Recent Dominick ZNet Articles
- Dominick: Strategy Chat
- Dominick: Wholesale Looting
- Dominick: Venomous Congress
- Dominick: Bush & Abu Ghraib
- Dominick: Fallujah Medical
- All ZNet Recent
Recent Dominick Commentaries
- Dominick: Corporate Media Tramples Own Sourcing Rules on Iran Claims
- Dominick: Children Terrified
- Dominick: We Will March!
- Dominick: Does Size Really Matter?
- Dominick: Attack Of The Liberals
- All Dominick Commentaries
Recent Dominick Blog Posts
- Dominick: Anti-Jews on the Left
- Dominick: Target the Dems!
- Dominick: NPR Sounds Terror Alarm
- Dominick: LA Times Errs on 'Errant' Airstrike
- Dominick: Reuters on Turkey-Kurdistan
- Dominick Blog
Recent Dominick Video
Brian Dominick's Blog
Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/briandominickSend Mail Message
Bio:
Brian Dominick is an organizer and journalist who grew up, and still lives,... (More)
Target the Dems! A Radical Appeal to the U.S. Left
By Brian Dominick at Feb 16, 2008
It feels like 2004 all over again. The Democrats are putting forward moderate candidates, and the US Left already plans to vote for him or her. It seems the "Anybody But Bush" sentiment will carry forth, garnering support among progressives and even radicals for whichever pro-establishment candidate the Democrats decide to field. Whether they fall for the rhetoric promising "hope" and "change" or not, leftists will consider the showdown to be yet another Lesser-evil-vs.-evil cataclysm, set aside all reservations, and vote or even campaign for the Democratic candidate.
And despite the dismal results of precisely that approach in 2004, we're unlikely to see leftists placing any conditions on the Democratic candidate or party for that support. That will allow the Dems to take the Left for granted and look to the "center" for "swing voters." In doing so, the Democratic candidate will modify her or his platform as the general election approaches, dropping positions that are moderately progressive for stances that are just plain moderate. I suspect this will not be helped by the fact that the Dems' candidate will either be the first woman or the first black man to top a major party ticket.
If the Democrats manage to take the White House even without appealing to or inspiring true progressives or radicals, but merely counting on that constituency's unwavering hatred for Republicans, they will be that much less beholden to the progressive social movements they ignored while campaigning. Having placed no demands on the candidates, the most leftists will be able to hope for is that the next president will be somehow better than George W. Bush - not a tall order, and one the Democrats are glad to fill.
But since neither of the Democratic nominees who are still in the running is particularly progressive (don't bother mentioning that hack Gravel - he's a nobody and his tax platform renders him irrelevant as well as putrid), why not make some demands on the Democrats now, with an attendant threat to boycott the elections if a more-progressive platform is not adopted. Sure, maybe the Dems will simply ignore the small portion of their base that is truly on the Left, but maybe making such demands will increase that portion and raise important issues in the meantime?
Casual observation of the buildup to the party conventions coming this summer to Denver (DNC) and Minneapolis-St. Paul (RNC) suggests that more radical activists intend to protest the latter convention than the former. This seems downright backwards. First, what kind of a statement is it that you're left of the Republican Party. Big fucking deal. Shouldn't we be drawing attention to the massive portion of the political spectrum that lies squarely to the left of the Democratic Party? In 2004, the chasm between the Boston (DNC) and New York City (RNC) protests was humiliating. Seemingly half the US Left showed up to protest Bush, while relatively few made a stink about Kerry's intent to continue a huge number of Bush's policies. The Republicans are beyond impact from the Left - nothing we do or say can convince them to modify their positions to accommodate ours. That's not necessarily true of the Democrats.
And what kind of message do the Dems receive if even the sector of society that is to their left is caught up in protesting the Far Right? What does it say about radical dissent in America if it can be coopted by the "Anything But the Republicans" mentality that is surely to dominate liberal discourse in 2008. That attitude need not dominate the Radical Left as it did in 2004. There are other options.
Sure, we all hope the Democrat wins in November, if we have to have one of the two goons that we'll get to decide between. That's a no-brainer. But we don't have to vote for her or him, and we can certainly still place demands on the Democrats, rather than cave in to the threat of a re-elected Bush like we did four years ago.
First we should start with questions, to clarify where the candidates stand on issues that aren't in the public arena as of yet. Here are a few things I want to know, which no one with access can be bothered to ask:
- Which of the executive powers claimed by Bush in the last seven years will you officially and explicitly relinquish upon taking office? Which executive orders and signing statements will you reverse? Which secret executive orders will you expose, if it turns out they exist (e.g., torture directives and other Terror War policies)? Which do you intend to retain as the spoils of presidential entitlement?
- Why is a single-payer healthcare system off the table? Are you willing to place price caps on pharmaceuticals and other medical costs, cutting the profit margin for the benefit of the public?
- What kind of fairness principles will be included in trade treaties you will seek? Are you willing to admit that the "free-trade" agenda of the last Clinton administration was a massive disaster? Should we even take you that seriously? Are you willing to put progressive economists in charge of the IMF and World Bank, even if that means further weakening their demands on "developing" debtor nations that favor US elites or enforce "free-market" economic policies on underprivileged societies? Are you willing to transfer debt to regional creditors that are better able to handle "development" in places like South America and Southeast Asia?
- What kind of reparations do you propose we provide to the people of Iraq, now that our immoral and illegal invasion has turned their country into a massive, perpetual disaster area? Once you've gotten around to removing US bases and troops (which we know you don't actually intend to do), how will we manage to make amends and compensate Iraqis for what our policies and actions have done to them?
- Do you support the push for privatization of Iraqi oil by US government and corporate agents? Would you be willing to allow the puppet Iraqi government to strike deals that retain a degree of sovereignty over their oil holdings similar to that held by other oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, if they so chose?
- Are you willing to accept the global (non-US) consensus on Israel/Palestine and insist that Israel adhere to UN resolutions calling for an end to the occupation and settlement of the West Bank? Will you withhold funding from Israel if it fails to adhere to UN resolutions?
- Will you divert significant funds from the military budget to a public/private-sector initiative to develop green technologies and sustainable infrastructure? Are you willing to raise taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels while subsidizing alternatives such as wind and solar power, public transportation and consumer-efficiency programs?
None of these questions, of course, is particularly radical. They all tacitly accept the legitimacy of republican democracy and executive powers (which I don't even accept, but the questions are meant to be illustrative). Most liberals and progressives should be wondering them as well, and many probably are. But they expose, on just a handful of issues, how close the Dems and Republicans actually are on some very core issues facing our nation.
Since the media seems unwilling to ask, progressive and radical would-be supporters of the would-be Democratic candidates should start asking, forcefully and loudly, starting now. We need to hound the Democrats to expose them as a party of the privileged, demonstrating clearly that there is room to the left of Obama and Clinton. Leave the Republicans to the Democrats, the hapless liberal bloggers and the naïve campus wankers, all resting in or waiting for their secure establishment slots - the Dems should be our targets, and we should be making hard demands of them.
Comment viewing options
By Chris Green at Feb 24, 2008 20:51
Your argument that nobody who argues for a flat retail tax is progressive made me think automatically of Alexander Cockburn. Back in 1992 Cockburn whooped up Jerry Brown's flat tax idea and I'm not sure but I thought he was kindly friendly towards Mike Huckabee's national sales tax. Of course, even if you accept the arguments for these regressive taxes that the poor would get enough loopholes, exemptions for food, etc to make it managable for the poor,the amount of money available for needed infrastructure, social programs, etc. would wither away. Doug Henwood had a good critique of Jerry Brown's economic proposals, the horror of which Cockburn and others seemed not to grasp, back in 1992: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Jerry-Brown.html
I've been amazed at how even some radical leftists take Obama as a genuine canidate. Rahul Mahajan has been talking about campaiging for Obama in order to pull the young people that he has "inspired" in order to radicalism. I think that 9 times out of ten electoral politics is a dead end. I think electoral politics is a comfort zone for many people because you don't have to do anything--you can argue for or against a canidate's policies and vote and then keep waiting and hoping for serious change. People sort of don't want to admit to themselves that the society and government they have grown up in and become a part of is hopeless , and so they get hopeful and way more excited than they should about elections. Elections seem to be the most politically active time for alot of leftists.
I remember when Norman Solomon, Daniel Ellsberg, and Medea Benjamen came to my undergraduate institution, Pacific Lutheran University in the fall of 2004 as part of their nationwide tour to urge people to vote for Kerry against Bush. There was probably about 70 oeople in the audience and only a few of the people had probably ever heard of Medea or Normon. Most of the audience was not very politically aware students who got extra credit for attending.. The three put forth some general observations against Bush, as if they were reciting editorials from the Nation. I was the first in the question and answer session and started rolling off the litany of abuses in foreign and domestic affairs that Clinton had engaged in and Solomon responded with something about how outside of elections, we need to put mass pressure on Democrats when they have white house, congress, etc.
I doubt it made any impression on the students at all. I heard some murmuring from students afterward that they expected it to be some sort of academic presentation and not a couple of exhorters spewing vague liberal-- left platitudes .At the end of the session, Medea got up and started hollering "A vote against Bush is a vote against torture and bombing of civilians, selling off of Iraqi economy." Of course most of the students present got nothing from such oratory, they probably weren't even aware that there was such an idea that U.S. was butchering civilians and looting the Iraqi economy.
By minot at Feb 21, 2008 07:18
Thanks for clarifying the 'putrid' remark. I hope that goes for 'total scum,' too. Please remember that Gravel is the man who filibustered the draft with success and read the leaked Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record at his own risk. I remember those days, and how important these things were and are.
I am in essential agreement with the argument made in your post. Personally, I'll vote, but for Nader (hopefully) or otherwise someone who doesn't approve slaughter, as an example to my kids that we have the right to choose our government, and the right to choose candidates other than mass murderers. (My remark about Znet bloggers was not in reference to your blog, but to my memories of how Znet bloggers gravitated to Kerry in 2004.)
I don't disagree with you that any sales tax (or flat rate tax) is, in theory, more regressive than income/wealth taxes - that's pretty basic. When Steve Forbes proposes a 'flat tax,' it clearly is a trojan horse to line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of those not. However, when Gravel proposes a 'fair tax,' that is not the aim and it is not his vision of how the tax would affect society.
To understand this, you need to look at Gravel in context - he does not come out of the socialist left tradition, but a jeffersonian/populist one. He has much in common with Nader, including an underlying belief in an idealized capitalism, which I do not share but can respect. His "main schtick" is not the 'fair tax,' but reforming the democratic process through "citizen empowerment" and a 'national initiative' (referendum) which he says would need to exist before the 'fair tax' could be enacted, due to what would be implacable congressional opposition.
I do not buy the fair tax, even in Gravel's idealized form, because even as a reform measure, these kinds of proposals to me are just gimmicks - if you had the votes to enact an idealized fair tax that would have positive impact on working people, you would have the votes to simply reform the income tax system and tax wealth accordingly.
You can say he is wrong on how his tax would play out, but why make the error of characterizing his progressive positions, which are held with real integrity, as simply his way of "bamboozling" otherwise well-intentioned people into supporting a rich man's tax? Better to inform yourself about him and his positions, or if you choose not to, then refrain from uninformed speculation.
Gravel and those few Gravel supporters/voters as exist (I was one of eight in my city) are natural allies for an anti-imperial, anti-corporate front and insulting them is not a well-considered startegy.
p.s. Gravel's Presidents Day message on his website includes the statement that two individuals who would have very important roles as advisors in a Gravel presidency would be Nader and Chomsky.
By Brian Dominick at Feb 20, 2008 15:44
Minot, I assure you I won't be telling anyone to vote this November. I'm sure they have better ways to spend their time.
As for me thinking Gravel's platform is putrid (I meant to characterize the platform not the man -- my bad), I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I will note that you didn't actually challenge my claim that his tax policy would undermine just about everything progressive in his platform. I strongly suspect that the tax policy, which would simply help redistribute wealth from the poor to the wealthy, is his main schtick, and his other stuff -- much of it quite progressive -- is just a way to bamboozle liberals and progressives into his camp. It's not a bad plan, really, since most self-identified libs/progs have no class analysis and way too much upper-class consciousness. Progressive on foreign affairs + progressive on social issues + defender of class privilege = most liberals' wet dream!
By Frederic Christie at Feb 20, 2008 15:40
"You can make demands on Obama and Hillary as much and as loudly as you like--I'm for it and I do it--but the real question is, what do you have to make demands WITH?"
The power of one's vote. While this is more powerful during primaries (which is why people voting for candidates they find VIABLE rather than ones that they agree with is so stupid), it still matters during the national elections.
The power of harassment. A few thousand calls make some impacts.
The power of the record. Candidates like to make progressive (or, in the case of conservatives, regressive) promises beyond the "center" of their party to energize the base. Though not all will be enacted, one can force SOME to be enacted lest the politician seem like a blatant liar.
By minot at Feb 20, 2008 08:10
Gravel is someone who tries to think independently, and his platform is not traditonally left, for sure. But characterizing him as 'putrid ' is symptomatic of bloggers' disease - wherein all disagreement calls for inflammatory language.
Gravel is a decent guy, a friend of the left, who would be a far better president than any of those now standing among the d's or r's - including those who Znet bloggers will be advising us to vote for come November. He meets the test on the baseline issue of the day - slaughter of families around the world funded by our (income tax) dollars. Thanks are due to him for continuing to speak on our behalf.
By Brian Dominick at Feb 19, 2008 10:18
I'm sorry, folks, but anyone who advocates getting rid of personal and corporate income tax in favor of a flat retail tax isn't "progressive" on anything, because that would undermine pretty much all decent policies the person purports to hold on other issues. That idea is so egregiously anti-working class and pro-privileged classes that I can't take anyone who advocates it remotely seriously, or offer them anything but disdain, whatever else they have to say. It's like if I sat here blogging liberal or progressive ideas and then said part of the solution is to start giving the rich more money while we deal with those other issues. I would be rightly laughed off of ZNet. How does Gravel command so much bizarre respect among progressives while he wants to shift more of the tax burden onto the poor, in droves?
Lesser Evil
By Joseph Carter at Feb 19, 2008 04:39
I think I gave up on the electoral proccess a long time ago! We are way past the point of reform. I keep waiting for the east and the west to seperate and a new Bushtantinople to be built. It really is a choice between the "Lesser Evil" Just here lately I cannot figure out who is the leser of the evils.
That diss on Gravel was completely unneeded though, The old man really seemed sincere in his dismay about the problems in the political arena. The Movie "Grumpy Old Men". . . . . Maybe. . . .but if they were all like Gravel I think we would see some revolution on the horizon.
Thanks for your blog.
Joe
Make demands with what?
By Carl Davidson at Feb 17, 2008 18:41
You can make demands on Obama and Hillary as much and as loudly as you like--I'm for it and I do it--but the real question is, what do you have to make demands WITH?
Politicians usually listen to organizations with votes, money or both. They're surely not going to listen to our money. And having abstained from the electoral arena in any serious way for decades because of its semi-conscious anarcho-syndicalist (in effect) cul-de-sac, the hard left has very few votes that it can claim. I worked with dozens of neighborhood P&J groups in 2004--they had little experience even registering voters, if they were registered themselves, and even less about how to ID the vote in a precinct, how to GOTV in a Ward, how to pollwatch and protect the vote, and so on. Hardly any had done this for the Dems, let alone the Greens or themselves. The exceptions are older Black church ladies and some union staffers, but while these are important, I don't think it's the left you're talking about.
And don't say 'masses in the streets' is what we'll show 'em. Obama has already pulled more young antiwar hip-hop people to mass rallies than the hard left could dream of between now and November. Besides, if you can't bring them to the polls, the numbers in the streets for the next few months don't carry much clout with politicians on the campaign trail, even if street heat is vital strategically.
Here's my point. By all means get into this fight and put pressure or 'demands' on the Dems while defeating McCain. But do it in a way that builds an independent grassroots electoral instrument the belongs to the left, not the Dems, and network these for the future. Call it the 'partybuilding is the central task' option if you like, only the party ain't the Dems. Then we might not be in such bad shape next time around.
By Stu Shadwell at Feb 16, 2008 12:24
You may be right about his tax platform, here he perhaps bears more resemblence to Ron Paul, I was rather suspicious about it myself though I haven't done to much research into tax matters as of yet. This aside Gravel's worth is in standing up and speaking out in a way that Obama, Clinton, or even Edwards would never dare to about the corruption of US politics. So while his tax platform may deserve criticism I don't think he should be completeley condemned for it.
By Brian Dominick at Feb 16, 2008 11:05
Jo, I guess maybe my definition of progressive is a bit different, but it's probably too forgiving, and you're probably spot on in your critique. It's just that I, too, feel an absense of true radicals as so many have flocked rightward in recent years, especially with the predominance of mediocrity in the blogosphere. If that's part of the Left, it makes me not want to be a leftist, that much I know for sure.
Home
Contacts
Joining ZSpace 
New Users
Search
ZNet Article
ZMag Article
Commentaries
ZBooks
ZBook Reviews
ZFilms
ZFilm Reviews
ZLyrics
ZPoems
ZAudio
ZVideo
ZGraphics