[Welcome author Paul Rogat Loeb, and Host, Jason Rosenbaum]
[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times
I’m suffering from a dashing of hope these days, and Paul Rogat Loeb’s book Soul of a Citizen just might help me recover.
President Obama and Democrats in Congress have accomplished some truly amazing things. The economic recovery package, health reform, Wall Street reform – all of these things are big f*cking deals. And yet, I and many others are still feeling betrayed – the economic recovery wasn’t big enough, health care reform by all rights should have been much more progressive, and Wall Street reform doesn’t nearly go far enough. Why the feeling of betrayal? Because we were promised so much more than just “reform.” President Obama promised this country transformational change. And we have not been given transformational change.
It’s a curious situation we currently find ourselves living in. A leader in the health reform fight that I worked with extensively over two years said – at the beginning of the process in 2008 when we were trying to figure out how to build a broad coalition for real, sweeping reform and get the necessary grassroots mobilization we needed to affect change – that people in this country suffer from “low expectations.” They are so disillusioned with their government after generations of betrayal and neglect – Watergate, Reaganomics, boom-and-bust stock markets, the war in Iraq – that they don’t want to get their hopes up that something as big as our health care system can be truly reformed. If we could only raise their expectations, she said, we could get them to take to the streets and demand the reforms we all need.
President Obama raised those expectations sky-high. He promised an end to business as usual and promised to usher in a new era of citizen engagement and control over politics. The fact that he’s failed to live up to those expectations has many causes, some under his control and some not, but the fact of the matter is he’s let us down. And our country and our grassroots is paying the price because of it.
The situation we find ourselves in today breeds cynicism and withdrawal, destructive forces exactly opposite of what is needed now to overcome our entrenched and massive problems.
Like me, author Paul Rogat Loeb, who wrote the first edition of Soul of a Citizen in 1999 and has since updated it for our vastly changed 2010 world, sees this cynicism as a great threat:
When I grew up, in the fifties and sixties, I believed in my government. Most Americans did. Gradually, as the Vietnam War ground on, many of us recognized how often our leaders were lying to us. In the wake of this massive betrayal of trust, and much work by peace and justice activists, many Americans began to question the confidence they vested in our leaders, and began to challenge official policies.
This skepticism was healthy, but it also had a downside. After Vietnam and Watergate, people began assuming that all politicians lie, an outlook reinforced by government abuses and scandals in presidential administrations from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton through George W. Bush. Indeed, we now tend to believe that deception is the defining characteristic of political life, and we take it for granted that wealthy and powerful interests will always buy and sell politicians like so many trading cards. By assuming that the public realm will inevitably be debased in this way, thus conceding defeat before engaging in the battle, we risk passing on a world that’s meaner, more polarized, more desperate, and unquestionably more corrupt. Working to change things doesn’t guarantee that our lives or our society will improve. But hopelessness and cynicism become self-fulfilling prophecies.
In the chapters to follow, I’m going to try to convince you that our most serious problems—both the public ones and those that seem most personal—are in large part common problems, which can be solved only through common efforts. The dream of private sanctuary is an illusion. It erodes our souls by undermining our sense of larger connection, whether to our fellow human beings or to that force many of us call God. The walls we’re building around ourselves, around those closest to us, and ultimately around our hearts may provide a temporary feeling of security. But they can’t prevent the world from affecting us. Quite the opposite. The more we construct such barriers, the more private life, for most of us, will grow insecure.
Using stories and anecdotes, he goes on to note what many bloggers and observers have realized – putting our faith in one man to “change” things isn’t the right approach. We are the ones that will change things:
Now that this landmark election is receding into history, it’s tempting to believe that a new and (we hope) wiser administration will take care of everything, that we can turn our attention back to our private lives, trusting that the country’s public institutions and processes of government are in good hands. Shortly after Obama assumed office, I visited a University of Alabama class where students were reading an earlier edition of this book. I asked them for their sense of the national mood. “It’s an anxious time, a vulnerable time,” said one young woman, “Everyone’s unsure of what’s going to happen in so many areas, so we’re waiting to watch and see.”
She caught the mood wonderfully, but her conclusion, however accurate, left me troubled. It’s understandable to want to watch and wait, but it’s also a trap. Relying too much on any political leader, no matter how noble their aims or exalted their rhetoric, is a form of passivity. And to revert to passivity is to squander our chance to shape history. In particular, it surrenders our chance to counterbalance the entrenched and powerful interests that have helped create many of our most critical problems to begin with, interests that don’t magically disappear when a new president takes control of the White House. Watching from the sidelines eliminates our chance to find out what we truly believe and value, which happens only by working for it through actions large and small. More importantly, it ignores a historical moment when the potential for much-needed change is greater than it’s been in a long time. Precisely because so many old approaches seem not to work any longer, and so many American citizens are hungry for new ways of doing things, we have a chance to begin solving some long-festering problems. It won’t happen overnight, to be sure, but maybe we’ll finally wean ourselves off fossil fuels, rebuild a sustainable economy and decent social safety net, and begin to address the roots of global war and terrorism. The crises we face are accompanied by huge risks, certainly, but they also represent opportunities for progress—as long as enough ordinary citizens get involved. You might therefore view this book as an invitation to act on these opportunities—and to do so even if you have hesitations and doubts.
What follows in this remarkable book is a blueprint of sorts. It’s a snapshot of regular people who have, with the help of their communities, become inspiring organizers and powerful agents of change. It’s a collection of quotes, wisdom, and scientific facts that should give anyone who cares about the world around them insight into how to turn their vision for the future into action. It’s a set of self-help prescriptions to combat common organizing obstacles such as burnout, poisonous “allies,” seemingly-insurmountable opposition, personal risk, and more. In short, it’s a book engaged citizens should read because it will nurture you as you fight, together with your communities, for real change.
Most importantly, the book reminded me that we can’t trust Obama, that we must, even though it’s cliche, “make him do it” if we want to see real change in this country. We must be relentless, because our opposition will most certainly be. To take a personal example, during the health care fight we faced major setbacks at multiple points, none so large as the narrow loss of the public option, killed by Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson with the tacit approval of the Obama administration. I was personally devastated. I know others I worked with were too, and even Members of Congress who had fought hard for the provision didn’t feel like coming to work the next day. And yet, the very next week, the insurance industry was at it again. Having killed the public option but not content with only that victory, they started launching broadsides against other good parts of the health care bill. It felt hopeless, but I was also taught a lesson.
The opposition, especially if it’s corporate opposition, will never give up and never give in. They’re well paid to fight on every front and when faced with a loss, immediately retrench and pick up the battle again. It might seem overwhelming to conceive of taking on a power like that, but we must realize that if we take the fight one step at a time, like they do, we can make progress. But most of all, we need to keep taking those steps forward and not succumb to cynicism and disengagement, for if we do, we will most certainly lose.
Loeb concurs in this stirring passage about our current situation from the middle of the book:
In part because of pent-up hopes for change, the 2008 election inspired a massive wave of citizen participation. And Obama has continued to stress the importance of citizen involvement ever since. But as I write, six months after his inauguration, most of those who participated seem to have drawn back. They may still respond to email appeals and maybe even call their Senators. But by and large, they aren’t engaging their neighbors, rallying in the streets, or showing up at community meetings. They’re mostly watching and waiting, hoping that Obama and Congress will do what’s necessary for the country. By contrast, corporate interests, from Exxon and the coal industry to health insurance conglomerates and pharmaceutical giants, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent significant change. Maybe those who’d formed their political identity around opposing Bush are still refocusing their vision for a new political time. But their initial responses have all too many echoes of the passivity of the Clinton era.
When I put out a query on my email listerv asking for stories of people who’d been involved politically but then burned out, a discomforting number who’d once supported Obama voiced anger at him. He’d let them down, they said, by continuing Republican policies on bank bailouts and government transparency, by moving too slowly in getting out of Iraq and too quickly in escalating in Afghanistan, by not holding full-scale investigations on Bush/Cheney abuses, and by not going to the mat to fight for key programs.
However legitimate some of these critiques may be, it seems too easy to cast differences in approach as flat-out betrayal, and to put sole responsibility on Obama, the Congress, or even the powerful vested interests who’ve blocked progress on so many issues (since they were simply doing what powerful interests usually do in promoting their narrow advantage at the expense of a larger common good). It seems particularly troubling for once-active citizens to bail out with bitter resignation amid critical fights about health care, energy, and the direction of our economy—battles so close that the right public pressure really could make all the difference.
I’m not suggesting we let Obama or any other political leader off the hook on issues where we disagree. Quite the contrary. Whatever we believe, we should organize, tell the stories that convey our perspective, and join together to apply common pressure, ideally in ways that continue to open up dialogue, as opposed to shutting it off. But the path of purist condemnation breeds only cynical retreat.
Some of us cling to purism in part because it’s easier to be in perpetual opposition than to engage a messy political reality of new possibilities and perils. “Bush was awful,” said a Pennsylvania woman, “but at least we were united against him. The focused anger always brought me back. Now we’re not even all on the same side.” Given the depth of the problems we face, we need to ask hard questions, challenge our leaders to genuinely lead, and not settle for purely cosmetic reforms. But in the name of standing firm for radical change, we can too easily set ourselves so far above the fray that we end up changing nothing at all.
No matter how much political leaders disappoint us, we should not conclude that the whole process of engaging in democracy is futile. Advances for justice develop step by step. Even modest progress can be valuable if it lets us build further change. As an activist from the Northwest Energy Coalition put it, “Those who burn out more easily tend to be folks who don’t understand the system and its problems very well. Therefore they get their hopes up too high for short-term changes and victories, and don’t see the need for long-term work.”
I’ll repeat that last point, because it deserves repetition: “No matter how much political leaders disappoint us, we should not conclude that the whole process of engaging in democracy is futile.”
Today, we face an uncertain world, full of immense challenges and entrenched interests. In the face of that challenge, we must tell our stories, get and stay involved, grow our communities, and fight our battles step-by-step. The only way change has ever come has been slowly, in ways that are never predictable. Loeb’s Soul of a Citizen is written to help people like you and me engage in those fraught and uncertain fights, helping us develop “radical” and active patience as we come upon the day that our step-by-step fights turn into a “tidal wave of justice,” meanwhile content in the notion we are working to make the world a better place.
And with that, it’s with great pleasure I welcome Paul Rogat Loeb to Firedoglake to help us take stock of where we are now, get us ready for the fight ahead, and help us make that basic choice between cynicism and hope.



114 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Paul, Welcome to the Lake.
Jason, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hello everyone and thanks for being here Paul!
There’s a lot to be cynical about in the Obama era, but there are also some real signs that Obama is learning and progressives are acting independently, especially when it comes to Wall Street reform and energy in the wake of the BP disaster. What do you see out there lately as real forces for change?
I’m glad to be here–still reading Jason’s excellent intro.
Good afternoon Paul and welcome to FDL. Hello Jason!
Paul, I have not had an opportunity to read your book but from the intro, it looks like I’m gonna have to track it down.
I’m of a similar background to you and have to ask this and forgive me if you answer it in the book but what is the single item that allows you to feel optimistic about things going forward?
Definitely pick it up, it’s a great read. Broken down into nice and easy chunks, and definitely inspirational.
Welcome to Firedoglake – glad you could join us today!
The section you highlighted probably took more rewrites than any other in the book, especially as the political mood of progressives was going up and down like a roller coaster. It’s important in these confusing times to keep our eye on the long haul.
We’ll be talking about these issues all afternoon, but briefly, I think what didn’t happen the first year was any progressive mobilization remotely comparable to what people did in 2008. We were clicking and signing petitions and emailing to our representatives, but most of us we weren’t knocking on doors, making phone calls, rallying publicly, going to town meetings, visibly changing the culture. Or for that matter putting enough significant pressure on Obama and the Democrats. We left that to the political right and they gladly filled the void.
Hi Jason, Hi Paul
What are some of the things ordinary citizens, such as myself, can do in our own sphere to make a political difference? Particularly those of us who ARE disillusioned by the current administration. At least during the Bush years, there was always the hope of the next administration. How can we fend of the jade now?
Thanks to you both, what a wonderful combination of author and host.
My own political engagement, begun in the winter of 1968 for Eugene McCarthy, has suffered from boom and bust cycles of cynicism and hope for change. But I have never seen arrayed against the people such immensely powerful forces that favor war, planetary degradation, and further income disparity as now.
In America, we’ve just this week learned, both parties represent Capital and disrespect working people. Now that neither party’s Establishment has room for the opinions and needs of Labor, do you think the People can find a political home? Or must we create something new, outside the currect dichotomy or maybe outside the current structure?
Thanks.
I’d certainly agree on a lot of issues. I see progressives as still having a hard time figuring out how we relate to Obama. A lot of us, myself included, grew into political consciousness during the Bush administration and grew up with the netroots as an oppositional force inside a minority party. Now that we’re a much more mainstream force more or less inside the party in power, we don’t know how to relate.
All too often it seems like you can either be with Obama or against him 100%, but that’s not how politics works.
Hi Paul and Jason. Thanks so much for making time to share this terrific book with us.
Paul, I was intrigued that at one point you describe the futility many experience with regard to their prospects for participating in the political process as “learned helplessness”. That phrase has particular importance here at the Lake from our coverage of torture. Our Jeffrey Kaye has written quite a bit on the efforts by our government to induce learned helplessness on the part of detainees in order to get them to share information.
It occurred to me to wonder, then, how much effort might be put forth by the “powers that be” to reinforce the factors that lead to learned helplessness by the public, keeping the power exactly where it is. Have you seen actions on the part of politicians in charge or large corporations that fit into that framing?
Of course, your book seems to be a prescription for fighting back against those efforts by politicians and corporations, and for that I thank you.
Seems the Republicans can be 100% against Obama and he bends to their needs constantly.
Thanks for coming here. I was at one time on your email list but like so many have felt betrayal and eventually dropped out of the usual activities. I tried to inspire my local Democratic Party to seek out progressive speakers and local candidates. and they stopped having meetings.
I do love your writing because of your optimism and I guess still believe in the power of the demos but despair of work within the party structure. What do you think of focusing on specific issues and aiming to form pressure voting blocs?
Continuing my earlier thread (and still getting the hang of this technically) I think we’re beginning to do more of this, and that’s important. I actually posted two days ago on the Arkansas primary effort
seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/54176
Even though we lost, I still think it was one of the many kinds of things we need to do.
In response to that question about what gives me hope, it’s a good one. I’d actually borrow a page from my friend Bill McKibben who says there’s not a single silver bullet that will solve climate change. Instead there’s silver buckshot.
I’d say the same is true with what gives me hope. It’s not a single action or a single approach. But it’s a combination of actions. Since the present is always a bit murky and hard to read, and the most hopeful efforts aren’t always visible, I tend to draw hope from movements of the past, because I can look back and see how hard things were for their participants, how long the odds were, and yet how they persisted to prevail.
I actually talk about that a lot in Soul of a Citizen, because I think we need a sense of those previous movements to connect ourselves to them and to ultimately anchor us in what we’re doing today, in a different time.
Kind of. Just today Boehner announced his support for full liability for BP, something he was against just days ago. Nothing’s 100%, which leads me to believe we can support the President where he’s right and not support him or oppose him where he’s wrong and still be powerful, but getting that right is very hard.
One example: I use the example of Rosa Parks and how far too many people think she stepped onto a bus in Montgomery one day and took her first action ever for change. In fact, she’d been part of the NAACP for 12 years, was the secretary and youth section advisor, and had taken training sessions the summer before at the labor and civil rights school, the Highlander Center. She had a whole community of other people she worked with. So it wasn’t a lone action, it was a very conscious effort at change, and for Parks to get to that point required persevering over 12 years of actions that didn’t always seem to bear immediate fruits. We need to take the lessons of common action, intentional action and perseverance to heart in our own efforts. Of course if we don’t know the stories of people who’ve made chance in the past, and most citizens don’t it’s far harder.
Along these lines, I was particularly struck by your passages on collective memory. So many fights we’ve won are forgotten or compressed into easily digestible but false soundbites. We lose so much experience by forgetting how we won our past battles.
I like the image of fending off the jade. It’s hard for all of us because I think many of us had unrealistic expectations of Obama when we were dancing in the streets (at least we were in Seattle) after electing him. Under Bush we knew what our response was going to be to practically anything he proposed–oppose it, because we knew it was going to be awful for ordinary people, for the planet, for anyone but his wealthy backers.
With Obama it’s much harder because he’s done some genuinely valuable things (student financial aid, a great Labor Secretary, having EPA head Lisa Jackson end Mountaintop removal),I’d put Sotomayor in that category too. Then some things that many of us would consider problematic, like the Afghan escalation, or not done things we think he should like rolling back the Bush incursions on the constitution far more sharply. And then there are the mixed picture items like health care.
Without getting into each of them because it’s not a book about Obama, I’d say our challenge is to recognize that on any issue we care about, there’s a potential to push Obama in the right direction, but we have to take the lead and we have to organize.
Think of the relationship of Johnson and Kennedy to the civil rights movement. It was deeply ambivalent because they felt it could destroy the Democratic coalition, which it ultimately did. So they spent lots of their energy trying to damp it, as in the Atlantic City Convention when Johnson twisted the arms of Martin Luther King and United Auto Workers head Walter Reuther to not seat the integrated Mississippi Freedom Party delegation. But people persisted anyway, and Johnson ended up putting all his political skill and capital on the line to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills, which was critical advance for democracy.
We have to take a similar role.
Thanks for coming. I hadn’t heard of your book, but now it’s on my loooong list of books to read :)
Do you think, like Howard Zinn often said, that elections can often do more to drain the energy of a movement in an ineffective direction than to actually accomplish something? In other words, is direct or social action more effective than the electoral action much-preferred by much of the netroots?
Ooh, nice question
Thanks for coming Paul.
If it is too easy to assign responsibility to Pres. Obama, to whom, if anyone, should responsibility be assigned for the failure to nominate anyone for about 59 out of 103 open federal judicial positions at the district court and circuit court level (a number of which were open when Pres. Obama took office) when the power to make the nominations has been assigned exclusively since about 1789 to the President?
I can see I’m getting a bit behind on the questions so if I skip someone’s (and they’re all really great) it’s not intentional.
Jonathan mentioned Learned Helplessness. It’s a psychological term describing the process through which people become taught to feel they’re incapable of responding to key challenges in their lives. I extend it politically, to talk about how most Americans are taught not to be involved in larger issues. We’re taught this by not knowing the stories that could most inspire us, like the real Rosa Parks story. And by a culture of distraction where the lives of Brad and J Lo seem more important (or more accessible) than how to solve the situation in Afghanistan. And by the condescending tone of the media toward social change in general especially progressive social change–where most of the time, except for the most innocuous examples, we’re really told that our efforts won’t matter, and lots of people internalize it.
I don’t think Obama is trying to promote that–much of his background really was about trying to get people to find their own voice. But I also think he’s been far too hesitant in really encouraging people to speak out, particularly on areas where they might be pushing him and his administration farther than he deems politically comfortable. I’d actually say that Rahm Emmenuel generally does voice that attitude of contempt and condescenion toward citizen movements, and that’s a major problem for Obama in energizing the base.
I think our cultural values have changed greatly since the time of Johnson and the civil rights. There is not a lot of moral conscience around now, particularly in the political class.
I also think there is more fear of the people which surely must explain the dismantling of many of our civil rights, habeas corpus, privacy, or even life simply on suspicion of the intelligence community. There has really been a weakening of our traditional interest groups, labor, environment, women and children’s services etc. as a result.
This to me is key. Obama does seem torn between staying “on message” and “winning” and actually organizing to win meaningful things, which often involves a lot more messy politics than the White House seems to want. It’s a big tension and a big problem.
I really liked your description of what Allen Luks describes as the “helper’s high”, where he found that “people who volunteer in their communities experience greater physical pleasure and well-being in the process of their work”. Especially when we consider the converse, where people who continue their everyday existence of work in a system they find socially injust because they fear losing their jobs if they speak out, wind up suffering physically.
I feel that is an incredibly important point, because it can affect both what gets done to improve society and the well-being of those who get involved. How do we deliver that message to those who most need it?
Yeah, I agree, and the science behind in, things like those African-Americans involved in civil rights organizing had lower blood pressure, are fascinating and deserve to be known widely.
Re the question about elections draining people’s energy and the need for more non-electoral mobilization. Coming out of the 60s and the sense of betrayal by Johnson over Vietnam, the assassinations or King and Kennedy, much of the progressive energy turned non-electoral, and often fiercely local. A lot of people really abandoned trying to make change on a larger scale. I saw much of the same demobilization in 1994, when long-time labor and environmental activists stayed home infuriated by NAFTA, and by staying home and not getting out the vote in close election after close election, helped even more regressive Gingrich Republicans take power. So we withdraw from the electoral sphere at our peril.
At the same time, we do need activism beyond it, particularly in terms of putting pressure on Democrats. Sometimes we’ll find electoral campaigns through which we can really move our agenda forward, but sometimes we’re participating more defensively, and that’s ok too. I think Harry Reid’s been a really poor majority leader, but the difference between reelecting him and the Republican Tea Party candidate is huge. So we have to find other spheres where we really can exercise power.
Actually most of Soul of a Citizen is about non-electoral efforts where people are organizing locally, but often on issues with national repercussions. The more we can build an independent base and get people’s voices to bear, the power we’ll have.
There’s definitely more of a culture of fear around. That’s part of what we have to challenge, or rather reframe to say, there are real and serious concerns, but they’re primarily not the terrorist next door (thoughAl Qaida is a real threat), but climate change, the hollowing out of our economy, and all real challenges we face.
In some ways I think the moral culture (and I don’t mean the political right’s version) has declined, particularly in areas like economic greed. I remember a piece, I think by Krugman, years ago, where he talked about how corporate execs in the 50s and 60s thought it unseemly to make more than 50 times the average worker. That’s long gone. The question is whether we can reach out with a vision of a new culture that includes a concept of “enough.” That’s a major part of our challenge, but I think a lot of people even many who’d call themselves conservatives would respond to that.
President Obama and Democrats in Congress have accomplished some truly amazing things.
Jason, sorry but that made me smirk. Obummer doesn’t care about us. He could care less about the struggling middle class. And the poor? Not a blip on the screen. He is a worse corporate whore than Slick Willie, and that’s saying a lot. If there’s any hope it’s certainly not in the corrupt 2 party system.
Another piece of your book I felt struck by was your piece on envisioning the future. I’ve heard critiques – Wes Boyd, for one – that progressives lack a comprehensive view of the future they are working towards, that we’re stuck in a hodgepodge of fighting 60s-era battles for 60s-era values and protecting what we’ve accomplished.
What are your thoughts on a new progressive articulation of the future? Anyone you’re reading who you want to point us to doing good work like this?
Re full liability for BP, part of our challenge is to tell the story so clearly that those listening understand our core message and who oppose us feel boxed in as to how they can respond.
On BP, for instance, I think there’s a very clear message that can be put out. Who pays the costs? It’s either the taxpayers. Or all the people affected by the spill, from the shrimpers and people who work in the hotels to the people who sold tattoos and ice cream to the people who worked in those communities. Or it’s BP, Haliburton and TransOcean. I think when we can frame things as clearly as possible (and this one is pretty stark) and keep repeating our message, we have the best chance of winning.
I guess I’m of the view it’s not either/or. Obama can accomplish good things and still fall far short of expectations and the magnitude of the problems we face.
Welcome Paul, and thanks Jason.
RE: BP, I’ve found that while there are quite a few on the right who give the knee-jerk pro-corporate response, many are taking the position that in a free market, companies must bear the full responsibility for their mistakes or it creates an incentive for excessive risk taking.
I’ve been trying to find a way to get a regular accounting of how much the spill is costing the government. It’s the perfect time to start talking about the cost of negative externalities of energy sources, which — in terms of cost effectiveness — less toxic sources always win. But, easier said than done.
Re “the helpers high” there is a critical component to social change work in that it has to feel worthwhile in and of itself. That doesn’t mean that it’s irrelevant whether we succeed or fail. It’s often critical and reasonably enough our successes or failures affect our perception of whether our efforts are worthwhile.
But we also have to as much as possible engage the process itself with joy. Too often we like to wallow in the horrors of our time like dogs wallowing in rancid fish (maybe an imperfect metaphor, since the dogs I’ve had definitely enjoy it). I talk, for instance about Desmond Tutu, and all the things he’s been up against: He spoke out courageously for South African freedom, saw friends imprisoned, tortured, and murdered, and then chaired the Truth and Reconciliation commission—where people told the stories of abuses they’d committed to help maintain apartheid. Later Tutu worked in Rwanda to bring healing to that scarred land after over a half million people were massacred. And he refused to be airlifted out when riots followed a stolen Haitian election—instead he helped encourage more peaceful protests, which ultimately succeeded. He challenged the Iraq war, both before it started and afterward. Recently he said the three billion poorest people in the world (those who would be the most vulnerable and had the fewest resources to adapt) give us three billion reasons to act on global climate change.
From all this, you might think he’d be exhausted or despairing from engaging with so much human blindness and callousness. But when he speaks, he dances, talks, and teases, clearly having a good time. I’ve seen him three times and each time he repeated the phrase, “God has a sense of humor,” and then told a joke. “Who would think the world would learn anything from South Africa?” he asked, in the one I remember. “We’re not the brightest country. Our scientists said they’d built a rocket to the sun, and when people pointed out that it would burn up, they said it would be fine. They’d launch it at night.” Then he continued to talk about the Truth and Reconciliation commission.
Another time, the first I saw him, he was exhausted and drained from fighting prostate cancer. He gave his talk and others talked as well. Then a band from East LA started playing and there is Desmond Tutu, just dancing away. I realized that I’d never seen a Nobel Peace Prize winner dance before…and that his passion for engaging life fueled his radical prophetic voice for justice. A model for us all.
Yeah, but objectively the guy has done nothing for the unemployed. The health care reform bill was a gift to the cretinous corporatists. It’s as clear as daylight who this dude is working for. Certainly not me or any regular people. I look at policy, not the personality, and Obummer is a rank neoliberal, ready to cut Soc and Sec and Medicare so everyone will be eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. His austerity measures and “entitlement” reforms are just warmed over fascism. Kick the poor in the teeth kind of deal. Sorry for the rant, but people need to hear the truth about our corrupt right wing gov’t.
Who is this “We” of whom you speak when you speak of ‘we can frame things’? I think we lefties have been quite clear, but I don’t notice Obama listening…….except to get faux ‘angry’ and threaten to kick ass. Such nonsense on his part. But if he is just an empty suit, then who do you think is going to listen as ‘we’ frame things?
I think the Gulf Spill is indeed a prime example of “negative externalities” and that this goes to the core question of vision. We’ve designed our society so that the costs of so many actions are always invisible or deferred. Part of what I think we can advocate for, which is actually a deeply conservative notion, is a politics of responsibility, where institutions that destroy people’s lives or the economy or the planet, think BP or Goldman Sachs, really are held accountable for what they do. I think doing so resonates across political lines, which is why the Republicans have gotten so much mileage attacking the TARP bailout.
I guess I just don’t see this as true. Unemployment has been helped by Obama’s policies, just not nearly enough. Same goes with health care. Not all policies are like this, of course, but a lot of the Obama era to me seems to be about “good thought, just not enough.”
Writing letters to the editor, or unresponsive and clueless Congress members, signing petitions, donating money to self-serving politicians that are for the most part nothing but posers, has it’s place but what’s needed is a broad coalition of progressive groups willing to put boots on the ground. Coinciding with “boots on the ground” is a grass roots organizing and educational work to counter 40 years of right wing propaganda and indoctrination. Without direct and aggressive political action progressives will continue to be marginalized and portrayed as irrelevant. That may mean putting one’s self in harms way because power never relinquishes it’s power willingly.
I think the comment about how the paid professionals just keep coming is what grinds me down and frustrates me. The other thing is what Jane calls “the veal pen” situation. Groups that should be pushing for things we believe in are hesitating because of fear of lose donor money.
One thing that Teddy and I were discussing the other day was the whole issue of how to fund the people who are successful and effective.
I have real credentials in my “real life” as well as Spocko. I know how to create narratives, send message, get stories, organize bloggers, train people to talk to the media yet when I’ve gone to the few groups that might hire me for any of that they say, I’ve media trained some of the biggest players in the tech biz, created nationwide stories and international stories but when I got to the group it’s, “Great, now please donate your services.”
Right now I’m looking for corporate work because they are the only ones who will pay for these skills. You know those people doing PR for BP? Those are people I know. I don’t really want to be one, but I haven’t figured out how to monetize my very effective work for progressive causes and issues.
A huge problem. I’ve been lucky enough to make a living at it for a few years now, but it’s hard to say how long it will last.
I agree with you, the time for niceties is over. They aren’t listening and they don’t respect us (us meaning not just the left, but all Americans). They have contempt for us, that’s what I sense from Obummer. He doesn’t care.
“We” in this case would be the Left, the progressive blogosphere, the first circle of people we regularly reach. The challenge is to get our vision taken up by people and institutions with a progressively bigger megaphone.
I’m not sure we’re always clear. I was on a radio show when someone called in from a “rally against 1070,” the awful Arizona immigration bill. I said we can’t call “rally against 1070,” we have to call it the rally against “the show us your papers law” or something like that that actually gives people a sense of our core message. I’d argue that the left’s track record at actually putting forth a comprehensible vision is mixed at best–we often prefer to rely on insider jargon that makes most Americans feel like they’re part of a different tribe.
But in terms of broadening our message, that requires sustained dialogue and reaching out to groups that don’t always share our perspectives, not easy for anyone to do (more on that in a minute). I’d argue that Obama at his best has in fact voiced some of the perspectives that can make key issue real but the problem is that too often he backs off from these positions the next week–he doesn’t sustain his critique or his vision. Again, like the situation with the civil rights movement earlier, we have to be the ones to push him to do so.
Yes I think a lot of people are tired of greed for greed’s sake but wealth is how conservatives judge their value.
I wonder if the loss of the middle class also hasn’t created some of this climate. There is so much distance now between how rich people and politicians live and how we in Wal Mart land must get by. The rich and the politicians know each other as friends and assume they are all good people. eg I think Obama actually believes(ed) the people at BP want to do the right thing. They are of his class.
And of course that doesn’t make for us in Wal Mart land to trust them because they are so remots.
The only way a corrupt and ossified system changes is if they are forced to with direct political action. Elections are not direct action. As Emma Goldman said if elections changed anything they would be outlawed.
Greed permeates the culture and has been made acceptable because the myth has been perpetuated by the plutocracy that anyone through “hard work” and “perseverance” can become obscenely wealthy. Large swaths of the U.S. public accept this as the truth.
Nice thoughts. However, Obama appears to be bought and paid for. He ain’t listening! I love your optimism, but I just don’t see real leaders arising. Those that try get kicked in the butt……i.e., how dare Obama kick Labor for trying to get rid of Blanche? Shame on him. Now who is outside the inner circle that we can be building up for 2012?
I like the notion of Boots on the Ground. I’m not sure we have to go in harms way, but we do have to be willing to make ourselves uncomfortable. Think of 2008 and how many people were willing to knock on doors and make phone calls and engage in conversations, often difficult ones, with people who might will vehemently disagree with them. It definitely was a psychological risk, but it mattered and arguable turned the election in district after district and state after state, not just for Obama, but for Democratic candidates up and down the ticket (and it’s an aside, but I’d argue that at least in the Senate, the prime obstructionist site, the people we elected in 2006 and 2008 have actually turned pretty decent–it’s the longer running ones like Conrad, Nelson, Lincoln, Bayh, Baucus etc who were the prime problem).
Fast forward to November, with even more sleazy anonymous hit ads running because of Citizen’s United. With enough people reaching out, the right wing attacks can backfire, because volunteers can explain who is paying for the ad saying that a given Democratic Senatorial candidate likes to suck the bone marrow out of small children. But without this outreach, it’s far more difficult, because people are far more susceptible to being manipulated, particularly those who because of overloaded lives or being detached from engaged traditions are simply more distant from politics to begin with–which includes many of those who carried Obama over the top in 2008.
We also need “boots on the grounds” to move politics forward. I write a lot about the San Antonio community group COPS (part of the network founded by Saul Alinsky) and how their classic community organizing brought enough previously disengaged people out of the shadows (primarily low-income Latinos) to significantly change the political culture of San Antonio.
Right, we need “boots on the ground” in a sustained, long-term way. I had high hopes OFA was going to be this. It may still be too early to tell, but I personally doubt it.
Re Obama kicking Labor out, it’s a divided administration. Just read an interesting piece on the long-running battle on climate change between people like Stephen Chu and Lisa Jackson who want to do more and people like Emmanuel who want to put it on the political backburner.
I write in my Arkansas piece about that contemptuous anonymous comment about labor wasting its money, and to me we need to push back seriously against this, and maybe demand that the administration explicitly disavow it. Gibbs actually retreated from it in a subsequent press conference, and key Obama officials met with key labor leaders who rightly made clear that they were seriously pissed. I think it’s not only acceptable but also necessary to make clear, through organizations we’re part of, that we are pissed about elements of the administration’s actions. Even if we support them on other issues. We don’t have to demonize, because I think that just feeds the right, but speaking up when we’re angry is part of what’s necessary.
Yes. This is the most pernicious belief permeating our culture.It is how most now judge value as a person. If one is poor it is a result of his/her failures indicative to no value as a human being. On the other hand, no matter how acquired wealth or fame indicates a demi-god at worst/
Thanks to all for this good conversation. I am off to dinner now and look forward to more good reading on return.
I had high hopes of OFA as well. I think part of the problem is that during the campaign, especially the early part, they really encouraged people to take the initiative and self-organize. They’ve done far less of that since. It’s been pretty much all one-way traffic that’s just far less energizing. I still think there’s potential just because of the size of the OFA list for the organization to play a major role in getting people involved, but they have to take the risk (something Howard Dean really promoted at the DNC) of allowing enough self-organization to potentially challenge administration actions, or at least push them forward. Because that’s what also can energize people.
Recently several gay activists chained themselves to the WH fence. What would be the impact if a thousand activists did the same? This would be a powerful visual message that would reinforce the general public’s, perhaps unconscious, perception that “something is wrong.”
As far as I’m concerned, damage was done. If Obama didn’t agree with his underling who made the ‘toilet’ comment, that underling should have been expunged. However, we all believe that Obama wanted that comment out there. If you have any information to the contrary, I’d love to hear it. Gibbs shuffled it back insufficiently, in my opinion. As in, really not at all.
Yes, absolutely, but there’s also huge value in building a community. As an example, yesterday I headed out to watch the DC Pride parade and I was struck by how many mainstream corporations and churches participated. It was a real showing of strength by the community.
Of course, direct action and community are not either/or, but you need both in my opinion.
Seeing as we have all these jaded and not -so jaded folks here I’ll just make a pitch for my current unpaided activity. I’m working with our own Michael Whitney, Dr. Kirk and now I’ve reached out to the former Bassist for the Black Crows, Johnny Colt. the goal is to get Respirators for ALL the Oil Clean up workers.
Jane mentioned this on MSNBC With a great sound bite. “this spill crisis is becoming a health crisis”
Here is the face book group.
BP, We Demand Respirators for ALL Clean Up Workers
Friday I talked to the VP of the largest Oil clean up company on the west coast for advice.
Monday Johnny is going to try and get to an EPA monitoring station and then we are going to try and get to an EPA official and ask him some questions. Johnny’s iReports have been on CNN and I’m going to try and push them on the blogs.
It is an action that makes sense. Protect workers health. It’s a Narrow, physical action but has lots of political and technical moving parts.
If you want to help join the group.
I’m in…….give me a date and time!
It’s all about organizing the “community.”
Because of the economic crisis, I actually think this is one of those moments when we can really challenge that deep running myth of “you make your own chances.” It’s woven deep, so it’s not going to be easy to uproot, but when practically everyone except the very wealthiest knows people who’ve lost jobs and houses and health care while totally playing by the rules, there’s a major opening to talk about who wins and who loses, and what kinds of new rules would in fact make this a society fairer for us all.
No guarantees of course, but if the economic crisis makes our efforts harder because people are running scared, it also opens up the possibility that people who wouldn’t be open to dialogue before are now.
Joined already, but great work! Keep it up!
It’s past time for doing something about global warming! These pols know we are in major trouble and yet they do the exact opposite of what needs to be done. It’s suicidal. We have basically 20 yrs and game is up (according to most climate scientists). I have zero confidence that any of our “leaders” is up to the task, despite their negligible policy differences. Basically, they are not doing enough!!!!
Excellent project and demand, in part because it puts us on the same side as the BP workers, who we can’t dismiss as opponents… Whenever we can reach out like this, we should.
and that starts by debunking the myth that capitalism and democracy are synonymous. Predatory capitalism is what has brought us to where we’re at as a nation. This has to be exposed for the lie that it is.
bluetoe2
Yes. Yes. Yes.
My mother would be happier if I was working for tobacco companies or death goo makers, they pay well.
Wish there was a “clearing house” that was a “go to source” providing readily available information and data that could easily debunk all the lies, myths and obfuscation of the right wing and the plutocracy. If anyone knows of a single source pass it along.
I realize that I haven’t been telling that many stories in this discussion, even though they’re at the core of Soul of a Citizen. One that really resonates with me and that I tell in the book is how the Christian Coalition and MoveOn ended up joining together to help save Net Neutrality.
It was before the Senate and Congress changed in 2006, and Bush’s FCC had just issued their toxic ruling abolishing Net Neutrality and giving Verizon the right, for instance, to not send text messages from NARAL ProChoice America to NARAL members who were Verizon subscribers. An awful House bill had passed, written by the Telecom Companies. It looked like it would pass in the Senate. A coalition started scrambling in opposition lead by the great group Freepress.net. But it was probably too late until the cofounder of MoveOn, Joan Blades, met the communications director of Christian Coalition, Michelle Combs, at a retreat aimed at bringing people together across political lines (I went to one which was pretty amazing). They became friends over their both being moms, and stayed in touch afterwards. When the Net Neutrality fight emerged, Joan called Michelle and suggested maybe both groups could work on it together. “Great idea” said Michelle,” and they ended up doing a joint press conference heralding collecting a million names on petitions, did a joint New York Times ad which began “The Christian Coalition and MoveOn respectfully agree,” and wrote some joint oped pieces in key papers (Christian Coalition’s president also wrote one in the Washington Post with the head of NARAL). It turned the tide and Obama has actually appointed good FCC commissioners who have moved toward making Net Neutrality permanent policy. A major victory for all of us.
In the process of the retreats, the Christian Coalition woman also met Al Gore, was really impressed with him, though she’d been a Bush supporter, and ended up taking his climate change training. As a result the Christian Coalition has started lobbying on climate change together with the National Wildlife Federation. I’d say those are both major victories based on reaching out beyond our normal tribe. We can’t do that in all situations, but wherever we can, it’s powerful
This book sounds like a must read for people like me who have been doing this work for decades. It is only recently that I have seen documentaries on the first Earth Day (for example, something I lived) that showed Nixon meeting with the organizers and then proposing legislation “Clean Skies” “Clean Water” and others that actually were about clean water, skies, etc. I hated Nixon, but what I learned was that in that time, it was still possible to have that dialog across the divide. Not now.
Further, I have finally become uber discouraged by the reality of the political climate, in terms of expecting change in DC.
I think it is important to keep fighting. We do have a potent civil rights issue that does speak to the younger generation more than the older, and that is one issue that we can work together to bring needed change. The Prop 8 trial should tie this all together for us this week.
I did knock on doors last weekend for OFA. I am not hopeful, but the effort is to reach first-time voters. I understand from the Kennedy school at Harvard that it takes 3 times voting to make a regular voter. So getting these first time voters to come to the polls again is key. But why will they come?
We need to have reasons, and the candidates are not really giving us that, if they have been in DC. I sure want to keep my newly elected congressperson there though.
To some extent Media Matters and Fair try to debunk specific right wing myths, and the blogosphere in general has I think been a corrective.
But we also have to counter the deep running myths, like the notion of people ending up with what they deserve.
Yes, Bluetoe is correct–capitalism itself is the problem. Once we agree on that I think we can begin to clean the mess up. Capitalism=unsustainable. It’s not compatible with nature, bottom line.
I really liked that story, and we need a repeat now that net neutrality is in trouble again! Time to do some coalition building…
Yes, that is a good story. Two young women, different views, but have things in common, make change. Great!
I hope we see more of this.
FiredogLake?
I’ve found Media Matters to be helpful, especially because they cover the biggest spreaders of myths and lies. One problem is that you can show that they are wrong and lying and they have no obligation to run a correction. They can say the same lie the next day. There are no consequences for lying, in fact they are rewarded.
Here is a game I play sometimes in my head, “How would you force liars to pay a consequence for their lie? What is a consequence that is big enough for them to change their behavior or words?” That is why I decided on my action to defund right wing radio in SF. When they lost advertisers they got pissed because losing money was the one consequence that the corporation cared about. That lead to two hosts getting fired as well as them pulling back on some of their most inflammatory language.
Here’s something I’d love to see a pundit on TV say to someone like, Liz Cheney after a lie. “Would you say the same thing under oath? Under penality of purjury? How about if I bet you 3 months of appearances on this show if you are proven wrong?”
That’s encouraging that OFA has started doing some serious grassroots canvassing efforts. With the size of their list (I heard somewhere that it dropped to 9 million from 13 million, but that’s still massive)it’s still a huge potential force. The challenge is to get people out there where they can have real conversations.
I actually tell a few stories about some of my own political canvassing in Soul of a Citizen, including my own state of Washington in 2004 where I got three voters to turn out for my gubernatorial candidate on election day (one forgot the election was happening, a second didn’t know how to turn in an absentee ballot and the third needed a ride to the polls–just standard stuff). And then I discovered that my candidate ended up winning and beating the right wing Republican by 133 votes after three recounts. If 50 fewer of us had shown up to volunteer, she would have lost.
At the same time, when I’m calling for candidates or knocking on doors, or just generally canvassing I actually bend the instructions a bit, which tell you, accurately enough, to not spend too much time in actual conversations because you’ll reach lots more people if you keep the conversations short and two the point. But I figure that if I’m going the extra mile by spending hours and hours on the phone or knocking on doors, which I always do in the weeks before key elections, then I’m going to get something back for myself beyond the direct impact, and I do that through the enjoyable conversations. So if I’m really liking talking with someone (even someone who disagrees), I’ll stay a bit longer, just because it recharges me, and then I can keep going for a few hours more than I would have otherwise. Part of enjoying the journey rather than turning ourselves into political robots.
I agree. There are issues to numerous to count which can have groups with supposedly diametrically opposing views come together on some issues. We might begin by ignoring the main stream media’s “message” which is to purposely create diversity for their ratings.
I do believe that President Obama’s “talking” about “bi-partisanship” has not resulted in benefits for the citizens in this country. We need better leaders who are responsive to citizens first.
I think campaigns targeting advertisers can actually be quite effective. Color of Change has done this against Glenn Beck, and while he’s still Glenn Back, alas, some major advertisers did drop out, which means the networks carrying him are less profitable. If it’s done well it can also be a way to highlight outrageous lies.
One related story I love about pressuring institutions:
In the early 1990s, Rainforest Action Network targeted Mitsubishi for importing massive amounts of rainforest timber. It was a hard-fought campaign including an international boycott of Mitsubishi cars and electronic products, a major petition campaign and a plane towing a banner over the Super Bowl.
Amazingly, RAN won and the company backed down. Then RAN president Randy Hayes ended up at the same retreat with a senior Mitsubishi America executive who’d been prominent on the other side. They kept avoiding each other until Randy and his friend John Perkins, who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hitman, ended up going up to a hot tub overlooking the Pacific with a six pack of beer. When they arrived there, they found the Mitsubishi executive, sitting naked in the tub with his own cold beer. Hayes and his friend hesitated, then stripped down and settled in the tub as far away as they could.
An awkward silence lasted about five minutes. Then the Mitsubishi man said, “Randy, I want to thank you. I have kids. I want them to see the rainforest. Other executives have kids too. They also want them to see the rainforest. Until you brought this to the attention of our CEO and our stockholders, we were afraid to speak out, to do the right thing. You brought it to the attention of our executives. I want to thank you.” He raised his beer in a toast.
I love that story as an example of unexpected bridging after a hard-fought campaign for accountability.
The BP disaster does seem like it offers a lot of opportunity for organizing. I honestly do not know anyone who is not fairly (or deeply) horrified by it.
If we can work to tie together some simple string of issues that are directly related (need for alt. energy, conservation/ecological destruction, corporate irresponsibility/need for oversight, these come to mind) perhaps we can build a mass movement towards something positive.
I think it cuts across all kinds of divides.
So can I expect you on my Facebook group? :-)
Basta Dobbs, too, was a great success story at getting rid of Lou Dobbs.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong in Obama challenging the Republicans to be bipartisan, or reaching out to individual Senators (if it were me, I’d be negotiating with John McCain and challenging him to come up with solutions, and never with Mitch McCOnnell, who you know is always gong to represent the greediest interests). But the problem comes when he then waits and waits for them to respond, when they’re fundamentally negotiating in bad faith. I actually like what he finally did on the health care bill of having that public dialogue with them, because it held them accountable for not coming up with real alternatives.
But that’s been too rare, compared to letting the Republicans set the agenda.
The person who made the largest impact on me in our recent elections was a local attorney running for judge who went knocking on peoples doors. I asked him a lot of tough questions which he honestly answered. We need more citizens – politician involvement.
. Yes, definitely a success
It’s interesting how people do open up when there’s one-on-one contact. Obviously harder on a larger scale, but again, that’s what volunteers are for. We really can have those conversations, but we have to put ourselves out there and psychologically vulnerable in a way that we haven’t enough in the past year.
There are lots of stories about unexpected bridging. I think they’re often limited on our side by our own purism–we’re hesitant to work with people who have different lifestyles, eat different foots, and might radically disagree with us on lots of issues. But those are often the very people we need to reach out to.
We also again don’t know when someone might respond. I was speaking at the 13,000 student climate change conference last year and someone on a panel I heard told about their uncle, a down-the-line proud Rush Limbaugh dittohead coming over to the house saying “I just put solar panels and solar hot water on my house, and a plug-in for an electric car. That will show those SOB’s in Saudi Arabia.”
I really liked that story precisely because of the unexpected common ground.
Door-knocking is THE most effective way to get voters to turn out. The data (I don’t memorize it) is stunning but it’s 1 out of 12 voter contacts from D-t-D gets a vote compared to 1 vote for several hundred mailers, there is data for TV and radio, which result mostly in higher name-ID.
I still hold out some faith that he’s learning, but it sometimes seems one step forward, one step back. It’ll be interesting to watch how OFA gets kicked into gear for 2010 and what works and what doesn’t.
Obama’s call for bipartisanshit just screams WEAKNESS. The repubs made it very, very clear that they were not going to play on his court….and they lived up to their clarity. “He waits and waits”……..more WEAKNESS. The man just will not lead. I talked a few folks into voting for this man. They ask me now, “How’s that working out for you?” And, hey, the Republicans are setting the agenda. And health insurance bailout is a crock! No one that I’ve heard of is benefitting in any way. What else you got?
Is there a website(s) which you believe is a good starting point for getting involved?
Especially in the state of Washington? Although I have been a life-long Democrat, I can no longer try to “work from within” the Democratic party.
Whenever I hear talk of how John McCain has lost his ‘principles’ I laugh. John McCain has always been an unprincipled narcissist. Once he dispatches his primary opponent, he may very well take center stage as the next GOP senator to hold the football for the Democrats, like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Spectre, and Lindsey Graham have all done. It’s about his turn.
But the idea that John McCain is a person of integrity who can be reached with persuasive arguments and appeals to patriotism, even by this President, is a media myth and creation. He is a profoundly stupid and unprincipled man whose only goal, ever, has been the promotion of John McCain.
Also one of the really important (and hopeful) points in Soul of a Citizen is that when people do get involved, we’ll never know where they end up. One of my favorite stories is a young woman named Angie De Soto who was so politically disengaged her first year at Virginia Tech that she didn’t vote in the Kerry/Bush election because she thought “who was president didn’t have anything to do with my life.” Instead, she and her friends played a drinking game where they divided up into random red and blue teams (no one cared which) and when a red state flipped, the red team chugged a beer and when a blue state flipped the blue team chugged a beer. This went on all evening until they didn’t even know who was running.
A short while later, this same young woman, got challenged to act climate change, along with the rest of her class, by a geology professor. She’d never even heard of it, but started reading and learning and eventually connected with a tiny–maybe 8 person campus environmental group. Turned out she was a really gifted organizer. She worked with the PIRGs for a couple of summers and got used to knocking on 20 doors and being turned down and knocking on the twenty-first and getting a response. She turned her experience toward organizing at the school and helped grow her group into the largest student organization on campus with 1300 students on their email list. At that point the initially resistant administration began taking them seriously. She ended up helping craft a comprehensive campus sustainabiility plan which she now runs, as well as being engaged in national student climate change politics. It’s a great example of how people can change.
Not going to spend much time defending McCain, but he did (at least at one point) buck the Republican line on tobacco, campaign finance reform, climate change and torture), while being right wing as hell on a bunch of other issues. My point is just that you have to target people selectively issue by issue.
Late to the discussion…Do you know any really effective groups or spokespeople on the good side of the Immigration debate?
A really great story indeed!
Some transformational change i’d like to see involves the paradigm change from ‘Escalation of Harsher Penalties’ to ‘Least Harm’ in the Drug War.
My site isn’t one-stop shopping, but I should mention it here, http://www.soulofacitizen.org (people can also sign up there fore my email list and see where I’m lecturing).
I’d say Washington’s Democratic Party is very much up for grabs, and to our credit we came out early and forcefully against the war. The larger challenge, I’d say, is to proceed in a time where our results probably will be mixed, and many of the institutions or organizations we work with or join coalitions with will be mixed as well. That’s more complicated again, than simply resisting every disastrous initiative of Bush, but it’s the task in front of us, and I still think there are significant possibilities to move forward in this time.
There’s a ton of non-traditional coalition building and community outreach to be done around that issue for sure. It’s a great cause, and very much an issue that Soul of a Citizen can help address.
Okay, I’m hooked…I’ll read your book since your stories have been interesting.
As we come to the end of this Book Salon,
Paul, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and activism.
Jason, Thank you for Hosting this great Book Salon.
If you would like more information, here is Paul’s website.
Thanks all.
I actually think there is progress being made in the drug war, and it gives the potential of bringing a lot of apolitical people in.
My favorite argument for marijuana legalization is by former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who asked a bunch of cops when the last time they had to forcibly restrain someone under the influence of marijuana and nothing else. Most couldn’t remember ever doing so.
Then he asked the same about alcohol and the answer were “yesterday,” “last week,” “two hours ago.” Really made the point well–the kind of stories we need.
Okay maybe a micro level that works. But on the macro level we need radical change. We need sustainability on a macro level and who is going to deliver that? Certainly not these bought and paid for pols who have no intention of changing things and the electoral sphere is hardly the place to achieve change. Mass movement is the key, an angry mass movement.
Is there any issue or group or candidate you are enthusiastic about? I suggest that is a good place to start. These groups/people are always looking for people to help with any number of tasks. If you are lucky, they will identify your strengths/interests and lead you to the place where you will do the best work.
I think you have to identify an interest/action that compels you to be involved.
This was really fun. I think my fingers got a bit tangled in my keyboard, but really great questions and I hope I told some useful stories. Thanks for inviting me.
Thanks Paul. The book was excellent, highly recommended. Looking forward to chatting with you again here in the future!
I actually have a section about anger in Soul. I like the way Myles Horton, who founded the Highlander School where Rosa Parks trained put it. He said anger is a necessary fuel, but a volatile fuel, and that we don’t want to bury it, but we also don’t want to get consumed by it.
That’s my sense. We don’t want to mute our anger, because it’s legitimate. But it can’t be the only face we present, because it’s too easy just to seem bitter (and sometimes we are). Think again about Tutu or Mandela. No one can accuse them of ducking the hard questions or of muting their critique of apartheid or other social ills. But that wasn’t the sum total of their vision, and it can’t be ours. We have to go beyond the daily outrages (and there are plenty) to talk about the world we want, and why it makes sense. A challenge for all of us, but a worthwhile one.
Thanks again
Paul
And yes, any time you folks want me back I’d be delighted… Again, just some really great questions.
Thank you for coming today Paul, great discussion
and thanks Jason and Bev.
So a few things to point out about that campaign. One, Glenn Back has lost 81 advertisers by Color of Change’s count (over 100 listing the twitter group StopBeck). Not just some, almost all. CoC used a lot of my techniques and messages to advertisers.
It is not a boycott, it is an advertiser alert. let the advertisers decide if they want to taint their brand by being associated by these comments. Advertisers care about their brand, use that concern.
They pushed back. Hard. It is no coincidence that Van Jones got targeted by Beck and got fired, he was one of the co-founders of CoC. I met with James Rucker at the end and talked about how the media were still ignoring the impact of the campaign. I offered to push the message. Since the media didn’t really want to talk about the financial impact I asked Murdock the question myself. (link to my call to Murdock on the Q3 Conference call. )
Murdock lied and said it didn’t have a financial impact. Keith Olbermann mocked him for his lie, but the shareholders also punished him for it after the question got asked.
The Basta Dobbs campaign? The trade press and the rest of the press didn’t get the power of what happened. Partly because all the contract talks with Dobbs were sealed. Nobody would talk to the media about the financial impact of Dobbs getting fired. The head of the Basta Dobbs should have been on Jon Stewart next week instead of Lou Dobbs.
This is a problem because of the size of the media. They don’t have to break out the costs of these campaigns and it isn’t in the best interests of the companies to even acknowledge they exist. Believe me, they know the impact.
Following the money and cutting off the money to some of these groups is a powerful thing to do but it invites serious backlash. When Disney threatened to sue me “for everything you’ve got” and I got threats of being arrested it is damn scary. That is another power they use against us, their lawyers, which is effective to the average citizens than threats of violence.
Scarecrow is upstairs!
Lessons in Accountability: Escrow Accounts for BP, Bailouts for Wall Street
Very spirited discussion, thanks to author and host.
And, as always, to Bev for all her hard work hereabouts.
IS the system we have, in which we are given the chance every two years to choose from two members of the elite to rule over us, really democracy? I don’t think so, and I am sure that the originators of the term democracy (the ancient Greeks) would not think so either. What is it then? I agree with those who have labeled it kabuki, except that it is insulting to real kabuki. And I see nothing at all wrong with refusing to participate in a charade.
Ha! Funny and well-said.
So then you should be madder and more disgusted than anyone else Jason, not? I mean, the man campaigned on massive change promises, and has been merely mediocre while kicking everyone but the rightwingers in the groin. At this point, shouldn’t you be as mad as everyone else, or more so?
Doesn’t that leave you with two choices:
1. Ignore what is happening politically, allowing the “charade” to get worse.
OR
2. Get actively involved to try and change the system.
If you choose to ignore what is happening around you, then you lose the right to complain about it now or later. By the way, being actively involved doesn’t mean working only within the Democratic or Republican parties. As bgrothus (#100) mentioned to me above, find an interest/action that compels you to be involved.
No denigration intended, but in my opinion this statement is self-contradictory: one needn’t “get actively involved” with a system that needs to be changed, if the system itself is unfixable, as I would argue it is. Indeed, I would argue that in getting actively involved in a corrupt system YOU become corrupted.
Can’t leave this as the last word – It’s the only system we have at the mo, so we get involved and clear out the corruption.