In January of 1998, the news about Monica Lewinsky exploded in the Washington media world. It was 24-7, and red hot intense. Within 72 hours, Republicans were calling for Clinton's resignation or impeachment, and some Democrats- even some liberal ones like Paul Wellstone- were on the verge of doing the same. Clinton survived the first barrage of calls for him to step down, but as that long year wore on, and more and more salacious news came out- topped off by the stained dress in August- it looked worse and worse for both Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Republicans were salivating at their prospects in the November elections, and Democrats were running scared. Pundits were predicting big losses for the Democrats in Congress: 30 plus seats in the House and five or six in the Senate. It didn't turn out that way, though. For the first time in 176 years, the party with a President in office in his 6th year actually picked up seats in the Congress (we picked up 5 in the House, while staying even in the Senate.) Without going into detail as to why (if you want to know more about that, you can go here), the bottom line is that progressives outside the party structure helped chart a bold strategy for winning that made all the difference.
Instead of avoiding the President's problems, we made the case that it was time for the country to move on, that all the Republicans wanted to do was wallow in the mud, and instead the country needed to focus on solving our problems. After initially resisting this approach, Democrats ended up embracing it, and we shocked the political world by picking up five seats instead of losing 30.
2010 is a very different kind of year, but it also looks bad for Democrats right now. It feels a lot like 1994 right now, with a weak economy, an impassioned right wing movement, and a discouraged Democratic base. We didn't do very well in the 2009 elections, and forecasts of ugly job numbers for a long time to come are making a lot of voters feel angry and discouraged. But I am convinced that there is a strategy that can turn the 2010 election around. That strategy needs to be built around health care, jobs, and taking on the big banks. None of these things are easy, but I am convinced that they are by far the best hope Democrats have.
Make no mistake, whatever else it takes, mass action is needed to make real change happen, and we're one week away from two important opportunities to do that. Go to these sits to learn more about them.
October 24th is an internal day of climate action, sponsoed by 350.org, with over 3500 events scheduled around the world, in 161 countries. 350 parts per million is the CO2 threshold we need to get below in order to avoid the worst of global warming. Find an action near you on the map here.
October 25-27 is the Showdown in Chicago, pitting the people against the plutocracy at the American Bankers Association annual meeting in Chicago.
Schedule of Events
Note: all times are approximate and subject to change If you wish to join us at the Showdown, please fill out a Showdown Inquiry Form
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2009 3:00pm - Welcoming & Kick Off to the Showdown Americans from all walks of life come together to roll up our sleeves and start working together on how we ensure we have a financial system that benefits people.
7:00pm - Community Dinner
Break bread with people from across the country.
8:00pm - Workshops: Financial Reform that Protects People and Creates a Recovery on Main Street
MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2009 DAY OF ACTION
The American People take our grievances and proposals for change directly to the worst actors in the financial crisis - the banks and lobbyists who caused the crisis and even now continue to block reforms the that will help American families recover.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 MARCH TO THE BANKER'S CONVENTION 10:00am - Prayer vigil on Wacker, east of Michicagan Avenue
10:30am - March: starting at Stetson and Wacker
11:00am - Rally at the Sheraton Hotel (301 East North Water Street, Chicago)
Another week, another perplexing Michael Lind piece in Salon, "Can Obama give 'em hell before it's too late?". First, the good part, to dispel the false impression that I'm constantly bad-mouthing him. Toward the end of his article he imagines the sort of speech that Obama ought to give, in the spirit of FDR during the 1936 campaign. "A Rooseveltian or Trumanesque campaign speech, addressing the concerns of the American majority, invoking the heroic history of American reform and naming the enemy, practically writes itself," he says. This is how it begins:
"My fellow Americans, we say that healthcare is a right of all citizens. The other party says that it is a privilege for those who can afford it. If you agree with them that healthcare is a privilege, not a right, then vote for them. We would like to persuade you to join us, but if we can't, then we are going to defeat you.
"Decades ago our opponents tried to block Social Security and Medicare, using the same bogus arguments that they are using today against healthcare reform. They said Social Security and Medicare would bankrupt the country. They were wrong. Once we fix the cost inflation of our broken medical sector, with some minor tweaks Social Security and Medicare can be made solvent forever.
"Decades ago, our opponents said that Social Security and Medicare would turn the United States into a fascist or communist police state. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. And not only are they wrong, they are hypocritical. Many of our opponents who claim absurdly that universal healthcare will bring tyranny to the U.S. have defended some of the greatest assaults on civil liberties and the rule of law in American history during the previous administration.
"They can draw a Hitler mustache on me. They can draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa, for all I care. They are wrong and we are going to defeat them.
"We won the elections and we are the majority. We would like to build the biggest consensus possible, but progress is more important than consensus. Our job is to help the American people, not split the difference between right and wrong by giving a veto to the party that the American people have rejected....
I agree totally. That would be a great speech. Where I differ from Lind is not in terms what the Democrats need to do. It's in terms of understanding why they don't.
Once again this week, Michael Lind has written a piece for Salon that's distorted by his own preconceptions, and ghosts from his political past. This time, however, the main thrust is sounder, and the preconceptions considerably less odious. Yet the misconceptions remain significant enough that they warrant serious attention-as does his main thesis. In "Liberalism without labor unions?" Lind attacks the notion that the party can survive by effectively marginalizing the core economic concerns of its traditionally working-class base. On this point, Lind and I are in complete agreement, no questions asked. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that my critique goes deeper than his in some ways--but that's an issue for another time. At any rate, I can point to repeated pieces by Chris Hedges that I think make this case much better, and more deeply than Lind has done.
That said, if we want to change the Democratic Party, so that it truly represents those that it should represent, then we need an analysis that gets the problem right, not just in its broad sweep, but also in its breakdown into actionable chunks. And this is where my problems with Lind come to the fore.
As before, Lind is confused over the fact that minorities are disproportionately more working class than whites--as, too, as women. The centrality of this misconception cannot be ignored, when his second paragraph reads thus:
I have been in the battling-the-rich-and-powerful-on-behalf-of-the-poor-and-middle- income business for a very long time now (almost 30 years), and it can get pretty discouraging at times. For one thing, in some news that I am sure will be shattering to you, the rich and powerful have a lot more money. And they have seemed to have a lot more political friends over that era than do the poor and the middle income folks combined.
But hope rises anew from time to time, and there are encouraging signs. The most obvious one, of course, is that we have a President and both houses of Congress led by center-left politicians who will be with the poor and middle income quite a bit more than their predecessors in the Bush White House and the Republican led Congress - not always, of course, but more than the last set of politicians. But my hopes are rising for a lot less visible reasons than that.
More on what those reasons on in the extended entry.
By the two most common measures--family income and education--Hillary Clinton appears to have eeked out her narrow victory in New Hampshire by taking a populist advantage, according to exit polls. Although it certainly wasn't the overt thrust of her campaign, it certainly was a distinct, if not overwhelming result, while Edwards, he did run an overtly populist campaign, showed no appreciable class difference, and Obama skewed wealthier and more educated:
Vote By Income
Family income:
% Total
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
$15-30,000
9
51
14
30
$30-50,000
18
44
16
32
$50-75,000
23
33
19
40
$75-100,000
16
36
18
42
$100-150,000
17
33
17
44
$150-200,000
6
46
15
34
$200,000 or More
6
37
12
43
Vote By Income
Family income:
% Total
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Less than $50,000
33
47
15
32
$50,000 or more
67
35
17
41
Vote By Education
Last grade of school completed
% Total
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
No High School
3
61
9
28
High school graduate
17
46
17
31
Some college / associate degree
27
40
16
40
College graduate
29
38
18
37
Postgraduate study
24
31
16
43
Vote By Education
Last grade of school completed
% Total
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
High school graduate or less
19
49
16
30
More than high school grad
81
37
17
40
As Chris noted:
Over the last twenty-four hours, there were media character assassination attempts against Clinton because she showed emotion, or something. That simply must have been what put Obama over the top. Seriously--nothing else really happened in the last twenty-four hours, so that must be the cause. Looks like that attempt to take Clinton down completely backfired.
These are the people who are most familiar with the unearned humiliation and contempt that was heaped on Clinton with such evident glee, and they are the ones who gave her the edge. I am not a Clinton supporter, but I totally get the logic of their vote, and fully sympathize. Maybe the best possible outcome of this election would be a series of different, unexpected blows against the Versailles punditalkcrazy and their "conventional wisdom."
The problem:
America's current immigration policy is clearly unacceptable to the general public, immigrant rights activists, immigration opponents and organized labor. Even corporations are dissatisfied with the status quo, even if for their own profit-driven reasons. There is a consensus that reform is needed but there is no consensus on what that reform should look like. At the same time, the status quo of maximum noise with minimum action is a political strategy for a certain segment of the organized right wing. The netroots can play a critical role on this issue by facilitating a conversation that will lead to increased political will for a progressive immigration policy that will benefit America's squeezed middle class and all those struggling to become middle class.
Many progressive and centrist politicians and political influencers have, until recently, chosen to either remain silent on the need for comprehensive immigration reform or confine their speech to statements supporting an increase in border control only. Local elections across the nation have shown that anti-immigrant demagogy does not win elections despite the public's concerns about the issue. Yet political leaders continue to advise progressives running for office to regard immigration policy as a "third rail" that should not be touched.
The current state of the debate on immigration policy is entirely unproductive and the relative silence of progressive movement voices has, and will continue, to contribute greatly to the lack of vision and unity on this issue. Treating immigration as a cause to support or attack for the sake of political expediency will not lead to an immigration policy that will strengthen and expand the middle class.
October 24th is an internal day of climate action, sponsoed by 