Category: Politics

By Posted on Posted in Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

An article with that headline appeared the other day in Firedog Lake and was reprinted in Common Dreams

The writer, Cenk Uygur, believes Obama is good-hearted and sincerely wants change, but that he feels powerless.

Why? Because not only doesn’t the left get out there and make noise, and push the discourse overwhelmingly toward real change (as the right has done so horribly effectively for a few decades now)—but we don’t even “have his back” for the moderate changes he could have fought for. Of course, he hasn’t fought very hard, and he was careful to appoint Cabinet members who for the most part were not visionaries, were not even change agents, but were part and parcel of the status quo, some of them the same people who brought the economy crashing down and got us into illegal and immoral wars in the first place.

Here are a few (non-contiguous) paragraphs from the article:

So, what Obama does by his nature is find the middle ground. As an excellent innate politician, he will find the political center of any field and rush to it. That’s where elections are won – the center.
So, that’s why he sounded so progressive during the primaries, because that was the center of the left. And why he sounded like such a reformer during the general election because the great majority of Americans desperately wanted change…

The center of Washington is very different than the center of the country. The Washington bubble leans far more to the right than the rest of the country (poll after poll indicates this). The corporate media in Washington are pros at protecting the status quo and view people who challenge the system as fringe players…

So, our only hope is to move the island. We have to move his center. If we can move what he perceives to be the center, he will naturally flow to it. In Lost, when they move the island they move across time. In our case, when we move the island we need to move across the political spectrum.

Right now, Obama perceives the center of the country to be somewhere between Dick Cheney and Harry Reid. Do you know where that leaves him? Joe Lieberman. That’s why we’re in the sorry shape we’re in now.

Although it has a lot of gangster and violence metaphors that I don’t like and don’t agree with, the whole article is worth reading. And Uygur’s central thesis is absolutely on target: that it’s up to us to create a people’s movement that demands the change we elected Obama to bring, and that movement has to be loud and forceful and convincg—to the media, to the American people, and to the politicians.

Change historically comes not from politicians, but by the people who demand it from them. The Civil Rights movement gave Lyndon Johnson (no progressive) room to push through several major pieces of Civil Rights legislation. Earth Day and the environmental movement of the early ’70s gave Richard Nixon (not a progressive bone in his body!) a mandate for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency. yet we on the left (and I include myself in that) have largely stood by while Clinton negotiated away health care and the rights of gays in the military, while Bush and Cheney stole the election and hijacked the country, and while Obama rolls the ball ever-rightward to pass something he can pathetically call health care reform, or climate change objectives, or any of the rest of it. Let’s “have Obama’s back” for standing his ground against the right, and let’s push him further to the left with public pressure. Lots of it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Arts & Entertainment, Democracy, General Commentary, Peace and War, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For the last 28 years, I’ve lived in or just outside Northampton, Massachusetts. About ten years ago, Northampton established the position of City Poet Laureate, with a two-year term. Until two years ago, the post was mostly ceremonial. The official poet would occasionally show up and read a poem to mark some event or other, but kept a low profile.

Then Lesléa Newman was chosen for the post. She used her entire two years to work as a catalyst to bring poetry to the people–and the people to poetry. She organized event after event, and brought formidable community organizing skills into the task of making poetry relevant to every generation.

Among her accomplishments:

  • Filling an 800-seat theater with a poetry reading involving readers from the community as well as cities within a few hours drive (none of them superstars)
  • Getting poets to agree to write a poem a day for a month and get sponsors to pledge contributions, raing over $11,000 to benefit a literacy program that helps new immigrants
  • Putting together an anthology of local poets
  • Taking poetry programs into the schools
  • Providing exposure to local poets in a newspaper column

    • The list could go on and on. Newman has been a dynamo and an inspiration. Perhaps this is not surprising from a woman whose 57 published books (!) have included such groundbreaking material as Heather Has Two Mommies (possibly the first lesbian-friendly children’s book to get wide circulation, Letter to Harvey Milk, and one of the first novels about bulemia.

    In the United States, we tend to be uncomfortable with intellectuals. People who pride themselves on their lack of knowledge of the world around them actually do grow up to be President (GW Bush) and run for Vice President (Palin). When we do elect a leader who’s an intellectual, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, it’s because they disguise it well, and we see pictures of them doing “man of the people” activities like chowing down burgers at McDonald’s (Clinton) or taking his kids to the bumper cars at a fair (Obama). I think the last prominent US leader who was not afraid to show himself as an intellectual may have been Franklin Roosevelt.

    Other countries treasure their artists, and especially their dissident artists. The first president of free Senegal was the poet Leopold Senghor; in the Czech Republic, it was the playwright Václav Havel. In the United States, yes, we’ve had a number of Presidents who’d written books before taking the office, including both JFK and Nixon as well as Obama (and his former opponent Hillary Clinton)–but these people were already in public life when they wrote their books. Outside of the movies, which gave us Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and even former Carmel, California mayor Clint Eastwood, it’s hard to think of major US policy makers who really came up out of the arts.

    We’ve had plenty of dissident artists, some of them even pretty famous (Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger, Ani DiFranco). But while art can shape people’s movements, as protest folk and protest rock helped to solidify protests against segregation, the Vietnam War and nuclear weapons, it doesn’t seem to shape policy. And in many cases, we find that the dissidents who achieve fame are quieter about their dissent, at least until they’ve already achieved fame (classic example: John Lennon, who did become quite visible in the peace movement after moving to New York). Not too many people stop to analyze the working-class-hero lyrics of Bruce Springsteen and find the progressive values underneath, because it’s cloaked in something that looks superficially like a right-wing version of patriotism. But get down-and-dirty with the lyrics of “Born in the USA”, and you’ll see it’s about a Vietnam vet who went into the army because he grew up in a depressed town, couldn’t find work, and got into trouble–and then after his hitch still can’t find a job.

    Hey, Bruce, ever thought about running for office?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in General Commentary, Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with ,

    Spend 12 minutes listening to the best commentary I’ve heard on the healthcare mess, from MS-NBC’s Keith Olbermann.

    He is the only other person I’ve heard advocating my viewpoint: that since compromise isn’t working anyway, since the right-wing nutters will call you a socialist no matter what you do, you may as well fight for what we really need, and then in the next elections call down the progressive forces to sweep out the GOP and BlueDog intransigents, along with the ever-more-loathsome Joe Lieberman. Letting the bill go down in flames and then bringing it back as a campaign tool is a far more sensible strategy to me than chipping and chipping away at the reforms until there’s nothing left other than total capitulation to the insurance industry. This bill embodies everything wrong about the legislative process: the influence of big lobbying and big campaign money, the people shut out from the beginning, even Sanders being forced to abandon the single-payer vote on a parliamentary procedure trick.

    Like Olbermann, and like Howard Dean, if I were in the Senate, I’d be voting no until there are some crumbs in here for ordinary Americans. First Obama and Baucus rejected single-payer—what we really want and NEED—in favor of the very limited “public option.” Then they traded that away for extension of Medicare. Then they traded THAT away…for what? For the unreliable promise of a possible (not definite) yes vote from Lieberman!

    Progressive Senators like Sanders and a few others need to tell Obama and Ried tht this bill is not one they can vote for. Let the bill grind to a halt! We can play this kind of hardball as well. When there’s nothing to vote for, it’s time to vote no.

    I’ll be urging my own Senators to do so later today. Not in a petition but in a personal letter. When I’ve done the letter, I’ll post it here, and I give open permission to copy it in whole or in part to contact your own Senators.

    I’m also going to ask MSNBC for a transcript of Olbermann’s remarks, and permission to post it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

    This is not about politics; it’s about communication style, using a politician as an example.

    My wife teaches business communication (with a heavy focus on international dos and don’ts), and she and I both give Barack Obama high marks for his sensitivity to other cultures.

    Two quick examples among many:

  • For his state dinner last night with Indian Prime Minister Singh and his wife, no only did the menu have many Indian touches (and was mostly vegetarian, since the Singhs don’t eat meat), but Michelle Obama’s gown was designed by an Indian-American designer, and her preview outfit was the work of different Indian-American designer
  • When he went to Shanghai, he didn’t just learn how to say hello in Chinese, but he actually learned the correct pronunciation in the local Shanghai dialect

    • In the campaign, too Obama was consistently on message, able to deflect all the name-calling from the other side, and consistently able to turn attention back to the real issues.

    So what I’m wondering is why, since he does have such awesome communication skills, he seems totally unable to focus on his message. Issue after issue has gotten bogged down, and he’s fallen into a rut—abandoning the very successful organizing and communication strategies he used so well during the campaign, and continues to use well in his international contacts, in favor of overly nuanced, bureaucratic, uninspiring policy-ese. I think he could move his agenda forward a lot more successfully if he went back to building support among the American people, and organized them to be a force influencing their own legislators to push the change he was elected to bring.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Politics

    Is it possible for Sarah Palin to get any more distasteful?

    Here’s another example of her viper-like turning on old allies when they cross her, as Geoffrey Dunn writes in Huffington Post:

    But perhaps the nastiest and most duplicitous passages of all in Going Rogue are those directed at Andree McLeod, the longtime Republican watchdog out of Anchorage who filed many of the Alaska Ethics Act complaints that, by Palin’s own admission, hounded her from office.

    Because McLeod has some Lebanese heritage, Palin dubbed her “the falafel lady.” And claimed she’s some sort of left-wing nutcase, because she had the chutzpah to call Palin to account for numerous ethics violations.

    Dunn proceeds to quote from several gushing e-mails of praise that Palin wrote to McLeod, back when she was in Palin’s good graces. Here’s one of them:

    That was a great letter to the ed. this week Andree. I haven’t had time to call but wanted to tell you it was, again, insightful & educational & good writing. I’m still disenchanted with the whole issue of RR and state politics and am not even very optimistic about the call for an independent investigation. We’ll see. I guess I’ll believe it when I see it. Hope you’re doing well, staying warm & staying on top of all these state issues I’m hearing about on the news! Love, SP

    Dunn, whose book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be published next year by St. Martin’s Press, is a frequent critic of the colorful ex -governor. Here, for instance, is his look at the first ten lies in Palin’s ghostwritten-but-not-credited memoir, which has no index and apparently doesn’t mention the ghostwriter on the cover, title page, or copyright page (great ethics, there, Sarah–all you needed was the usual “as told to” line in small print).

    Meanwhile, Palin continues to cram her foot into her mouth. Even on the friendly turf of Sean Hannity’s TV how, Sarah Palin can’t tell the difference between Iran and Iraq. Though she scores a point for her excellent pronunciation of “Ahmadinejad.”

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in censorship, Democracy, Politics, propaganda

    Last night I saw a video that shocked me: A spliced-together out-of-context montage from Barack Obama’s speeches and media appearances to create the illusion that he is a radical Muslim extremist (and disparaging Islam generally in terms that would be quite familiar to the Jews who were victimized by similar descriptions throughout history.

    I will not dignify this filth with a link. Nor will I call, as some of my liberal friends might, for it to be taken down, all copies destroyed, etc. In the marketplace of ideas, I like to think the good ideas will win, eventually. It may take 100 years, as the abolition of slavery did. But you don’t convince people by telling them they can’t talk. Telling them you’re not going to listen and not going to provide a forum where others can listen, that’s your prerogative.

    It was sent to me by one of my uncles, who happens to be extremely right wing and very active in Israel- and Jewish-oriented causes. I want to share my response to him:

    As a Jew, as a member of a culture that has been discriminated against throughout history, that has been demonized by bigots from the Pharaohs to the Nazis, I am deeply distressed to see you sending around something that demonizes other people because of their culture and their faith–and that mixes together quotes out of context to try to create something that isn’t there: Obama’s supposed Muslim faith.

    You and I disagree deeply on politics, but we’ve always treated each other’s views with respect. Watching this video, I don’t feel respected. I feel threatened, I feel that the psychological warfare it trains on Muslims could just as easily be turned against Jews.

    It feels like a leaf from the Goebbels playbook. It is the Big Lie Technique to the second power: once, the lie that Obama is Muslim, and second, the lie that all Muslims want the destruction of our culture. And quite frankly, it makes me ill.

    Obama, as we all know, is a Christian who happens to be well-versed in Islamic culture. I have seen or heard many of the speeches snipped into this video, and in context they are very different. And let’s be clear: this is not “an actual video of the President speaking” but rather a composite of tiny sound bites cut into tiny pieces, isolated from the surrounding words that illuminate their meaning, to make Obama look like a threat.

    Believe me, I have plenty of disagreements with Obama. But one area where I think he’s been good is in reaching out around the world who want to end violence, expressing our unity as human beings.

    And the mainstream Islamic culture he is praising is not the culture of terrorist extremists, any more than the anti-Semitic bigot Father Coughlin represented today’s mainstream Christianity.

    I have heard many other Christians (yes, he is a Christian) praising Judaism for its contributions to civilization, including presidents. I don’t see his acknowledgment of Islam’s contributions to be any different from that.

    I do not buy that the big tent is a problem. Fanaticism and fundamentalism, of every religion, is a problem–anything that fosters hatred of those who are different. I see this video montage as hateful, racist propaganda that tries to depict both Obama and Muslims as other, as demons, as intolerable–a path that ultimately leads to genocide, as we saw in Hitler’s Germany when it was applied to us. As unacceptable as Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ deep distortion of Judaism. Have you never visited a church or a mosque while traveling? I have visited both. What is the problem with Obama visiting a mosque?

    I am sure you’re familiar with the famous quote by Martin Niemoller:

    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
    because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
    because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
    because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
    because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me–
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    I am speaking out, with all due respect, not only because I want someone to speak out if they come for me, but also because my conscience would not treat me well if I remained silent. And because I care about you.

    Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, did not have access to Youtube. He didn’t have Twitter and Facebook. He didn’t have blogs. All he had were radio, newspapers, and posters.

    With our modern tools, the power to spread a message, for good or evil, is unparalleled. Every one of us can disseminate information across many channels, propelling English housewife Susan Boyle to international superstardom, helping elect Obama President, or spreading hatred and divisiveness as reprehensible as messages spread by the Nazis 70 years ago. A few clicks, and the message is on its way to a few dozen friends…or tens of thousands of associates on social media.

    The media-savvy, politically sophisticated hatemongers who put this video together must have Goebbels beaming up from his particular circle of Hell, or at least jealous that he didn’t have these media.

    We can use these tools to spread a joke. We can use them to organize for peace and justice. And we can use them to resist attempts to spread hate, as I hope I’m doing here. Love is stronger than hate. Let’s empower others and use these amazing tools the make the world a better place.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics, Social and Economic Justice

    This just in: Proponents of single-payer health care, a/k/a Medicare for All–the system used by almost every developed country in the world–will not get our promised floor vote after all.

    If I were in Congress right now, I’d vote no. The bill has gotten weaker, more complicated, and more expensive with every turn. As I understand it, it is a giveaway to big insurers and might actually leave fewer people insured than we have now. A travesty!

    President Obama–WHERE is the “change” you promised so loudly one year ago? As The Who sang in my very favorite song, “We Don’t Get Fooled Again,” “Meet the new boss…same as the old boss.”

    Below is the public statement from Physicians for a National Health Program

    November 6, 2009

    Dear PNHP colleagues and friends,

    We are disappointed to report that there will not be a vote on the Weiner amendment for single payer today in advance of the vote on the House bill tomorrow.

    Two reasons were given by Rep. Weiner for withdrawing his amendment:

    1. Speaker Pelosi said if she allowed debate on the single-payer amendment, she would have to allow debate on an expansion of the Hyde anti-abortion amendment, which the Democrats do not wish to do, and

    2. There are at least 8 members who would vote against the House bill if they were given a chance to vote for Weiner’s single-payer amendment. At this point the Democratic leadership is desperately counting votes; they can only afford to lose 15 votes total, and according to the Washington Post, they are currently down by 25 votes.

    Next steps and interpretation –

    1. The fact that single payer got so far along in the House is a testament to the strength of our single-payer movement. The huge number of calls by single-payer advocates in support of single payer and the Weiner amendment in recent weeks have been noted by several members of Congress. Increasingly the public is learning what Harvard health economist William Hsiao told the New York Times, that “< #taiwan>[y]ou can have universal coverage and good quality health care while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”

    2. It appears that nobody, particularly President Obama, expected our single-payer option to be alive in the Congress for so long. As you know, they attempted to keep it “off the table” from the very beginning.

    3. The president was directly involved in the decision to not hold a vote on the Weiner single-payer amendment, and Weiner will be meeting with him later today. Stay tuned.

    4. We need to increase pressure on the Congress and White House for Medicare for All through lobbying, speaking engagements, media outreach, grassroots organizing and civil disobedience. Senator Bernie Sanders will call for a vote on single payer in the Senate – this could come up anytime in the next month. Encourage your senator to support the Sanders bill (S. 703) and also an amendment he will offer for a state single-payer option. Our friends in the California Nurses Association/NNOC have already started lobbying visits to the Senate in D.C. Lobbying materials, slides, and other materials from our spectacular Annual Meeting in Cambridge are now on-line at www.pnhp.org/annual-meeting-2009

    5. In the national office we are working on press outreach regarding uninsured veterans (we’ll have a release for you early next week on this) and civil disobedience by physicians in support of Medicare for All (see press release, below). Members are encouraged to continue to publish op-eds, letters to the editor, and articles in support of single payer (see articles in today’s Asheville, (N.C) Citizen-Times and the Palm Beach Post, below).

    6. We have been asked how to tell members to vote on the House bill. Our response is that the bill “is like aspirin for breast cancer”. As noted by PNHP Past President Dr. John Geyman in his latest blog post “No bill is better than a bad bill,” even the public option in the House bill is a sham.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice, Uncategorized

    Talk about death panels! Physicians for a National Health Program is calling attention to a just releases–and very shocking–Harvard study that found…

    Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

    The new study, “Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” appears in today’s online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

    The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

    In an e-mail blast, the doctors group calls for President Obama to “start from scratch”: to ditch the unpopular, badly thought out, solves-nothing proposals floating through Congress and bring the US into alignment with the rest of the developed world: a single-payer health care plan.

    And the group’s leader, Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. of Harvard University, gave a great interview on this on Democracy Now.

    Retired Senator (and former presidential candidate) George McGovern notes in a recent op-ed that all it would take is a one sentence law, extending Medicare coverage to all Americans.

    I think all these folks are correct. I’ve been saying for months that the time for single-payer (something I started supporting in 1979, when I was a community organizer for the Gray Panthers and this was their main plank) is NOW.

    If you’re in the US, tell your Senators and Congressional representative. And tell your state government to push for it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Politics, poverty

    Not only did George W. Bush preside over the largest destruction of wealth in history, he also left the poor and middle class reeling, even before the Wall Street collapse. So says a new Census Bureau report that shows, according to the Atlantic Magazine article about it:

    While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.

    The article goes into substantial detail about all of these. It makes for vital, if sobering, reading. And adds up to yet another reason why I believe George W. Bush was the worst president in US history.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Media Ethics, Politics, Social and Economic Justice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

    I may get smeared for this as Van Jones was, but let me say that I find it disgraceful that Van Jones was the target of a smear campaign and was forced out as Obama’s Green jobs person. He was one of the few genuine progressive voices in a sea of “moderate-centrists” who would have been considered quite far to the right a few decades back.

    What were Jones’ “crimes”?

    * He called for an investigation into possible government foreknowledge about 9/11. It’s pretty clear that elements within the U.S. government had advance knowledge that something was brewing (even George W. Bush was briefed on this the month before the attack, as Condoleezza Rice admitted in her May 19, 2004 testimony in front of the 9/11 investigation commission), and many respected scholars such as David Ray Griffin have widely circulated hypotheses of U.S. government involvement. My own view is that the U.S. saw the attack coming and decided for its own purposes to let the attack occur (our Reichstag fire, if you will)–but were not directly involved. Why is it unreasonable to ask for an investigation?

    * He used an unfortunate metaphor to describe his radicalization in the aftermath of the acquittal verdict in the Rodney King beating case:

    By August, I was a Communist,” he says in the article, describing his sense of radicalization at the time.

    * He said that Republican strong-arm legislators who managed to force through legislation even when short of a super-majority in the Senate were “assholes.” How is this any worse than commentator Glenn Beck, who led the charge against Jones, calling Obama a racist, or
    George W. Bush, when he was Governor of Texas, threatening a legislator with “I’m going to kick your butt if you don’t go along with me.”. And if you listen to it in context, the subtext was that Democrats are too gentlemanly to play this kind of hardball, and that’s why they can’t get their agenda enacted. This, unfortunately, is patently obvious to observers of the current political scene.

    Glenn Beck, this is the latest in a long line of despicable things you’ve done. You may feel smug now, but you’re the one whose conscience will bother you–not Van Jones.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail