Jenny Brown wrote:
JB: OK, I tried again and I'm still getting not much out of this.
She criticizes:
>The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics.
Who, besides the PLP, is doing that?
^^^^ CB: Lots on this list. Surely you've noticed that. If he does anything wrong it's jumped on. I mean stomped on with relish. If he does something right his motives are questioned, it's mocked, it's belittled, the main aim is try twist events so as to be able to say "I told you so"; anything but saying that was "one" to Obama's credit.
Totally ignoring that the environment is still a US population and politicians that did all they did for the last 10,20, 30 years. Refusing to acknowledge Obama represents an unexpected break to the left of all that, but that, of course, it's not likely to be a radical move to the left. That its not a radical move to the left is not Obama's "fault"; that there is any move left, and as much as it is , is to Obama's credit, even as it is based in the masses ( and the movement in the base preceding Obama's efforts is pretty small; he made some left movement out of almost nothing in the base; being upset with him is absurd)His credit is for somehow liberating and "congealing" and leading the mass opposition to Reaganism, as miniscule and weak as it was, that has been scattered and disunited for 30 years. To be upset with _Obama_ for making something left out of almost nothing is truly misdirected frustration.
On this list's sneering at that achievment, I've been reading it for months. Check out the archives Check out your discussion of EFCA below. Obama's strongly for it, but that's not good enough. He has to make it a "priority". Obama is not the problem. He's the first President since FDR (?) to support pro-union legislation.
That he's trying to move a mountain is ignored. You ask how do you move a mountain I don't know. I do see that Obama, somehow , amazingly, moved it a little, so right now it would seem "how to move the mountain", if at all, is associated with Obama.
It makes absolutely no sense to be upset with Obama, or blame him for not moving the mountain further and faster, almost by himself. Figure out how to get in and push.Burnham can't figure that out for everybody. She's just advising generally in the big picture what is to be done.
^^^^^^
^^^^^ (An aside, I don't think Obama's wrenched the DP "out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism," notwithstanding that Bush made Clintonian centrism look like a spring day. It seems to be congealing in the center, a gelatinous energy-absorbing blob that shifts, so far, only due to internal crisis.)
^^^^^^ CB: Yes it's centrist, but Obama's influence has been to move it left, not to congeal it in the center. The small shifts are not only due to internal crisis, but rather Obama has initiated some shifts, as with the anti-Reaganite budget proposal, EFCA, and pay equity.
However, there is significant resistence , notably from the group of Senators led by Evan Byah. On the other hand, Obama has always said "change comes from the bottom up, not the top down." He can't make the Senate do things. Only somehow keeping the motion from the campaign going can do it.
^^^^^^ A lot of tautology--we have to step up and stay engaged or the potential of the democratic opening will not be realized or maximized. OK. Stay engaged. (Who is she criticizing?)
^^^^^^ CB: Probably mainly some left internet and conventional press discussion , the medium we are in right now. The article is on the internet. It is directed at internet talk.
^^^^ Specifics: Defend the Democratic opening. This means joining MoveOn or the DP, AFAICT.
^^^^^ CB: Yes. Relate to people who voted for Obama. Here there is a "tendency" in the ___ Congressional District Democratic Party that specifically names itself as a continuation of the Obama campaign led by a Teamster leader. They just won the leadership in the District. I live in the other District, but I'm trying to figure out how to go to Obama people led District meetings.
^^^^^ Hasten the demise of the Southern strategy. OK, that's a really good idea. How? The first thing that occurs to me is we need more fucking unionization around here.
^^^^^ CB : So, seems like you'd see Obama's strong backing of the EFCA as not centrist but left. Clinton didn't do anything like that. Granted it's not radical change, but it's (potential) change. It's not centrism congealing, rather "oozing" to the left. and it's not a change coming out of internal crisis in the DP. Does your congressperson support it ? It's true that my congresspeople support it so, there's not much activism on that issue here.
As far as how to hasten the demise of the Southern strategy, I don't really know. But what are you saying ? That because Burnham doesn't give the "how" , she shouldn't say it ? That you already had thought of that, so she's not telling you anything new ? Great. The usual reaction to that wouldn't be to be frustrated with Burnham. People propose ideas all the time around the internet without detailing the specifics. ^^^^^ But fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act to be a priority (when Obama isn't) ^^^^^^ CB: I keep hearing about him supporting it strongly.
^^^^^^
that's probably "premature platform erection." Or is it?
^^^^ CB: That's not what the trade unions seem to be saying about Obama. Mocking Obama's support as not good enough is the type of thing addressed by Burnham. ^^^^ Could be building a left-progressive alliance.
^^^^^ CB: What masses of people would be in this ? How is it that Obama's win isn't the only actually existing opening that indicates there _might_ be masses who would be brought to such ? Where else but among the voters for Obama is there anything but a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who might be in said left-progressive alliance ? I mean really. See Burnham's discussion of the left.
^^^^^^
^^^^^^ The electoral arena is an area of struggle. I'm in Florida so maybe this has just been bleeding obvious for oh, a decade. If there's something new or helpful here it's escaping me. The Southern strategy was 'defeated' by a large Black turnout, the economic situation and, specifically in the case of Florida, a bunch of foreclosures making people pay attention to the economic situation. And by 'defeated' we mean a swing of one percentage point. (Of course who knows what it would've been without lying machines, but that's *been* true.)
^^^^^^ CB: I don't know how to consolidate the defeat of that strategy. Burnham is setting out broad principles. It is not guaranteed that the goals she pronounces can be achieved,
However, it is truly bizarre for lefts to be upset with _Obama_ because somehow he and his people figured out how to win Florida, Virginia Carolina, et al, by some small margin.; Truly bizarre misplacement of frustration. Way bizarre. Obama is not what is wrong with this picture.
^^^^^^ Left-progressive alliance. This sounds good--but again, what's her point?
^^^^^^ CB: What's the point of 99.9% of the left political articles on the internet and in left papers ? Why is it that you are subjecting this particular article too an unusually high activist standard ? What's your opinion of Doug's anti- activistism arguments.?
^^^^
We're in the middle of a fight on health care. That left-progressive alliance falls apart on the question of healthcare reform, and it falls based on a conflict with the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism that the DP has supposedly been wrenched from.
^^^^^^ CB: So, what is your point ? Burnham's claims are totally' false because her generalization fails on the health care issue ? There are other issues for which Burnham's claim are accurate. John Conyers is as much in the health care struggle as anyone. He seems to see the Obama win as doing something significant to move out of Clintonism.
^^^^^^ Because she doesn't run any examples through her argument, there's no way to tell what she's suggesting. Is fighting to eliminate health insurance companies too dogmatic and isolating, or part of building a left-progressive alliance? When it's in direct opposition to Obama, then what?
^^^^^ CB: I'd say follow the example of Conyers. He continues to fight for single-payer , opposing Obama on that, and supports Obama in general
^^^^^^^^
Engage with the movements that exist. (We aren't already in them? What left is she in?)
^^^^^ CB: A lot of left internet talkers don't seem to be thusly engaged.
^^^^^^ And, there's a depression on. That'll make it messy. Messy? Seems like a big opening to me, but what do I know? I'm probably succumbing to the siren songs of dogma.
^^^^^^ CB: If you don't think anybody is dogmatically anti-DP on the left internet, you haven't been reading the left lists at all.
^^^^^^^ Build the left. Again, specifics? More exhortation, more tautology.
^^^^^^ CB: That would be all you would be saying around here if you applied that standard in most of your posts to this list. And "Build the left" is more practice oriented than the average post to this list. So, why does Burnham's article give you nothing , when this list does ? I don't understand why your response to all the criticisms of Obama on this list isn't "So, that's whining ( not even exhortation). What are the specifics of what we should do ?" You subject Burnham to a standard that you don't subject Obama's critics to.
^^^^^^
If we do it right, we'll succeed. If "opportunity is mangled or missed," it will be bad news. But the opportunity she chiefly sees is the democratic opening due to the movement that elected Obama. The capitalist cataclysm doesn't seem to be rating, even as a teachable moment. I just don't get what people are learning from this article. Jenny Brown
^^^^^ CB: In that vein I don't get what you are learning from anything that has been said on this list, but I don't recall you making that complaint. And Burnham's article is a lot more practice focused than most discussion here, though general and sort of brainstorming. Why one standard for Burnham and another for LBO-talk ? Or just about'all the left internet, and journalism.
That Burnham didn't write about the capitalist cataclysm doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned from her discussion of the potential in the people in motion in the Obama election. I'm pretty sure she would agree that an analysis of the capitalist cataclysm is critical to understanding potential for progressive change in the current situation.
My thought would be why don't you write that article.