But it's all risk-free consensus politics.
Here's the core of the Gitlin program in talking point style.
• Universal provision of the fundamental requisites of a decent life, starting with universal health care, rock-bottom income supports, and more equality.I don't object to any of this, but this was about as white, male, and heterosexual an agenda as a Democrat can be given that the voting base of the Democratic Party is about 20% black, more than 50% female, and the Democratic Party attracts 80-90% of the gay vote outside Mark Foley and Larry Craig.
• Public incentives for the development of sound alternatives to fossil-fuel energy.
• The restoration of government encouragement to unions.
• Smart counterterrorism, which entails providing security without swelling abuses of executive power.
• The right to abortion and contraception. The democratic social-market contract is neither a suicide pact, a penury pact, nor an invasion of bedrooms.
• A rapid and orderly phase-out from Iraq is the quid pro quo for improving America's ability to diminish jihadi potential. And crucially, given the damage that a benighted war has done to Iraq, we are obliged to make decent provision for Iraqis who will be further jeopardized as we leave.
• America should move heaven and earth to bring Israelis and Palestinians into
negotiations that achieve peace and security for two states.
• Humanitarian intervention ought to be multinational, regional where possible, proportionate to the danger, self-limiting, and rare.
• America ought to promote democracy and freedom in other countries with an eye to helping, not endangering, human-rights activists.
• Finally, both for its own sake and to help the cause of nonproliferation, we ought to help restrain the possession of, and the threat to use, nuclear weapons.
But it turns out that while Gitlin wants blacks, women, gays, feminists, and gay rights activists in the tent, he would prefer that they keep their mouths shut and watch the show. The "real people" Gitlin wants to bring into the "big tent" are (white) moderates of the Mark Warner/ NPR/ New York Times corporate bent.
At least that's what I gather from Gitlin's response to a bunch of questions I raised about issues that blacks, women, gays, and anti-corporate activists might care about. Agreeing with another commenter who viewed the interests of those groups as too liberal to be reconcilable with moderates, Gitlin indicated that he was looking for an agenda that could speak to the needs of both white male liberals and white male moderates.
Talk about narrowly pitching your proposals! Talk about risk averse! Talk about non-inclusive! Gitlin doesn't even have any backbone or imagination as a writer.
Apologies to J. K. Rowling, but what a git!
Here's my questions below.
What about correcting the tremendous income disparities between the super-rich and the rest of us?
What about penalizing the takeovers that line the pockets of Wall Street and corporate hierarchies while eliminating jobs for the rest of us?
What about taxing the crap out of the golden parachutes for failed CEOs?
What about articulating strategies for addressing inner-city poverty?
What about reviving the Civil Rights section of the Justice Department?
What about developing a bully pulpit to combat the relentless stereotyping of African-Americans in the media?
When is something going to be done about sexual violence?
What about immigration policy?
What about language teaching to the children of immigrants?
What about articulating a more muscular ethic of multi-culturalism to combat the assimilationism of the right?
What about gay rights?
Posts
43 comments:
I trust your comments are at TPM Cafe, but I just thought I could add my two cents. I think we need a broad agenda, as he outlined, to attract the most people. The plutocrats have 24 hour a day talk radio. They have purchased the votes of millions of relatively well-meaning evangelicals. To stop this army means we need as many folks as we can get and you do that by being moderately progressive (look, I'm inventing words!). What I mean is that your concerns, expressed as you did, are likely to frighten the moderate folks we need to attract when they first hear about it. If we tell them we are for certain universal rights, like the ones Gitlin mentioned, then the rest: gay marriage, re-distribution of wealth so we can return to a pro-growth economy and limited deficits (I'm still a Keynsian at heart), etc.
If you lead with those ideas, however, Rush and The Pajamas Media types will just spend months blathering fake outrage at gay people and higher taxes. Simplicity sells.
In other words, shorter Tim, I have to agree with Gitlin on this.
I would prefer that the Left go with Professor Caric's brand of socialism, coupled with the voices of identity politics. It is a sure winner.
There's a tension between advocating what is right and what will win on the Party level. The key to being a fair-minded person is to admit the difference and to distance yourself as far as possible from the pragmatic decisions which win election. It's also evident that a concerned person would still refrain from defending or advocating values completely at odds with his/her own, whether those were likely to win or not. Wrong is still wrong.
Whereas, Professor Caric is right and, once a person attracted to left-leaning moderation and disdaining the plutocrats examines those positions and realizes they ARE Right, the pragmatic folks never have to violate their deeply held beliefs to espouse the simpler positions.
On the other hand, if you represent the plutocrats and are a corporate toady, then you are forced to violate your ethical stands in order to support your PArty. Case in point: JD. JD, who believes in gay rights and loves to throw the word homophobe around more than most fervent activist from ACT UP, nonetheless will vote with and defend people diametrically opposed to that belief. Just to win an argument. Just to win an election. Just so the scary liberals don't win.
That's the difference.
I do not know what you mean by gay rights. I support civil unions, and could not give a shit as to who anybody else cares to lay down next to at the end of the day.
Liberals like Caric do scare me, timmah. And the pragmatic Dems that disguise their true Leftist intentions, and run as consservatives, infuriate me. I like Gitlin's article, because it lays it out there. Socialism is cool with him, and I know where he stands. Caric thinks he does not go far enough.
So timmah, since a couple of primary voting blocs of the Dems, the black and hispanic communities, are overwhelmingly in opposition to same sex marriage, and gay rights in general, how would you reconcile the Democrats courting their votes, while supporting civil unions.
I have still yet to see a viable Dem candidate come out in support of same sex marriage.
I come from an extended family of dedicated union Democrats. I am much more liberal than any of them on issues such as gay rights, abortion, immigration and black/women's rights. I think the left side of the blogosphere has a very skewed image of their own party.
B Moe
how would you reconcile the Democrats courting their votes, while supporting civil unions.
As long as the dems keep feeding them their table scraps, the groups will keep playing nice with each other. That's why it's so important to Caric and the like to keep pushing their agendas forward together.
ef - But which identity group should take precedence? Should they cater to the African-American community, or the gay community? By picking one, do not they repudiate the position of the other? This is why it is so interesting when Leftist identity groups collide.
That's why it's so important to Caric and the like to keep pushing their agendas forward together.
Gotta read the whole thing JD. :) It's important that they not pick sides.
Equally important is making sure that they all have someone in common to hate... keeps the attention off the puppetmasters.
Yes, ef, that whole list was full of hate toward other people. Check that mirror much.
Wanting universal health care is a sign of hate?
You people are strange.
"Wanting universal health care is a sign of hate?"
Who is going to pay for it, timmy?
The list isn't about hate. As I mentioned the list is about giving different groups a bit of what, in their own self interest, they have on their agenda.
The hate part is about making sure that those groups have an "other" to find common cause against, lest they notice that their own agendas don't quite jive. The manufactured "evilness" of the VAST RIGHT WING HATE MACHINE (OH NOES) is the object of leftist commonality that keeps the whole thing from imploding on itself.
So, who wins, timmah, teh gheys or the African Americans? Why pander to one when your position is not demonstrably different than your opponent, and the other identity group overwhelmingly disapproves of them?
And lets not forget the Women that insist on, like, working and wearing short skirts and the Muslims that insist on "tolerance" for their belief that women not.
Oh... and PETA, which I'm thinking probably doesn't approve of the African-American cultural tradition that is dog fighting. Who gets to insist more that the other has no right to insist that modify their cultural beliefs to satisfy the other.
The hate part is about making sure that those groups have an "other" to find common cause against, lest they notice that their own agendas don't quite jive.
You mean like the geniuses on your side who compare their countrymen to the rhetoric of a foreign terrorist? Yep, no need for that "other" there.
As for JD, I'll take a possible rupture between African-Americans and gays over the actual fracture in your party between the plutocrat corporate folks and the white shoe, black sock wearing rank-and-file over immigration. I'm pretty sure you can count on another immigration bill next season, just to see you folks yell at each other.
Man, that was entertaining...Hannity screaming at Republican Senators, the President calling all of you racists. Just high comedy, and all the while 41 million Hispanics are filling out Democratic voting registration forms.
Gee, is that example of another "other", ef?
Forget the dogs, use kids instead , there's great tradition there. Put some real booty on the line, winner take all, dump the rest in a river, you didn't want them anyhow, use them up like a lottery ticket.
Take the $$$ and rip them up and chuck em away unless they work out. You all seem enamored of then natural selection process If they can't make it early, oh well. Put them in cages to fight til death. There are many dogs that are held in higher esteem than kids. Good dogs are more expensive to breed than the human offal that pretends to be offspring. Who ever apid 10,000 for some kid with no parents and bloodline. Let the losers walk the Green Mile.
is that example of another "other", ef?
Quite the opposite really. While the dems are often egging on the left, the immigration issue was about the folks telling their own party where to stick it. While there is a similarity in the identification of that "other" group, the process itself worked in reverse. I think the distinction is important.
yeah, the Right's talk of invasions and Mexicans taking over the Southwestern US (they have the pamphlet to prove it) was just good-natured nativism and not an attack on a faceless, relatively powerless other. When I listen to the local Republican on the air and the white ladies call in to complain that there was a Latin Festivel last weekend and they had booths! And some of those booths were about Government services, that wasn't her fear of a bunch of Mexicans. It was just her telling her Party where to stick it.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Timb, you may find it less time consuming if you just skip reading comments altogether. It shouldn't affect your comprehension any. Works for cutnpaste, see if it works for you.
"You all seem enamored of then natural selection process..."
Wait a minute... so you guys don't believe in evolution now?
Is that your white flag, ef? You made silly observation, I've placed two major holes in it, and you claim I don't read the comments. Don't care to respond that Righties, like your cock-slapping hero, have how many "others"? Poor Mexicans. Terrorists under every bed.
Go read your philosophical leader (Ric Locke) talk about his disdain for the immigrants, his fear of the terrorist under every bed...you tell me who's pimping hate.
Oh, you can't
Regards,
Tim
Keep arguing with your deranged character sketches timb.
[applauds with golf clap]
Such a rebuttal has never before been heard outside a junior high playground or the Special Ed section of the Protein Wisdom talking points:
"Dear Dan or Jeff,
I'm arguing with a lefty and can't make my points (you know, the overall bankrupt character of our "beliefs" and all). I thought perhaps, I could move the goalposts, but he figured that out. I thought I'd impugn his patriotism, but we do that all the time. I thought I'd sick Pablo on him for a rainstorm of off-topic links and profanity, but Pablo's sleeping off a bender now. What can I do?
Worried at Red State Impressions"
"Dear Worried,
Try the #3 combo. In a voice of nasal disdain, say that the lefty guy is arguing with a cartoon/caricature/sketch, etc. We love that one, 'cause it makes no sense but sounds so impressive.
Alternatively, if you have always suspected everyone's laughing at you, because you love Flannery O'Connor or like selling Teddy Bears, just threaten to beat him up.
Good luck, Worried, I'm gotta go lift weights, because my penis is way too small to satisfy my mate AND I can't get hired to teach English.
Jeff/Dan"
If I didn't make it clear, ef, unless you are arguing that you, personally, and Righties, in general, are NOT opposed to Mexican immigration and are not desperately afraid (on seemingly a nightly basis) of a terrorist attack, then the criticisms, my doltish foe, stick.
Maybe some people think there is a problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, timmah, not that a distinction like that would make any difference to you.
So, is your party going to throw the interests of the homosexual community or the black community out in the elections? Which identity group takes precedence?
I, personally, am not opposed to any person immigrating. In fact I live with an immigrant pursuing citizenship. I do insist that folks follow the rules. It's the illegal part that I object to, not that it will make a difference since you and Geraldo insist that illegal is a double super secret code word for mexican.
Nor am I "desperately" afraid of another attack. I know they are being planned. I know there are people attempting to carry them out. I do something about it every day I go to work. I remain alert to the possibility, probability even, that at some point in the future someone will succeed. Brush off the threat if you like and go about your life in blissful ignorance. You are welcome to do so, but don't insist I stick my head in the same sand pile.
Not that it's worth the effort to type all this... you will no doubt dismiss the parts that don't fit into your warped reality and carry on talking to the pointy teethed righties in your head.
In short... get out your crayons and see if you can't draw a picture that's a bit more accurate.
Rather than wasting time on “gotcha” questions, public discourse rarely answers any of the questioned you posed Ric.
Just as an example, as Senator John Edwards often points out that not nearly enough time is spent talking about poverty and what could be done about it.
Poverty has been largely ignored at the national level since the Johnson era. Active comtempt for the poor was unforgiveably ignited by Ronald Reagan who mocked non-existent “welfare queens.” Katrina and the shame of New Orleans brought the stark reality of our cities before Americans for a moment.
America's racially scarred criminal justice system might logically be on the agenda. Prisons are one of the fastest rising costs in most every state. This country has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world. We lock folks up at five to eight times the rate of other industrial countries. States are still taking non-violent drug offenders, locking them up into what can only be called crime training centers, and often stripping them of their rights even after they serve their sentence. They end up back in prison repeatedly. But the prison industrial complex isn't on the agenda.
Why not discuss unsustainable trade deficits. Our economy is vulnerable to the whims of Chinese and Japanese central bankers. Not hearing a word.
And it's time to address race in a meaningful way in this country. The Bush administration has sought to roll back affirmative action and race never gets much in depth attention.
We do not adhere to what most might consider a basic economic right; a job with a living wage for every person willing and able to work. Where is the discussion of this enourmous black eye on the face of the US? The current economy leaves out too many, particularly in our central cities and rural areas. A hearing chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer reported that among African American men who are high school drop outs, joblessness rates over last few years span from 59% to 72%.
Why do we choose what we know doesn’t work? Here’s where race and politics intertwine. Politicians from Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” to George Bush’s Willie Horton learned that they might benefit by posturing tough on crime.
We’re wasting lives and billions of dollars while the jobs and education programs that might work face ever deeper cuts. Will no leader be courageous enough to speak this truth?
Let us hope so.
The jobless rate went up amongst high school dropouts? Who could have imagined that?
You want a meaningful discussion on race? Maybe you could start that by not calling everyone a racist that does not agree with you simplisitic views.
How much has been spent on welfare and poverty programs since President Johnson?
BTW - algore first made Willie Horton an issue.
a basic economic right; a job with a living wage
You do realize that paychecks come from private individuals, yes? No one has the "right" to a paycheck from any other person. It's nice for people to be employed, but they have a responsibility to earn a position, not a right. Dovetails nicely with your drop-out noumbers really. Individuals opting out of a rudimentary education will continue to be ignored by the private sector, and rightfully so.
And it's time to address race in a meaningful way in this country.
Was affirmative action not meaningful enough? What exactly does meaningful entail? I think most Americans are willing to judge on character, we just need the left to get on board.
the shame of New Orleans
The shame is that a mayor failed his city and the people in it, then used race baiting rhetoric to win his job again. The shame is that people insisted on waiting for help from hundreds of miles away rather than helping themselves. Katrina devastated a huge region across multiple states. The only people we hear still complaining about someone else not taking care of them are those in NO.
Poverty in this country is not true poverty. Here it is defined as the bottom 10% economically. That is a number that can not, conveniently, ever go away. The "impoverished" in this country have access to some form of housing, food stamps, televisions, clothing and heat in the winter. All can be had in this country without seeking employment. Unfortunate? Sure, but it isn't poverty.
ef, your point is foolish. Read anything by Harry Shearer, who lives in New Orleans, for the difficulties involved in rebuilding there. After that, tell me how easy it is to re-build Biloxi (population 50,000), which had flattened buildings and the ability to re-construct the day after Katrina left to the city of New Orleans, population 484,000 (almost 10 times Mississippi's) and was still flooded for three fucking months after Katrina.
Explain to me, ef, why it was that Mississippi run by Haley Barbour was "a success" and New Orleans, run by Nagin, was a "failure".
I know the answer, the real and the PW one. But, you let me know.
As for JD, 0 for 3. Al Gore did not do the Willie Horton ads in '88. That's a story used by Limbaugh and debunked in numerous places. How much have we spent on your 2002 and 2003 tax breaks, JD? I think that money could gone to some nice immigrant children. Which brings us to point 3, yes, I am aware that you SAY you make a distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, but I see the failure of your rhetoric whenever you think we're not watching (as I cited in the example above). Further, whenever I point out how many Hispanics will be voting Democratic for a generation, one of you is always nice enough to ask: "how many of them are legal." You're a very high-minded group.
Lastly,you're right, Todd, the social fabric of our country is stretched a little thinner every year in our New Gilded Age. It's why I support Senator Edwards (literally, he's the only candidate I have donated to). All I can do is hope he wins in Iowa and can build some momentum and support.
In the end, I like all top three Dem candidates, but I would like to see Edwards's message of hope in a general election campaign against the snarling cruelty that is Guiliani or the doddering "horse sense" of Fred Thompson.
algore introduced Willie Horton into the national discourse during the primaries against Dukakis. If you do not know the history of your own party, why should we pay attention when you get the hisotry of the other party so consistently wrong?
You say you realize that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, yet you make no effort in differentiating the two when you denounce ideological opponents. It is just easier for you to credit the other side with bad faith than actually discuss the issue.
Explain to me, ef, why it was that Mississippi run by Haley Barbour was "a success" and New Orleans, run by Nagin, was a "failure".
Maybe your question answers itself. If you consider the obvious ineptitude of Nagin prior to Katrina's arrival, it does not take much to think that would continue on through the rebuilding.
Nagin is at fault for Federal aid not arriving AFTER the hurricane UNTIL now? Because, I just heard Harry Shearer talking about a guy who was supposed to receive his check from Fema to re-build last year. he is still waiting for it. Is FEMA run by Nagin. Is the right wing bogeyman (STILL!) in all of this.
And, since you don't know the history of either party, Gore mentioned the furlough program during a debate. he never mentioned Horton.
It was Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes who used the name of Horton, who used his visage, and who played on his race.
The story also proves how much a liar Rush Limbaugh is. he is the one where this bs attack on Gore started and his best friend is Roger Ailes. He knows the truth.
Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Horton: For you, JD, from the Wikipedia entry re: Willie Horton
"Republicans would pick up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June of 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name." [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."
[edit] The index card
In April 1988, Lee Atwater asked aide Jim Pinkerton for negative research to defeat Dukakis. Pinkerton returned with reams of material that Atwater told him to reduce to a 3x5 index card, telling him, "I'm giving you one thing. You can use both sides of the 3x5 card." Pinkerton discovered the furlough issue by watching the Felt Forum debate. On May 25, 1988, Republican consultants met in Paramus, New Jersey holding a focus group of Democrats who had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. After giving the focus group the material Pinkerton provided on the index card, most of the voters switched from favoring Dukakis to favoring Bush. These focus groups convinced Atwater and the other Republican consultants that they should 'go negative' against Dukakis. Further information regarding the furlough came from aide Andy Card, a Massachusetts native whom President George W. Bush later named as his chief of staff. (The preceding is featured in "Whose Broad Stripes And Bright Stars?" pp. 159-161).
[edit] Jumping the gun
Although commercials about Willie Horton were not run until the fall campaign, Vice-President Bush first mentioned Horton at the Texas Republican convention on June 9, 1988. The following week at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Bush began to press the argument against Dukakis by declaring that Dukakis had let Horton loose to 'terrorize innocent people' and continued support of the furlough program until the Massachusetts legislature changed the law. Bush again mentioned Horton at the National Sherrifs Association in Louisville, KY and declared himself in favor of 'life without parole' for convicted murderers."
Nice playing with you
Here's another link for you: http://mediamatters.org/items
/200411100007
"After giving the focus group the material Pinkerton provided on the index card, most of the voters switched from favoring Dukakis to favoring Bush."
You aren't implying the voters weren't smart enough to see through Atwater's charade, are you? Or do you think Atwater was right, after all, according to the polls a majority of the American People agreed with him.
B Moe
Of course, I think it was vile. Playing on America's explicit fear of criminals and implicit fear of black criminals? Not too fond of that technique.
Nonetheless, political advisers who say "that's below me" seem to have trouble getting their candidates elected.
So, yes, my cynical side (represented by Mencken's "No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people") wars all the time with my idealistic side (the side I show way too often here). In this case the cynic wins out and I have to go with option #1.
Although, I think someone could argue that those people were VERY clever and we're not giving them enough credit. It wasn't racism that motivated them or fear of black criminals. They just realized anyone stupid enough to allow violent felons out of prison completely unsupervised was not smart enough to be President.
Personally, I 'll stick with option 1
There he is, folks, in all his naked glory.
And, you, you sweet idealist...you want to explain why all the nice people were swayed by Horton? Since you're a huge believer in wildflowers and lolly-pops, you can tell me why all the nice white people decided that.
Not an idealist at all, timmy, I am a very pratical man:
"They just realized anyone stupid enough to allow violent felons out of prison completely unsupervised was not smart enough to be President."
You don't have to be very clever at all to come to that conclusion, just a thinking adult who is truly motivated by reality rather than politics. Too bad it just won't fit the narrative, huh?
Occams Razor, B moe. Occams razor + Mencken
They just realized anyone stupid enough to allow violent felons out of prison completely unsupervised was not smart enough to be President.
I think Occam's Razor would be much more applicable to this choice.
As to why Horton was "chosen", it likely had to do with the fact that algore brought him up previously. It also likely had to do with the fact that this gentleman committed heinous acts while out on furlough, the type that would resonate and give a good example of how patently absurd the program in question was.
I do not believe that there were multiple example from which to pick, timmah.
Except, had you read it you clown, you'll know Al mentioned "the furlough program" and never mentioned a) that there were any crimes committed by its members and b) the names of folks involved. That was left to Atwater and Ailes.
You'd know if it you ever read anything outside your echo chamber
Yeah, algore brought it up just randomly. Willie Horton did not exist until Atwater brought him up. Good Lord, you are dense, and myopic. I guess you would have been fine with the ad if a white man was furloughed and raped and killed under Dukakis' watch. The fact is that it was a horrific decision made by Dukakis, with even more horrific results. And you have the temerity to claim that it was dirty when it was fact?
Post a Comment