In this weekly diary, I have frequently argued that the Obama administration's cluelessness about education policy provides the perfect lens into this presidency's detachment from the daily lives of his most supportive constituents - teachers, parents, the young, the poor, black and brown families across the country. The consequences of this detachment came crashing down on Obama, and more specifically, the Democratic members of the House, in this week's midterm election.
Pundits on both the left and the right share lots of unanimity in what the election "tells us" about the mood of the electorate. On the left, I agree with Markos Moulitas that the wave of Republican victories on Tuesday was much less about a conservative referendum than it was about extending a big fat middle finger at DC politics.
And on the right, I agree with George Wills' assessment of the House Republican victories being the result of widespread anger at how "one group of people (the politically successful)" have attempted to "engineer" everyone else's lives to align with the "Big Ideas" emanating from the ruling elite in DC. (An aside: Wills laughably calls this ruling elite "progressive." It's not. It is the essence of neo-liberal and he should know better.)
No doubt, people voted their frustrations with the economy and their rapidly deteriorating personal wellbeing. As Mike Lux pointed out on Open Left the other day, people who said their personal economic situation had gotten worse and who identified Wall Street as the culprits were more likely than not to vote-out the incumbent Democratic candidates. Why? Because they could! As the overlords of Wall Street continue to get DC politicians to do their bidding, people's sense of powerlessness has gotten to the boiling point. And the only power they have left is their vote.
Public school educators know all about this feeling of powerlessness. For years now they've seen politician after politician, backed by big business and thinktank pundits, forcing on them policies that every inch of their professional spirit and intelligence tell them are wrong. Only they don't get to vote on Arne Duncan!
Anyone who has been following education policy has known for years that "both parties are now part of the hostile takeover we (progressives) seek to confront," as David Sirota stated this week on Open Left. The "hostile takeover" of public education has been an incessant effort by both parties, as they seek to sell off the future of our children - especially those who are poor and minority - to profit- and fame-making endeavors, turning classrooms and school yards into a playground for investors and wealthy philanthropists.
If you've been following education policy, it didn't take Tuesday's midterm election to reveal that the leadership of both Democratic and Republican parties is alternately pandering to the oligarchs of Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce for the privilege to have a job in Washington DC. Public schools have been targeted relentlessly as an incentive to dangle before corporate America to shower political campaigns with money.
There really is no other realm where the depravity of DC politics is more revealed than in education. The "phantom left" that Chris Hedges wrote about this week is perpetually on display in the debate about school reform. While "the liberal class" uses the crutch of bipartisanship to remain "morally and politically disengaged" about the fate of our nation's schools, and the rightwing harps incessantly about the "moral degeneration and fiscal chaos" of public education, "the engines of corporate power - masked, ruthless and unexamined - happily devour the state."
In the education debate there is no "left" and certainly very little progressivism. And there's every indication that President Obama, conspiring with the Republicans once again, is about to use this political convenience to throw poor black and brown school kids under the bus.
I've never been one to think that unity was a realistic political goal. We should strive for greater unity, of course. But as Chris has noted repeatedly over the years, the large mass of people vote similarly to others in their demographic cohorts, reflecting the fact that they have similar life-experiences, interests, and values, as well as similar ways of interpreting the world. The flip side of this is that there are equally basic reasons why unity across groups will be limited. However, this doesn't rule out a convergence of interests, values and ways of interpreting the world--not to mention an increased understanding of how seemingly different life-experiences share certain elements in common. Convergence is a far more realistic goal to aim for, and it's also realistic in another sense, since it recognizes and respects differences that can be a source of strength, if properly appreciated.
With that said, I was truly surprised at how much convergence of views I witnessed at Netroots Nation. This is a subjective view on my account, of course. But I was impressed that there seemed to be fairly broad agreement--even from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid--that (a) Democratic governance had not brought about the kind profound change that we had been hoping for, and that (b) the reason for this was that the progressive movement is not yet strong enough to overcome the obstacles it faces.
When the Speaker of the House tells the FDR "make me do it" story (with Frances Perkins in the role usually given to A. Philip Randolph), and then directly encourages people to increase pressure on Congress, there is very tangibly much more unity of purpose than normally appears in our day-to-day struggles.
There are all sorts of differences over how this plays out, of course--as witnessed in our recent debates over trying to understand what motivates Obama. But Mike's point about the need for such speculation to have a positive practical result was very much reflected in the repeated overlap of views that I witnessed. Yes, the mid-terms are going to be tough. And I believe it's important to be clear about why this is: A failure not just to deliver "change we can believe in", but even to actually consider it, much less fight for it. But even more important than that is to keep moving forward in battling against the accumulated power and influence of the right.
This is a battle for the long haul, and we need to understand what that means and act accordingly. As one speaker pointed out, it was 30 years from Goldwater's defeat in 1964 to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. We've gone from the nadir of 2002-2004 to the triumphs of 2006 and 2008 in lightening speed by comparison, which is a big part of why those triumphs have not paid off in terms of fundamental change the way that want them to. It takes time to change deep-seated assumptions, habits and calculations--not to mention institutions. It doesn't need to take 30 years. But historically speaking it's hardly surprising that less than half a decade isn't enough.
I am, by nature, on the impatient side of things, even as I write this. I'm not asking anyone to lower their level of expectation. But what I saw at Netroots Nation was the potential power that comes when disappointment is channeled into raising the level of effective and transformative effort, rather than lowering expectations or abandoning the fight altogether.
Arguably the most important, most overlooked aspect of the upcoming elections is the control of state legislatures, who play a crucial role in redistricting for next decades. I'll be writing more about this in the days and weeks ahead. But for now, I'll just say that it's typical of the broader need to focus on institutional forms of power. We can tell if we're making real progress when we stop being obsessively focused on the shiny surface of things, and instead find ourselves naturally at home with the deeper structures that shape the moment-by-moment flow, even if they do not determine the exact nature of moment-by-moment events.
Maybe it was just me. But I don't think so. At Netroots Nation, I saw the signs of that shift taking place. I saw the shape of things to come--if we are wise and patient and persevering enough to "make it so," as Jean-Luc Picard would say.
Coming off the disturbing news on Afghanistan, the relationship between the President and his progressive base is in a very tenuous place. Not to be overly dramatic, but I think we're at a crucial moment. The deal on health care is about to get done: will progressives come out of it feeling like we got the first major progressive policy since the 1960s passed, or feeling like they got sold down the river? Congress is beginning to move on a jobs package, but the White House is giving signals to put on the breaks: will legislation go through that does something real about more jobs, or will the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Progressive Caucuses come away feel ignored again? Banking reform is starting to move, with a classic mix of good and disappointing policies as part of the package: will the progressive ideas like the Fed accountability, language to make it easier to break up the big banks, and Elizabeth Warren's Financial Products Safety Commission be so traded away and watered down in the final legislation to leave a terrible taste in progressives' mouths? Obama has promised to move early next year on immigration reform: will he lead with a clarion call around the importance of getting it done, or will the legislation be delayed again and again until time runs out? Obama has promised to do what needs to be done on dealing with the urgent problem of climate change: will progressives come out of the battle excited that we have finally moved forward, or in despair that nothing got done?
How these issues play out will go a long way toward determining whether base voter turnout in 2010 and 2012 is as low as it was in 1994, how good the volunteer field operations that powered so much of the Obama campaign's success last year are in 2010/2012, how much online fundraising success the Democratic party has, and even whether there will be a serious primary challenge to Obama that emerges in 2011. This is not the first time I have written this, nor will it probably be the last, but I hope both the White House and the progressive movement understand the dangers here. As someone who has at times been quite critical of this administration's stands on banking, jobs, and Afghanistan policy, of some of their tactics/compromises on health care, and of their general positioning toward and treatment of the progressive community, I say again: open civil war between progressives and Obama is a disaster for both sides. It will mean nothing good gets done policywise in the next 3 years, and it means dangerously extreme Republicans will gain power in Congress in 2010 and be running the country after the 2012 elections. Progressives who believe that we can separate ourselves from Obama, give the country a true alternative vision showing Americans what real progressivism is, and have sweeping success sometime in the future as a result are fooling themselves: I have lived through that theory in the Jimmy Carter years (civil war between the left and Carter, a primary challenge, followed by 12 years of conservative Republican presidents running against that liberal Carter), and it didn't work out so well. At the same time, the Democratic strategists in the White House who think its all gravy to "stand up to the left" because it makes Obama look moderate are living in a destructive fantasyland, too- the last 4 presidents who didn't have a good relationship with their base were George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, Jerry Ford, and LBJ. What those four very different presidents had in common was that they didn't get re-elected. And good luck passing legislation if the Progressive Caucus, Black Caucus, and Hispanic Caucus are all in a constant state of anger, or if the blogs and other progressive forces are whipping the members from liberal districts against the president's policies.
What is needed from the White House right now is constructive engagement, serious dialogue with progressive leaders on both the substance of important issues and the political strategy around getting things done. It is on them to reach out in a real and consistent way, to work with us in finding policy solutions that we can live with; and it is on us progressives to engage constructively back, to recognize the complicated politics of getting progressive things done in this Congress and to help them figure out the strategy for getting good policy.
21st Century Democrats is focused on building a progressive movement from the grassroots up. Our goal is to promote populist values, activists, and candidates.
When the congressional Democrats joined the Republicans in attacking ACORN and cutting off its funding--without even the pretense of an investigation to establish a rational basis for their actions--they clearly demonstrated the almost utter meaninglessness of electing a Democratic majority over the past two wave elections. The elections were clearly important in terms of removing the GOP from direct power, so that it's worst abuses were either ended or toned down.
But clearly nothing remotely resembling actual Democratic governance has emerged to take it's place. And this vote was a stark, harrowing reminder of how politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum: if you don't have a positive agenda, you will end up voting for any sort of stupid, evil shit that comes down the line, if the stampede factor is high enough. Or, to put it more bluntly: If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. So here's a quick run-down on what I see as six of the principle evils involved in this heinous act. I invite everyone to add to my list in comments.
(1) Screw The Poor, Part 1: The defunding directly takes money away fromthe leading organization involved in helping low and moderate income keep their homes. ACORN's been getting around $3 million a year to do this kind of work--counseling low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
Whatever you think about ACORN, poor people and minorities may end up being hurt the most by Congress's sudden vendetta against the group....
According to Brian Kettenring, ACORN's deputy director of national operations, the group's voter-registration work is funded entirely through private sources -- primarily membership dues and foundation grants. So that work would be unaffected.
The same goes for ACORN's core operations -- the rent on its offices, for instance.
In recent years, ACORN has been getting around $2-3 million in federal funds annually, said Kettenring, stressing that this was a rough estimate. That's about 10 percent of its total budget for the year.
That money goes mostly to housing work: primarily fair housing programs, which fight housing discrimination; and foreclosure-prevention programs, which help low-income people obtain loan modifications so they don't lose their homes, and which educate people about preventing foreclosure.
Important work these days, you might say. Losing federal funds, said Kettenring, "would impact our ability to help people save their home."
In other words, ACORN itself, said Kettenring, won't be hurt much by Congress's action. It's the people who ACORN works with -- who tend to be among the neediest -- who will lose out.
To be sure, it's fair to question how effective those programs ultimately are....
But it's not as if the federal money will now go to a different group that does this work more effectively. So the ultimate result, of course, is less help for struggling Americans, in very difficult economic times. As members of both parties compete to express their outrage, that's worth keeping in mind.
In contrast, the top-tier financial firms have received more than $10 trillion in various forms of financial assistance from the government--a sum that's over 3 million times the annual $3 million that ACORN has received. Any quetions?
(2) Screw The Poor, Part 2: Cutting back on voter registration for minority and low-income voters. The federal funds have nothing to do with this, but as Roth also notes:
Late Update: A different ACORN spokesman tells the Wall Street Journal that the group is considering cutting its voter-registration work. That's not because of any funding issue. Rather, it's a desire to avoid "political attacks."
Of course, the GOP has been fighting to suppress minority voters for more than half a century. So, way to go, congressional Democrats! Of course, since they don't really care very much about passing legislation, it's really not a very big deal to them. That's why they are the enemy every bit as much as the Republicans are.
(3) Empower Demonization: The post-New Deal GOP is entirely built on demonization, from McCarthyism to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to Reagtan's "welfare queens" to Willie Horton and beyond. The stupidest thing that Democrats can do is cave in to rightwing demonization, and thereby empower it. So, naturally, that's what the Versailles Dems do.
(4) VALIDATE Demonization: But the Versailles Democrats didn't just empower conservative demonization by allowing it to succeed. They joined in on it--essentially saying that conservatives were right to demonize ACRORN.
(5) Invalidate the reason for voting for Democrats in the first place. This would not necessarily be a bad thing if we lived in an alternative universe were (a) national third party politics was a viable possibility, with a substantial history behind it, and (b) low-income voters were not also largely low-information voters, who desperately need sharp party divisions in order to participate in electoral politics relatively effectively. Because we do not live in that alternative universe, this action clearly demoralizes and outrages progressives, and intensifies divisions within progressive ranks between those who advocate national third party politics and those who--however reluctantly--do not.
(6) A general "fuck you" to all grassroots activists. Seriously, if I have to explain this one to you, I'm afraid that I can't possibly explain it to you.
In a couple of recent diaries (here and here), David's written about a troubling phenomenon: a progressive media outlet warning against progressives seeking to mobilize political power. I hope to have more to say about this incident later, as there are a number of different sources of confusion layered together in the argument being made against progressive power. But here I want to focus on what I regard as the big one: the false equivalence between the left and the right, which often depends on elevating form and ignoring substance.
In the second diary, David highlighted this comment from Wendy Norris of the Colorado Independent:
"Calling for party purges and demanding litmus tests has gotten the conservatives into the out-of-power pickle they find themselves in these days. Do progressives really want to follow that losing strategy?"
But is this assumed equivalence really real? If one looks at the details involved, it surely is not. The point David was pressing, which apparently got Norris so vexed, concerned lack of support for the Employee Free Choice Act--a popular position across party lines, amongst ordinary people. And this is entirely typical, as can be seen by recalling an incident earlier this month, in which David Frum emerged as the "voice of reason" smacking down Rush Limbaugh by comparing him to Jesse Jackson. Arianna Huffington, much to her credit, came to Jackson's defense on Countdown, saying she had re-read his 1988 speech at the Democratic National Convention, and praising it for its empathy and foresight.
It's worth looking back at Jackson's speech, because it truly does represent the sort of progressive vision that timid "progressives" like Norris are so afraid of--including a defense of the working poor that's a powerful reminder of why supporting EFCA should be a no-brainer for Democrats of all stripes. What Frum said, what Huffington said, and what Jackson said all on the flip.
A lot actually, Howard Dean represents the most serious threat to elite politics since at least the 1960s.
During Governor Dean's tenure as DNC chair, the Democrats won two back-to-back "wave elections" --- which has never happened before in American history --- and America's first multi-racial President was elected in a landslide. Yet, for the last five years Governor Dean has been a lightening rod for criticism among both the "serious" people in the media and the "serious" people in his own party.
So why doesn't the establishment like Howard Dean? It's simple really; Howard Dean represents a significant threat to 21st century elite politics.
It's not that Democrats are dumb, it's that they're chickensh*t. Or as Glenn Hurowitz might put it in Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, and he's ever so much more polite about it than I am, they lack courage.
While I'm not entirely convinced away from the suspicion that many Democratic politicians aren't just doing exactly what they really want to, (as corporate frontpeople basically running a vote scam,) Hurowitz makes a convincing case in this book that bold, progressive stands are also good-to-neutral electoral politics. Which is to say that, should Democrats actually believe in liberal political aims, they in no way jeopardize relations with voters. As he says:
... [C]andidates' positions on all issues combined account for only six percent of the election outcome, ... economic conditions account for 15 percent of a voter's decision; a voter's perception of a candidate's personal qualities (particularly whether or not the candidate is considered a "strong leader"), 16 percent; and a candidate's party a whopping 38 percent ... [People even] traditionally take out latent frustration about the weather on incumbents.
... During the 1994 "tidal Wave" that was widely blamed on excessive Democratic liberalism, [Professors Neil Wollman and Leonard Williams] found that even in the most "marginal" districts - those where the incumbent had won with less than 55 percent of the vote in 1992, 85 percent of Democratic liberals won re-election, while only 43 percent of moderates did. Their analysis of the 2006 election, however, found that ideology - right or left - had no discernible impact on the outcome of different races. ...
Hurowitz certainly doesn't argue here that issues don't matter. A recurring theme is the way a strong stand for issues that are important to people on your team, or who are genuinely approachable, builds coalitions that can fight on your behalf and overcome public apathy and disinterest, as well as powerfully funded opposition.
Citing Wellstone's surges in popularity when he combined taking stands that reinforced a "strong leader" image with bread-and-butter constituent service, Hurowitz points a way towards overcoming the challenge of getting progressive policies past the low-information voter. You need a loyal coalition that trusts you; that stands by you because you've stood by them.
The contrast between Hurowitz' description of one of Camp Wellstone's central lessons, that "campaigning for political office, while extremely important in its own right, is largely a vehicle for getting people involved in political movements," and what he described as Bill Clinton's brand of "gutless wonder" politics, could hardly be more stark. In describing Clinton's disastrous early term, he could be writing about any number of elected Democrats who seem to have drawn entirely the wrong lessons from our last Democratic president's time in office:
... Capitulation after capitulation was gradually forming a clear image in the heads of the public, Clinton's friends, and especially his enemies. He became the man who would always blink first, who would abandon his fgriends in vain attemmpts to appease those who hated him. With his personal and ideological friends worrying that Clinton would push them overboard to avoid even the smallest fight, they became more and more reluctant to rally to his cause or even work closely with him. And his enemies learned that no matter how far you pushed, it was almost impossible to find a bottom line. ...
Senate Democrats, as we all know, went on to exceed even Clinton's standards for abandoning allies, rushing to censure the grassroots group MoveOn with the excuse of an ad they found distasteful. Hurowitz profiles MoveOn's rise to prominence through a sense of personal connection with their membership that created a citizens' lobby that Congress finds, by all accounts, deeply annoying.
Is there really hope for putting some spine back in this donkey?
Since there is a lot of discussion of progressive strategy on Open Left, we wanted to let people know about a new resource: The Progressive Strategy Brain (PSB), a dynamic map that connects some 4000 entries to show the complexity of progressive strategy and politics:
http://comw.org/pssp/PSB/index...
We hope progressives will find PSB useful to discover new connections and information, that they hadn't considered before, or at least not in that context.
Clearly, just like progressive strategy itself, PSB is very much a work in progress, and in many ways necessarily so. This is why it will be updated every Monday, so as to make it more accurate, relevant and comprehensive.
STATE BLOGS
