Formal democracy vs. substantive democracy...Jack O'Dell

[Skidmore]

Anyone else listening to Jack O'Dell's discussion of Human Rights Challenges and the legacy of MLK on C-SPAN? This is without a doubt the best discussion I have ever heard of a direction for the implementation democratic ideas yet. After listenting to several speeches by MLK yesterday, I do not understand why the Democratic party doesn't adopt wholesale these ideas and tap the talents of those remaining civil rights leaders to teach a new generation how to organize a movement. The Democratic party needs to be at the helm of a new civil rights movement--a "second reconstruction", as termed by Mr. O'Dell. What a great man and thinker!

This was broadcast on C-Span so I expect it will be in the Archives soon.

[sweetheart]

1. You don't win the new war with the last war's weapons

The old techniques of civil rights movements are pre-internet and are
not effective in an age of cable TV when the "activist" element is
diminishing on to their couches with their TV remotes. A new activism
is to teach a generation about the root and branch understandings of
liberalism, that as many people as possible are able to challenge the
mainstream media ignorance with truth and sensibility.

One thing we've observed, is that readers will come to the best written
story, be it in the new york times, or an internet blog... so we need
to inspire a generation of dissident writers to take on the big boys
and re-write their trashy articles for the world. Surely marching and
acitivism works, but notice that it is most recently effective in
countries where cable TV and the internet have not saturated the public
mind. As the internet will only become more and more ubiquitous in
the coming years, it is important to gain ground by training and
dispatching as many inspired writers as possible, as these seeds will
teach a new generation to take on the despots.

[Skidmore]

2. It seems to me that the, aside from retooling by using newer

technologies (e.g., the internet and other media), that what needs to be reclaimed is not the nuts and bolts stuff, but how to shape a cohesive message and build the support to carry it through. Technology is fine as a tool--a vehicle for conveyance of a message--but it is not the substance of a movement. Besides, relying on computer's only assumes that the people who would benefit from such a movement have access to computer technology in their daily lives. A goodly number of disenfranchised people are also poor and do not have such access. This is where the social movement needs to occur. I was listening more to Mr. O'Dell's discussion of King's poverty movement which was abandoned. This is a social movement begging to be resurrected, given the vast disparity in wealth between social classes now and the erosion of worker's rights. Wallis, of Sojourner's, discussed this a bit on Washington Journal as well this morning.

[sweetheart]

3. The coherent message

I agree wholeheartedly with any movement for the poor and disenfranchised.
However, in all honestly, it is the ideological basis that has failed
us, as the democratic party has sold out and has no ideological roots
driving people who want coherence in to the green fringe for a message
that even makes sense.... its that bad... the democratic party can't
paint a message that makes sense anymore... just moment-to-moment
opportunism... and what MLK's sort of activism had in spades was a
total coherence of message.

It looks to me like a fuzzy image that has not been focused... the
economic message of the democrats is out of focus with the poor and
disenfranchised. The military message of the democratts is as well
and thus we wind up with a gooey mess that activates nobody as its
moral fortitude is not enough to wind up a childs toy.

Like the consultant minister said to the democratic people... lets get
a coherent message on poverty, disenfranchisement, and carry it through
all the other areas including economics, global foreign affairs, and
taxation.

[Skidmore]

4. Then we are in agreement regarding the importance of

a coherent message. A message can only be developed by good old fashioned sitting down and talking to one another until all differences are hammered out and concensus is arrived at. I watched the movie "Boycott" this weekend as well, and one of the most important strategizing sessions in Montgomery was King sitting down with his group and having a discussion about the role of nonviolence as a form of protest. It was a hard discussion and there was angry disagreement there, but keeping the group focused on identifying the common goal was King'g great contribution. We need to get a message beyond "I detest Bush and I'm against him". That sets him up as a victim of some sort and creates undeserved sympathy for him. We need to a rallying point--a focused goal for a movement. I have a cherished fantasy that the DNC will see the value of putting its money where it counts and supporting some statewide open forums (not expensive retreats for the party leadership) for the people to come and do that hard discussion. More importantly the resulting message must be a distillation of that consensus building process with identifiable action steps to move it forward. Presently, there is much handwringing and lamentations and posturing, but little content.

[sweetheart]

5. The process itself is infected with the neocon virus

That we need some pundits to decide policy for us, in a democratic
party is absurd.... we need bottom-up democracy as this grass roots
invigoration is from where all the power comes, and only by elevating
the common interest do we get there. I agree with your statewide
open forums, as well as a nationwide open forum.

The concept that we need "leaders" and not a message, is endemic to the
problem. The grassroots IS our leadership, and without a forum we're
not listening to them. The internet is a poor proxy indeed.