Poetic Discourse
the Current Policitcal process and other writings
|
How Can Progressives Protect the “Atmosphere” of a Democratic Presidency
by John Peterson
Jennifer Stone, long time commentator for KPFA- progressive radio - out of Berkeley, indicated in a
show sometime back that progressives were already critiquing John Kerry as not being far enough to
the left, she called for a more even approach to Kerry’s candidacy from those on the progressive
left. This kind of critique of the Democrats is a staple of progressives whenever a Democrat finds
their way to the White House. It is clear over the years that progressives have been critical in
unseating and disarming both Republicans and Democrats that strayed to far from key elements of
what is perceived as a humane, albeit, liberal agenda. Progressives were instrumental in forcing LBJ
to refuse the run for a second term. They were highly critical of Hubert Humphrey’s failed run for
president. With relentless pressure from progressives and others Agnew and then Nixon were driven
out of office. Progressives were instrumental in creating the climate for Jimmy Carter to capture the
White House. Though Reagan and then Bush senior keep the White House for 12 years
progressives kept the heat on and exposed amongst other improprieties their illegal contra war.
Progressives launched Clinton into the presidency, like it or not, and surely progressives created a
climate to call Bush’s arrogance into question and make a real space for Kerry to unseat Bush
though this ultimately failed.
Progressive is a not so secret “code” word for all of those who seek enlightened change, from
Democrats that are left of the center of that party, to liberals with socialist inclinations, to
environmentalist, to peace activists, to out and out radicals that see the need for a major
revolutionary overhaul of the American system. Central to the Progressive agenda is the critique of
corporate capitalism (this may need to be redefined in light of socially responsive business) and US
Military dominance in the world; the continuing hegemony of white male rule (the lack of multicultural
inclusions and women’s right) both in US society and around the world; and the class based society
that still dominates the US and leaves many on the lower socio-economic rungs out of the “American
Dream,” whatever that might be. Most on the progressive list believe in the American way of life and
wish America to live up to its best principles and are deeply and incontrovertibly bound up in
American institutions whether they be academic, professional, economic or religious, yet there are
those considered progressive who wish for a different “experiment” in social order.
The desire for a social form that matches one’s personal or group inclinations and values seems to
be integral to what we understand as a fully developed person. One’s social nature grows along with
other more personal aspects of one’s being and wishes for a full expression. Individual
characteristics need a place to manifest and it can be catastrophic if this is not allowed to happen or
is throated in some way. So too, it seems, that the part of one’s nature that grows into a social being
likewise wishes to have a means of expression out into the world – into, as it were, the social world.
The fundamental principle of one’s social nature, and the very foundation of social consciousness, is
that it is inclusive, and not monolithic. The nature of healthy social behavior is that one may hold to
one’s beliefs and allow the beliefs of others to have a place in the larger community as well. What
indeed would social mean other than the interaction with others? There may well be a part of the
growing person that requires a monolithic nature, but in the social domain that is not the case.
Even in what appears to be monolithic cultures or dominant cultural forms we find there are various
expressions as they move into the social realm. Within Islamic states there are Sunni and Shiite
divisions. Within socialist ideologies there are the diversity of Marxists and Social Democrats, poles
apart on many issues but still beholding to basic socialist views; even within Marxism we saw the
Lenin/Trotsky split plus many others. In the US there are the Democrat and Republican (and we wish
many more) Parties. In our dear Republican Party, there are NeoCons and “Rockefeller” liberals (or
there use to be). And of course Democrats are vastly more splintered than monolithic (from the
relics of Dixiecrats - Zell Miller - to socialist – Tom Hayden). In our present political environment, we
are told that the polarization has reached an extreme not seen for sometime. This may or may not
be the case. Not being a professional student of history still I recall that Jefferson and Hamilton lead
significantly different factions of the new republic. Lincoln of course led the nation during its split into
two states during the Civil War. During the run-up to the Second World War the country was split
heavily and viable socialist parties were significant players on the political scene. At the time of my
first presidential election Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy presented two very different views of
the direction America would head. And of course during the Vietnam era an opposition developed
that over time not only helped bring that war to an end but also brought the country around to the
realization that it was a war that should never have been waged.
So opposition is not a bad thing. In the realm of duality, that realm where everything is seen in its
opposites, having competing views is the norm. Still, on occasion, we must find that place where we
see through the duality and recognize the unity that is the foundation of all existence, including a
country’s. But, we must also recognize that there are times when we must enter the world of duality
and resist one pole or another. Lord Krishna, in the Mahabarata, presents to Arjuna a great
quandary. In the looming battle with Arjuna’s family Krishna offers either himself as councilor to
Arjuna or all of Krishna’s cohorts, his thousands of warriors and confidants. Arjuna who is stunned
that it should come to this eventually chooses Krishna; Krishna’s cohorts go to the opposition and
the battle ensues. Certainly this cannot be seen as a battle between good and evil as Krishna’s
cohorts are not also evil. There are many great lessons in the Mahabarta to be unfolded and at
least one is that conflict is rarely between the ultimate good and the evil genius. Mostly it is between
various views of the good but still it may be fought and so it is best that we recognize the humanity of
all sides in the conflict and act accordingly.
But what does this mean to the progressive voice in the current debate. A basic logical error one
learns early in the study of philosophy is the ad hominen argument or the “argument against the
man.” When one fails to articulate the real flaws in an argument one proceeds to attack the
individual who espouses the point of view. This sounds very much like the negative advertising that
political contests eventual devolve into in this country. But this is very weak and assumes that we are
addressing people who do not have the capacity to really understand what is going on. It devalues
the individual and seeks to exploit the emotionality of the issue. Satirizing the foibles of a candidate
may be legitimate, as on The Daily Show, but quickly turns into bad taste and character
assassination when the focus is to demean. Progressives are guilty of this as well as
archconservatives. But, as history will attest, even when this kind of behavior carries the day we can
be sure that in the next go-round this kind of hostile behavior will be used, with greater rancor, on the
candidate of our choice, often by the progressive themselves. This I believe is what Jennifer Stone
was alluding to.
The extreme right abused Bill Clinton viciously during his Presidency, and yes he did bring some on
himself. Did some of this stem from the viciousness of the attacks on Reagan and Bush senior by
the left, possibly? Some of the ill will toward Clinton came from the more progressive elements on
the left. I had a good friend who quickly withdrew support from Clinton soon after he became
President because Clinton did not adhere to certain liberal agenda items that were dear to him. Did
the right wing’s attack on Clinton insure that Bush would be treated in a similar way when he came
into office, certainly and certainly Bush has brought much on himself. What then will be the abuse
heaped on a future Democratic Presidency? Indeed it will be vicious beyond belief and has already
started. Opposition at times must be total and still we must articulate what the “bottom line” truly is.
Corporate business claims the “bottom line” to be its financial gain, political strategist claim the
“bottom line” to be all out character assassination. In both cases progressives must claim the
“bottom line” to be that that holds the highest regard for human dignity.
Where does this lead? After 40 years of political awareness I firmly believe that progressive ideas
and analysis have been the driving force for much that is good about America. From union
organizing to the civil rights movement; from child labor laws to opposition to the death penalty; from
women’s rights to the peace movement, progressives have been out front analyzing the issues,
forcing them before the American people, and demanding that politicians deal with them. The left of
center agenda has held sway, but the more radical socialist agenda has not. That is a truth about
American history and political life and must be dealt with. If progressives can continue to act in the
name of the good and the true regardless of the outcome than a better American society is possible.
This does not mean that ideals should be denied and it does not mean that dreams should be
deferred. This does not mean that in the long term some very deep and fundamental principles of
the “American experiment” don’t need correcting.
It is indeed possible to analysis American history to a point of denying its legitimacy; the original
determination that a Negro was to be counted as but 2/3 of a man, and even then only to give the
south a larger population stake in the new congress, may well de-legitimizes the entire experiment as
even once the change is made to full suffrage still the social order may be operating on this old
primacy and yet now it is hidden in the political and social landscape. Also the genocide of the native
peoples give deep concern about the viability of this historical movement and raises again the
question whether the words can be realized in the flesh. Still, ideals are important in moving a people
towards the good and certainly figures like Thomas Jefferson can be seen in this light. And here we
are more than two hundred year into it and gains have been made, corners turned and we must, it
seems, continue on. It is the history of progressive gains that adds a new substance to the old
history.
If progressives are to have a political role in a future Democratic Presidency, and we can hope, what
should be the focus of the progressive agenda. Jerry Brown, in one of his runs for the Presidency,
said something to the effect that, once one starts on the path to the Presidency one’s choices
become narrower and narrower. We see this in even the most liberal Presidents. It is against those
historical conditions that drive most decision making that determine much of what a President does.
So, what is it that distinguishes a President like Jimmy Carter from a George W. Bush, a liberal from a
conservative, a Democrat from a Republican? Given that many decisions will be mandated by the
office itself, such as the threat of military force, used essentially by all presidents at one time or
another, or the adherence to capitalist economic principles, the protection of trade, the appointment
of essentially middle of the road politicos. What is the difference and why should progressives line
up behind someone like a John Kerry, a classic liberal (though his outspoken opposition to the
Vietnam War gives him a special mandate in progressive circles)? That difference is “atmosphere.”
Yes “atmosphere!”
Given that much of what a President can do is narrowly defined by the historical imperatives of this
country still the nature of liberal philosophy gives the populous as a whole a greater opportunity to
flourish and grow. Liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy differ in many respects but they
different most essentially in their view of the individual. A conservative view sees the individual as
essentially “bad” that is, needing strict outside control to insure right behavior, it is founded on a
mostly Christian view of original sin and the need for outside forces to bring the individual back to
God or some state determined concept of the good. Like it or not fascism is the outside extreme of a
conservative agenda. The level of trust that individuals will behave properly is very low. Liberal
philosophy is built off of humanistic assumptions about the essential goodness of the individual.
Given the right conditions an individual will choose to do good rather than evil as it will lead to greater
pleasure (and not the pleasure of gratification but the pleasure in living a good life). The classic
liberal does indeed enjoy the good life (wine, cheese and a night at the concert) hand in hand with
the good political battle. For the liberal, setting up the right conditions (atmosphere) is critical in
creating the good society where individuals will do the right thing because it makes sense to do the
right thing. Laws are still necessary but they can be less controlling of individual behavior and more
controlling of what is construed as exploitive behavior i.e. wages lower than that needed to survive.
Much personal behavior can be left in a non-legal status. Should there be laws about driving drunk,
yes, should there be laws about smoking marijuana, no, this should be left in the non-legal realm.
And so the liberal “atmosphere” can assist in growing the progressive agenda but only if it is seen so
and only if it is utilized in a powerful way. What does an atmosphere mean? What might that be?
Attitude, first of all! Atmosphere comes from attitude and attitude comes with that first essential view
that distinguishes the liberal view from the conservative view. But, that is only the first, yet the
necessary first condition. From that condition flows certain actions. LBJ’s war on poverty flowed
from that view, and his extension of the Vietnam War flowed from his conservative roots, he was a
man and a President in deep conflict. This is not unusual in the American psych. Jimmy Carter’s
liberal atmosphere flowed from a personal view of the good and he lived through that while his
theology may well have thwarted some of what he could do. A man like Clinton had a better
opportunity to express his liberal nature in his Presidency, and did so, and much of what he did
accomplish was to create that “atmosphere” for the good to evolve. Much of his ability to act was
stifled by the very conservative Congress and the extreme conservative forces that lined up against
him. That is where the progressives must take aim in the eventuality of a future Democratic victory.
Progressives will hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire on many issues, that is the nature of
progressive action. But, to chip away at Democrats will be counter productive, what will need to be
chipped away at is the extreme conservative forces that are trying to permeate all aspects of
American life. If progressive forces line up in a concerted way to take on those conservative element
than that liberal “atmosphere” may allow some good to come forth. What must the progressive
forces focus on?
First and foremost is to not give up mainstream media to the so-called conservative, anti-liberal
agenda. Somehow in the post Vietnam era conservatives were able to brand much mainstream
media with a “liberal” bias as if that were somehow bad and progressives could not and would not
counter that tag and insist that if “liberal” media was in fact the case than so be it. In fact
progressives have gone on what could be considered a counter-offensive to paint the mainstream
media as “conservative” and beholding to the large corporate conglomerates that own them. This,
though beholding they are, is, I contend, counter-productive.
First, a local example: Recently in Fresno California on a local news channel, came the
announcement of the opening of the new, and largest in the country, Planned Parenthood Clinic.
The news team announced that the facility would deal with a wide variety of reproductive health
issues from dispensing contraceptives to pre-natal care to counseling on unplanned pregnancies
which include options from keeping the child to adoption to abortion in the first trimester. The Clinic
Director did a good job of indicating that abortion was only 1% of what they did at the clinic and that
Planned Parenthood dealt primarily with low income people giving them options and choices and high
quality, safe reproductive health care where that might not have been the case in years past. Anti-
abortion people showed up to protest the opening of the clinic and of course to single in on the 1% of
abortion. The point is not that anti-abortion forces should not be there, progressives do support the
right to protest. The point is that progressive forces should not allow the anti-abortion forces to
define the issue. Progressive forces must define the issue as the right to full reproductive care and
support not only Planned Parenthood but also the mainstream TV Station that in fact did a good job
of indicating the scope of the abortion issue at that clinic. By the insistence of the Clinic Director that
abortions were only 1% of clinic activity, and the news teams iteration of that point more than once,
the news report significantly undermined the protesters very narrow and uninformed view.
Progressives must be more vigilant in focusing on the serious issue of high quality, safe reproductive
health care and that Planned Parenthood deals primarily with low income people giving them options
and choices concerning their reproductive care. This is true on the local scene as well as the
national scene of a Democratic Presidency.
Failure from progressive forces to remember the past infringe on this “atmosphere”. The issue of
Vietnam military service brought up by Democrats during the Kerry/Bush Election was such an
infringement. As a Vietnam Veteran and a veteran of the peace movement upon my discharge from
the military, bringing up the issue of George W. Bush’s military service lead to the bring up of Kerry’s
military service and his subsequent peace activities. To question Bush’s service during a time when
so many were looking for ways to protest the war and not serve in Vietnam was a foolish error on the
part of the Democratic Party. I knew some who burned draft cards, some who fled to Canada, some
who went to jail, some who used family deferments, some who stayed in school under less then
sterling circumstances. Did George Bush use less than sterling mean to not go to Vietnam, maybe.
Did Dick Chaney use less than sterling means to skip military service, maybe. Should these be
reason for criticism, I say no, and to bring them up was a foolish political foible. To Kerry’s credit he
did not deny his peace activities and instead embraced them. The charge of not warranting one of
his purple hearts was soon seen as grasping at straws on the part of right-wing critics. Progressives
need to be consistent and remember history. Vietnam War resisters need to be recognized as
having placed their lives on the line to alter the destructive course that the country was on. Resisters
need to be honored as heroes of the first rank in American history and given the recognition they
deserve. No lines of demarcation should be made about the ways in which this resistance occurred.
River
The word river sounds like the river
But
not only does it sound like the whole
river that runs through Vietnam
through rice paddies and jungle and
villages because that's what language is
supposed to do
But it
sounds like the whole
river that runs through
Clearly progressives must take back the language that has been hijacked by an anti-intellectual right
wing. Michael Moore in Dude, Where’s My Country? has begun this process. In the chapter A
Liberal Paradise he describes an extremely liberal country and ends by saying “You don’t have to go
the moon (to find this country) because...you’re already there! This Land O’Left paradise I speak of
is none other than...the United States of America!” He is taking back the word liberal for all those in
the US who in fact share the values that the word stands for. It is now time to take back the term
liberal from the phony use of it in the description of modern corporate capitalism or Liberal Capitalism
as used in the current extension of corporate capitalism in the mostly non-white world. This
capitalism has nothing to do with liberal and progressives must see to it that it is not attached to this
extreme form of exploitation. To use liberal in this way confuses the understanding that many
“average Americans” have regarding liberals. Are liberals part of that group of abusive capitalist?
Also, to call this rewrite of colonialism globalization, or the global economy or world economy is a
disgusting usurpation of the word global and world and all they stand for. When we talk about the
world community or global community or global village we are not talking about the control of the
world through corporate economic and political dominance.
Bopal
TV news report
of the Union Carbide pesticide leak, 1984
that poisoned and killed two thousand
in Bopal India.
This was immediately cut to a bombastic ad
for Vacation Holiday Cruises
to various parts of the world.
This image one on the other,
close to the new language of the earth,
so close to the earth in speech
that it cannot be misunderstood.
Close to one heart beating in another.
As a poet who deeply understands that one of the functions of poetry is to take language back to its
meaning and truth thorough the examined use of language, I also looks to a wider form of poetic
discussion that through poetry insists that our social discussion seek those truths in all discourse and
expresses them fully. Progressives must be in the forefront of this and demand of the media the
same. To challenge the right wing on these issues is paramount to protecting the “atmosphere” of a
Democratic Presidency. If we allow the distortions of purposeful victories by conservative political
“character assassination” on sacred gains we are fools and worse.
Equating the liberation of women with the right to serve in combat and fly fighter jets is a usurpation
of the women’s liberation movement. Defining gay liberation by the recent push for gay marriage
instead of for the right to be treated as an equal in society is a distortion of both the gay rights
movement and the mostly progressive push in years past to break down the ridge barriers that
traditional marriage had built in the society including the shot-gun marriage, the dictums against
interracial marriage, and the stigma against the practice of living together without being married.
Progressives need to keep these issues out front. To applaud the black corporate CEO, while on
Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Meridian Mississippi black people live in shacks that would have
been a travesty in slave days, is a corruption of the “dream.”
Yes, these are broad stroke issue and must be focused as they come up in each unique case but the
issue here is where the progressive must focus their critique. If it become a critique of the Democrats
policies and whether they are left enough we will have once again given the right the opportunity to
sneak up and deliver blows that will dissipate the growing “atmosphere” of liberal/progressive
possibilities. This would be another of the great mistakes that have plagued the left for so long here
and around the world. Do progressives have the discipline to extend the “atmosphere” into that
world where we really will see a change of condition for those in need here and abroad, I think so.