Ask again in six months. There will be a lot more evidence by December.
A huge part of the problem is that corporations and individuals are sitting on simply incredible amounts of liquid disposable cash. There is such an insane amount of money out there that Obama, with maybe a billion, is realistically worried about being outspent 5-10 to 1.
Three. Of course, this will be a temporary windfall for media outlets, and it will be interesting to see what they do with the money, but it may be their last hurrah. Those distribution systems that depend on advertising are on death's door anyway, and if people get too repulsed by the onslaught, advertising as revenue may just die. I can't imagine what comes after.
A huge part of the problem is that corporations and individuals are sitting on simply incredible amounts of liquid disposable cash.
This is such a depressing irony.
It's okay, we can all become yoga instructors!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who followed Benen over to Maddow.
I have no idea what kind of funding Scott Walker would have gotten pre-Citizens
Walker's funding got a big boost from a weird loophole in Wisconsin law according to which an incumbent facing a recall election doesn't have to abide by the state's usual $10,000 cap on contributions, while Barrett did. I don't know how much Walker's fundraising had to do with that, and how much to Citizens United.
I love love fucking loooove that Scott Lemieux is defending Ezra Klein from a scurrilous attack by his co-blogger Eric Loomis
There is a link to a good piece by Doug Henwood on Wisconsin down in comments.
Speaking of Lemieux Bruce Wilder has contributed to a slew of great comments on a Chris Bertram post. I'll quote this in full, because I am a slanderous vicious prick.
For people comfortable with the advent of plutocracy, the "lesser evil" argument is an occasion for beating up on those to their left, who don't cheerfully acquiesce in supporting their smug self-satisfied agenda. (Yes, Scott Lemieux, I'm looking at you.) If you are such a person, you can lecture them on their political naïveté about what is "practical" or "inevitable", and you're right, because equity and fairness and justice are pretty much off-limits in a plutocracy, and there really isn't much we can do about it, as things stand. You can sneer about the self-destructive Nader in 2000, without ever acknowledging that Nader was right or that the Supreme Court decided the election in as cynical fashion as possible, with no effective resistance offered by Gore. You can influence the tone of the plutocracy a little bit--the substance not at all, so if you are basically OK with the substance, then the work of politics of the left is to shame those who care enough to be dissatisfied with authoritarian plutocracy. Good work, if you can get paid for it, I guess.
More importantly, BW starts by comparing people who will vote for Obama to Democratic Liberals who voted for racist militaristic Dixiecrats in the Jim Crow era. I mean they were Democrats right? Richard Russell, fuck yeah.
Works for me.
6.3: If only the Democrats could have foreseen this somehow!
{clears throat}
Anyhow, I'm not remembering whatever heebie is talking about in the OP about how the lawyers among us said that ... Citizens United wouldn't make much of a difference, because corporations can already funnel as much cash as they like wherever they like? The LAU were saying that hand-wringing was naive and unwarranted?
I hope I wasn't saying that. I don't think it now.
Right about what, that electing Bush wouldn't be an epic disaster, but would instead help develop a genuine left?
I have to admit I'm surprised at how much campaign finance laws were doing. Weren't there studies that showed massive returns to large political donors? Given that, it should have been obvious that we weren't close to a ceiling.
I guess now instead of having to spend half their waking time begging for a few thousand dollars each from a large number of rich people, politicians can just find a couple rich people and do whatever they want in exchange for however much money they need.
People have put a lot of money into creating the impression that campaign finance laws were not having much effect.
7: bob, I think "lesser of evils" language is a mistake in a lot of respects, because it doesn't really capture the dilemma. I've never seen a politician who wasn't a lesser of evils - emphatically including Nader - so it's kind of a meaningless distinction in this world. You, Nader and Bruce are different from guys like Lemieux because you're uninterested in being part of an American majority. I'm different from Lemieux because I think he tends to underplay the fact that compromises are required to actually be a part of an American majority.
I think Greenwald is close to perfect on this subject.
I also can't figure out what Bruce's problem is with the Supreme Court. Unlike the voters, the Justices couldn't opt for Nader. They had to choose between Gore and Bush. I'll never understand how Naderites can simultaneously say "Gore wasn't preferable to Bush" and "Gore's defeat was an outrage."
||
Bleg for lawyers about hiring lawyers.
I am looking into hiring an elder-care/disability/Medicaid lawyer. I have two names. The first was a recommendation from someone I know at church. Members of that firm also wrote the state bar's public education information on elder law issues. (Does that mean anything at all?) The second was given to me by the professional trustee of the two small trusts of which my mother is a beneficiary. (He only gave me one, because he said that the other guy he used to recommend stopped being responsive, and he was kind of worried about him.)
It looks like both firms which are smallish boutique operations operate on a kind of "we quote you a flat fee unless it's incredibly complicated" basis. I can't decide whether it would be good to have someone who has a good relationship with the trustee--especially since the trustee seemed cooperative and was willing to do all kinds of things that would help my mother maximize her eligibility for benefits--or whether it would be better to have the fresh eyes of someone who wasn't looking for referrals.
I did ask whether it would be better to have the elder-care boutique firm do conservatorship paperwork if necessary, and he said that that all depended on cost. If the boutique firm could do it more cheaply, then the boutique firm should. BigLaw has a paralegal, so if the eldercare law firm needs to pay an associate, then BigLaw should do it.
The first firm charges $400 for an initial consultation with a write-up of recommendations. I don't know what the other firm charges.
How would you guys go about deciding?
|>
I also can't figure out what Bruce's problem is with the Supreme Court
BW's problem isn't with SCOTUS, but with Gore and the Democrats. Old, long argument, but according to late 19th century law following the Hayes fiasco, SCOTUS and the Fed Courts explicitly do not have jurisdiction or legitimacy in these electoral disputes.
Should have gone to Congress, after the Florida legislature, after a recount. Bush likely would have been inaugurated , but America would watch Tom DeLay picking the President. And this is fucking exactly what Scalia wanted to avoid.
"Getting past it" would have been much harder and there would have been much more pressure on Dem Senators not to cooperate.
I think I was the one pushing this line hardest originally, and I still believe it. I don't see much difference in politicians beholdeness to corporate interests. I do see increased polarization among the parties and an actively crazy right but that trend long predates campaign finance reform and doesn't have much to do with it. The Wisconsin recall is a terrible example for this given that (1) there was a campaign finance loophole that had nothing to do with Citizens United and (2) it's not particularly surprising that a not very unpopular, if polarizing and controversial, governor was able to survive a recall vote. I don't see the finance dynamics of Romney/Obama wildly shifted by Citizens United (in relative terms, obviously if you're a campaign finance guy you need to know the new rules) nor do I see any evidence that either party is more (or less, but not more) beholden to their wealthiest constituents than they were before Citizens United. Much of what eg the Koch Brothers have done had little or nothing to do with Citizens United, and we shouldn't confuse a predictable down cycle in Democratic fortunes with a new "age of corruption.".
I also still think it's a very bad decision on the law. The real fear was that its language was so broad right wing judges could use it to undue a lot of the New Deal on new First Amendment grounds, but that hasn't happened yet and I think it is looking increasingly unlikely to happen. BTW if you think Citizens United is the worst danger ever you need to start sending money to and working for Obama right now, since your only hope is a Democratic Supreme Court stemming from his next term.
because you're uninterested in being part of an American majority.
Consensus, 51% is way overrated, on both tactical or moral grounds, and incredibly simplistic in any political science. I just read a long analysis of current Greek politics, and parliamentary systems make real politics more apparent. Our two-party system is designed to obscure what actually happens.
20-30% or less can take over a country (we are seeing it happen) because 30-40% are indifferent, uninvolved, passive, have limited real needs easily addressed, or whatever. This is not vanguardism, not about leadership or elitism. It's about who shows up and is willing to be Treasurer of the Chess Club. It's about who is willing to shout louder.
There is a lot of bullshit involved in the controlling myth of Majoritarian Democracy, like the minorities (women, blacks, poor) who are told their particular interests are selfish and anti-majoritarian.
Part of the myth is retrospective, we are told that what passed (New Deal, CRA, Reaganism) was consensual, by definition. Not true.
17: I guess, but since nothing important was at stake, what's the big deal?
nor do I see any evidence that either party is more (or less, but not more) beholden to their wealthiest constituents than they were before Citizens United.
Evidence. Nancy Pelosi has recently changed her positions on Simpson-Bowles, and now says she doesn't want tax increases on anyone making under 1 million a year, rather than the previous 250k. Links when I get back from the dogwalk, or you can google.
We may not know for sure until December the way this connects to financing Congressional races. I sure don't follow it closely.
The effect on state laws and races, where the limits have actually meant something, will be quite substantial. We'll see though if 2012 shocks Kennedy into walking back CU a bit in the Montana case.
I can see that at the federal level it changes how rich people interact with the candidate, and how their message is delivered. In the old days, a rich (but not necessarily superrich) person would hold fundraisers, bundle up a bunch of cash, give it to a campaign. The campaign would spend it on media, ending with the 'i approve this message' tagline. Now a single superrich person, maybe a misanthrope with no friends, can run ads lying til the cows come home, with no coordination with, or accountability by, the candidate.
This isn't just CU, obviously, but CU moves the ball downfield in a particularly undemocratic way.
BG -- from my admittedly limited experience hiring and being hired as a lawyer, that initial consultation will tell you a lot. My personal feeling is that you want someone who is willing to be honest from the get go about the obstacles you are likely to face and who can talk through options for dealing with the obstacles. How do they interact in the consultation? All business? Empathetic? Which style will be more comfortable for you?
I don't see much difference in politicians beholdeness to corporate interests... I don't see the finance dynamics of Romney/Obama wildly shifted by Citizens United (in relative terms, obviously if you're a campaign finance guy you need to know the new rules) nor do I see any evidence that either party is more (or less, but not more) beholden to their wealthiest constituents than they were before Citizens United.
What are you basing this on? Is there really no effect in local races?
So, I have to pay to see both. Ugh.
I want someone who will be cost efficient and able to juggle the competing demands. There are stylistic things about both which bother me. But that's only going off of their website.
I have no idea what kind of funding Scott Walker would have gotten pre-Citizens
Well, surely he'd have gotten less but I'm skeptical that the huge money disparity counted for much in this contest, since it was essentially the exact same result as when they ran against each other in 2010.
27: I wouldn't worry about the differences in how you got the recommendation -- the fact that the trustee recommended one doesn't indicate that they'll have any problem dealing with the other, but I also don't thing 'fresh eyes not looking for referrals' is going to be an important difference. See if you can get a half-hour interview with both without paying for it (or maybe only to go on the bill at the one you hire, rather than being charged even if your decision is negative) -- while I haven't been responsible for billing at a small firm, my impression at the one I worked at was that a free 'this is why you should hire us' chat was perfectly conventional.
...a free 'this is why you should hire us' chat was perfectly conventional...
According to a police officer who talked to my class in 9th grade, that's also how drug dealers work.
24 -- I've seen no effect whatsoever in the local races that I follow, which are mostly, well, local. Do you have evidence of a large effect on corporate beholdeness in local races that is specifically linked to Citizens United? I could believe it in a few places -- perhaps especially a place like Montana, which are small and probably had super tight laws to prevent everything being bought by the likes of Anaconda Copper, but I'd be very surprised if Citizens United was having much of an effect on "corruption" at the local level in places like Pittsburgh or Boston or Texas.
18: Much of what eg the Koch Brothers have done had little or nothing to do with Citizens United, and we shouldn't confuse a predictable down cycle in Democratic fortunes with a new "age of corruption."
This just seems glib to me, Rob. It seems to me that the Koch brothers' American Crossroads (a SuperPAC) was made possible by Citizens United -- or rather, by Speechnow, which followed from CU.
32: We won't we really have such evidence available until after the 2012 elections, for the most part, will we?
Maybe, but the Koch Bros could have funded almost everything they are doing (except for some ads shown immediately before elections) even without Citizens United.
28: On the other hand, Walker had to spend that much money in order to achieve that exact same result. One could argue, or at least suggest, that without the money, he would not have.
35: By bundling? Or what? I'm not trying to be combative; I just don't see how they could have.
527s existed before Citizens United. The only issue is how direct they can be in the immediate period before an election in advocating for individual candidates.
But the main impact of Koch Brothers funding hasn't been ad spending within the (I think it's 60) day window; it's movement building and the ability to shift large amounts of money behind specific candidates with their crazy agenda. That's something that was possible before and after Citizens United.
It seems to me that even if the parties' new funding each cancels the other out in head-to-head races due to the arms race effect, Citizens United must be having very corrosive influence on who gains power within the Democratic Party and on what it stands for - it will become even more of an uphill battle for those who want to go even slightly against moneyed interests. For example, the House repeatedly passed bills eliminating the carried interest loophole - will even that be possible in five years?
I've seen no effect whatsoever in the local races that I follow, which are mostly, well, local. Do you have evidence of a large effect on corporate beholdeness in local races that is specifically linked to Citizens United?
Well, I don't but I haven't looked, and neither have you (beyond some small, possibly unrepresentative sample).
The only issue is how direct they can be in the immediate period before an election in advocating for individual candidates.
That's a pretty important time period, no?
But the main impact of Koch Brothers funding hasn't been ad spending within the (I think it's 60) day window; it's movement building and the ability to shift large amounts of money behind specific candidates with their crazy agenda. That's something that was possible before and after Citizens United.
I'd agree with this, but has the amount they can shift not grown with CU?
41 last: no, it has not, except again within a specific time window and for purposes of specifically endorsing a particular candidate (as opposed to running more general issue ads).
40: Citizens United must be having very corrosive influence on who gains power within the Democratic Party and on what it stands for - it will become even more of an uphill battle for those who want to go even slightly against moneyed interests.
I honestly don't know about this. Campaign finance law is so complicated in its effects that I really don't have a sense how things play out. But it seems as if it might be harder, and require more bootlicking, to raise money in smaller increments. If you need to get your money in $2K chunks, or whatever it was, you need to know people who know lots of people who can write $2K checks, and who are willing to pull personal strings for you. And even though the limits are smaller, the kind of person who can connect you with lots of people who can give $2K offhand is still going to be a member of the moneyed interests, and you're still going to have to grovel to them.
38, 39: Okay. I hadn't realized that contributions to 527s were unlimited (I knew I was missing something).
But the main impact of Koch Brothers funding hasn't been ad spending within the (I think it's 60) day window
I'm not sure this is true, given that many voters don't begin to pay attention until the last few months before an election, and ad buys really do have an impact.
Certainly the movement building is significant.
I've got a simple heuristic: If Koch is for it, I'm agin' it.
On a personal note, Obama's beholdeness to Hollywood money has totally fucked up my commute this morning.
Overgeneralizing a bit, and going over ground covered many times:
--the GOP is actively hostile to my preferred policies
--the Democrats in power are largely indifferent to my preferred policies (actually, some issues where they're actively hostile too, some where they're indifferent, some where they give halfhearted support, a few real support--and there are some Democratic officeholders I actually do trust--but overall I'd say it averages out to "largely indifferent")
It makes sense for me to vote for the Democratic candidate, given a binary choice. It makes very little sense for me, or people or organizations who share my politics, to channel time, funds, energy etc. into getting Democrats elected. Alternating between hostility and indifference from those in power is a losing proposition, long term. (What we do instead remains a bit hazy).
32: laws to prevent everything being bought by the likes of Anaconda Copper
Isn't the issue nowadays more about Anaconda (or their successors) being able to sell everything, without responsibility for cleaning up their gigantic lagoons of toxic tailings?
Anyhow, I wouldn't expect that we'd see a great deal of local-race impact from Citizens United for awhile yet. The last thing the moneyed interests want to do is get everyone so worked up about the issue that there's a danger of getting a constitutional amendment passed. Rather, I think we'll see a slow, steady infiltration of corporate super-PAC money from the top down. President to Senate to House to Governor to State House to Mayor to Dogcatcher, if there's a business case to be made for a particular dogcatcher office being held by someone friendlier to corporate interests. By the time it gets to that point, all of this will be so normalized that no one will be able to shift the discourse back to any kind of meaningful outrage amongst non-DFH types.
Speaking of elections, is Obama crazy enough to start a war with Pakistan in an election year?
I'll be shocked if the Court doesn't grant cert in this case -- and being shocked at a denial of cert should be so uncommon that one experiences it only a few times in a decade.
47: It makes very little sense for me, or people or organizations who share my politics, to channel time, funds, energy etc. into getting Democrats elected.
Sigh. Disagree. Getting Democrats elected shifts the balance, and to some extent mitigates the misery of bottom half. Please don't argue that they don't warrant anything more than a vote. Please be serious and pay attention. This country does, by arrangement, operate incrementally.
I am very serious and pay lots of attention...There's incremental change, and there's resigning yourself to things either staying bad or getting worse.
Also serious & paying attention: Doug Henwood. http://lbo-news.com/2012/06/06/walkers-victory-un-sugar-coated/
51: Here's the thing, if people with good politics put a lot of their energy into shilling for Democratic hacks, there's less time, money and attention to spend on putting pressure on the government to do what you want them to do. Nixon signed the EPA into law. Was that because he was so grateful to Republican citizens for their vote? No, it was because public outrage over pollution was mounting, and he (and the rest of the government) had to do something to take the pressure off. I've talked with supposedly left-leaning Democratic politicians: They'll smile and nod and shake your hand and tell you how important your issues are to them, but in the crunch, they only vote the right way if they're afraid not to.
Of course, as I've said before, it only makes sense in a winner-take-all system to vote for the electable candidate with the least bad politics. That goes without saying. But it does not necessarily follow that we should put a bunch of energy into electoral politics. The Barrett campaign spent something like $4 million. Imagine how much direct action for the unions that could have supported! Buses, convergence centers, food, strike funds, etc. etc. Instead, it was all poured into the pockets of TV stations, direct mail outfits and sign printers. And what good did it do there? Meanwhile, the unions and the Democrats wasted a huge amount of grassroots time and enthusiasm on boring phonebanks and whatnot. What if those same volunteers had been leading teach-ins and trainings on how to form a union or file an NLRB case? What if they'd spent their time working on the logistics of bringing a million people into Madison? It could have been done, but instead we got tedious lectures about how the only mature, grown-up thing to do was go back to work and wait 16 months to vote, after which Wisconsinites are expected to go back home, meekly wait and murmur not. It's ridiculous! OF COURSE that was never going to work! Everyone I trust said so at the time, and we were proven 100% right.
I don't disagree with Henwood all that much here, except for his point that the money spent contributing to Dem candidates would have been better spent lobbying. Because it would have been spent lobbying Rep officeholders.
There's an underpants gnome character to the logic of abandoning electoral politics: if you want particular policies enacted into law, or not repealed, then it matters who is doing the enacting/repealing. If you think you can get where you want to go in the teeth of actively hostile forces controlling all the levers, I wish you luck, but don't understand how it's going to get done.
I think he was talking about lobbying the public, not Walker.
It should be pretty obvious that indifferent elected leaders are preferable to actively hostile ones, but it should be equally obvious that electing indifferent leaders, in a system where the hostile ones have lots of opportunities to block change even when out of power, is not going to actually work.
Nixon was afraid of the consequences of electoral politics.
If you can elect favorable people, by all means do it.
Who's accomplished more to restrain human rights abuses since 2001? Investigative journalists, the GTMO bar, & human rights/civil rights orgs, or the Democratic party?
Who's accomplished more to restrain human rights abuses since 2001? Investigative journalists, the GTMO bar, & human rights/civil rights orgs, or the Democratic party?
55.2: Tell that to the anti-choicers. Yes, they work on electoral politics, but their contribution is almost totally negative. They'll always vote against pro-choice candidates, and they'll show up and tell you that again and again and again.
Another case in point, to piggyback off what Henwood is saying: the University of Minnesota. Here we have an institution that is supposedly a veritable bastion of liberalism. Its supporters, employees and students are overwhelmingly liberal. It is located in a liberal metropolitan area in a liberal state. And yet every president it's had in the past 20 years has had union-busting as a mandate. Corporate forces are dominant, and the historically liberal political apparat here is all too happy to let them chip away at union membership.
That said, and back to Henwood's piece, specifically, what we are seeing is the inevitable result of US workers buying into the scam of business unions and craft unionism. There's absolutely no incentive for local union bosses to support broader progressive goals, when they are assured of their place and position regardless of who's in office. Now, finally, some of them are waking up to find that the hole they've dug themselves has subsided even further during their slumbers. But it is far, far too late. Solidarity unions and industrial unionism, where workers control the actions of the union, and not the other way around, are the only reasonable choice for supporters of organized labor. Our little IWW local, which, while one of the 3 or 4 largest locals in the country, is a joke by business union standards, manages to put more people out on the street, getting more actions done, than any of the huge, multi-million dollar locals of Teamsters or AFSCME or the UAW. We had well over 1,000 people in our anti-capitalist May Day march this year. Why? Because we're the people who show up when the immigrant cleaners are agitating for fair pay and better conditions. We're the ones who don't forget the support we get from other leftist groups. We're the ones who take names, kick ass and refuse to knuckle under to the bosses, whether they have "Corporate Vice President" or "Council Executive Director" after their name.
This particular debate always seems so dumb to me [no offense]. Isn't it obvious that we need both movement politics and electoral politics, and that anyone advocating reliance exclusively on one or the other is dead wrong? For the long term, of course, movement politics matter more, but you are never going to be able to ignore electoral politics.
No one actually ignores electoral politics though...and I am not arguing against supporting some individual candidates, either.
Natilo: you have a reading list for someone who wants to read more about modern labor movement?
Speaking of elections, is Obama crazypolitically savvy enough to start a war with Pakistan in an election year?
We're all about war here in the States. In Libya, Obama repeated GHW Bush's Iraq mistake - winning the war before the election.
No one actually ignores electoral politics though...and I am not arguing against supporting some individual candidates, either.
Natilo: you have a reading list for someone who wants to read more about modern labor movement?
No one actually ignores electoral politics though...and I am not arguing against supporting some individual candidates, either.
Natilo: you have a reading list for someone who wants to read more about modern labor movement?
64.2 et al: Hmm, that is a good question, no one has really asked me that before. A lot of the stuff I tend to pick up is more on the historical tip: "When Miners March", "Pistoleros", that kind of thing. Let me as some Wobblies and get back to you on that.
I didn't even know there were still wobblies.
Chris Hayes' comment here is germane to my original point: https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/210784219021058048
56: It should be equally obvious that electing indifferent leaders, in a system where the hostile ones have lots of opportunities to block change even when out of power, is not going to actually work
Hence filibuster reform, per Jeff Merkley's proposal. That's just the first decent write-up I came upon just now; there are others.
I can't tell what your positive point here is, Katherine. You seem to be whining that the Dems aren't doing enough, but you don't know what else they could do, but you can't support them (beyond a vote) because they're ... what .. captive to moneyed interests? Because they haven't come up with a master narrative to counter the conservative one.
Sorry, I was quite grumpy in 74. I'm just not a big fan of the view that incremental changes can have no effect that we might care about, so we should just fuck all that.
Re: Henwood. I got people to sign a ballot referendum position in Massachusetts, and one of the most frustrating conversations I had was with a union guy. I think he might have been a public sector union, but basically he said, "I've got mine. I don't care about anyone else."
I was in the nail salon talking to a guy and his girlfriend. He was a union painter who was getting a manicure before going out on a fancy date. I told him the story and said that it was incredibly difficult for me to refrain from telling the guy that if he didn't stand up for other causes and support the broader labor movement, his benefits weren't safe. The painter guy told me that I should have said it.
That's not my argument. I think you just disagree with my premise about the most powerful actors in the Democratic party being largely indifferent to leftish policy goals. (Some aren't.)
I do think they're captive to moneyed interests and if they weren't, could and would do much more. If you don't agree with that I'm not going to be very convincing. Enumerating specific examples of what more they could do seems like it could be really tedious though. HAMP? Geithner? Public option? Less predatory classification? Taking positions that aren't right to public opinion on military cuts? Calling GOP bluff on debt ceiling? Not extending the Bush tax cuts? Different use of prosecutorial discretion? Not deporting record #s of people?
to some extent mitigates the misery of bottom half [...] This country does, by arrangement, operate incrementally
I go back and forth on whether this argument is still functional. By and large, the incremental change under Democratic administrations in my adult life has been slower than under Republican ones, but still to the detriment of the poor. Certainly they're somewhat better for secular, middle-class, college-educated people like us.
Republicans: Do what we say or we'll start shooting hostages.
Democrats: If you turn over the hostages, we'll do most of what you say and also punch the hostages in the face.
I do agree that they're captive to moneyed interests. Aren't we all most of us. Unfortunately. If you can say that you're not, more power to you.
Slower detrimental change instead of quicker detrimental change sounds like legitimate mitigation of misery.
83: That's the great goal of geriatric medicine.
83:Slower detrimental change instead of quicker detrimental change [as a "moral" choice]
sounds like legitimation of misery.
84:Yup. "We'll string out your cancer and chemo six months instead of one."
Halford's right that movements are essential but not sufficient. I think he understates the importance of electoral politics. How would Wisconsin be a topic right now of political discussion if Reps hadn't won the governorship and both houses in 2010? People who thought that some Dem senate candidate or another just wasn't quite good enough to vote for, or help, ought to be thinking about their strategic position. Electing post-Southern Strategy Republicans leads to bad things. Everywhere and always. Even if some Dem in the senate is taking money from Goldman Sachs, and doesn't support a tax policy I might favor, she's still worth having in the body, so you don't get the full wacko.
80: Sure. I'm thinking that the time for great change, blood in the streets, is not now, though, in an economic downturn. In the same way that it's not the right time for economic austerity.
If we can step away from the hair-raising for a moment, what's at stake now is defense of the New Deal, the welfare state and so on. It would be good to focus on that: that's what the proposed incoming Republican rule would dismantle altogether. We should really pay attention to this. We may not be able to move forward, but for god's sake we don't want to be moved any further backward.
Embattled unions are necessarily going to look to protect their own. That's their core mission. It's what they are for.
Henwood contends that unions don't do enough for broader society, but that's a two-way street. When society at large decides that companies should be able to fire union supporters with impunity (for example), it's unavoidable that unions are going to focus on protecting themselves.
Here's Henwood:
Suppose instead that the unions had supported a popular campaign--media, door knocking, phone calling--to agitate, educate, and organize on the importance of the labor movement to the maintenance of living standards? If they'd made an argument, broadly and repeatedly, that Walker's agenda was an attack on the wages and benefits of the majority of the population? That it was designed to remove organized opposition to the power of right-wing money in politics?
In fact, that's what the unions did. They lost in the primary, and lost again in the recall, but they went door to door, educating and calling. They fought.
It's true, if you want to avoid overt defeat, you can avoid the fight - or fight on ground that isn't being contested. But if you want to change policy, you've got to fight where policy is made. Falwell pulled people from churches into voting booths precisely because that's where the action is.
Walker is a true believer, and short of defeating him, there was no deterring him. So he wasn't defeated and won't be deterred. But plenty of other careerist governors would regard facing a recall - in and of itself - as something to be avoided at all costs.
Blaming the unions for the result in Wisconsin is blaming the victim, nothing more. In Ohio, they got a better result, and Minnesota, backed off.
I'm thinking that the time for great change, blood in the streets, is not now, though, in an economic downturn.
You think it's more likely to happen in an economic upturn?
87: you didn't answer my question. :)
Here's another question: do you think there's a natural fluctuation between the parties in a two party system? A pendulum swing? I go back on forth a bit on that one. Clearly, when you have the margins Dems did in 2008 it would behoove you to USE THEM because they are unlikely to last. But also clear that which party won the 2000 election had drastic long term consequences.
90: Yes, actually. I think Clinton could have done more than he did.
you have a reading list for someone who wants to read more about modern labor movement?
Here ya go Robert Fitch 2010
recommended at 2010
(As far as I am concerned this is all pathetic nostalgia, and strongly recommend tiqqun and theorie communiste. Labor's dead, and not coming back. Electoral politics is dead, dead, dead, and not coming back. Capital has become "Too Big to Fail" and therefore must fail and be failed. Catastrophe will bring us together.)
"Republican" and "Democrat" aren't fixed concepts. When the public moves left, both move left. When the public moves right, both move right. And when there is no public pressure weighing against plutocratic interests, both cater to the plutocrats.
I'd vastly prefer to have Republicans in office and an energized, progressive-leaning population than Democrats in office and wholly beholden to the 1%. Nixon created the EPA, as was mentioned upthread. He couldn't dare not to. Meanwhile, Obama pushes for the Keystone Pipeline.
Love will tear us apart
Catastrophe will bring us together
Or, a more contemporary example: Mitt Romney the Republican in relatively liberal Massachusetts passes universal healthcare, while Mitt Romney running as a national Republican rails against universal healthcare.
It's easy to call him craven (and of course he is), but the more important point is that the political leanings of the relevant voting population are vastly more important than the name of party in office.
94: I don't think you can separate "public pressure" from electoral politics in the way that you're attempting. Nixon/Ford never had a majority in either House. That fact had a pretty direct influence on their policy choices.
"Heighten the contradictions" my ass.
Massive financial fuckup and they all got bonuses, voted by the people's reps
The fucking contradictions are so heightened we are scurrying like church mice under them.
"What is to Be Done?" Nothing. Seriously. Opposition supports.
Nothing, except maybe get out from under. Parks, kids, and dogs are nice. And then it will come crashing down.
Re: reading about the modern labor movement, Sir Kraab can provide a more thorough list, but I recommend:
Striking Steel, by Jack Metzgar
Which Side Are You On?, by Thomas Geoghegan
Okay, the lurking Wobblies are not yet supporting me in email, so here's my quick list of ones I know are good:
Labor Law for the Rank and Filer; Daniel Gross
Solidarity Unionism at Starbuck's; Daniel Gross & Staughton Lynd
Wobblies & Zapatistas; Andrej Grubacic and Staughton Lynd
Solidarity Forever, An Oral History of the IWW; Stewart Bird
AK has about 200 titles on 'labor', many of which look relevant to contemporary struggles, but which I have not had a chance to read yet:
http://www.akpress.org/catalogsearch/result/index/?limit=100&q=labor&x=0&y=0
94: Meanwhile, Obama pushes for the Keystone Pipeline.
He does?
98: Well, it's true that we do seem to generally do better with Republican presidents and Democratic congresses. But look at 2009-2010: All the electoral success it would be reasonable to hope for and what did we get for it? Drone strikes, torture, and a huge corporate welfare giveaway to the insurance companies. Why? Too many liberals were too complacent, and they managed to gull too many progressives into emulating their silence.
Further to 103: Also, public pressure from the reactionary right in a mostly non-electoral context had a lot to do with it.
Political activism has become a fucking commodity, to be consumed and reproduced, the surplus recirculated and accumulated. Watch the fucking money. Watch how your political labor becomes someone's securitizable asset.
Everything has become a commodity, there is no longer any place exterior, any motive any ideal any affect any dream that does not serve Capital.
The surplus is piling up because the relative profits have declined to zero. Entropy is us. Companies, countries, central banks sitting on massive mountains of cash, all moving around at the speed of light, and yet we going to Depression?
This is not buying new factories, roads, and schools. The ideology, all ideologies have crystalized, are frozen into pointless running in place. Don't y'all run in place with them.
But some marshmallows, graham crackers, and chocolate. Prepare for the conflagration.
98: my point was that if you're looking to make progressive change, focusing your resources and your energies on growing and energizing the progressive movement in the population seems about a thousand times more promising than carrying water for moderately-less-bad-than-the-alternative Democratic politicians.
Of course, when you're faced with a choice (as you are in the election booth), you choose moderately-less-bad-than-the-alternative. But I'm with Katherine that putting real effort into supporting moderately-less-bad-than-the-alternative as if that were likely to lead to positive-good seems hopeless and misguided.
I think it's a huge mistake to assume the politically-median unfogged commenter and the politically-median U.S. voter have similar policy preferences.
I think that people who say things like this are already pretty comfortable.
I don't know of anyone saying that it's not a great idea to grow and energize a progressive movement. It's just a really good idea to try to do this is a way that doesn't deprive the ability of more moderate forces to hold off the right wing. Because the actively hostile faction can and will shrink and de-energize that movement if it gets power.
putting real effort into supporting moderately-less-bad-than-the-alternative as if that were likely to lead to positive-good seems hopeless and misguided
Would it make you feel any better if you thought that the people who support Democrats are every bit as hard-bitten, every bit as cynical, every bit as realistic as you and Katherine are? Because I have to say, though I'm told there are actual whirly-eyed Obamabots out there, I've never met any of them. Every single politically engaged -- this is a high bar for me -- progressive I know is committed to the idea that movement building is important, but so too is making sure that Republicans don't control more elected offices.
Fuck off, Charley, you political naif.
I guess my point is that people, on both sides of this argument (not here, mind you), seem more invested than I think is healthy in maintaining their own sense of superiority. Whether that emerges out of a quest for ideological purity or a claim to maturity, if he goal is winning, it seems like the posture is necessarily self-defeating.
Obviously, it is impossible for me to have an unhealthy investment in my own sense of superiority, but I take your point in a general sense.
Part of what's going on in my head, at least, is that while the argument that what's important is building a progressive movement and shifting the population's views generally left, I haven't got any idea how to do that. Getting Democrats elected is hard, but I know who to give money to and what to volunteer for. Building a movement baffles me -- I have no idea what sort of thing would be effective for me to do.
So, if I could choose between putting X amount of effective resources into electing Democrats or the same amount into building a movement, in theory I'd choose the latter. In practice, it doesn't feel as if I have that choice.
Anyway, I feel the urge to remind people about the Ryan budget plan, which Mitt Romney has endorsed, and the Republican-led House has passed. It's absurd to think that adding a Republican-led Senate which might pass the thing, along with a President Romney, would be no big difference in the state of affairs over an Obama presidency. So let's not get all up in the clouds here: there are real things at stake.
No one had considered those thing, parsi. Thanks for dropping the knowledge. (Less sarcastically, I find it impossible to imagine that Katherine doesn't know every bit as much as you (or me) about the issues you raise. She just thinks there are more important fights to fight.)
Oh, I see that I hadn't brought myself up to date on the comity that's emerged.
111: I've never met any of them
Really? They're all over my Facebook feed. My parents, all their friends from the liberal church I grew up in, a bunch of 2nd-degree friends who are middle-class/creative class types: They may be dismayed by some of the administration's policies, but they're still gung-ho for Obama 2012, and they react badly to being reminded of his perfidy.
117: I have no idea what sort of thing would be effective for me to do.
You've been told many times before/ Messiahs pointed to the door/ No one had the guts to leave the temple
But seriously, there's a huge literature on this subject, none of it has to do with making Molotov cocktails or spitting on nuns or anything like that. This pamphlet, which seems a little reformist to me, is all about forging coalitions between middle-class white folx and people of color/impoverished people/people from the global south to build stronger popular movements. And there's a bunch of other stuff just like it floating around out there. And lots of groups just itching to find new members. Maybe not in suburban Phoenix, but definitely in NYC.
Getting Democrats elected is hard, but I know who to give money to and what to volunteer for. Building a movement baffles me -- I have no idea what sort of thing would be effective for me to do.
What about giving money to and volunteering for progressive causes and organizations?
I give my "political" money roughly 60% to advocacy groups (which I count as movement building) and 40% to candidates and campaigns, which feels about right. Different people will come up with different proportions, but anyone who thinks you can do one or the other exclusively is a bonehead. There, now I've asserted my superiority.
Really?
Posting to facebook doesn't clear the bar of political engagement as I've set it. Nor does going to a particular church.
123: you needed a comma after "now", I think. Superiority denied.
Natilo, it's perfectly possible to think that despite his bad possibilities, Obama is by far the better choice in 2012 than Romney without being a whirly eyed Obamabot.
Speaking at a campaign event in St. Louis, the Republican nominee said it is "painfully obvious" that Obama was "inexperienced" and "simply not up to the task" of leading the country out of this "great economic crisis.""We have waited, and waited and waited for recovery, and enough time has passed to pronounce judgment on the economic policies of this administration: They have not worked," Romney told supporters at a campaign event in St. Louis. "Your government has failed you."
This is going to be so fucking easy.
2012 was lost in 2009, parsi.
And I am not the one that lost the fucking war. The General is going to write his books and make his speeches while the grunts wonder why their missing limbs still itch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoKL5UG_Eho
117: that, I totally understand. I remember going to various things in law school & being told we needed to build a movement and wondering: um, what exactly are you talking about?
I realize this is a very old set of conversations. Positing that the Democrats are indifferent & GOP hostile was a slightly different way of thinking about it for me though--leaves me neither perplexed about their political actions nor claiming that there's no real difference.
122: Because it feels as if I'm throwing effort down a well?
I mean, there are issue-centered organizations, like Planned Parenthood or Medecins Sans Frontieres or the Center for Constitutional Rights, which I do support, and which I think can be effective in terms of working on their particular issue. That doesn't seem like much of a way of influencing the political climate generally, though -- it feels like walking away from politics and just doing good works.
Stuff like Natilio is talking about? With all the sympathy in the world, a lot of that sort of thing seems really internal to an already 'activist' community. Community bookstores are lovely, but do they have any effect on anyone who isn't already the sort of person who goes to them?
127: Well, 'whirly-eyed Obamabot' was someone else's hyperbole, not mine. I guess what I'd say is that I know a lot of people (those mentioned above, plus some others) who are very much in thrall to the idea that electoral efforts are pretty much the most important aspect of a commitment to social change. Like 80/20 electoral/non-electoral. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I disagree to the point of thinking it's more like 1/99, and that I'm pretty iffy about the 1. I see a lot of people, left-liberal Democrats, who have pretty much given Obama a pass on the war-and-torture stuff, at least publicly. I think the silence among the liberal-to-progressive tranche on the question of the health care law, as it stands, is pretty telling. I'm sure many of those people feel approximately the same as me about the awfulness of that outcome. But are they out in the streets? Are they writing letters to the editor? Are they even posting a critique on Facebook? No, they are not. Which might not make them "whirly-eyed", but it bespeaks a level of refusal to confront reality that I still find very problematic.
there are issue-centered organizations, like Planned Parenthood or Medecins Sans Frontieres or the Center for Constitutional Rights, which I do support, and which I think can be effective in terms of working on their particular issue. That doesn't seem like much of a way of influencing the political climate generally, though -- it feels like walking away from politics and just doing good works.
Huh? That is movement building, and all three of those groups are very actively political.
LB, do you think donating time and money to National Right to Life would be apolitical? If not, why would donating to Planned Parenthood?
But you could always donate to moveon or whatever.
Yeah, I agree, CCR, Planned Parenthood etc. are clearly political. (Meaning, trying to influence gov't policy and move political opinion as well as providing direct aid or services to individuals.) There is no unified-across-issues leftish movement though. OWS probably comes closest.
Yeah, I agree, CCR, Planned Parenthood etc. are clearly political. (Meaning, trying to influence gov't policy and move political opinion as well as providing direct aid or services to individuals.) There is no unified-across-issues leftish movement though. OWS probably comes closest.
132.3: Okay, so, remember the scene in Far From Heaven where the two African-American people are door-knocking in Julianne Moore's neighborhood? And she winds up being supportive of civil rights, when it might have remained an abstraction to her? And remember the scene at the party, where Dennis Quaid's business associates are yukking it up about how stupid and boorish Orville Faubus is, despite being perfectly willing to uphold segregation in their own community? How do you think all of that played out? Regular people, not DFHs, putting on a suit and tie and knocking on someone's door or making a phone call or manning a card table in a public space. With the internet, you don't even need to think about setting foot in a radical bookstore!
I wonder if people here realize just how much those of us on the margins do, with how little? I don't think there are many radical organizations in town who have a turnover much above $15K or $25K per year. A few, but not many. And most envelope-stuffing nights (or the equivalent) are usually accomplished with no more than 5-10 people. What if we had 1% of the population helping out? Here in the Twin Cities that would be over 25,000 people! It's only for the absolutely largest demonstrations that we even get within shouting distance of that, and yet we still manage to push the debate further left, help our comrades in prison, prevent foreclosures, etc. etc. And we've worked (oh how we've worked) on figuring out a lot of really useful tactics and procedures for how to do this kind of thing efficiently. Spokescouncils, convergence centers, community bike shops and food distros -- yes, we may not have identical politics to you, but we know a lot about how to keep things going when the deck is stacked against us. And we're totally willing to share that knowledge, we're begging you to listen to it, even just for a few minutes.
How many people are there in your social network with roughly the same politics? 20? 50? 100? Think of how much you could do with a very small investment of time and money from each person. I mean, does someone like Megan or Heebie look at a soccer or softball team or whatever and say "Oh my god, I could never start something like that, it would be too daunting!" Or churches -- think how much work people are willing to put into their church! A lot of this stuff is way, way easier than building and maintaining a church.
Sigh.
If you know how to find her, I'll go talk to Julianne Moore.
You know, one of my favorite movies is John Ford's Hurricane. They talk about Law, and the wind chimes tinkle. They talk about Justice, and the leaves blow. They talk about Compassion, and the curtains wave a little. They make their Big Plans, and the surf gets higher. And then the Island is gone, and everybody who isn't a hottie is dead.
The national temperature of 57.1 degrees F during spring was 5.2 degrees F above the long-term average, besting the previous warmest spring of 1910 by 2.0 degrees F. This marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States. The spring of 2012 was the culmination of the warmest March, third warmest April, and second warmest May. This marks the first time that all three months during the spring season ranked among the ten warmest, since records began in 1895.
You think you got 10-20 years to build a movement?
Natilo, regarding Wisconsin, the part I'm not understanding is what the unions were supposed to tell people: "Walker is an extraordinarily destructive politician, so much so that thousands of you were motivated to take to the streets in protest, and yes, we have the tools to take him out of office, but it's vital that we not attempt it." I think that's an awfully tough sell.
I don't understand how you organize without organizing around goals. And if there's an obvious, motivating goal available, but you decline to pursue it, I don't see why you'd expect anyone to listen to you.
People are rightly contemptuous of national Democrats for failing to support the recall. They would have been rightly contemptuous of unions had unions done the same.
115: I must say, I am impressed with the superiority of your perspective on this.
LB and Katherine, who are fishing around for what movement building means, might be looking for something on the order of a counter-narrative to what we've seen the right do over the last 30-40 years: the right has built up influential opinion-making institutions, from magazines to think-tanks (and tv), which have spread the small government narrative. Which narrative has spread far and wide.
139: Wow - read that again everyone. It made me rethink. We can make a difference on the margins. At least it's better than not trying.
The dreaded Corey Robin has been hosting a very lively discussion about this at his blog. There's a lot of great labor-left discussion, including Henwood and Nathan Newman, and I recommend it to folks who are thinking through this.
Scott Lemieux, in a side note:
But in this case, we have a labor-crushing policy instituted by a united Republican government, that had never been considered when Democrats controlled any branch of the state government and would not have been passed if they still did, and did pass not only without Democratic support but with a Democratic opposition that went to unusual lengths to try to stop it. To derive from this a lesson that electoral politics isn't worth bothering with because a longshot recall election failed is, to say the least, wrongheaded.
Robin, who I know from grad teacher organizing at Yale, on Facebook:
This is a challenge to anyone who's an academic, writer, blogger, journalist, etc.: If you're calling for the labor movement to be more radical -- and let me clear, that is an aim I share, there's no argument there -- have you ever organized a majority, or even a plurality, of your co-workers (in an academic department, at a newspaper, in a think tank) to confront the boss, whoever that might be, in such a way that all of your jobs were put into jeopardy? If you haven't, I just ask you to imagine doing that. Not for the sake of you and your co-workers' well-being but for the sake of a larger collective good: Medicare for all, an end to adjunct labor, the emancipation of the working class, whatever. And ask yourself whether you could it -- or if not you, whether and how you think it could be done. And not just for a day, but for day after day, with no end in sight, and with no prospect for success. Getting that untenured colleague in your department to walk out, that fellow reporter to walk out, etc. And keeping them out. If you think you can do it, I assure you probably can't. If you think you can't do it, I assure you that you just might -- and that it will take every last thing from you to make it happen.
This last in response to people who believe that the unions erred by not going for a general strike. It's unimaginably hard.
Sorry. If I was a better Unfoggeder I would get in here with my own take, but I'm bummed -- not just because of the death spiral of the labor movement but also because I bought tickets to see Follies tonight and earlier realized they were actually for a 2 pm matinee.
BTW Natilo -- having read your 139 directly after seeing the Robin status update, I'm curious to know your take on it. In addition to big actions, how does your IWW local operate in workplaces?
Robin's status update now in blog form.
Thanks, k-sky. I didn't know about the Robin discussion.
Yeah, k-sky, that's good stuff.
I do think it's an error for unions to focus on promoting not-especially-pro-labor Democrats instead of issue campaigns on, oh, paid sick days and maternity leave. (I know the focus was on card check but it's clear that's not happening for a while).
Glad you like! Also I ended up getting $20 rush tix to the evening Follies so I'm in a better mood.
That Corey Robin roundtable is fantastic. A bunch of really interesting stuff there.
A bunch of it reminds me of Mark Schmitt's question, eight years ago, "Can There Be a Progressive Movement Without Organized Labor at its Center?" and the fact that nobody's has found a satisfying answer.
But the details are important and I was impressed at how often people in that discussion talked about specific questions rather than just abstractions.
Yeah, it was great for what it was. Robin's point about organizing was dead-on. But sites, place is what binds. Organize people instead of places. Organize, umm, Human Resource Managers in an industry sector. Warehouse clerks in four large cities. Women directors in television.
the fact that nobody's has found a satisfying answer.
What would a feminism look like that was global, and had enough organized power to resist institutional oppression while being opposed by gov'ts and the courts?
What if it were helped in it's strikes, sympathy strikes, and boycotts by solidarity and alliances with anti-racists, consumerists, LGBT community, environmentalists, socialists, etc?
(Not that this isn't being done already. Could be taken up a couple levels)
"Labour", by design, is no longer a site of resistance. Our identities are different now. Sites of real power are mobile and like the fog. Occupying a building (Goldman-Sachs) will do little. Resistance will have to move as fast, as invisibly, and travel very fucking light.
The Roundtable was terrific for like, 1880. Academics telling Sam Gompers what for.
Our enemies are in the 21st Century.
The anti-choice movement is a model. Where is that sucker, anyway? Who is it? Institutions and sites of power have to deal with them.
I bet NOW and NARAL have big office buildings in the Beltway.
What does the derivatives market look like? Who is it, where is it, how big is it, how does it move? Who understands it? How can we control or limit it?
That's what resistance has to look like. Really fucking fluid.
Multitude, I suppose.
Resistance will have to move as fast, as invisibly, and travel very fucking light.
We dress like students, we dress like housewives, or in a suit and a tie.
I've changed my hairstyle so many times now, I don't know what I look like!
Every intellectual has an audience and a constituency. The issue is whether that audience is there to be satisfied, and hence a client to be kept happy, or whether it is there to be challenged, and hence stirred into outright opposition or mobilized into greater democratic participation in the society. But in either case, there is no getting around authority and power, and no getting around the intellectual's relationship to them. How does the intellectual address authority: as a professional supplicant or as its unrewarded, amateurish conscience?
Edward Said
And how are the pontifications of accredited experts to be received by an audience? Well, if you admire, respect and enjoy what they say, more than likely they are telling you what you want to hear. and they know it.