A rule of thumb--leading to thoughts about phase transtions and social systems change

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 13:00


Here's a rule of thumb I routinely use:  If one person screws up, then they're very likely at fault.  If hundreds of people screw up, then the system or situation they're a part of is very likely at fault.

Now, there are obviously plenty of situations that are genuinely ambiguous, or that are over-determined, where you can readily find both individual and systemic factors to blame.  (And, of course, there are intermediate levels of analysis--the small group, the institution, etc.  So the individual/system dichotomy I develop below needs to be taken as a deliberately simplified first-order approximation.) But even in such situations, it can save you a whole lot of grief to step back and try to see which broad explanation is likely to yield the biggest immediate payoff in terms of changing the direction of things.

That's why I can share a great deal of frustration with individual politicians--even including members of the Progressive Caucus, for example, without necessarily focusing my blame on them.

Now, here's the thing: It's my belief that the period of time in which the blogosphere formed was a period when both sorts of explanations/approaches were much more evenly balanced.  This was true for a variety of reasons, but the best way to summarize was to say that things were in a massive state of flux and uncertainty, typified in the realm of physics by what happens with common forms of phase transition:

A phase transition is the transformation of a thermodynamic system from one phase or state of matter to another.

A phase of a thermodynamic system and the states of matter have essentially uniform physical properties. During a phase transition of a given medium certain properties of the medium change, often discontinuously, as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, and others. For example, a liquid may become gas upon heating to the boiling point, resulting in an abrupt change in volume. The measurement of the external conditions at which the transformation occurs, is termed as the phase transition point.

Phase transitions are common occurrences observed in nature and many engineering techniques exploit certain types of phase transition.

The term is most commonly used to describe transitions between solid, liquid and gaseous states of matter, in rare cases including plasma.

During a phase transition, what's most important is the change in the energy state of the entire system: keep the heat on, and the water will turn to water vapor: it will boil.  But at the same time, it needs specific places where the boiling process concentrates, as anyone knows who's watched water boil in a glass container.  Likewise, when water vapor condenses into water, as dew forms in the morning, it does so at specific points, rather than everywhere equally at once.  Because we have individual agency, at times in which social/political systems are transitioning like this, the actions we take to help create the change both "generate the heat" to alter the entire system, and specifically direct it toward particular condensation or boiling points--we bring particular pressure to bear on individuals and specific situations.

Now here's the thing:

Paul Rosenberg :: A rule of thumb--leading to thoughts about phase transtions and social systems change
When we're struggling for change during a period of potential phase transition, there is commonly no way to practically distinguish between the macro- and micro-effects of what we are doing.  The way that we bring heat to the system as a whole is often by focusing attention on specific individuals or situations: the micro-level change is the vehicle through which we channel the energy that changes the system as a whole.

But this dual dynamic no longer works when the phase transition is complete.  We can pour all the heat we want into the system by focusing on one point, but the heat will simply disperse throughout the entire system--just as heating part of a gas won't produce anything like the violent transition between water and steam that we see during the phase-transition process known as "boiling water."

Now here's my thesis:  Where we are now is after a phase transition, which makes it much more difficult to alter the system by altering individuals.  But the state we're in now is not the end-state we want to be in.  The instinct is to continue trying to bring pressure on individuals in order to move them dramatically--in a phase-transtion, liguid-to-gas manner.  But that simply won't work now--at least in general--because we're no longer in a phase-transition mode.

However the phase we're in is not all that stable, and we are not mistaken to sense that, and want to press for further, dramatic change using the same sorts of methods that got us through the last phase-transition.  What we need to do is develop an understanding of this new phase we're in, in order to understand how another phase transtion can be brought about.

In general, it will be by the same dual logic of locally-focused effort that channels systemic energy.  That logic applies to every sort of phase transition of this kind (there are other kinds, you can read about at the Wikipedia/Phase Transtion link).  But that doesn't mean that the specific kinds of actions and goals will be the same.

In fact, there's a further analogy that can help us out here a little.  It comes from this typical phase diagram:

At the "triple point" the phase transition can go from any one phase (solid, liquid, gas) to any other phase. The neoliberal Versailles "New Democrats" have gotten the phase transition they wanted.  The logic of the overall system--the phase state--is just what they want, and now it's just a matter of "solving problems" within that system/phase state.

But, of course, that's actually impossible, for a number of reasons.  (Their ideology isn't reality-based, for one thing, and the conservatives won't stop treating them like DFH's no matter how many times they say "pretty please," or even "but we're with you!" for another.)  What we want to do is affect another phase transition--the one we thought we were fighting for all along.  But to do so requires a different logic than that we were employing previously.  It's a logic that has to expose the untenability of the neoliberal/"Third Way" approach, while showing how the social democratic approach delivers what the neoliberal approach cannot.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to make explicit several purposes I've had in writing this diary:

(1) I wish to draw a distinction between the intensity of expressed disgust with status-quo compliant actions (which I sympathize with, but grow weary of) and the development of effective strategies to first understand and then produce the kind of change we're looking for.

(2) I wish to redirect animosity away from individuals whose actions may quite justifiably be frustrating--or worse--but whose ability to effectively act significantly differently may be constrained in ways that are difficult to fully appreciate, much less alter without more detached reflection and a more systematically informed--if not systematically targetted--approach.

(3) I wish to redirect attention away from individual motivational and characterological analysis/explanation, and to focus it instead on systematic structures of assumptions, perceptions, (dis)information and beliefs.

(4) I wish to spur further discussion about how we can go about better understanding the position we're now in.

(5) I wish to spur further discussion about different sorts of activist strategies that focalize pressure for systemic change in ways that are most attuned to the kind of movement we wish to produce on micro-level actors and situations.

I welcome your help in furthering any and all of these objectives.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A rule of thumb--leading to thoughts about phase transtions and social systems change | 76 comments
New environment, time for new strategy (4.00 / 3)
Paul, it is great that you are trying to redirect the useless whining and blaming into productive thinking about where we go next. The 2008 election was a watershed event (a phase change), and now we are in a very different place. But even though things aren't as bad as before, obviously progressives don't run the United States. Real progressives are still a small minority and we don't hold the levers of power in government, finance, or the media. Those are still held by the conservative, power elite. And the crazy right-wing has not been disgraced: Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, etc. are still on the radio and TV, rousing their mindless troops.

I'm not sure exactly what our new strategy should be, but it must now grapple with the new situation. Bush-Cheney had so screwed up our society that even a large portion of the power elite could no longer tolerate Republican control. It was relatively easy to elect Obama (but still impossible to nominate or elect a real progressive populist). Now that Obama's election has empowered a few progressives in Congress, the empire is fighting back -- strongly. That is what we are now forced to deal with.

Thanks for Responding. (4.00 / 4)
Though I do think I see things slightly differently.

In particular, I think we have more power and numbers than you seem to.  I think we're more lacking in the proper organization and shared strategy to make that power effective, and those numbers more visible.

The sidelining of single-payer advocacy, for example, was almost entirely a matter of lacking proper organization & shared strategy.  We may not have had a majority, but we had a sizable minority whose views never became a central part of the discussion and debate.  And because that happened, there was a good deal more fragmentation, confusion and tactics-driven thinking & action, all of which further undermined the progressive potential that was there.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Your observation is correct: (0.00 / 0)
I think we're more lacking in the proper organization and shared strategy to make that power effective

But then what?  Why don't we have "proper organization and shared strategy"?  How do we get it?

I would argue that our subservient relationship to the Democratic Party is central to the dilemma.  Consider Connie Saltonstall.  She is now the progressive hero for taking on Stupak.  Good for her.  AND she supports the current healthcare bill that contains Nelson.  Work to improve it later?  You could drive a truck full of Jim Crow through that one.

Again, the Full Court Press has at least something of a strategy, and something of a plan.  It takes the best opening that the Democratic Party offers and attempts to build something that -- through its unreasonable litmus test of asking candidates to support crazy things like creating jobs and repealing Hyde and getting the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- would build an admittedly tiny but INDEPENDENT infrastructure within the party.

You won't touch it with a 10-foot pole?  Fine, offer something better.  Something concrete.  Oh, you don't do that, your thing is theory.  How sad.

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

[ Parent ]
And why is it either / or (0.00 / 0)
redirect animosity away from individuals whose actions may quite justifiably be frustrating--or worse--but whose ability to effectively act significantly differently may be constrained in ways that are difficult to fully appreciate

No.  Go after the system and also nail each and every individual sellout.  That is the logic of the Full Court Press, remember?

By running on 5 progressive points in all 435 Democratic primaries in 2012, the focus is to put the onus on the Democratic Party, and not perpetuate the illusion that it is bad individuals that are responsible for our plight.  At the same time, even Kucinich would face a challenge.

Do I expect thate we will win any races through this?  Of course not.  I am a pragmatist.  The point of the Full Court Press is to reframe the problem as a problem of the entire Democratic Party BY holding ALL of them to account.

You might consider this a diffusion of energy.  I think not.  By pursuing a tactic that people of modest means can pursue, it draws resources from new sources.  And it is far cheaper than the ActBlue strategy of selecting "key" races, which end up as big-money affairs and end up getting us at best just another liberal who in the end won't do any differently from the current batch.

Let's face it, if Kucinich and Sanders caved on healthcare (including Nelson is caving), then what is the point of just settling for another Kucinich and Sanders?

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

It might be because they understand where we are better, nit less than your attempt. (4.00 / 1)
Let's face it, if Kucinich and Sanders caved on healthcare (including Nelson is caving), then what is the point of just settling for another Kucinich and Sanders?

I have a great deal of respect for Senator Sanders, not just for Sanders as a agent of change, one who understands where we are, who's with us, what needs doing and how to do it, but also as a politcian, an electoral animal, who knows the people on the ground, the actors the situation and the methodology of achieving power, or most correctly representing power.

So I balk, and wonder and think twice when sanders accumen, skill and commitment are challenged, even called into question.

For example the ridiculous suggestions yesterday that we all get together and find ways to hurt Kucinich's re-election because of his vote. I doubted that then and now, and I am more than wary about not listening to Senator Sanders thinking, planning and analysis.

Because to be honest, I trust him, some others, not so much.

--

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

[ Parent ]
You are (4.00 / 3)
assuming a can opener.

There is nothing pragmatic about suggesting that "people of modest means" with no organization structure can mount over 200 primary challenges on a single platform that reflects your own political concerns. The question is how to get build the kind of movement that could do what you are suggesting - and we are not there now.

You're not offering a plan for both - you are offering an entirely individual level solution to a systematic problem. Paul is not offering an either / or - systematic solutions don't exclude some individual level interventions, they just can't be reduced to the individual level.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Yes, it would require some support structure (0.00 / 0)
And no, we are not there now.  That is why we are focusing on 2012 rather than leaping onto the 2010 treadmill.  The key is to run light in 435 districts.  The sheer number makes a statement.  The hegemonic ActBlue approach is the one that reduces it to individuals.  Anthony Wiener is responsible for Stupak.  Reid is responsible for Nelson.  They are part of a party that does these things.  Collective responsibility.

crazy things like creating jobs and repealing Hyde and getting the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan

And you DARE call these my "own individual concerns."

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

[ Parent ]
Two years is not the large difference you suggest (4.00 / 2)
I don't think you can run anywhere near 435 districts, but running light sends the message that you are light. Whatever other message you want to send will not be heard with light campaigns. You don't have a process for making this challenge significant.

You are confusing responsibility with explanation. Also, there are multiple options besides yours and the present ActBlue approach.  That's a false choice.

"Dare"?  You aren't going to build much of an organization if your skin is this thin. People are going to have questions - you need to be able to address them even if they are challenging or obnoxious. But you misunderstand my meaning. I'm not objecting to those things (although, as I recall, you are only mentioning some of them) I'm saying that they are on the list because you identified them. There is no process to determine what should be included (which would also help bind people to those items.)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
the impact is in the spread (0.00 / 0)
About 71 of our current reps faced no primary challenge in 2008.  They would notice a primary challenge.

There is no process to determine what should be included (which would also help bind people to those items.)

Then propose a process.

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

[ Parent ]
Propose a process? (4.00 / 2)
That's just it. The strategy here revolves around a nation-wide primary challenge. I haven't a clue how you organize people to come together about issues as part of that process. I doubt there is one.

We aren't going to agree on this point - but I don't think any member cares if they get a non-significant primary challenge. I suspect that a good deal of the push back you are getting is from people who don't share your assumptions on the mundane details like this, rather then because they are insufficiently willing to engage at the system level.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I am aware of the difficulties (0.00 / 0)
Yet the plan is concrete, while the bigger and surely wiser progressives go with an ActBlue strategy that has been a failure for decades.

One way you organize for something is to advicate for it.  You create an organization that embodies it.  Maybe we'll succeed, maybe we'll fail, maybe somewhere in between.

But it poses a challenge for progressives that they are not yet rising to.

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

[ Parent ]
Yes on the money. (4.00 / 3)
- but I don't think any member cares if they get a non-significant primary challenge. I suspect that a good deal of the push back you are getting is from people who don't share your assumptions on the mundane details like this,

In fact, a paltry, DFH, half baked, no supporter, no money, no spokespeople effort, would HURT the issues held so dear, the drive for reform and DFH's as a force.

No I dont support that at all. I support strong well funded, credible candidates, slamming Lieberman, Stupak and Spector into the ground. But what I support most is a woman or man growing support and respect over years in every district bvy conmstantly fighting for people, no matter what the press calls her, until she becomes a Senator with massive popularity like Sanders, who even welcomes being called socialist.

--

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

[ Parent ]
some thoughts (4.00 / 1)
to the first problem:
There is a lingering sickness in middle class american liberalism that to me appears to be a holdover from the vietnam era counterculture left's strategic disengagement with the political system. There's nothing I think that illustrates that more clearly than the comments by many young mcgovern campaign workers as captured in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972. The sickness is an all or nothing approach that, frankly, strikes me as the attitude of a petulant and spoiled child who, if he can't get his way he's going to take his ball and go home.  Our opponents don't think that way. They see themselves as holy crusaders and are willing to let the fighting the good fight be a victory in and of itself. As a result they are able to sustain long term grass roots potency in a way that the left has been unable to do since probably the new deal era.

The left, by contrast, is often far too content to sit on our heels and whine about how carter or clinton or obama isn't liberal enough and in the meantime champion unserious presidential candidates like Dennis Kucinich who we like because he agrees with us and we ignore the fact that he's a congressman who is completely incapable of swaying the debate in the house, which in essence makes him completely ineffective. We need to quit lionizing ineffective pols for ideological purity.

to the second point:

Coming from that what we need to do is to find effective politicians and try to move them ideologically by rewarding them when they do things that we like. What that means is that rather than getting really ticked off at center left leaders like Obama when they give us a half measure on health care or financial reform, we need to trumpet their victories and say "but don't think you're done yet, you've still got work to do, son."

I think the conservative movements reaction to the warren court is particularly instructive here. It took them forty years to get the supreme court we've got right now, and they never let up on it. They worked on it constantly, grooming the right people into the right places and making sure that everybody on their side knew how important it was not to give in too early. They took each victory inch by inch and never quit playing just because they didn't get everything they wanted in one fell swoop. And they know how to make the right mythology too. Note that Reagan appointed Kennedy and O'Connor, and Bush appointed Souter and these were significant setbacks. But the right revere's reagan and Bush Sr. despite their often moderate policies because it helps them maintain tactical unity. We can learn something from that.

As to Three:

I am not sure waht that means, but I think you're talking about challenging general neoliberal ideas like "what's good for small business is good for america" and "liberalizing trade is a good on its own and not a carrot to be used to help export our values about fair labor practices." Am I right?

As to four:

I'm trying with these comments.

As to five:

One of the things that conservatives have been doing has been to be extremely active locally in things like school board and municipal elections. I think we need to start acting similarly locally as social democrats. On the one hand, improving education and trying to get a better understanding of progressive ideals into the schools is a good long term strategy. The conservatives have always seen public education as a battle ground and the left has taken the high road of "neutrality and objectivity" in the face of the values that the right has baldly admitted to wanting to teach in the schools. I think its high time that we said we wanted the public schools teaching religious tolerance, social justice, arts and real sciences, and advocacy for the disadvantaged as a counter to the rights crusade against evolution and for school prayer. We need to make those things real issues and we need to encourage progressives to run candidates in favor of those things at local levels, because that's how a progressive politicians are trained.

Yours is the strategy that got us into this mess (4.00 / 1)
I think the conservative movements reaction to the warren court is particularly instructive here. It took them forty years to get the supreme court we've got right now, and they never let up on it.

They didn't start with saying that Earl Warren could be better.  They said "Impeach Earl Warrent!"  Their position was extreme, beyond whiny, seemingly absurd at the start, and they stuck with that.  You would have us start with bullshit and incrementally add more bullshit until ... what?  We end up with a whole lot of bullshit?

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

[ Parent ]
you're confusing rhetoric with strategy (4.00 / 2)
yeah, they said impeach earl warren, and what was that? it was a campaign slogan for a relatively moderate quaker republican in order to make anti-integration southerners start to think that maybe the conservative republicans were more to their liking than conservative democrats.  The rhetoric was extreme, the strategy was shrewd small ball. and it's a game they kept playing and kept playing. And now the court has scalia, thomas, alito, and roberts on it. One more republican presidency is all they need in the next 20 years to establish an unassailably conservative court that could well stand that way for a couple of generations.

I'm saying we need to do the same thing. We need to shout medicare for everyone and return Eisenhower era tax rates and Card Check and eliminate the payroll tax cap and repeal the hyde amendment at the top of our lungs. And we need to do that for politicians who move in that direction a little at a time because that's the only way you shape the conventional wisdom, and that's what really needs changing if true social justice can ever be realized.

[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
I'm saying we need to do the same thing. We need to shout medicare for everyone and return Eisenhower era tax rates and Card Check and eliminate the payroll tax cap and repeal the hyde amendment at the top of our lungs. And we need to do that for politicians who move in that direction a little at a time because that's the only way you shape the conventional wisdom, and that's what really needs changing if true social justice can ever be realized.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
But there's another problem (0.00 / 0)
and that is that the Plutocrats' Propaganda Machine AKA the media will not focus on us.

This has been going on for a long time.  Progressives can shut down the WTO in 99 and get some attention.  But the next time Progressives have a major action against the WTO it gets ignored.  Sure they report it, but on page 27 of section D or mentioned once in a cable news report.  But a few Tea Partiers hold a rally and they get page one above the fold pictures and non stop cable commentary for weeks.

We need more than talk, no matter how loud, how strong, how consistent, how extreme.  We need action.

Furthermore we need to aim our action to the right target.  For too long we've been focusing on the Plutocrats' Paid & Bought Political Machine.  Realizing that is going no where and considering what I shared above, we might think that we should instead focus on the Plutocrats' Propaganda Machine.  Well that might be better.

But let's take the action to the true target.  Let's take action against the Plutocrats themselves.  Let's identify the Plutocrats who actually are in charge of this empire and take non violent action that shuts them down.  Why waste time shutting down their puppets?

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
but (4.00 / 1)
what sort of action is that? and how do you identify them? Do they really even exist?

It's all well and good to say we must take action against the plutocrats, but that doesn't actually propose anything unless you can be specific about what "action" entails and who the "plutocrats" are and how they got to be what they are and how their power works.

Without that, it sounds to me like stringing together a bunch of excuses for not doing the hard work to move the needle slowly over time, which is simply the limit of what can be accomplished in a liberal democracy. Yes the media is sensationalized and profit driven. yes Fox news is a propaganda machine and it's repugnant that nobody except a couple of commentators on MSNBC are willing to take that network on. but that's a definition of a problem, not a reason that the democratic process won't work.

I mean, i think you're right that action is what's called for. But I have no patience left for empty demonstrations that accomplish nothing. what is clear is that an organized left can do amazing things like electing an african american junior senator into the white house. wha'ts less clear is how to hold that organization together over time to exert the sort of constant pressure required for real political change to take place in DC.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
What we need is moving the needle slowly over time to accomplish nothing.  Oh, have you noticed that the needle is moving the other way?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Yes, of course we need specifics (0.00 / 0)
but before we get to specific actions against specific targets, we need to go through the process I sign my comments with: educate, agitate, organize, mobilize, act.

I think we've gotten the education part out to the progressive community about the problem.  I believe we're in the agitation stage now.  

I'm about turning our focus to targeting the real problem.  I'm about getting us angry.  I'm about us starting to develop a new vision.

Yes, we need to find out who are the big players, the movers and shakers among the Plutocrats.  100 years ago it was clear the master was J. P. Morgan.  Who is it now?

Then we need to take action that is not just demonstration but is actually doing something.  Ghandi walked to the sea to make his own salt, thus breaking the British laws.  King led a boycott of the buses.  Later a march to register black voters.

These actions challenged the status quo.  I have some ideas.  How about we picket and shut down the banks?  How about we take non-violent action to occupy trading places?  How about we organize and mobilize working folk to shut down important supply lines of the worst Plutocratic offenders?  How about we have a line of thousands knocking on the door of a fat cat's home and asking him to share from his great wealth to help the struggling person with some vital need?

Getting a politician elected is pointless if the phase is wrong so the politician gets swept up in the current system.

Of course our disagreement is an old one, the same disagreement that split the First International between Marx, whom you are agreeing with, and Bakunin, whom I'm agreeing with.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Howdy, Jeff (4.00 / 1)
Aren't you going to the left forum? Gary Null will be there, tomorrow. Plus, you may meet a few former Weathermen and SDS'ers, that you can swap war stories with. :-)

I think some of them would be interested in the Full Court Press....

I heard Tom Hayden there, last year, and was quite impressed.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Sorry, tied up with housework (0.00 / 0)


Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Thats the best thing to say - and I mean that. (0.00 / 0)
I will listen even more carefully now.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Sounds right on whole. (0.00 / 0)
What that means is that rather than getting really ticked off at center left leaders like Obama when they give us a half measure on health care or financial reform, we need to trumpet their victories and say "but don't think you're done yet, you've still got work to do, son."

I find this very appealing. It resonates with me. Victory following victory, building upon (<<--this being the vital part) a meager mixed  victory with substantial ones.

FDR, who was brutally attacked as a sellout by the left of his time, had a very mixed Presidency, but was overall a huge benefit to the country, and, despite repeated attempts by the Reaganite fools who tore at his legacy and programs, still largely defines what is good about the country.
\
The only objection I have is the apparent lightness of "running also" with the conservatives, as if to provide an alternative, when the goal has to exposure of the two faced agenda and the defeat, utter defeat of its agents, at every level.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Victory following victory? (4.00 / 2)
That's the story of the past year?  On what planet?  More like defeat upon defeat.  Just because you pass a bill that has the word "jobs" in it doesn't mean you've created any jobs.  Etc., etc., etc.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
:-) (0.00 / 0)
You're in good form, as usual, Jeff.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
Shall I explain the terms meage and mixed to you jeff? (0.00 / 0)
I think I am beginning to understand Paul Rosenberg's points here more and more now.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I think you're right (4.00 / 1)
there has to be a forked approach to strategy. On the one hand there's the rhetorical battle whereby we have to stop playing inside baseball and being wonky about strategy and just agitate for the policies we want as a way to shape the public debate. One of the big failures of health  care was that the left let the conversation be about whether there would be a public option. which is ridiculous. we don't want a public option. we want single payer. we spent a lot of time and energy agitating for a policy that was a compromised version of what we really want at best. Doing things like that is just conceding to beltway common wisdom that progressive ideas are always non starters, which is the default neoliberal idea that Rosenberg was talking about.

But at the same time that the rhetoric gets ratcheted up with real leftist policy demands, we have to find a way to reward those politicians who are moving in the right direction because nothing ever changes over night in this republic, and everything alwasy gets done in half measures. The only time that hasn't been true was during reconstruction, and even then a lot of significant stuff (like universal suffrage) got left out and only got brought back incrementally, and it took another 100 years before equal protection really meant equal protection.

[ Parent ]
Let me agree and emphasize. (0.00 / 0)
On the one hand there's the rhetorical battle whereby we have to stop playing inside baseball and being wonky about strategy and just agitate for the policies we want as a way to shape the public debate.

and

But at the same time that the rhetoric gets ratcheted up with real leftist policy demands,

The demand for single payer, is not an impediment to passing a law on expanding Medicare, or Medicare for all. Saying "pass that law" if you must but we are building and will have single payer, its coming, America wants it and demands it and we will not be denied.

--

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

[ Parent ]
left out the qiote marks above, iof you agree it was written by: JFQuackenbush (0.00 / 0)
otherwise its my typonese confusion

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I Mostly Agree With You, But... (4.00 / 2)
The left and the right are necessarily different in some ways that you leave out of your account.

If we had a handful of mega-foundations that were as far left as Olin, Bradley, Scaife, etc., and similarly infused with a long-term strategic vision, then things would be very different.  But it's no accident that we don't.  It's reflective of a much larger historical reality.

So that needs to be factored in as well.

Also, if you compare the left and the right in terms of supporting minor candidates, I really don't think there's that much difference.  You just tend to forget the minor rightwing candidates more readily because they've got the big bucks to move much more successful candidates as well.

What I do think is missing from your analysis is this:  The New Deal was such a success--not compared to other countries, perhaps, but compared to US history--that everyone basically took it for granted.  This affected different people in different ways, but one of the ways this affected progressives who came of age after 1960s was that they didn't fully realize the nature and value of the sort of deep-rooted, local, economically-based organizing that had been the foundations of everything they grew up taking for granted.

Many great things were achieved by the activists who came out of that generation, but failing to appreciate the foundations on which they built, they failed to pay sufficient attention to preserving and renewing them.  And thus the whole repeatedly came up well short of the sum of its parts.  In such a situation, everyone is likely to have a piece of the truth in their criticisms of one another, and yet the same logic applies, in that the real problem is something larger than the sum of the all the separate critiques.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
An examination of the actuallity second paragraph (4.00 / 2)
which is excellent stuff and pops ideas up like soda, would be a very worthy book. The rift between the unions and students slash left from about 1960 to ... well now, or till Dean anyway I guess is well worth more than a handful of books and phds.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Full Circle (4.00 / 1)
The New Left folks who had a sense of The Political beyond being alienated middle class kids found homes working in the union movement.  A lot found their way in and up through public employee unions.  Now, public employee unions and left-oriented students and young progressives find themselves back in alignment with one another.  

This is painting with a very broad brush, but by and large it's accurate -- and exciting, for a lot of reasons.  

[ Parent ]
true (4.00 / 1)
we don't have olin, scaife, the federalist society, Cato, CPAC etc.

what we do have are the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the SEIU, MoveOn, the PCCC, the NAACP, ACORN, people for the american way,  and lots and lots of local groups. We also have the leftwing blogosphere and an emerging set of reliably leftwing journalists with national coverage.

So i think that maybe the right question about structure is how do we make our big weird infrastructure get some of the discipline and coordination that the right has, or failing that how do we get to a similar kind of vertical integration.

One of the things that I think is clear is that more needs to be done to revitalize organized labor, which was a significant force in old left new deal politics that has been completely gutted over the last forty years. I think that what the SEIU and the Teamsters are doing in that regard is significant.

But I'm no organizer and I don't know how you build on that kind of infrastructure. It just seems clear to me that that is what the left is missing and it's why we've been so ineffective in challenging the neo-liberal status quo of the DNC.

[ Parent ]
Four (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Good point (4.00 / 4)
but I'm not sure SEIU or the Teamsters are actually the model you're looking for. They are more top down - more of an interest group than a participatory social movement model.  I'm biased, but I'd say the better examples are UNITE HERE and NUHW.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
maybe (0.00 / 0)
but backing out of the complacency of the AFL-CIO a few years back was significant.

The SEIU though, while flawed, is a seriously interesting model. Their Justice for Janitors project a while back was a really good move, and I think it's significant that they've been so good at increasing their number of locals and members.

The teamsters I know less about, although I do think they have managed to accomplish some interesting things about tthe mexican border crossing post nafta and it's a shame that hasn't bene tied in more directly with the largerimmigration reform issue.

[ Parent ]
It's important to get the full story, then (4.00 / 1)
The aura around what SEIU supposedly was/has been/is doing is one thing, the reality is quite another.  JforJ didn't actually accomplish much, and they're largely abandoned it.  There is not a model to SEIU, other than autocratic, centralized authority in a cult of personality, in Andy Stern.  This is not a model to be emulated.  What people like about SEIU (including me) is the narrative that they feed and their $, not what they actually do.  And the narrative is breaking down while at the same time, the $ is running out.

David Kaib is right: UNITE HERE and NUHW are great examples of a different approach.  My local, a grad student workers' union, is self-consciously working to emulate a lot of that.

[ Parent ]
Peter, do you mind sharing (0.00 / 0)
what your local union is?  Are you in contact with any of the unions that you are emulating?

I think there were places where SEIU / J4J accomplished more, but that depended more on local leadership and conditions. For example, SEIU helped transform the County Federation in LA, along with UNITE HERE and others. And NUHW (which split off from SEIU) and SEIU1021 (which the reform slate recently defeated appointees from the international to take back their local) both grew out of SEIU.  It seems to me that the leadership at the top worked against that sort of positive energy, which did and still does exist at the local level.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
TAA (0.00 / 0)
My union local, of which I'm the co-president, is the Teaching Assistants' Association, AFT #3220, the grad student workers' union at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  

I'm dropping you a separate email that goes on much longer than this.  

[ Parent ]
that said (0.00 / 0)
Just did a little reading and clearly I haven't been following labor closely enough the last couple of years. It looks like you're absolutely right about those two unions being a better model.
[ Parent ]
MoveOn? PCCC? (4.00 / 1)
Do you honestly think that if MoveOn and PCCC were 10 times as large, and 10 times as well funded, that that would make a fig of difference? That they would finally start telling the full, unvarnished truth about how Obama stabbed us in the back with healthcare?

Both of those groups threatened Kucinich with primaries (before he flipped), who I thought of as basically the last principled Democrat in Congress.

We need groups that channel activist energy in a positive way, that aren't part of the "veal pen"., or reminiscent of the "veal pen".

I still have some hope for the PCCC to become more aggressive. For MoveOn, I have no hope, whatsoever.

A group that sticks to it's guns (though it's not aggressive enough) is the Progressive Democrats of America.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Major Differences (4.00 / 2)
There is a big difference, not only in scope, but in terms of mission and methods, between Olin, Bradley, Scaife, et al and the groups you listed.

The latter are activist groups, working on concrete, specific things.  They are funding recipients.  They are institutions working within the system (for the most part).  

The former are funders, working for longer-type systemic changes by funding ideas, infrastructure, whatever.  

What is missing less for us are institutions into which money can go and more a sense of missionary zeal, an alternative framework of analysis and explanation, and systemic approach.  

But, you did hit on one thing that I think is crucial: Without a revitalized, expanded (and more ecumenical) labor movement, there will be no real vitalization of progressive politics (politics, writ large, not just electoral and legislative).  Labor is our core, it is mass, it is inherently collectivist, it is inherently progressive (at least in first and fundamental principles, if not in practice always).

[ Parent ]
I definitely support a more systems- oriented approach (4.00 / 1)
I have a couple of suggestions, though, one of which I almost posted when you recently put forth the analogy of a team sport. All analogies are flawed, but that one and even this one seem less useful than the following, overlapping concepts:

democratic infrastructure
democratic ecosystem

As for what pieces of democratic infrastructure and democratic ecosystem are missing, to discover these, one could simply take cues from history, as well as current, foreign democracies. Hopefully, while not forgetting that the internet allows for facilitating work-arounds that weren't possible, historically, or not necessary, in foreign countries with fundamentally different laws.

Consider fusion voting, e.g.. While only legal in 8 states, citizens can do their own fusion voting, via the internet, if a reasonably secure system is created, and it gets reasonable buy-in. As long as citizens carry out their fusion voting ahead of real-world elections, and then follow up by both participating in the real-world elections, all the while cohering as the vote blocs they formed in the online system, they will have something that serves the same purpose.

Another way to discover pieces of missing infrastructure is to see what the corporations and other self-interested lobbying groups are doing, and copying, as appropriate; or counter-acting, when that's appropriate.

E.g., as in the real estate business,  in lobbying location is critical. If you head a progressive group that aims to do face-to-face lobbying, doesn't it make sense to set up shop on K-Street, or thereabouts? If you can afford it, of course?

As another example, it's quite obvious that neither corporations, nor the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party, wanted to make hay about Obama's backstabbing deal with Tauzin. That alone should have been a clue to not just progressives, but to any group of citizens that doesn't appreciate bought and paid for government, that doing the opposite - increasing awareness of Obama's perfidy - was a strategy at least worth considering.

The more or less complete failure of so-called progressive groups to beat Obama over the head with this can only have helped members of the so-called progressive bloc in Congress to roll over. After all, if Obama can tell bald-faced lies, and get away with it, why shouldn't they?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

Systems Have To Be Designed (4.00 / 2)
so that ordinary people will use them. And this:

Consider fusion voting, e.g.. While only legal in 8 states, citizens can do their own fusion voting, via the internet, if a reasonably secure system is created, and it gets reasonable buy-in. As long as citizens carry out their fusion voting ahead of real-world elections, and then follow up by both participating in the real-world elections, all the while cohering as the vote blocs they formed in the online system, they will have something that serves the same purpose.

does not seem very likely to ever meet that test.

OTOH, finding ways to create a much more effective DC presence that reflects broader grassroots networks does seem like something worth pursuing.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well, we're talking hypothetically (0.00 / 0)
But if I have anything to do with the design, I can guarantee that it'll be intuitive. Certainly easier than butterfly ballots in Florida.

My bigger fear is that demagogues will have an easier time of getting the masses to vote irresponsibly. But that presupposes that it will be, if anything, too easy for the common person to use, guided by such spiritual, compassionate beings as Rush Limbaugh.

If all else fails, we can buy the American Idol TV series, and force people to vote in the preceding year, if they want to see the winner, this year, in real time.  :-)

Or Paris Hilton autographs, or whatever.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
My problem with all of this is that it to me continue to miss point (4.00 / 1)
The systemic issue arises out of what progressives believe to be the case rather than what actually is the case. In the quick hit, that's what I am trying to get at with regard to Big Tent Democrats discussion of Nate Silver's telling discussion of progressive bargaining power. The core problem remains that progressives are stuck in a mind set in which even if they are in safe districts they assume they must capitulate. With that mindset, I don't care how many things change in a systemic way, the overall picture, will likely remain the same. Indeed, how can you truly have a systemic change without changing the mindset? Part of the issue too is that activists enable this believe that progressive Congress members are helpless. When I asked Chris about the power of Congressional members, he made it seem like they have very little power. My thought process is "whoah, you are telling me that someone in Congress who can vote yes or not has no power?" To buy this is to assume that all these progressive are in vulnerable districts where they can easily be replaced. If that's not true, then what exactly is threatening them? The president? What?
Not Missing The Point At All (4.00 / 2)
The very essence of the phase change is that local conditions everywhere are reflective of changes throughout the system.  If you lack the mechanisms to coordinate local conditions with systemic ones, then capitulation may result simply because there's no credible plan and framework for moving forward more than one step.  And since games of chess are won by planning multiple steps ahead, the problem is impossible to characterize simply in terms of the individual's characteristics as opposed to in terms of their capacities as members of an organized group.

There's also the issue of asymmetry.  If your agenda is negative, then there's a much lower threashold to reach, and far less planning ahead needed to be "effective".  There's also nothing in the way of a moral dilemma between the overworked duo of "the perfect and the good."

So, in short, I'm not saying you don't have a point.  I'm saying that there's a lot more going on as well, and that only paying attention to the personal shortcomings you focus on instead of the environment they occur in will not be very productive in moving us forward.  If we can substantially improve the systemic framework, then we will be much more able to see who really is a problem in themselves, and who is simply displaying the problems of the system their part of.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I think this is one of the reasons why I am ultimately a moderate (0.00 / 0)
I don't disagree with you about the systemic issues. I just find them ultimately insufficient in explaining individual behavior, especially in an environment where participants have access to information if they simply wanted to look for it, but chose to ignore it because of their own irrational fears.

I know true progressives have a bias toward the systemic issues. I am a moderate progressive so I am not saying they don't exist. I agree absolutely that they exist. That's what makes me a progressive. I know personally how much the system matters. However, what makes me a moderate is that I know how much individual accountability maters too.

I simply don't think the systemic issues excuse the personal responsibility of the representatives here. There needs to be better organization and better support. Absolutely. But, there also needs to be accountability. And, I don't think improving the system alone addresses that without also calling the individuals out for their part in all of this or saying when they are showing moments of courage.

I don't see this as either/or. I just don't want to underplay the need for accountability, which starts with defining what to hold people accountable for.  

[ Parent ]
You're Ignoring Significant Complications (4.00 / 1)
And as a result, I think you're perceiving a different difference than I am--since I'm in no way anti-accountability in general.  Let me explain:

It's very difficult to hold folks accountable for things when situations are very fluid, and people's shared perceptions of what's going on--much less what things mean--may not be so widely shared as they thought, one minute to the next.

What the phase-transition metaphor does is that it helps to explain that the extent to which it makes sense to lean hard on accountability varies in different circumstances.  I'm not saying that accountability isn't important.  But I am saying that it takes work by all of us to create the conditions in which accountability is much less of a problematic issue to focus on.

In fact, this very much gets to the heart of one of my main problems with Obama: his whole "looking forward, not backward" trope was all about making it virtually impossible to hold anyone accountable for anything, except for the poor slobs who actually live and work in America, as opposed to Wall Street or Versailles.

Indeed, that lack of accountability is part of how I would characterize the neo-liberal phase-state we're in.  And the social-democratic phase-state I'd like to see us in would be one characterized by a much richer framework of accountability.

But until we're there, we need to recognize the ambiguity and difficulty of defining accountability in the state we're now in.  Otherwise it's all too easy--not to mention emotionally satisfying--to confuse blame and responsibility.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The core way we can achieve what you are describing (0.00 / 0)
accountability- including with regard to the president and neo-liberal ideological failures- is for progressive to be the circuit breaker. I am not trying to underestimate how important and difficult their job is. I understand that it is difficult. My point is that none of that ultimately can be used as what I see an excuse. I don't think you and I are going to agree here. That's fine. At least you engage my actual arguments, which is often frustrating enough to deal with when someone doesn't even engage the actual argument. My thesis is simple: I don't think things change until progressives change because no one else seems ready to admit that the car is headed over the cliff. We are the last best chance for things to change around in this country. The rest of the system won't or can't.
[ Parent ]
That's Fine (4.00 / 1)
I understand your argument, and I appreciate the logic of it.  There's really no way to tell whether you're right or I am--only time can tell.  (Remember, I'm proposing a model here, not an "iron law of history" type of horseshit.) And so it would be fruitless to continue arguing.  I think we've accomplished a level of clarity about each other's views that's about as far as this can go--at least for now.

I'll just say that my main motivation here is to get folks redirected in a more positive direction.  And that seems to be your motivation as well, given how you see things.

So, we're good.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I got to admit (on a personal level) I like when people can disagree with out having to hear (0.00 / 0)
without my argument being distorted to score cheap points. Normal, at this point in the conversation, I would expect to be told I just want millions of people to die or hate Obama or some other useless attempt to distort my meaning.  
[ Parent ]
Phases (4.00 / 2)
Perhaps the problem isn't the phase but the substance.  I'm tempted to think we did change congress and the presidency correctly -- they are now in the correct phase.  The problem lies elsewhere, in the larger environment.  What needs to change is conventional wisdom of what is possible, particularly Washington insider CW.  That, in turn, probably requires changing popular belief outside of Washington.

Passing this bill, actually, will go a long way in helping.  We all know this is basically a good conservative bill, one conservatives would offer and pass if they actually cared about fixing anything.  (Not that they ever tried, obviously, in all the years they had power.)  But conventional wisdom believes this is a huge tax and spend scheme that cannot pass in the modern, conservative era.  Heck, strike that; they don't even consider this an "era".  They think this cannot pass because we are a conservative country.

Pass this, and the realm of the possible shifts.  This fails, and the Versailles are proven correct.

(I actually didn't want to bring HCR into this, but when looking for an example, I couldn't think of anything else.  This shows how systems play off each other, as well.)

I Think There's A Good Deal of Truth In This (4.00 / 2)
at least potentially.  I think that earlier on the talk of this being a "first step" that could be corrected later was often offered in bad faith.  I think that the kind of struggle it's become has changed the dynamics of the possible and the probable.

Still, I think there's more to it than that.  Neoliberal ideology still dominates, and neoliberal ideology is basic incapable of solving--or even fully comprehending--the problems that we face.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I believe that Democrats have had a can opener the whole time (4.00 / 2)
But they were convinced it was a bad opener, compared to the nice new one that movement conservatives had assembled.  As a result, they ignored it, or even boycotted it long enough for it become a mass of rusty metal, that doesn't work very well, and simply requires some oil, steel wool and a good sharpening.
 We have a lot of factions, from the green movement to LGBT issue politics, social justice and Public education, among many others.  What we need, more than a can opener, is the ability to get our two hands to work on one action.  
 The can opener is urban America, and a little political Jujitsu reversing the momentum created by the "Culture War" waged by conservative America (or, as they say, "Real" America) on "the other" America is long over-due.  
 All of the separate factions of the Democratic Party are united in large urban areas, whether they like it or not, it's where they live.  The little blue islands are our home "bases," in a physical sense, and they are in need of the focus of our National Party.  They are the fulcrum of the can opener, and, for that reason, are the most obvious cause for building a "movement."  
The problem is that, as the ACORN scam got pitch perfect, all the conservatives have to do is slap a negative urban stereotype on something, and, bing-o, conservative Democrats "fight or flight" response flips to "Auto-flight."  Convince them to stand-up and fight back against this smear campaign, and it will go a good distance to combat their rep as weak, while maximizing the impact of stimulating the economy with Americas engines of economy, and the impact of "greening" America as well.

If we can create a movement for urban America, I believe we will become the "phase transition" we were waiting for.  

Yes, and the destruction of ACORN needs to be undone, ACORN needs rebuilding. (4.00 / 2)
We have to start now.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
i like this idea (4.00 / 2)
"The real America is in the cities."

Of course, and this is the part that rankles a bit for my liberal sensibilities, to turn the culture war tide we would have to find ways to demonize the other side. granted there are ways to do that, but they are pretty ugly.

but your broader point I think is the right one, that the can opener exists, we just need to get the two hands working together. There is a huge progressive movement out there that lives and works together. It just is completely ineffective on the one hand at adequately including the working class because of its disconnection from organized labor, and on the other hand because there is so much single issue organizing going on. when really it needs to be clear that green activism, civil rights activism, public education activism, and anti-corporate anti-globalization activism are all part of one big team rather than a bunch of little teams trying to play different games on the same field.

[ Parent ]
If we need to demomize anyone, it should be those wish to drive wedges into the union (4.00 / 1)
You stated it very well, but instead of focusing on demonizing the opposition, we need to build positive images of urban America.  Like the "I am" ads that have been ran from time to time, "I am urban America" spoken by as many diverse and unique characters as one can imagine.  From "cowboys" and soldiers to young mothers and first generation immigrants.  Play down the "diversity and multiculturalism is scary and threatening," play-up themes like "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," or even, when speaking in terms of cultural acceptance or civil liberties, "wider is better."
The notion is to bring people together into a movement, those who want to drive wedges do nothing to make a more perfect union.  Obama campaigned a lot on Lincoln, I believe that he could convince spineless Dems that they will win, if the fight they pick is for a more perfect union through tolerance, rather than another civil war for some kind of xenophobic ideological purity.
[ Parent ]
maybe but... (0.00 / 0)
i think that big tent stuff is part of what's giving us so much trouble moving the ball at the moment. There comes a time where people have to rally around an ideology and as much as I want to live in a world where we can all get along, that sort of tactic is not going to work against a devil like Glenn Beck. Yes wider is better, but a successful strategy needs an enemy and a strong offense as well as the sort of defensive tactic you're talking about. The problem as I see it is that the Left has endured attacks from the right too apologetically for too long and that's let the common wisdom inside the beltway drift to the right as it has.

It's time we stopped just putting our own thoughts out there, and a milquetoast version of them at that. We also need to attack the intolerance, the stupidity of laissez faire monetarism, and the push towards fundamentalist theocracy. It cant just be that our ideas are better, its that their ideas are no good at all. And that's true of the neoliberal free market stuff that buys into their worldview as much as it is of anything in the republican platform.

[ Parent ]
Diversity IS The Ideology (4.00 / 4)
Or at least it's deeply intertwined in its foundations.

Cities have been engines of progressive politics since at least the time of ancient Greece.  Reaffirming them and the diversity they encourage, embrace and celebrate is a very good place to start messaging.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
Thanks, Paul.

But, as Harry Moroz at Drum Major Institute is good at pointing out, they are also engines of our economy.  If you want a movement, starting it where our politics and our economy (along with our numbers) are the strongest and will have the most access to publicity and impact seems a custom fit.
I don't see how we have allowed the Democrats to ignore it for so long, but I think they do so because their Neo-liberal masters are in the process of privatizing everything in them, and don't want either party getting in their way.  It's important that someone does, though.

[ Parent ]
I agree with you about Urban America (4.00 / 3)
but I don't want us to fall into the trap I see so often among some liberal elites like Bill Maher, who make fun of rural people calling them "hillbillies," "crackers," "red necks," or other insults.

The rural poor should be part of our base.  They used to be.  We lost them in the culture war started by Nixon, escalated by Reagan and perfected by Buchanon, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the Tea Party.

I don't want us to write them off.  I want us to fight for them (in both senses: fight to win them back to our sides, fight for their economic needs.)

We need to focus like a laser on identifying the real villain, the villain that is stealing the dream of both the rural and the urban working class- the Plutocrats.  Let's call them "The Man."

I am a wild person.  Personally I hate the suit, both the male and female versions, but more the male version.  I especially hate the black suit and short haircut style that has dominated the establishment for a decade.  The people we need to reach DO NOT WEAR SUITS.  So why do progressive leaders and politicians wear suits?  My wild idea is that we so identify with the working class that we get rid of suits and ties.  We should dress in the kind of clothes that working people wear when they go to work when we go to work.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Oh, You Mean Like Michael Moore Does! (4.00 / 2)
What does he know?  He's just the most famous documentary film-maker of all time.

I last wore a suit circa 1992, as I recall.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Barack Obama And Bill Clinton Are Campaigning For Blanche Lincoln (0.00 / 0)
Too many here probably think that this has nothing to do with this discussion, but they're wrong.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.
Not Sure What You Mean (4.00 / 1)
This is quintessential neoliberal vs. social democrat.  How would it not have something to do with this discussion?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
We Never Entered A Phase Transition (4.00 / 1)
Obama and Clinton are trying to prevent it from happening.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.
[ Parent ]
Getting Rid of Bush-Cheney (0.00 / 0)
was most certainly a phase transition in US politics.

Just not the one that most progressives hoped and expected.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I Disagree. (4.00 / 1)
The Cheney-Bush regime had a lot of help from democrats. Those same democrats are now being kept out of the pressure cooker by the ones we selected to succeed the Cheney-Bush regime.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.
[ Parent ]
I often say that it seems the president has his finger on the scale (0.00 / 0)
to make certain the status quo will retain power at all cost. Even when sometimes it makes no sense at all. He will call someone he thinks will lose who is progressive in a progressive state to tell them not to run, but he will endorse and support someone like the Sen. from AR who has horrible polling numbers. The double standard to me is quite telling of his mind set.  
[ Parent ]
The Phase Transition Hasn't Occured Yet (0.00 / 1)
President Obama (and President Clinton) could single-handedly transfer enough votes to Lincoln's opponent. That is a micro issue in which the president, an individual, is on the wrong side.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't characterize … (0.00 / 0)
... a 'somewhat slower destruction of the middle class' as a 'phase transition'. Can you cite the policies Obama has implemented which have structurally benefited the middle (or working) class to the detriment of the financial elite? (The stimulus was important - even critical, though inadequate - but it's clearly unsustainable and does nothing to address the structural features of our economy which are funneling middle class wealth into upper class coffers AFAICT.)

And, in all honesty, I'm not 100% sure the destruction of the middle class IS slower than it has been pre-Obama, given the way the financial bailout pledges the assets of current and future aspirees to the middle class to cover the horrendous losses of the financial elite, or the way Obama's HIR is based to a large extent on denuding people of what little bargaining power they have now with the medical insurance monopolies (i.e. the power to at least 'walk away').* However, I remain open-minded about this and to the possibility that my perceptions are being affected by my feelings of, um, extreme frustration at the chasm of difference disparity between the presidential candidate I supported and the one that ended up taking up residence at the WH.

* Since I'm a new commenter here, I should probably be clear that I'm a staunch single payer advocate (though I would have been grudgingly in favor of a public option compromise), i.e. I'm not opposed to 'mandatory health insurance,' I'm vehemently opposed to 'mandatory purchase of a defective product from a substantially unregulated private monopoly'.

[ Parent ]
It requires something we havn't mastered... (4.00 / 1)
the ability to muster liberal support and promote progressive ideas at the state level.  Conservatives use action and lawsuits at the state level in offensive maneuvers against the Federal Gov (even if in threat only) on specific chokepoint social issues to rally support.

At best we get California challenging Fed emission laws, which while good, is not sexy in a media environment set up to mock environmental enforcement, and at worst we get counterproductive stunts funded by the ACLU challenging some symbol on a flag or a word in the Pledge - suits which only seem to serve as proof to our opposition that, yes, we do intend to litigate every minute social interaction as a vehicle for redress and control.

I mean I seriously had to withhold my ACLU support for a few years after suing California over a Mission on the flag. That was just so not a civil rights priority... but I'm getting off subject.

On fights like healthcare, why didn't we try and enlist more support from Democratic Governors to press harder publicly for reform?  Why were the examples of states where care is already at or near mandate - Mass and Hawaii, for example - not the subject of daily debate, if not a class action lawsuit demanding the same level of care in Washington as Massachusetts?  Indeed, now that reform is about to become law, it could be argued - in Conservative terms - that healthcare is now a 'right,' so why not use lawsuits and pressure individual States to demand that the Federal Gov finish the deal - ensure that that 'right' is fairly administered through a public option.  These types of actions may or may not have merit, as far as the law goes, but as we see from the right - that doesn't much matter if your goal is awareness and fund-raising.

Second, even though the aim is to focus less on the 'individualistic' paradigm, since the issues we are promoting are social justice in nature, we need individual examples of injustice to highlight our causes.   It's very easy for glib commentators to ignore their banker friends and focus on the underclasses as the source of the economic collapse - natural, human even - so where are our O'Keefs with cameras highlighting the actual problems in entertaining ways?

Unfortunately, Conservatives have spent decades or more chipping away at the legitimacy of liberal social support - can the average person name even one labor leader? I'm not even sure who the president of my own union is. Structures like these need to be rebuilt and maintained.

Third, we need a really loony but entertaining demagogue to demonize corporate abuse and move the discourse left all the while seeming on the verge of breakdown.

Yes, Indeed (0.00 / 0)
You're capturing the flavor of the multi-level, multi-faceted nature of hegemonic struggle rather nicely here.

It's not rocket science.  Heck, if conservatives could learn to do it....

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I said before we need to stop being reasonable (4.00 / 2)
Liberals unestimate the importance of being insane when it comes to moving the overton window.
[ Parent ]
And Right On Que... (0.00 / 0)
Conservative AG's all over the country file merit-less lawsuits against the Communist takeover of healthcare for the sole purpose of keeping the base riled up.  See?  We need to do more of this stuff.
[ Parent ]
A rule of thumb--leading to thoughts about phase transtions and social systems change | 76 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