Progressive Caucus passes on drawing a line in the sand on the climate bill, at least for now

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:46


Progressive caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva has told The Hill that the caucus will not, as a group, draw a specific line in the sand on the climate change / energy bill--at least for now.

Liberal House Democrats are shifting their political tactics on climate change after failing to secure a public option in the new healthcare reform law.

The move comes in the wake of liberals having to walk back threats that they would vote against a healthcare bill without a government-run program.

"Drawing the line in the sand too quickly was part of the lesson we learned on healthcare," the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), told The Hill.

Grijalva voiced strong concerns about the direction of the climate and energy bill, which has moved toward the center as Democrats try to build a bipartisan consensus that can win 60 Senate votes.

Key takeaways from this:

  1. Hard to argue with a need to change tactics, given the ultimate failure of the Progressive Block strategy on the public option.

  2. Still, Grijalva did not rule out drawing a line in the sand--he just said that the Progressive Caucus was not going to draw a line this early in the process.

  3. The reason the public option line didn't work is because defeating the health reform bill because it did not go far enough was only supported by 12-13% of the population.  Any left-wing line in the sand that is drawn on the climate bill, or any other legislation, needs to have more popular support among the Democratic rank and file to be an effective. Specifically, it needs to be less popular among the Democratic base to cross that line than to cross President Obama by defeating a bill he is supporting.

  4. Given the popularity of President Obama among the rank and file, it the line that is drawn is going to have to be over something pretty odious.  A bill that strips EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, or guts the Clean Air Act, are probably the best bets.  Still, I worry that even those concessions might be supported by the rank and file if President Obama, supported by many green groups, says it is still a good bill.  Driving up popular support for defeating a bill that has too many concessions will be a monumental task, but it is still necessary to any "line in the sand" strategy working.
Still, even with all this said, it might be easier to convince people that the energy / climate bill is worth defeating because it has too many concessions than the health care bill, since there are potentially some pretty clear ways that the bill sends energy and climate policy in America backward. Stripping EPA regulatory authority, or gutting the Clean Air Act, seem more obviously to be backward movement than anything in the health reform bill outside of reproductive rights.
Chris Bowers :: Progressive Caucus passes on drawing a line in the sand on the climate bill, at least for now

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Progressive Caucus passes on drawing a line in the sand on the climate bill, at least for now | 145 comments
The Progressive caucus wouldn't recognize a (4.00 / 10)
FIRM line in the sand if it came up and bit them in the ass. At least this time they can't con people into donating money to them for a position that they will capitulate on when push comes to shove.

Capitulating now rather than later is probably less stressful and hopefully will be a eye opener for some voters.

Thank you, this is useful. (0.00 / 0)
But the second half of your post seems to been cut off. The part where you suggested something to support or do.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Well we could primary members of Congress (4.00 / 1)
who vote for a bad climate bill. Of course, if it turns out like the Health Insurance legislation, we would have run primaries against the majority of the current Democrats in D.C. We would also have to compete with the big bucks that will primary only those who vote against it.

I wish I had a magic formula to stop the harmful legislation that is being purposed and will probably get worse before it finally becomes law. I can only decide not to support either party since both have the same corporate centric domestic agenda.

[ Parent ]
Until obama has less leverage over (0.00 / 0)
congresspeople's constituents than they do, there's precious little that any voting bloc CAN do.  
[ Parent ]
We need to start BEFORE they vote to gut the EPA. (4.00 / 1)
We need exposure and derision of dems who plot this.

The anger nees to be applied more effectively and immediately. if we are not good at it yet, then practice will improve it. And practice will develope more practioners, and practice will garner respect from the activists that demand action.

We need to fight back against the people we can replace and take down.

If you want to hurt climate reform, you are not a democrat, if you want to gut the EPA, you are not a democrat.

Get rid of them.

Maybe we need a celebrity song fest to get people roaused into action

"....Anger is not enough. ..."

Come on youtubers and viral video fans, lets make getting organized the sexiest thing a college student can do.

--

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

[ Parent ]
It's too late this year for primaries. (0.00 / 0)
The time for getting primary opponents on the ballot was wasted on trash-talking the filibuster and ramming ObamaCare down out throats.  So now it falls to supporting independent candidates this year if we want to apply any pressure from the left.  Simply staying home and not voting is not an answer to the problem.  Shutting up and voting Democrat isn't the answer either.  We need now to engage in an organized campaign to deny funding to Democrats, endorse independent candidates, and fundraise for those indies.
[ Parent ]
Seriously HoP (4.00 / 3)
No one voted you hall monitor of this blog.

You're good at serving up the pretty words and glittering generalities, but I don't see a lot of helpful suggestions pouring out of your noggin, through your keyboard onto these threads.

So, try to keep the lecturing of fellow posters to a minimum, k?

[ Parent ]
Do the words "Green Party" mean anything to you? (0.00 / 0)
You needn't be so condescending.  I don't know you from Adam, but I already don't like your attitude.
[ Parent ]
Who would take (4.00 / 11)
a line in the sand seriously after their PO cave?

Probably better to be clearly weak from the beginning, as opposed to fake tough.  

And I don't buy this (4.00 / 10)
The reason the public option line didn't work is because defeating the health reform bill because it did not go far enough was only supported by 12-13% of the population.

If public opinion were the reason--as opposed to one reason--then Obama and the Dems leadership wouldn't have had to put pressure on progressives to vote for it. And it's not clear at all that the public would've punished progressives who didn't vote for the bill, or they would have only at the prompting of Democratic organizations who mobilized against them. That is, it was institutional pressure, not public opinion, that was the main factor here, along with an unwillingness of progressives to keep their word.  

[ Parent ]
To add to that. (4.00 / 11)
Threatening to defeat the bill is the exact same tactic Nelson, Stupak, Lieberman, and a few others (far fewer than the prog caucus claims to have) used to get what they wanted.  If only 12-13% of the public wanted to see the bill defeated (a number, by the way, which Chris fails to provide any proof for, so as far as I know, he's pulling it out of his ass), why were these other guys able to somehow manage to credibly threaten to defeat the bill?

If we are to believe Chris over you, the only way this can make sense is if the public is able to discern the difference between the left wanting to kill the bill over lack of a public option vs. killing the bill over all the other crap these guys wanted, and the public supported the other guys.

Unfortunately for Chris, the facts prove otherwise.

Virginia is just one of several states polled, reports Greg Sargent:

   Here's a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls:

   * In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.

   * In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.

   * In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.

   * In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.

   * In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.

   * In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

   *In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

   * In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.

Now, you can take these with a grain of salt if you want, given who commissioned the surveys. But they're basically in line with a raft of polling since this whole thing started. The public option is supported by majorities in virtually all blue and swing states, and even in a few reddish ones.


(Emphasis mine)

People wanted the public option, and across the board, they didn't like the bill without the public option.  To claim they wouldn't have supported progressives in threatening to kill the bill over lack of a public option would require one to completely ignore consistent polling showing that people not only wanted the public option, but that they didn't want a bill without the public option.  In other words, people would have supported killing the bill over lack of the public option.  This is the exact opposite of what Chris is claiming.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
To be fair (0.00 / 0)
that large disapproval of the Senate bill was probably coming mostly from the right who thought it was too much government, and not leftists thinking it was a corporate bailout/takeover.

The large number of supporters for the public option pose a more interesting question, as many of those are the "Get government out of Medicare!" ignorant conservatives.  But I think the support for the public option was very soft - to the point where many of those public option supporters probably didn't even know what the public option actually was, and just heard good things about it on TV or from friends.

While I'd like to think that gap in support between the PO and the PO-less Senate bill represents a revolt from the Left, I think the more likely answer is that it represents right-wing opposition to the Senate bill and widespread but soft/vague support for the PO.  The actual number of leftists who opposed the Senate bill specifically because it didn't have a PO probably only constituted some 12%-13% as Chris said (or some other small number, it probably doesn't really matter).  I do not take any pleasure in thinking this, and I think we on the Kill the Bill Left missed a huge opportunity to challenge corporatism within our own ranks.

[ Parent ]
What Progressive Caucus? (4.00 / 8)
Seriously who in their right mind believes there really is such a thing as a progressive caucus in the US House.  Now there is something that calls itself a "Progressive Caucus" but its neither progressive nor is it actually a caucus - its just something for Corporate Dems and Blue Dogs to step on whenever its handy.
and since there is no progressive caucus (4.00 / 1)
why are we expected to support Bill Halter.  He won't be any different from Blanch!

Give up and join the greens!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
should be clear (4.00 / 1)
I worry that even those concessions might be supported by the rank and file if President Obama, supported by many green groups, says it is still a good bill.

It should be clear right now that if Obama pushes for certain things most groups will fall in line pretty quickly even if it doesn't appear to be the right thing to do. You have clearly made the case that he has persuaded far more folks that he is right in whatever he is proposing than anyone else. Anyone in the progressive caucus would be risking their seat if they go against what he is pushing and they probably know it while the more conservative members of congress still won't vote for it.

Irrelevant (4.00 / 4)
Who cares what the "progressive" caucus thinks? They're useless.
Why state this publicly? (4.00 / 1)
Setting aside the correctness of this strategy, what exactly is gained by stating it publicly? Regardless of what they decided internally as a caucus, wouldn't their hand be stronger if there was uncertainty about what they would do? Is there anyone who knows how to play this game? Better leadership, please.

FAIL.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

There is uncertainty (4.00 / 1)
Grijalva didn't rule out drawing a line in the sand in the future, just that there's no point to doing so now.  I don't think it's a great mistake to state publicly what everyone knows to be true.

Right now, the progressive caucus is declining to state what it considers the top priorities in the bill, although I'm not sure if that information hiding is an intended goal.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Well, if they state their top priorities, (4.00 / 2)
then Obama and the DINOs know what parts of the bill they can trade away.

Fucking sigh.

[ Parent ]
Big whoop… (4.00 / 4)
Honestly, who cares what the progressive "caucus" says it's gonna do or not do? Is it me, or does this seem like odd timing for such an announcement?

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
What Line? EPA (4.00 / 4)
Before one can even contemplate if a line in the sand should be drawn, one should have an idea what that line is.  For most of climate change legislation, there isn't a clear line.  Do you draw a line at 350?  Would you really stop 355?

But there is one very clear line.  The progressive caucus should veto any bill that eliminates the EPA's ability to regulate carbon.  Because of the EPA ruling, the status quo on carbon isn't as bad as, say, the status quo on health care.  At a minimum, we need to defend our flank.

Correct (4.00 / 1)
The key difference between the health care bill and the climate bill is the status quo.

Everyone knew that the progressives' threats on health care were empty, because they, unlike the preening centrists, actually cared about passing a HCR bill. Even though it was a bad bill, it's still better than the status quo and will help a lot of people.

On global warming, that's not the case, because the Sword of Damocles in the form of the EPA is hovering over the Blue Dogs. Progressives can say, "Fine, if you don't give us what we want, we'll just vote no, kill the bill, and let the EPA regulate CO2."

The danger of this strategy is that the Blue Dogs could turn completely traitorous and try to simply pass a bill that doesn't reduce carbon emissions but does take away the ability of the EPA to regulate CO2. It would have to be over a veto, probably, but they might have the votes if they can get it to the floor.

[ Parent ]
I think it'll be a while yet (4.00 / 7)
before we win any of these battles, principally because we haven't made our case to a majority of the public. The reasons for this, as Chris has said, are largely, if not entirely structural (i.e., the corporate domination of the political process in Washington, including not only the make-up of the Senate, and the effects of a 30-year blitz from the right-wing media, but also the burden of a conventional wisdom in the Democratic Party which considers an engineered love affair with President Obama as good as genuine policy, as long as it keeps the coffers full and their constituents sweet.

Raul Grijalva is a good man, but when he looks around, he'd have to be an awful dullard not to notice that he has no effective support either from his colleagues, or from the people. We're working on both, but it isn't at all like the day when Walter Reuther could shake his finger at the Congress, and every Democrat in it trembled.

Regardless of whether Grijalva is right ... (4.00 / 1)
there is no way he's going to win a popularity contest with Obama .. and my guess is .. which he ought to know by now .. whatever Obama says .. goes ... so if Obama wants a crappy bill .. the Progressive caucus is going to have to bite its tongue and vote for it
[ Parent ]
well, they could not vote for it (4.00 / 2)
and see what happens...

something are more important than keeping your job.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think they have to worry (0.00 / 0)
I think their jobs are safe in any case. Almost everyone in the progressive caucus is from a safe district, and I don't think they're likely to lose a primary from the left for opposing a bad climate bill from the left.
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that it's too late for primaries in many states for this year anyway (0.00 / 0)
Despite what lost-in-his-fantasy-world Mr. Moulitsas might think.
[ Parent ]
bull (4.00 / 2)
the public supported public option and hated mandates. It is the greed lobby that is the problem!

My blog  
[ Parent ]
You DID notice the adjective, right? (4.00 / 1)
...effective support...
[ Parent ]
If you're talking about overall messaging (4.00 / 4)
of why lefty policy is a better choice, then I agree with your comment in whole.  We haven't made our case at all.

But if you're talking about making our case vis-a-vis the specific issue of the public option, then I'll have to disagree, at least to a certain extent.  As crappy as our messaging was, we won the messaging war with the public on that issue.  The public overwhelmingly wanted a public option, and they overwhelmingly didn't want a bill without the public option.  I linked to one article in a comment above with polling on this.  I found tons more with a simple google search.

The reason we lost the public option wasn't because we didn't have the public backing us.  It was because of institutional forces coupled with our own inability to exploit the overwhelming public support we had.  We can't do much about the institutional forces at this point.  That will require getting public support on our overall ideology, which we simply haven't done, yet.  But the inability to use public support to push our ideas is purely our own fault.  That is our weakness, and we need to figure out how to fix it.

And that gets to the larger point.  We still might have failed in the end, but we never should have backed down.  Had we fought to the bitter end, we would have shown people our values, not just talked about them.  And showing people what we value is the most important part of making our case to the public.  We failed to do that by failing to stand up for what we believe in.  So the public hears us talking about what we want, but they never see us fighting for those things.  They always see us giving up out of political (not policy) "pragmatism."  So the message they get is we value political pragmatism over our own stated values.  And what is political pragmatism?  Bipartisanship, process, and all those other things people have shown time and time again that they just don't care about.

So if we're going to make our overall case to the public, we have to stop undercutting our message.  I would suggest we start with strong financial regulations and strong environmental regulations.  Let's stand up for those things.  We're probably going to lose, anyway, if for no other reason than because we haven't built up the institutional and organizational support necessary to exploit whatever public support we do get.  But we'll finally be building the groundwork for making our overall case to the public, and that is invaluable to our future success.

And make no mistake.  This is a long-term plan.  There are no shortcuts.  It'll be hard work.  And it won't be satisfying work for years, if not decades.  But we have to do it if we want to succeed.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
Again, I point to the adjective.... (4.00 / 3)
I don't disagree about the polls, but the polling isn't really the issue. The polling data didn't move anyone (much) in Washington for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that members of Congress have become accustomed to ignoring the people without any serious or lasting consequence to them. For that you can blame everything from gerrymandering to corporate cash to our brain-dead news services.

Think back for a moment, though to the civil rights movement. Think of court case after court case. Think boycotts. Think a decade of police dogs and fire hoses in southern cities on TV every night. Think the National Guard outside Little Rock High School. Think a half-million people on the National Mall. I could ask you to look at the same kind of data for the suffrage movement, the anti-war movement, and the labor movement (over an even longer period.)

Finding 50 million people who'll answer yes to a public option on a poll is one thing. A half-million camped out on the Mall would be another thing altogether, especially if they refused to leave, and had to forced away with mounted police, tear gas, water cannons, etc.

What am I saying? intensity, and duration as well as numbers is what I'm saying, and believe me, I don't say it lightly. For the record, I believe we'll get there, but I just don't think we're there yet. The fact that Raúl Grijalva and his caucus didn't get their backs up may be regrettable (depending on how you judge the political realities on the floor of the Congress at the time), but it was definitely not the reason why we got what we got instead of something else.

[ Parent ]
Let me reiterate. (4.00 / 2)
I'm not disagreeing with you on the overall point.  I agree completely.

My disagreement was with your point if it only applied to how we handled the public option, and even then, only to the extent of whether or not we had made our case to the public on that one issue, which polls clearly showed that we did, and you now seem to be dismissing as irrelevant.  My point is that it's not irrelevant to the argument of whether or not we made our case to the public on this one issue because it is the evidence we need to prove that argument one way or the other.  You cannot dismiss evidence simply because you don't like it.

The evidence also shows that we had duration, not just numbers.  It does not show intensity, but I would wager we lacked that.  So if you want to argue that we lacked duration and numbers with intensity, then I would agree with you.

And why did we not get the intensity?  Do you honestly believe it was all institutional?  That it was all gerrymandered districts and corporate cash and brain-dead news?  Was there nothing we did wrong?

We had the numbers, we had the duration, but they weren't intense because we failed to convert that support into action.  That's our fault.  You, me, Chris.  Every single lefty who looks in the mirror is looking at someone who failed to convert public support into action.  We failed to get the public engaged.  We failed to make the public become part of the issue, own it, and identify with it.  The public didn't feel like they were part of the fight, so they didn't feel like fighting.  That's low intensity.  And it's our fault.

What do we need to do to get the public involved in future fights?  That's the question we need to be answering, and in fact, the latter half of my comment was directed at doing just that.  I don't think my suggestion is the only thing we should be doing, of course, but I do think it's an integral part of the solution.  We should be working on that in conjunction with other efforts.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
William (4.00 / 2)
My apologies.  On second read, I believe I misread your first paragraph.  My comment above about you dismissing the polls was unfounded.  Sorry.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.
[ Parent ]
No problem, (4.00 / 2)
though we do in fact disagree. I honestly don't think any difference in our tactics or strategy would have made a significant difference on this issue at this point in the struggle. Leonidas couldn't have defeated the entire Achaemenid empire at Thermopylae no matter what he did or didn't do.

To put it another way, to the extent that they understood the issue, the public agreed with us, but the Congress had nothing to fear from them. Congress needs to see pitchforks and torches, and be convinced that those wielding them will use them.

[ Parent ]
I think you're misreading me. (4.00 / 2)
Or maybe I'm misreading you.

I'd like to know what it is we're disagreeing over so I can decide whether or not to argue my side of it (assuming I have a side, which I'm really not sure, since you've got me all confuzzled over what it is we're disagreeing).  From my perspective, you seem to be taking my disagreement over the one specific PO support issue (which, assuming my 2nd pass reading is correct, I think we actually do agree on within the limited context I was arguing it) as disagreement over the larger point you were making.  I'm not.  I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

Let me try anyway, cause I'm a glutton for punishment.

My disagreement is simply, and only, that there was support on the public option, and that support proves that we managed, however ineptly, to successfully argue our case on this single issue to the public.  This is contrary to what you said in your original comment, but only if you were specifically commenting on the public option, which I was unclear as to whether or not you were.  That's it.  Nothing more.  And I apologize profusely if my comments up to now have given you the impression otherwise.

The rest of what I wrote was just me trying to make a larger point that, for whatever reasons, not least of which I believe are our own faults, we failed to capitalize on that success, and I suggested a long-term strategy I believe is necessary for us to follow so that we can address our faults and achieve future successes.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
Nihil obstat :-) (4.00 / 2)
Yeah, that sounds fair to me. Our only point of divergence, I think, lies in our assessment of the firmness of their conviction. Some were convinced enough to continue beyond the immediate tactical loss. Others, perhaps the majority, remain only marginally more committed than they would have been had they been asked to choose between pepperoni and sausage.

Where we both seem to agree is that more work is needed -- much more.

[ Parent ]
One more thing.... (4.00 / 2)
It took me a while, but I finally realized from a comment of yours upthread (It took me a while to link the comment with your name) that you're of the opinion that if the Progressive Caucus had held firm on their refusal to vote for the bill, the people would have backed them, and we would have gotten a better bill.

Frankly, I doubt it. If the President hadn't done his deal with the industry early on, and had tried to mobilize the nation behind a single-payer system, with a robust public option as a backup, such a showdown may have produced a victory. Clearly, though, the President didn't think so, and made his thinking quite clear to the Democrats in Congress. The message was unmistakeable to the players in both House and Senate, regardless of the President's artless equivocations in public.

Now, imagine yourself in Grijalva's shoes at the end of this whole mendacious process. As Chris points out, Obama at this point owned everybody in the party except us, and Grijalva knew it. He also knew that if he took the gamble, and his caucus didn't follow suit, he might very well wind up the most hated man in the Party. Even though his is a relatively safe seat, consider what that would have done to his effectiveness on other issues. And supposing the caucus had stuck with him, and they still lost -- he'd be considered the chief instigator of a trainwreck and about as welcome in party councils thereafter as Eugene McCarthy was in 1969.

When to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. At times, people of good find themselves in disagreement about which is appropriate. This is one of those times.

[ Parent ]
Does this apply to Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln...? (4.00 / 1)
Lincoln gets an endorsement from Obama for all her troublemaking.

If our purpose in politics is to send people who just go along to get along, then we all might as well just quit and start spending our time doing something else like gardening or arts and crafts.  Why can't we just figure out the right thing to do, do it and let the chips fall where they may?

[ Parent ]
President Sarah Palin, that's why (4.00 / 1)
We won't always be in such a weak position, but we are now. I think that your assertion that there are only two choices doesn't accurately reflect the reality of our situation.

This is a long war. We should think what kind of intellectual and emotional resources will be required to get to the end of it. If we can't handle the thought of delaying our gratification at this point, of what use will we be if the going gets really tough? How long did Solzhenitsyn wait for the chance to see justice done? How long did African Americans wait to step back on the curb, or sit in the front of the bus? It's fatuous of us, I think, to assume that they weren't doing anything the whole time except passively waiting. If we think that, I'd say we aren't as prepared for what's coming as we need to be.

[ Parent ]
I think you responded to the wrong post... (0.00 / 0)
I don't see how your response relates to what I said.
[ Parent ]
It's a response to this: (0.00 / 0)
If our purpose in politics is to send people who just go along to get along, then we all might as well just quit and start spending our time doing something else like gardening or arts and crafts.  Why can't we just figure out the right thing to do, do it and let the chips fall where they may?

We always have other choices. Excluding the middle is a useful rhetorical trick, but not when it obscures the argument. The choices are not either a ) doing nothing, or b) killing the bill and seeing what happens, as you seem to be implying. There are other principled and effective approaches, even if they don't get you what you want at the very moment you want it.

Do you really think that there aren't, or have I misunderstood you?

[ Parent ]
Well, as others have pointed out, voting is binary (4.00 / 1)
or, quaternary:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Present
4. Not Voting

Assuming #3 and #4 are not options (though I think #3 could've been a viable option for those who opposed the HCR law from the left), you either think this law should be passed (#1), or not (#2).  I think those who opposed the law from the left, like Grijalva, should've just voted based on this question alone (#2), and figure out all the tactical jujitsu and political standing stuff afterwards.  Incorporating the political gamesmanship on a question of policy does a disservice to the rest of us out here who will be affected by this legislation and need our representatives to do the right thing without consideration of political questions.

Not to mention that there are viable political strategies emerging from either choice.  While I agree that passing the law is better politics short-term, I strongly disagree with the Pass the Bill camp when they said that voting against the law would have immensely negative long-term political consequences.

[ Parent ]
Jiu-jitsu is largely what politics is about (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you that the long-term political consequences of voting no would not necessarily have been negative. On the contrary. But that wasn't why, in the end, I agreed with Grijalva's decision to vote yes.

I did so for two reasons:

1) In the short term, the bill offers real benefits to real people, not the least of which are young people with low incomes and sick kids, or working stiffs with potentially serious health problems, who can't even get time off from work to see a doctor, let alone pay for his services. I could offer personal anecdotes, but I'm sure you have plenty of your own.

2) A lot of the hidden filth in Congress is now more visible, thanks to the process we just went through. As a consequence, it may -- I say may -- gradually get easier to win some of these fights, now that the evils of the process have become more widely known. Had the bill gone down, I think we might have lost some of that clarity in the dust-storm of recriminations which would inevitably have followed.

My views may not accord with yours, but FWIW, I assure you that I've come by them honestly, and only after some genuine soul-searching.

[ Parent ]
I'm sure you have, and I respect that (4.00 / 1)
See, if Grijalva and others really felt what you wrote in #1, then that's a good reason to vote for the bill, even thought they would then have to square that with the previous statements opposing it.  But with #2, that sounds a lot like conceding the messaging war without trying to fight it.  What I was asking in the first place was, why can't our politicians just stake their ground, whatever that might be, and then defend it to the death?  If the bill did end up going down and they were okay with that, they could go on TV or radio or wherever and defend their actions, and highlight the filth, as you called it, in the process that they could say was in large part responsible for their No vote.
[ Parent ]
More to the point of the discussion (4.00 / 1)
We should be asking why Stupak, Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln et al. can be total douches and still get what they want, and continue to receive political support, yet somehow that could never happen for poor Raul Grijalva.

As I wrote before, it's all about toughness and credibility.  The Democratic leadership were threatened by Stupak and the rest because they were badass mofos who really meant business when they said they were voting no.  They laughed at Grijalva (in Nancy Pelosi's case, literally!) because they knew he would cave when the time was right.  How I wish he could've actually followed through, killed the bill and wiped that smug smirk off their faces.  It might have just produced something a lot better, too.

[ Parent ]
Pardon the interjection (4.00 / 2)
but as I wrote upthread, I'm not as convinced as you are that we won people over to Kill-the-Bill-From-the-Left.  We convinced everyone that "the Senate bill sucks!" (of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be passed) and "public option rules!" (again, doesn't necessarily means it should be passed), but we never sold the line "the Senate bill shouldn't pass until it has a public option!" which was of course our real objective.

In fact, we couldn't even win over everyone here on Open Left.  I think Kill the Bill was probably the minority position here.  That's what's really sad, IMO, that we couldn't even unite a hardcore liberal blog against Democratic corporatism.

[ Parent ]
contrary view (4.00 / 4)
I think:

1. Just because a strategy didn't work in a sample of one is not a good reason to abandon the strategy. In many cases, the right "move" doesn't work every time. And sometimes the wrong "move is rewarded by chance.

2. There is reason to believe the block strategy kept the public option alive far longer than other strategies may ave done.

3. Some concession were ultimately won on health care as Chris himself has pointed out.

4. Contrary to point 3 in the post, most polls showed stronger support for the public option than for the health care bill as a whole. At any rate, support was greater than 12-13 percent.

Taking away the right to control carbon is a line in the sand for me. (0.00 / 0)
Voting to gut the power they have to control carbon is enough. Its the flag. The flag of the enemy is flying over our fort. It is stupid beyond belief to think defending this fort is protecting our efforts, or achieving our goals.

Kill this bill. Primary the corrupt.

--

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

[ Parent ]
and here you can play the EPA card (4.00 / 2)
here a no vote doesn't mean no regulation will be enacted
[ Parent ]
Bingo (0.00 / 0)
This just isn't the same situation as the HCR bill at all.
[ Parent ]
"Progressive Caucus" (4.00 / 3)
Good one, Chris!
Pull the other one, dude (4.00 / 2)
That particular leg is getting tired.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Very few people post on the incredibly informative posts of Nqatasha's` (4.00 / 2)
because there is so much in it, there is never one single thread to create a response for everyone to pile onto.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
your chain of logic (4.00 / 3)
The reason the public option line didn't work is because defeating the health reform bill because it did not go far enough was only supported by 12-13% of the population.  Any left-wing line in the sand that is drawn on the climate bill, or any other legislation, needs to have more popular support among the Democratic rank and file to be an effective. Specifically, it needs to be less popular among the Democratic base to cross that line than to cross President Obama by defeating a bill he is supporting.
Given the popularity of President Obama among the rank and file, it the line that is drawn is going to have to be over something pretty odious.

Plausible argument.  Doesn't it beg the strategy - which will help all, including obama - of consistently and continuously pointing out, without fail, that he and the legislation he is interested in are not pushing progressive legislation and should do so for x,y,z reasons?  i.e. the opposite of what your posts were doing on health care.  there are two main ways to narrow the gap by your argument- reduce obama's support among the base and increase the base's support for progressive legislation.  

it doesn't have to be vicious - just righteous.

What about the legislation is Obama's? (0.00 / 0)
He is, right this minute, in the process of making carbon lower using the EPA. If he didnt support the EPA's power to do this, wouldn't he not do that? Dont you want to support Obama's diectives to the EPA, to cut carbon, and attack the congress, dems in congress, who are trying to gut that power?

Why is the correct thing to do here, on this bill, attacking not the gutters, but the President and the EPA?

--

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

[ Parent ]
Same with FCC on broadband regulation (0.00 / 0)
I agree and this approach seems similar to the FCC ruling on Comcast's internet content filtering. The recent court ruling requires a redefinition and strengthening of FCC regulation of communication powers, just as a potential future court ruling against the EPA on it's carbon regulations would.
[ Parent ]
I want the EPA strengthened. (0.00 / 0)
I want real power to alter action built in. And thank you, but it doesn't answer the question I ask why attack Obama and not the corrupt of the legislature? Corrupt dems included.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
And, not Or (4.00 / 1)
general rules of thumb:

prioritize based on analyzing power;
go after the decisionmaker (or in this case the person with the most ability to shift decisions);
go after the brand where applicable;

you can apply this to the president or to individual members of congress in specific contexts.

so if you can specifically spell out an effective strategy that is not mutually exclusive to going after obama which involves going after 'the corrupt of the legislature', by all means do so.  until then, i'll assume you're engaging in knee-jerk defenses of obama, which makes you a defender of the brand, which makes you not necessarily on the same side as me on this.

[ Parent ]
Yes we oppose what we dont like, thats merely a truism. (0.00 / 0)
go after the decisionmaker (or in this case the person with the most ability to shift decisions);

Obama, as I have said, is right now, right this second, putting place the enforcement of carbon reduction rules, using his EPA, making his EPA stronger. He wants a strong EPA. I demand a strong EPA. I support the EPA's regulations, and hope we can build on the publics understanding of those rules, demand for those rules.

Attacking Obama, now, on this, isn't a good idea. In fact, it is the opposite of a good idea.

I asked why you wanted to... you havent said why you do this stupid apparently unwise thing.

Because: Obama is already working with his EPA, using its power, his power, to enforce the law, reducing carbon. This is not a target I choose.

Some in Congress, some dems in congress and all Republicans, are trying to stop him, gutting the EPA. This is the target I choose.

--

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

[ Parent ]
if you go back to my original comment (4.00 / 1)
you'll see that i was referring to the implications of an argument that chris made.  if the implications are inaccurate, either my reasoning is faulty (which i don't think it is here) or the premises in the argument are faulty.

so you take your pick.  but if two people are using two different understandings of a particular situation as we are here (your using yours and i'm using a particular aspect of chris's argument) then they're never going to see eye to eye because they're speaking in different universes.  it's not that hard to understand, i think.

[ Parent ]
Who gets pushed, why, when and how hard. (0.00 / 0)
It isnt abstract, it isn't truisms, it comes from facts and the situation on the ground. Like battles, like chess and like organizing voters --  it is about outcome and goals or its just play acting.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
okay tell me your outcome and goals and strategy, the facts and the situation on the ground (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
ok (0.00 / 0)
I want an outcome of a continually organizing American public that demands and creates solutions that arise out of peoples own actual lives to the problems we all face, in order to meet the goal of a healthy people living peacefully sustainably and happily in community with others on a robustly vibrant planet, by organizing neighbourhoods, districts, counties, states and our nation around the issues that arise out of our lives, in a country beset by corporations whose size, power and influence is matched only by their greed and venality through a coalition historically and structurally based in continuous reform and democratization of the nearly always crippled Democratic Party in a constitutionally based representative democracy built by the women and men of our history who have fought tooth and nail for the perfecting union they love.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
you lost me (0.00 / 0)
at a continually organized American public...the only things the country organizes continually for is American Idol and football.
[ Parent ]
I was asked for desired outcome (0.00 / 0)
that is the outcome I most desire. Americans who will go on strike, sit down, write in, contact friends and co-workers, go to meetings, make decisions, keep lists, make telephone tree calls, get on and help organize email lists, join unions, join trade associations, contribute a percentage of their income to democracy building, keep promises, organize and keep boycotts and all the other sundry things the people of a democracy has to do to keep its population powerful.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I think that's everyone's desired outcome (0.00 / 0)
but my desired outcome, as is yours, is probably also to win the lottery, so really a desired outcome is irrelevant unless it's realistic.

[ Parent ]
It is realistic. It is what will happen, what is happening. (0.00 / 0)
We win or we die. Its barbarism or democracy.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
you left out strategy, tactics, and a description of the situation as it exists (0.00 / 0)
some questions result:
a) how do you deal with the vast disparity in economic and military power between the U.S. government and other governments?  how do you deal with the vast disparity in economic, political and cultural power between American advocates and those outsides?  Particularly the Global South?
b) given the situation as it is, what is your short term, middle term, and long term strategy?
c) what is the role of nationalism in what you're talking about and how does it impact on actually generating an equitable world?
d) strategically, what mechanisms would you pursue to ensure that the process is self-regenerating?
e) what potential obstacles do you think you would face in the middle and long term so that short term success does not fly in the face of middle and long term success?
f) how are short, middle, and long term defined?
g) what is the role of the Democratic party and how should you approach it?
h) what is the role of the party system and how should you approach it?
i) what is the role of the constitution and how should you approach it?
j) how will you build cross border solidarity, esp with latin america but other regions as well, that have felt the brunt of American power over many decades?
k) what kind of community organisation do you support (e.g. cities? suburbs? something else?) what transportation policy do you advocate to promote this form?
l) what are other questions that might come to mind?
m) how do you work with others and in what sphere?
n) what obstacles might you face in the short term to pursuing the next steps that you think would be necessary to address and pursue a strategy that would lead to your desired outcome on each of these questions and many others?
o) what form of communication is appropriate for the various types of people you will end up disagreeing with and how would you promote this?
p) what do you do about situations that are urgent and require a detour away from strategies stemming from the overall worldview that you hold- or, conversely, are there any?

I could go on.

[ Parent ]
Yes I am sure you could go on. (0.00 / 0)
And I appreciate the amount of attention you are paying, and the fact that you are dedicated to spreading the things you have learned. Perhaps that was too obvious to say, but well there you are.

We are discussing in the margin, which means something in Foulcaultian space I am sure. Buts worthwhile because any discussion that takes this level of seriousness needs continuance.

a) how do you deal with the vast disparity in economic and military power between the U.S. government and other governments?  how do you deal with the vast disparity in economic, political and cultural power between American advocates and those outsides?  Particularly the Global South?

I am not sure you have this right any more. Vast military power yes. Vast economic power, not so much anymore. The Untied States of America is no longer the largest economy. The EU is bigger, China is growing close, Japan still has pretensions of moving toward the top spot, Russia, shortly ago a basket case, is growing with surprising speed. Without IMF skullduggery Latin America could easily rise in a generation. The vast and growing capacity of Brazil has to be studied to be believed. I am outraged that the American economy is still held down with the largest military budget in history, larger than ALL OTHER MILITARY BUDGETS COMBINED, and I want it reduced. Including reducing the worlds nuclear stockpiles to zero. Mutually assured survival through international cooperation and development with regulatory agencies is more likely to provide a chance for real progress, real development and military safety than impoverishment through Pentagon budgeting.

The best way to defend your self against people with nothing to lose, is to make sure they have things that they don't want to lose. To quote America's greatest poet, "got a knife, got a fork, gotta cut something"

Cultural? I love Almodovar's films. Disney not so much. The dominance culturally is pretty much last year. Czeck busboys have better phones than you can buy.


b) given the situation as it is, what is your short term, middle term, and long term strategy?
Is this in relation to a)? I have a goal of reducing America's military spending, inline with maintaining American citizen safety from real threats. Long term, the world isnt staying they way it was. You mentioned Latin America, which, when America had time and money on its hands, didnt have a dozen left(ish) democratic governments hoping to be ignored more than anything else. I find it appaling and exciting that the only country completely without democracy, or any resemblance to social order, is America's good friend Mexico. And had Mexico been allowed to have an election, apparently the left would have won there as well. I for one am shocked at Mexico being the next "State Dinner" -- its almost literally an insult to India to be equated like this. And humorous compared to Venezuela which has had nothing but verified elections and referenda for, well a long time.

c)what is the role of nationalism in what you're talking about and how does it impact on actually generating an equitable world?
Yikes! Is this the place to say that Obama has doen more to increase respect for treaties, respect for the UN, paid all the back UN fees and dues, uses real international agreement to drive forward actions? I love the US. I am out front on that, I am a dual citizen (my mother) and I also love Canada, but let say, the US has a leader far to the left of Canada's. Stephen Harper is a teabagger, a Bushite. He is a manipulative with a zealotry and agenda that would make Anne Coulter proud. I will not threaten the constitutional democracy of the US ever. Americans have built with their blood and sacrifice a system that allows them, even if they have been fooled into ignoring that power, control their own destinies. I honour that, and always will. America is the third most populous country on the planet because of immigration, its strong and diverse because of it, it is inventive and creative because of our amazing population. I find the idea of "tolerance" pallid and weak and it implies a condescension I see as ugly. I celebrate America's diversity.

strategically, what mechanisms would you pursue to ensure that the process is self-regenerating?
Winning works. There is nothing a good strike, and good paycheck to build the idea that working together is the path forward. Organizing voters to demand solutions on their own problems, that are defined by their own life experiences, and winning a few, makes them realize that Organizing voters to demand solutions on their own problems, is the path forward. organize, struggle, organize, struggle, rinse, repeat.

e) what potential obstacles do you think you would face in the middle and long term so that short term success does not fly in the face of middle and long term success?
I have no idea what obstacles might show up, hell we cant deal with the ones that are here, and are coming. Getting organized is the best preventative to not being ready to tackle whats coming.

g) what is the role of the Democratic party and how should you approach it?
The Democratic party is the party of women and african americans, latinos gay americans and lesbians built to fight for rights political power and equality. It shgould be approached as our tool, us the citizens own it. We direct it, or let others direct it as we need. Our need right is great, we should be directing it, organizing transparent accountable democratic leadership for it. The Democratic party belongs to me (and us), and you will separate it from me when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.

h) what is the role of the party system and how should you approach it?
America law and structure are built deeply around 2 parties. Very few areas except New York and Oregon for example have any way of using more than two parties to effect political change. Even Vermont which elected a Socialist Senator, is still basically a two party state. Introducing different structures to allow more representation: runoffs, fusion voting, proportional representation are very important amendments to the democratic system we live in, until we have structures that allow third party voting to be more than protest however, it is irresponsible.

i) what is the role of the constitution and how should you approach it?
I loves me some constitution.

j) how will you build cross border solidarity, esp with latin america but other regions as well, that have felt the brunt of American power over many decades?
There is no Latin America. I was at a Michael Moore event in Toronto a long while back,and he asked, after talking about a conference for north american librarians, where Canadian librarians could answer knowledgeably to questions about the US state level attorneys general, but the American librarians couldn't name the Canadian Prime Minister, so he asked presumably to exhort outrage "How does it make you feel that Americans ignore you?!!?" there was, to him I am sure, an unexpected silence, broken by a shouted "SAFE!" from the back of the audience. Just preventing military adventurism is probably what most of Latin America wants right now. Working on carbon emissions comes next. YMMV.

m) how do you work with others and in what sphere?
I as I am a dual citizen living in Canada ndp.ca is one short answer. There are others.

I could go on. I hope this helps.

--

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

[ Parent ]
thanks for answering in such detail (0.00 / 0)
I think you underestimate current (though not future, maybe) American government influence and power in the world.  I think you have placed too much faith in some myths of the American political system (like that it delivers results for the disempowered in the best way possible, or that the Constitution is more than just an outadated 250 year old (or 150 year old, depending on how you want to look at it) document)).  I think there is not enough discussion about class issues in what you've said.

Those are broad points. I agree with you about the party system, but I think you could take a more radical approach by actively promoting fusion voting, public financing of elections, and other measures to make the existing party system better - and eventually replace it.  It won't happen by anyone's assertion.

I agree with you about using the Democratic Party as a tool, but I don't agree with your emotional attachment to it.  It is a tool, and nothing more.  I will willingly let go of it if it harms me to stay attached (and I am not a registered democrat for that reason, despite that it is quite stupid for me given what my political analysis is, to do so - primary elections are the only ones that matter if you are registered in a safe blue state).

I agree fully with this:

Winning works. There is nothing a good strike, and good paycheck to build the idea that working together is the path forward. Organizing voters to demand solutions on their own problems, that are defined by their own life experiences, and winning a few, makes them realize that Organizing voters to demand solutions on their own problems, is the path forward. organize, struggle, organize, struggle, rinse, repeat.

with the exception of the word "voter."  I also think this general theory needs to be put in more concrete detail.

I love the US. I am out front on that

What does this mean?  What does it mean to love the "US"?  Do you love the idea of the map in your mind?  Do you love the attachment you have to it?  Do you love the standard of living?  Do you love the ideological impulses present in American society?  What is uniquely American or uniquely "US" and why do you love it?  

More pertinently, do you agree or disagree that it is fundamentally unjust that on the basis of where someone is born (i.e. country of origin) or the citizenship of their parents and similar factors, they will have entirely different life outcomes?

[ Parent ]
Thanks again for the continuance of serious discussion, even I slip into my normal offhandedness and humour, (0.00 / 0)
with the exception of the word "voter."

We are a democracy. That is who we are. It is what we are. It is the tool that defines us, the philosophy that drives us, the path to change, the seed of renewal, the method of accountability. It is more than a committee to hire, it is the politeness that replaces violence and despair.

We define our society, is the definition of our society.

The power to effect: lower carbon emissions, union recognition, trade rules, defining poisons in our food, safety standards for elevators, minimum wages, single payer health care systems, the paths of responsibility for crises, the definition of a corporation, the dispersal and collection of funds --for example, lie in the hands of Americans. They have written a system to make it work, and it does. It needs only awake, committed and active citizens to desire enough to make change.

Political social change comes from a society enabled with the tools to act. We have the tools. It is being actively corrupted by wealthy corporations. We must not tolerate corruption, we must alter the way funding is allowed to prevent corruption.

The Democratic Party doewsn't hurt me, I hurt me, by inaction and lack of dedication. The party is dewsigned to let me run it. If I don't, its my failure.

Winning is using the power of our democracy, and our Democratic Party.


What does this mean?  What does it mean to love the "US"?  Do you love the idea of the map in your mind?  Do you love the attachment you have to it?  Do you love the standard of living?  Do you love the ideological impulses present in American society?  What is uniquely American or uniquely "US" and why do you love it?
 It means stickball on a hot pavement dreaming of long ball. It means Freedom Riders putting their own fragile bodies on the line to nonviolently enforce Supreme Court civil rights rulings to change the lives of people as they live them. It means stopping the Nazi onslaught on felled soldier at a time stumbliing up Normandy's beaches. It means Jon Stewart and the guys at the back of class making fun of the dickwad teacher, and Beuler, always Beular. It means Jazz, it means blues, it means rock and roll, it means Dylan and Pink and Gaga. It means the Supreme Court overruling President Bush, it means that despite the fact that run all of it, from your socks to your brain surgery, your car and your job and all the houses of government, massive change happens because we say so, with systems to do it.

We started out with massive problems, and set ourselves up with ways to solve them, and improved the ways the to solve them, and the new problems we will always have. And we made that, our ability to govern ourselves as important as anything else, more important. Governing ourselves is who we are, and we lay our lives, our very lives, on offer to defend it.

More pertinently, do you agree or disagree that it is fundamentally unjust that on the basis of where someone is born (i.e. country of origin) or the citizenship of their parents and similar factors, they will have entirely different life outcomes?

I want America to remember it is a nation of immigrants, who made the country far far better than it was, made it amazing and deeply movingly important as a culture, despite our myriad flaws. I want paths, several paths for migrants who wish to stay, who want to become that weird thing an American Citizen. And I want people who arent living here, to have all the prosperity they can create and trade for. We have to make FREE TRADE into fair trading, so its not a coercive abrogation of environmental, labour and civil rights for the profit of a few disgustingly rich asshats, so that we, us Americans and they (Brazilians, Jamaicans, Chinese) so that we all can live in ways that solve our problems that arise out of our own lives.

Just moving 6 billion people into the US wont solve anything, closing our borders will drive us mad. A freer border, with less tension on all sides is a goal. It starts with respect.

On class.  FREE TRADE is a perfect example. NAFTA is not (NOT) about shipping jobs to Canada, it is about removing rights of Americans and Canadians, of the American democracy
and the Canadian democracy so that our wages go down, our control over pollution is reduced. Knowing what side of that barricade you are on is class struggle, knowing who is there with you is class consciousness. When the economy collapsed last year tens of thousands of migrants crossed to Mexico and other places, to escape the deluge and build lives where they could be built.

The reason America has so many Mexicans who have immigrated, is because we helped Mexico collapse with NAFTA and political interference. The overwhelming evidence of massive fraud in the 2006 Mexican  election of "president-elect" Felipe Calderón is papered over and ignored. There is more anger at the economic policies of the many left governments in Latin America, than there is at the democratic and rights crimes of Obama's next "State Dinner" guest.

--

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

[ Parent ]
i am running out of energy so i'll keep it brief :) (0.00 / 0)
A mtiopologies for not responding in as much depth as you did.

You said with reference to our self-identities as people trying to seek change that we are "voters" and

It is the tool that defines us

I would say that this is very limited.  You yourself mentioned strikes.  I think this gets to the heart of the question.

Without saying that voting is irrelevant, because it's not, I will say that it is A tool, and a relatively minor one at that.  In fact, every single action that we take has political consequences of what kind or another, from the minimal to the massive.  This idea, to me, is one of the major things that distinguishes thinking in the terms of a social democracy rather than the more traditional and in my opinion conservative ideas of a liberal democracy.

This idea, that there is a lot more to democracy than just voting or electing the right people or even campaigning for the right legislation has a lot of implications and ramifications.  For now, I'll ask you to consider me - I live abroad, I am registered in New York.  The Presidential race is a non-vote for me (whether I vote for the Democrat or the Republican by any analysis has little bearing on who will win not because I don't matter but because that is how the electoral system is constructed).  The primary process is usually decided by then, though I could have more impact in that.  For Congressional races, there is perhaps more of a choice - perhaps in select cases in the primary between a corporate New Democrat and a more socially democratic Democratic that care more about both progressivism and populism.  That leaves referenda, building the Working Family Party, etc.

so without dismissing ANY of that as a way to make an impact - is that really the only way to make an impact.  Is it the most important way to make an impact?

In contrast, consider, for example, whoever leaked the video of American soldiers killing the reuters reporter to wikileaks.  Consider the people at wikileaks.  Consider the millions of undocumented people who marched a few years ago.  Consider Rachel Corrie.  Consider elvira Arellanos, who made the news for refusing to be deported.  Consider the rank and file members of labor unions and community organisations who go on strike, who come up wtih their own campaigsn to change laws, who seek to have interpreters at hospitals in various languages.  Consider a group like ACORN, which for all their flaws (none of the ones that you hear about in the media really), brought together a lot of people who had ltitle power in society to address issues like tenants' rights in some of the most disempowered areas in the United States. Consider the writers who help us understand how our world is working (everyone has their favorites- some of mine are Judith Butler and Immmanuel Wallerstein).

I would argue that for those people who could vote in the last paragraph, the actions they respectively took were far more impactful than their individual vote.  For those who could not vote, it really demonstrates the power of acting in ways that ultimately have to do with electoral politics because that is the last stage of where you can see change, but in so many different ways, from intervening in the right way in a domestic violence situation to simply helping a neighbor out who is locked out of their house, there are far more impactful and to me important ways in which we can build a better society than solely looking at voting and electoral campaigns.

I know this is not entirely clear, but it's something that's really important to me.  we can talk all we want about Democrats and better democrats and all that - but that is simply a surface level manifestation of something deeper - something that I want to see - which is a society that really is better, that allows individual people to live their lives in the ways that they want as long as they're not hurting other people, and which allows people who have no hope to be able to hope for something more than being the one who is f"£king over someone else and instead be treated with dignity and respect for just who they are.

So yes, I think voting is relevant to that, but in order to avoid alienating the 99.9% of humanity that can't vote in American elections and the substantial percentage of Americans who can't vote in American elections and make a very significant impact and have a broader imagination, I think a shift in focus is required.

Ironically, I think the creation of social network spaces like the netroots is a part - perhaps not as much a part as we like to think sometimes :) - but a part of that - not just because it mobilizes voters and money for candidates but also because it changes the way we think and how we act - in good ways and bad.  And it's in our lives as we live them that I think we ultimately have to measure our experiences of society - and in what we others is what will help us understand what our political aims and tactics and strategies ought to be - starting with talking to them and understanding them as more than just a Democrat, a Republican, a nonvoter, an independent, or anything else.

My three cents :)

thanks for the lengthy conversation and for giving me the space to say all that!!!

best wishes - dr. a

[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 3)
i was speaking to the general implications of the argument not this specific bill - and speaking to strategy, not on policy specifics, which this post centered on.  i don't know enough about the proposed legislation to do so.  i do know enough to say that overall, u.s. energy and pollution policy is inadequate.  but not on this bill.

if the analysis is that the gap between progressive support and democratic base support needs to be narrowed, then critiqueing [insert whoever is driving things here] from the left in a way that is not seen as vitriolic but passes the laugh test seems to be the way to go.

i would argue that evidence that he is to the center in the form of an actual left that doesn't defend him is useful for all.  i would argue that shattering his halo is useful for progressives and everyone - and would drive him to be a better president.

the questions I'm concerned with are things lke: what are the effects of praising or defending someone for not doing enough?  is he going to stop doing what he is doing because people on the left are criticizing him?  is he going to do better or worse in the media if actual socialists and social democrats and progressives criticise him from the left?  will the extreme rightwing do better or worse if actual socialists and social democrats and progressives criticize obama for not doing enough?

again, generally speaking, a stronger critique from the left (a civil one, but a strong one) seems in order, as part of a broader strategy of building support on the basis of issues.  wouldn't you prefer if obama's policies were not defined as 'the left' by the media but were seen for what they are - which is center / center right?  and presumably, he would shift accordingly because you've changed the balance of power.

[ Parent ]
Lots and lots of words. (0.00 / 0)
i would argue that evidence that he is to the center in the form of an actual left that doesn't defend him is useful for all.

But it does get a little unclear.

We dont have the luxury of expending our less than needed resources, less than fully organized analysis, less than the rights media buys on what we are not sure will press, where pressing is needed.

Don Quixote is a charming man, with admirable intent and heart warming style and innocence. However I do not want Don Quixote to lead 'la resistance' nor do I want him wrangling floor votes. We need to press hard on the places where pressing hard gets results. That place changes.

Changes due to players, due to player intent, due to desired outcome and time.

Attack please, feel free. But we have goals here, and allies and co-workers. They change, the territory changes, the ground changes. Even during the HCR debate, I was struck by how often, who was opposing, was not getting the pressure, who was supporting, was not getting the support.

Accurate matters.

--

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

[ Parent ]
shorter version (4.00 / 4)
critique obama loudly from the left =

stronger voice for the left + no one can call obama a socialist anymore because there's someone to the left of him.

win win win?

[ Parent ]
please explain this (0.00 / 0)
no one can call obama a socialist anymore because there's someone to the left of him.

Do you mean you want to try and primary him? Or are you saying there is a more respected, or potentialy more prespected actor on the environment, who should press him, in order to deal with antonydejesus's fear:


So, this is why I am pessimistic about a climate change bill right now   (0.00 / 0)
According to a recent Gallup poll:

53% - economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent
38% - protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth

Are attacking Obama for not being further left, because the demand for a "further left" President is so big right now and we want to capitalize on it?

I don't know what you are trying to do. So I can't argue with how effective your effort is.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Its not all about attacking (4.00 / 3)
Opening some space between Obama and the left-end of the political spectrum helps him to move to the left, or at least stop moving to the right, because it means that Obama's position on any given issue is not, de facto, the leftmost position.

Call it breathing room, if you must.

Moving the left-end of the political spectrum to the left is a very good idea that is far too long in the making.  

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

[ Parent ]
Obama wants a strong EPA. (0.00 / 0)
Is using a strong EPA to enact laws, enforce laws, reduce carbon.....

So we should....


--

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

[ Parent ]
If that is what he wants (4.00 / 3)
then he should see the value in having a group of progressive congress people propose ideas that are to the left of his. If he would rather compromise to the right - as he apparently desired in the HCR issue - then he will fight to have his be the leftmost position and begin compromising straight away.

Its a strategy.  

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

[ Parent ]
ask for an even stronger epa and even stronger rules and even stronger legislation (4.00 / 2)
are seriously saying that what the epa is doing now is sufficient and it couldn't do a single thing more than it is already going?  that nothing else can be done?

i understand your point, which is that there is a fight going on in your opinion between someone doing something useful and people trying to stop that useful thing and therefore people need to get behind the person doing the useful thing.  it's basically along the lines of 'everyone get on board to support the person trying to stop hitler' and whether you're correct or not in this specific circumstance depends on the specifics of the situation.

which you would have to present in detail, and more convincingly than you have - there's only really exhortation so far and unnamed people who are trying to stop the amazing thing that obama is trying to do.  not all of us follow this as closely as you apparently do so please enlighten us as to why the broader project of shifting american politics to the left needs to take a detour here at this moment on this issue for a very important reason.

which you might be right about!

[insert here]

[ Parent ]
Thats a good question (0.00 / 0)
why the broader project of shifting american politics to the left needs to take a detour here at this moment on this issue for a very important reason.

Partly because it takes as comp-letely assumed, that attacking Obama is the "the broader project of shifting american politics to the left" and partly because its just a damn good question.

Attacking Obama is not, I am going out on a limb here, equivalent to moving the country's politics left, or the discussion left, or understanding left. As Chris has pointed out, and maybe people didint notice, because in most peoples minds, he represents some portion of the drive to perfect the union, that follows in the footsteps of other "left" drives to bring civil rights, voting rights, sufferage, pension, medicare to America.

So like an advertiser: who is your audience, what do you want them to understand, what do you want them to do.

Making Obama a shibboleth for all things progressive isn't useful in developing a discussion, nor policy, nor electoral victory.

So attack him hard on FISA and the many other issues he fails in, but this? Nope.

--

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

[ Parent ]
you're my audience (4.00 / 4)
i'm talking to you.  i want you to understand that a) obama as a figure (not a person) is more problematic than i think you think he is and b) that it is useful to be independent of him so that when you agree or disagree, you are coming from a different place than he is coming from as president of the biggest war machine in the world, head of a political system dominated by big money and finance capital, and messenger of what have thus far been fairly empty promises; and c) there is a greater need to encourage independence from than defense of obama these days, among people who self-describe as progressives/progressive-democrats.

and d) that it is useful for me to believe all this, even if you disagree.

[ Parent ]
I see. (0.00 / 0)
Well ok then.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Yep. (4.00 / 1)
Maybe President Obama is good enough for you on the environment, but for ideological liberals there's still a huge difference between what they want and the New Democrat stuff he's pushing.

This isn't just for the environment either.  As the must-read I linked to above shows, there's a real ideological difference, across the board, between New Democrats and real liberals.  And Obama happens to be on the wrong side of that divide, IMO.  So, unless he comes out for direct government somewhere, we have to be pushing him all the time, everywhere.

[ Parent ]
But I agree that Obama needs to be critiqued. (0.00 / 0)
And different solutions offered. Just with accuracy. And I believe that the critiques should point not just to policy differences but also as you say the underlying ideological assumptions that are problematic.

To do so in such a way as to strengthen the centre left coalition, while moving left towards solutions, priceless.

To not critique, or provide solutions, or provide alternatives while weakening or breaking the coalition is expensive, and all bills are paid in suffering and lives.

--

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

[ Parent ]
MOST of the world is further left than the left of America. (0.00 / 0)
Most of the world has policies that are further left. Most of the worlds population is further left.

There are a lot of ways to be left.

--

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

[ Parent ]
Maybe (4.00 / 1)
but Obama doesn't have to face the rest of the world - just the conservodems and GOppers. In that fight he is aided if the left-end of the Democratic Party is to his left.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
is to his left. (0.00 / 0)
In that fight he is aided if the left-end of the Democratic Party is to his left.  

"is to his left."

What an interesting phrase to use to mean attacked without regard to effort, action or policy.



--

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

[ Parent ]
You introjected the word "attack" (0.00 / 0)
not me.

What is it about a single payer health care system that prevents it from being considered a "policy"?


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

[ Parent ]
The thread is about attacking Obama irrespective of the facts. (0.00 / 0)
Thats what the thread is about.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
okay let's try using imagination now (4.00 / 4)
imagine that there's a world in which someone prominent in politics is left of Obama but a Democrat and willing to take an independent path from the Obama/democratic establishment.  On all kinds of issues.   Let's call him Person L.

Firstly, the existence of Person L in the minds of rational observers (let's say, the Jon Stewart type) quickly ends any discussion that Obama is a radical leftist.

Secondly, the existence of Person L serves as a rallying point for a position to the left of Obama, which Obama will then have to negotiate with.

Thirdly, Person L serves as a way to ensure that people who are to the left of Obama don't get disillusioned, cynical, etc. because of his centrism/willingness to placate powerful interests on multiple fronts.  For example, Person L would probably be strongly pro-choice.  Person L would probably be in favour of the environment as well as jobs by, for example, supporting job creation to green the planet.  Person L would be able to bring together labor and environmentalists and migrants rights people.

Okay, now let's return to the real world.  Person L does not exists, but a diffuse set of people who are willing to say "No." on particular issues and are doing their best to come together to create an alternative political force in the long run.  They will gradually be coming to serve the function of Person L until he or she emerges as a result of their mobilization, at which point there will be a Democratic primary challenger we can support rather than not-oppose in a presidential election (the way there is in some Congressional races now).

Get it?  It works across the board - and it shifts the political spectrum to boot- it's a strategy for doing that.  which then shapes the way that legislative debates are - defines further to the left what 'conservative' 'moderate' and 'liberal' mean.

It's one aspect of this - as I already said, I'm not dealing with nuts and bolts here - there are people better at it than I am who could take this analysis and apply it to the specific piece of legislation being discussed.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, "imagination" is the only place such will be tolerated (4.00 / 2)
because all good progressives support Obama the progressive, here in the "real world" [!]


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
well, it would be a start then :) (4.00 / 1)
hope, change, all that? :)
[ Parent ]
My former co-host at the open mic we ran here in MPLS (4.00 / 2)
used to say, "Hope is the cruelest of emotions because it makes it easier to accept the place others have made for you in this world".

I often agree with her. When folks stop hopin' about the future, maybe they'll set about making the future a place they want to live.

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

[ Parent ]
Such a simple answer for soemone who has called for greater complexity (0.00 / 0)
Or have I read you wrong?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Don't forget (0.00 / 0)
that the [!] is a punctauation mark for sarcasm.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I am aware that you like sarcasm. (0.00 / 0)
But this isnt a fight in the homeroom, it isnt about popularity.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
its adult swim (0.00 / 0)
i get it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Realizing the cost of energy (4.00 / 3)
The climate/energy bill doesn't seem nearly as conducive to line in the sand issues except those outlined above (which very much seem like worst case scenarios). Taking a position of "realizing the true cost of energy" however nebulous seems like a decent rallying cry on a number issues.

-Eliminating subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Period. (This is already impossible given Obama's campaigning for "clean coal" and now pushing the expansion of oil drilling and nuclear power) We should only be subsidizing future renewable energy and efficiency technologies and solutions. "Transition" solutions should not be subsidized as they are temporary and should be financially viable already to achieve "Transition" status. You don't break an addiction by subsidizing methadone... or do you?

Sen. Cantwell's Capand-Dividend idea seems like a healthy replacement of Cap-and-Trade that gives citizens ownership over the loss of resources and reimburses them for it. Also removes excessive speculation. Also, similar to the Alaska dividend system.

-Worker and Environmental Safety Improvements. Amplify the stories of recent and continued coal mine accidents, the upcoming investigation of hydro fracking for natural gas (compromised aquafiers), the loss of mountains and fresh water via strip mining.

These three different areas seem to address the major market interventions in energy and would hopefully provide a foundation for a new local, sustainable energy economy to grow. I think this bill is an opportunity for the Left to embrace some of the rhetoric and value of a competitive marketplace given "reasonable" rules and regulations.

Safety regulatory expansion could be bundled with higher fines to help pay for itself. Fossil fuel subsidies could be redirected to local renewables and the increased cost (actual) of energy to the consumer could be "subsidized" by the dividends from Cap-and-Dividend.

Lots of fuzzy math, but seems like a good framework and much more productive than Progressive Caucus bashing.

re: energy (0.00 / 0)
is cap and dividend carbon tax with rebate?
[ Parent ]
Basically (4.00 / 2)
Cantwell's plan (at some point in time) was Cap at X (350) and auction off all credits, NO FREEBIES TO INDUSTRY.

Revenues are distributed to each and every citizen in a similar way to Alaska's distribution of oil revenues. Not sure if all revenues are distributed this way or only a portion to citizens, a portion to renewable investment.

It's simple, clean and could fit on a few sheets of paper (Grayson Message Simplicity).

[ Parent ]
I like the dividend/rebate part (0.00 / 0)
that should help us with the 'will cost us bore' crowd

and emphasizing the national security aspect of not being dependent on middle east oil shouldn't hurt

[ Parent ]
I'm a huge fan of cap-and-dividend (4.00 / 1)
and a huge "unfan", so to speak, of cap-and-trade.  Our environmental future should NOT be for sale.
[ Parent ]
I think you don't understand cap and trade (0.00 / 0)
A good cap-and-trade system could refund the auction proceeds to the people. The major problem with the cap-and-trade bills currently under consideration is that they're going to give away most of the permits, so there won't be any proceeds to refund.

In other words, you have it exactly backwards. We need our "environmental future" to be for sale, so it's paid for, not given away.

[ Parent ]
will that be a one-time distribution? (0.00 / 0)
and that provision where you can do $1,000 damage if you do $1,000 good (if I remember that correctly) sounds awful
[ Parent ]
Offsets, etc (4.00 / 1)
I'm not certain how the cap would be lowered over time in the current proposals. In principle, the permits could expire after some period, which would give an opportunity for recurring auctions (and hence distributions). Or the government could buy them on the open market, in which case there would not only not be any revenue but it would cost money. Or they could just decline in value over time, so a permit that is good for emitting 100 tons of carbon in 2011 is only good for 98 in 2012, 96 in 2013, etc.

Offsets are certainly ripe for abuse. They make sense in principle but there really needs to be some serious scrutiny (ie audits) given to them. Perhaps they also ought to be discounted somehow, like you reduce carbon dioxide by 100 tons over there and that gives you the right to emit 80 tons over here.

[ Parent ]
Hrm, maybe not (0.00 / 0)
The problem I have with cap-and-trade in general, is that it allows polluters to "buy" the right to pollute.  IMO, there should be no "right" to pollute.  That's like selling people credits to go out and commit murder.

Ideally, the government should just set a cap on emissions and work with industries to meet that cap, instead of making this a big money game.

[ Parent ]
But (0.00 / 0)
Your system still gives people the right to pollute. You're just selecting the existing industries and giving them the right. The advantage of auctioning the permits is that it allocates the permits to those who have the highest economic use for emitting carbon. In this way, the carbon cap has the minimum possible impact on the economy. That's another disadvantage of giving the permits away; you lose economic efficiency, because you're just making the assumption that incumbent emitters are the highest economic value added polluters.  
[ Parent ]
I admit I don't understand the economics of it (0.00 / 0)
What turns me off to cap-and-trade is this idea that you can buy the level that you pollute at.  I don't think money should be part of the equation - it should be the government regulators working with each polluter to figure out a plan on how to reduce emissions to the desired amount.
[ Parent ]
The economics of it (0.00 / 0)
Paul Krugman has a very good article (out today, for the Magazine) that explains the logic behind cap and trade. I doubt it will convince you since yours is a kind of moral objection, but you would do well to understand the arguments.
[ Parent ]
Two articles discussing cap-and-dividend (0.00 / 0)
here and here.

I'm also a strong supporter of a basic income, so this is really like killing two birds with one stone.

[ Parent ]
So, this is why I am pessimistic about a climate change bill right now (4.00 / 1)
According to a recent Gallup poll:

53% - economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent
38% - protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth

Some people seem to be talking about the need to marshal public opinion on the left.  I'm thinking that progressive clout on this will be weaker than it was on the health care bill.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Yes, its a harder debate, and will require more thought. (0.00 / 0)
Merely attacking Obama here, as suggested once irrelevantly above, is far a reasonable tactic. We are going to need conviction and convincing argument to the people who can exert power.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
All the more reason to defend the EPA (4.00 / 4)
No one gives a damn about this bill except the special interests (and the few of us that don't want to see 7 billion die, but how many really care about that?).  That means the bill that comes out will be crap.

If it wasn't for the EPA already having power, we'd be in the same boat as health care.  The status quo is so bad that even a shitty bill is much, much better than no bill.  But that isn't true this time.

The progressive bloc can easily block this bill if they deem it goes backwards.  If it really does go backwards, it shouldn't be difficult to hold the block.  No one cares enough to apply real pressure.

[ Parent ]
False Dichotomy (4.00 / 2)
Just because the question is framed that way doesn't mean reality is.

Obama tore this up on the campaign trail with "We will no longer accept the false choice between security and civil liberties"... or something like that.

Economic growth will happen once industries understand what the rules of the game are and what the future will hold. And once fossil fuels are gone there is ZERO economic growth in an fossil-fuel driven economy.

[ Parent ]
IIt doesn't matter what the reality is (4.00 / 1)
The "reality" is going to be whatever the MSM decides it to be.

Obama, the Democrats, progressive caucus, us, whoever can argue until they turn blue that there are no false choices and that this would foster economic growth, the media is going to say whatever the fuck they want to say, and are going to give the tea party endless coverage anyway.

You can't get your message out when no one is willing to carry it.  

[ Parent ]
That won't be how people will evaluate the bill (0.00 / 0)
They will ask if there will be more or fewer jobs because of the bill in the near future (within the year).

They will ask if It makes life more expensive.  People are willing to pay a bit more when the economy is good, but not now.

If the left isn't careful, the narrative will be that liberals care more about fuzzy animals and people in other countries than they do about middle and working class Americans and their jobs.  Merely saying that's not reality isn't enough to change the narrative because it doesn't offer one in its place.  Offering up the carrot of "green" jobs doesn't necessarily work because those jobs probably sound to the Average American like a lot of them require some fancy, high falootin' science degrees that common people don't have.

I also have to snicker at the idea that big business will come around to the long-term view of things.  Because that always happens.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Obama said that security/civil liberties line just before voting for FISA (4.00 / 1)
Obama said a lot of things on the campaign trail.  Do they really matter?  Not to him, apparently.  And because of that, he no longer matters to me.
[ Parent ]
This doesn't seem like a major objection to me (0.00 / 0)
I'm actually shocked that with the question phrased in that way, the result was that close. But in response, you could just have your carbon tax or cap-and-trade plan not go into effect until unemployment falls below some threshold. Or you could write the legislation to phase in; if it's a tax, just start really small (a penny a gallon on gas), or if it's cap and trade, give the permits away for a couple of years.

The other part of this is, doing nothing means EPA regulates CO2. That gives progressives quite a bit of clout, if they can marshall the votes to kill a bill.

[ Parent ]
As far as I'm concerned. . . (4.00 / 4)
there is no Progressive Caucus.
Thank you. (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I would gladly clean Representative John Lewis's shoes. I'd tell the grandkids.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Raul Grijalva Less Firm On Climate Change Bill Than Larry Summers (4.00 / 1)
http://news.firedoglake.com/20...
Calling all OpenLefters... (4.00 / 1)
So I'm a Political Science and Ecological Economics student in Vermont and coming from my vantage point... This thread scares the crap out of me.

I've been very active in the climate movement for about 3 years now and I can tell you that the above things that you guys are talking about: Cap n Trade, Tax n dividend, all of that hogwash. THEY ARE NOT SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS. Its as simple as that. We are in an ecological crisis of epic proportions in every way imaginable. According a recent UN report 300,000 people are dying RIGHT NOW from the direct and indirect effects of global climate disruption.

The time to rock the boat was years ago. We are at a juncture where its either all or nothing, because the climate doesn't wait. Its doesn't care if democrats pass a jobs bill or if immigration reform is enacted. Its cares about the amount of Co2 spewing into the atmosphere and is already on a violent feedback cycle towards catastrophe. And I'm literally not exaggerating one bit

Please everyone, for the sake of a human friendly planet, go to www.RisingTideNorthAmerica.org and read up. I organizeon campus with this continental-wide group to confront the root causes of ecological degradation. Namely, Capitalism. Be prepared for a wild ride over the next couple years ;)

Please. Please. Please. Its already so much worse than you can imagine. Offshore drilling?!?!?

System Change- Not Climate Change

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

Oh and... (0.00 / 0)
Take a few minutes to read the Wiki page on a political philosophy called Social Ecology. You've probably never head of it but tell me it doesn't tickle your fancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

~Solidarity~

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

[ Parent ]
unfortunately the ecological crisis is coinciding with a political crisis (0.00 / 0)
so i would suggest not looking to law makers or to people who are interested in what law makers do, but building a large, powerful, effective grassroots movement (which could proabbly have no trouble finding funding at this point given that key business interests like the existence of new york will eventually be threatend).  but you probably wouldn't even need much funding - as a student movement across many campuses, you get a disproportionate share of press because baby boomers some campus protest.  and given the gravity of the issue, you should be able to move people.

it's an issue campaign that you're proposing, and this is a thread on a political site that generally discusses $hit bills from a $hit congress and a president that will go along with way too much $hit.  wrong audience, methinks (hope I'm wrong!!!).

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
The ecological crisis is not an issue campaign. It is a crisis of capitalism and domination. I've been around the OpenLeft community for awhile and to see the lot of you convinced that you should be campaigning for greenwashed bullshit is disheartening. The climate movement has been a powerful grassroots force for a while but you can only do so many campaigns like PowerVote or Define the Decade. Its time to confront Capitalism outright. Enough tiptoeing around the problem. Does anyone here actually believe that constantly growing capitalist markets can continue indefinitely???

I can dispel capitalism in one sentence:

Matter always flows from a state of low entropy to one of high entropy.
-2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

[ Parent ]
How easily can you dispel capitalism (0.00 / 0)
from the political and economic systems of the globe?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Well, we certainly have our hands full don't we? (0.00 / 0)
The fact of the matter is Capitalism = Death and environmental degradation. Eventually it will end just as feudalism and slavery did. The sooner we begin to resist and dismantle it the better. We don't need to accept neoliberal solutions as if the Washing Consensus was a book from God. Liberate yourself. And seriously everyone here needs to read up on how bad the various environmental crisis are... right now. Makes Progressive politics seem half-assed and counterproductive if we really want to build a just, ecological society.  

Agitate.Liberate.Create.
[ Parent ]
You are certainly correct (4.00 / 1)
Is it enough to "liberate myself"? What about everyone else, or do I just expect them to take care of their own liberation?

If we agree that "building a just, ecological society" as the common goal, how do you plan to get there?  Any sci-fi or fantasy writer worth the effort of reading can describe a more perfect world, the trick is figuring out how to transition to that place.

That, fortunately or unfortunately, is where politics comes into the equation. Politics writ large - not just the day-to-day, decade-to-decade play-by-play of the struggles in the US - the kind that involve philosophies and ideology.

I'm not the one to defend "progressivism", I take this place as a forum, not a holy book, or a tool of the Democratic party. Your characterization is accurate of only a portion of what goes on in these threads.  

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

[ Parent ]
I think I agree with you about your basic point (4.00 / 1)
But 'Its time to confront Capitalism outright' is a statement of values on which you build a campaign, it's not a set of strategies, tactics, or an analysis.  how do we confront capitalism?  Do you use think globally act locally?  what are the key facets that you need to approach?  how do you get the political machinery to do the things its not (i.e. how do you capture it) and how do you end up not getting captured by the system rather than the other way around.

For example, after decades of study, Immanuel Wallerstein suggests attempting to increase the demands at the point of production (factories and the like) in order to facilitate a systemic crisis.  Other people have posed different ways of going about it, from industrial sabotauge to grassroots movements.

So what are you proposing should be done?  From my vantage point, partly because I think that cultural sea change is really important, I think that a series of steps adopted by people in their own contexts to push for more (more environmental justice, more economic justice, more gender justice, etc.) combined with a gradual building of links among these movements and taking advantage of systemic crises as they become apparent (like global warming, or whatever the roots of the financial crisis are, which I don't know the specifics of but am guessing is overproduction without supply) is the best way I can think of to move forward right now.  It's not a rejection of radicalism but how I can concieve of putting it into practice in my own life.  That's the kind of thing I need help with and a lot of other people do too that I think you could help with.

[ Parent ]
This is who I organize with... (0.00 / 0)
www.risingtidenorthamerica.org

I find their critique of the modern environmental movement to be especially prescient and insightful. If you want to be in the know then you need to read this PDF.  It'll get you all kinds of rowdy

http://www.risingtidenorthamer...

This is a sharp critique of the "big green" and U.N. approaches to climate change and a follow up on some of the most important resistance that erupted around the international talks. Most importantly it shows that, according to Naomi Klein, "particular model of dealing with climate change is dying."

Meaning relying on corporate greens, states, and capitalism. Things are getting very exciting right now. Picture direct action climate camps occupying Coal Plants and their property and using them as a base to organize new occupations and  shut downs. Neoliberal Capitalism is not going to "fix" itself by any means, progressive or right-wing.

I understand that you don't know  where to take your action but there are many groups at the forefront of climate resistance, Rising Tide being one , who are actively trying to build the organizations that will eventually challenge and replace capital and the state. As far as I personally have any influence it will take a libertarian socialist approach with political and economic power being decentralized, localized, and socialized among and between all workers. Seriously folks, when I start to see Progressives as reactionary, history is a stirrin'.  

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

[ Parent ]
great! (4.00 / 1)
much needed critique and I like your energy!

the trouble is for me, who is old and stale (I'm 32 :) I have to figure out ways to do things that allow me to keep my job (which is, imperfect as it is, geared to allow me to do such things if I see fit in terms of the values of the organisation and some flexibility on time and that it's not in the U.S. (so I earn more and pay less in taxes to the U.S. government and have a better political envirnoment around me), meet caring responsibilities if and when I have some, meet my emotional and personal needs (e.g. I couldn't go live in Iraq as an observer right now which I might like to do because, in addition to the fear of death, I suffer from anxiety and depression and take meds that are hard to get) etc..   So I do what I can in my spare time, taking time from work where necessary :) spreading information, engaging in conversation wtih other people.  I could definitely do more though, so it's good to talk :)  

It's not a better way - they're just our lives.

Additionally, I have different priorities - climate change is extremely important to me - but on a more personal level I care about LGBT and race issues, freedom of conscience in the U.S., and American politics and how it works.  I also care deeply about international solidarity and reducing international inequalities (or even establishign the basic principle that discrimination on grounds of citizenship is discrimination like any other kind - and actually tied to other things).  And of course economic disparities between different levels/classes of people in capitalism (considered globally).

So I would be curious as to how the movement-thingy you're involved in deals with these issues in terms of organisation, decision-making, what funding it needs (I assume you don't take more than you need, because otherwise you would be another bureaucratized organisation of the kind you're critiquing :) etc.  And how it toes the fine line between protest and effective protest (to put it obliquely).

And of of course, what, if any, change model you have.  As my elderly Left (as in Left, not 'progressive') uncle once said to me- well we're all libertarian socialists - but what do we do while the state exists? :)

Anyway, not everyone likes theorizing, but I do, and I consider it a contribution - when I was organizing (sort of) it held me up to read people like piven and Cloward and Immanuel Wallerstein and Judith Butler to talk about.

Anyway, not all of these questions are probably appropriate to answer on an online forum, so you can contact me at my gmail address if you ever want to - dr DOT anonymous AT gmail DOT com - that way, we can discuss them in another inappropriate space that is housed on the serves of a major multinational corporation. :)

[ Parent ]
"A bill that strips EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, or guts the Clean Air Act, are probably the best bets. " (4.00 / 2)
why is this even being considered?!?!?!?!?!  If they can't find any one of :

a) 10 Democrats in the Senate or
b) one Speaker of the House or
c) one House caucus large enough to block this or
c) one President to block this

they honestly and truly don't deserve to be in office.  That must be odious enough because it crosses the line for me from "yuck" to "Outrage!"

Taking away the wrong lesson (4.00 / 2)
The lesson from the health care fight isn't to not draw any lines in the sand, or avoid drawing them "too quickly".

The lesson is: Know what lines you can draw AND STICK TO, draw them, and then STICK TO THEM.  Don't draw any lines you can't stick to.

If Grijalva and the Progressives end up not drawing any lines because they really can't stick to them, then they've learned their lesson, though I'd greatly prefer it if they didn't end up being total cowards.

And yes, quite frankly President Obama needs to be taken down a notch or two when it comes to this sort of blind obedience.  I thought reflexive "whatever Obama says, goes, cuz he's young, cool and black" was something Democrats were beyond, but I was wrong.  Obama has done some good things and some great things, but we have to be constantly vigilant against ourselves and especially others blindly going along with whatever gets his stamp of approval.

What do you mean, "for now"? (0.00 / 0)
Asking these guys to ever draw a firm line in the sand is asking the impossible.  They're never going to draw a line in the sand.  Not on anything.
Progressive Caucus passes on drawing a line in the sand on the climate bill, at least for now | 145 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