Progressive hope

by: Mike Lux

Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:00


I don't want to get too gooshy as we go into the Thanksgiving holiday weekend by giving you all the stuff I'm thankful for, but it does seem like an appropriate moment to be a little more reflective than usual. The thing I want to focus on today is the hope for a better world.

It is very easy to be pessimistic and cynical about the chance for things to get better as we fight our issue and political battles. Wealthy powerful special interests are entrenched and seem able to run everything. Too many politicians are incompetent or corrupt. Well-intentioned organizations are sometimes pretty ineffectual. The establishment's conventional wisdom seems set in stone. And I think we have seen so many things in the last few decades that have made us cynical about our government and questioning about our leaders, it is easy to think that nothing will ever change. I know for me, reading the Church committee report about the CIA, The Pentagon Papers, and the Nixon White House tapes transcripts as a young man was enough to make me very skeptical about the nature of our government at the time.

I think a certain level of healthy skepticism about our government and the establishment is a very good thing, and should be cultivated. The problem arises when skepticism turns cynical and pessimistic, and infects how we view every single thing in life and politics. At the heart of progressivism is the hope that it is possible to make a better world, that progress is indeed within our reach. When Barack Obama ran a campaign with a slogan he borrowed from Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers, Yes We Can, and preached his gospel of hope, he was tapping into a long progressive tradition dating back to our very founding as a country. Heading into that terrible winter at Valley Forge, Tom Paine, wrote: "Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it and repulse it." Lincoln at Gettysburg, at that terrible moment honoring those tens of thousands of fallen soldiers at their gravesites, spoke of the hope "that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Martin Luther King, Jr., in a discouraging moment in his great work, said that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it curves toward justice", and the civil rights movement anthem's chorus sang out "We Shall Overcome".

We progressives should embrace the hope that our movement, the progressive movement, has always carried as its banner. It is conservatives who have always feared change and doused the flames of hope, conservatives who said government could not do anything right or make progress for the American people.

I write this because I see too often the deep cynicism of many friends in the progressive movement, the assumption that virtually every politician is corrupted by being an insider, that every compromise in the legislative process is a sleazy one, that every progressive group is a sell-out. I see it in the responses I sometimes get when I write about my hopes for passing legislation that could be improved on in the future, where people ask why I think any piece of legislation will be improved on given that corporations run America. I see it in articles by progressive thinkers like Jamie Galbraith, who wrote on Monday an entire blog post about how hopeless everything was in terms of making changes in economic policy. I see it in progressive talk show hosts and comedians and media figures: a sense of gloom about any prospects for a better future are everywhere I look.

While righteous anger and cynical humor are an important part of our work, progressivism that is at its core cynical and pessimistic doesn't work over the long run. For one thing, it will burn itself out. When I was a young organizer being trained, I was told that you can't organize people if you are too depressed to be hopeful, that if you were feeling burnt out, you should take a vacation or even get into a different line of work. I still believe that to be true. Righteous anger is a great thing, and can feed you for a while, but if it's not leavened with hope, it won't sustain you over the long good fight. But it also doesn't work because the internal contradiction is too great. Telling people that we can change things for the better while being cynical about any hope for change is a self-defeating philosophy.

Albert Camus wrote in The Plague that "once the faint stirring of hope became possible, the dominion of the plague ended." It is our job as progressives not just to attack the powers that be, not just to fight against the establishment, but to breathe life into those faint stirrings of hope, and to believe in them ourselves. It is easy to be a cynic with all the bad things that happen in the world. It takes more courage to believe that we can, someday soon, overcome. It is our hope and optimism that gives us the strength to keep fighting the odds against us, that keeps us going in the face of the money and power of the entrenched special interests. And history is very clear on this point: those with the faith and hope that they could indeed overcome the odds did quite often prevail. The abolitionists won their 40-year battle, the suffragists prevailed after 90 years of struggle, Jim Crow was finally beaten 90 years after African-American rights were abandoned by the North with the end of reconstruction. Through decades of violence, derision, arrests, intimidation, our progressive ancestors never gave into despair and defeatism. We should take their example to heart, and have hope for the future, hope that we can make progress, hope that we can build a more perfect union. Hope and virtue have survived: now let's make them flourish.        

Mike Lux :: Progressive hope

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Progressive hope | 89 comments
there's no evidence to support any inkling of "hope" (4.00 / 9)
As a teen during the Clinton administration (the one you're so proud to have been a part of) I saw an allegedly liberal president engage in multiple military adventures, starve thousands of Iraqis to death with an embargo, sign Welfare-to-Work and DOMA, and basically cowtow at every turn to the Heritage Foundation crowd.

After 8 years of Bush I thought that Obama actually represented some semblance of a progressive.  He, unlike Clinton, seemed uninterested in appeasing lobbyists and claimed he was against mandated purchase of private health insurance.  He swiped errrr borrowed from Cesar Chavez.  He said all the right things about corporate power and the need for "change" in America.

Then Obama turned around and did just about everything Bill Clinton would have done, selling progressives down the river and lecturing us on why we need to hold hands with Republicans/Conservatives and why "these things take time".

As it stands there's no opposition party in this country.  There's no anti-corporate voices in higher offices.  The majority of prominent "progressives" still act as if the Democratic party is an ally and not merely a tool of the ruling class.    

The Reagan Revolution was the demise of the American dream.  The bad guys won, and we haven't taken back an inch of ground since.

I'd love for you (or anyone else) to prove me wrong, but I'm quite afraid it can't be done.  There is no hope, only dread.


semblance of hope (4.00 / 1)
I agree that there is a lot to be disappointed about, but there were also some good things that have happened in the Clinton and Obama years, and yes even the Bush years: S-CHIP, 2 minimum wage increases, Sarbanes-Oxley, Lily Ledbetter Act, Family and Medical Leave law, new investments in green jobs and universal broadband and education, etc. You can focus on the bad stuff and drown in negativity if you want, but I don't think that's how you sustain a progressive movement.
Beyond that, though, let me just make this point: when little girls were being firebombed and people had hoses turned on them, when women were being arrested for speaking in a public place, when freed slaves were beaten shot down like dogs for no reason other than that they had been freed: did they have a semblance of hope? Yet they remained faithful to the cause, they carried on. I have to admit that I get tired of modern day folks who say there is no hope because they are discouraged after 10 months of the Obama administration, when our movement forbears stayed with the battle in spite of great personal hardship for generations.  

[ Parent ]
In 1994 (0.00 / 0)
Congress passed and President Clinton signed the California Desert Protection Act, the second largest act protecting public lands as parks and wilderness in our country's history. Millions of acres of public land in southern Califronia were saved from the bulldozer and the motorized hordes of ATVs.

Propponets of of the act had taken more than 10 years to move the legislation through congress, only to see it almost fail in the U.S. Senate, where it passed by exactly one vote. Then Senate Majority Leader (back when we had REAL leaders) George Mitchell of Maine, had to beg the last democratic senator to return from the airport and cast the deciding winning vote, before she left for home. The one deciding senator? Senator Carol Mosely Brown, who had just lost her bid for re-election, while the democrats had lost control of congress.

Never give up. Fight for every damn vote. Great post Mike!


[ Parent ]
In Clinton's first term (4.00 / 1)
More old-growth trees were cut than in the previous 12 years of Reagan-Bush.

[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
We should have just forfeited the millions of acres of environmental protection for the Mojave Desert, because President Clinton was not perfect in the Pacific Northwest? Perhaps we should give up the one dozen new national monuments he created as well?

[ Parent ]
what a lovely list of "accomplishments" (4.00 / 2)
S-CHIP- hey great people can see a doctor until they turn 18, then they can go rot in the streets with the rest of the chattel

minimum wage increases- hey only took 10 years between them, and hey we're almost to half what a single adult needs to live on his/her own- awesome job America!

Sarbanes-Oxley- hey rad a law to protect the investor class, those guys need our help

Lily Ledbetter- "guys, the fire department put out a fire, this is unprecedented!"

FMLA- UNpaid leave? holy shit, we're so spoiled (by we of course I mean people with kids)

Universal broadband?  What the hell are you even talking about?  There's no universal broadband.

I realize it's in a serious Washington insider's nature to be dismissive, but the things I cited aren't just "bad stuff".  DOMA isn't just a difference of opinion.  The Iraq embargo of the 90's wasn't just a minor trifle.  People have been denied their rights, died, suffered.

Yes, the anti-slavery movement and women's sufferage movement were dramatic and there were real heroes in those movements.  But to put it simply- "that was then, this is now."  The upper class has its boot firmly lodged in the throat of the American people, and great "liberals" like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are offering them shoeshines and hearty handshakes for a job well done.

I'd like to remain faithful to the cause, but what cause am I supposed to be faithful to?  Your Democratic party?  The party that proudly includes Max Baccus, Steny Hoyer, Bart Stupak, etc etc?  


[ Parent ]
good luck. (4.00 / 1)
Good luck organizing anyone with the approach that everything and everyone sucks, and all hope has died. But then maybe you don't care about actually organizing anyone, you only care about trashing those who do.
I don't know what your income level is, but I know people in poverty, have worked with them, and every time they get a wage increase it matters a lot to them. Is it enough? Hell, no, but it's progress.
Maybe you don't know what it's like to have a child dying of cancer. I do know people who have been through that, and the fact that they were able to spend their child's last days with them meant everything.
If you actually care about making people's lives better, you know that modest bits of progress do matter to them, and are worth fighting for. Is it enough? No. Do we stop fighting? No. Do we live in nirvana? No. But it matters, and if you think it doesn't you are very out of touch with how the real world lives.
You act like progress doesn't matter if it's not 100% perfect. That ain't the world we're living in.

[ Parent ]
Mike, did it ever occur to you that thinking in small changes... (4.00 / 8)
..and calling for patience may actually be part of the problem? Honestly, what could have been achieved if party insiders like you would have pressed Obama for bold actions starting on day one?

And, even if you disagree with that, shouldn't you change tone at least now? What's necessary now isn't more patience, but anger venting in the streets!


[ Parent ]
I do not beleive that Obama has the character... (4.00 / 1)
...or the self-confidence to make large scale change...and I think his actions are proving that out.

Regards,


[ Parent ]
I never claimed to be an organizer (4.00 / 5)
And I'm not trashing people who are, I'm trashing people who advocate nothing but "patience" and compromise

I'm sure your touching tales of tragedy knock 'em out at black tie events but they don't change the fact that the "progress" you cited was incremental and watered down, dog and pony shows for the Streisand donor class so they can feel like they're making a difference by cutting checks to their local health insurance industry puppet.

On hand you ask "do we stop fighting?" and on the other you champion compromise and surrender.

Progress doesn't have to be 100% perfect, but it has to actually change things.  Desegregation was progress.  Women's suffrage was progress.  We haven't seen progress of that magnitude since the so-called liberals of my parent's generation sold out to the Reagan set.


[ Parent ]
Progressive organizing (4.00 / 10)
isn't diminished by acknowledging that the DP (and the US government) are corrupt, anti-progressive, and unworthy of investing any real "hope" in.

Organizing an effective labor movement, for instance, isn't based on false hope that the Democrats, or the US government, or the system of neoliberal capitalism, will provide workers a just share of the wealth they produce. It's based on demands for justice, identifying the enemy, and being willing to fight that enemy by whatever means are necessary.


[ Parent ]
Hitler put dinner on some tables, too. (2.00 / 2)
Aryan tables, to be sure.  And not for long.  And no, I'm not calling you a Nazi.  But come on, stop leading with your chin.  You can do better than this.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Uh, Chris, as I understand it, Godwin's law iswn't a reason for TR here. (0.00 / 0)
That comparison may be tasteless, but its general point, that even horrible leaders may achieve some "progress" for some people, is valid. Bush II improved the healthcare for at least some seniors. Is this reason to disregard all his shortcomings?

And should this argument be hide rated here?


[ Parent ]
Embargo (4.00 / 1)
Clinton didn't starve anyone to death in Iraq.  At that time Iraq actually was developing WMD and the world reacted with an embargo.  A sufficient level of supplies was allowed but it was diverted so Saddam could build castles.

Actually, the embargo and Clinton's military actions against Iraq were effective - hence no WMD later.

I do not blame Clinton for his triangulation at the time.  he didn't really have much choice.  The media environment was entirely corporate/conservative dominated and there were no progressive structures as we are trying to develop now.  He tried to keep things together with little Dem support, no outside support and a country dominated by right-wing messaging.  Under the circumstances he did a great job.

One thing he did not do was work to develop an outside-the-party infrastructure to support more progressive policies.  But, either did anyone else.

NAFTA?  While Bush I negotiated NAFTA, Clinton came in and fought for environmental and job protections.  He should have done more there, no question.  Perot was correct.  But again, at that time the "attitude environment" was entirely corporate-conservative dominated.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Clinton was fighting tooth and nail for the NAFTA agreement.... (4.00 / 1)
...with his buddy Rahm Emanuel.  Some Democratic leaders like David Bonior and Richard Gephardt on the other hand tried hard to stop it, but in the end failed.

Clinton's legacy will always be tied to this and other catastrophic trade agreements, that have now destroyed our way of life and our standard of living.

Regards,


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I agree this is the legacy of the trade agreement, just not with Clinton's culpability.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Trade and the destruction of our jobs and standard of living (4.00 / 1)
rests squarely on Clinton's shoulders.   Ask Mike, he'll gladly tell you how Clinton and the unions agreed to disagree.   And let's not forget to give Clinton full credit for deregulating the banks and attacking women on welfare.  Clinton was Reagan's go to guy; and as bad as Clinton was, this administration makes him look like Mother Theresa.  


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I agree with your summary of where we are... (0.00 / 0)
...but to be honest it was apparent to me that Obama was a corporate Democrat a long time ago.  In fact during the campaign I thought Obama was out-Clintoning Clinton himself.  And everything was proved to me by who Obama appointed early on.

2008 was the first election going back to 1988 that I did not vote for the Democratic candidate, and instead voted for Nader.  I knew he could not win, but I am tired of voting for these Democrats who sell out the working class at every move.

Regards,


[ Parent ]
Hope? Why hope when Obama refused to sign the landmine ban? (4.00 / 5)
When even such a small move is too much for the oh so liberal president, why should anyone have any hope it will get better somehow? That jerk and his administration refuse to listen to progressives, so what can be done to achieve change? Hell, there can be hope, once this phony sellout is removed from power!

Hope is necessary because you can not point to action (4.00 / 4)
Hope is the opiate of the American masses.  

Opiate. (4.00 / 3)
Hope is what feeds the potential for change. Cynicism and pessimism are far more the opiate: they feed the idea that nothing will ever change.

[ Parent ]
Mike I am cynic (4.00 / 10)
or a pessimist.  It strikes me that whenever someone says this they ignore the fact that there is another option- realism.

Perhaps, you need to ask Paul Rosenberg to lend you his copy of "Bright Sided"? I think that book is highly relevant to argument for progressive hope when we are discussing concretely what has happened since President Obama took office and the Democrats have held super majorities.

I am making a push for realism. If this were November 2008, I might see the point of this sort of argument. Even then I was leery of it, but I may have seen the point. Right now, given the lack of actual policy to justify it, hope just rings false.

You know- I spent this year working on starting a new business in the middle of one of the worse down turns since the Great Depression. If I were a pessimist or cynic , I would not be doing that. BUT, you know what I have learned in this venture? Hope is not nearly enough. You got to have a) action and b) realism.

The Democratic Party is not progressive. It is corporate owned. Policy after policy fight indicates this. When we deal with that reality, then we can start to hope for a better day.  


[ Parent ]
Action and Realism (4.00 / 3)
are very good things, I am all for them. But saying everything and everyone sucks isn't realistic either.
Look, I am not even saying be hopeful about Obama. He is what he is, a centrist corporate oriented Democrat. But progress is still possible, at least on some things.
Re the Democrats in general, you overdraw your argument. The entire party is not corporate owned, maybe a third or even more pretty much are. That's enough, combined with the Repubs, for our side to get screwed most of the time. But there are still enough good Dems around to get some good things done.

[ Parent ]
Another cheap shot (4.00 / 5)
No one is saying, "everything and everyone sucks."  People are saying real things about the health care bills and civil liberties and wars, and if they didn't have hope, they wouldn't be saying them.

Problem is, they're not kissing the ass of so-called progressive Democrats, they're kicking it.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
'Hope is what feeds the potential for change' ...hmmm,...... potential? (4.00 / 6)
To achieve real change requires standing up  and fighting entrenched forces recognizing that fundamental maxim that conflict forges change or sitting down and refusing to 'take it anymore'.

"'Potential'for change' and 'hope' on it's best day only identified a problem existed but did nothing to solve it.

I'll drop my cynicsim when I see someone in this administration actually take on entrenched powers, especially corporate.

Cheerleading for 'Hope is what feeds the potential for change' does not put food on anyones table or give relief from staggering insurance rate increases.


[ Parent ]
Neither does cynicism. (4.00 / 1)
The things some of us have fought and won victories- minimum wage increases, an increase in the EITC, more money in the federal budget for poverty programs, S-CHIP- have put food on people's tables, and kept their children alive. They have done a lot more than just giving up and saying we have no hope.  

[ Parent ]
i think the problem here is your definitions (4.00 / 3)
what susan h is saying is about people we should expect things from, and your posts are about how we should hope for better policy. Her point is that you can hope all you want for better policy, but you also need the right kind of leadership, and it is this leadership that we are not hopeful about. The two things are not the same thing.

[ Parent ]
i think the problem here is your definitions (0.00 / 0)
what susan h is saying is about people we should expect things from, and your posts are about how we should hope for better policy. Her point is that you can hope all you want for better policy, but you also need the right kind of leadership, and it is this leadership that we are not hopeful about. The two things are not the same thing.

[ Parent ]
There's No Way To Avoid This Sounding Corny (4.00 / 6)
But I believe in the potential of people, and the failures of our institutions which must be corrected by people outside those institutions.

As a recent college grad (I can accept that my point of view is probably narrow and waiting to be shattered, but it's the only one I've got for now) working at a nonprofit organization with a mission that inspires me every day (Hard Hatted Women, check us out), and having met and read about hundreds of other compassionate, justice-oriented people, I can say that I believe that the ideas and energy for re-orienting our country are out there.

And as someone who was brought back into politics (after becoming disillusioned in the aftermath of the anti-war 'movement') by the rhetoric of Barack Obama that I didn't entirely understand at the time, I can also say that I have zero faith in the American government (not government in general- I find government to be the necessary instrument which needs to be better shaped by the people) to bring about change without a strong push from the civic sector.

And finally, having been introduced to online progressive communities like OpenLeft, Firedoglake, and others in the last few months, and having seen the stirrings of an organic evolution of citizen-driven progressive strategy (public option, audit the fed, jobs bill), I can say that I think that with the passion, energy, and ingenuity of the grassroots progressivism coupled with the burgeoning strategy of online progressivism, I think we've still got a shot.

So in many ways, I'm thankful for this community (and my work community).  For all the dysfunction of online (as offline) communities, it's really opened my eyes to a perspective and a source of support and strength that I wouldn't have had otherwise.  It's been a great gift as I leave my previous home in college.  God bless.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/


MLK, Jr (4.00 / 2)
From his speech on a "Revolution of Values," 4 April 1967, also titled "A Time to Break Silence" and "Beyond Vietnam":

"...My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."
http://www.americanrhetoric.co...


Thanks Mike.... (4.00 / 10)
I appreciate your message, and I'll try to live up to it.  But I'll admit that I'm having a hard time seeing light at the end of the tunnel.  I'm 62, and it's very unlikely that we're going to see a more favorable political environment in my lifetime.   We've got a President who sold himself as an agent of change, and we've got strong Democratic majorities in Congress... and still there is little hope of serious transformation.  It looks to me like halfway through Obama's term in office we'll be going into the 2010 elections with one foot still in Iraq, a huge new commitment in Afghanistan, a corporate-friendly healthcare bill in place, 10-15% unemployment, Guantanamo still open, nothing done about the torture gang, don't ask- don't tell still in place, some terrible detainee policy in effect, and with a bunch of ex-Goldman Sachs guys running the economy.

People keep asking me to be patient, because this is a big complicated country and Obama inherited a dreadful mess from Bush/Cheney.  But impatience isn't my problem-- Obama and the Democrats are headed in a fundamentally bad direction on a number of issues, and we sure as hell aren't getting what we thought we voted for in 2008.

Mike, you've written some brave and generous words, and thanks again.  But we're headed the wrong way up shit creek and it's important to be honest and acknowledge it.


Likely. (4.00 / 1)
I think we could still have a progressive resurgence, not based on Obama or the Democrats, but based on popular movements. The progressive movement is stronger today than it has been for a while.

[ Parent ]
Obama is destroying it. (4.00 / 7)
The death of hope based on Obama will set back progressives many years.  

[ Parent ]
Here was my sliver of hope 13 months ago (4.00 / 3)
I felt (and continued to feel) that we could get social progress only through a massive movement (or set of movements) going on the offensive against established powe, per se, the best precedent for which would be the many, destabilizing uprisings engineered by all kinds of Americans during the Great Depression.

I thought that there was a very small chance (maybe 1 in 50?) that Obama's campaign organization could serve this function.  It could do so if its grassroots leaders, the folks who made all the phone calls, trained their fellow-activists, and (hopefully;)) kept copies of all the email and phone lists, decided to turn the organization against institutional DC and, implicitly, the guy in charge of it -- President Obama.

As it's turned out, the big, anti-establishment movement that's emerged is the reactionary Teabagger movement, which is tending to force your average Obama supporter into an anti-populist position, simply because the right-wing populism of the Teabaggers is so odious and idiotic.  It's also forcing people, I think, into a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" defense of Obama and of institutional DC, as well.

In the end, it comes down to us as a people.  We'll own our own failures, and our own collapse, should it continue.


[ Parent ]
Well said, Pesto (2.00 / 2)
I like your logic here, and what you have pointed out is a really important point.
It is up to us as a people to bring about this change.
I like Mike Lux, a lot, and i agree with his post. Yes it is hard.

But the way TravisDisaster is posting here, I think he might just have another agenda entirely. If not, he should just quit posting here, because he only goes out to tear down and hurt the progressive movement. He does not want to help, just wants a place to bitch. Maybe he was one of the early Obama believers who projected what they wanted to hear on to him?? I don't know him, but what he is doing is being part of the problem than part of the solution.

Mike is so right about 90% plus of the time. I do not trust Obama much, but what Mike describes is exactly what he is, a corporate owned centrist, and he did sell us a bill of goods. Sad, but by giving in and being cynical, we ended up with a "W", and although I do not like many of the things Obama has done, I do like Elizabeth Warren, and some of his other appointees, and I do think there are many Dems who are voting right, but we have more than our share of corporate bought and paid for with D's after their name, and we need to work on that.

Travis, would you rather have McCain and Palin running the country?? If so, be honest and get out of here!!

And to Mike and Chris and Natasha, and the depth of knowledge of Paul Rosenberg, and the rest of the team here at open left, (although it is hard not to get cynical with team Obama), the support from you guys is amazing and invaluable to me. You help keep me informed, and even if it is bad news, so many things that spur me to action, I learn about here.

So Mike, another good post. Please keep it up, as many appreciate all that Open left does to continue to build a progressive movement. Yes, it is harder than we thought it would be, but your message is absolutely right.

Pesto, One of my feel good moments came when somebody ran a full page ad about how we Americans pulled together during the Great Depression and beat it, and pulled together a response which gave us an unprecedented economic miracle in creating a economic middle class which worked for over 50 years to create some of the best times in American history, so Travis can shove it, American citizens have a precedent to live up to.



[ Parent ]
"Feel good moments" and passive "hope" don't bring change. (4.00 / 2)
And I don't remember Mike telling us after the election that the Obama administration would be this passive, and leave it to effing Congress to make the promises come true. That's certainly not what people expected, they thought they voted for an active president who takes the bull by his horns! Yes, now it's obvious that change will only come if the people apply pressure and force those lame Dems and the government into action. But why didn't Mike say that at the beginning of the year? Yeah, I know, he was busy in the Obama transition team, and as a team player, he didn't want to shit in the nest. Totally understandable, on a personal level, but not really helpful.

If all those good liberals with concerns about the Obama presidency would have created pressure on the administration from day one, more reform would have been possible. Now 2010 is already casting it's dark shadow on the Dems, and the opportunity for bold action has been lost. And misguided patience and passive hope played a role in this sad outcome.

So, totally understandable that many aren't happy a all about this, and the idea of third party voting gains traction again. That's Obama's fault, and that of the Dems, and not that of people like angry progressives  like Travis. To accuse them of rather wanting "McCain and Palin running the country" is outrageous, imho, a total distortion of the truth, and absolutely not helpful now!


[ Parent ]
Gray, I am asking, not accusing (0.00 / 0)
Travis, or anybody else of wanting McCain/Palin. I am trying to get Travis to consider the choices we really had. And Obama was, and still is a better choice than McCain/Palin. Is that really that "outrageous", and a "total distortion of the truth"?  Is what TravisDisaster doing here attacking Mike really "helpful now"??

And in no way, am I saying that Obama has turned out to be what he ran on, he has not. But to trash Mike because Obama has been such a disappointment does not seem very fair either. And that seems to be what many are doing, just bitchin at Mike for Obama's faults.

I was a HRC supporter, and I did NOT hear Obama say he was a progressive candidate. Many people here at Open Left heard what they wanted to hear during the campaign. But he said things like "Republicans have been the party of ideas for the last 15 years", etc..., and now they act like he claimed he was a progressive. He is a huge disappointment for progressive/liberal voters. He is not bringing the change he seemed to promise.

But isn't that because we have a corporate whore congress, and that Goldman Sachs and wall street money elected Obama, and he does not seem to care what the people who actually voted him in, but who gave the big cash...


[ Parent ]
Well, KC, this kind of asking was aggressive (0.00 / 0)
"Travis, would you rather have McCain and Palin running the country??" This implies that you think the answer is open, that it may be true. Even though it should be clear to you that this is a total distortion of Travis position. And, sry, but I think that's outrageous and not the way we should discuss with each other. Your mileage may vary...

"But to trash Mike because Obama has been such a disappointment does not seem very fair either."
Well, ok, maybe we're too harsh to Mike. But fact is, he has called for patience so many times and tried to explain unopular Obama decisions here that people simply can't stand it anymore. Yes, sure, he has been critical of Obama, to, but the fact is, he doesn't do anything to apply more pressure on the administration. Calling for patience and hope is calling for staying passive.

What's necessary now is stronger opposition of the progressives, opposition that makes it into the media, in order to break the centrist stranglehold on US politics. Mike only calls people to soldier on, but he doesn't really lead the way. More activism is needed, not just the same old same old small scale work behind the scenes. Mike isn't really wrong, but he is thinking too small. And without a broad strategy and concerted action progressive policies will have no chance in this administration. Business as usual won't lead anywhere for progressives, and will result in a horrible defeat for the Dems in 2010. We need bigger and better ideas now!


[ Parent ]
Here's the problem (4.00 / 9)

 There is a huge, huge opportunity for a progressive resurgence based on the conditions of our times, for sure. That's what the 2006 and 2008 elections were all about. But our leadership has all but abandoned the idea of being change agents -- as global yokel pointed out, it's striking how much has NOT changed and doesn't figure to -- and the massive national sentiment for change, which is still there, is now being exploited by the teabaggers.

  When the teabaggers get focused, coherent leadership... well, I don't even want to think about that. Obama tapped into the huge frustrations of Americans in 2008 with progressive rhetoric (even if he's a centrist), rode them to a decisive victory, and has proceeded to all but squander this enormous opportunity, leaving the field open for truly evil forces to exploit.

  It's one thing to feel disappointed at the lack of liberal progress when it's Republicans controlling the government. But one just works extra hard to depose them from office -- and, in fact, we did. But when it's Democrats standing in the way of progress, it's not hard to feel a deep sense of betrayal.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Progressive movement (4.00 / 2)
You may be right, the polling data seems to support your view. But if such is not based in the Democratic Party, where will it be based? If its not part of the two party system, it will be ignored. If the progressives want something other than the current Democratic Party as a base for the "movement", then they should be explicit and work to crack the party. Or, work to break the two party tyranny. All this trying to make nice to the less-than-progressive Dems and Red Moles has not worked because the ultimate loyalty is not to being progressive, but to the Democratic Party.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
"the ultimate loyalty is ... to the Democratic Party"? Really? (0.00 / 0)
Imho,the situation would be better if this were so. But, let's face it, for most Senators and many lawmakers, the ultimate loyalty is only to themselves. And what they believe and want is much too often more dependant on their own welfare, than on any party line. That's the problem, not that the progressive wing isn't strong enough. Healthcare reform isn't especially progressive, it's a longheld liberal issue, and there shouldn't be any controversy about the basics. And still, traitors try to lead the reform astray by inserting purely right wing taliking points. This is not a sign of "loyalty" to the Democratic party, this is a sign of selling out to business interests, pure and simple.

Otherwise, totally d'accord, but let's not search for excuses for the traitors. They don't deserve this, and it's not helpful.


[ Parent ]
They still need to be "Democrats" (0.00 / 0)
so that they can have the stature of being in a mainstream party and get in line for their chance to feed at the corporate trough.

Just like the Red Moles contradict themselves by talking about how they "wear the Democratic Party label", but don't indicate such on their web-sites. Progressives talk about pushing from the left and improving bills, but when push comes to shove, they fall in line and support a bill because it is seen as "good" for the Democratic Party. They won't confront the conservo-Dems and risk intra-party schism because they don't want to damage the Democrat brand.

This:

This is not a sign of "loyalty" to the Democratic party, this is a sign of selling out to business interests, pure and simple.

is, in my opinion, a false distinction. The Democratic party brand (or GOP brand) is what entices the business interests to offer cash to the "traitors". Without the label, they'd be left out - like Nader or Perot.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Disappointed, but still hopeful -- we can do it (4.00 / 5)
Thank you Mike for another important and timely reminder of what our work involves and how critical it is that we don't sink into despair and cynicism.

I have to say that I am disappointed with President Obama. I didn't expect him to be strongly progressive, doing everything I hoped. But I also expected him to be better than he has been -- to fill his administration with centrists, liberals, and progressives, not with Goldman Sachs executives. And I thought Obama's idea of bi-partisanship would mean reaching out to sane, moderate Republicans, not bending to the will of corporate and/or insane Republican Congressmembers. And I assumed his early opposition to the Iraq war meant he actually understood something about US imperialism and militarism and he might seek counsel from such groups as Peace Action and Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). So I've been disappointed that we are still getting crumbs and rhetoric from this administration while conservatives get funding and support.

Still, I am pretty hopeful. Times are relatively good right now. The last 30 years have been really brutal and discouraging. The demise of the corporate media and the rise of hate-talk radio and Faux News were very frightening. The massive defeat of progressive Congress members at various times since 1978 has been very scary and having people like Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II wielding the full power of the US has been terrifying.

Things now are not nearly so bleak. We now have a Progressive Caucus in the House that is large enough and has enough ties to leadership to actually have some impact. They still back down too easily, but at least they stand up  and fight sometimes. And I'm happy that there are a number of fairly strong progressive Senators -- like Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, and Russ Feingold. They are still too few, too timid, and frustrating on certain issues, but they do stand up for us at times.

Also, President Obama is, at least, sane and not completely bought by militarist and corporate interests. I regularly hear about some administration people reaching out to progressive activists and scholars and see some progressive measures (like this year's budget) being implemented. This is certainly a big change from the W years.

But most importantly, we now have a relatively strong and relatively coherent progressive movement. We have OpenLeft and dozens of other progressive blogs that enable us to rapidly learn what is going on and to organize with each other. Last year, we built a strong electoral effort that was able to elect Obama, a handful of Senators, and a few dozen House members and defeat a lot of terrible conservatives. The progressive movement, which was in almost complete disarray in 1982, 1994, and 2001, has rebounded with a lot of energy and wisdom. We may not be nearly as powerful as I wish we were, but we are not completely powerless either. In fact, we are rather powerful.

If we are able to whip up and maintain as much energy and excitement in the next few years as we were able to muster in 2008, then we should be able to make some really incredible changes. We won't get much help from the power elite (including President Obama), but we seldom have. We have to do this ourselves because no one else will help us. But we can do it.


I needed that. (4.00 / 2)

  I really believed that with Democrats in power, we might not get all the progressive change we hoped for, but we would AT LEAST not have to worry about Social Security and Medicare being gutted, and we would AT LEAST return to sane implementations of government secrecy, and we would AT LEAST stop torturing people, and we would AT LEAST get a few demand-side improvements to our economy (which even Bill Clinton pursued).

  It's discouraging that we're still playing defense despite our party being in control of everything.  

  But there is hope. Obama can't stay in office without us.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Hope is subjective (4.00 / 14)
That Galbraith post gives me hope because he's willing to tell a self-evident yet hard truth, that the government and conventional politics as they're currently constituted are unable to cope with the financial crises. (Do you really disagree with that, Mike? On what grounds?) To me, a post like that doesn't preclude progress; on the contrary, truth--an honest assessment of the where we are--is a prerequisite to progress. And it takes courage to face up to the darkness of our plight.

Similarly, your insistence (and the insistence of other progressives) on depicting Obama, in the face of mounting evidence, as a champion of progressive change, or even a vehicle, I find not hopeful but delusional and therefore depressing. Hope vs. false hope.

To paraphrase Susan Sontag, Let's by all means work together. But let's not be stupid together.


Obama (3.20 / 5)
You and I are interpreting what I write very differently. I don't believe that I have ever depicted Obama as a champion of progressive change. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I use his own words and past proposals as reminders of what he should be shooting for, and sometimes I have strongly disagreed with him. He has always been a centrist Democrat, has always way too close to the big banks and corporate America and conventional wisdom, but he does sometimes use progressive language and does sometimes make progressive proposals.
I don't disagree with Jamie being upset on the difficulty to change the economic policy in this country, I just think when you frame things in a way to say it's all hopeless, it is not useful.  

[ Parent ]
I think you're misinterpreting what (4.00 / 10)
Galbraith said. He's not saying "it's all hopeless." He's saying right now the country is incapable of dealing with the crises. Given the power of the big banks (about which you're written some great stuff) and the weak reform proposals emanating from the White House and Congress, this strikes me as a fact. It's nothing Krugman and others haven't said. Last year's brief window for real change is now firmly shut.

So I don't think the issue is hope vs. hopelessness but differing views on the depth of our problems and the means needed to solve them. For some of us, the standard calls for patience and hope and compromise--even if on some level we understand these things are necessary--are ringing hollow. The country's burning. Bankers, propped up by taxpayers, are making billions and bringing the economy to the brink again as Obama calls for fiscal discipline (for social programs) and escalates an unwinnable war. Where's the urgency?

I don't have the answers, of course, but when I saw Marcy Kaptur call for people to refuse to be evicted, to break the law and squat in their own homes, I thought, yeah, more like this.


[ Parent ]
Here's one question I've been wondering (4.00 / 3)
Are the first 10 months of the Obama Administration demonstrating the limits of progress within the framework of the current American political system, and the current arrangement of power within our society?

That is, is this the most we can get from an electoral/legislative mobilizing approach to social change, at least until we redistribute power directly, on the ground, without mediation through a structurally resistant political system?  And do we therefore need to spend more energy on other aproaches?  Rep. Kaptur's advice makes it sound like she might think so, despite her position.


[ Parent ]
Yep. (4.00 / 2)
I think there are major limits to what conventional electoral and legislative strategy can accomplish. we need to be far more creative.

[ Parent ]
Exactly, David! The call for patience actually made progressives ... (4.00 / 4)
...miss the tiny window for change that opened up after the election. Now, the opposition has cosed ranks, and the public support for the Dems is already shrinking. Too late for real change! All that can be done now are much smaller steps in the progressive direction, watered down to the point where  they are barely recognizable. In the meantime, billions of taxdollars are still wasted on Wall Street (next stop: Bailing out the FDIC insurance fund), and even tiny measures to improve the situation of average people are getting nowhere (what about that credit card business regulation?). And that's a huge disappointment.

Maybe hope didn't totally die yet, but the reforms that people still can realistically hope for have become much smaller. Excusing Obama's failures certainly isn't the right answer to this. Only rage can bring people to fight for the little changes that may still be possible.


[ Parent ]
This isn't about Obama. (4.00 / 1)
This is about continuing to fight for change in general. And no reason to be patient, either- let's keep fighting. But anger alone doesn't get it done.

[ Parent ]
You want this to not be about Obama. But it is. (4.00 / 6)
Hre promised Hope. He promised Change. He was specific aout removing the lobbyists from power. And? What did he deliver? Would a reasonable guy from the street at least say the president tried? Very probably not. And sure there are other hurdles, but the main one is that the fish smells from the head.  

[ Parent ]
And my belief is that Obama has severely damaged the progressive movement... (4.00 / 2)
...because there is a large cost when you pretend and act like you are a progressive and mislead about bringing change, then utterly fail to do anything of significance.  What I think is going to happen electorally is that progressives will get blamed for the ineffectiveness of a conservative Obama administration.

[ Parent ]
Yup, there's damage to the brand "progressive"... (4.00 / 2)
...no doubt about it. And imho progressives have to become much louder in protesting Obama politics, for the public to understand that the image has been distorted.  

[ Parent ]
This is about surrendering ... (4.00 / 1)
any hope that we can do better than the current health care bills being shoved down our throats by our alleged progressives.  And you know it.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Exactly hope does not require denying reality (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Fuck hope (4.00 / 5)
I don't believe in the utility of hope. Hope is passive, it's another way of saying "sit there, wait for our messiah." He's not coming. There are no messiahs, and there are no solutions except for those we create ourselves and force into being. Hope doesn't work.

I believe in dreams. I believe in pressure. I believe in organising. I believe in white-hot anger, harnessed to concrete actions and focused on those standing in the way. I believe in struggle, and I believe in the possibility of eventual victory.

But hope? That's a fairy tale, and the storyteller is not leading us to any promised land I can see.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


Curious. (4.00 / 2)
I'm curious, have you ever actually been an organizer? I have known anyone to be a successful organizer at any level- community organizing, union organizing, election or policy fights- who didn't have and utilize hope. But maybe you have, let me know your experience.  

[ Parent ]
Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will (0.00 / 0)
So said Antonio Gramsci.  It's how you keep going when everything you see tells you you'll only fail.  It's needed at times like these.

At least, Mr. Lux, you're speaking of keeping up the fight.  I would like to ask one of the advocates of hopelessness - just what is it you propose we DO?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
Oh and by the way (0.00 / 0)
there never were any Obama bumper stickers on my car or house.  Yes, I voted for him, yes, I rooted for him, but I always suspected that without the massive movements for change that existed in the 30's or 60's, change would have a hard time winning.

To the extent that people are waiting for Obama to lead them instead of activating themselves, we will not prevail.  But we have seen that people WANTED something different.  It's our job to figure out how to help them get there.

That still gives me some hope.  I thought the Public Option fight was over in July.  It's still not totally extinguished, though things are looking grim.  That in itself is some sort of victory.  How can we build on it, limited as it is?  What can we learn from it?

Where do we go from here?  We didn't get as far as we hoped?  But how far did we get?  You may not WANT to look for silver linings.  Unfortunately, it's necessary.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
Nobody here is an "advocate of hopelessness" (4.00 / 5)
Neat trick though.  To say that the current health care bill is the best that we can do seems to me the height of hopelessness.  We can do better, but first we have to draw some lines, and be ready to punish those that cross them.

Vote for Stupak or anything like it, you get a primary challenge.  Approve sending more troops to Afghanistan, you get a primary challenge.  Support keeping Gitmo open, you get a primary challenge.  Putting the fear of god into spineless liberals will do much to improve their attitude.

You think this won't be effective?  You, then, are the advocate of hopelessness.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Primary challenges are nice. (4.00 / 1)
The question is:

If the targeted malefactors are unworthy of office, and the primary challenges fail, then what?

If one then falls back on the lesser-evil fallacy and votes for the malefactor in the general election -- where the rubber meets the road -- then the continued rightward drift of the DP is guaranteed.

Personally, I'll vote for someone I actually want to see in office, whose positions are closest to my political values. I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I DON'T want -- and get it.

Under no circumstances will I waste my vote to push the DP further to the right. It's already too anti-progressive for me, and has been since I started voting in 1968.


[ Parent ]
More than nice (4.00 / 1)
They strike fear.  You do ask a tough and certainly valid question, and I'd have to say it depends on the race, I'm not an absolutist.

But if the current House Dems knew they'd be challenged on their votes, it would already be a different ballgame.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
by the way ... (0.00 / 0)
Lux's post indicates a complete abandonment of intellect.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Maybe he is talking about the Hope that Clinton talked of... (4.00 / 1)
...and the Hope that Obama ran on.  He is talking about the fraudulent type of Hope that is used against us.

Regards,


[ Parent ]
Yup, that shouldnt be forgotten. (4.00 / 1)
Obama ran on a message of HOPE. That's the same hope that Mike is speaking about now? Hmm, doesn't the word need to be put into a washing mashine first, before being reused now? What about all the stains from the last nine months?

[ Parent ]
I struggle with this all the time (4.00 / 5)
I want to highlight one, key thing you said:

When I was a young organizer being trained, I was told that you can't organize people if you are too depressed to be hopeful, that if you were feeling burnt out, you should take a vacation or even get into a different line of work.

I also learned as an organizer that you can't fake it, either.  Pretending to have hope, in a limited sense (say, for the organization you find yourself working for) or in the larger sense (for the society you're a part of) is transparent to others and utterly dissatisfying to yourself.

So the bottom line, to me, is the truth.  I need as honest an account of the situation we are in, and of the prospects for progress, as possible.  Hope is secondary to that.  I cannot say to myself or others that the most important thing is maintaining hope, if in order to maintain hope I need to refuse to find out the truth, or deliberately ignore what I really know, deep down, to be the truth.

Because as much as "progressivism that is at its core cynical and pessimistic doesn't work over the long run," neither does a progressivism that is at its core deceiving itself or others about the reality of our situation, or of what would be necessary to make a just/peaceful/sustainable reality, or what activists would need to do to bring that reality about.

Let's figure out the truth of the situation first.  Let's deal with our reaction to the truth afterwards.


Truth. (4.00 / 1)
I don't disagree that truth and realism are essential components of organizing, but the reality was pretty freakin' grim at Valley Forge, and for African-Americans in the Jim Crow south, and for feminists in the 1870s, too.

[ Parent ]
Well, that's fine (4.00 / 1)
but I think it's a little like that joke...

"You're crazy!"
"They said Einstein was crazy!"
"They said it about a lot of crazy people, too!"

It was hopeless for Native Americans in the late 19th century, too.  And then the Ghost Dance came, and...

We can get to the comparative difficulty of our situation once we evaluate our situation objectively.  To me, truth and realism aren't just "essential components of organizing," they're the foundation of it -- unless organizing is simply going to be an uplifting experience on its own terms, even without any prospects of success (in which case people would be just as well to pick some other activity if something else makes them happy).  I've felt very, very pessimistic for the last 5 or 6 years or so.  Some of that time I spent as an organizer, more recently working for a small non-profit in a more behind-the-scenes way.  I fully accept that my pessimism is due, to some extent, to me and my personality.

But the question is what that extent is.  And, conversely, how much of it is based on the objective reality of our situation.  I see no reason to take the possibility (especially the realistic possibility) of our success as axiomatic.  That has to be argued for.

I am not willing to say that there's hope because there has to be.  There doesn't.  There might be reasons for it, but to the extent that it's axiomatically true, it's also trivially true.


[ Parent ]
I've got a Ghost Dance shirt... (4.00 / 2)
...but Dragon Skin body armor works much better.

I'm appreciative of the Cynics, in the original, non-pejorative meaning of the term. Reality-based assessments of the situation -- called pessimism by supporters of the status quo -- and scorn for undeserved, unjust claims of authority and expertise are to be applauded, not derided.

Some acknowledge injustice and call for hope, while supporting the system that generates the injustice. Some others call for justice, while supporting the system that generates the injustice. And a very few back up demands for justice with calls to completely restructure the system, and take action at whatever personal risk that entails.

"...A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr, 4 April 1967
http://www.americanrhetoric.co...


[ Parent ]
More on "a revolution of values" (0.00 / 0)
"A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, 'This is not just.' It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, 'This is not just.' The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

"A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."


[ Parent ]
Blaming the victim? (4.00 / 10)
I'm not cynical because I want to be. I'm this way because too often those that preach hope have let me down. The fact that most progressives have to point backward to demonstrate national and party leaders for whom "HOPE" was not a delusion used to garner votes and cash, compounds the issue.

Look, I became aware that I had a central government during the Watergate hearings. The first time I realized there were people in my country who ran the place it was in the context of how badly they had mislead (and misled) me. I admit, trusting the central government has been a uphill struggle.

I appreciate your tip of the hat to the value of cynics

While righteous anger and cynical humor are an important part of our work

This line

Telling people that we can change things for the better while being cynical about any hope for change is a self-defeating philosophy.

is not accurate from my perspective. I'm fairly confident that some group of humans might be able to run a nation on the bases of a progressive/liberal agenda. No problem hoping for that. Problem is that I don't have much hope that the current system in this nation will allow those people access to the halls of power and government.

The way I see it, the plutocratic system of government that dominates this nation demonstrates a hope-defeating philosophy and I don't hear or see any sustained efforts that have been effective in changing that situation.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


blaming the victim is precisely the manipulation (4.00 / 3)
involved in how Obama's strategy for coming into office. 'You are the cause of change" really means "If I muck it up, then it was your fault because you did not create change." I see people doing this a lot lately. "remember Obama said we would have to work for change" and blah, blah, blah, because ultimately it seems to be about taking responsibility for DC's plutocracy.                

[ Parent ]
Rejecting the DP, as well as the RP (4.00 / 6)
along with any other pro-war, pro-neoliberal capitalism organization, DOES NOT equal "hopeless," and giving up one's illusions DOES NOT equal inaction -- however threatening that may be to supporters of the established system.

The idea of touting "Progressive Hope" by supporting policies, officials, candidates and parties that practice "progressivism" distorted into the DLC's definition of the term -- sorry, not interested in colluding with the enemy.


It does feel like a cruel trick (4.00 / 1)
to talk about hope in the context of the Democratic leadership. In what ways have they created an environment for optimism. Instead, we get more of "it's your responsibility."

[ Parent ]
I am filled with hope (4.00 / 1)
... hope that we can do better than the swill that the Democratic Party is currently offering us.

Frankly, your piece is nothing but a promo for the piece-of-shit healthcare that is going to be foisted on us.  I hope that we can do better, but the only way to do better is to demand better.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


You got me with Camus (0.00 / 0)
A tip of the hat to Mr. Lux!

hitting the wall on politics (4.00 / 4)
i think this is an imporant point you made in a reply above:
I think there are major limits to what conventional electoral and legislative strategy can accomplish. we need to be far more creative.

just so. we need alternatives to "calls to action" that are only about asking existing politicians to do the right thing, please. that's not totally pointless but it's a very small point in many cases. (Dianne Feinstein is quite unlikely to be moved by any constituent contacts, for instance.)

so what else can we do? are there existing organizations or efforts that we can connect to? if we have to create something that doesn't exist now, how can we get started on that? if you have any pointers on anything like that, it'd be great to know.

it's not hopelessness to see that we have structural problems that prevent us as a society from even beginning to deal with more concrete specific problems like the economy. what can breed hopelessness is feeling as if there is nothing to do but hope that a broken system will fix itself, that elites who have shown no sign of having any interest in change, will somehow wake up.

real hope can come from action that has a plausible link to effectiveness - even if it's a pretty distant one. that i can't think of what kind of action that might be, to me just feels like my ignorance. i'd surely like to fix that.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


I think a lot of us are saying the same thing (4.00 / 1)
but you sum it up here:

"real hope can come from action that has a plausible link to effectiveness - even if it's a pretty distant one. "

The rest of what you write is wrong:

". that i can't think of what kind of action that might be, to me just feels like my ignorance. i'd surely like to fix that."

You are not flawed. The system is. The problem with these sorts of things is that it tends to produce the perverted idea that we are to blame because President Obama and the Democratic Leadership fucked up. It creates a perverse sense of accountability.


[ Parent ]
i only mean (4.00 / 1)
that the universe of possible actions is pretty enormous, and i can't imagine that i have come close to exploring all of it. ignorance is a easily corrected condition, after all.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
my point is that this is more of the conservative (4.00 / 1)
frame of "personal responsibility." You are not responsible because the system is screwed up. The system and its leaders are responsible for that. This is why hope in this context is an opiate. It makes you think you are the one responsible for the outcomes you are seeing. If only you were smart enough or more capable, things would be different when in actuality that's not true.

That's why someone above calls this "why don't you have hope" crap a form of blame the victim.  We are not to blame for President Obama and the Democratic leadership's machinations.  THey are.

Look, I do get what you are saying, but it is not really the point. The universe of possible action is not enormous. That's something a self help guru might say. The system of politics have a very small number of actions that are likely and a slightly larger subset that are possible.  If we are going to be rational we need to address that reality.

I point you to the same book I suggested Lux check out- Bright Sided.  


[ Parent ]
I think you're both right. (4.00 / 1)
We are responsible, at least to a certain extent, in that we elected these people in the first place.  Granted, I'm not trying to diminish your point that the system is totally fucked up.  I agree.  Nor do I argue against your point that we shouldn't buy into the right-wing "personal responsibility" frame.  Rather, my point is, with regards to your point, that we should only accept as much responsibility (and blame) as is realistically ours to begin with.

I also agree with tatere that, even if it's not our fault that the system is fucked up and that our politicians manipulate it and us for their own selfish purposes, there has to nevertheless be something we can do to change things for the better.  For that reason, we should be proactive in taking responsibility to effect change.

When it comes to things we can do, I think our first attempt to play hardball on health care reform worked (until the opt-out was floated, which broke our nascent coalition).  That was something new.  Something different from what we traditionally do.  But then we were told we had to go back to being passive and patient and accept what was possible and blah, blah, blah.  And we lost all the ground we had gained.

I think Mike misses the point when he preaches patience.  He looks at the history books and sees that these things take time to accomplish.  Of that, I don't disagree.  But what he misses is the fact that the people fighting for change during those times were anything but patient.  It's precisely because they chose to fight (even against the Mike Luxes of their time) and refused to be patient that those changes occurred in the first place.

It's okay to recognize that change takes time, but only within the context of fighting for it to happen immediately.  Change never happens by sitting back and being patient.  It never happens by people who don't take responsibility for effecting change.

Look at two of the greatest leaders of the 20th century: Gandhi and MLK.

If MLK had chosen to be patient and backed off, like Mike argues we should do now, there is no doubt that the fight for basic Civil Rights would still be ongoing.  (Hell, nearly half a century after, and we're still dealing with inequality.  Think of how much worse it would be without all those impatient people demanding their rights.)  He took responsibility to effect change.

Gandhi too was not patient.  He demanded sovereignty for his nation, and he didn't wait around for the British to ever so kindly give in.  Indeed, his whole method of fighting, Satyagraha, is based in no small part on the premise that you don't wait around to get what you want.  Just because it's a non-violent method of fighting doesn't change the fact and importance of its immediacy.

So, while we don't have to accept that we're responsible for how fucked up the country is, we nevertheless can and should take responsibility for trying to change it now and for the better.  Because if we don't, who will?

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.


[ Parent ]
Politics as blood sport (4.00 / 7)
I got my first taste of extremely serious politics when I was 20, courtesy of the US government, in Quang Tri province in Vietnam.

The designated enemy had begun fighting for national independence, against western imperialism, for over 40 years, against vastly "superior" forces: better trained, better equipped, better financed, superior in number, etc.

That enemy did not rely on "hope." They fought and made huge personal sacrifices because they believed their cause was just, and they were willing to fight for as long as it took to reach their goal, whatever the personal cost -- being maimed, captured, tortured, imprisoned, killed. They won their independence because, like any successful revolution, their politics were superior to that of their opponents.

Hard questions serve to dispel illusion and illuminate hard choices. Those who control what electoral "choices" between neoliberal warmongers will be offered to the people in this sham of democracy WILL NOT give up that power because of polite requests, or even stern demands. That power must be taken from them, by whatever means are necessary.

It would be nice if it could be accomplished at the voting booth -- but given our system of campaign finance, Emma Goodman was probably right in saying that if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

I've been quoting an assassinated black leader in this thread. There's another one that deserves consideration, particularly his characterization of the DP and RP as foxes versus wolves with the same result for the chickens, and that the real choice was "the ballot or the bullet": Malcolm X.  


I also want to say that during the Clinton years (4.00 / 2)
and during the Bush II years, too many of us sat on our asses and did not stand up for liberal ideas. Far too many of us let ourselves be drawn into the fear. We have allowed this by not standing up and calling bullshite on the conservative agenda. Krugman explained it well in "The Conscience of a Liberal", movement conservatives had a plan, they followed it well, and here we are now. Is anybody convinced we need to now be cynical and not fight?

I liked (and still like) Josh Marshall at TPM, but as we led up to the Iraq war, and he said on his blog one day that Bush would have to live with what the UN said, and then within a week, was scared into becoming a war supporter because he was scared by the fear mongering.  

Today, he is one of the new media and he is mostly trying to speak truth to power. And I think he has a very good voice for progressive politics, but by questioning the status quo, not blatant partisanship, (not that there isn't a place for blatant partisanship). Does that mean he is a bad guy? No, it doesn't mean that for me. He has learned, and progressed inot a top news blog, one of the best muckrakers around.

The fight is for basic liberal ideas across the board. Yes, Obama has turned out NOT what we had hoped, or needed for change. Yes, I feel betrayed, but I was a HRC supporter, and never quite drank the Obama koolaid. I was disappointed that my friends at open left decided to back Obama over Hillary. Does that make them bad guys? No, I think they feel as betrayed as I do, if not more so. And I do not know anyone who works as hard for the progressive cause as Open Left, FireDogLake, Crooks and Liars, and the many excellent progressive blogs.

But change is coming from the people, and they are pissed off about the economy. If Obama and the democrats are going to help, we the people must force them to do so. Crying in your beer, and sitting on your ass is not going to do it folks. So suck it up, and lets give thanks for who we are as the American people. We can make it happen, but the democratic party as it is now, maybe not so much.

I think i might start a blog. I have a name, what do you think of "Pitchforks R Us" ??

Primary, primary. primary!!!!



Hope & Change, my ass.... (4.00 / 4)
The day that Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers to his administration I knew that my naive hopes were DOA.  Then he offered Judd Gregg an important position.  And more recently he appointed Dana Perino to an advisory board.  

Ye shall be judged by the company ye keep....


Yup, I remember how we discussed this here. (4.00 / 2)
I rememebr the warning voices. But most thought that Obama certainly had a master plan, that these were just cosmetic concessions to the centrists, and that he would reamin firmly in charge, leading the administration towards real change. Sadly, I was among those who gave the guy the benefit of the doubt. Damn, we were so wrong...

[ Parent ]
hope needs a plan (4.00 / 4)
It's not really the Thanksgiving holiday that's the impetus for this post. It's the immediate political situation we face.

It's the fact that, within the last several weeks, our hopes for progressive change have come under serious threat in three areas: health care, where the public option is on life support; jobs, on which the Administration appears to be sleepwalking in the wrong direction, toward deficit reduction; and Afghanistan, where the President appears ready to choose further escalation over exit.

There are other disappointments (indefinite detention, land mines, etc.), but the three above seem most politically consequential.

It's a dark hour, for two reasons.

First, the President is making, as we speak, catastrophic political mistakes that will badly undercut his political position, and, by extension, ours.

Second, our strategy to push the Administration in a progressive direction, the Progressive Block, has failed.

So now, at the moment we most need it, we have no course of action available to leverage the Administration or Congress away from their current self-destructive course, which would close the window of opportunity for progressive initiatives for some time to come.

Without a strategy, there is no organization. With the failure of the Progressive Block, then, we've suffered an organizational collapse just at the point of crisis.

What we need is a strategy that has some possibility of success, so we might have some hope of having an effect on the outcome of these crises.

If we had such a strategy, exhortations to keep hope alive would be adequate to the political situation -- as long as we continued executing the strategy, we would have some hope of success.

But right now we have no strategy, and this is what we need most of all.

Hopelessness is politics' way of telling you to get a plan.



hope ! (0.00 / 0)
It seens that "hope" is necessary to even think about action. Really who attempts anything without the possibality of success? Because the future is unknown, effort extended to influence the future, by nature, must include some hope of success or no one would even make an attempt.

This leaves only stratagy and tactics, most of which have been envisioned and blocked by entrenched power for their own benifit.... A truth that has the effect of deminishing hope, and by extention, action.

This probabily is a good place to again state my belief in Nancy Brodier's system/tool for capture of the Democratic party for the benifit of the people. It is one tactic that has not yet been blocked by the worshipers of great wealth. If you haven't already done so, please take some time to evaluate it yourself.

As others here have insinuated, (and,I also believe) if this downward spiral cannot be reversed, the nation will fail....Soon.


Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR


Progressive hope | 89 comments
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search