Attention: Justice Party People
Read this post and report back. I like it very much.
29 Responses to “Attention: Justice Party People”
-
Sandra S. says:
Honestly, my response is kind of meh. I have a deep understanding of the importance of overthrowing corporatism, but I don’t think it’s as simple as he makes it out to be. The problem with this country’s political system is the lack of feasibility of a third party. In parliamentary systems you have lots of parties. One that is socially liberal AND fiscally liberal, one that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, one that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal, and one that is both socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Usually you also end up with a brokerage party (which is fundamentally populist) held in check through coalition governance. So while I’m all over populism as an ideal, I don’t see the logistics.
Also, as a feminist, a queer woman, a disabled person, an atheist, etc., I have to say that I don’t trust that there is the widespread support that this guy assumes for social justice. Tyranny of the majority, anyone? Also, I know a hell of a lot of people who identify as Libertarian (usually people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative). Where do they fit in?
So basically, HOW will this all go down? Because while the ideal is solid, the execution is key.
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm EST -
Sandra S. says:
Also, I don’t like how he smarmily singled out Palin.
-
votermom says:
Yeah, I kind of got turned off by the sense that the article is saying the Tea Partiers aren’t real populists — it feels like the way liberal feminists call say Palin is not a real feminist. It has that same credential-questioning, doorway-guarding feel to it.
I feel like a lot of the self-identified left in the USA lack humility. They don’t see themselves as part of the masses; they always know better; they lecture and moralize. -
Violet Socks says:
Tea Partiers aren’t real populists
I think he’s talking about populism in the sense of being a people’s movement for policies that will benefit people.
The Tea Party is populist in the sense that the mobs in Germany and Italy were populist; that’s the kind of populism that is easily diverted into fascism. The Tea Party movement right now is heavily backed by right-wing and corporate money, and what the people are demanding is exactly what the corporatists want them to demand: less government oversight, less taxes on the rich, more money into private insurers pockets, etc.
The only element of the Tea Party that I see that is undistorted — I mean not a regurgitation of Republican-created nonsensical propaganda, like the anti-healthcare thing — is the opposition to immigration. I think that’s genuine, grassroots, white populist racism. Very similar to the white backlash in the late 60s/early 70s.
-
Violet Socks says:
Also, see this post of mine from last year:
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Cooperatives interest me.
I finally got around to watching Michael Moore’s movie “Capitalism – A Love Story.” (I’ll leave aside the embarassingly naive finale, where Moore asserts that Obama is the answer to our populist prayers — HA!) It features a CA bread company, Alvarado Street Bakery, that’s a democratically run co-op. Of course, I want to support that type of egalitarian initiative, so started googling around for lists of co-ops, or co-op associations, hoping they’re on the upswing. Didn’t seem to be much of it going on in California.
Wondering if the number of cooperatives around the country really are increasing, where they are, and what barriers our current economic system places on forming them. Why wouldn’t there be more?
*****A
-
votermom says:
Yeah, it’s because left-wing economic populism is dead, as you pointed out.
TPartiers feel the same pain we do — lost jobs, rage at bailouts and corruption, contempt at political incompetency.
The left won’t speak out against these things because Obama somehow clicked the mute button on them. It’s ok to be mad at BP, but never at Obama.Congress is weak; not Obama. Etc.
What do we do? -
Violet Socks says:
Yeah, that’s the question. I just looked back at the comment thread attached to that post, and a lot of people made very good points.
Two of my comments, which I’ll drag back here because I still agree with myself:
#11: For example, we have to fight three decades of Republican propaganda that government is evil. We also have to fight three decades of failure by Democrats to really do anything on that front. Those are big obstacles to making the argument that good government is possible and can make an enormous difference.
The fact is, American 20th century prosperity was built on the New Deal and the GI bill and high tax rates and all that other stuff. It was built on an aggressive program to harness capitalist wealth and share it among the citizenry who actually created that wealth. The rot began for real with Reagan, who simply turned the country over to the bankers and the military-industrial complex to be ransacked.
But very few people understand this, because the Republican propaganda is all-encompassing. Speaking of Sarah Palin: she’s peddling that same propaganda in her book. The Wall Street Journal review quotes her as saying (roughly) “we tried growing government back in the 30s, but it didn’t work then, either.” Which is just head-explodingly WRONG. But she’s preaching to a choir that’s been hearing that message for decades and thinks it’s true.
#30: HeroesGetMade, the genius of Republican propaganda is that they capitalize on people’s natural, well-based suspicion of The Powers That Be. Working folks are right that the big shots don’t care and that the elites despise them and that somebody out there is making off like a bandit. What the Republicans have done, though, is persuade working folks that the bad guys aren’t Republicans/rich bankers/corporations, but Democrats and socialists!
It is as if somebody persuaded the mill strikers in 1935 that the unions were out to get them and the mill owners were their friends.
It’s the propaganda coup that I find most disheartening. We need to defeat the corporatist stranglehold on our country, but they’re the ones with all the money and the media.
When I hear Tea Partiers or libertarians regurgitating utter nonsense, which they think is true because it’s been poured into their ears ad nauseum, I feel overwhelmed and hopeless.
-
Violet Socks says:
The economic propaganda alone is colossal. Consider: the basic proposition that the people who create wealth should share in it has now been demonized as an evil communist plot. Meanwhile, the millionaire gamblers and parasites skimming off the top are treated like they’re the great engineers of the economy who totally deserve billion-dollar bonuses for the terrible risk they incur by breathing. It’s fucking incredible.
-
votermom says:
At some point (I hope) the truth is just too blatant to be covered by the propaganda.
-
willyjsimmons says:
The fatal flaw in Mr Hightower’s argument (and liberals in general, it seems)…is that the government IS “evil”.
Soak it in, drink it up. Evil. In intentions and actions. (Not because I say so, Arthur Silber has made the case over the years, the election of Obama has provided living proof, look in the sidebar to your left and take a gander at the title of his latest essay)
As to specifics: “that most folks are already with us on practically all of the big issues related to the corporatization of America (jobs, Wall Street, pollution, money in politics, a green economy, health care, media, unions, affordable housing, pensions, K-Street lobbyists, local businesses, infrastructure investment, progressive taxation, you name it”
That’s not even true. Has the gentleman even LOOKED at recent polling on these issues? I’m guessing not.
(The issue of faulty polling and general ignorance amongst voters being a problem Somerby has talked about for years when discussing “building a progressive political framework”)
This dude doesn’t quite get it.
-
Toonces says:
willyjsimmons, is your argument that all government is evil, or just American government? Has it always been inherently evil or is it only a recent development (American or otherwise)?
-
Adrienne in CA says:
I think willyjsimmons may be saying that a prevailing view is that government is “evil” — at least that’s what all the right wing messaging and push polling is trying to sell us (as are the faux left neo-liberals, Obama et al, for that matter) — so solutions for using the power of government to improve people’s lives are met with great skepticism by the public.
Yes, it used to be only one side arguing that government is evil. Now one side argues it while the other side proves it.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
Arthur Silber’s essay demonstrates that the government we have now is evil. And it is.
But to argue that all government is evil — that government itself is evil, and can only be evil — is another matter. That takes you straight to Somalia, the Libertarian Fantasyland.
The American principle is founded on the possibility that citizens can create a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I still believe that.
-
Topper Harley says:
@8
You previous post regarding the cause of American prosperity is your opinion, and not necessarily a fact.
For example, look at this graph of home ownership rates. That represents the US, taking something that it has/had in abundance, and converting it into something that enriches the economy. We got a prosperity multiplier by ensuring that said homes were built in a sprawling fashion, forcing owners to buy one or more vehicles, which again stimulates the economy. Follow both of those with an industrial base untouched by two massive wars. Pile on top of that massive amounts of naturally irrigated arable land and the Haber-Bosch process.
If we want to go even further, we can add in the effectiveness of Hollywood selling the glamour of the American lifestyle world-wide, which served US economic interests in early post-war period. And of course, we can take as a given since I’m posting here the economic gains from women being able to leave the “Pink Ghetto” of acceptable careers. Hell, lets be charitable and throw in the Civil Rights Era, when ~ 25% of Americans were at least started down the road to equal participation in the US economy.
When you take all that into account you have to admit the possibility that a large part of US post-war prosperity had little to do with the GI Bill and the New Deal and a lot to do with a number of fortuitous circumstances that are unlikely to ever be repeated.
Top tax rates may have been high pre-Reagan, but it’s also true that payment under those top rates was a drop in the bucket. I’ve misplaced my link with effective federal tax rates since 1913, but you can see a similar effect comparing rate tables with the CBO’s effective rate data from ’79 to ’01.
Top rate in ’79? 70% Effective tax rate for the top 1%? 37%
Top rate in ’01? 39% Effective tax rate for the top 1%? 33%IIRC, the effective rates even under alleged 90% top rates was similar to today. Back then there were all manners of tax shelters, deductions, and tax-avoidance strategies. Who here remembers when you could write off credit card interest, or the end of the year being a good time to buy a car for tax reasons?
-
Violet Socks says:
For example, look at this graph of home ownership rates. That represents the US, taking something that it has/had in abundance, and converting it into something that enriches the economy.
When you take all that into account you have to admit the possibility that a large part of US post-war prosperity had little to do with the GI Bill and the New Deal and a lot to do with a number of fortuitous circumstances that are unlikely to ever be repeated.
Amazing. Topper, do you understand why American home ownership rates soared after 1940? Do you know what the New Deal was?
-
Violet Socks says:
And do you understand why American workers were able to afford to buy cars and consumer goods? Do you understand why, for the first time in American history, our wealth in land and goods was suddenly within the reach of the working class?
What on earth do libertarians think the New Deal was? A brand of candy bar?
-
cellocat says:
I think one problem with Mr. Hightower’s ideas is that he leaves out the fear that many people have of the “others”. People are sometimes willing to cooperate within their own groups, but for populism to work, lines of communication and joint action have to form between groups. It also requires an ability to look ahead a few years to see the benefits that can accrue from such communication and action. As our attention span gets shorter and shorter in this age of “24-hour news”, those attitudes and abilities are harder to find.
I think this is one aspect of the brilliance of the Justice Party idea; it is relevant, immediate, and indicates direct action. It can be viewed both as a way to respond to present problems (the looting of the economy) and to plan for future action to work towards a better future (equal opportunity, green economy, etc). This way it can harness the energies of current outrage while also educating and supporting its members in the longer and slower roads that are necessary for long-term fundamental change.
-
sandra s. says:
Also, I have to say that people wouldn’t have been buying cars en masse if it wasn’t for the prevalence of ROADS. New Deal ftw.
-
willyjsimmons says:
All governments no. In “theory” I suppose.
But governments are run by people and more times than not we can’t agree.
No consensus, no solutions.
And as a thought experiment, Arthur’s suggestion is massive non-cooperation with the state. How many people could truly stage a general strike, and how long would you be willing to keep doing it? Personally.
I don’t have children, so I could probably go longer than most. Other’s might not be able to go even a single day.
Arthur does say non-cooperation only up to the level one is comfortable with which does leave some wiggle room, but when it comes to getting the attention of congress, it would have to be something “big” and scary for them to contemplate, and we have to be able to pull it off.
How long could you go? If (when) they start arresting people, are you willing to go to jail?
Once the rubber meets the road, people aren’t so enthusiastic about changing the world.
-
sandra s. says:
OT, I don’t know if people remember me mentioning a Palin/Obama quiz on a previous thread. It’s up now at the Confluence- http://riverdaughter.wordpress...../#comments
-
Toonces says:
Am I the only one wondering if They don’t actually want to stop the Gulf Coast Black Fountain of Death? Might there be some shock doctrine thing happening? New Orleans is already vulnerable, right? Just curious.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
OT, but no, Toonces, you’re not the only one.
*****A
-
bob c says:
“Brave New World” has come to be…and we are drowning in a SOMA-SOAKED world of intellectual self-deceit. Do the math people. ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA, DELTA, EPSILON. All are the cannon fodder for self interest and greed. Progress indeed!
-
Grace says:
About Adrienne in CA #6
I agree with you about Michael Moore’s movie’s naive finale in saying that Obama was “an answer to our populist prayers.” And yes, organizations such as Move.On,NOW, and NARAL, have refrained so far from attacking or at least criticizing the Messiah.
I think what happened was that all of these people projected and invested so much on who they thought Obama was (“this is what a feminist looks like,” and Move.On and NARAL endorsing Obama over Hillary), that they would have to admit thay they were dead wrong from the beginning, which would cause them to feel and appear inadequate and incompetent in their initial assessments. In other words, that they were fooled.
All the above and other people have criticized Congress, “the democrats,” Ramm Emanuel, BP, Stupak, the Bush administration, even Hillary and Bill as scapegoats, but then they all end their writings with a casual mentioning of “President Obama” in a neutral tone as if he were a ghost or just a framed picture on the wall. And Michelle Obama lately being glamorized for going to watch the Lakers in LA, like nothing is happening and her life is business as usual like when they were living in Chicago.
Denial, rationalization, or dissociation: all of them defense mechanisms to avoid facing the truth.
-
Val says:
“The American principle is founded on the possibility that citizens can create a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I still believe that.”
I’m w/you, Violet. Good points about the economy too!
-
SYD says:
If I remember correctly… Alternet was expounding on the virtues of The Holy One, just a few short months ago. Well, in 2008 & 2009.
Meh.
-
Sharon says:
I’ve had some dealings with the local Tea Party, and while I can’t really say they’re my tribe, I get their concerns. No, they don’t march with misspelled signs and scream hate. But there is a sense with them that a great country is losing its way, something I can readily agree with when I watch The Patriot late on TNT once in a great while. I live in a VERY progressive community, and that same community has constellated a lot of the dark side of progressivism, like ‘let’s feed all the homeless’, so the jails around the state send all vagrants just out of jail here, and we have no plan…other than to get deluged by pandhandling vagrants at every turn. The local Tea Party here is nationally focused, and doesn’t like what they perceive as a socialist takeover. With my state’s unemployment hovering at 12%, and the state facing a $12bn deficit, it’s not looking too good for the home team, and I understand a populist reaction in anger. Really I do. That said, I am not seeing solutions proposed. I am just seeing collective anger taking a stand and throwing its hands in the air. I’d say that’s their success point – tapping that collective anger. Mobilizing it to do something, whether from Tea Party Ranks or progressive ranks, is the stumbling block. SOMEONE has got to offer a vision of an America that a populist movement could mobilize behind, and that I haven’t seen…yet.
-
Violet Socks says:
Feeding the homeless is the “dark side of progressivism”?
The local Tea Party here is nationally focused, and doesn’t like what they perceive as a socialist takeover. With my state’s unemployment hovering at 12%, and the state facing a $12bn deficit, it’s not looking too good for the home team, and I understand a populist reaction in anger.
So unemployed people are rising up in populist anger against what they perceive to be socialism? That right there should tell you that what’s going on is the result of pure propaganda.
