Political movements on the liberal and left side of the spectrum often suffer from a born-yesterday syndrome, behaving as though they were spontaneously generated, without parentage, like a new Adam, as though utterly liberated from constraints of the past. Bursting recently on to the political scene with enormous energy and enthusiasm, and proliferating far and wide on the Internet, the so-called “netroots” activists often proudly claim to be a wholly new phenomenon. The innovative character of the Internet contributes to the sensation of novelty. Even the 1990s, much less preceding decades, are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to the heated controversies of the present. Like almost everything else, this blithe attitude, too, has a past. In the 1960s, many activists rejected the wisdom of elders because it seemed to be the tarnished product of ancient battles of the old left and the Cold War. Now, people with hard-won experience in social and political movements and who have grappled with the questions that perplex modern day activists remain unknown to or unacknowledged by those that might profit most from them.
Ladies and gentlemen, Todd Gitlin. Perhaps you have read one of his thought-provoking commentaries or groundbreaking books. Todd is not only one of the most notable activists of our time but also a model of the kind of public intellectual frequently bemoaned to be lacking on the scene. Engaged yet skeptical, he is intellectually honest, rigorously analytical, and a shining example of open and tough mindedness.
Todd is one of the great teachers, on the faculty of the Columbia University School of Journalism, and we are all his students. Long ago, he originated the concept of how mainstream media “frames” events, political leaders and movements for its own purposes, fostering stereotypes and false narratives. In his book, “The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left,” he discussed the media treatment of the New Left and its effect in highlighting its most extreme elements, elevating certain characters into celebrities, and isolating public understanding of the movement as a response to official policy on the Vietnam War.
In his subsequent “Inside Prime Time,” during the 1980s, after the rise of Reagan and the dominance of the right, Todd entered into the world of TV entertainment, writing one of the most provocative studies on how network TV programming was then produced, focusing on the then exceptional TV drama, “Hill Street Blues,” a show that defied the conventions of conservative kitsch that even today prevail in mass culture. Then, before the true emergence of the Internet as a cultural and political force, in his book, “Media Unlimited,” Todd described the dizzying over-saturation of media that creates political and psychological confusion and chaos and demands “navigational styles.” Here, he seemed almost to be begging for the development of a new media to provide guidance to the old.
But Todd is hardly a mere academic. Before the current generation stampeded on to the stage, he organized, walked the streets and spoke eloquently at rallies. In 1963, Todd was elected president of Students for a Democratic Society. At the crest of the liberalism of the 1960s, before the fall, SDS’s slogan for the 1964 election was “Part of the Way With LBJ.” A year after Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory, Todd led the first demonstration against the Vietnam War. Just as Hillary Clinton was writing her senior thesis at Wellesley on Saul Alinsky and decades before Barack Obama joined an Alinsky community organizing group, Todd moved to Chicago, to a poor white neighborhood, to explore as an organizer the potential of a biracial movement of the underclass, writing his analysis of the mixed results in “Uptown.”
Everyone, but everyone, should read Todd’s classic work, “The Sixties: Years of Hope and Days of Rage,” his extraordinary, invaluable and essential account of the movements and events whose legacy still imprints the present. No activist should proceed without having it in his or her backpack. “The Sixties” is exhilarating, inspirational, depressing, and cautionary. Todd writes vividly, thinks hard and learns lessons.
In the 1990s, as the battle lines were drawn between the Clinton presidency and the Gingrich led Republican Congress, Todd produced “The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars.” In this prescient work, Todd analyzed the attack by the right on the public interest and common good and sensed the coming assault of the impeachment trial, the crescendo of the culture war.
Todd’s deconstruction of the collapse of the Washington press corps during the impeachment drama was unflinching, precise and thorough. Before its disgraceful complicity with the administration of George W. Bush, Todd dissected in the Washington Monthly the media’s “Starr struck” complicity with the right-wing prosecutor. His conclusion, though he could not know it, forecast worse to come from the mainstream media:
Barry Goldwater, were he alive, would bask in prophetic glory. In 1961, he proposed to chop off the Eastern Seaboard. Today, no axe would be required, for the Washington-New York media brain stem has cut itself loose from the rest of the country by its own hand. For the better part of a year, watchdogs and pundits have nipped at the presidential underwear, exposed it, analyzed it, and in the process stained themselves. The Washington news establishment’s investment in the tawdry story has contributed to the nation’s disinvestment in them – disgust, anger, and a limp feeling that the national weal has been abducted by aliens.
Public anger at the press is the good news – the only good news during the months of this miserable spectacle that brought back the pillory and the stocks as instruments of jurisprudence, permitted a Javertian prosecutor to paralyze democratic government, and turned American politics and journalism into an international joke, or worse.
Just after the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, Todd, like I did, and many Americans, instinctively and defiantly hung flags on our front porches. In that moment, partisanship faded deeply into the background. Tragically, George W. Bush abused and exploited the opportunity for national unity for narrow political advantage and war in Iraq. Todd’s book on the quandaries of the left, still afflicted with “suicidal” tendencies unlearned from the 1960s, and the corruption of the right and the Bush administration, “The Intellectuals and the Flag,” remains especially pertinent for an election year. Here, Todd counters Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al as those who do not represent true patrotism post-September 11:
“The era that began on September 11, 2001, would be a superb time to crack the jingoists’ claim to a monopoly of patriotic virtue…. Post-Vietnam liberals have an opening now, freed of our sixties flag anxiety and our automatic rejection fo the use of force. To live out a democratic pride, not a slavish surrogate, we badly need liberal patriotism, robust and uncowed… Patriotism, as always, remains to be lived.”
Now, in his new book, “The Bulldozer and the Big Tent: Blind Republicans, Lame Democrats, and the Recovery of American Ideals,” Todd distills the themes of a lifetime and shapes them into an analysis for the coming election campaign. In it, he describes the Republican Party, under the aegis of Rove, and how its “brutal efficiencies” have yoked the conservative movement to a disciplined political machine. After describing the history of the right and its relation to the GOP, and the particular messianic appeal and manipulations of George W. Bush, Todd turns his attention to the Democrats.
He has interviewed many of the leading figures of the “netroots” movement in his effort to figure out the potential beneficial relationship of this new factor to a revived Democratic Party. Todd’s view is tempered by his experience:
“In heaven, possibly, ideals speak for themselves—from their lips directly into the hearts of lesser beings. But on Earth ideals require translation, namely, action… The need for means is the requirement exacted by an unforgiving world, and in this requirement, and the possibility it creates of a fatal mismatch between ends and means, lies the taproot of political tragedy. Ideals are the necessary motives of practical action, but ideals without wherewithal are pipe dreams, and even worse, ideals yoked to the wrong means are likely as not to turn into nightmares.”
But Todd is the opposite of a pessimist. He is constantly seeking a path, using paradox and irony, and above all experience, through the wilderness. “Like movement conservatives of an earlier stripe, liberal activists would often rather be right than be president,” he writes. Yet both movement and party, activists and politicians, are necessary to each other, despite their tensions:
“I have been arguing that parties and movements are both indispensable and always to some degree uneasy with each other, for they work by opposing principles: movements aim to force or midwife something transcendent—something not-yet-existent—into existence, to convert energy into mass, say, while parties get results by converting existing mass into energy…. One short answer to the question of what happened to American politics after the sixties is that the right harnessed its movement to its party while the left did not do the equivalent.”
In his conclusion, Todd sets out the stakes we now face:
“If movements and party builders can make themselves at home in the big tent, if independents get off the rise they were taken on, if keen and honest Republicans keep cutting and running, the bullies can be defeated in time, as they were nourished in time. To keep the right corralled inside its stagnant, largely Confederate, base, and to keep order among the unruly populace inside the tent—all this is not the work of a single election, of a single movement, or of a wish or a wing or a prayer, but of generations.”
And a conversation with Todd Gitlin, on the Firedoglake Book Salon, is one small step in this long march.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Max Blumenthal, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matthew Kerbel, Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Hillary Rettig, The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes David Swanson, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Chris Mooney, Unscientific America





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Zed!
Todd
Welcome to the lake
Viva SDS!
Welcome.
I am sorry to say that I haven’t read your work. But I did read the introductory post. (And will also read some of your very intersting other works.)
So if you could help me, what did the Ds do wrong during the 1960s, and how did that lead to where we are today? I lived thru the 1960s (as a moderate, far less active than you), so I have my opinions, but you have spent much more time forming a coherent whole out of it.
Do you think that the Clintons or any of the democratic candidates understand what they are up against here??
Welcome Todd & Sidney! looks like more books to add to my must-read list.
I should have said “Welcome”…I was so overwhelmed with thoughts after reading the opening post that I lost my manners. Wow. There was a lot to process in that initial post.
I strongly believe we (Americans) have not, and I continue to think this nation has not, come to grips with the real reasons for 9-11. What’s to be done?
I took interest in a comment from someone somewhere about how if we are peceived as left of center we have this knee jerk desire to move toward the middle. Is this the answer, as part of the dialectical synthesis of two opposing polar positions or should we in fact move and really explore the left polar more thoroughly before we synthesize these two opposite positions. (that I agree are essential).
Hi. Welcome to the Lake.
I am 16 and planning to be a journalist after college. I am taking a journalism class now and it’s all about how new stories should look and not about any of the framing or choosing issues.
Welcome Todd, welcome Sidney. It’s wonderful to have you both here today.
Welcome, Todd. Sidney chides us in the introduction for, I think, being naive about our little netroots movement, but we seem to be in the grand tradition of Democrats everywhere, if I read your assessment correctly – re-inventing the wheel every election cycle. Surely our advice can’t be any worse than that of current Dem consultants.
I truly can’t believe it, in this day and age, when the head of our state party tells me we have no central database of Democrats. Viguerie, whom we have to thank for the Republicans’ intense organization, may be right about that, at least – we must all at least communicate with each other, even if we can’t always be on the same page.
Are you aware of anything new on this front?
Welcome Todd & Sidney. Do either of you know why Bush Sr. constantly cries in public now? It’s a mystery. /snark
“Might, makes right”. America clings to that notion. What to do?
Katie Jensen @ 5
Without a doubt, they all understand what they’re up against. The Clintons are of course steeped in the party history but I have no doubt that Obama is too. (When I met him in ‘96 or so he was already sophisticated about the limits of identity politics.)
“Live movement conservatives of an earlier stripe, liberal activists would often be right than be president,”
Um, huh? This does not make a lot of sense as written.
Would it be safe to conjecture that this sentence might actually be:
*Like* movement conservatives of an earlier stripe, liberal activists would often *rather* be right than be president.” ??
Edit, please!
Todd is here – keep submitting questions.
Bev
eCAHNomics @ 4
The abiding original sin of the Ds was of course the Vietnam war. This cost them the left wing of the party (including the New Left) at the same time that the party’s necessarycommitment to civil rights was going to cost them the Dixiecrats in the south. The result: incapacity & the long struggle to overcome divisions that first appeared in the ’60s.
Todd, where would you suggest concentrating GOTV efforts for 2008 if the Rethugs are still as strong organizationally as previous years?
I’m not quite certain we’re as ahistoric as this would have us, though. Many netroots folks are veterans of progressive movements stretching back decades, and we work with grassroots organizations all the time (witness our collaborative effort with immigrants’ rights organizations against Rahm Emanuel this week).
I think there are aspects of the netroots in which you can find whatever it is you’re looking for, but I’m not sure this kind of broad generalization is warranted.
Why can’t democrats find a true position of leadership and bring the country with them?? I feel that they have been too focused on “popularity” instead of leadership and having a true sense of where this country needs to go. It feels like we have no big picture thinkers or if we do they lack the charisma to carry it off. It seems that the dems need to pick the destination, the vision, and then find the speaker who has the charisma and skills to persaude and lead.
I think this is what republicans have done. They picked their message and looked for people who could carry it. What is the democratic vision…we hear about taking care of the “have nots” but no real idea of what it will look like when we get there. That to me, is what is missing. We will become a country that….
What??? What we will become?? We cannot continue to be satisfied with what we have been?? Maybe people would be willing to share the wealth and maybe corporate america would understand that there is benefit in the “left” position. Is it that they are just too dogmatic to hear it or is it that the message is not being communicated effectively. I fear that dems have bought and internalized some of the republican messages forgetting the advantages to the positions of the left.
Jane, some of us are learning history right here. :)
Katie Jensen @ 9
We should be resolute about principle–for example, now, we believe in the equal right to health care; redressing climate change; repealing the Bush doctrine of preventive war. Then, depending on the balance of political forcs, we compromise where we have to. But we are straightforward about principle.
Todd Gitlin @ 23
Kucinich is the only one of the candidates that talks that way about principles, right?
Mommybrain @ 12
I’m not aware but am not in touch with ongoing Dem developments in the way that I’m sure other readers are. The retardation of the Dems is remarkable but I take some heart from the fact that Dean & others are well aware of the infrastructural shortfall.
One of the most promising developments of the Hillary Clinton campaign, has been the addition of Sydney Blumenthal to her staff. I admire Sydney’s commentary and work at Salon.com. I find his political orientation progressive, but I just don’t know how to interpret his alignment with Clinton. Am I seeing progressive ideology being co-opted by Clinton or is Clinton actually a progressive? How do I go about making that determination?
Malixe @ 16
Conjecture confirmed, if I can speak for Sidney.
Will Iraq serve the same purpose for the Rs?
Now, people with hard-won experience in social and political movements and who have grappled with the questions that perplex modern day activists remain unknown to or unacknowledged by those that might profit most from them.
Sounds like this book is a perfect holiday gift.
But, not having read the book yet, I’m still really being interested in what you have to offer here,
What question would you ask yourself if you were one of us?
jane hamsher @ 20
Exactly. The people who formed the nucleus of the netroots, and who still make up a good chunk of it today, are not youngsters and newcomers, but in fact what Paul Wellstone called “the Democratic wing of the Democratic party” — the wing that got kicked to the curb by party leaders and the Blue Dogs in the late 1980s and 1990s.
Mommybrain @ 19
Above my pay grade but I would think that inside-the-party honchos & honchas will figure it out; and so will Moveon among others.
Maybe people would be willing to share the wealth and maybe corporate america would understand that there is benefit in the “left” position. Is it that they are just too dogmatic to hear it or is it that the message is not being communicated effectively.
Katie, I believe the “left” position is the position of the majority of people in the US, if only they could hear what the position is over the whining of Dems and the roars of the right. When I talk to people one on one, we always want the same thing, just differ on how to get it.
The Noise Machine makes believe we are the Satan. Who listens to the devil?
Many indicate there is not much light shining between the two political parties. Especially in the foreign policy sphere. Care to comment?
Mr. Gitlin,
Have you been paying any attention to the recent special session of the Alaska Legislature? In short, a maverick Republican Governor, elected on an anti-corruption platform, Sarah Palin, confronted big oil, and a legislative coalition of senators from both sides of the aisle who were intent on keeping extraction fees paid by the oil producers very, very low.
Palin totally creamed big oil, got a much higher rate passed, and rendered the senate coalition extinct. She was already the most popular governor in the country. Her rejection of much of what her party stands for stands in sharp contrast to GOP orthodoxy nationwide. I regard her administration as the strongest rejection of identity politics at the state level in the country right now. I didn’t vote for her.
jane hamsher @ 20
You know, the netroots are themselves a big, swelling tent, and include a lot of sophisticated people (present company definitely included). The key is the ability to be principled, active, and realistic at the same time–a nice trick but not impossible; it requires acumen, patience, & toughmindedness all at once. (That’s all.)
trip_wonders @ 26
Mr. Blumenthal is now employed by Senator Clinton? This is a fact?
Mommybrain @ 32
Back when I was a kid Cassie’s age, I thought that both the left and right wanted the same things out of life and the only differnece was the means with which to achieve this.
Boy was I ever confused.
Phoenix Woman @ 30
What you need is to figure out how to get more teens and 20’s involved.
One thing I’ve noticed since January of this year is…as soon as Nancy Pelosi said she was taking impeachment off the table many in the Democratic Party immediately threw their party under the bus. There is nothing the democrats can do now to change this anger and hatred. My problem with this attitude is Nancy Pelosi is only ONE democrat in the whole party and if our party is that important to us, we’re not going to give this woman (or Feinstein or Reid) power over it. To me, the constant bashing and focusing on Reid & Pelosi all the time is a downer and is not motivating me at all.
Just needed to get this off my chest. ;-)
EDITED BY SITE OWNER
Please keep on the topic of book salon.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 33
Wrong. On domestic matters, how’s this for openers (using shorthand)? Rs: Privatize Social Security; increase inequality; punish immigrants; don’t move to universal health care; create low-end jobs that do little to nothing for environmental sanity. Ds: Sustain Social Security as a progressive program; decrease inequality; don’t punish immigrants; move quickly to universal health care; create jobs throgh energy-efficient investment.
On foreign policy: All Rs love preventive war. All Ds are skeptical. (I wish Hillary were more skeptical.) All Rs refuse responsibility for the disastrous war in Iraq. All Ds know who started it & botched it. All Rs think the US is a chosen people that others should kowtow to. All Ds accept that the US lives in a world of others. All Rs are childish bullies. All Ds are grownups.
How’s that for openers?
trip_wonders @ 40
This is interesting. Thanks for the info.
For those not of a certain age, the Democratic slogan for the 1964 election was “All the Way With LBJ.”
Oklahoma kiddo @ 36
Be nice, OKK! :P
The key is the ability to be principled, active, and realistic at the same time–a nice trick
There seems to be something in the intrinsic Immediate nature of this media. When you attract enthusiastic, intelligent souls who are also fairly P.O.’d about our current national situation, there are alot of knee-jerk reactions and it seems challenging to keep a Realistic Voice.
Ed*ard Teller @ 34
Glad to hear it. The Ds have the opportunity to create comparable wedges in various state R parties and should become adroit at it. State initiatives to force Rs to choose between the hyperwealthy and the bulk of the population would be a good idea.
What you need is to figure out how to get more teens and 20’s involved.
Cassie, we need you to help us figure out how to do that. Most of us haven’t been in that demographic is a long time.
demi @ 45
The national media are jaundiced, petty, shallow, frequently unimpressed by big facts as opposed to petty matters. This is, alas, a given. We mustn’t kowtow to them, but mustn’t underestimate their capacity to blow smoke either.
Todd Gitlin @ 41
I like the word “all”. It’s so deliberate and absolute. I’ve been voting the straight Democratic ticket for 39 years. Want to debate the actions by my party over the last seven years? Let’s do it. How’s that for openers?
Kayinmaine…I am totally with you on that thought. I don’t like it that Pelosi took it off the table, but black and white thinking is black and white thinking whether or republican does it or a democrat. I think the same thing happens in regard to Hillary. And I think that’s what the booing was about last night. I think many of us feel that none of the democratic candidate should be compared to the republican party or Bush. They may lean this way or that more than we might want in one area or another but when you look at the totality of the picture, it makes no sense to make any of them out to be the devil.
Hahahaha. You mean like getting Clinton & Schumer & Dodd to throw the hedge fund managers under the bus?
The national media are jaundiced, petty, shallow, frequently unimpressed by big facts as opposed to petty matters. This is, alas, a given. We mustn’t kowtow to them, but mustn’t underestimate their capacity to blow smoke either.
Do you think this is likely to change anytime soon? How did they get so jaundiced, petty, shallow etc? My dad was a political journalist back in the day and he was never those things.
Phoenix Woman @ 30
Mommybrain @ 47
Facebook, here we come. Politics has to be fun. Winning is even more fun.
Is Sidney Blumenthal attending today? (Sorry about the previous misspelling. I have a friend who spells her name that way.)
Mommybrain @ 47
I think having all the politics on facebook and myspace helps a lot. But the best way is probably through environmental stuff, like if the dems in my town helped us to get recycling at the HS.
Let’s stay on topic, everyone.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 49
1. Your party has made a lot of mistakes.
2. We are in a state of emergency.
3. The only ladder out of the emergency is the D party.
4. Getting the D party into power is not the end of politics but it is the prerequisite of all (yes, all) effective politics.
Mommybrain @ 52
To all: Could it be the $$$? We know that radio started as a way to sell soap. Today’s Big Media is a very expensive version of that.
So, maybe there a people motivated more by the investment than the investidation.
eCAHNomics @ 51
Well yes, actually, but only figuratively.
I tried that with a very conservative lawyer friend of mine, arguing that the ONLY party to vote for, if he were concerned with the rule of law, was the D party, since the Rs had clear contempt for it. He looked at me like I was from Mars. He is so steeped in R tea that he can’t believe his lying eyes.
How about:
R’s condone torture.
R’s condone spying on Americans.
R’s condone immunity from illegal activities.
R’s are expansionist for corporate gain.
R’s disrespect the Constitution and the rule of law.
R’s are about cronyism and corruption and don’t hold their party violators of the law accountable.
R’s have lost trillions of dollars, which remain unaccountable.
R’s lied us into war, and continue to lie in order to maintain their theft of middle east oil.
D’s believe in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
D’s believe in preserving the planet.
D’s care about the health of the citizens.
D’s believe in enabling students to pursue education.
D’s know that torture is illegal.
D’s know that spying on Americans is illegal.
D’s believe in peace through diplomacy.
D’s believe that preventing our citizens from losing our civil rights is a matter of national security.
D’s believe they live in the United States of America, not the United States of the Homeland.
demi @ 58
Actually, radio began as sheer amateurism, then became an advertising instrument (after 1927).
But the hideous costs of today’s campaigns is a direct result of the corporate hijack (media buys accounting for by far the majority of campaign costs), which is in turn a consequence of the fact that we don’t have serious public financing. And this is why, once there’s a D government, we should campaign for public financing & requiring TV networks to donate campaign time as the price of the free licenses their affiliates enjoy.
OKK – Lieberman and Zell Miller are / were really Rs. On the others, it’s more ineffective means, laziness or corruption. They’re no help (often a hindrance), but they’d have to worse to be Rs.
eCAHNomics @ 60
There will always be maybe 35-40 percent of American voters who can’t believe their lying eyes. The goal of big-tent politics is to put a ceiling on that number.
LS maybe you should add something about R’s and corporations and D’s and real people.
LS @ 61
Sounds good to me!
How do you think secrecy plays out in electing Democrats in the Internet age? Can a politician project one image for an election and then support policy that directly conflicts with their electioneered image? I’m thinking of the trouble Dianne Feinstein currently finds herself in. Do you think it’s possible that policy can still radically diverge from branding the way it did before the Internet and netroots communities?
SnarKassandra @ 65
You just did!
Todd – bless your heart.
This morning after dismaying over the state of our current election process, I thought that maybe it had to get this ugly and stupid before we could finally address campaign financing.
This is getting exciting. I love it!
trip_wonders @ 67
I’m glad DiFi is in trouble for her Mukasey vote. As you say, secrecy is a lot harder nowadays–an auspicious fact in an often discouraging time.
Todd – Part of Carter’s problem was obviously bad luck, but do you believe he could have been more politically effective, and if so, how?
Yes, I knew that would be the case with this particular lawyer. I challenged him partly for cocktail party fun, but also because someone had to point out his lying eyes. He’s not stupid. Perhaps at some point in the future, I’ll have some influence.
But it was in the context of a discussion on immigration. The lawyer thought that immigrants have broken the law and should be tossed out of the country and that’ all there was to it.
My retort centered on larger constitutional issues. That’s why there was a disconnect.
Is that a general problem? The Rs recognize the immediate & more minor sins of the Ds, while not being able to recognize the cosmic sins of the Rs?
GordonM @ 73
Carter did not triangulate.
Can a politician project one image for an election and then support policy that directly conflicts with their electioneered image?
It would be easier to manage the political circumstances if the truths about our past weren’t so hush-hush. The mirror of Americana is stained with the corrosion of lies and manipulation. That imperils our vision and binds us to the denial of our psychic burden.
This is the triumph of the blogosphere — we seek answers and share them. If there is a truth to be found — we have the network to connect us. We have different perspectives so we look at the data in a way that other agencies cannot.
We revile anyone who lies and manipulates the facts for partisan gain. ReBushLickens happen to do that reflexively so they are the reason for our vehemence.
Woe be unto any politician who doesn’t shoot straight with the people.
The Dems really need to capitalize on the news about there being a 90% drop in violence in Basra, following the withdrawal of British troops.
R’s need to be held accountable for hindering the restoration of the Katrina damage in New Orleans in order to rebuild it for corporate benefit, and also for Condi shoe shopping and Bush not acting for 5 days following the storm, while the whole world watched people dying from dehydration. Then subsequently being shot at for attempting to escape the flooded areas. More proof of their disregard for human life.
R’s are not prolife, they are proprofit at the expense of their own citizens.
Let’s not forget R’s and their private army, Blackwater.
GordonM @ 72
He was maladroit in so many ways, not least backing the Shah. (But of course the policy of backing the Shah went back to Eisenhower.) But if you mean, Could he have won the ‘80 election given the hostages and stagflation, I don’t see how.
Todd, one thing I actually am enjoying about the last seven miserable years is the increase in interest and activism all over the country, enabled by the net.
Have you seen anyone yet you think will be one of the next Dem leaders? Do you think this environment will be a hotbed in which leadership will bloom?
(Why does Matt Ortega’s name leap to mind?)
eCAHNomics @ 73
I think so. This is the authoritarian mentality at work.
R’s are against livable wages.
Todd Gitlin @ 77
Reagan and the Repub’s traded arms for hostages if I remember right.
R’s are against being nice!
@ neokneme who wrote: Woe be unto any politician who doesn’t shoot straight with the people.
I agree. I think this new fact of political life hasn’t quite sunk in yet with polticians, particularly Rethugs. They can’t quietly pass BS law during the night and pretend their progressives in the morning. This is a new political reality, but it’s obvious that Democrats need to grasp it. It will be harder for the Dems because they hide their principles most of the time.
Mommybrain @ 77
I see lots of people of different stripes coming forward. In no particular order, to take up some nationally-known names, James Webb, Eliot Spitzer, Brian Schweitzer, and yes, Barack Obama (regardless of the outcome this year). And by this I don’t mean that I agree with all their views on everything. Remember that good politicians, like good people of all sorts, learn.
Thanks for coming Todd.
Regarding your observation at 41:
“All Rs love preventive war. All Ds are skeptical. (I wish Hillary were more skeptical.)”
Preventive war is unconstitutional (a violation of the UN Charter and thus of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution). The Democratic Party (as opposed to certain votes of some of its elected officials) supports the Constitution. How can Hillary, or any other Democrat, either expect support from those Democrats actually devoted to law and constitutional order or honestly take the Presidential oath required by Article II if they are merely skeptical and willing to support preventive war on occasion (as opposed to flat out all the time opposed)?
demi @ 69
Until we get public financing of elections, we will continue to get bad government. Lobbying is an industry. I advocate outsourcing it.
R’s impeach for sex.
D’s fight for peace.
trip_wonders @ 81
Rs hide their principles more of the time. Consider the deceitful and disingenuous campaigns for the “ownership society,” for death to the inheritance tax, for the current rotten health insurance system, for brainless war, for every weapons system ever imagined….
Todd Gitlin @ 77
True. I guess I was try to ask something different.
The Dem coalition of dixiecrats, New Deal liberals split when R’s peeled off the Dixies and identity politics offended many New Dealers. Why has it taken so long to reform a liberal majority? Is it all adept manipulation of wedge issues by Rs and ineptness of Ds to
Are we re-forming only as the anti-R party?
SnarKassandra @ 80
Actually, this has been one of my most enduring problems with the R party, and my age is a a couple of years more than the opposite of Cassie’s (16), but is something I already was well aware of at her age. Is that also a function of authoritarianism?
How about:
Six nuclear bombs went missing and were flown illegally across the United States -
Under Bush’s Watch!
After his maiden performance (or whatever the initial performance of a male might be dubbed), I think we don’t want him in our party. He’s as authoritarian as W, but much smarter. That makes him really dangerous.
The abiding original sin of the Ds was of course the Vietnam war. This cost them the left wing of the party (including the New Left) at the same time that the party’s necessarycommitment to civil rights was going to cost them the Dixiecrats in the south. The result: incapacity & the long struggle to overcome divisions that first appeared in the ’60s.
I find this too glib by half. While the loss of “Dixiecrats” continues to this day, the Vietnam War didn’t cost the Democrats ‘the left wing of the party’ (the 68 election wasn’t lost because the left wing abandoned it — ‘middle America’ was also quite sick of the Vietnam War, and looking for a new direction (even if it was Nixon’s ’secret plan’).
If anything, the left wing took over the party in the wake of the 1968 election, creating news rules (including “quotas” for state delegations to the national convention) which eventually resulted in the nomination of George McGovern (who just happened to have written the rules.)
IMHO, ‘the left’ has never left the party — instead, the party attempted to disavow the left in a process that began with the nomination of “moderate southern democrat” Jimmy Carter, and which culminated in the disasterous rise of the utterly unprincipled DLC.
The left never went anywhere — the only difference is that now the Rahm Emanuels and Chuck Schumers and Hillary Clintons can no longer ignore us — the netroots have given us back our voice….
and Sidney better learn to deal with it.
PS Todd, I am very much enjoying the book. Finding precious few moments to read, I am absorbed in it when I can. Next: The 60’s.
It’s not that R’s are against a living wage, I think it is more likely that they believe the best way to help poor people is to be rich and then it will somehow lift all of society out of the gutter. This is not reality but I think it is an irrational belief that stems from guilt for all they have and the wide gap between those who “have” and those who “have not”.
I have heard the religious right “rewrite” the bible to include a rationale for maintaining wealth…as long as you use your wealth as a role model for the life that “believing in Jesus” gives you. It is your obligation to be wealthy so others will want what you have, and believe the way you do. (Robertson…I believe)
Honestly, I think we often misunderstand the republican point of view. I think most R’s would not say they are against a living wage. I think they would say that their lifestyle and income need to be maintained because that will make those at the bottom try harder to move up the ladder the way they did. They often carry the fantasy that they worked harder than others, were brighter than others, were less priviledged than they really were, and that they are helping the world by being rich.
The disconnect is complete when we fail to understand the guilt and denial that underlies the republican belief system. It’s denial like with alcoholism and it is physiological. Not all wealthy, of course. I think that perhaps “greed” is an addiction for some. But I think that we don’t understand the complexity of the thinking. I work with very wealthy clients doing therapy and am amazed as the myths that some of them live by.
Hello Mr. Gitlin,
I have often marveled at the hive-mindedness of the Republican party and how they have been absolutely effective for thirty years in their march to power.
Certainly we must keep an eye to the past for lessons, but I see real effects, positive ones, the Netroots are having toward progressive politics.
True, we are often at open war with party leaders, but as a result the winning of the majority in both houses was accomplished in spite of Chuck and Rhambo, not because of them.
Thanks for sharing today Todd.
I’m going to buy your book for my daughter’s boyfriend – a 25 year old idealistic dem working in D.C. (how to reach out to young people? buy them the book.)
Thanks again.
HEAR HEAR!
GordonM @ 86
Aha, sorry if I was thick-headed. I see what you’re driving at. I think it would have taken a truly ingenious politician (read: Bill Clinton) to do better than Carter given how fresh were the wounds from the ’60s.
I think I may give Bill Clinton more credit than you for making the effort (not always brilliantly) to overcome those wounds in ‘93-’94 (before Newt & Co. made all such efforts moot). I have a lot more to say about his effort in the new book, but for now, can only say .
I also discuss, chapter & verse, in the book, the question of whether there’s a liberal majority. In brief, I think there is on some issues but not on others, but even where it is, it’s not stable. The first job, as you suggest, is to constitute the Ds as the big tent, anti-R party. Then, once we have the House, the Senate, & the White House, use majorities (& filibusters where necessary) to open toward the liberal end of reforms.
Todd Gitlin @ 85
I always view Democrats in the more difficult spot. They take corporate money in exchange for corporate-friendly policy, but then have to pretend to their constituents that they are not influenced by their sponsors. That puts them in the spot where they have to hide their motives from both their sponsors and their constituents. Republicans take the money and tout a thoroughly corporate (ownership society) agenda. That’s why I think the Democrats are more secretive.
Re question at 89: follow the money.
Re 93: Precisely.
They don’t believe that for a moment. That R code rationalizing selfishness.
eCAHNomics @ 87
I argue in the book that the R bulldozer mentality perfectly suits Bush’s own bulldozer style, & yes, I think authoritarianism goes with brutality of style.
If today’s Democrats (Pelosi, DiFi, Reid, Boxer, HRC, Hoyer, and others) pass for progressives or liberals, then I am truly a political anchronism. “Goodnight, and good luck.”
LS, have you seen this list of repub vocabulary?
eCAHNomics @ 89
It’s a political party, not a dinner party.
1,661 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
“And this is why, once there’s a D government, we should campaign for public financing and requiring TV networks to donate campaign time as a price of free licenses…”
First of all, the last time there was a “D” government (which would be the first two years of the last Clinton administration) the Democratic Party was more interested in formalizin’ the relationship between party financing and corporate donors than empowering voters over monied interests. In fact, I would argue that Bill Clinton deliberately left the progressive Democratic majority out to dry in ‘94 so that there was no pressure from the left to counter his repayment to his corporate benefactors.
The corporatization of the political system in this country didn’t happen over night, indeed with the fascist takeover of the federal judiciary, it will take much more than a “D government” to put public financing back into the political vocabulary of the Democratic Party. I would argue that if one of your buddy Sidney Blumenthal’s patrons, Mrs. Clinton, is elected the probability of a reinvigorated democracy and public financing goes to about zero.
KEEP THE FAITH AND TELL ME AGAIN WHY I SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU!!
The title of your book’s usage of the word “Bulldozer” brings to light Drifty’s oft used terms of “Killdozer” and “Slimedozer.”
Drifty, in case you do not know, is a rather brilliant blogger.
trip_wonders @ 97
POINOilfieldguy @ 93
Agree about the netroots’ contribution–if we can all pat ourselves on the back for a moment.
gee, i am dumbstruck. i found mr. gitlin’s book on the sixties interesting but, having been quite active politically during that time myself (was expelled from my college by our old pal J. Edgar himself who was on its board for occupying the institute for sino soviet studies in d.c.), found his account more personal than documentary, full of important holes.
I simply find it impossible to agree with his notion that the dems are the only way to achieve the goals we all seek. And i was shocked really at his response in a documentary i watched on ralph nader recently to nader’s campaign, insisting that nader lost the eleciton for the dems. Most of the research done on that issue determined that wasn’t so; that folks who voted for nader would likely not have voted at all otherwise. Not to mention the cave in by candidates at the end of the “vote count”.
Calll me idealistic (I don’t believe for a minute Tom Paine was “practical”), but i have found nothing but disappointment when i’ve voted for the lesser of two evils. Over last 6 election cycles a dem win has gained us next to nothing, nothing that is but an arrogant lame democratic party that either can’t thnk clearly (best case) or is less corrupt only by degrees, or both. What good does it do to list the differences in the parties, particularly the idea that claims the dems are committed to fulfilling their oath to protect the constritution when they are too cowardly to do that? Particularly when it comes to impeachment and money in politics.
I intend to vote my conscience and have let my congresspeople know that repeatedly. I will be leaving several spaces blank on my ballot, and will be writing in some folks as well. At least i won’t suffer from buyer’s remorse and have that sense of having been robbed by cowards. To use a 60s expression: I am not going to be part of the problem again.
eCAHNomics @ 102
The leaders are dicks, those in the know are dicks. But some of the rank and file actually believes that crap and the leadership does not disabuse them even while sneering. It’s mothers-milk to them and the fact that it might not true never occurs to them
SnarKassandra @ 105
Hahahahaha!! That’s great!
Will someone please point out the Constitutional admonition that only Republicans and Democrats know what’s best for us.
eCAHNomics @ 99
Really, it doen’t matter. The key is that, if honorable, they’re mistaken, and if dishonorable, well, dishonorable.
LS @ 109
here is one more
kittykitty @ 107
Nice if you can wash your hands so spic-&-span. Is your conscience happy with Nader’s campaigns?
Todd Gitlin @ 106
I’d love to go to a dinner party with Spitzer. But I don’t want him in any politicl position of power.
The most interesting flight I ever took was sitting next to (then) Senator D’Amato. We talked for the full hour between DC & NYC. He was very interesting. But I didn’t want him as my senator.
Ouch, Todd!
Have to run in a minute, folks, but will try to reply to everyone in the next 24 hours. Thanks, sincerely, to all of you.
Todd Gitlin @ 77
reagan cut a deal with the ayatollah in exchange for weapons (iran contra anyone?) to hold the hostages until inauguration day 81. They were releeased on that very day. No way Carter would ever have won that election. Repulicat dirty tricks are always worse than we suspect. So get ready for the next “election”. right todd?
Thanks again, Todd.
Todd Gitlin @ 79
…. the beam in their own eye….?
Thanks so much for being here today, Todd. It’s an important conversation to have right now and people seem to have a lot of energy for this particular debate. We really appreciate you taking the time to chat.
kittykitty: To use a 60s expression: I am not going to be part of the problem again.
If political action is the only way to re-conquor our system of government then the people should join with the expectation of viable solutions to the multifarious living problems.
I’ll happily vote for change because adaptation comes through change. The status quo is always self-destructing.
The “sixties” taught me that.
The first job, as you suggest, is to constitute the Ds as the big tent, anti-R party. Then, once we have the House, the Senate, & the White House, use majorities (& filibusters where necessary) to open toward the liberal end of reforms.
That sounds like a plan! Thank you both for all you do on behalf of reform. I look forward to reading the book.
Sidney Blumenthal, I absolutely adored your article on Bush from back in September. So on target:
History has become a magical incantation for him, a kind of prayerful refuge where he is safe from having to think in the present. For Bush, history is supernatural, a deus ex machina, nothing less than a kind of divine intervention enabling him to enter presidential Valhalla. Through his fantasy about history as afterlife — the stairway to paradise — he rationalizes his current course.
Thank you Mr. Gitlin. It’s been real.
Thanks for being here. The books sounds great!
Todd Gitlin @ 116
I’ve been kind of laying in the weeds for the afternoon doing other things, and I could be getting the tone wrong, but many answers or responses seem to have a patronizing tone, like the one above.
May I suggest a book for you Mr. Gitlin?
How to win friends and influence people
Thanks Todd.
Katie Jensen @ 95
important to remember that these guys are al NEOCALVINISTS, and that philosophy says that if you’re poor it;s because you’ve sinned and are not among god’s chosen.
I wish more people would use the word STINGY to describe Repub ideology, cause that’s what is it, plain ol STINGY.
Todd Gitlin @ 115
yes. whereas i feel like crap when i follow the party. spic and span? none of us are. none.
I was thinking that response (& some others) wre more a function of the medium, i.e., need to type faster than you think, than of a disdain for commenter.
Having said that, there’s deep anger among some Ds for the whole Nader affair.
upstairs
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..n-keep-it/
Oklahoma kiddo @ 8
Oklahoma kiddo @ 104
OK,
You get it!
Sorry to come to the party just as they’re clearing the dinner table.
Mr. Gitlin claims that politicians “learn.” True. It’s what they learn that’s so repellent ie. precisely who to throw under the bus.
And speaking of same, Mr. Gitlin’s “Common Dreams” Gotterdammerung shoves LBGT America right under said bus.
Thanks — I’ll drive.
1,661 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Firepup Freedom Fighters:
I hope that all the regular Firepups read this post and the interactions carefully…Todd Gitlin and (it makes me cry ta say this) his buddy Sid Blumenthal are representative of the new DLC beltway intelligentsia. Gitlin’s analysis of the 60’s is intellectually disarticulated from American political history from 1932 to 1972 and Sidney’s gigantic talent was long ago contracted to the Clintons.
This post and the condescendin’ tone of Gitlin to any critique from anywhere left of Joe Lik*derman gives us a good look at the new cocktail schnitzel crowd that will take over if Mrs. Clinton wins the prize.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION AND SAVE US FROM SELF-SERVING “LIBERALS”!!
NorskeFlamethrower @ 136
NorseFlame — my hero.
“important to remember that these guys are al NEOCALVINISTS, and that philosophy says that if you’re poor it;s because you’ve sinned and are not among god’s chosen.” kittykitty @130
The equating of poverty with sin seems accurate to me and I will remember that. A heavy duty moral judgment absent any heart, which goes along with the authoritarianism and patriarchy of the Republican party.
I have greatly enjoyed reading Mr. Blumenthal’s kick ass smackdowns of the Bush crowd.
I too am sorry that he is going to work for Mrs. Clinton — but maybe there is a good explanation that I do not understand.
And maybe there isn’t.
LS @ 80
only for 96% of the people
john in sacramento @ 128
After all the nice comments, for which I’m devoutly grateful, I do think a bit more is called for in response to kittykitty.
It’s true that the pressure of this format leaves out all kinds of tonal nuance. That said, there is a genuine disagreement here, and I think I have logic and evidence on my side. The study cited in the pro-Nader film “Unreasonable Man,” arguing that Nader didn’t set out to win Democratic votes, is not convincing. So the self-righteousness of those who repeat this claim without checking it carefully is self-righteousness; it is, all too frequently, impervious to argument; it holds itself all-too-holy.
Not being saintly, I’ve made mistakes. Perhaps kittykitty has as well. I do not like the implication that I’ve made my mistakes because my conscience is deficient. Nor do I like the implication that arguments are unnecessary when the self-righteous claim they have good conscience on their side. Why do those who purport to be all right, all the time, get a pass? Is there not enough sanctimoniousness to go around?
The fact that Nader hangs out with Grover Norquist is all we need to know about him.
Todd Gitlin @ 142
Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? I apologize for putting you on the spot with that, but your answer to that question locates you, in many respects, politically. I also think your political ideas and prescriptions would be far more interesting to discuss in relation to Hillary Clinton and her voting record.
Todd Gitlin @ 142
I forgot to add in my last response that I have reservations about Hillary Clinton and her voting record. It would go a long way for me toward supporting her if her aides and supporters were willing to discuss her and her record, particularly if they supported her strongly.
I do feel we owe Gitlin’s book a read and I welcome the exchange, thanks FDL, but I’m revolted by the black and white reading of American politics that says you’re either Repugnican or Democrat and that’s it. Easy to say post 2000, but no Dem or liberal or progressive was prepared for what the Rove-Cheney-Bolton thug crew threw at the recount, except maybe a few vote traders. The Nader doc was a refreshing re-view of the 2000 debacle, Democrat refusal to allow Nader into the debates, and if anyone should have had the research together to prepare for the Florida trainwreck it shoulda been the well funded DLC and party machine. That’s the tragic error of 2000 in my book but Gitlin and the Nation want to write history to blame one man rather than an entire institution that was asleep. We are doomed by our mutually assured self-righteousnesses, Professor.
trip_wonders @ 144
Perfectly reasonable to ask if I’m supporting HC, and the answer is, I don’t yet know. On domestic and environmental policy, I don’t see huge differences among the three leading candidates, and am inclined to give her the tie-breaker on account of her very impressive experience. On foreign and military policy, her presidency would, in the eyes of much of the world, automatically signal a repudiation of the Bush catastrophe, and her standing in global feminism would be a great encouragement to women’s movements everywhere. On this score, she’s the champion. But on questions of preventive war and the surfeit of military spending, her record is mixed and I don’t yet know where her bedrock commitments are. Her rhetorical gestures go every which way. I’m concerned.
glacierman @ 146
Glacierman, Thank you suggesting the book ought to be read sooner than judging my whole political world view on the basis of a few quotes in a film made by a credulous Nader supporter! I am light-years away from blaming the Dem debacle of 2000 on a single man. Light-years. Btw no faction of the Democrats distinguished itself for acumen in 2000–not the DLC but not the liberals either, and certainly not Al Gore. Let this sound a bit self-serving, but when I helped organize a demo at the NYC Federal Building on the Monday after election day, 2000, to support the radical principle of counting every vote, a grand total of maybe 250-300 people turned out.
What galls me about Nader supporters, for their part, is that they insist that their hands are utterly, spic-&-span clean. The fact that their hero was exultant the morning after the long cont began–exultant!--is for them no sign that he was motivated primarily by a vengeful desire to punish the Democrats.
There are no clean hands in politics. None. What there is is judgment, good and bad.
Primarily the latter.
“We’ve got new generals our leaders are new
They sit and they argue and all that they do
Is sell their own colleagues and ride upon their backs
And jail them and break them and give them all the axe
Screaming in language that no one understands
Of the rights that we grabbed with our own bleeding hands “
I love the old standards, don’t you?
Todd Gitlin @ 148
I appreciate the reply. So how do we make more effective protest of election fraud next time? We (the left) blew it in 2000 and in 2004, even as it was the Democratic Party’s main error (and the roll over and play dead response of both Gore and Kerry). Who will lead the rapid response team? The idea of Unions has come up, with General Strike as a possibility, but it’s got to be well prepared as a scenario. You’ll lead the University march?