Hi. It's almost 3 weeks since the first meeting of the coalition which is creating tomorrow's Peace March in Los Angeles, two since I joined and one, since I jumped in to help with musical performers, aside from my outreach stint. The entire entity has been improvised, yet promises the greatest event ever because of the charged, ever-broadening groups putting it on and even more, those who will be there tomorrow.
More than a hundred organizations are now involved, I am awaiting final word from several great artists who are dropping everything to get here, I'll announce them later today or tomorrow morning, as well as the speakers list. My report yesterday of Wednesday's press conference described the breadth and dynamic character of everything, and the reality is that we're setting an opportunity for the feelings of folks who've rarely, if ever joined in such a process or event. It genuinely feels like the beginnings of a mass movement. I'll also send a final flier, but we assemble at noon, Figueroa and 9th, Democratic Party hq, march east to Broadway, north to Temple and east again to Los Angeles St. and the Federal Building, for our big rally. Which bring me to this article by Paul Krugman. He has the right script but a couple of wrong characters. Bush is the President, not Roosevelt, the Democrats are the folks we have to change and Franklin D's role as generator is being played by an increasingly dynamic majority of the American people. We're in a scary as well as hopeful period and it's for once, really up to all of us. Ed http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?th&emc=th On Being Partisan By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: January 26, 2007 American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that "politics has become so bitter and partisan" - which it certainly has. But he then went on to say that partisanship is why "we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we'll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship - but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning. Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower. You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isn't the result of a random outbreak of bad manners. It's a symptom of deeper factors - mainly the growing polarization of our economy. And history says that we'll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed. After all, American politics has been nasty in the past. Before the New Deal, America was a nation with a vast gap between the rich and everyone else, and this gap was reflected in a sharp political divide. The Republican Party, in effect, represented the interests of the economic elite, and the Democratic Party, in an often confused way, represented the populist alternative. In that divided political system, the Democrats probably came much closer to representing the interests of the typical American. But the G.O.P.'s advantage in money, and the superior organization that money bought, usually allowed it to dominate national politics. "I am not a member of any organized party," Will Rogers said. "I am a Democrat." Then came the New Deal. I urge Mr. Obama - and everyone else who thinks that good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics - to read the speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the quintessential example of a president who tackled big problems that demanded solutions. For the fact is that F.D.R. faced fierce opposition as he created the institutions - Social Security, unemployment insurance, more progressive taxation and beyond - that helped alleviate inequality. And he didn't shy away from confrontation. "We had to struggle," he declared in 1936, "with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred." It was only after F.D.R. had created a more equal society, and the old class warriors of the G.O.P. were replaced by "modern Republicans" who accepted the New Deal, that bipartisanship began to prevail. The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic elite. The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have been attempts to undo F.D.R.'s legacy, from slashing taxes on the rich to privatizing Social Security. And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P. and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy. What about the smear campaigns, like Karl Rove's 2005 declaration that after 9/11 liberals wanted to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"? Well, they're reminiscent of the vicious anti-Catholic propaganda used to defeat Al Smith in 1928: smear tactics are what a well-organized, well-financed party with a fundamentally unpopular domestic agenda uses to change the subject. So am I calling for partisanship for its own sake? Certainly not. By all means pass legislation, if you can, with plenty of votes from the other party: the Social Security Act of 1935 received 77 Republican votes in the House, about the same as the number of Republicans who recently voted for a minimum wage increase. But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right - and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
