Democratic Insurgency

[H2O Man]

Insurgent: < L., insurgent, to rise up> : (n) 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; esp. a rebel not recognized as a belligerent. (adj) 1: rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership.
--Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

The media coverage of the democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is interesting. In the past 24 hours, both campaigns have attempted to define their candidate as the "underdog" in the fight. One of the issues that overlaps with this is the financial strength of each campaign.

In January, there was a report in the media comparing the Clinton vs Obama fight to the Joe Frazier vs Muhammad Ali battles of the 1970s. A couple of DUers posted threads on this very topic: it makes for an interesting comparison, with Senator Clinton being cast as Smokin’ Joe Frazier, and Senator Obama as Ali, the "People’s Champ." Frazier, though not by his choice, was considered the establishment’s champion, and Ali – who refused to be drafted to serve in Vietnam – was the insurgent.

I took part in a couple of those discussions. I have long recognized that all of life imitates the ultimate reality of our universe: boxing. However, a few DUers found the Frazier vs Ali threads offensive. (I note that those who disliked the comparisons were all Clinton supporters.)

So I thought that today, we might focus on a topic that is a bit lighter, and of less importance in human history, than boxing. Let’s consider what an "insurgent" is, in terms of a couple of other governments that we might consider to share some characteristics with Washington, DC. I’m thinking of Rome and the British Empire.

Those in power view insurgents as dangerous outsiders, who pose a threat to the stability of their established system of authority. Those who are dissatisfied with the established authority consider the insurgent to be a potential reformer.

The establishment controls the largest population centers, or cities. The insurgent comes from the rural areas. The establishment has access to the financial purse-strings of those cities; the insurgent depends upon the smaller contributions of the common folk. The insurgent works patiently to cut off the smaller rural contributions to the establishment’s bank account.

The establishment has a ruling class, often dominated by a few families. The insurgent comes from the rural, tribal cultures that surround those cities. The Roman and British empires were white; both faced insurgencies that included rural white tribes (Celtic, including the Irish, etc) and of non-white peoples.

Some of the most notable insurgents in modern history were educated in both urban classrooms and rural hedge schools. As a rule, the establishment considers them to be a "credit to their race/ethnic group" so long as they dress up in established styles and think established thoughts.

But when insurgents step outside of the established boundary, it upsets the apple cart. Some of us are old enough to remember two insurgents from the 1960s, named Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. But there were many others. Some worked their way inside of the system, and worked for serious institutional change; others died along the way; and still more became co-opted by the silk and trinkets the system uses to seduce insurgents.

We are witnessing some curious dynamics within the democratic party. Both the establishment and insurgent camps have some valid points that we should listen to and give serious consideration. The Clinton wing of the party does have a history of building a solid structure in the big cities across the country. And they will continue to win the majority of the "big city" states’ primaries. The Obama camp has united many (though certainly not all) of the rural and minority tribes. His forces have gained control of many of the "small to medium city" states.

Both groups also have a negative potential. The Clinton camp has a sense of entitlement that offends a significant portion of the democratic party. And the tendency to portray Hillary Clinton as being a "for profit" corporate candidate who is not a champion of the middle- and lower economic classes offends another significant portion of the democratic party.

"Super Tuesday" showed that both Senator Clinton and Senator Barack enjoy the support of about half of the democratic voters. In the next few weeks and months, it will be fascinating to see how each approaches the struggle. It is also important to consider how people in the rural communities and urban centers across the US participate in this historic struggle. We can bring about the best potential in our party and country, or we can crush that same potential. And that is the real choice in this election.

[antigop]

1. "How each approaches the struggle"...Penn is spinning Obama as the "establishment candidate"

According to Talking Points Memo...thread I posted yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4435815&mesg_id=4435815

[H2O Man]

2. Mr. Penn

reminds me of Brian Cox's character Killearn in the movie "Rob Roy." He is a swine.

[mmonk]

4. .

Tell it.
:rofl:

[OHdem10]

3. Not to disparage either candidate----the fascinating observation

I have made. Some call HRC the Establishment Candidate, while
her voters are the Working Class Middle Class andPoor

Some call Obama the Insurgent, his supporters Upper Class better
educated and more affluent.

Politics is great, don't you think.

[H2O Man]

5. Valid point.

There is a scene in the movie "Braveheart," where one of the king's men speaks to the princess in a language he assumes William Wallace will not understand. But insurgents and their supporters are often very well educated. It is one of the classic errors in thinking to assume that a certain type of education predisposes a person to establishment thinking, as history shows.

[antigop]

6. I can only describe this from my perspective and the circles I float in

People who have had good jobs are ticked -- they see their jobs going overseas, or they are training their h1-b replacements. So-- they are ticked at the "establishment" because they see their livelihoods and retirement being taken from them, with little hope of recovery.

As I said, I can only report from the people I associate with -- educated (many with advanced degrees), but who work in technical capacities.

<edit to add> These are people who "did everything right" -- studied hard, got technical degrees, worked hard -- only to find that they have been kicked to the curb.

[H2O Man]

7. Exactly.

In my opinion, one of the reasons that Bill Clinton made his unfortunate statements about Obama's campaign reminding him of Jesse Jackson's was not so much because he was consciously appealing to racism -- for Bill Clinton is not a racist -- but was because he wanted to marginalize the Obama campaign as being an insurgent movement. This fits, of course, Senator Clinton's unfortunate comment on Martin's dream and LBJ's bureaucratic skills: again, it wasn't a conscious call to racism, but rather an attempt to distinguish between the insurgent and the establishment.

In 2008, there are a good many well-educated, hard-working citizens who have been marginalized by the establishment. I don't think that we can question that Hillary Clinton is 100% sincere in her efforts to make the system work for those people. Yet it is also important that we recognize that those people who have been discarded are going to find Barack Obama's message of hope inspiring.

In 1984 and especially in 1988, Jesse Jackson brought together not only the progressive left, but also farmers and factory workers. In '88, the establishment candidates found the strength of his insurgency to be cause for concern. They put their heads together behind closed doors, and came up with a compromise candidate to run against the republican machine. Today, we have people who try to re-write what actually went wrong in that election: the democrats had a solid lead as summer turned to fall. But when the establishment tried to marginalize the progressive movement, they compromised their values. This year, we need to recognize the value of both the established and insurgent wings in the party, or there are going to be a heck of a lot more solid citizens thrown to the side.

[bulldogge]

8. I work

in a local government building, I'm not directly involved in their politics but it allows me to take part in some interesting conversations. I have also had the opportunity to talk with the folks who "did everything right" and now find themselves on the side of the road. I actually have spoken to 3 republicans who have decided to vote Democrat this election. The interesting part is their mannerisms, one fella almost whispers the word republican like he is confessing a sin, lol.
The point I am attempting to make though is that it really is a sign of the times when registered voters are jumping ship, men and women near retirement age who have voted for the far right since their first election are now second guessing the position that they themselves have taken as well as the "elected" officials they have supported.

[H2O Man]

10. On Tuesday,

when I was at the polling place, one guy began talking about how we couldn't afford to have more republican control in the federal government. His wife reminded him that he couldn't "campaign" at the polling place. So we shifted the conversation, and focused on all the local businesses that have closed, and people who have lost their homes.

[okasha]

13. Point taken.

But William Wallace had more to offer than speeches about "spes" and "mutatio." He didn't just hope the English would pack up and stroll out of Scotland and that change would follow. He had a very specific platform and a detailed action plan.

[H2O Man]

9. "The Conservative as Insurgent"

There is an early chapter in the book "An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968" (Chester, Hodgson, & Page) about Senator Eugene McCarthy that is interesting. In "Act 3; Chapter II," the authors show that Eugene McCarthy was a strange mix of liberal and conservative when he decided to run against LBJ in late '67.

He was raised on a rural farm, outside a small village. His father retired from farming in '67, at the age of 92. McCarthy was from an Irish-German family, that believed in hard work and education. Before his career in politics, Eugene had taught at a couple colleges. He had also served in military intelligence. Liberal and conservative.

After going from the House to the Senate, he developed a dislike for John Kennedy. In the 1960 democratic convention, he famously told people not to turn their backs on Adlai Stevenson when he nominated him; a few hours later, he told reporters that his first choice was LBJ, followed by Adlain, and that he viewed JFK as a "nothing."

After JFK's death, the two top candidates for the VP spot became McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey. Unwilling to humiliate himself to LBJ's cruel tactics, he withdrew his name from consideration.

In '67, the liberal wing of the party hoped to get either RFK or George McGovern to challenge the president in the upcoming primary. McCarthy, who was considered "aloof, indolent, arrogant, and annoying" by liberals, was not originally considered as a potential challenger. McGovern then suggested that Allard Lowenstein approach McCarthy, and the rest is history.

Over the next 40 years, memories of McCarthy have transformed him into an almost entirely liberal insurgent. In '68, that really was not true; later, he became far more liberal. Those who worked the closest with him often came away frustrated, because McCarthy had an emotional detachment from the movement that was backing him. He was an odd mixture. Your post reminded me of how curious politics can be!

[Tatiana]

11. I think our primary electorate is pretty evenly divided.

Which means that one candidate will squeak out a victory and this will boil down to strategy.

I think you are correct in painting Obama as the "insurgent" candidate. When he began this race, he had little to no name recognition (and a funny name at that), not nearly the cash in the coffers that Clinton enjoyed, and the support of only a few politicians. It has been amazing to witness how far he has come, how "scrappy" his campaign has been.

What I see when I look at his backers and supporters is people who are willing to but their time, effort, and money where their mouth is. These are not fair-weather friends. They are people who want not only to avert the disaster of another Republican presidency, but citizens who expect more of this country than what we've had. I like that - I like high expectations. I also like the fact that Obama doesn't say he's going to fix all the problems and pass all the reforms. He puts it back on the people (where, Constitutionally the power should reside) to own this political process and participate in our own governance.

We've been enabled by the establishment and its candidates to have low expectations and wait for somebody to do something for us.

What if we're the ones we've been waiting for?

[H2O Man]

12. I think so, too.

I hope that one candidate moves ahead by the time of the convention. If not, then half of the party will have reason to feel resentful of the party heads making the decision.