I wasn't accusing _you_ of having a sole focus on electoral games, though that is the main mode of operation of those progressives in the Democratic Party. But the concern with "divisiveness" suggests the _subordination_ of all non-electoral efforts to DP electoralism.
To be accurate, it's not that I "don't like" the electoral arena. Rather, it's a mug's game. why many words? avoiding undue abstraction. On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Robert Naiman <[email protected]> wrote: > Who proposed a "sole focus" on the electoral arena? The context of > this exchange is that I made a specific proposal for engagement in the > electoral arena. You attack my proposal because you don't like > engagement in the electoral arena. Why state in many words what you > can state in a few? > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > > Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- 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
