I've been thinking a lot about the concept of hegemony, and reading Antonio Gramsci. I'll be posting a few reflections here as I go. Cross-posted at BeyondtheChoir.org
Years ago, I remember growing wary of tendencies (within activist groups I was part of) to exaggerate and glorify supposedly "spontaneous" elements of activism and protest. Some group members often recounted protests and direct actions as if what transpired had been spontaneous, even when the same individuals had themselves participated in elaborate planning meetings and preparations for the actions. What bothered me more was when this fiction of spontaneity mutated until it held a central place in some group members' theory of change. The "theory" seemed to hold that if a few committed activists were willing to be "militant" enough, their actions might somehow inspire more people to do likewise; change would ultimately occur as a result of a spontaneous mass uprising of this sort.
Septima Clark and Rosa Parks at Highlander Folk School just before the Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955.
The myth of spontaneity also seemed present in how the broader society viewed protest and collective action-when it wasn't ignored entirely-and this bothered me too. The story of Rosa Parks' refusal, for example, was popularly told and retold as the story of a woman who was tired, who had had enough, and who spontaneously refused to unfairly give up her seat to a white rider on the bus. I had learned what really happened: that Rosa Parks was a seasoned community leader; that she had had many strategic discussions with other leaders about this very action beforehand; that she had been part of strategic trainings at the Highlander Folk School, a center that had trained many Civil Rights and labor leaders (including Martin Luther King Jr.). The story of, "I was tired," annoyed me because it felt to me that it took political agency out of the equation. The implied lesson seemed to be, "If you, as an individual, muster the courage to stand up and do what's right, you may just kick off a whole movement (spontaneously)." The more accurate and instructive lesson, in my opinion, would have been, "If you plan with others, prepare yourself and others, build strong relationships in your community, develop a strategy for action, and build community buy-in, then you may be able to effectively intervene in the historical process."
I was surprised then to learn later that Rosa Parks and other Civil Rights leaders had intentionally created and spread this myth of spontaneity. Sociologist Francesca Polletta discusses this in her book It Was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics:
For American activists during much of the last century, one of the thorniest challenges was to avoid charges of communist influence. Representing protest as homegrown and spur-of-the-moment was a way to deflect claims that it was controlled by "outsiders," which meant Communists. In the Tallahassee, Florida, sit-in campaign, adult leaders who helped plan the sit-ins denied their own involvement for that very reason. Rosa Park's activism before the Montgomery bus boycott included a stint at the Highlander Folk School, a radical education center in Tennessee that was branded a "communist training school" soon after Parks's visit. This was reason enough for Montgomery activists to cast her as a political neophyte. Betty Friedan had also spent time at the Highlander Center. In addition to fearing redbaiting, she presumably wanted to appeal to women who had not been exposed to radical ideas and settings. Movement stories, in this view, are strategic bids for public support.
In the past fifty years, the Civil Rights movement has changed America more than any other social movement. The efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King and others profoundly altered America's treatment of its minorities, in a way which represents one of its most powerful domestic accomplishments over the past century.
Yet one aspect of the Civil Rights movement has always been neglected in the conventional history of the movement. This was its connection to the Cold War. For America to win the Cold War, Civil Rights was a necessity. Continuing domestic discrimination against non-white minorities would make it impossible to win over the newly-free Third World.
The Toronto Star sent a reporter to a "Spy Cruise" gathering of intelligence community types, which included former CIA Director Porter Goss and former NSA Director Michael Hayden, and landed some revealing quotes:
About 30 minutes into an interview on an outdoor deck aboard the "spy cruise," the issue of Osama bin Laden arises.
"What can you do with him?" asks Porter Goss, the former head of the CIA, as he settles back in a padded lounge chair.
"Are we going to sit him on a deckchair and ask him to cooperate? Or are we going to put him in a place where he can't leave?"
Goss's point is this: Now that the Obama administration has outlawed harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, shut the CIA covert "black sites" around the world and frowned upon renditions, what are the options open to America's intelligence service?
He insists the CIA "enhanced" methods worked.
"There are undeniable, provable, extraordinary successes," Goss said when asked about waterboarding - an interrogation technique that U.S. President Barack Obama denounced as torture.
The whole article is worth reading (it's not lengthy) as a revealing look at the incredible obstinancy of the anything-for-national-defence crowd as represented by the two keynote speakers to this floating conference. As much as I agree with the main thrust of Glenn Greenwald's criticism of the Obama administration on these issues, it might amaze anyone who hasn't watched the way the right operates to see how completely unmoved they are toward the many ways in which Obama has compromised core civil liberties and US treaty obligations. If Obama listened to the left, Goss and Hayden would likely be in jail, rather than carping about him from the deck of a luxury cruise ship.
On a political tactical level, this highlights the futility of trying to placate these extremists since they can't be assauged by anything short of utter capitulation and meanwhile it just puts off Obama's own natural allies and base. That said, obviously these decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of political tactics, but it's worth noting that if that was the real rationale (since the Obama admin's given rationale on so many of their compromises on this front don't make much sense in policy terms), it's not working.
It also bolsters the need for stronger political oversight of these organizations as Hayden hides behind an astonishingly narrow technocratic view of his role, acting as he or other intelligence officials who participated in the widescale violation of US and international law bear no responsibility for the harm to the US from those actions. But then this is Hayden's perspective:
Hayden said he is tired of the criticism and doesn't believe the CIA's use of waterboarding or covert interrogation sites affected the U.S.'s reputation or fuelled Al Qaeda's propaganda.
Equal opportunity is one of our nation's most valuable national assets.
On September 27, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General reinvigorated our nation's commitment to opportunity for all people by releasing a memorandum adopting The Opportunity Agenda's ongoing policy recommendations for the economic recovery.
To comply with civil rights requirements prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, and gender in federally funded programs, the Attorney General stated that federal agencies should consider:
It's been a few days now since we began a conversation that addresses the issue of how frustrated some number of LBGT voters are with the Democratic Party this cycle; this because they find themselves either frustrated at the lack of progress on the civil rights issues that matter to them, or because they see both the Democratic and Republican Parties as unreliable partners in the struggle to assure equal rights for all.
In an effort to practice some actual journalism, I assembled a version of an online "focus group" at The Bilerico Project ("daily adventures in LBGTQ"), with the goal of gathering some opinions on this subject in the actual words of those frustrated voters.
Part One of this story focused on "stating the problem", and today we'll take on Part Two: in this environment, with Election Day staring us in the face, what is an LBGT voter to do?
As before, there are a variety of opinions, including a very informative comment I was able to obtain from a genuine Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th District, and that means until the very end you won't hear much from me, except to help "set the stage" for the comments that follow.
Even more than Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour has a vested interest in rewriting the history of the civil rights struggle, since he was on the wrong side, inflaming racial resentment as an operative in Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy" to bring racist whites into the GOP in 1968--a legacy he needs to spin into its opposite as he positions himself for a potential run against Barack Obama in 2012. His strategy has been to portray Southern Republicans of his generation as the exact opposite of what they were--as post-racial progressives in contract to the older generation of Democrats.
The reality, of course, is that his main mission was getting those older Democrats to vote for Nixon, regardless how they were registered. But that overwhelming historical fact is not what's causing him headaches right now. The GOP has long since mastered the art of the big lie. It's the little things that are tripping up, as he tries to reinvent his own personal history as someone who lived in a 21st Century post-racial bubble in the midst of the bloody racial violence of 1960s Mississippi.
Haley Barbour, race, Ole Miss - from black perspective
WASHINGTON - It's hard to believe that Haley Barbour and Verna Bailey attended the same University of Mississippi in 1965, and even sat next to each other in a class.
Barbour, who's now the governor of Mississippi and a possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, recalls that time - when Ole Miss was being forced to integrate - as "a very pleasant experience."
Bailey does not. At times, she said, "I thought my life was going to end."
He's white. She was the first black female to attend.
Their seats were assigned alphabetically, and he said they developed a friendly rapport. She let him copy her notes when he skipped class.
"I still love her," he quipped.
He remembers her name almost as if it were yesterday, though he'd recalled her middle name as Lee. It's Ann.
She knows Barbour as a prominent politician who attended her alma mater. Until a reporter called, she said, she didn't realize they'd met.
Their vastly different impressions of that time expose the challenges that any Southern conservative faces when trying to recast the experience of the civil rights era. They could prove especially sensitive for this white Republican governor of the blackest state in the union if he mounts a challenge to the nation's first black president.
Race isn't the only thing for Barbour to deal with, the story notes, but...
You know, it seems like every time I write a letter I have to begin by apologizing for not having written in so long, and that's the case again today.
We only get a few days of real summer up here every year, and I was out having fun at golf tournaments and doing a bit of climbing around the local hills-and you know, I do love doing a bit of nothing at all from time to time-but while I was away, things have gotten even crazier than usual around here...and I'm sorry to say, you've been on the pointy end of the crazy stick, which is something that never should have happened.
Things have been so nutty that you're probably thinking America has something against Islam-in fact, you might be wondering if we have something against our own Constitution.
Well, we don't, most of us, and I'll take a few minutes today to help y'all understand just what is going on in this country.
Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is known for housing inmates in tent cities in the desert and making them wear pink clothes as humiliation, but also for allegations of racial profiling and abusive treatment of Latinos, inside and outside of his jailhouse.
On September 2, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office, challenging Arpaio’s refusal to demonstrate that his office is complying with federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the suit alleges that the Sheriff’s Office has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity by institutions, like the Sheriff’s Office, that receive federal funds, and requires them to document their compliance.
cross-posted from Sum of Change and check out Pam Spaulding's post at PHB for more thoughts and discussion.
Yesterday we sent cameras to Glenn Beck's 828 rally and Al Sharpton's rally and march. We posted a handfull of videos from each. But first, a personal comment, if you don't mind. My parents and grandparents were civil rights activists (not to mention anti-war activists and labor organizers). On the same grass where we stood yesterday, my mother stood 47 years ago to watch Martin Luther King Jr. declare his dream for the world. I highly doubt anyone will remember yesterday the way my mother remembers 47 years ago.
The airwaves (and the print and blog waves, for that matter) are filled with the news that a Federal Judge in California has declared that State's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, which could clear the way for the resumption of same-sex weddings in the State.
Ordinarily, this would be the point where I would present to you a walkthrough of the ruling, and we'd have a fine conversation about the legal implications of what has happened.
I'm not doing that today, frankly, because the ground is already well-covered; instead, we're going to take a look at some of the tactics that were used to pass Prop 8, as they were presented in Judge Vaughan's opinion.
It's an ugly story-and even more than that, it's a reminder of why it's tough to advance civil rights through the political process, and what you have to deal with when you're trying to make such a thing happen.
We are back, just a bit late, to wrap up the discussion we began about the pair of rulings issued in Boston by Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro this week that declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.
I don't usually tell you the end of the story at the beginning, but this time I will: there are a lot of happy Plaintiffs this week, and the Federal Government, as Defendant (whom I will refer to as "the Feds" from time to time), is not so happy at the moment.
As with last time, there's a lot of ground to cover, and the sooner we get to it, the better.
Mark Penn has published a fairly interesting set of polling around the views of Americans on various constitutional questions (Poll slide show here).
In his write up at HuffPo, Penn writes the following bit of alarming interpretation on two questions in the poll:
In another contentious area, respondents rank protecting national security as slightly more important than protecting civil liberties by a margin of 44 to 39. And while 31 percent disagree, 56 percent of Americans can see circumstances in which the police should be allowed to violate civil liberties for national security -- giving support for the so-called ticking time bomb exception when extraordinary means might be sanctioned to secure needed information.
Wait, what? Now, torturing someone is a violation of their civil liberties, but there are a lot of civil liberties violations that are significantly less severe than torture, and this strikes me as (at minimum) an extremely sloppy polling question on which to base an inference like Penn makes.
I was talking with some friends this weekend who were part of the movement to pass the Civil Rights bills of 1964. They were telling me how many compromises had to be made to get the '64 bill passed, that voting rights and housing were both stripped out of the bill before it got through, and that these compromises were especially painful because they assumed that no more civil rights bills would be passed in the near term because it had taken so long to get just one big civil rights bill through. The '64 victory, though, gave them momentum to get the Voting Rights Act in '65 and then the Fair Housing bill in 1968. Each struggle was very difficult and very painful, each one had compromises that hurt, but they became the victories that ended Jim Crow in this country once and for all and firmly established the idea of equality as the accepted norm in how this country should operate.
Each victory made the others possible. King and Lewis and the other civil rights leaders understood this foundational principle of organizing, as Alinsky and Reuther and John L. Lewis in the decades before. Winning some thing makes people believe they can win something else.
In the epic battles progressives are facing today, we need to remember that lesson.
(1) The Civil Rights Movement was much more involved in fighting private discrimination that Rand Paul acknowledges, which means there is no way that Paul would have marched with Martin Luther King.
(2) The Civil Rights Act was much more involved in fighting private discrimination that Rand Paul acknowledges, which means there is no way that Paul would have supported it.
(3) Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was largely based on the same broad reasons that Rand Paul has a problem with it.
(4) Private discrimination has played a significant role in conservative politics in the years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, which means it is anything but an historical irrelevancy.
(5) Libertarians have a very different vision of "freedom" from the Civil Rights vision, although they take great pains to obscure the fact. In fact, the libertarian vision of freedom was part of what helped keep slavery in place, as well as what helped justify opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.
In the end, because of length, I did little more than state the last point. In this diary, I will complete what I started.
In his book Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea, George Lakoff lays out the argument that liberals and conservatives mean very different things when they talk about "freedom", which has a common core meaning that liberals and conservatives flesh out in very different ways.
Lakoff's argument is developed in terms of concepts, and how they how they emerge from concrete physical experience into realms of increasing abstraction. While the root meaning of freedom, common to virtually all of us, is grounded in the physical reality that freedom of movement is fundamental to our well-being, and that physical restraints are the most fundamental restrictions on our freedom as creatures, the ways that liberals and conservatives flesh out the meaning of freedom diverges so fundamentally that neither can understand the other.
Rather than go through Lakoff's arguments, however, I want to take this general perspective he lays out and apply it to the history discussed in the previous diary. In particular, I want to stress that the civil rights struggle for freedom was grounded in much longer historical struggle, which had its origins in the initial resistance to becoming slaves in the first place. It was, in short, a struggle that was directly about the most fundamental physical meaning of freedom that is common to all definitions of it.
Rand Paul made such a fool of himself the week before last, that it was understandable folks might miss perhaps the most foolish--and most telling--thing of all that he said. When asked point-blank on NPR if he would say that the Civil Rights Act was "an overreach by the federal government", he didn't just duck the question, he claimed he would have marched with Matrin Luther King " to overturn institutional racism". As became quite clear later in the day on the Rachel Maddow Show, he was really opposed to letting the government do anything about private discrimination, because it violated his libertarian model of freedom for business-owners. And freedom for libertarians is all about property. In this diary, I want to make five basic points:
(1) The Civil Rights Movement was much more involved in fighting private discrimination that Rand Paul acknowledges, which means there is no way that Paul would have marched with Martin Luther King.
(2) The Civil Rights Act was much more involved in fighting private discrimination that Rand Paul acknowledges, which means there is no way that Paul would have supported it.
(3) Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was largely based on the same broad reasons that Rand Paul has a problem with it.
(4) Private discrimination has played a significant role in conservative politics in the years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, which means it is anything but an historical irrelevancy.
(5) Libertarians have a very different vision of "freedom" from the Civil Rights vision, although they take great pains to obscure the fact. In fact, the libertarian vision of freedom was part of what helped keep slavery in place, as well as what helped justify opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.
Let's turn to the record. Here's the passage in the NPR interview:
SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.
SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. [Goes on to talk about wheelchair access, etc.]
STATE BLOGS
