Mobile version

Won't get fooled again! Again.

  

by: jeffroby

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 20:06:18 PST


(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)

1979 San Francisco.  We were working on a hard-fought rent-control ballot initiative.  Hard-fought between the coalition of tenant organizations and the Democratic Party stalwarts on one side (seemingly) against the landlords and downtown developers who ran City Hall under Mayor Dianne Feinstein.

Even more hard-fought was the struggle between the tenant organizations which had created the campaign in the first place and ran the campaign's district committees (I chaired District 6, the Mission), against the Democratic Party's consultants (the little wigs) and Democratic clubs and official leftists, over whether the campaign would be a consultant-based media affair, or grassroots tenant-based.  The underlying question was whether the district committees would last beyond election day.

The money went to the consultants and for TV ads, while the district committees were starved.  The measure had been gutted even before the campaign began, in order to appease a few prestigious Democratic clubs that in the end actually opposed the initiative.  In the home stretch, it became clear that Prop R was going down.

Now a whiny voice pipes up from the back of the room.  "Hey, old guy, is this gonna be another of your boring stories about how you had to walk 20 miles through the snow to get to an SDS meeting?"

"Shaddup, kid, there's a point here somewhere!"

As I was  saying, in the final weeks, the campaign bosses went into a pseudo-frenzy.  Once more to the barricades, voter registration, lit drops.  The campaign came down to getting a slate card under every door in the city.  No volunteer was to be left standing as the polls closed.

jeffroby :: Won't get fooled again! Again.
As the dismal returns trickled in, the consultants were handing out medals to each other and lining up their next gigs.  The district committees were exhausted and helpless as the central campaign shut them down forever.  I can never forget that election night, getting drunk as a skunk with a few friends and then driving home weaving wildly down a fortunately deserted Valencia Street, knowing that the district committees were dead.

While the grassroots organizers zeroed in on election day, the campaign professionals were concentrating on the day AFTER the election.

Moral of the story:  The professionals had it right!

Fast forward to 2001, where the Wall Street Journal writes that Ford Motor is recalling the Firestone tires on its Ford Explorer.  The government reports that defective tires had led to 200 deaths and over 700 injuries.  Ford  had known about these defects for over a decade, but had decided that the resultant lawsuits would cost less than recalling the tires, and out of a sense of responsibility to the stockholders ...

Now it's December 2009.  Healthcare debacle.  People are exhausted, demoralized, confused.  It didn't just turn out that way by accident.  Like San Francisco 1979, the Democratic Party set it up that way.

First there were the promises.  Obama spoke out for the public option.  A large bloc in the House swore to defeat any bill without it.  The problem was beating the filibuster in the Senate.  But Obama gave signals that he would use his bully pulpit to get it through..  This was the Obama who, after all, had said you couldn't solve the housing crisis by requiring everyone to buy a house.

Sounded good.  Our progressive leaders were all lining up to support our president.  The incredibly vicious racist attacks against Obama had to be dealt with, no regrets on that count.  No cause for great concern.  But what was in the bill?

 Mandate?  No details.
 Exchanges?  What the hell were they?
 Public Option?  No details.
 Subsidies?  How much?
 Stupak?  Never heard of it.

... seen through the headlines and the New York Times and Olbermann/Maddow.  Which is how most people saw it.  I'm no policy wonk.  I wasn't researching the details.  I was living my life.  The left blogosphere was railing against the Republicans and I went with that.  I didn't give a lot of thought to Obama's focus on having a bill that didn't increase the deficit, a strategic error of the first order.

I don't like crying "conspiracy" because this can obscure systemic issues, how the machinery works.  But the Democratic  Party deliberately kept our eyes on the Republicans, and deliberately dodged, if not outright buried, the bill's details from us, with the full cooperation of the progressive leadership.  Stupak was a long time coming, but I believe the party cynically kept it under wraps until the last minute to prevent progressives from having time to mobilize.  No time for anything but hysteria.  On to the Senate.

 Mandate?  No details.
 Public Option?  No details.
 Subsidies?  Not looking good.
 Stupak, oh yeah, there'd be a version of Stupak in the Senate version as well.

Oh, but the Senate would take it out.  It would come out in the final House-Senate negotiations.  Stupak is still lurking in his little cesspool, though, and hasn't gone away, despite party efforts to make us forget.

This whole process, with no information, misinformation and disinformation, has been emotionally and even physically exhausting.  Deliberately so, while the party big wigs are mobilizing their "blame the left" chant, and are threatening to primary those who don't go quietly into the night, the little wigs are cheering us once more unto the breach.  Now it's not the Democratic Party to blame, it's that awful Lieberman.

Progressives play their part in this kabuki dance, with the standard calls for 3rd party, dropping out, targeting the bad ones.  But just like Ford Motor measuring human lives on its balance sheet, the Democratic Party has factored this outrage into its political budget.  They think they will ride this out, and they are right.  In the absence of a plan to actually damage them -- rather than the current plan to really, really annoy them -- they will cruise on to the next fight.  Over jobs, and Obama has already been meeting with corporate leaders while progressives are still fixated on healthcare.

It's time to disengage.

Time to get off the treadmill, constantly off-balance, constantly forced to react to the latest new-told lies, the latest outrage.  This time we get ahead of the curve, we anticipate the fight that will be developing around jobs, and we go into it locked and loaded.

Last time around, if we wanted to question Obama's good will, we had to make the case while the little wigs said give him a chance.  While he was under unconscionable racist attacks.  Innocent until proven guilty.  This time around, if Obama's good will is in question, they're the ones who have a case to make.  Guilty until he proves otherwise by his deeds.  Hope gets more audacious every day.

Condensed from the White House website:

o Tax cuts to support additional business investment next year - with a particular focus on struggling small businesses - with much of the cost recouped over time.
o Zero capital gains for small businesses.
o Extension of enhanced expensing provisions for small businesses.
o Extending the Recovery Act provision that accelerates the rate at which business can deduct the cost of capital expenditures.
o A new tax cut for small businesses to encourage hiring in 2010.  [specifically the employment tax]
o Eliminating fees and increasing guarantees for small businesses that borrow through major SBA programs in 2010.
o Additional investment in highways, transit, rail, aviation and water.
o Support for merit-based infrastructure investment that leverages federal dollars.
o New incentives for consumers who invest in energy efficient retrofits in their homes.
o Expansion of successful oversubscribed Recovery Act programs to leverage private investment in energy efficiency and create clean energy manufacturing jobs.

[Big bold and all caps] A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE APPROACH TO JOB CREATION THROUGH STEWARDSHIP OF TARP AND OVERALL FISCAL DISCIPLINE

Then it descends into blather about reducing the federal deficit and extending COBRA and unemployment benefits, with aid to the states to fend of further layoffs.

Not a word about direct job creation, no WPA-style jobs creation.  He never promised one, you say?  All the crap comparing Obama with FDR contained an implicit promise.  Back when we believed.

And like the self-sharpening ginsu knives, there's more.  When it hits Congress, we can count on the Republican Dr. No routine, and will be told we have to get behind Obama to overcome the Republicans.  Free shipping if you call in the next 30 minutes.  At that point, feel the stiletto sliding into your back.  The fingerprints on the handle will be Democratic Party.

They'll be demanding more tax breaks.  Cut the unemployment extension, too expensive.  Cut the state aid.  Too expensive.  And while we're at it, let's get rid of all those programs like OSHA and FMLA that are all that's stopping corporate America from creating new jobs for all.  And if you order now ...  Not too much infrastructure, remember the deficit.  Same old blackmail.  Same old tut-tutting about the deficit.  Same old, same old.  Nothing will be different.  

Except maybe us.

How about we go in with OUR demands:

o 5 million federal jobs
o rebuild the country's infrastructure.
o full support for the unemployed
o foreclosure moratorium for the unemployed

I'm no policy wonk.  This is a temporary placeholder while those wiser than I write something more coherent.  Maybe one is already out there.  Maybe several.

As usual, my focus is on method.  Point is, first we go in with OUR demands.  We don't give those who failed on healthcare ANY benefit of the doubt.  They're the ones with something to prove to us.

And then we go in with a stick.  Several sticks.  We go in saying we want [some stuff], and if we don't get it we will [appropriate actions].  I don't mean that we get kind of irritating, we won't love them any more, that's the last holiday card they get from us, if only their mothers knew ...  Real retaliation.  Not hastily thrown together IF they spit in our faces, no, locked and loaded for WHEN they spit in our faces.  No naivete.  Progressives have backed down so many times, there is no way they are going to fear any threat we make.  It is going to take us actually wielding our stick before it becomes credible.  That's the price we pay for years of progressive sellouts.

Yes, the Full Court Press! is one stick.  But it's focus is 2012, and we need something more immediate.  Maybe have thousands of the unemployed storm congressional halls, call it the six-packers.  Sit-downs at phony jobs fairs.  Surround the homeless shelters or welfare centers.  I really don't know exactly.  Some of this may sound outlandish, but December 3 Bloomberg reports, "senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank."  I do know there are going to be a lot of pissed-off people out there with nothing to lose, and I don't believe we can't come up with something.

I don't have a road map for how to do this.  But I know a few things NOT to do, like not repeating the healthcare debacle.  Not trusting media-anointed progressive leaders.  Not coming in with our hands raised in prayer, but brandishing a gnarled shillelagh.

To get this amazing free offer, Call Now!

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Hmm.... (4.00 / 7)
you know on this blog I'm considered a centrist.

"I like irony except I find that if you just toss your clothes in the dryer for a few minutes you hardly ever have to use it."- ek hornbeck

Thank you! (4.00 / 2)
Just moving the spectrum.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe

[ Parent ]
Count me in...kinda tired of being reactive (4.00 / 5)
instead of proactive.  PROactive = PROgressive.

We have been soundly fucked with no happy ending.  I am all for getting mine, finally.

They care about money...do they even care about being elected again with so many juicy gigs after their "service"?  Do we work smarter, not harder...dividing pending bills amongst the smarter among us for research and finding the shiny beads they intend to deploy later?  Will anyone care if we change our registration en mass to Indie?

Ugh, wish I was smarter about this shit.

aka CWalter


Me too (4.00 / 3)
My trick is to try to find people who are smarter than I am about the stuff I don't know, trying to blend their disparate skills into one powerful hammer.  If you want, send me an e-mail at fullCourtPrez@comcast.net, and I'll try to bring you up to speed.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe

[ Parent ]
I've been hearing "Won't get fooled again" (4.00 / 5)
for forty years.

Repeatedly.

I just had a conversation at reddit with someone who replied to me saying:

With Obama's approval rating dropping like a rock and Congress's in the tank, it's possible I suppose, that Obama and the Dems just might be smart enough to realize at some point that they'll need to start listening to and producing results for the left and the independents to get the votes back that they've lost from them that they'll need, if they want to retain the house, senate, and white house.

Not likely the way they've been going so far, and especially when the mandates come into effect, but possible.
...
[Obama] won the popular vote by about a 6-7 point spread. From the left and independents. He's already lost far more than that - he's lost the left, the independents, and some of the center/center/right.

If he and the dems don't move to the left they lose.

The left is the only thing that can save the country from another republican in the white house, with possibly a republican controlled congress.

And the only way they'll get the left back is to start producing progressive results.

The incredible reply I received was:

He won by appealing to the independents and his public appeal. Now that he actually has to be a politician he is not looking quite as nice as he does in a suit. If he goes progressive, he loses. He has to do what made him popular in the first place.

What made him popular in the first place was a bunch of high sounding empty promises. To assume that doing the same thing will win it for him again is to assume stupidity from the left and the independents.

Producing results is the only thing now that will get them back.

Unfortunately it appears that some people are all too willing to "get fooled again".


Different activity is what will do it (4.00 / 3)
You can't just tell people to be smarter in the abstract, or even more cynical or distrustful.  There are specific process ways this stuff works that results in the left getting kicked in the head over and over and over again (I knew this dance was going to be a drag).

It's different activity that will lead to a different result.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe


[ Parent ]
I welcome any suggestions (4.00 / 2)
on how to wake enough people up...

[ Parent ]
Ever hear of emiseration theory? (4.00 / 1)
Probably not by that name.  But it is pervasive and it is deadly. In the 60's and 70's, it was rather explicit in Marxist circles.

The contradictions of capitalism would bring about a collapse of the U.S. economy, or, in the pseudo-Maoist variation, the rising up of 3rd world peoples would bring about a collapse of the U.S. economy, and as a direct result of that economic collapse, the American people would rise up against their misery (emiseration) and install socialism as the only viable alternative.  We see how well that turned out.

Of course nobody is a Marxist anymore, but that thinking lingers on.  The miseries of Bush would get people to rise up.  We saw how well that turned out.  No, what gets people to rise up is hope.  Obama nailed it.  And his election was indeed something of an uprising.  One that had to be crushed, of course.

Imagine what it would be like if Obama and Congress had created a serious progressive healthcare bill.  Imagine the implications this would have for the upcoming fight over jobs.  The spirit, the expectations.  And what is the popular expectation on a jobs program now?  Zilch.

Militancy requires risk, which people are understandably averse to.  It requires a hope in the future.  THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE.  THAT HISTORY WILL VINDICATE YOU.  It's not a deep intellectual understanding, it's something you feel in your gut.

Without hope, the narrowest survival needs take precedence.

See, it's not that people don't know that things are bad.  It's not that people don't know that the politicians are corrupt and that the corporations are brutal and greedy and inhumane.  They know that.  In that sense, they're already awake and aware.  But in the absence of hope, that awareness is too awful to face.

Thus my focus on tactics.  We have to demonstrate that something can be done, and I don't mean the Alinskyite getting city council to repair a broken street light.  As I've said before, the social contract is now very fragile.  The politicians know this, they're scared to death of it.  Small sparks can set off a larger conflagration.

But those sparks have to be more potent than the angry drunk storming out of the bar screaming that he's going to come back and kill the bartender for telling him he's had enough.  The bartender hears this every day.  So does the Democratic Party.

Our progressive leadership is frozen in place.  At this point, the worst of them are simply bought and sold.  The best of them lack hope.  We need actions that small, ordinary people can take, who don't have the investment in the system.  Financial or ego.  Not as individuals, but in small groups.

Won't happen spontaneously.  What happens spontaneously is some guy out of work gets a gun and comes back to the office shooting everyone in sight.  Or kills his family and himself.  We're seeing a lot of that lately.  No, we have to provide leadership to the anger that is seething out there.

So I don't have any suggestions for you, other than what I've already written.  Rather I give you back a challenge.  Throw out some ideas on DocuDharma.  See if they resonate.  If you, I, others can answer it, then we have a future.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe


[ Parent ]
I have been suggesting for years... (4.00 / 1)
...unsuccessfully I might add, that people need to band together and organize and start threatening ALL democrats with mass political oblivion to rule them with fear instead of being ruled by fear by making it as clear as a punch in the nose that unless and until they pass useful legislation, like defund the wars, and create and pass single payer health care, put wall street thieves in prison, that they will get NO notes and NO donations. Period. At all. Till it's done.

If enough people stand their ground and tell their reps and senators who are up for re-election that this WILL happen it will work. Guaranteed.

But most people I suggest it to start whining about how scared of republicans they are, and miss the point entirely. Or purposely misreads it and pretends to not understand simple numbers and that it will mean a landslide for democrats who will earn the votes for producing results instead of mouthing empty promises. Or says effectively "but I'm scared to!", or complains that  they won't go first until everyone else goes first.

IOW, everyone waits for everyone else to do what everyone knows will work.

And only in the past few weeks have I started to finally see a lot of people start to say the same thing...

I believe that if the democratic leadership started to see multiple Gallup polls now showing that every single democrat up for re-election next year didn't have the faintest slim hope of re-election unless there was a universal single payer plan passed and in place before then... that it would get done.

I also believe the Iraq occupation could have been ended before the 2008 election the same way.

For example, very single democrat with re-election hopes next year needs the votes more than they need insurance company money.

Maybe they have finally pissed off enough millions of people to make it happen?

The democrats can be ruled with fear, if enough people do it. They are politicians. They'll do whatever it takes to get re-elected.

That's their weakness, and it can be used to extract from them everything that people want, and they can then be rewarded with re-election for producing results.

But they need forcing. It's an eyeball to eyeball poker game right down to the wire next November.

Many very smart people have been saying the same thing over and over for a long time, too, but very few have been paying attention.

Remember this from early September?

U.S. Health Care: Mobilize Or Accept The Status Quo

Economist, Author, and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Richard D. Wolff, well-known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology and class analysis, Yale University Ph.D. in Economics, and Professor at The New School University in New York City, talks with Real News CEO Paul Jay about the current health care debate and the challenges or barriers standing in the way of a national U.S. single payer plan.

Wolff suggests keeping in mind some basic facts - the U.S. spends far more for far less health care "product" than any other advanced country in the world, and suggests a return to the the old American prideful mindset of "if we're not producing the best quality at the lowest price we should go and find out who's doing that and replicate their experience", and points out that the number one thing standing in the way of doing this is the lack of will to challenge the status quo and to do what everyone already knows needs to be done: spend less to get more.

In other words, Wolff opines, Obama must "mobilize or accept the status quo" and "make his party vote for real health care reform", instead of making the lame this is the best we can get excuses that may very well destroy his presidency along with screwing millions of Americans out of proper health care.

Wolff effectively asks: "Whatever happened to American Exceptionalism?"

Is everyone going to continue to wait for the other guy to go first?

Now?

Still?


[ Parent ]
That's why I finally felt compelled to start the Full Court Press (4.00 / 1)
Very reluctantly.  Scared.  More scared of not doing it.  Feeling horribly embarrassed at what at times feels like blatant self-promotion.  Who am I to lead anything?

But to address you more specifically, how about you or anybody reading this founding a caucus called the Disgruntled Progressives Who Want to Do Something in the Next Three Months (the DPWWDSNTM).  Catchy, isn't it?  Sound silly?  Maybe.  But you sound very alone, and if you did that and heard from one other person, you wouldn't be alone.  And from there, you could figure out the next step.

And I bet you could come up with a better name than that one.  And that would be a step.  And then ...

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe


[ Parent ]
Except that I am in Vancouver (0.00 / 0)
and even though everything Obama and the democrats do affects me and everyone else in the world... I can't vote and I have no say.

But I can see very clearly what needs to be done.


[ Parent ]
Do you know anybody in the US that leans Democratic Party? (4.00 / 2)
Jeff is building up a list of early collaborators. Or even "maybe later" collaborators.

for a FULL COURT PRESS
DemocracyABC.org


[ Parent ]
Sure. (0.00 / 0)
Almost everyone here at DD would vote Dem if they produced some useful results, I think.

[ Parent ]
What I meant was people that you've emailed before (4.00 / 1)
With jeffroby at DD, it's probably going to be covered OK. But outside of DD and OL, it would help grow the movement if you told them about it.

If you have an email list already set up, you could send them out all at once. Time investment:  3-10 minutes, depending on how much effort you put into writing the email.

I've read a bit about salesmanship (being lousy at selling), and one key point the books make is to "ask for the sale". In this case, the 'product' that I'm selling requires not $$ from you, but a little bit of effort. The product might be called 'doing your part to grow the FCP email list, virally'.

So, Edger, will you be kind enough to inform the Democratic-leaning or possibly-democratic-leaning members of your email list?

(Actually, even at DD and OL, it would be good to keep mentioning it. McDonald's doesn't pay a millions of dollars to show you pictures of a rather limited menu and funky looking clown, for nothing. IIRC, it takes about 30 exposures before people internalize some advertising message, in spite of themselves.)

for a FULL COURT PRESS
DemocracyABC.org


[ Parent ]
Tell you what... (4.00 / 1)
If you or Jeff (or both of you) want to write a post about it at Antemedius, then I'll send a link and teaser of the post out to all the OOIBC member blogs (about 100 of them), and you're welcome to continue posting there about it as well as here. How's that? :-)

[ Parent ]
I'll take you up on it! (4.00 / 1)
Thanks.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe

[ Parent ]
You're welcome to use it (0.00 / 0)
as a sort of "media" platform. And when you post, you can then use the social bookmarking buttons at the top of the posts to help spread it all across the web, too...

[ Parent ]
Look, the Democrats don't care about us. The R's don't care (0.00 / 0)
about us.

They don't care what we threaten. They have all the power, and they Do Not Care!

Are you kidding after watching what's happened you can think that?

Did slave-owners used to care what their slaves wanted? When they felt pain? When their clothes were inadequate? When their children had zero opportunities? No they did not.

These guys have money. They have power. They have insurance, health care paid by us, by gaming the system. They have fun parties to go to.

Dems do NOT care about the little people. They are busy selling out to industry after industry.

Look, you know "bread and circuses"? Politics is the circus now. It's the shell over the pea, when the shells move around and the pea disappears. It's to keep you from really truly grasping:
They Do Not Care about the people.

"This health care system is a moral atrocity." Dr. RalphDog (on blog)


[ Parent ]
I think you'd better (0.00 / 0)
read my comment above again carefully.

[ Parent ]
Without hope, the narrowest survival needs take precedence. (4.00 / 1)
You said this:
Militancy requires risk, which people are understandably averse to.  It requires a hope in the future.  THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE.  THAT HISTORY WILL VINDICATE YOU.  It's not a deep intellectual understanding, it's something you feel in your gut.

Without hope, the narrowest survival needs take precedence.

I read it and realized:

OMG, he's made a mockery of hope! He offered it, now is not delivering on it - people are not even going to believe in hope again.

See what I mean, how incredibly profound and damaging it is?

O
M
G

That is just huge.

"This health care system is a moral atrocity." Dr. RalphDog (on blog)


[ Parent ]
I wish I weren't so exhausted and discouraged. (4.00 / 6)
I always hated electoral politics.  I spare you the litany of reasons.  I think as far as electoral politics goes, I'm going to hibernate for the season.  I'll see how things look in the Spring when I wake up hungry again.

No doubt you're right about what you say in this essay.  Inspiration, though, is going to be a huge issue.  It's really hard to keep getting kicked to curb and to keep getting up.        

Visit The Dream Antilles, a Lit Blog.


I think you might be doing the right thing (4.00 / 3)
Get off the treadmill.  Set your own pace.  Let your fires start to burn anew.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe

[ Parent ]
Say, check this out, please and see what you think (4.00 / 1)
This comment, this thread:
http://www.docudharma.com/show...

RIng any bells?

"This health care system is a moral atrocity." Dr. RalphDog (on blog)


[ Parent ]
Allison, I think you are on the right track (0.00 / 0)
How much is conscious and how much is what they automatically do is an open question which doesn't really have to be answered.

But when our progressive leaders tell us over and over, "This is the best we can get," they are actively campaigning AGAINST HOPE.

p.s.  People taking an idea and working with it is what makes me think it's all worthwhile.

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe


[ Parent ]
Something more immediate... (4.00 / 2)
If this is your attitude, you might want to get out of electoral politics.  I'm not joking.  Try some local activism or issue campaigns or something like that.  I know you're older than I am and probably wiser, but I've gotten much more satisfaction from planning a community garden at my school than I ever have from electoral politics.

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.org!

I would love to get out of electoral politics (4.00 / 3)
And I'm not joking either.  Problem is, I see a need and an opening.  So Geronimo!

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe

[ Parent ]
Check this out, please. (4.00 / 1)
Just read your other piece, added this comment.

http://www.docudharma.com/show...

Lately I've been pondering, what's the difference between activism now, and yesteryear?

My answer.
Now: everyone is typing to each other from the comfort of their home.

Before: We were out organizing and creating change from the ground up.

What do you think?

"This health care system is a moral atrocity." Dr. RalphDog (on blog)


You've nailed one of the toughest issues facing us! (0.00 / 0)
Now: everyone is typing to each other from the comfort of their home.

Before: We were out organizing and creating change from the ground up.

It's a question I'm wrestling with now.  In the old days, organizing de facto had a geographical element.  You'd have a bunch of people in a room, and someone at the front of the room would ask, "Who here is from district 4?" and there'd be a show of hands.  "Meet in that corner," and they'd meet in that corner.

Remember the run-up to the Iraq war, the massive demonstrations a few weeks before Bush sent in his crusaders?  The speed and size of them were, I believe, a direct product of the internet.  As was their total dissipation once the shooting started.

Now we've got one of the commenters above, Edger.  He's in Vancouver.  And I think, what the hell difference does that make?  I'm in Jersey City, so what?  I'm not expecting to vote for any Full Court Press candidate for a year-and-a-half.  Physical location is no barrier, either.  We're still having this very meaningful dialogue.

I've bemoaned the fact that the massive anger over the healthcare debacle doesn't translate into any effective action.  Yes, the internet carries with it the seeds of alienation, even as it creates a less-alienated world community.

Allison, I feel that in some way we're touching each other right now.

My answer for the moment is that we have to work more self-consciously to create tactics, to find, as it were, collective specificities that consolidate what we have.  Some of them are likely very old-fashioned, with perhaps new meaning.

I'm not completely satisfied with my answer.  I feel thoughts buzzing at the back of my mind as I type this that I can't quite articulate.  I think, other people are listening in here, and are thus part of this conversation even now.  What are they thinking ...

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners, I don't like them myself. They are pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings." -- Marlowe


[ Parent ]
Running candidates in 2010 would help bring attention to FCP (0.00 / 0)
Assuming that there's only an FCP for Democrats, you won't be able to grow FCP via appealing to groups that are civic-oriented, but non-partisan. (Well, they couldn't officially help push FCP, anyway. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask, so that sympathetic members could privately approach members of their organization.)

To help make up for this, FCP supporters need to take to the streets as much as they need to send emails to their email list or discuss in blogs. By "take to the streets", I don't mean marching up and down a street (though that could be tried), I mean handing out pamphlets to your neighbors and other locals, manning a booth on a street fair, having a gathering in your house, ala MoveOn, which you advertise locally in Craigslist, etc.

However, without also emphasizing candidates, this doesn't make much sense. So, IMO, basically all of the outreach should appeal for candidateS. And, once candidates appear, the fact that there's somebody who is already willing to run, who is a 'local hero' (already known to many in his/her community), should be mentioned. I think it's going to be hard to get people to commit to a 2012 candidacy, since that's so far away. Consequently, without generating 2010 candidates, you will have a problem getting people truly enthusiastic about FCP until 2011, I should think.

(You can see that there is already a problem in terms of "What happens when we get too many candidates?". However, in the big scheme of things, this is probably a good problem to have. Note, though, that when FCP reaches a large enough size to actually determine who wins the primary, you want the FCP voting bloc in that district to have an instant-runoff election amongst themselves before the official primary date, to determine who will get their real-world vote on primary day.)

There is a way that FCP might be able to exploit civic organizations, and that is to form an FCP for Republicans, and ask the civic organization to present the FCP propositions - one for Dems, and one for Repubs - simultaneously at their next meeting. On economic matters, there will probably be a lot of overlap between FCP-D and FCP-R candidates, and in an R district, the D isn't likely to win, anyway. So, better to have an R elected who will not be as eager to give your $$ away to Wall Street and has no problem importing cheap drugs, correct?

Similarly, street actions could be jointly staged to push FCP-D and FCP-R, at the same time. There is going to be a populist backlash in the US, anyway. Some of the populists will be of the D persuasion, some of the R persuasion. They may as well collaborate on the street, since the D's and R's they elect are going to have to collaborate in Congress.

for a FULL COURT PRESS
DemocracyABC.org


[ Parent ]
 

Menu

- Create New Account
- Lost password
- Contact Us

Username:

Password:




- Mission Statement
- FAQ
- YouTube Posting
- HTML Help

Seek




Advanced Search


Contribute to Docudharma
 

 
     

 

Action

WikiLeaks Mirror Sites
 

Powered by: SoapBlox