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.

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.

Senator Obama & a Great Day for Democracy

I first posted this as a series of comments in response to diarists dismayed at the welcoming that Senator Obama received from what’s been affectionately described as the “rabble” over at DailyKos .

I’ve been heartened by what I’ve witnessed in response to the Senator’s diary; because it’s been a great exercise in democracy, 21st century style.

Senator Obama has not been dismissed nor belittled in the more thoughtful responses/diaries; and, if he is truly interested in hearing what Americans — all Americans, not just what insiders consider “Average Americans” — have to say, than am sure that he and his staff appreciate much of the feedback earnestly submitted by this group of Americans. Moreover, Senator Obama’s main message, that we should act with “civility” and not-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water over one vote, is hard to dismiss out of hand and to argue against — I mean, it’s just plain commonsense, though rather innocuous and lacking substance. And, while the Senator’s advice and gesture are appreciated, at this point, it simply is much too little and much too late. In stead, this group of Americans demand and need more from their elected representatives. Here’s what I believe the “rabble,” Americans all, is looking for — at least this is what I want: I want my elected Democratic representatives to more stridently advocate Progressive principles and to provide affirmative/concrete leadership in crafting a Democratic brand/message that we can rally behind. It’s that simple.

Now, in the marketplace of ideas, competing brands/messages arise frequently and, eventually, one vision wins out. However, for this to occur, there must be enterprising salesmen/political leaders aggressively presenting their competing visions, and the public then decides which brand/message obtains their support. However, because the marketplace of ideas is often saturated with products, salesman/political leaders must be assertive and aggressive in presenting their product. It is in this last part of the process that we, Americans, feel the Democratic sales force has failed on. The Democratic party sales team is, it appears, content in picking up the scraps from the failures of the dominant Republican brand — even as that brand is showing clear signs of overexposure, unsatisfactory customer support and an incapacity to meet the American public’s demand for real leadership. And yet, rather than mounting an aggressive and glossy ad campaign to attract customers and to invigorate the Democratic brand, the Democratic sales force is content with mediocre gains at the margins. To illustrate, look at what Apple did when it was on the brink of extinction: it innovated, brought new products/ideas to market, presented an integrated marketing strategy for its entire line of products (from the iMac to iTunes to the iPod), and it aggressively saturated the market place with vibrant glossy ads and well honed message — going so far as to open stores, something a lot people criticized — presenting Apple products as the alternative to the bland Windows beige PCs. (By the way, am a Windows user.) Today Apple enjoys economic success, has seen its market share rise and it continues to drive innovation and ideas in the PC industry, often setting the standard — even as Windows based systems collectively have market dominance.

Again, I urge understanding, the response to Senator Obama has little to do with partisan purity or orthodoxy… it is more simple than that… it’s as basic as expecting our elected Dems to stand up to the bully and to give voice to our frustration. Am sure we all understand and appreciate how the vast majority of the grassroots — my self included — are simply tired of hearing about comity and so-called moderation when we (Democrats and Progressives collectively) have been taking it on the gut since the Gingrich Revolution, through the Clinton Presidency, the post-2000 elections, the charges against our patriotism during the 2002-midterm elections, the Iraq debacle and the Swift boating of John Kerry. And, yes, this list doesn’t even begin to record the grievances against the Republican party… not by a long shot. Remember, recent polls confirm that we, Progressives and America at large, want and expect the Democrats to stand up to the Republican party. And, as to the charge of “obstructionist,” you know that it — and worse — will be made, because that’s what Republicans do, have done and will do… so let’s not be surprised when they react exactly as expected.

Moreover, a lot of the responses to Senator Obama have been extremely thoughtful, and if he and his staff have any sense — which am sure they do –, they’ll find a lot themes to adopt and messages to fine tune. The DailyKos community has done the Senator a service, which am sure he appreciates — it is, after all, a two way street… he “spoke,” and we responded — democracy at work.

Remember, it is the role of elected officials to hear their constituents and to represent them. Now, this is how it’s supposed to work in theory, I understand. In the real world, the people are supposed defer to authority… at least that’s how it works. Well, I say, why not let theory win out for once… why not let OUR elected representative hear how it really is… how we feel… and how WE want more than innocuous calls for “civility” and to not-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water. After all, it’s supposed to be By the People, For the People; and not, From Elected Officials, For Elected Officials. We, here at DailyKos and across America, We are the people… today we’ve seen democracy in action… we’ve gathered in the 21st century version of a democratic forum and aired our concerns and aspirations to an elected Democratic official that honored us by opening dialogue. The people, hopefully, will have been heard and OUR representative and OUR democracy will be the better for it.

“Separation of Church and State is Absolute”

I came across this on Talking Points Memo, via Andrew Sullivan :

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. — John F. Kennedy

President Kennedy was right then, and he remains correct now — and always.

Dear Friends, Once More!

I did not write the following, but I think that it expresses precisely what Democrats, Progressives, and all Americans that believe in Hope over Fear and, too, that Tolerance is a Family Value, need to keep in mind as We take the fight to the next stage:

“In 1964, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) beat Barry Goldwater (Republican) by 23% points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn’t give up. They didn’t spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon (Republican) crushed Humphrey (Democrat) in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose Bush, now isn’t the time to feel sorry for yourself. Now is the time to get to work.”

Now, our democracy is bigger than one election or one candidate; there’s a lot that’s still at stake, and there’ll be plenty of opportunities to get involved. So, while the final results of the 2004 presidential election may be disappointing, don’t be dishearten; because, We did do a lot of good, and this is not the time to give the Right any quarter nor any satisfaction.

—————————————————–

“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!”
- William Shakespeare, Henry V