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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.