|
my generation (those who came of age in the '60s) fought hard against unjust war, and for social justice and peace, but I don't think we understood very well how strong the forces for unjust war and other injustice really were/are. After the Vietnam War, we should have dismantled the "military-industrial complex" and established a small, truly defensive military force--and we did not, and perhaps could not. Our national political establishment was very smart to end the Draft (after the war). That helped take the steam out of the peace and justice movement. But something else happened, which I think was even more retrogressive, and that is the assassination of our leaders--JFK, RFK and MLK--within five years (RFK and MLK in the same year, 1968). I know that those events caused me serious trauma--I might even call it post-traumatic stress syndrome. What are you going to do when they just keep killing your leaders off? What use is it to be politically active, and try to elect good people?
I remember, also, something that was said to me in the early 1980s, that really disgusted me, but that was probably typical of a certain group of '60s Democratic grass roots activists, who went on to became politicos. Someone with that kind of background, who had risen up to a pretty high position as a political consultant, remarked at a private dinner I attended, regarding Reagan's ascendancy, "Time to make some money." He meant, 'abandon leftist causes, why fight it?, take the opportunity to get your own wad.' I think I was pushing some leftist cause at that dinner, and his comment appalled me. And I have to say that I don't think he was alone. I've seen evidence of that crass attitude in others who have risen up within the party. The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton was virtually unrecognizable to me, compared to the Democratic Party I was part of, as a youngster. Anti-labor legislation like NAFTA, and anti-poor people policies like "welfare reform" became the party's agenda. It may have been politically correct on some social issues--like women's rights--but on fundamental economic issues the Democratic Party ceased to represent the interests of the middle class, workers, the poor and small business--the majority of people in the country. Yet we had nowhere else to go--as the Republican Party moved further and further toward the nutball right, ultimately to fall right over the cliff of fascism, under Bush Jr. I and others kept voting for (and working for) Democrats, for smaller and smaller representation of our interests. (I remember voting for Clinton, the second time around, in the hope of a 25 cent raise in the minimum wage, which had already fallen way behind inflation. That was it. That was virtually the only thing I agreed with him on. I felt that that small increase would mean a lot to the very poor. Scraps from the master's table, is what it was.)
I was very sorry to see Howard Dean leave the DNC. And I have the very strong suspicion that he was pushed out by the DLC, which is back in charge. That is bad news. But I think it's also probable that Barack Obama would not have been permitted to become president if he had NOT accommodated that powerful, retro faction--as I said above. I'm convinced of it, actually. The "powers that be" in this country, and the multinational corporations who are really running things, are not about to let 'we, the people' have our country back. And they've now got 'TRADE SECRET' control of the vote counting. And that's where I think we should start, in restoring our democracy--and the most hopeful venue for restoring transparent vote counting--vote counting in public control; vote counting that everyone can see and understand--is at the state/local level. Congress is not about to do it--they fucked it up, and gave it over to rightwing corporations, in the first place, with most Democrats voting for it.
So WE have to fix it, if it's going to be fixed. Ordinary people still have some potential power at the state/local level. I think we have none in Washington, even now--for this and other reasons: our president, our senators, our congress people, are all dependent on private, rightwing, 'TRADE SECRET' code vote counting--and, once they get to Washington, if they are not compromised long before that, with our mindbogglingly filthy campaign contribution system, they soon become embedded in that bubble of corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, war profiteering and corporate...I was going to say, lobbying...but it's more than that, it's rule by outside forces, multinational corporations with loyalty to no one. And if they stray too far from toadying to those powers, they get destroyed (by the media), or dis-elected (by Diebold & brethren). State/local officials are empowered through the same system, but they live closer to the people, need our support more, and some might live right down the street from you (for instance, your county registrar of voters, or county supervisor, who actually choose the voting system; you can go to a county supes meeting fairly easily, but not a Congressional committee hearing in DC).
Hey, how's this for an idea? Our federal government should be mobile. It should move--lock, stock and barrel--to regional federal capitals, say one in the Midwest, one in the West and one in the South, as well as DC--every (say) four years, maybe every two years. The president and congress should be in residence in the regional capitols on an equal basis. Why should the people in Maryland or Virginia have such easy access to Congress, which the rest of us never have? Why should I have to travel 3,000 miles just to go to a congressional hearing--a prohibitive cost and inconvenience? Maybe that's what wrong with our government, fundamentally. The country is just too big for public accountability.
Anyway, farewell, Dr. Dean! Farewell, 50-state strategy! Farewell, to the peoples' party! And hello to what...a bipartisan Forever War and scraps from the table?
|