Superficially, you think that suggesting that what we need is another national mass movement such as we had in the Civil Rights Movement is too broad. However, I wasn't explaining how we make it happen; I was suggesting what we need.
The charge that something is to vague is a
very fair one. I want to acknowledge that. Trust me, I've made that charge many times to socialist friends who want to "end capitalism." I mean, I definitely would like to hear some specifics about how to do that right? And when I would ask or question, mostly because I wanted them to truly answer with tangible ideas that might make me hopeful, I was frequently met with disdain for having even asked the question - as though somehow its disingenuous or ignorant to dare ask someone what their plan is for trying to do something they say should be done.
But what you don't understand is that I really do believe that the Civil Rights Movement should serve as our model,
even in the specifics. I'm no expert, I don't know how to plan or organize massive calls to action or build movements or anything of the sort. But I can study history. And what I desire to do more than anything right now is study the history of mass action taken during the Civil Rights Era, because that did fundamentally change the structure of the system.
Here we have an example of national mobilization, organizing, and action. What can we learn from studying that history? I think we could learn a lot. The Civil Rights movement didn't poof into full-scale existence from thin air. In the beginning, it started with a mostly unawakened populace not imaging structural change. So how did we get from there to the point of something revolutionary?
I believe that the more we study that history and look to the Civil Rights Era as a model and blueprint for organizing, community building and action - we could potentially find the "specifics" that work. And hey, you have to admit, suggesting that we look at a historically successful model that worked, analyze it and see what we could replicate again today is a much better plan - a good start if you will - than what you hear from a lot of people! It's not completely specific yet, because I'm not a genius and I need to study more history. And I need help from other people. But it
is a very tangible starting point.
A few more things I wanted to comment on:
The only thing I see in your other post is a call to stop voting for unknown, unnamed people who don't support your view of reform. But again, it's such a broad brush -- politics is always messy, is always the art of half-a-loaf, is always about going to get what you want and only getting half of it and being disappointed.
Essentially, I agree with you. If I had attempted to write out my entire decision making process when I attempt to decide who to support in an election my OP would have been far longer than it already is. But now you ask for specifics, and I can assure you that I'm well aware that reality is "grey" rather than black and white. However, I believe that we do need a "lens" by which we try to decide who is worth supporting; some sort of basic heuristic - a good rule of thumb, even if their may be exceptions.
For me I have two major points of thinking when considering a candidate:
First, does this candidate sufficiently demonstrate both a willingness (meaning personal conviction) and an ability (meaning freedom from handlers or special interests) to prioritize the needs of low income and working class families ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite?
The word "sufficiently" above unfortunately leaves room for interpretation, but that is unavoidable - the specifics of every candidate in each context have to be evaluated on their own, and there is no perfect litmus test.
The second heuristic I use is this: Do I feel this candidate is "good enough" where good enough means:
1. He or she represents sufficient benefit for low income and working class families
2. He or she has no critical/severe/show-stopping liabilities (in policy positions for example) that would harm low income and working class families.
3. The benefits of electing this candidate sufficiently outweigh any existing liabilities of electing this candidate
That's my "guide." I can't make it more specific until I have a specific candidate to evaluate. But point #3 is really important - it reflects my understanding that no person is perfect. That may be true, but it doesn't mean we cannot still make decisions about who we support based on some sound principle.
The reason I ask about your political activism is because your statements are so broad and unrealistic that they seem naive to me. The first thing to do is to stake out your view of where, exactly, the fulcrum is -- and it's not just "not voting for people." That's actually pretty pointless and it doesn't even get you a stake at the table.
But I didn't say it was about "not voting for people." I said it was about not voting for the wrong people because you don't believe you have any other choice. Instead of blowing a vote on someone you (generalized you) don't believe in, what about working your butt off (a generalized butt) for someone what you really DO believe in, and forget whatever letter he or she has got after the name.
I am interested in reform, too, and I think the way to do it is to work for publicly financed elections to get the money out of politics and make them truly accountable to the people who voted for them. Furthermore, I think it has to come from the grassroots. Arizona did it -- and I am working with a local group who has been trying to get a bill through our Lege for four years -- and we just keep trying. Meanwhile, though, the solution is not for me to "stop voting" but to work locally to find good candidates who will agree with me, and support them, and choose the best of the bad alternatives I may have on offer, and pressure them to do the right thing. My power lies in my engagement with the system, and not, as you seem to advocate, in my disengagement with the system.
First, I never said that the solution is to stop voting. In fact, I'll be mailing my ballot in for my state's special election this Monday. This is a good vote too, with a real chance to win a very positive victory for ordinary Oregonians by passing an increase in the corporate tax rate to generate revenue for education and other social investment programs. Polls suggest it could win. That's a fight I would have been more involved in on the ground too, by the way, except that I just moved here, six months ago, then have been going through a series of life complications, including deaths (two in the space of two months) in the family and unemployment - so the best I could do this time was write a few letters, donate a tragically small amount of money and then make sure to vote.
You say that you think the way to do it is work for publicly financed elections. But I suggest to you that publicly financed election is asking for structural change of our political system. I realize quite clearly that we are having a bit of a semantics problem and I hope we can get past it. For example, this system has money driven elections. We agree that we need to totally change that - not just have some hodge-podge caps or limits on spending here and there. We need to remove money from influencing elections by having them publicly funded. But friend that's not "reform." That's a system overhaul. It's replacing this system of moneyed politics with a different system. Furthermore, there is next to zero political support from either establishment party for such financing.
Thus, we need people willing to address the structural problems of the system itself and that's next to nobody in Washington today. Be careful with something you said that I think is a misreading of what I wrote. You said somewhere that I talked about working outside the system. But I don't believe I said that, in fact I consciously meant not it. The issue isn't about where you work, its about what you are working for. All I suggested is that we need people who accept that the system itself is broken and who are willing to tackle institutional injustices rather than just put windows dressings on a system that's failing.
A democrat (someone "in the system") could theoretically do that just like some "outsider." So its not about being inside or outside - its about whether or not people accept that our problems are bigger than the scope of what both parties are currently willing to talk about. That's all.
You say that it has to come from the grassroots. I couldn't agree more! I do not believe radical change comes from the top down. When I spoke of a failed system however, I was clear in speaking of our national political economy. I think the closer you move to home, at state and local levels, the possibilities for much more powerful action become greater.
Finally you said that your power lies with engagement with the system and said you think I am suggesting disengagement from the system. Nothing could be further from the truth for me. But the very fact of criticizing the a system that has failed ordinary Americans I'm engaging it. By desiring to organize for radical community action to change the system itself I'm enaging with it. I'm engaging with the system - I'm just not accepting that it is a system that is just.
Does any of that make sense to you or do you just think I'm crazy? :)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
