We’re All Sistah Souljah Now

“We’re all Sistah Souljah now.” This is how back in the 90s then candidate Bill Clinton re-branded himself as a different kind of Democrat — a New Centrist Democrat, critical of the apparent corruption of popular culture and not afraid to speak against it, even at the expense of calculatingly "alienating" a core Democratic voting block, African-Americans (at least that was the calculus):

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.

More Than 500,000 Rally in L.A. for Immigrants’ Rights

That’s what am talking about [LA Times - March 25, 2006]!

Joining what some are calling the nation’s largest mobilization of immigrants ever, hundreds of thousands of people boisterously marched in downtown Los Angeles Saturday to protest federal legislation that would crack down on undocumented immigrants, penalize those who help them and build a security wall on the U.S. southern border. Spirited crowds representing labor, religious groups, civil-rights advocates and ordinary immigrants stretched over 26 blocks of downtown Los Angeles from Adams Blvd. along Spring Street and Broadway to City Hall, tooting kazoos, waving American flags and chanting "Si se puede!" (Yes we can!). The crowd, estimated by police at more than 500.000, represented one of the largest protest marches in Los Angeles history, surpassing Vietnam War demonstrations and the 70,000 who rallied downtown against Proposition 187, a 1994 state initiative that denied public benefits to undocumented migrants.

Republicans, as they always do, counted on scapegoating another out group in the 2006 election cycle. In 2004 they went after "the gays" and this year it looks like Republicans counted on vilifying "illegal aliens" to agitate their narrow minded, yet always reliable, base. Well, as it occurred in California in the 1990s, when the Republican governor at the time, Pete Wilson, backed the draconian 187 anti-immigrant proposition, it looks like this latest scapegoating attempt by Republicans will back fire over the long term (and, hopefully, over the near term, too).

Pete Wilson’s support of proposition 187 turned the Latino community in California against the Republican party for years to come; and, now, even after the Republican efforts to reach out to Latinos, it looks like they miscalculated and never anticipated the Latino community’s reaction to the latest anti-immigrant push by Republicans.

Here we see how grassroots organizing and a cooperative communications network (Spanish language stations have aired announcements for these national marches for a while now) must go hand-in-hand to mobilize people. Now, all the organizing and communications coordination that got out 500,000 people to the streets of LA occurred unnoticed because it was happening out of the mainstream and in Spanish. However, the combination of grassroots organizing and a cooperative communications network, I’m convinced, can mobilize any community, whether it be Spanish speaking or English speaking. And here’s where the equation for organizing mainstream progressives has been broken: we’ve lacked a cooperative and truly liberal broadcasting network. The moment we have a truly liberal and cooperative voice on one of the major broadcasting outlets, that’s when mainstream progressives will be agitated and mobilized — and that’s when we’ll pour onto the streets, just as the Latino community and their supporters have done over the past week. Si se puede!

People Shouldn’t Be Afraid of Their Government, Governments Should Be Afraid of Their People

Go see "V for Vendetta." There are some that am sure will charge that the movie is too this, too that… that it is heavy handed… that it is not faithful in some way to the original vision, etc., etc., etc… However, "V for Vendetta" is worth seeing because it unabashedly addresses the concerns of our time and it asks us to take some part of the blame for letting it all happen — simply because we were afraid. (Of course, many in this community (DailyKos.com), especially in this beautifully Liberal community, stopped being afraid a long time ago… but not all of our fellow citizens have managed to shed their fear.)

I simply loved this line from Vendetta: People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people. Now, no one, of course, is advocating violence in any form, but symbolically, the dark hero of this movie is right on… for far too long we’ve been afraid of what we’ll be charged with: un-American, un-Patriotic, an opportunist merely seeking to position oneself for a presidential run in 2008 — think Feingold, and the shit with which his courageous and CORRECT stand has been met with by some that are still afraid (including elected Dems). At any rate, here we have a movie that comes dangerously close, given our times and the paranoia that still lingers in some circles, to advocating a storming of the castle, en masse… err, should I say, a Crashing of the Gates, as it were (and, frankly, it suggests that we, The People, do a lot more than just batting down some gates).

Now, aside from open advocacy of an up rise against an oppressive and un-representative government, bent on moralizing and hoarding power while those that hold key government posts profit from the failures of their own government; V for Vendetta also offers some provocative moments and more than a couple of touching performances by Natalie Portman (whom looks great with short hair or even wearing a baby doll outfit (see the movie!)).

Of course, as with any work dealing with a dystopia, at moments the movie falls short; but, I believe, specially if one puts the movie in today’s political context (and how could one not!?), there’s a lot in V for Vendetta that’s provocative and well worth the $10+ bucks that many of us will pay now days to go see a movie.

PS. I just saw this post, which covers some of the more substantive issues that V for Vendetta raises.

Not Just Hollywood Writers

It’s always hearting to read constructive and hopeful posts, at MyDD.com and elsewhere; posts about how eager many of us are to help the Dems take the country back — even if it’s one. office. at. a. time. At least this is how I read The Hollywood Mythspiracy diary that’s been on the front page of MyDD.com for much of the day. Matt’s brother and many of his acquaintances, is clear from the diary, want to help the Dems craft resonant messages, which is a good enough and laudable thing to offer on its own right; but, as he writes, Dems have not tapped into the eager resource that exist in young Hollywood.

Now, I know that Matt’s brother’s diary over at MyDD.com does not purport to suggest that having Hollywood writers craft the Dems message (i.e., via speeches, commercials and “narratives”) would be the magic bullet that would end the Dems apparent electoral woes. Clearly, the suggestion/offer made in the diary would only be one small — very small — part of the solution. I write and hope that it would be “only a very small part of the solution” because it must be understood that the long-term health of the Dem party, and of the Progressive movement necessitates the creation of a brick-and-mortar infrastructure to mirror/match/surpass what they’ve got on the right. Additionally, aside from the brick-and-mortar infrastructure, we, the Progressive constituency, have got to demand long-term leadership and vision from elected Dems — and from unofficial leaders (i.e., former presidents and non-elected party officials). For a brief encapsulation of the much needed long-term leadership that we need on the left see Rick Perlstein’s The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo — his essay made the rounds on the internets a couple of months ago.

There’s such a thing as a Progressive philosophy… at the moment we simply want to win; so, we’re content with merely being partisan and will support a candidate that stands up to the right… but, at least I am, we’re ideological and have a strong sense of the rough outlines of our progressive values and ideology, even if these are not being articulated nor defended in the mainstream media by a recognizable leadership — much less by elected Dems. Our Progressive ideology, though, needs to be nurtured over the long-term if a movement is to rise from our ranks to challenge the right and, too, to move the nation’s center back to the middle (and, one would hope, one day, to the center-left).

What prompted me to write this is what I perceived as the undercurrent in Matt’s brother’s diary: an overt reliance on short-term and marketing-driven stylistic responses to the apparent electoral woes of the Dem Party (i.e., as if the Dems’ electoral problems would be solved if only the party made better commercials, told better narratives or gave better speeches. Sure, such solutions would make a difference at the margins in a couple of national races, but we — I think — need more than that.). This is a simplification, I know; it’s just that reading The Hollywood Mythspiracy diary I was reminded of an old Hollywood adage, There are no bad movies, there’s only bad marketing. Such an approach, one that relies too heavily on message alone, is what has weakened the Democratic party and, too, atrophied anything resembling a progressive movement in this country. As critics of the DLC have pointed out, this is precisely what that organization is guilty of: convincing the Democratic beltway establishment to target their message to specific audiences (i.e, the swing voters du jour ), and to mirror whatever the conventional wisdom of the day is on a given subject (i.e, national security, moral values, etc.).

Sure, governing and winning elections requires exploiting short-term strategies (i.e, effective marketing), but wrestling the ideological center of the country away from the right back to the middle will take: building physical networks off-line and creating a message delivery system to compete with the right’s echo chamber. (We gotta build a progressive/liberal competitor to FauxNews, damn it — if only I had a couple of million dollars to build my own media empire — okay, it’ll take more than a couple.)

You DO Have the Power!

Over at MyDD.com Michael in Chicago sounded a little disheartened after being confronted with strong opposition from the Democratic establishment in Chicago. Michael writes:

I owe my political awareness to Howard Dean. Because of him I started blogging, volunteering and donating to Democrats. Dean’s rallying cry in the 2004 campaign was “You have the power.” The more I learned about the Republicans in control of our government, the more I wanted to use this power to help elect Democrats.

This is why I started supporting a local candidate running for Congress in my own district. Henry Hyde’s district. With Christine Cegelis’ campaign as a rallying point, I saw more Democrats active in my district than I’ve seen in my lifetime.

But now, as the Democratic primary approaches, I read of the DCCC again passing over a candidate who newly energized Democrats in my district overwhelmingly support. I read of the DCCC’s backing of a candidate with no political experience and few ties to my district. I read of the advantages of military credentials and “wounds” – not issues that matter to the district. I read of the finest political consultants money can buy working for a candidate who hasn’t even done any fundraising in the district yet.

As I watch this unfold, I wonder what power I really have.

[...]

The real power for Democratic fundraising in Illinois is Emanuel, not small donors like me.

[...]

It is Emanuel, not me, who has the power to shut down a campaign by choking off it’s sources of high dollar donors. Donors in Chicago. Donors in his district. It is Emanuel, not me, that has the power to provide a network of top dollar consultants…

[...]

Gov. Dean told us “You have the power.” In 2004 I believed him. As I watch what’s happening to the Cegelis campaign, I’m not so sure anymore.

After reading his post I was compelled to respond:

You do have the power. Dean, however, should’ve completed that thought more frequently, I’m afraid to say. Because, while you, I, and every one of us have the power to challenge the status quo and bring about change, it ain’t gonna be easy.

I saw Dean at UCLA when he was out in LA during the 2004 primaries and he, of course, ended the small rally with that infectious yell, You have the power, You have the power, You have the power! As the crowd dwindled and my girlfriend and I walked away from the small outdoor stage, I remembered what Dean had said as he opened his remarks that evening, It’s not going to be easy… but YOU have the power.

It’s never easy. Every activist has known that… and needs to be reminded of it now and then; because we’re going against entrenched interests for whom the status quo works just fine, so why fuck with it. Therefore, entrenched interest count on that fact alone, that it’s never easy to dislodge them, to remain securely in power; that’s why incumbents and entrenched interests gerrymander, hoard political contributors and, thereby, make it nearly impossible for third parties and challengers to arise.

Accordingly, the only thing that’s left for us, the grassroots, to do is to organize and mobilize — and, again, it’s not easy and I don’t know that an easy formula exists. However, out here in CA, the nurses, teachers and firefighters have shown us that, indeed, it can be done. Man, the nurses, teachers and firefighters brought down Arnold — I mean, remember, not that long ago Sen. Hatch was talking about amending the Constitution so that Arnold could one day run for president; and, well, now that this mighty Goliath has been brought down, I don’t think there’ll be any talk of an Arnold amendment to the Constitution.

Perhaps the entrenched Democratic establishment in Chicago, especially Rep. Emanuel, need to start hearing from Cegelis’s supporters every where they go — and don’t forget their friends, too.