Awhile back (ages ago in Internet time), Robert Naiman wrote: > I understand and trust that you don't see yourself as promoting > inactivism, but I think the practical consequence of your approach is > to promote inactivism, regardless of your intent.
A sole focus on the electoral arena as the only place for political activism promotes "inactivism," as does the idea that progressive change (meaning change that we want) arises first and foremost from electing people we like, to the exclusion of any political action that's independent of the established big-two political parties. As the wave of money sweeps the electoral arena (with neoliberals, including Clinton, Obama, etc., surfing that wave) and as the duopoly political parties are washed further and further to the right (away from what "progressives" want), this small-picture view of politics encourages nothing but cynicism. If you equate political progress with an allegiance to one or the other of the establishment political parties, you're bound to be disappointed. > How did we get here? I made a proposal for action in the arena of > electoral politics; not a proposal for action in the distant future, > but a proposal for action relative to 2012: namely, that > "progressives" should support a Democratic presidential primary in > 2012. As I said before, if people want to vote for those folks, that's a harmless indoor sport. Individual voting has a minuscule impact on the world. But it's more important to change the balance of political power, which improve the quality of both DP and GOP candidates (just as the extra-electoral efforts of the Teabaggers tilted the playing field in _their_ direction). It's the rise of the labor movement in the 1930s (along with the rise of the Civil Rights movement and similar movements -- and the exit of the Dixiecrats & old-fashioned political machines) that made the DP a more attractive proposition to progressives. For awhile even a creep like Nixon was looking pretty "progressive" (at least by today's standards). But then the right-wing wave of the 1970s and after have pushed the DP in the other, rightward, direction (with the vast majority of the politicians "going with the flow"). Merely voting for DP candidates is not going change the tide. The only way to counteract the "one-dollar/one-vote" rigged democracy that we see in this country (if not most of the world) is to organize "people power" (for lack of a better phrase). One basic principle is to maintain one's political independence, not compromising one's principles or organization to kow-tow to some establishment politician. That means that it's okay -- even "progressive" -- to be divisive, to "speak truth to power" to even the politicians we may like better than the worse of two evils. It's true that the established political parties will attack you (as the GOP attacked ACORN or both parties attack all "third" party efforts), but that says that you have to be ready. > You object to the fact that for the purposes of this enterprise I > characterize the American political world as consisting of "Democrats" > and "Republicans," but as anyone can see from direct observation, > that's the world that exists, relative to electoral politics in the > U.S. at present. This is an inaccurate portrayal of the "political world." Politics is much more than elections. (In foreign policy, we find US elite spokestypes making this mistake again and again, equating "democracy" with elections, choosing Thieu & Key, Karzai, or whomever, unless Hamas gets in.) The American _electoral_ world is _dominated_ (duopolized?) by two major organizations, the DP and the GOP. These organizations are _not_ the same as those people who largely hold their noses and vote for them, seeing one or the other as the lesser of two weevils. Most people are exactly that, people, mostly with jobs, friends, places to live, etc. They should be treated as individuals, not as "company men and women" for one of the dominating political parties. They may see themselves as "Democrats" or "Republicans," but their loyalty to these distant, bureaucratic, and profoundly corrupt organizations has become increasingly attenuated. It's not like party loyalty is being passed down between the generations the way it used to be. It's a good thing, by the way, that more and more people are seeing themselves as "Independents." We need more independent thinking. As with any organization, these two parties represent much more than the people who support them (either actively or passively). Each of the two dominant parties is a coalitions of a bunch of different political tendencies, with the GOP leaning more toward being a "democratic centralist" party (i.e., a top-down political machine) and the DP leaning more toward incoherence (conflicts between the mildly "progressive" -- usually technocrats -- and the dominant business interests, etc.) Each of the two parties has a political apparatus and is held together by a alliances and compromises among the political power-brokers (usually those who are best at raising funds from rich folks, since money is so important to keeping the parties going). Each of the two involves a bunch of political consultants and professional "activists" who use Madison Avenue techniques (and expensive advertising campaigns) to fool and scare voters. Back when I was involved with the DP (in the early 1970s), I discovered that the apparatus is totally top-down in orientation. If you don't accept the parameters that a candidate and his or her machine sets, you are encouraged to leave the campaign. > Now, some folks find this reality unbearable to contemplate and engage > with, and as a result, they don't engage in electoral politics. I don't know about "some folks." It's true that reality, as I see it, is pretty disgusting (see above), but that doesn't mean we can't "engage" with electoral politics. It's just that we have to know that the most effective "electoral politics" work is done outside of the narrowly-defined electoral arena. It doesn't come from subordinating one's mind and body to some DP candidate (and that's what they want). Rather, it comes from educating people about issues and then trying to get them to push the electoral politicians to the left. (It's a focus on issues and avoiding the adulation of politicians that has to characterize independent political action.) Once an issue-oriented constituency is created, the politicians flock to exploit it, so we have to "stick to our guns." (BTW, ACORN was pretty good at that, though I think they may have lost their independence from the DP before they lost their organization.) > Whether one agrees with this political choice or not, at least it's > consistent. > > But you seem to want to have it both ways: you want to intervene > against the proposal, but from the standpoint of an analysis that > adopts a stance of denial against the objective political terrain that > the proposal is addressing. This seems inconsistent to me. "intervene"? what does that mean? are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your implicit assumptions about politics is attacking _you_? that your proposals should never be criticized except by insiders or people who agree with your assumptions? All I was saying was that decrying "divisiveness" seems pretty silly in an era when the Teabaggers have succeeded pretty well (so far) by being divisive. And that the political establishment can be just as divisive, since they want undermine any forces that threaten their power and that of their campaign contributors. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
