy. Four of the campaigns jumped right on board, trying to outdo each other in how loudly they could call for this change.

Three others resisted the urge. And one, Wonder Woman, did the opposite: they took some serious time to contact local activists, and learn about this and other issues, and formulate their policy positions. Their platform isn't just based on a quick, cursory read of issues, but on real research. And, given that this is just a mock election, that's an impressive amount of policy outreach.

What's the issue?  

David Alpert :: Do progressives want thoughtful positions or knee-jerk government bashing? Vote Wonder Woman
Our friend Adam Green, who has worked tirelessly for progressive causes, is annoyed by his government which makes him move his car once a week for street cleaning. He created a Facebook page which framed the issue is a very populist way, claiming this policy and the tickets DC gives to violators is a naked grab for cash. Putting aside the fact that any cash they raise funds important social programs like affordable housing, this street cleaning has a real purpose. Without it, much more trash and pollutants would wash into our rivers. And when drivers don't move their cars, the trucks have to cut a wide curve around them, missing a big chunk of the road.

Here we have a policy that's a little annoying to a few, but brings important rewards in the quality of our environment and our drinking water. As progressives, should we take the knee-jerk "get government out of my life" stance, or support what's best for everyone?

And do we want to send young organizers the message that it doesn't really matter what policies candidates support, that they can win the progressive vote just by sounding good and getting some netroots influentials to endorse them? Or do we want to reward actual, intelligent policies? The former is a path to more broken promises like we've gotten from some conservative Dems the netroots has supported in the past.

Our organizers will hear that message if one of the candidates that rushed out an anti-street cleaning ticket message wins NOI's mock election. If we want to instead reward organizers who actually take the time to talk to our communities and learn about the real issues, we'll vote for Wonder Woman in the NOI election. Go cast your vote now for Wonder Woman and her real-life organizers who talked to blogs like mine and Feministe, and actually created a thoughtful, real-world platform for a fun activity. Let's show that progressives want the real answer instead of the false sound bite.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Do progressives want thoughtful positions or knee-jerk government bashing? Vote Wonder Woman | 20 comments
Progressives Want Politicians To Represent The Working People. (4.00 / 1)
This is such a narrow concept -- moving the car.  Let's go bigger.  Do progressives want politicians who demand public healthcare for all people?  Or is that "knee-jerk?"  Would the "thoughtful position" in your scenario be this b.s. Obama is promoting, the private shake-downs between the Dems and the CEOs of all the powerful Medical Industry groups, the doctors, hospitals, drug pushers?  Notice how before those meetings the Dems are saying "We must have radical change," but after the meetings (when the CEOs presumably promised to give lots more money to Dems) they suddenly are cooing over each other, making honeymoon plans, public be dammed.

We now apparently are being set up for the absurd idea that we don't need any change, because all the big players will voluntarily "cut" their costs.  Oh yeah, the insurance industry will be handed 50 million new customers as the poor will be ordered to either buy insurance or apparently have their bank accounts attached.  As for the rest of us, we should be content with a "promise" by the CEOs that they will be nicer.

My premiums just went up by 13%.  What's nice about that?

I often see articles in which the gutless nonsense that passes for the "center" in politics are presumed to be the "reasoned," "compromise" positions representing the most people, but the fact is they usually represent no change to a system which has stipped most people of most of their assets.  The credit card "reform," for example, did nothing to change the center of the problem, which is exemption from the usury laws, obscene interest rates, and nonsensical "late" fees.

And the same types of articles usually refer to "knee-jerk" as the people who stick by the correct position.  For example, on credit cards, the only reform needed is to cap interest rates, say at 10%.  Without that, everything else is meaningless PR.  The Democrats got a chance to shake down the credit card industry for big donations, and they also got a PR feather in their caps, because they now claim they "reformed" credit cards.  But they did nothing of substance, and refused to do the only thing that would have helped the working people.

If we don't stick by our positions, then what's the point?  Compromise with whom?  The corporations?  It's not the Republicans, because they have no power.  The corporations want only to complete their take-over of the world, throw more of us out of work, eliminate healthcare and education for everyone other than the wealthy.  Would anyone suggest we compromise with them?  When Obama packed his administration with Wall Street criminals, was that a compromise or a sell-out?  A knee-jerk reaction, I suppose, would have been to seize their assets, criminally prosecute them all for theft and fraud and conspiracy, and throw them in prison.  

I suppose a "compromise," or even a "reasoned" position would be to let everyone from Bush-Cheney walk free, avoid the hassle of holding them accountable.  The knee-jerk position would be to arrest them all, hold them without bail, prosecute them for international war crimes, and throw them in prison.  I would prefer the country enforce the law against the rich and powerful, as a democracy should, instead of simply letting them walk free among us.  Call me knee-jerk.  

Sorry... (0.00 / 0)
Too many moral issues... How can anyone support a woman who is clearly into bondage and enjoys tying them up and forcing the truth out of them.  ;-)
The first two are up to her and any consenting adult that wishes to participate. (0.00 / 0)
The last depends on what mean by forcing. If it means yelling tricking and competent police interrogation tactics, then again no problem. If it means "harsh interrogation" or torture then that is not Wonder Woman, it is an imposter.

B

--

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

[ Parent ]
The problem with the whole comic book campaign crap (4.00 / 2)
The whole comic book campaign thing rubbed me the wrong way from the start.  Your having to dig to unearth a relation to a responsible stand on an issue, and the fact that responsibility could easily lose in NOI's crappy corporate funded sandbox only proves my point.  

Here is what I wrote to somebody else on a list serve about it a day or two ago.

Help me out here.  There are real problems in black America, and in DC, problems that could use the talent of organizers to embed themselves in real communities and give voice to the currently voiceless.  How does this kind of glorification of easily gamed and often empty social media constructs actually help prepare anybody to change the real world for the better?

It seems that content-free practice campaigning just prepares people to run content-free real campaigns down the line, of the kind we are already getting, only with more "social media".  What am I missing here?

I would like to post the reply I got, but since I don't have permission, I cannot.  But they admitted the comic book campaign was "issue free" and remarked that the assumption that NOI workshop participants are already grounded in the issues might be questionable.  Later in the exchange I said

How to fly folks in for a week and get them to work on some of DC's and their own city's real issues?  Let's not pretend that it's rocket science.  If it was approached the same way they're approaching all this training on new social media tools it would be a matter of picking one or two big issues, assigning some advance homework, and a week of workshopping and practical exercises.

The real challenge would be funding.  My guess is that it's relatively easy to get funding for a weeklong practicum on "new technology tools," from direct corporate funders, the PR industry, or corporate and mainstream philanthropy, all directed at producing tool users to staff political campaigns.  But try getting a week long exploration into community organizing strategies to fight school privatization or gentrification funded.  None of the big corporate funders would touch you.  It would not be nearly as easy.

Which brings up something else entirely.  When we let the deep pockets of corporate sponsors and their philanthropies define the limits of how we "train" the next generation of "organizers," and assume that they "already get it," that all they need are slick new tools, we are leaving the critical thinking along with the determination of WHAT organizing IS to those who pay the bills.  Their definition of "organizing" is of course, the kind that political campaigns need, identifying and getting out your vote.  It's not what we used to call community organizing, which is embedding organizers into communities of the voiceless to train and empower them to get their voices heard.  Different thing altogether.  Content-free organizing simply does not prepare 'organizers' to confront hierarchy or injustice, does not prepare anybody to change the world.  It just gives you proficient tool users more comfortable than they ought to be with leaving the big questions to those who pay the bills.

i guess I mean to ask whehter that is really the best idea, letting corporate and philanthropic sponsors set our limits like that?  Whether it is or not, that's actually where we are, though, isn't it?

To be honest I have not even looked at who is funding this comic book superhero campaign exercise.  But I bet funding that has to be a lot easier than funding training "organizers' to do something real.  

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

Thank you! (4.00 / 1)
I've been saying for the longest time that perhaps liberals' most important task in the long-term is to convince the American people that the government, at all levels, has been, still is and can be a force for good.

Of course, there are things that liberals don't want government to do - spy on us, clamp down on privacy and civil rights, etc.  But there are way more things that liberals want government to do for people than things they don't want government to do to people.

Conservatives only like the Dark Forces of Government. (4.00 / 1)
using the government to do good things like schools, hospitals or housing are evils to be STOPPPPPED!!! ARRHHHG! HELP

Yet - torture, war, police crackdowns, phone taps and jail sentences for marijuana users is just sweet! Death Penalty anyone?

One begins to wonder since they love to hand out money, but only to their super rich white friends that its onle and always just about racism. Did the steady attack and destruction of public schools start when African Americans started showing up in classrooms?

Another way to think about this, take the word government out of every sentence a conservative speaks, and replace it with the word democracy.

For example. Bush's Herr Field Marshal Grover Norquist growled:

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."


--

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

[ Parent ]
you could have made your point in a clearer way (0.00 / 0)
the argument about how to approach the government is a complicated one, and it's something you need to think carefully about.  many people like charles tilly, noam chosmky, william blum, fraces fox piven,a nd many others have shown how the government (i.e. the state) in the united states has been used or is a force for oppression in some of its facets (its a complicated thing).  

secondly, if your argument is that people should embrace what helps the most people accepting minor inconveniences then you should completely work against the u.s. government and favor a global redistribution of wealth and work towards that.  so if your goal is the greatest good for the greatest number with a minimum of costs to others then you would have to show how supporting the u.s. government is a path to that for all 6 billion people in the world or make an argument that justifies a better welfare for a small percentage of the world's people based on their citizenship status.

you could have made your point in a clearer way (0.00 / 0)
a light hearted rejoinder, but .. what?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
i was basically saying (0.00 / 0)
that the arguments that 'progressives' ought to take this approach but not that approach and using a straw man argument to make the case and then not even exploring the full ramifications of your own ideas is um...not the way to go.

:)

but yes, as seen above and here, i have trouble making my points in a clear way.  i think it's a learning disability that excessive education produces :)

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
 Those bastards! Ill bet its a secret program at all the ivy league colleges! They find compassionate caring people and stuff their heads till its so full that merely opening ones  mouth causes seven years of archaeological research to fall out, and other random things.

And I agree with you about straw man arguments.

--

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

[ Parent ]
i actually think that's true (0.00 / 0)
i think the educational system and 'social mobility' does an enormous disservice to the communities (lgbt, black, poor, women, etc.) that people are extracted from.  Yeah, it gets us hookups, but the ideal of leaving your community and joining the global elite is, well, kinda f"£ked up.  And no one seems to say you should do something another way!
[ Parent ]
There is a short story about a teacher at a jail. (4.00 / 1)
Which I can only remember the point of. She taught her class how to speak with an upperclass accent. They resisted her until she told them that they were marked for discrimination and being ignored even attacked because they spoke like all the people marked for exclusion.

It reminded, or if the time line is wrong, I was reminded of it, when I read about The Who's Pete Townsend telling a story about being found a few hours after he had passed out in the gutter by a policeman, who said things like "awwrighty move along yob" while 'tapping' him with his club, until Peter stood and began speaking in his best Eton College accent, "terribly sorry officer I seem to have fallen down, thank you ever so much for assistance." At which point the bobby stopped the stick work, began speaking politely, offered assistance even calling a cab.

The big point being, education has to be seen as a dangerous tool, not unlike a chainsaw, useful but capable of making your life harder not easier, your goals further away not closer.

Know who you are, what side of the barricade you really are on, who is there with you, and what tools you need for making the world over without barricades.

--

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

[ Parent ]
How about thoughtful government bashing?? (4.00 / 2)
I ask you to look at things by asking yourselves why so many still follow the Right- in spite of their attitudes and positions??

Remember the time in late 2005 when Russ Feingold was considering a Presidential run - before Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer cut his anti-Patriot ActII support - and his candidacy -out from under him??

I ran a test blog in support of his bid and was astounded at how many Dems quickly jumped on board, including those from "Red" states".

In their comments they all had a unamimous team, that briefly said they were ashamed to stand behind the Democrats after such a lengthy history of weakness.  The Red Staters in particular said they could easily stand behind and follow anyone whom they  disagreed with IF - that person was a bold and decisive leader.

To offer the most simplistic ideals to strive for, representative of a winning strategy for the Left, think of yourself as a soldier and ask which Dems you would trust and follow into battle - on anything, war or Healthcare for example.
Does anyone seriously believe the country wants to stand behind Harry Reid??  Or Baucus or Milkulski??  Have you even heard a peep from that Steny guy??

Kennedy, Whitehouse, Leahy, Pelosi and Feingold - them I trust as leaders to work on behalf of the Progressive community. That's it.  Pretty pitiful hey??

I wouldn't turn my back on any of the others.



Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

Yes, decidedly. Froms your lips to Obama's painfully appeasing ear. (4.00 / 1)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Do progressives want thoughtful positions or knee-jerk government bashing? Vote Wonder Woman | 20 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox