Sunday, December 28, 2008
Further horor in Gaza
Yet again the Israeli government has launched an attack on the people living in the Gaza strip. Perhaps the peoples of Israel and Palestine can find a way to come to peace with out external changes. But the role of America's unflinching aid and support for Israel in the face of terror reigned on the people of Palestine raises the central issue that we in America need to address, our military aid makes us complicate in this war. How can we hope to make negotiations work while we have chosen sides. And more important, how can we break the monolithic support for Israel by the American government. Does any one really have an answer to this?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
MoveOn goals
The group MoveOn.org recently asked it’s members what its top goal for 2009 should be. My answer: Reversing the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes. They asked why this was important. My response: This got us in to Iraq and Obama seems willing to apply this to Pakistan. It goes against the foundational principals of modern international law. More importantly it is inherently destabilizing.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
resistance and rising expectations
I was recently asked if conditions in the economy were such that we might have real social resistance or an uprising. My initial answer was first I thought the American people had become too passive, second, I was sure that I couldn't imagine what an uprising would look like in the present era, but my third point was that unmet rising expectations help the chances of any revolution.
Two case studies in economic resistance to the down turn suggest that I may be wrong on my first two points.
The most well known of the two is the United Electrical Workers Local 1110 workers at Republic Windows and Doors occupied the plant after the company tried to close up shop with out providing the legally requisite 60 day notice & severance pay. This tied into the companies failure to get loans, the common economic malaise. In the end the workers got there demands met, and for good measure Obama even weighed in saying he thought the workers were right.
The second story comes from Miami in the midst of rising foreclosures where a group called Take Back the Land is doing just that. For about a year now they have been helping homeless folks squat foreclosed houses, around a half a dozen homes have been liberated this way.
Both these cases show that people faced with dire conditions are taking direct action with success. While I'm not anticipating Obama weighing in on Take Back The Land. This kind of direct action is what I would imagine an uprising to look like. to get to a real revolution things will have to be more wide spread, and will need to be taken even further. Eventually occupied homes will need to be defended either through legal agreements (according to the AP story that covered the Miami Squatting such may be the case in Cleveland and Atlanta)or through extra-legal means. Demanding severance pay is no substitute for a job. An example of where this could go is what happened in Argentina, where workers have squatted closed factories and started producing as a workers cooperative.
Homelessness looks like a problem that wont go away until you look at the stock of foreclosed housing. If the auto industry goes down there will be no shortage of factories ripe for squatting. Perhaps then a wider uprising, one that would look familiar to me might be possible. If things go that way I will be delighted to have been wrong on my first two points. Lets keep our expectations rising!
Two case studies in economic resistance to the down turn suggest that I may be wrong on my first two points.
The most well known of the two is the United Electrical Workers Local 1110 workers at Republic Windows and Doors occupied the plant after the company tried to close up shop with out providing the legally requisite 60 day notice & severance pay. This tied into the companies failure to get loans, the common economic malaise. In the end the workers got there demands met, and for good measure Obama even weighed in saying he thought the workers were right.
The second story comes from Miami in the midst of rising foreclosures where a group called Take Back the Land is doing just that. For about a year now they have been helping homeless folks squat foreclosed houses, around a half a dozen homes have been liberated this way.
Both these cases show that people faced with dire conditions are taking direct action with success. While I'm not anticipating Obama weighing in on Take Back The Land. This kind of direct action is what I would imagine an uprising to look like. to get to a real revolution things will have to be more wide spread, and will need to be taken even further. Eventually occupied homes will need to be defended either through legal agreements (according to the AP story that covered the Miami Squatting such may be the case in Cleveland and Atlanta)or through extra-legal means. Demanding severance pay is no substitute for a job. An example of where this could go is what happened in Argentina, where workers have squatted closed factories and started producing as a workers cooperative.
Homelessness looks like a problem that wont go away until you look at the stock of foreclosed housing. If the auto industry goes down there will be no shortage of factories ripe for squatting. Perhaps then a wider uprising, one that would look familiar to me might be possible. If things go that way I will be delighted to have been wrong on my first two points. Lets keep our expectations rising!
Monday, December 8, 2008
apointment and disapointments
In a recent communication to left critics of Obama's cabinet choices, Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand spelled out some of the problems our country faces. He then said, "The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left."
I have not been nearly as outspoken about Obama's choices as I think I should be. I think it is fortunate that others are raising concerns. Mr Hildebrand's comments merit a response.
First to say that we want a cabinet that is left is not just to say we won so lets take the spoils. To argue for a more left cabinet is to argue for a cabinet that does represent the views of all the people (of the united states). Consistently The American people express opinions (in polls and such) that are to the left of Americas politicians. If President Obama's goal is to surround himself with a diversity of intelligent opinions that represent the spectrum of American political opinion, that diversity would include someone like Medea Benjamin of code pink, or even Noam Chomsky. From the standpoint of pragmatism I understand why even the left would not rush into such appointments. But the diversity of opinion argument does not hold up if it amounts only to diversity to the right. Nor does it hold water if a couple of people from the left are appointed to token offices like the department of the interior.
Second there is the question of qualifications. This concept is too often represented as intelligence and experience. The third element of what makes one most qualified for a position is perspective. One can be brilliant and wrong. Experience can bring baggage. As we face so many crisis we do need leadership of perspective. we need good ideas, and frankly I think that the left has among the best ideas to address the problems we face. On the surface they may not seem pragmatic, but pragmatism that picks convenient solutions that are easy to push through may be penny wise and pound foolish.
Now let me get to the issue of criticism. This is the rough part. I'm suspect Mr Hildebrand and his colleagues in the Obama inner circle may observe that criticisms are coming and Mr Obama is not even in office yet. They may feel unnerved for a variety of legitimate reasons. and Mr Hildebrand's article is really a request that we give Obama's centrist cabinet a chance to work to fix the problems we face. I believe they will have that chance, but perspective does mater. A fix can be progress, or it can hold thing back. Critique when fairly given, to one who can listen as I believe that Barack Obama can, has the potential to strengthen. If Obama and his transition team hear that there are voices on the left that are not represented in his cabinet that are voices of his constituency perhaps he is more likely to act to include such voices.
I hope that critiques of appointments will continue, I hope the critiques will help strengthen the new administration. For those of us who raise critiques I would suggest that we strive to give fair criticism based on perspective not personality. We should understand that mistakes will be made but we can hope that our perspectives will help correct them.
I have not been nearly as outspoken about Obama's choices as I think I should be. I think it is fortunate that others are raising concerns. Mr Hildebrand's comments merit a response.
First to say that we want a cabinet that is left is not just to say we won so lets take the spoils. To argue for a more left cabinet is to argue for a cabinet that does represent the views of all the people (of the united states). Consistently The American people express opinions (in polls and such) that are to the left of Americas politicians. If President Obama's goal is to surround himself with a diversity of intelligent opinions that represent the spectrum of American political opinion, that diversity would include someone like Medea Benjamin of code pink, or even Noam Chomsky. From the standpoint of pragmatism I understand why even the left would not rush into such appointments. But the diversity of opinion argument does not hold up if it amounts only to diversity to the right. Nor does it hold water if a couple of people from the left are appointed to token offices like the department of the interior.
Second there is the question of qualifications. This concept is too often represented as intelligence and experience. The third element of what makes one most qualified for a position is perspective. One can be brilliant and wrong. Experience can bring baggage. As we face so many crisis we do need leadership of perspective. we need good ideas, and frankly I think that the left has among the best ideas to address the problems we face. On the surface they may not seem pragmatic, but pragmatism that picks convenient solutions that are easy to push through may be penny wise and pound foolish.
Now let me get to the issue of criticism. This is the rough part. I'm suspect Mr Hildebrand and his colleagues in the Obama inner circle may observe that criticisms are coming and Mr Obama is not even in office yet. They may feel unnerved for a variety of legitimate reasons. and Mr Hildebrand's article is really a request that we give Obama's centrist cabinet a chance to work to fix the problems we face. I believe they will have that chance, but perspective does mater. A fix can be progress, or it can hold thing back. Critique when fairly given, to one who can listen as I believe that Barack Obama can, has the potential to strengthen. If Obama and his transition team hear that there are voices on the left that are not represented in his cabinet that are voices of his constituency perhaps he is more likely to act to include such voices.
I hope that critiques of appointments will continue, I hope the critiques will help strengthen the new administration. For those of us who raise critiques I would suggest that we strive to give fair criticism based on perspective not personality. We should understand that mistakes will be made but we can hope that our perspectives will help correct them.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
A letter to my friend in peace studies:
Dear friend, life gets busy and it has been too long since we have talked, perhaps this letter can start a dialogue.
I was with my family in Georgia 2 weekends ago. We were down there to visit my parents, my sister and her family, and to attend the demonstration to close the School of the Americas. I think you know my father is politically left, well informed and thoughtful.
Through several conversations with him I came to develop some thinking about how the peace movement might progress in the Obama era. You seemed like the ideal person to share these thoughts with.
The gist of the argument I would like to make is that the goals we have regarding US foreign military involvement might be considered separate from some specific programmatic goals of the peace movement. While we can hope for change on both fronts, we may have greater power to achieve programmatic goals.
To begin with certainly the election of Obama is an opening for the peace movement, but in no way should we assume that this means world peace is soon at hand. Even withdrawal from Iraq remains an open question. While we might want an end to military involvement in Afghanistan and incursions into Pakistani this is highly unlikely in the short term. We might want a radically different position on Palestine and Israel, however, it seems naive to expect much more than greater involvement in negotiations.
I have to acknowledge that from my perspective, under the Bush administration protest came to seem almost ridiculous in its futility. We are again entering a place where public expression may make a greater difference. Still, regarding actual fighting and war, I think that things will most likely play out more according to the dictates of Real Politics and within the framework of American foreign policy as it is today. Perhaps the best we can do is to keep Obama on track regarding the military departure from Iraq. We can hope that the risk of an attack against Iran is off the table for the moment. But a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan is highly improbable. To have much effect on issues of Israel and Palestine would require numbers and coherence greater than the peace movement's present scope.
Beyond Iraq, foreign policy is probably the area where Obama's positions are most disappointing to the left, and to the peace movement. All this is not to say that we shouldn't make noise about these important issues, but that we should anticipate that the peace movement will not have much power in the short run to influence foreign policy events.
I think another set of issues have a greater potential to be effected by organizing and action. Let me call them programmatic goals. Although they are less direct and urgent than stopping a war, they may be more important. Success with these could help to shift the framework of American foreign policy. And I believe the potential for success is grater.
The campaign to close the School of the Americas is an example of what I mean by a programmatic goal. This campaign is about 20 years old, often seemingly myopic in it's single issue focus. Now, with the recent change in the composition of congress the possibility of successis almost at hand.
There are several other campaigns that I believe now might make greater headway. Obama has promised to close guantanamo, and to stop US torture. Then there are international treaties that most of the world embraces but the US is not party to. The international treaty to ban land mines is an important example. Nuclear disarmament may again be a possibility. There is a growing international movement to close American bases in other countries. If successful this movement could begin to reverse American imperial reach. Kuciniche's proposal for a Department of Peace also needs a grassroots push. I believe that with all these programs and others like them there is now a greater potential for success.
While many grassroots efforts are underway all are limited in there scope, even the Close the SOA efforts seem to be mostly populated by a small sub culture of the peace movement. The busloads of students from small catholic colleges I've never heard of who show up at Fort Benning always amazes me. Some networking or linking of these programmatic campaigns might give strength to all of them.
So this brings me to why I am writing you. You have spoken of wanting to develop an international peace organization like greenpeace is for the environment, or Amnesty international is for human rights. I wonder what thoughts you might be having about that organization these days.
I was with my family in Georgia 2 weekends ago. We were down there to visit my parents, my sister and her family, and to attend the demonstration to close the School of the Americas. I think you know my father is politically left, well informed and thoughtful.
Through several conversations with him I came to develop some thinking about how the peace movement might progress in the Obama era. You seemed like the ideal person to share these thoughts with.
The gist of the argument I would like to make is that the goals we have regarding US foreign military involvement might be considered separate from some specific programmatic goals of the peace movement. While we can hope for change on both fronts, we may have greater power to achieve programmatic goals.
To begin with certainly the election of Obama is an opening for the peace movement, but in no way should we assume that this means world peace is soon at hand. Even withdrawal from Iraq remains an open question. While we might want an end to military involvement in Afghanistan and incursions into Pakistani this is highly unlikely in the short term. We might want a radically different position on Palestine and Israel, however, it seems naive to expect much more than greater involvement in negotiations.
I have to acknowledge that from my perspective, under the Bush administration protest came to seem almost ridiculous in its futility. We are again entering a place where public expression may make a greater difference. Still, regarding actual fighting and war, I think that things will most likely play out more according to the dictates of Real Politics and within the framework of American foreign policy as it is today. Perhaps the best we can do is to keep Obama on track regarding the military departure from Iraq. We can hope that the risk of an attack against Iran is off the table for the moment. But a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan is highly improbable. To have much effect on issues of Israel and Palestine would require numbers and coherence greater than the peace movement's present scope.
Beyond Iraq, foreign policy is probably the area where Obama's positions are most disappointing to the left, and to the peace movement. All this is not to say that we shouldn't make noise about these important issues, but that we should anticipate that the peace movement will not have much power in the short run to influence foreign policy events.
I think another set of issues have a greater potential to be effected by organizing and action. Let me call them programmatic goals. Although they are less direct and urgent than stopping a war, they may be more important. Success with these could help to shift the framework of American foreign policy. And I believe the potential for success is grater.
The campaign to close the School of the Americas is an example of what I mean by a programmatic goal. This campaign is about 20 years old, often seemingly myopic in it's single issue focus. Now, with the recent change in the composition of congress the possibility of successis almost at hand.
There are several other campaigns that I believe now might make greater headway. Obama has promised to close guantanamo, and to stop US torture. Then there are international treaties that most of the world embraces but the US is not party to. The international treaty to ban land mines is an important example. Nuclear disarmament may again be a possibility. There is a growing international movement to close American bases in other countries. If successful this movement could begin to reverse American imperial reach. Kuciniche's proposal for a Department of Peace also needs a grassroots push. I believe that with all these programs and others like them there is now a greater potential for success.
While many grassroots efforts are underway all are limited in there scope, even the Close the SOA efforts seem to be mostly populated by a small sub culture of the peace movement. The busloads of students from small catholic colleges I've never heard of who show up at Fort Benning always amazes me. Some networking or linking of these programmatic campaigns might give strength to all of them.
So this brings me to why I am writing you. You have spoken of wanting to develop an international peace organization like greenpeace is for the environment, or Amnesty international is for human rights
Saturday, November 15, 2008
marriage & democracy
I went to one of the many rallies held around the country today in protest of Californian's Proposition 8 which takes away the right to gay marriage. Considering the weather the turn out was great, my quick estimate put the crowd at about 150. The anti marriage amendment creates a lot of paradoxes.
First Obama's turn out probably contributed to the amendments success. Even at the rally speakers talked about how bitter sweet election night was.
Then there are the anti democratic sentiment that this vote stirs up, I have herd people complain about voting about issues of right, even the very concept of initiative voting is questioned.
This brings up political theory so I will digress. Ballot initiative are probably the most directly democratic procedure in the American political system. I prefer direct democracy to the representative form. There are things that can make direct democracy better, like political education. Even ahead of direct democracy is a system that includes principals of autonomy and consensus. Essentially decisions should be made by those who are effected by them, and then the participants should seek solutions that all parties can live with.
The main response to Prop 8 is to seek justice in the courts, and political struggles for liberation need to use the political tools available, but liberties won by democracy are preferred, it is better to win hearts and minds that to force a position. I understand the principle of equal protection but still...
Now then there is the very institution of marriage not one of my favorite institutions, it's origins, it must be noted, involved the selling of women. nonetheless I was at the rally chairing for marriage. When the chant went "fee fie foe fun, Marriage is for every one", I couldn't chant along. some don't have any use for marriage.
I would personally prefer civil unions for all legal matters, a contract easily entered in to and easily ended. Leave Marriage as a strictly religious commitment.
First Obama's turn out probably contributed to the amendments success. Even at the rally speakers talked about how bitter sweet election night was.
Then there are the anti democratic sentiment that this vote stirs up, I have herd people complain about voting about issues of right, even the very concept of initiative voting is questioned.
This brings up political theory so I will digress. Ballot initiative are probably the most directly democratic procedure in the American political system. I prefer direct democracy to the representative form. There are things that can make direct democracy better, like political education. Even ahead of direct democracy is a system that includes principals of autonomy and consensus. Essentially decisions should be made by those who are effected by them, and then the participants should seek solutions that all parties can live with.
The main response to Prop 8 is to seek justice in the courts, and political struggles for liberation need to use the political tools available, but liberties won by democracy are preferred, it is better to win hearts and minds that to force a position. I understand the principle of equal protection but still...
Now then there is the very institution of marriage not one of my favorite institutions, it's origins, it must be noted, involved the selling of women. nonetheless I was at the rally chairing for marriage. When the chant went "fee fie foe fun, Marriage is for every one", I couldn't chant along. some don't have any use for marriage.
I would personally prefer civil unions for all legal matters, a contract easily entered in to and easily ended. Leave Marriage as a strictly religious commitment.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
My beliefs and the meaning of the presidental election
I hold the belief that at their core all humans are good, including an inherent tendency to care about others, a capacity to respond to situations with great intelligence, and something alive inside that is of great worth. Regrettably when I think about politics, too often I set aside this important understanding of human nature.
Often it is the Presidents of the United States towards whom I have the hardest time holding this view of core goodness. Make no mistake I find the policies of the Bush administration intolerable. But between policy and person there can be a great divide. Even if his goals and objective have short comings, underneath those are real human feelings and needs no different from yours or mine, and feelings and needs, I believe, are innocent, only in the misdirected attempt to meet his needs do problems emerge.
This brings me to the first thing I admire about our president elect Barack Obama. In his campaign for the presidency he was clear that he held nothing against John McCain, rather he focused criticism on the policies that Senator McCain supported. I can’t claim that the Obama campaign always took this high road, but Obama reached for it. From my view he did far better than most politicians in this regard.
I belief that there is something transformative in the power of really listening. Perhaps Obama’s greatest character strength is that he is a good listener. Reports from his role at the Harvard Law Review indicate that his administrative style is to listen to a variety of opinions which he would actually consider, and then he would make a decision. We also know that Obama worked as a community organizer because, as he told his peers, change comes from the bottom up. Community organizing and bottom up change is participatory democracy. In other words he has held the perspective that listening to the voices on the bottom matters.
We could only benefit from leaders who practice the politics of listening. There is talk of the organizational efforts from the campaign continuing. This makes sense from the perspective of a community organizer. This would be a big step towards the participatory politics of listening.
My favorite image from the entire campaign was the footage of Jesse Jackson in Grant field with tears streaming from his eyes. And hats of to him for all the steps he took to help us get to where we are now. Another belief that I hold is that cathartic is one of the most genuine and healing expressions of emotions.
Of course many of us cried when we learned that Barack Obama was elected. People will say tears of joy but I think that our tears ran deeper. We are crying because this election reflects a contradiction to the despair that many of us have felt around politics, race and the future for so long. Race, of course, is at the top of that pile of despair. In spite of the unconscious racism that most of us still have (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1 an interesting test you can take that makes the point), and the more overt racism that still too often runs our politics, we as a country in overwhelming numbers elected a President who is not white. This does not eliminate racism but it gives hope that we can overcome. Around the world people have celebrated this electoral victory, and have expressed great hope for what this may mean for our world and for peace. This outpouring may be overly optimistic but to take a moment and share in that global optimism and desire for peace is a deeply emotional experience. I have noticed this week that I continue to break into tears as I think about what has been accomplished, or when I hear some hopeful sign in the news. When I reflect my crying I see that it comes from the possibility that the despair that the world has faced for so long might be overcome. Now it is not so grim and I can cry for the despair, and as well for the joy.
Often it is the Presidents of the United States towards whom I have the hardest time holding this view of core goodness. Make no mistake I find the policies of the Bush administration intolerable. But between policy and person there can be a great divide. Even if his goals and objective have short comings, underneath those are real human feelings and needs no different from yours or mine, and feelings and needs, I believe, are innocent, only in the misdirected attempt to meet his needs do problems emerge.
This brings me to the first thing I admire about our president elect Barack Obama. In his campaign for the presidency he was clear that he held nothing against John McCain, rather he focused criticism on the policies that Senator McCain supported. I can’t claim that the Obama campaign always took this high road, but Obama reached for it. From my view he did far better than most politicians in this regard.
I belief that there is something transformative in the power of really listening. Perhaps Obama’s greatest character strength is that he is a good listener. Reports from his role at the Harvard Law Review indicate that his administrative style is to listen to a variety of opinions which he would actually consider, and then he would make a decision. We also know that Obama worked as a community organizer because, as he told his peers, change comes from the bottom up. Community organizing and bottom up change is participatory democracy. In other words he has held the perspective that listening to the voices on the bottom matters.
We could only benefit from leaders who practice the politics of listening. There is talk of the organizational efforts from the campaign continuing. This makes sense from the perspective of a community organizer. This would be a big step towards the participatory politics of listening.
My favorite image from the entire campaign was the footage of Jesse Jackson in Grant field with tears streaming from his eyes. And hats of to him for all the steps he took to help us get to where we are now. Another belief that I hold is that cathartic is one of the most genuine and healing expressions of emotions.
Of course many of us cried when we learned that Barack Obama was elected. People will say tears of joy but I think that our tears ran deeper. We are crying because this election reflects a contradiction to the despair that many of us have felt around politics, race and the future for so long. Race, of course, is at the top of that pile of despair. In spite of the unconscious racism that most of us still have (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1 an interesting test you can take that makes the point), and the more overt racism that still too often runs our politics, we as a country in overwhelming numbers elected a President who is not white. This does not eliminate racism but it gives hope that we can overcome. Around the world people have celebrated this electoral victory, and have expressed great hope for what this may mean for our world and for peace. This outpouring may be overly optimistic but to take a moment and share in that global optimism and desire for peace is a deeply emotional experience. I have noticed this week that I continue to break into tears as I think about what has been accomplished, or when I hear some hopeful sign in the news. When I reflect my crying I see that it comes from the possibility that the despair that the world has faced for so long might be overcome. Now it is not so grim and I can cry for the despair, and as well for the joy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
To the President elect, Barack Obama
Avaaz, The Global Peace & Justice Email group called for signitures and comments on a wall that will go up in DC to congratulate Barak Obama and encourage him to keep some committments to us. . My comments to our new president are here:
I joined your movement, worked to get you elected, traveled to ohio on election day to canvas & get out the vote. Like many when you were elected I cried tears of joy.
Now I would like to give you a warning: be careful of who you surround yourself with.
I hope you will continue to align with our movement for global peace, justice and environmental restoration. Please also work to reverse the doctrine of preemptive attack, we need great peace making in Afghanistan. I don't believe a war can be waged on a concept even if the concept is terror. If we can reverse american military belligerence, if we can create a fair and tolerant social and economic system, if we can preserve what is left of our beautiful & scarred earth, when compassion and love become political concepts, then I will cry , I will weep for joy, please exceed our greats hopes for your presidency.
I joined your movement, worked to get you elected, traveled to ohio on election day to canvas & get out the vote. Like many when you were elected I cried tears of joy.
Now I would like to give you a warning: be careful of who you surround yourself with.
I hope you will continue to align with our movement for global peace, justice and environmental restoration. Please also work to reverse the doctrine of preemptive attack, we need great peace making in Afghanistan. I don't believe a war can be waged on a concept even if the concept is terror. If we can reverse american military belligerence, if we can create a fair and tolerant social and economic system, if we can preserve what is left of our beautiful & scarred earth, when compassion and love become political concepts, then I will cry , I will weep for joy, please exceed our greats hopes for your presidency.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Could it come down to a prayer?
Why It seem that Bush stole the last two presidential elections? Probably because he did. But perhaps all those religious zealots praying for him did something too. What ever else you can do for the campaign on election day (I'll be in Toledo) pray for an Obama victory. Pray, visualize, imagine, meditate, send good vibes. Believe that we can win.
(....I told you I would make a difference)
(....I told you I would make a difference)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
An Open Ballot
The private ballot is really about protecting against intimidation. I support the rights of those who choose to keep their voting private, but this is not a personal concern of mine. Being out in the open about who I will vote for and who I endorse is an attempt to promote political discourse. So right or wrong, here are my picks:
For President I endorse Barack Obama.
According to the statistically oriented poll-watching blog Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a greater than 95% chance of winning the election, and in Michigan Obama is up by over 15%. But in recent days Obama has slipped in the national polls (less so in the polls of the key states he needs to win.) The risk of McCain winning is unacceptable. So in Michigan I will still vote for Obama. I am confident enough about Obama in Michigan that I plan to go to Ohio to volunteer on election day.
Cynthia Mckinney has a less militaristic foreign policy, is generally more progressive, but she will not get elected nor will she even get 5% of the vote which would give the Green Party campaign matching funds. Most polls show her at 1%
Ralph Nader has polled as well as 6% but after jumping parties I lost interest in him. I don’t see an argument for building the Natural Law Party.
The Democrats in congress did not push legislation with teeth to end the war in Iraq. This was not the only place where they did not come through.
For Michigan Rep to the US Senate I endorse Harley G Mikkelson of the Green party. Carl Levin will win. Even in the very unlikely event that he didn’t the Dems will still control the senate. We may be reminded that Levin heads the Armed Services committee, but if Levin lost, Kennedy might assume the lead of this committee. That would probably count as progress.
For House of Representative for Michigan’s 15th district I am reminded of the slogan “don’t vote it only encourages them.” Like Levin, John Dingell will win, the district was drawn by Republicans to concentrate Democratic voters in one area. His performance has been so so on foreign policy, and he is a bit too close to the auto industry which is Michigan’s surrogate for the oil industry. Whether to vote for the Green party candidate Aimee Smith is a more difficult question. She is a grassroots activist, I know several activists who find her to be a difficult person to work with. I believe that her often antagonistic approach to activism has been counter productive in Ann Arbor’s progressive community. My tendency is to vote for policy regardless of personality. She holds a pro Palestinian position, and this is a position that has no voice in congress I understand those who share my position on Dingell but still can’t vote for Smith. In the end I will vote for her, I only wish this would encourage her to change her approach towards other activists (not her positions on issues).
I will vote for Matt Erard, the Green candidate for the Michigan state legislature 53rd district. This is a hard one to call as Rebekah Warren is a progressive Democrat. But since she won 2 years ago with 80% of the vote, a little competition from an old school socialist might be healthy. Erard calls for state ownership of all major industries. This is not exactly how I would approach building socialism. My point is to build the Green Party when possible. Erard’s campaign shows that Greens can run “fusion candidates.” Erard is also running as a Socialist Party candidate although they don’t have ballot access.
Vote tallies in the smaller statewide races are what determine if a third party stays on the ballot. So voting Green Party is important in terms of maintaining an independent political voice in the electoral system. I will also vote for Libertarians some times. I would vote for Natural Law Party candidates if there were any at this level. The US Taxpayers Party and their candidates often represent a fundamentalist christian political perspective that I can’t vote for.
For State Board of Education, I endorse Dwain Reynolds III, the Green party candidate
There is nothing exciting in either of the Democratic Party candidates, but I will pick one at random (League of Women Voter web page has some info on each of them)
For Board of Regents of the University of Michigan I endorse Ellis Boal the Green Party candidate and Denise Ilitch from the Democratic Party. Ilitch acknowledges the importance of renewable energy development.
For Board of Trustees of Michigan State University I endorse Therese Marie Storm, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Joseph Rosenquist, the Libertarian Party candidate. I’m not excited about Rosenquist but I think there is a place for Libertarians in politics, and he comes across as less corporate oriented than some of his comrades.
For Board of Governors of Wayne State University I endorse Margaret Guttshall, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Gary S. Pollard, Democrat. Poland seems to understand the importance of class issues regarding who gets a college education.
County office races are predominately unopposed. My position in such races is that if there is no choice there is no democracy. I think that this is in fact the case, but because I believe in having a vision of the future I would like I use the write-in option. I pick candidates from friends or people I know who exemplify the qualities I would like in that office holder. Since I have not asked anyone if I could promote them I will not. Two county races I will say something about are Sheriff and my county commissioner the 10th district.
The Sheriff race is a two candidate race, Democrat and Republican. I endorse Jerry Clayton the Democratic Party candidate. Some of my readers know that I ran for this office as a write-in candidate in 1996 and as a Green in 2000. 2000 was the year that Minzey the Democrat beat Ron Sheible the standing Sheriff and Republican. I have often said that my biggest regret is that I did not take more votes from Minzey. Minzey may well have run to dismantle the study on racial profiling and traffic tickets that Sheible was conducting. Clayton is the other end of the spectrum from Minzey, he understands the problem of racial profiling, and we can anticipate that he will work to stop it.
Finally at the county level, I invite anyone in the 10th district of Washtenaw County to write me in for county commissioner. No offence to Conan Smith, he is a progressive Democrat. But there is the issue of democracy requiring choices. Of the available unopposed offices the county commissioner is the only office I would be interested in and willing to hold (still no expectations of winning).
All right turn your ballot over
For Mayor of Ann Arbor I endorse John Hieftje. He is very popular in Ann Arbor,(the Republicans know this and aren’t wasting any resources running against him). Over all he is doing a good job and deserves to keep at it.
In ward 5 I will vote for Carsten Hohnke (what is it with these candidates with multiple adjacent consonants). I wish there were a Green Party candidate to vote for here. In my opinion, at this point in the development of the Green Party this is a more appropriate level for Greens to run than congress or the presidency.
Then there are the judges:
For Supreme Court I endorse Diane Marie Hathaway. Cliff Taylor is the incumbent and is a right wing extremist. Hathaway is progressive and has a good chance of winning.
For the 22nd District Circuit Court, I support Douglas Shapiro and Donald Shelton (when you go the poles don’t just remember initials as all three candidates initials are D.S.) a vote for Shapiro is a message to the incumbents that they don’t just get a free ride. Shelton is the better of the incumbents. At one point he presided over second gay parent adoptions until this practice was stopped by a higher judge, Shelton deserves credit for trying.
Among the unopposed judges I generally continue my practice of writing in alternatives. This includes when there are 2 candidates running for 2 spots. But I make an exception for Nancy Francis, not only is she a fine and fare judge but I still appreciate the time when she was a legal aid lawyer and she defended me and others in a non-violent anti war demonstration civil disobedience case. Politics has its favors.
For the 15th district cort I endorse Chris Easthope. although his opponent has gotten some progressive support, his opponent has worked as a prosecuting attorney, meaning he's too friendly with the police and he is likely to see cases through the eyes of a prosecute. Easthope will be more balanced. He has progressive credentials, He supported the building of the homeless shelter when running for city counsel in the ward where it was planned to be built, in other is not a NIMBY.
One can vote for up to three candidates for the Board of Trustees for Washtenaw Community College I endorse and recommend voting for two:
Graeme Rogerson
Most importantly he refers to partnership with the alternative energy industry. He is a recent graduate of WCC. Nonetheless he has a master’s degree from another institution
He also has a UAW endorsement
David E Rutledge
Is presently on the board, He appears to be community oriented, and he carries an AFL CIO endorsement.
Now don’t forget the proposals.
State Proposal 1 is for medical marijuana. This proposal receives my full endorsement and deserves unequivocal support. There are many medical conditions where marijuana can be beneficial. Some will point to the existence of marinol a drug derived from marijuana but if you’ve ever talked to those with experience with the drug it is clear that this drug is far harsher than marijuana.
State Proposal 2 expands stem cell research. Again, a clear Yes. If anything it is too limited in its scope, but it is a move in the right direction. Even though medical science is too often controlled by Big Pharm, this science is important and should be allowed to progress.
County Proposal A will get my vote, although the wording is funny, a renewal of an increase comes down to continuing to tax for park services and development at the present level.
City Proposal B gets my endorsement on 2 counts, first it provides greater protection for park land, but an additional benefit is that it promotes a more participatory democracy.
Finally Proposal H Washtenaw Community College Mileage Restoration is also a tax renewal. I endorse this proposal. Community Colleges are wonderful institutions; Washtenaw Community College is a fine example of this. For working class people in an economy as messed up as ours is WCC can be an essential life line.
For President I endorse Barack Obama.
According to the statistically oriented poll-watching blog Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a greater than 95% chance of winning the election, and in Michigan Obama is up by over 15%. But in recent days Obama has slipped in the national polls (less so in the polls of the key states he needs to win.) The risk of McCain winning is unacceptable. So in Michigan I will still vote for Obama. I am confident enough about Obama in Michigan that I plan to go to Ohio to volunteer on election day.
Cynthia Mckinney has a less militaristic foreign policy, is generally more progressive, but she will not get elected nor will she even get 5% of the vote which would give the Green Party campaign matching funds. Most polls show her at 1%
Ralph Nader has polled as well as 6% but after jumping parties I lost interest in him. I don’t see an argument for building the Natural Law Party.
The Democrats in congress did not push legislation with teeth to end the war in Iraq. This was not the only place where they did not come through.
For Michigan Rep to the US Senate I endorse Harley G Mikkelson of the Green party. Carl Levin will win. Even in the very unlikely event that he didn’t the Dems will still control the senate. We may be reminded that Levin heads the Armed Services committee, but if Levin lost, Kennedy might assume the lead of this committee. That would probably count as progress.
For House of Representative for Michigan’s 15th district I am reminded of the slogan “don’t vote it only encourages them.” Like Levin, John Dingell will win, the district was drawn by Republicans to concentrate Democratic voters in one area. His performance has been so so on foreign policy, and he is a bit too close to the auto industry which is Michigan’s surrogate for the oil industry. Whether to vote for the Green party candidate Aimee Smith is a more difficult question. She is a grassroots activist, I know several activists who find her to be a difficult person to work with. I believe that her often antagonistic approach to activism has been counter productive in Ann Arbor’s progressive community. My tendency is to vote for policy regardless of personality. She holds a pro Palestinian position, and this is a position that has no voice in congress I understand those who share my position on Dingell but still can’t vote for Smith. In the end I will vote for her, I only wish this would encourage her to change her approach towards other activists (not her positions on issues).
I will vote for Matt Erard, the Green candidate for the Michigan state legislature 53rd district. This is a hard one to call as Rebekah Warren is a progressive Democrat. But since she won 2 years ago with 80% of the vote, a little competition from an old school socialist might be healthy. Erard calls for state ownership of all major industries. This is not exactly how I would approach building socialism. My point is to build the Green Party when possible. Erard’s campaign shows that Greens can run “fusion candidates.” Erard is also running as a Socialist Party candidate although they don’t have ballot access.
Vote tallies in the smaller statewide races are what determine if a third party stays on the ballot. So voting Green Party is important in terms of maintaining an independent political voice in the electoral system. I will also vote for Libertarians some times. I would vote for Natural Law Party candidates if there were any at this level. The US Taxpayers Party and their candidates often represent a fundamentalist christian political perspective that I can’t vote for.
For State Board of Education, I endorse Dwain Reynolds III, the Green party candidate
There is nothing exciting in either of the Democratic Party candidates, but I will pick one at random (League of Women Voter web page has some info on each of them)
For Board of Regents of the University of Michigan I endorse Ellis Boal the Green Party candidate and Denise Ilitch from the Democratic Party. Ilitch acknowledges the importance of renewable energy development.
For Board of Trustees of Michigan State University I endorse Therese Marie Storm, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Joseph Rosenquist, the Libertarian Party candidate. I’m not excited about Rosenquist but I think there is a place for Libertarians in politics, and he comes across as less corporate oriented than some of his comrades.
For Board of Governors of Wayne State University I endorse Margaret Guttshall, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Gary S. Pollard, Democrat. Poland seems to understand the importance of class issues regarding who gets a college education.
County office races are predominately unopposed. My position in such races is that if there is no choice there is no democracy. I think that this is in fact the case, but because I believe in having a vision of the future I would like I use the write-in option. I pick candidates from friends or people I know who exemplify the qualities I would like in that office holder. Since I have not asked anyone if I could promote them I will not. Two county races I will say something about are Sheriff and my county commissioner the 10th district.
The Sheriff race is a two candidate race, Democrat and Republican. I endorse Jerry Clayton the Democratic Party candidate. Some of my readers know that I ran for this office as a write-in candidate in 1996 and as a Green in 2000. 2000 was the year that Minzey the Democrat beat Ron Sheible the standing Sheriff and Republican. I have often said that my biggest regret is that I did not take more votes from Minzey. Minzey may well have run to dismantle the study on racial profiling and traffic tickets that Sheible was conducting. Clayton is the other end of the spectrum from Minzey, he understands the problem of racial profiling, and we can anticipate that he will work to stop it.
Finally at the county level, I invite anyone in the 10th district of Washtenaw County to write me in for county commissioner. No offence to Conan Smith, he is a progressive Democrat. But there is the issue of democracy requiring choices. Of the available unopposed offices the county commissioner is the only office I would be interested in and willing to hold (still no expectations of winning).
All right turn your ballot over
For Mayor of Ann Arbor I endorse John Hieftje. He is very popular in Ann Arbor,(the Republicans know this and aren’t wasting any resources running against him). Over all he is doing a good job and deserves to keep at it.
In ward 5 I will vote for Carsten Hohnke (what is it with these candidates with multiple adjacent consonants). I wish there were a Green Party candidate to vote for here. In my opinion, at this point in the development of the Green Party this is a more appropriate level for Greens to run than congress or the presidency.
Then there are the judges:
For Supreme Court I endorse Diane Marie Hathaway. Cliff Taylor is the incumbent and is a right wing extremist. Hathaway is progressive and has a good chance of winning.
For the 22nd District Circuit Court, I support Douglas Shapiro and Donald Shelton (when you go the poles don’t just remember initials as all three candidates initials are D.S.) a vote for Shapiro is a message to the incumbents that they don’t just get a free ride. Shelton is the better of the incumbents. At one point he presided over second gay parent adoptions until this practice was stopped by a higher judge, Shelton deserves credit for trying.
Among the unopposed judges I generally continue my practice of writing in alternatives. This includes when there are 2 candidates running for 2 spots. But I make an exception for Nancy Francis, not only is she a fine and fare judge but I still appreciate the time when she was a legal aid lawyer and she defended me and others in a non-violent anti war demonstration civil disobedience case. Politics has its favors.
For the 15th district cort I endorse Chris Easthope. although his opponent has gotten some progressive support, his opponent has worked as a prosecuting attorney, meaning he's too friendly with the police and he is likely to see cases through the eyes of a prosecute. Easthope will be more balanced. He has progressive credentials, He supported the building of the homeless shelter when running for city counsel in the ward where it was planned to be built, in other is not a NIMBY.
One can vote for up to three candidates for the Board of Trustees for Washtenaw Community College I endorse and recommend voting for two:
Graeme Rogerson
Most importantly he refers to partnership with the alternative energy industry. He is a recent graduate of WCC. Nonetheless he has a master’s degree from another institution
He also has a UAW endorsement
David E Rutledge
Is presently on the board, He appears to be community oriented, and he carries an AFL CIO endorsement.
Now don’t forget the proposals.
State Proposal 1 is for medical marijuana. This proposal receives my full endorsement and deserves unequivocal support. There are many medical conditions where marijuana can be beneficial. Some will point to the existence of marinol a drug derived from marijuana but if you’ve ever talked to those with experience with the drug it is clear that this drug is far harsher than marijuana.
State Proposal 2 expands stem cell research. Again, a clear Yes. If anything it is too limited in its scope, but it is a move in the right direction. Even though medical science is too often controlled by Big Pharm, this science is important and should be allowed to progress.
County Proposal A will get my vote, although the wording is funny, a renewal of an increase comes down to continuing to tax for park services and development at the present level.
City Proposal B gets my endorsement on 2 counts, first it provides greater protection for park land, but an additional benefit is that it promotes a more participatory democracy.
Finally Proposal H Washtenaw Community College Mileage Restoration is also a tax renewal. I endorse this proposal. Community Colleges are wonderful institutions; Washtenaw Community College is a fine example of this. For working class people in an economy as messed up as ours is WCC can be an essential life line.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Bob the contractor
Ever wonder why there is no youtube coverage of a small business man named Bob or some such, taking McCain to task about his health care and tax policy. Certainly not for lack of such people who take issue with these policies. Perhaps McCain is handled in such a way that his only contact with the voters is from the podium, while Obama has the courage to talk to people.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Polls, pollwatching and OPD
OK it its October 2008 and I am obsessed with the polls, I’ll check 4 or 5 web pages a day to see the latest polls and poll analysis. I know its not healthy, and polls are the opposite of politics and when presented as news they are really a way of avoiding real news. I know this but still I check the polls again and again. I’ve even come up with a psychological diagnosis, OPD obsessive poll-watching disorder. Obama is ahead by six to ten points nationally and according to some maps, he could reach into the mid 300’s with electoral college votes (270 are needed to win), but is it enough.
There are concerns about the Bradly effect, that people whose voting is hampered by racism will be less likely to admit it. The Bradly effect is actually a bit more complex. First the difference between polling and performance in the election seems to largely involve the “undecided” category. With Obama polling above 50% he should have some insulation against this. Secondly the Bradly effect seems to have been more prominent in the 80’s and 90’s than since 2000. There are various explanations for this but it is what the data seems to show. Nonetheless the N, the number of samples in the study is small. Finally we might take solos in the possibility of a reverse Bradly effect, in the Primaries in certain southern states Obama did better than what the polls showed. Again several possible explanations, but that’s what happened. Then there is the much talked about cell phone effect, individuals with cell phones and no land lines are more likely to fit the Obama supporting demographic, but this was supposed to play out in 04 but didn’t appear to
In 2004 I started watching polls more closely, there was a web site where I would check in daily, and I watched with optimism as the indicators looked like Kerry would win. On election day he held a small lead on Bush in Ohio, but many Clevlanders were disenfranchised by polling places with 4 hr lines, and then there was the Republican district where the number of Bush votes exceeded the number of registered voters. In 2000 Bush was appointed by the supreme court, Florida was marred by voter irregularities and again in 2004 Bush stole the election. Steeling an election is most possible when the election is close.
So between the Bradley effect and the possibility of Republican Party chicanery the question is how much of a lead in the polls will translate to a win on November 4th. There is of course a fine line between hope and confidence when it comes to getting out the vote. This uncertainty of polling numbers may help the Obama team keep on its game.
Finally there is the third party issue. Although I have been working on Obama’s Campaign, I am enthused about the Obama Movement (see my first post), and I hope Barack Obama is our next president, I see the limitations of Obama's politics. I am not a Democrat, the political party I affiliate with is the Green Party. If I were completely certain that Obama would win by a “landslide” I would consider voting for the Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. There is a reasonable argument that a clear and decisive outcome will help Obama promote a progressive agenda. So at what point would in the polls would I vote McKinney? I don’t think that Obama is close to safe unless he is polling greater than 50% and more than 10 points above McCain in any given state. But I would need at least a 20 to 30% spread and at least 55% polling for Obama before I would feel comfortable voting for McKinney. At this point Hawaii is looking like safe territory for voting for McKinney.
There are concerns about the Bradly effect, that people whose voting is hampered by racism will be less likely to admit it. The Bradly effect is actually a bit more complex. First the difference between polling and performance in the election seems to largely involve the “undecided” category. With Obama polling above 50% he should have some insulation against this. Secondly the Bradly effect seems to have been more prominent in the 80’s and 90’s than since 2000. There are various explanations for this but it is what the data seems to show. Nonetheless the N, the number of samples in the study is small. Finally we might take solos in the possibility of a reverse Bradly effect, in the Primaries in certain southern states Obama did better than what the polls showed. Again several possible explanations, but that’s what happened. Then there is the much talked about cell phone effect, individuals with cell phones and no land lines are more likely to fit the Obama supporting demographic, but this was supposed to play out in 04 but didn’t appear to
In 2004 I started watching polls more closely, there was a web site where I would check in daily, and I watched with optimism as the indicators looked like Kerry would win. On election day he held a small lead on Bush in Ohio, but many Clevlanders were disenfranchised by polling places with 4 hr lines, and then there was the Republican district where the number of Bush votes exceeded the number of registered voters. In 2000 Bush was appointed by the supreme court, Florida was marred by voter irregularities and again in 2004 Bush stole the election. Steeling an election is most possible when the election is close.
So between the Bradley effect and the possibility of Republican Party chicanery the question is how much of a lead in the polls will translate to a win on November 4th. There is of course a fine line between hope and confidence when it comes to getting out the vote. This uncertainty of polling numbers may help the Obama team keep on its game.
Finally there is the third party issue. Although I have been working on Obama’s Campaign, I am enthused about the Obama Movement (see my first post), and I hope Barack Obama is our next president, I see the limitations of Obama's politics. I am not a Democrat, the political party I affiliate with is the Green Party. If I were completely certain that Obama would win by a “landslide” I would consider voting for the Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. There is a reasonable argument that a clear and decisive outcome will help Obama promote a progressive agenda. So at what point would in the polls would I vote McKinney? I don’t think that Obama is close to safe unless he is polling greater than 50% and more than 10 points above McCain in any given state. But I would need at least a 20 to 30% spread and at least 55% polling for Obama before I would feel comfortable voting for McKinney. At this point Hawaii is looking like safe territory for voting for McKinney.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Global Justice, Latin American Politics & Obama's Mistake
Barack Obama’s snipes at Venezuela in the two presidential debates are misguided and disappointing. Venezuela is a democracy with a popularly elected president. Hugo Chaves has been reaffirmed by his people in elections and in a recall votes. He has had a hostile relationship with George W Bush, this seems justifiable considering the support of the Bush administration for the players in a coup attempt against Chaves. Whether the Bush administration was behind this attempted coup we don’t know, but the Bush administration has had considerable disdain for the Chaves government. While the Chaves government is accused of many things, its biggest fault is probably its role as a good example. Venezuela under Chaves has shared the wealth, with his people, with other struggling Latin American countries, even with poor US citizens in the form of heating oil assistance. But for all its virtues and faults Venezuela is part of a larger progressive movement in Latin America.
Most Latin American countries had been followed the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism for nearly 20 years. But this period had been one of limited growth. Then on January first1996, Mayan Indians started an insurrection in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the world came to know the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas inspired and united many activists who opposed neoliberal doctrine.
The highlight of this movement was the “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 the World Trade Organization met in Seattle Washington and the streets filled with protesters of free trade policy. Of significance was the unity of environmentalists and union activists in opposing these policies. “Teamsters and sea turtles together at last” was a slogan that emerged from this historic event, the biggest demonstration of the 1990’s. Perhaps most important, these demonstrations may have helped to embolden the third world delegates to the WTO meeting to reject the terms of the industrialized nations. After Seattle the anti-globalization movement or the global justice movement began to gain momentum in the United States.
September 11th 2001 had a profound dampening effect on this movement, both inside and out. From the inside many activists shifted focus, putting out fires, trying to prevent and then opposing the wars, defending civil liberties after the passage of the patriot act.
In Latin America politics was not so constrained. During the last decade progressive governments have been elected in several Latin American countries. Their policies and place on the political spectrum vary, but reflect a leftward momentum. These countries from Venezuela to Brazil are developing a critical mass that allows for mutual support. For instance, when the Morales government of Bolivia was in crisis facing resistance and rebellion from some of the right wing governors from Bolivia’s conservative states, the Bush administration wanted to blame the problems on Morales, a socialist and the first indigenous president of Bolivia. But leaders from several Latin American nations joined together to support Morales.
So how does the Global Justice Movement and the leftward movement of Latin American governments relate to Obama? Is it possible that he is being propelled by some of the same forces that have moved Latin America to the left? Certainly Obama’s critiques of unrestricted free trade represent a divergence from neoliberalism. Directionally this is in line with the Latin American left. Obama is not (as McCain has claimed) the most liberal person in the US Senate and the Senate is not known for its ability to attract liberal politicians. Nonetheless, and in spit of his back sliding on certain issues, he still remains the most progressive presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party in at least a generation.
Is it possible that this is more than coincidental with the rise in progressive Latin American politics? The Germans say zeitgeist, it means the spirit of the times or the prevailing attitude of a period. Perhaps Obama and Venezuela are linked in this way. Venezuela could be an ally to an Obama presidency. This is not the shape of American Foreign Policy at the moment, but Barak Obama should reflect on a saying of the global justice movement, “another world is possible” this is no more than the audacity of hope.
Most Latin American countries had been followed the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism for nearly 20 years. But this period had been one of limited growth. Then on January first1996, Mayan Indians started an insurrection in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the world came to know the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas inspired and united many activists who opposed neoliberal doctrine.
The highlight of this movement was the “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 the World Trade Organization met in Seattle Washington and the streets filled with protesters of free trade policy. Of significance was the unity of environmentalists and union activists in opposing these policies. “Teamsters and sea turtles together at last” was a slogan that emerged from this historic event, the biggest demonstration of the 1990’s. Perhaps most important, these demonstrations may have helped to embolden the third world delegates to the WTO meeting to reject the terms of the industrialized nations. After Seattle the anti-globalization movement or the global justice movement began to gain momentum in the United States.
September 11th 2001 had a profound dampening effect on this movement, both inside and out. From the inside many activists shifted focus, putting out fires, trying to prevent and then opposing the wars, defending civil liberties after the passage of the patriot act.
In Latin America politics was not so constrained. During the last decade progressive governments have been elected in several Latin American countries. Their policies and place on the political spectrum vary, but reflect a leftward momentum. These countries from Venezuela to Brazil are developing a critical mass that allows for mutual support. For instance, when the Morales government of Bolivia was in crisis facing resistance and rebellion from some of the right wing governors from Bolivia’s conservative states, the Bush administration wanted to blame the problems on Morales, a socialist and the first indigenous president of Bolivia. But leaders from several Latin American nations joined together to support Morales.
So how does the Global Justice Movement and the leftward movement of Latin American governments relate to Obama? Is it possible that he is being propelled by some of the same forces that have moved Latin America to the left? Certainly Obama’s critiques of unrestricted free trade represent a divergence from neoliberalism. Directionally this is in line with the Latin American left. Obama is not (as McCain has claimed) the most liberal person in the US Senate and the Senate is not known for its ability to attract liberal politicians. Nonetheless, and in spit of his back sliding on certain issues, he still remains the most progressive presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party in at least a generation.
Is it possible that this is more than coincidental with the rise in progressive Latin American politics? The Germans say zeitgeist, it means the spirit of the times or the prevailing attitude of a period. Perhaps Obama and Venezuela are linked in this way. Venezuela could be an ally to an Obama presidency. This is not the shape of American Foreign Policy at the moment, but Barak Obama should reflect on a saying of the global justice movement, “another world is possible” this is no more than the audacity of hope.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Is this the best American discourse can present?
Is this the best American discourse can present? The vice presidential debate, and the second presidential debate were most notable for their lack of any true debate. Instead these events are more like simultaneous live commercials.
The VP debate was predictable to anyone who knew that Palin has a track record as a successful debater. She didn't fall on her face but she really didn't have the experience to do much more than recite sound bites, mostly she got them in where she was supposed to although some times she missed things. in debating Biden's record on the war it was clear to me that she was referring to the period of the surge, while Biden was talking about the start of the war. this allowed Biden to assert things with Palin only able to babel on about how Biden was not telling the truth. Holding people to the truth is difficult if you are ahistorical. The good news from the debate is that the Republicans lead cultural warrior has conceded the rights of civil unions for gay couples. We shouldn't stop here but at least it's an example of the Republicans moving to the left. More on that in a later post.
The second presidential debate was called a town meeting format. That they call this spectacle a "town meeting" is an affront to democracy and the New England tradition of town meetings. The assembly is an important form of direct democracy. Among New Englanders the town meetings are an example of the assembly: citizens meeting to discuss issues and make decisions. Instead we get preselected questions primarily from individuals who are politically in the middle of the road. Theatrically individuals are called on and recite their script. The highlight of the show was when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to move because they were blocking the teleprompter, and the cameras let us see this device that we hear about but seldom actually see.
The second debate was basically a rerun of the first debate. McCain started with a moment of populism, saying he would direct the treasury secretary to renegotiate loans to present market values, this of course is something the bail out package allows for. Beyond that initial remark everything else from him sounded like something I had already heard. Obama mostly repeated things said in the last debate, sometimes repeating himself in quoting him self. On Pakistan: "what I said was if Pakistan is "unable or unwilling" to do this job, and U.S. forces have Osama bin Laden in their sights, then U.S. forces will "kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda." At least when quoting himself for the second time he could have expounded on this just a bit, indicating his intent to work with Pakistan to assure that they would be willing and able to work to capture Bin Ladin. Obama once again jabbed at Venezuela. This is a shame because Venezuela's progressive politics maybe beneficial to American political tendencies that Obama is aligned with. This also deserves elaboration in a future post. I felt that Obama won the debate with his last two comments. the second to last comment was a response to a question about defending Israel against an Iranian attack. Of course to be considered as a contender for the US senate say nothing about the presidency, Obama has had to show his support for Israel. But I give him credit for indicating that he would like to try to keep things from getting to that point. In the present climate of American middle eastern politics even that modest statement is progressive. Obama's closing remarks held some rhetorical strength. McCain on the other hand seemed to wander with empty political platitudes during his final statement. I'm starting to wonder if one of the advantages that Obama has over McCain in the debates is that McCain gets worn out after an hour, while Obama get wormed up around then.
In any case the debate was largely a collection of sound bites. I would prefer a more focused debate, an hour an a half on exit strategies for Iraq, on an hour and a half on next steps for the economy. Palin showed us that anyone can memorize lines and make it through a pseudo debate. Our politics need to move to the left, but we also need depth.
The VP debate was predictable to anyone who knew that Palin has a track record as a successful debater. She didn't fall on her face but she really didn't have the experience to do much more than recite sound bites, mostly she got them in where she was supposed to although some times she missed things. in debating Biden's record on the war it was clear to me that she was referring to the period of the surge, while Biden was talking about the start of the war. this allowed Biden to assert things with Palin only able to babel on about how Biden was not telling the truth. Holding people to the truth is difficult if you are ahistorical. The good news from the debate is that the Republicans lead cultural warrior has conceded the rights of civil unions for gay couples. We shouldn't stop here but at least it's an example of the Republicans moving to the left. More on that in a later post.
The second presidential debate was called a town meeting format. That they call this spectacle a "town meeting" is an affront to democracy and the New England tradition of town meetings. The assembly is an important form of direct democracy. Among New Englanders the town meetings are an example of the assembly: citizens meeting to discuss issues and make decisions. Instead we get preselected questions primarily from individuals who are politically in the middle of the road. Theatrically individuals are called on and recite their script. The highlight of the show was when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to move because they were blocking the teleprompter, and the cameras let us see this device that we hear about but seldom actually see.
The second debate was basically a rerun of the first debate. McCain started with a moment of populism, saying he would direct the treasury secretary to renegotiate loans to present market values, this of course is something the bail out package allows for. Beyond that initial remark everything else from him sounded like something I had already heard. Obama mostly repeated things said in the last debate, sometimes repeating himself in quoting him self. On Pakistan: "what I said was if Pakistan is "unable or unwilling" to do this job, and U.S. forces have Osama bin Laden in their sights, then U.S. forces will "kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda." At least when quoting himself for the second time he could have expounded on this just a bit, indicating his intent to work with Pakistan to assure that they would be willing and able to work to capture Bin Ladin. Obama once again jabbed at Venezuela. This is a shame because Venezuela's progressive politics maybe beneficial to American political tendencies that Obama is aligned with. This also deserves elaboration in a future post. I felt that Obama won the debate with his last two comments. the second to last comment was a response to a question about defending Israel against an Iranian attack. Of course to be considered as a contender for the US senate say nothing about the presidency, Obama has had to show his support for Israel. But I give him credit for indicating that he would like to try to keep things from getting to that point. In the present climate of American middle eastern politics even that modest statement is progressive. Obama's closing remarks held some rhetorical strength. McCain on the other hand seemed to wander with empty political platitudes during his final statement. I'm starting to wonder if one of the advantages that Obama has over McCain in the debates is that McCain gets worn out after an hour, while Obama get wormed up around then.
In any case the debate was largely a collection of sound bites. I would prefer a more focused debate, an hour an a half on exit strategies for Iraq, on an hour and a half on next steps for the economy. Palin showed us that anyone can memorize lines and make it through a pseudo debate. Our politics need to move to the left, but we also need depth.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Responce to "Pro-Life" Voters
A friend of mine who was making calls for the Obama campaign recently reached someone who was against abortion and so wasn't sure if he could vote for Obama. My friend wasn't sure how to respond. She liked my suggestion for a response so I thought I'd put it in writing.
First acknowledge that no one is in favor of abortions in the sense that we all wish the unwanted pregnancies that need abortions never would have happened in the first place. Abortions are not pleasant for the woman who have to have them.
Second point out that in spite of the majority of supreme court justices having been appointed by presidents who say they are opposed to abortion Roe vs. Wade still stands. When Bush was elected we were told that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, but 8 years later it still hasn't.
Then explain why this might be. The Republican party depends on the "pro life" vote to get its politician elected. It's not that they want to end abortion (some may more than others), but they want you to think that they want to end abortion so that people who are against abortion will vote for then. If the right to abortion was ever over turned this could undermine the conservative politicians case that they can help stop abortions. Once over turned stopping abortions is no longer a major issue.
It's worth noting that while Sara Palin is strongly anti abortion and might actually do something to end abortion as vice president, she is not in the position to do so, she won't be appointing judges. On the other hand John McCain has "shifted" his position on this issue.
Now at this point the question is whether the person is just against abortions from a pro-life position or as is often the case they are anti-sex-outside-of-procreation-in-heterosexual-marriage. In the later case abortion is evidence of sex not intended for procreation. (excuse me if I overstate the position, but I think you know what I mean). If their opposition to abortion is part of a larger agenda perhaps you should stop with talking about John McCain flip flopping on the issue. Apparently in 1999, John McCain said.
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." (source: http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)
If your talking to someone who is truly only opposed to abortion then additional points can be made. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. in fact according to The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide by Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, published in International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30–S38, "Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted". Comprehensive sex ed, empowering young women, and reducing poverty does more to reduce the number of abortions than outlawing them. For instance The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide also points out,
"Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted".
You might end with wondering if we could have better luck reducing abortion rates more if pro-life and pro-choice people worked together.
First acknowledge that no one is in favor of abortions in the sense that we all wish the unwanted pregnancies that need abortions never would have happened in the first place. Abortions are not pleasant for the woman who have to have them.
Second point out that in spite of the majority of supreme court justices having been appointed by presidents who say they are opposed to abortion Roe vs. Wade still stands. When Bush was elected we were told that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, but 8 years later it still hasn't.
Then explain why this might be. The Republican party depends on the "pro life" vote to get its politician elected. It's not that they want to end abortion (some may more than others), but they want you to think that they want to end abortion so that people who are against abortion will vote for then. If the right to abortion was ever over turned this could undermine the conservative politicians case that they can help stop abortions. Once over turned stopping abortions is no longer a major issue.
It's worth noting that while Sara Palin is strongly anti abortion and might actually do something to end abortion as vice president, she is not in the position to do so, she won't be appointing judges. On the other hand John McCain has "shifted" his position on this issue.
Now at this point the question is whether the person is just against abortions from a pro-life position or as is often the case they are anti-sex-outside-of-procreation-in-heterosexual-marriage. In the later case abortion is evidence of sex not intended for procreation. (excuse me if I overstate the position, but I think you know what I mean). If their opposition to abortion is part of a larger agenda perhaps you should stop with talking about John McCain flip flopping on the issue. Apparently in 1999, John McCain said.
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." (source: http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)
If your talking to someone who is truly only opposed to abortion then additional points can be made. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. in fact according to The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide by Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, published in International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30–S38, "Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted". Comprehensive sex ed, empowering young women, and reducing poverty does more to reduce the number of abortions than outlawing them. For instance The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide also points out,
"Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted".
You might end with wondering if we could have better luck reducing abortion rates more if pro-life and pro-choice people worked together.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Progressive Economists & Republican Reps.
Progressive economists like Dean Baker and James Galbraith are increasingly staunchly opposing the 7 hundred billion dollar bail out. But it seem to be the house Republicans who are most strongly resisting passing the bail out. Some times politicians may do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Meanwhile peoples rage against the banks seems to be turning in to action against the bail out. There are better ways to spend that amount of money that's for sure.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
An open leter to Barack Obama on the foriegn policy debate
Dear and Honorable Senator Barack Obama,
I am working on your campaign, I am hopeful that you will be elected. But having seen your foreign policy debate with John McCain I have some deep concerns. I realize that your are stuck like so many politicians playing to that small group of undecided voters, and I realize the media enforces rules of conservative politics, if you step out of an increasingly narrow bounds they can destroy you. Nonetheless, it is in standing for something that you become a strong candidate.
Allow me to share my concerns.
Regarding Afghanistan: we can look back on the history of our invasion of Afghanistan, was it necessary? Perhaps you cannot say this as the Democratic presidential contender, but I would argue that we did not need to invade. The Taliban indicated a willingness to negotiate with us regarding turning over Osama Bin Laden but they were given ultimatums quickly followed by an attack. Perhaps al Quieda could have been dismantled with diplomacy and policing actions. We will, of course, never know where negotiations might have led, but just as the errant decisions that led to the Iraq war are important to keep in focus the same is true for Afghanistan.
More significant is the question of how we leave the conflict. I find it hard to believe that more foreign troops military will win over the Afghani people. This is what I hear you suggest, but as we see in foreigners can increase resistance. If a successful strategy is to be found it will need to be sensitive to the culture and the needs of the people of Afghanistan. It will need to be based on resources to support the country, rather than weapons that ultimately destroy it.
Regarding Pakistan, I was glad you acknowledged the problems of supporting a dictator for 10 years. But I am concerned about strategic strikes into even on limited and carefully thought out bases. I am reminded of the bombing of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 under orders of Bill Clinton. Intelligence told him it was a weapons plant.
I was disappointed when you called Venezuela a rogue nation. Venezuela is a democratic nation and Chaves is a democratically elected and popularly supported president. Chaves and the bush administration have had an antagonistic relationship, but has not engaged in rogue actions. There are still questions of whether the government was involved in any way in supporting or encouraging the coup attempt against Chaves. That would make us the rogue nation.
Perhaps my greatest concern was when you said "No soldier ever dies in vain because they are carrying out the mission of the commander and chief." While this may have had some temporary rhetorical power, I hope you don't really mean this. American foreign policy has not always been "honorable" certainly our invasion of Iraq was immoral and predicated on false purposes. Those soldiers who thought they were fighting to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction who died in the pursuit of that goal died in vain. Further, commander’s orders are not sufficient justification for soldier’s actions. The "just following orders" justification allows horrendous war crimes. America is not above this potential fate.
Those are my concerns.
I am glad that you are opposed to our war in Iraq. This is what drew many of us to your campaign. A quick end to the war has always been ethical; it is also wise and prudent. I wish you would have reminded the American people that the Iraqi people want our troops out, the Iraqi government wants a time table for the withdrawal of our troops, and the majority of American people favor an end to this war. To proceed with out promises of withdrawal threatens to jeopardize the fragile coalitions that have allowed a decrease in violence. This coalition (possibly negotiated in part by Iran is probably more important than the surge in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.
This brings me to the one point in the debate that was most encouraging for me regarding your foreign policy position. I am glad that you are willing to talk with adversaries. I want to commend you for taking this position. I understand that this is very much a part of who you are. It is because of this that I am still willing to support you even if we disagree on many of the important, life and death decisions of American foreign policy. Nonetheless, while I support you, I want to be clear that my support is not unconditional and that I urge you to revise your position on the issues I have presented here.
Sincerely,
Gaia Kile
I am working on your campaign, I am hopeful that you will be elected. But having seen your foreign policy debate with John McCain I have some deep concerns. I realize that your are stuck like so many politicians playing to that small group of undecided voters, and I realize the media enforces rules of conservative politics, if you step out of an increasingly narrow bounds they can destroy you. Nonetheless, it is in standing for something that you become a strong candidate.
Allow me to share my concerns.
Regarding Afghanistan: we can look back on the history of our invasion of Afghanistan, was it necessary? Perhaps you cannot say this as the Democratic presidential contender, but I would argue that we did not need to invade. The Taliban indicated a willingness to negotiate with us regarding turning over Osama Bin Laden but they were given ultimatums quickly followed by an attack. Perhaps al Quieda could have been dismantled with diplomacy and policing actions. We will, of course, never know where negotiations might have led, but just as the errant decisions that led to the Iraq war are important to keep in focus the same is true for Afghanistan.
More significant is the question of how we leave the conflict. I find it hard to believe that more foreign troops military will win over the Afghani people. This is what I hear you suggest, but as we see in foreigners can increase resistance. If a successful strategy is to be found it will need to be sensitive to the culture and the needs of the people of Afghanistan. It will need to be based on resources to support the country, rather than weapons that ultimately destroy it.
Regarding Pakistan, I was glad you acknowledged the problems of supporting a dictator for 10 years. But I am concerned about strategic strikes into even on limited and carefully thought out bases. I am reminded of the bombing of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 under orders of Bill Clinton. Intelligence told him it was a weapons plant.
I was disappointed when you called Venezuela a rogue nation. Venezuela is a democratic nation and Chaves is a democratically elected and popularly supported president. Chaves and the bush administration have had an antagonistic relationship, but has not engaged in rogue actions. There are still questions of whether the government was involved in any way in supporting or encouraging the coup attempt against Chaves. That would make us the rogue nation.
Perhaps my greatest concern was when you said "No soldier ever dies in vain because they are carrying out the mission of the commander and chief." While this may have had some temporary rhetorical power, I hope you don't really mean this. American foreign policy has not always been "honorable" certainly our invasion of Iraq was immoral and predicated on false purposes. Those soldiers who thought they were fighting to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction who died in the pursuit of that goal died in vain. Further, commander’s orders are not sufficient justification for soldier’s actions. The "just following orders" justification allows horrendous war crimes. America is not above this potential fate.
Those are my concerns.
I am glad that you are opposed to our war in Iraq. This is what drew many of us to your campaign. A quick end to the war has always been ethical; it is also wise and prudent. I wish you would have reminded the American people that the Iraqi people want our troops out, the Iraqi government wants a time table for the withdrawal of our troops, and the majority of American people favor an end to this war. To proceed with out promises of withdrawal threatens to jeopardize the fragile coalitions that have allowed a decrease in violence. This coalition (possibly negotiated in part by Iran is probably more important than the surge in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.
This brings me to the one point in the debate that was most encouraging for me regarding your foreign policy position. I am glad that you are willing to talk with adversaries. I want to commend you for taking this position. I understand that this is very much a part of who you are. It is because of this that I am still willing to support you even if we disagree on many of the important, life and death decisions of American foreign policy. Nonetheless, while I support you, I want to be clear that my support is not unconditional and that I urge you to revise your position on the issues I have presented here.
Sincerely,
Gaia Kile
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bank Bail Outs and Energy Futures
What would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? The American financial system is broken, and this is the repair bill. There is no good solution, although we might like to let the captains of capitalism fail, the problem is that they would take us with them. We are told that with out some support to the banking system we could face a banking freeze, this could mean that the bank may not be able to issue your pay check. no pay checks and the economy could really go down hill. On the other hand 700 billion dollars may not be enough to fix the problem, or it could even make things worse.
As I write this congress is trying to hammer out the details of a bail out, fortunately many in congress are calling for accountability, transparency & re-regulation. Three important ideas include: 1) a call for equity exchange, that is if the government gives the banks 700 billion then the banks give the government some shares in banks. 2) that banks who choose to take advantage of the bail out should have limits on the salaries of their executives. 3) for the individual mortgages the government picks up the government should work to help those individuals keep their homes. A lot of people are referring to the system and bail out as a case of privatizing gains and socializing losses. Although demanding equity, and asserting authority over failing institutions may be lemon socialism it is at least a step better than welfare capitalism.
But what would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? About 4 years ago the Apollo Alliance started talking about a major investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy production and related jobs in this field. They presently suggest $500 billion investment over 10 years. Increasingly others are adopting energy programs that mirror this proposal, Al Gore and the We campaign to fight global warming have called for 100% of American energy to come from non-carbon sources with in 10 years. Barack Obama has presented an energy program that focuses on eliminating our need for foreign oil. Even John McCain has windmills on his energy policy page. In other words a consensus is developing around the importance of responding to global warming and oil prices with a plan for an ecological and sustainable energy future.
I don't know about you but I would much rather see hundreds of billions of dollars go to a green energy program than to help out banks that have made poor decisions. Green re-industrialization promises greater social and financial returns than buying bad loans.
Although the US government is already over strapped with debt related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is possible that the government can bail out the banks and still have funds for an Apollo like energy project. Nonetheless, after this bill there may not be the political will. So if the "fixing of the economy"can't be redirected towards addressing the energy & environment problems directly, I would add one more key element to a 700 billion bail out package, Participating banks should be mandated to preferentially loan to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
it's worth mentioning http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.net/ is a page that is working to slow or stop the bail out process, go there and you can send a message to your legislators.
As I write this congress is trying to hammer out the details of a bail out, fortunately many in congress are calling for accountability, transparency & re-regulation. Three important ideas include: 1) a call for equity exchange, that is if the government gives the banks 700 billion then the banks give the government some shares in banks. 2) that banks who choose to take advantage of the bail out should have limits on the salaries of their executives. 3) for the individual mortgages the government picks up the government should work to help those individuals keep their homes. A lot of people are referring to the system and bail out as a case of privatizing gains and socializing losses. Although demanding equity, and asserting authority over failing institutions may be lemon socialism it is at least a step better than welfare capitalism.
But what would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? About 4 years ago the Apollo Alliance started talking about a major investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy production and related jobs in this field. They presently suggest $500 billion investment over 10 years. Increasingly others are adopting energy programs that mirror this proposal, Al Gore and the We campaign to fight global warming have called for 100% of American energy to come from non-carbon sources with in 10 years. Barack Obama has presented an energy program that focuses on eliminating our need for foreign oil. Even John McCain has windmills on his energy policy page. In other words a consensus is developing around the importance of responding to global warming and oil prices with a plan for an ecological and sustainable energy future.
I don't know about you but I would much rather see hundreds of billions of dollars go to a green energy program than to help out banks that have made poor decisions. Green re-industrialization promises greater social and financial returns than buying bad loans.
Although the US government is already over strapped with debt related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is possible that the government can bail out the banks and still have funds for an Apollo like energy project. Nonetheless, after this bill there may not be the political will. So if the "fixing of the economy"can't be redirected towards addressing the energy & environment problems directly, I would add one more key element to a 700 billion bail out package, Participating banks should be mandated to preferentially loan to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
it's worth mentioning http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.net/ is a page that is working to slow or stop the bail out process, go there and you can send a message to your legislators.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Remember the Keating Five
As the US government steps in to sure up American financial capitalism with corporate socialism its worth reflecting back on the last major banking meltdown, the savings and loan crises of the 1980's. Saving and loans were institutions oriented towards serving the community, a safe place for individuals to save, and a friendly place average folks could go for a mortgage. If you've ever seen the movie "it's a wonderful life" think of the bank that Jimmy Stewart ran. these institutions were insured by the US government. then in the 1980's deregulation of the S&L industry turned them into vehicles for quick money and bad loans. It was only a short bit of time until the loans started to bring down the institutions to the tune of 125 billion US government payments.
One chapter of that mess was the political scandal of the Keating five, five US senators who supported Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and Loan. He had made $300,000 as political contributions to them and they may have interfered with investigations of his bank. The whole story is complex but we are hearing a lot these days from one of these senators: John McCain
One chapter of that mess was the political scandal of the Keating five, five US senators who supported Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and Loan. He had made $300,000 as political contributions to them and they may have interfered with investigations of his bank. The whole story is complex but we are hearing a lot these days from one of these senators: John McCain
The Obama Movement
Within the confines of probable American politics, progressive hope is focused on electing Barack Obama. Even this hope is muted by Obama’s support for military involvement in Afghanistan, his capitulation on FICA wire taps, and his willingness to compromise on off shore drilling. In discussing the progressive potential of Obama, it is worth distinguishing between presidential contender Barack Obama, the Obama election campaign, and the movement that is focused on Obama, or what might be called the Obama movement (after elections it will need to be renamed).
The presidential contender is a person and a politician, he is important because he may soon hold the office of the president of the United States. For progressives his political roots hold promise, and his agenda moves American politics in the right direction.
The campaign is the direct effort to elect this politician to the office of president. The campaign is not just the activities of the Democratic Party but also include organizational efforts by other groups such as Move On.
Movement refers to those working for the progressive goals that Barack Obama has articulated or become a focus for.
The Movement is a coalition of American progressives. Key goals of the movement include:
1) Removal of American troops from Iraq in a timely manner.
2) A tax policy aimed at fostering greater economic fairness and equality
3) An approach to energy that is oriented towards sustainability and American self sufficiency
4) Challenges to neo-liberal free trade economics and out sourcing
5) Expanded Health coverage for Americans with the goal of universal coverage.
6) And a list of civil rights objectives beneficial to women, people of color, LGBT, and the poor.
Many of us on the Left may be dissatisfied with the limits of some of these goals, and even more so with the political presentation of these goals. To be clear I disagree with the proposition that the reason for withdrawing from Iraq is to be better able to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. As I mentioned at the onset, this discussion is about probable politics in America at the moment. But probable and possible can be mutually supportive. Even minor gains today can create an atmosphere for larger change in the future. As a movement there is the potential that we can evolve out goals towards even more progressive ends.
As supporters of Obama we should be clear that after elected Barack Obama remains a politician and will have to work with other politicians in congress, at that point the Obama movement becomes very important. It is only if we keep working and pushing that we will achieve the movement’s objectives. In fact even if Obama is not elected the movement is important.
Obama movement activists will logically be enthusiastic about the candidate and participate in the campaign. As we contribute, fundraise, make phone calls, nock on doors, organize events, and register voters, it is important to be clear about why we are engaged in the work. So for instance if you make a donation to the Obama campaign, include a note listing the movement issues that are important to you. If working with other Obama activists work to build political connections, think about how these connections might extend beyond November. Perhaps even plan follow up efforts for after the elections. Of course many of us will be single mindedly focused up to the elections, but some of us ought to start to embrace a longer view.
There are elements of the Obama campaign that are grass roots. And I’m not alone in thinking about keeping the social momentum for change going beyond the elections. As you get involved in the Obama campaign, participate in the Obama movement as well.
The presidential contender is a person and a politician, he is important because he may soon hold the office of the president of the United States. For progressives his political roots hold promise, and his agenda moves American politics in the right direction.
The campaign is the direct effort to elect this politician to the office of president. The campaign is not just the activities of the Democratic Party but also include organizational efforts by other groups such as Move On.
Movement refers to those working for the progressive goals that Barack Obama has articulated or become a focus for.
The Movement is a coalition of American progressives. Key goals of the movement include:
1) Removal of American troops from Iraq in a timely manner.
2) A tax policy aimed at fostering greater economic fairness and equality
3) An approach to energy that is oriented towards sustainability and American self sufficiency
4) Challenges to neo-liberal free trade economics and out sourcing
5) Expanded Health coverage for Americans with the goal of universal coverage.
6) And a list of civil rights objectives beneficial to women, people of color, LGBT, and the poor.
Many of us on the Left may be dissatisfied with the limits of some of these goals, and even more so with the political presentation of these goals. To be clear I disagree with the proposition that the reason for withdrawing from Iraq is to be better able to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. As I mentioned at the onset, this discussion is about probable politics in America at the moment. But probable and possible can be mutually supportive. Even minor gains today can create an atmosphere for larger change in the future. As a movement there is the potential that we can evolve out goals towards even more progressive ends.
As supporters of Obama we should be clear that after elected Barack Obama remains a politician and will have to work with other politicians in congress, at that point the Obama movement becomes very important. It is only if we keep working and pushing that we will achieve the movement’s objectives. In fact even if Obama is not elected the movement is important.
Obama movement activists will logically be enthusiastic about the candidate and participate in the campaign. As we contribute, fundraise, make phone calls, nock on doors, organize events, and register voters, it is important to be clear about why we are engaged in the work. So for instance if you make a donation to the Obama campaign, include a note listing the movement issues that are important to you. If working with other Obama activists work to build political connections, think about how these connections might extend beyond November. Perhaps even plan follow up efforts for after the elections. Of course many of us will be single mindedly focused up to the elections, but some of us ought to start to embrace a longer view.
There are elements of the Obama campaign that are grass roots. And I’m not alone in thinking about keeping the social momentum for change going beyond the elections. As you get involved in the Obama campaign, participate in the Obama movement as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
