For democracy to flower, the grassroots need constant attention

Democratic self government needs some help in the United States. We have grown soft in our assumption that change comes from the orderly, yearly visit to the ballot box. Nothing more is needed from us.

Is that true? Not when you consider the evidence. Our willingness to cede our own authority to our elected officials, to vote them into office and then ignore what they do, has left us with a fragile connection to power. Money governs the electoral process — picks the candidates and runs the campaigns — and the winners at the ballot box know exactly to whom they owe their jobs.

A huge majority of Americans tell pollsters they want politicians to leave Social Security alone, for instance, but because the financial services sector wants a piece of the federal retirement pie it keeps ending up on the table.

We got financial reform, but only in name, health-care reform that leaves corporate health-care companies in charge, a recommitment to state secrecy, and we’re still waging two disastrous — and unpopular — wars, despite two elections in which voters emphatically said we should leave.

It’s not Barack Obama’s fault, however. Anyone who thought Obama, whose ascendancy in the Democratic Party was anything but a challenge to the party hierarchy, would challenge the corporate state just hasn’t paid attention to his history as a politician or the history of the republic.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m angry with Obama and the Democrats. They talked a decent game, but had no intention of playing.

But we cannot blame them for betraying progressive principles if we have not applied the necessary pressure.

Consider the wars — as Chris Hedges does in this rabble-rousing column. The wars go on because we have not demanded that they end, have not forced the issue.

We will not stop the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will not end this slaughter of innocents, unless we are willing to rise up as have state workers in Wisconsin and citizens on the streets of Arab capitals. Repeated and sustained acts of civil disobedience are the only weapons that remain to us.

We have to march and write and speak out. That’s what history tells us, as Howard Zinn made clear during the early part of the 2008 election season, as the press got caught up in the blathering nonsense of candidates and the minutiae of horse-race politics:

The unprecedented policies of the New Deal—Social Security, unemployment insurance, job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing—were not simply the result of FDR’s progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus Army—thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.

In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.

Without a national crisis—economic destitution and rebellion—it is not likely the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.

Rahm Emanuel said before the inauguration that Obama would not let a crisis go to waste. The president did, as did a neutered American left. It is up to us on the left to change the dynamic, to make them do the right thing.

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

The correct response is ‘Hell no!’

John Nichols, in a useful rejoinder to so much of the economic and political nonsense flying around as the GOP readies to take control of the House, that it is the people who created the mess we are in who should pay to fix it.

Our sputtering economy and exhausted federal budget was not caused by entitlement spending, but by a regulatory climate that turned the financial markets into Atlantic City casinos and two endless wars that are daily sucking the cash from our bank accounts and leaving the blood of soldiers and civilians on both sides to stain the countrysides.

And yet, we still hear from the “Washington elites … that the U.S. had spent itself into a financial mess” and that “it was going to be necessary to put Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs at risk to balance the books.”

That is both foolish and immoral.

As Nichols says,

there is a place for fiscal responsibility. But there is also a place for moral responsibility. Those who created the mess should shoulder the burden of cleaning it up.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid did not create this crisis, war profiteering and Wall Street speculation did. So before any working family sacrifices, the first demand should be that the profiteers and the speculators pay for their crisis.

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Workers fight back, but not here


Not that liberals politicians are all that much better. The Democrats, rather than reading the public’s anger over the loss of jobs, the collapse of the economy, a permanent war and a bloated budget (caused by tax cuts for the rich and the war), are telling voters to surpress their anger — to “take it out in the ring” — rather than acknowledging the anger and working to give workers the tools they need to take their democracy back.

American workers are disenfranchised and the American public has been lulled into the false sense that their only responsibility to our democracy is to vote once a year. Too many Americans think that the election of a president will address their problems, their ability to act on their own behalf, to control their own political destiny.

The Tea Party is a reaction to this, even if it is a distorted reaction, an explosion of right-wing populism that has empowered a social backlash. The Tea Party may have risen up as a white anti-Obama movement, but it has gained traction because of the failure of the Democrats and the liberal establishment (the theme of Chris Hedges’ fine new book) to address working class concerns.

What we need is a real and vibrant left, one willing to go to the streets, willing to assault the power structure (without violence), willing to challenge the Democrats (as opposed to the obsequious way in which most of the left relates to the party and the president).

Barack Obama is better than George w. Bush (in the same way that a broken leg is better than amputation), but he is still a corporate Demcorat doing the bidding of corporate America and he’ll continue to do so unless we make some real noise.

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. it can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

A rally that restores nothing

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity Announcement
www.thedailyshow.com
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359366
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

I like Jon Stewart, but I’m not sure I like his planned “Rally to Restore Sanity.” And not for the reasons outlined by David Corn on Politics Daily.

The rally — a massive public-relations stunt designed to make a political point — is being billed as a counterweight to the shouting that has taken over the political debate.

We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler. Or Charlie Chaplin in certain roles.

Hard to argue, right? Maybe.

The problem is the way this is being framed as a defense of moderation that lumps all disagreement together as extreme. Glenn Beck and Alan Grayson hold down equal places along the political spectrum, which does nothing to reclaim the discourse. Instead, it creates a false equivalence — Beck is Grayson, Grayson is Beck, left and right are both on the fringe and moderation is where it’s at.

The goal is respectful debate more than it is policy, more than it is activism. This strikes me as dangerously muddled thinking — even if what we are talking about is a send up (actually, dueling send ups) of extremism.

I remain convinced that calls for moderation absent a commitment to progressive policies are just empty calls that will do nothing, leaving the corporate powers to continue their hold on power.

Marching in Washington

The question is, now that the left has awoken and gathered on the
mall in Washington, will the national media notice?

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. it can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.