A political full-court press

The first few weeks of the Obama administration, from a progressive perspective, have been mixed. Forget the failed appointment of Tom Daschle — that is a minor hiccup, as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night — and consider the actual policies:

  • Telling the EPA to stop sitting on California’s request for an emissions waiver so that the state and 12 others can impose much harsher requirements on auto.
  • Ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison and rebuking the Bush administration’s stance on torture.
  • Reversing a policy that banned international groups that received U.S. aid from even discussing abortion.
  • Including not only roads and bridges in his stimulus plan, but also green technologies, expanded broad-band access, new schools and aid for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient.
  • Passing the expansion of SCHIP.

On the other hand, he has allowed the GOP to control the debate over the stimulus and peopled his cabinet with old Clinton hands and Republicans — essentially, the very people who got us into the economic mess we’re in.

As I’ve written, there are two Obamas — the progressive-leaning, former community organizers and the cautious conciliator. This internal conflict makes it imperative that progressives (liberals, lefties, etc. — whatever it is you want to call us) apply pressure.

It is what David Sirota, who has become one of the more indispensable bloggers out there, calls

“The Make Him Do It” Dynamic – that is, how congressional progressives – with the help of the progressive movement – were having success pushing President Obama to take much stronger stands on issues than he seems inclined to take.

It is exactly the kind of active engagement that the liberals avoided during the 1990s, allowing a Democratic president to drift to the right and marginalize his own party’s populist and progressive elements.

Whereas, Clinton-era disengagement resulted in the “end of welfare as we know it,” a Draconian crime bill, NAFTA and so-called reform of the telecommunications, banking and insurance industries (really nothing more than deregulation), Obama-era engagement already is having its successes.

Consider this news:

The Obama administration outlined plans today to tighten restrictions on executive compensation for future recipients of federal aid under the government’s financial rescue program, but the large majority would be able to opt out of most of the limits.

Companies that take the largest chunks of help would face mandatory restrictions on compensation for their senior executives: no more than $500,000 in salary, and no additional compensation other than shares of the company’s stock that can only be redeemed after the government investment is repaid.

Those same rules, however, would be voluntary for most recipients of government aid. Companies could waive the restrictions by informing shareholders.

The rules are part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to address mounting public anger over the government’s efforts to rescue firms at the heart of the economic crisis.

This is, as David Sirota points out, a major about face for the administration, which had said publicly that it opposed such limits. So what happened?

Sirota, who has become one of the most indispensable of bloggers, points to engagement of real progressives and a grassroots push that forced moderates like U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mont.) to start singing populist tunes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for instance, has been getting regular facetime on the issue, which has helped inject populist sentiment into the coverage.

This is a huge victory for the progressive movement, and augurs well for “The Make Him Do It” Dynamic in the weeks and months ahead.

But only if progressives keep applying pressure and injecting themselves into the public discussion.

This full-court-press approach — lefty populists appearing on TV and forcing their concerns into the debate, labor unions and community groups organizing to catch the ears of their elected representatives — is needed to cut through the TV clutter. The voices of Bernie Sanders, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Peter Fazio (D-Ore.) are needed on television, along with labor leaders and others to make it clear that there will be a political price to pay for elected officials from both parties if the stimulus fails to get through Congress or gets watered down.

Quotes of the day: From the readings

I’m reading a fine book by David Halberstam called “The Children” about the civil rights movement and have allowed myself to get behind on my magazine reading. Nonetheless, I’ve been able to read a few pieces here and there. Today’s quotations come from recent readings.

1. Howard Zinn, writing in the March issue of The Progressive (a piece that, as you’ll see, ties in nicely to the Halberstam book):

Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.

Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.

2. From “Winter Soldiers Speak,” by Laila Al-Arian, in the April 7 edition of The Nation:

“It’s criminal to put such patriotic Americans…in a situation where their morals are at odds with their survival instincts,” said Adam Kokesh, who served as a Marine sergeant in the raid on Fallujah in 2004.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Imperfections and the American experiment

I had the chance to interview Chris Hedges, author of “American Fascists” and “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” yesterday on his books and other writings, a discussion that explored the inherent fallibility of humanity and the dangers of assuming our perfectibility. (The interview is for a story for our Time Off magazine that will run in April, in anticipation of Hedges’ appearance at the Princeton Library.)

The notion that we are moving forward, evolving, that there is an inevitable perfection that we are striving t0ward is a dangerous one, a notion that creates divisions, that privileges some at the expense of others. His contention is that the Religious Right and what he calls the New Atheist (radical nonbelievers with an almost messianic believe in science and progress) view the world through this false paradigm of progress.

The rhetorical parallels between Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are striking. They see those they disagree with as being stains on the potential perfectibility of the human race that have to be removed. They brook no disagreements, tolerate no difference. All who are different, who disagree contribute to the greater evil and must be opposed, by force if necessary.

“There are lots of parallels between the Christian right and the proto-fascist movements in the former Yugoslavia,” he told me. Hedges spent almost 20 years as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia.

“They were movements that got their identities through religion,” he continued. “The sanctification of violence, the elevation of a particular group to a higher moral claim, the demonization of other belief systems — the religious right has that in spades, as do the new atheists.”

Both rely on a simplification of belief — Robertson and his ilk reducing religious faith to a set of hard-and-fast rules that eliminate choice and free will, rules that make it easy for he and his followers to claim a false moral high ground; Hitchens and his compadres do the same, substituting science and reason for religion.

That’s why it is no accident that both groups supported the Iraq War, that both groups justify the use of torture and the constriction of rights and liberties.

Faith, however, is more complicated. Faith, as Kierkegaard wrote, demands a greater intellectual commitment than the totalitarian approach of the religious right. It is deeply personal, built on the realization that we are not perfect, that we are connected and that there is something greater out there or within us.

Sin is a part of us, he says; it is at our core. To acknowledge this allows us to understand and empathize with others, to see the common humanity we share.

As Hedges writes in “American Fascists:

God is inscrutable, mysterious and unknowable. We do not understand what life is about, what it means, why we are here and what will happen to us after our brief sojourn on the planet ends. We are saved, in the end, by faith — faith that life is not meaningless and random, that there is a purpose to human existence, and that in the midst of this morally neutral universe the tiny, seemingly insignificant acts of compassion and blind human kindness, especially to those labeled our enemies and strangers, sustain the divine spark, which is love. We are not fully human if we live alone. These small acts of compassion — for they can never be organized and institutionalized as can hate — have a power that lives after us.

It is this understanding that is at the base of our democratic culture, a tolerance and empathy that allows for our imperfectability, that encourages us to lend a hand, to reach out, to become part of a larger community of humanity.

It also is deeply patriotic, a central tenet of the American experiment. James Carroll, the fine Boston Globe columnist, explored this theme Monday in his reaction to Barack Obama’s speech last week on race:

In this nation, that imperfection has been permanently manifest by the racial divide, which gave Obama his subject. The imperfections of racism spawned the responses of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “as imperfect as he may be.”

But don’t let the imperfections of response outweigh the far graver imperfections of a grotesquely unfair social system. People who benefit from an imperfect power structure speak warmly of love, while those who suffer from it angrily demand justice.

But the deeper question goes to the human condition itself: In our unending quest for a better world, how do we deal with the inevitably flawed character of every society, and of every citizen? How does each of us deal, that is, with the inevitable complicity of our leadership – our preachers, our politicians – in what ails society? How do we deal with our own complicity?

Carroll goes on to echo some of the themes that Hedges explores in his two books:

The ingenious American framers took for granted the universality of human imperfection. The Constitution is a system of checks and balances because every officeholder in government – from president, to judge, to legislator – is assumed to be flawed. Every power center – from state to federal – is capable of abusing power.

Therefore, officeholders are checked by one another, power centers are in balance, and the entire arrangement is accountable to an electorate, whose prerogatives are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Constitutional democracy, even balancing majority rule with protections for minorities, is the political system that came into being when humans stopped pretending that perfection was possible. The American paradox is that this rejection of utopian ambition is the beginning of authentic political equality.

This equality, protected by our fragile democratic government, is not the culmination of some inevitable political evolution. It is the result of much trial and error, its frailty inherent, permanent (if anything can be permanent, it is frailty and impermanence).

Our responsibility is to do what we can to maintain this fragile arrangement.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Fighting for democracy?

We are in Iraq to promote democracy, right? Isn’t that what President Bush has been saying?

So, what about this maneuver from an erstwhile ally?

Authorities rounded up opposition leaders Sunday after military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s constitution, replaced the chief judge and blacked out independent TV outlets, saying the country must fight rising Islamic extremism.

Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup but had given a conditional pledge to step down as military chief and become a civilian president this year, declared a state of emergency Saturday night, dashing recent hopes of a smooth transition to democracy for the nuclear-armed nation.

“Gen. Musharraf’s second coup,” said the headline in the Dawn daily. “It is martial law,” said the Daily Times.

Across Pakistan, police arrested political activists and lawyers at the forefront of a campaign against military rule.

Among those detained were Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; Asma Jehangir, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; and Hamid Gul, former chief of the country’s main intelligence agency and a staunch critic of Musharraf’s support of the U.S.-led war on terror.

“It’s a big blow to the country,” said Gul, as a dozen officers took him away in a police van near the parliament in the capital, Islamabad. Hashmi said the army general would not “not survive the people’s outrage.”

Up to 40 activists were hauled in when police raided the office of the Human Right Commission of Pakistan, including its director, I.A. Rahman, a harsh Musharraf critic, said Mohammed Yousaf, a guard at the office in the eastern city of Lahore.

Musharraf’s leadership is threatened by an Islamic militant movement that has spread from border regions to the capital, the reemergence of political rival and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and an increasingly defiant Supreme Court, which was expected to rule soon on the validity of his recent presidential election win. Hearings scheduled for next week were postponed, with no new date set.

Juan Cole, the Middle East expert who writes the Informed Comment blog, refers to this as Musharraf’s “coup-within-a-coup.”

Over his eight years of military dictatorship, he had dressed his government up in the outward trappings of ‘democracy.’ He allowed (stage-managed) parliamentary elections in 2002. The same year, he ran for president in a referendum with no opponent, such that he could not lose.

The Supreme Court ruled against him in his attempt to dismiss the uncooperative chief justice, and the same court had been set to rule on whether he could remain as president (he was just reelected to the post by the stage-managed parliament he had helped install).

Musharraf appears to have concluded that the Supreme Court would rule against him, thus his coup-within-a-coup, which at last throws off the tattered facade of democratic institutions and reveals the naked military tyranny underneath. Pitifully, Musharraf explained that he had to make the coup in order to ensure the transition to democracy he says he began 8 years ago. Apparently the “transition” (i.e. Musharraf’s dictatorship) will last for the rest of his life.

As Josh Marshall says in Talking Points Memo, “this is starting to sound a bit more like military dictatorship …”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.