Re: Nixon and Labor
On Monday, January 19, 2004 at 21:37:43 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: Response Jim C: There is another alternative suggested above: direct contact with those involved and who are often the objects of left analysis. They get to read and correct what is being written about them. They provide fresh insights and new information from those closest to the conditions being analyzed. They get to suggest avenues and angles of analysis that would best help their struggles. Creating spaces for getting together and thinking together like what you describe above, I think, is one of the most important means and effects of movement-building and community-organizing. Not to mention education in the broad, social sense: To train someone to operate a lathe or to read and write is pretty much education of skill; to evoke from people an understanding of what they really want out of their lives or to debate with them stoic, Christian and humanist ways of living, is pretty much a clear-cut education of values. But to assist in the birth among a group of people of those cultural and political and technical sensibilities which would make them genuine members of a genuinely liberal public, this is at once a training in skills and an education of values. It includes a sort of therapy in the ancient sense of clarifying one's knowledge of one's self; it includes the imparting of all those skills of controversy with one's self, which we call thinking; and with others, which we call debate. And the end product of such liberal [--- that is to say, liberating ---] education of sensibilities is simply the self-educating, self-cultivating man or woman. The knowledgeable man in the genuine public is able to turn his personal troubles into social issues, to see their relevance for his community and his community's relevance for them. He understands that what he thinks and feels as personal troubles are very often not only that but problems shared by others and indeed not subject to solution by any one individual but only by modifications of the structure of the groups in which he lives and sometimes the structure of the entire society. Men in masses are gripped by personal troubles, but they are not aware of their true meaning and source. Men in public confront issues, and they are aware of their terms. It is the task of the liberal institution, as of the liberally educated man, continually to translate troubles into issues and issues into the terms of their human meaning for the individual. In the absence of deep and wide political debate, schools for adults and adolescents could perhaps become hospitable frameworks for just such debate. In a community of publics the task of liberal education would be: to keep the public from being overwhelmed; to help produce the disciplined and informed mind that cannot be overwhelmed; to help develop the bold and sensible individual that cannot be sunk by the burdens of mass life. But educational practice has not made knowledge directly relevant to the human need of the troubled person of the twentieth century or to the social practices of the citizen. This citizen cannot now see the roots of his own biases and frustrations, nor think clearly about himself, nor for that matter about anything else. He does not see the frustration of idea, of intellect, by the present organization of society, and he is not able to meet the tasks now confronting the intelligent citizen. --- C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, 1956 Bill
Re: Nixon and Labor
One final observation on this set of threads. If the debate is over how subscribers to pen-l should vote, it is trivial, since the number of voters on pen-l is insufficient to swing an election for homecoming queen at Slippery Rock. I don't see as it makes any difference how anyone votes. The discussion is serious only if it involves devoting time and energy to political organizing. The Anti-War effort is still alive. Locally, here in B-N, over 20 people, all but four new to political activity, are giving a great deal of time and energy simply to keep the group alive and functioning in preparation for the next national surge in mass political activity. Serious leftists should devote their time and energy to keeping their local anti-war groups alive and functioning. There are too few leftists (i.e., _active_ leftists) in the u.s. to influence the election one way or the other. But their efforts to keep the Anti-War movement functioning are _not_ insignificant. Carrol P.S. If political struggle is analogous to war, then left journalists are analogous to munitions makers, not to 'front line' troops. They have no direct effect on political activity, but they are essential in providing information. Practically no one reads a left paper who is not either already involved in left activity _or_ is not directly contacted by those who are involved.
Re: Nixon and Labor
Carrol Cox wrote: P.S. If political struggle is analogous to war, then left journalists are analogous to munitions makers, not to 'front line' troops. They have no direct effect on political activity, but they are essential in providing information. Practically no one reads a left paper who is not either already involved in left activity _or_ is not directly contacted by those who are involved. People browse newsstands, pick up magazines they've never seen before. Anyone who picked up a typical American progressive magazine might not want to repeat the experience. Of course that doesn't matter, does it, since spontaneous combustion has a mysterious logic all its own. Doug
Re: Nixon and Labor
Doug wrote: P.S. If political struggle is analogous to war, then left journalists are analogous to munitions makers, not to 'front line' troops. They have no direct effect on political activity, but they are essential in providing information. Practically no one reads a left paper who is not either already involved in left activity _or_ is not directly contacted by those who are involved. People browse newsstands, pick up magazines they've never seen before. If a leftist magazine gets to a newsstand, folks might pick it up, but if those who pick it up aren't already in some way thinking like leftists, what's in the magazine won't be useful or interesting (much less worth several bucks) to them (unless those who pick it up happen to be media junkies). And that's assuming a leftist magazine actually gets to a newsstand. -- Yoshie
Re: Nixon and Labor
Doug wrote: P.S. If political struggle is analogous to war, then left journalists are analogous to munitions makers, not to 'front line' troops. They have no direct effect on political activity, but they are essential in providing information. Practically no one reads a left paper who is not either already involved in left activity _or_ is not directly contacted by those who are involved. People browse newsstands, pick up magazines they've never seen before. If a leftist magazine gets to a newsstand, folks might pick it up, but if those who pick it up aren't already in some way thinking like leftists, what's in the magazine won't be useful or interesting (much less worth several bucks) to them (unless those who pick it up happen to be media junkies). And that's assuming a leftist magazine actually gets to a newsstand. -- Yoshie Response Jim C: There is another alternative suggested above: direct contact with those involved and who are often the objects of left analysis. They get to read and correct what is being written about them. They provide fresh insights and new information from those closest to the conditions being analyzed. They get to suggest avenues and angles of analysis that would best help their struggles. The leftist writers get away from their desks to immerse themselves in some of the realities and struggles about which they are writing--at the grass-roots and in-your-face levels. Grotesque and potentially damaging errors, like those made by Jeffrey St. Clair in his highly uninformed article in Counterpunch on the Backfeet in Browning and Elouise Cobell as the supposed Rosa Parks of the Blackfeet, do not get made and passed on and on through other leftist publications as distant and cavalier with the need to do concrete investigations as St. Clair demonstrated himself to be. I'll be leaving for the Rez tomorrow night and always bring with me a suitcase full of literature and books--stuff from the internet, copies of original documents, difficult-to-get books, films, tapes of radio programs etc. Many of the Blackfoot have never heard of Karl Marx (and some never heard of Groucho and his brothers either). But they gravitate, almost instinctively, to leftist analysis not only on the plight of Indigenous Peoples (when such rare analyses--especially from the non-Indigenous leftists--can be found) but also on other issues such as Palestine, Bush, environmental issues, etc. There is a hunger for analyses that speak to the realities they know and understand even if they are unaware of some of the more esoteric concepts, terms and angles of analysis. And I believe that there is no concept, however jargon-laden and presented at the etherial levels, that cannot be translated into comprehensible language for diverse audiences--for those so inclined. Jim C.
Re: Nixon and Labor
Response Jim C: There is another alternative suggested above: direct contact with those involved and who are often the objects of left analysis. They get to read and correct what is being written about them. They provide fresh insights and new information from those closest to the conditions being analyzed. They get to suggest avenues and angles of analysis that would best help their struggles. Creating spaces for getting together and thinking together like what you describe above, I think, is one of the most important means and effects of movement-building and community-organizing. -- Yoshie
Re: Nixon and Labor
I have enjoyed this thread and the W. Clark thread, but I think that we are no getting repititous. By the way, the media seems to have been effective in tearing Dean down. He seems to have come in third in Iowa. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Eugene Coyle wrote: If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? Short answer: because in the last thirty years we've been mired in identity politics...rather than class politics. Joanna
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael, In the interview Lakoff mentions that he has a thing called The Rockridge Institute -- presumably in the Rockridge area of Berkeley/Oakland -- maybe he'll take us on as a project. Gene Michael Perelman wrote: Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at least I have not figured out how. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Shane Mage wrote: Michael wrote: Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at least I have not figured out how. But it's the simplest thing in the world--always has been. Just establish virtually monopoly control over all the means of mass communication. Good luck. :-) I frequently disagree with Shane, but I think his explanation here is correct and all other explanations are not only false but are serious obstructions to building a mass movement. All the other posts in this list seem to me to be utterly defeatist, in so far as they seem to assume that left means getting votes for the reactionary DP. I haven't thrown away a career and spent thousands of hours (and $) over the last 35 years just to moan about how the DP campaigns. Carrol
Re: Nixon and Labor
didn't Nixon communicate with labor elites and conservatives (e.g., the Teamsters) or with the rank file in a demagogic way? don't we want to talk to the rank file in a non-demogogic way? Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 1/17/2004 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] Nixon and Labor I have been looking over an interesting article Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic Formulations of the New-Right Worker. Labor History (August). You can read it on line http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate with labor. Let me know what you think about it. If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Yes, but his group also understood the alienation or labor and how the Dems were unable to address it. Devine, James wrote: didn't Nixon communicate with labor elites and conservatives (e.g., the Teamsters) or with the rank file in a demagogic way? don't we want to talk to the rank file in a non-demogogic way? Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 1/17/2004 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] Nixon and Labor I have been looking over an interesting article Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic Formulations of the New-Right Worker. Labor History (August). You can read it on line http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate with labor. Let me know what you think about it. If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Nixon and Labor
michael wrote: Yes, but his group also understood the alienation or labor and how the Dems were unable to address it. Michael, on what grounds do you assume that the Dems _want_ to resolve that alienation? The opposite seems to me the case. The whole existence of the DP is dependent on preserving the alienation of labor. We would not say that Bush was _unable_ to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why should we assume that those who voted to support that invasion did not sincerely believe he was right? After all, it was a DP president who initiated and signed the legislation demanding a change of regime in Baghdad. I think it is dangerously weakening of the left to suggest that DP practice flows from anything else but sincerely and strongly believed principles. They are not cowards. They are not stupid. (Probably on the whole there is more political savvy among the DPs then among the Republicrats.) Dukakis knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. Gore knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. If leftists choose to support (or vote for) a DP candidate, they should at least do so with open eyes, knowing and acknowledging that they are supporting someone who is in principle opposed to what leftists stand for. A necessary (though of course not sufficient) precondition for the creation of a left in the u.s. is for those engaged in that process to forever give up the myth of cowardly or stupid DP leadership. Carrol
Re: Nixon and Labor
You might be correct, but then they will be gone within a decade. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:39:47PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: Michael, on what grounds do you assume that the Dems _want_ to resolve that alienation? The opposite seems to me the case. The whole existence of the DP is dependent on preserving the alienation of labor. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Carrol wrote... Gore knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. Dunno about the on principle part. What principles were at work when he failed to follow the dictums in his own book when he was vice-president and what principle kept him counting made-for-teevee chads instead of bringing the force of law against the state of Florida for disenfranchising black voters on their way to the polls? Dan Scanlan
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael wrote... You might be correct, but then they will be gone within a decade. Could you clarify this? Is they labor or the Dems? Dan -- -- Purge the White House of mad cowboy disease. -- END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Alternate Sundays 6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT) http://www.kvmr.org I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
Re: Nixon and Labor
I meant that the Dems. will disintegrate if they do not pay attention to the alienation of labor. Although the way things are going, without any protest, labor will also be gone. The Bush admin. has been very effective in undermining labor, especially public sector labor. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:15:59PM -0800, Dan Scanlan wrote: Michael wrote... You might be correct, but then they will be gone within a decade. Could you clarify this? Is they labor or the Dems? Dan -- -- Purge the White House of mad cowboy disease. -- END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Alternate Sundays 6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT) http://www.kvmr.org I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Dan Scanlan wrote: Carrol wrote... Gore knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. Dunno about the on principle part. What principles were at work when he failed to follow the dictums in his own book when he was vice-president and what principle kept him counting made-for-teevee chads instead of bringing the force of law against the state of Florida for disenfranchising black voters on their way to the polls? The core principle of the DP since the 1930s: There shall be no direct involvement in politics of masses of people, and no presidential candidate shall risk instigating such involvement. At least in public (perhaps Jackson was in on the deal from the beginning) Dukakis promised in 1988 to provide money to local groups to engage in get-out-the-vote campaigns. That was the core of the peace treaty between the leadership of the DP and the Jackson movement (Jackson was, of course, never a part of that movement himself). That promise was not kept for principled reasons. (Principled does not refer to the goodness or badness of the principles involved. Hitler's Final Solution was principled, not opportunist.) Carrol
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael Perelman wrote:I meant that the Dems. will disintegrate if they do not pay attention to the alienation of labor. I don't think so. Why can't the Dems go the way of New Labour in the UK? wasn't that what Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/DLC is all about? Jim D.
Re: Nixon and Labor
Not really. New Labor won. Clinton coopted Rockefeller republican policies and won. The Repugs have moved so far to the right that it will be hard to coopt them. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:44:16PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: Michael Perelman wrote:I meant that the Dems. will disintegrate if they do not pay attention to the alienation of labor. I don't think so. Why can't the Dems go the way of New Labour in the UK? wasn't that what Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/DLC is all about? Jim D. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Nixon and Labor
I have been looking over an interesting article Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic Formulations of the New-Right Worker. Labor History (August). You can read it on line http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate with labor. Let me know what you think about it. If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
A friend sent me this interview with George Lakoff, which goes towards answering your question, Michael. Inside the Frame http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=17574 Inside the Frame BuzzFlash January 15, 2004 Viewed on January 16, 2004 George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at the University of California Berkeley, is a specialist in the technique of "framing," a communication tool that creates a "frame" for a message that defines the terms of the debate. Lakoff believes that the Republicans are experts at framing, while the Democrats hardly appear to understand how the technique works at all. Take almost any major political issue, and the Democrats react to how the Bush Cartel has "framed the issue," rather than forcing the GOP to respond to a Democratic "frame." Gene Michael Perelman wrote: I have been looking over an interesting article Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. "Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic Formulations of the New-Right Worker." Labor History (August). You can read it on line http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate with labor. Let me know what you think about it. If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at least I have not figured out how. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
- Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] A friend sent me this interview with George Lakoff, which goes towards answering your question, Michael. Inside the Frame http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=17574 Inside the Frame BuzzFlash January 15, 2004 Viewed on January 16, 2004 George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at the University of California Berkeley, is a specialist in the technique of framing, a communication tool that creates a frame for a message that defines the terms of the debate. Lakoff believes that the Republicans are experts at framing, while the Democrats hardly appear to understand how the technique works at all. Take almost any major political issue, and the Democrats react to how the Bush Cartel has framed the issue, rather than forcing the GOP to respond to a Democratic frame. Gene 'perceptual fault lines' run through apparently stable communities that appear to have agreed on basic institutions and structures and on general governing rules. Consent comes apart in battles of description. Consent comes apart over whose stories to tell. [Kim Scheppele] From a rhetorical standpoint, a description is a verbal representation of some object to some audience, such that the speaker is able to change the audience's attitude toward the object without changing the object itself. Thus, the trick for any would-be describer is to contain the effects of her discourse so that the object remains intact once her discourse is done. In descriptions of human behavior, this is often very difficult to manage, as the people being described, once informed of the description, may become upset and proceed to subvert the describer's authority. [Steve Fuller] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg80249.html
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael wrote: Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at least I have not figured out how. But it's the simplest thing in the world--always has been. Just establish virtually monopoly control over all the means of mass communication. Good luck. :-)
