One hand washes the other

One of the issues that I think is important to consider between now and the November 2008 elections is the relationship between the democratic party leadership and the grass roots progressives. The 2006 elections were a wonderful example of how well these two groups could coordinate efforts: the grass roots progressives were outraged by the Bush administration’s war of occupation in Iraq, and the party leadership indicated that they would work to bring the war to an end, if they could get a majority in congress.

The grass roots translated the public discontent into huge democratic victories in the House and Senate. Then the democratic leadership translated these majorities into further support of the Bush administration’s policies.

As a result, there is a growing divide between the progressive/liberal branch of the democratic party, which is found at the grass roots, and the moderate/conservative democrats, who are in the leadership and machine positions.

Both groups have some strengths and some weaknesses. The leadership/machine folks, who take a Hamiltonian approach, have become well-organized. Why, hardly a day passes when I do not get either a letter in the mail, or a call on my phone, asking me to donate yet again to this campaign or that group. They learned from the Dean movement in 2004 that the grass roots can put together enough small donations to make a big impact on any campaign.

I’ve taken the time to talk to different callers about issues such as ending the war and impeaching VP Cheney, and been told these are important to the Hamiltonians, and if I could please send a check, they’ll get right on it. When I’ve spoken of the strength of ideas among the progressive communities found at places like DU, many of those people calling expressed interest. And, in recent months, I’ve found myself thinking that there are many Hamiltonians on DU, attempting to organize support for the machine politicians.

Yet when the grass roots progressives call their representatives, they are frequently frustrated. Yesterday, a number of DUers said that the workers at one of the democratic leader’s office were hanging up on them when they were attempting to express their opinions. When we remind them of their responsibility to end the war, the machinists say that this wasn’t what the 2006 elections were about. Progressives recognize that this is just as much a lie when a democratic leader says it, than if Karl Rove said it.

As a result, the hostility between the leadership/machine and the progressive/liberal grass roots is intensifying. I notice this when I get phone calls, asking me for another donation for a candidate or group. When I say that I am unsatisfied with the leadership’s refusal to listen to the grass roots, and that I will not be donating another penny until they change, the callers have become obnoxious and rude.

I am instead investing my time and money in those democratic politicians and groups that share the progressive values of the progressive grass roots. That includes donating to things like DU, TruthOut, local independent media sources, anti-war and pro-impeachment groups, and those politicians that I believe are voices of conscience. I am not going to leave the democratic party, and I’m not going to sit the 2008 elections out. Instead, I’m going to take a Jeffersonian approach.

If the party leadership were smart, they would not only accept this type of decision by progressives, but they would endorse it. If the past nine months have shown nothing else, it has become clear that the party leadership/machine can access plenty of corporate money. They should be encouraging progressives and liberals to be investing in their small, local community-based groups. Look at the amount of money that the top presidential contenders have accumulated, and tell me that they need your hard-earned dollars more than your local anti-war group, or the Center for Constitutional Rights’ impeachment program, or a non-corporate media source.

When the grass roots begins to take this approach on a larger scale, then the party leadership will begin to understand the true meaning of "one hand washes the other."

Conscience vs Pragmatism

Note: This essay is from a post I made on the Democratic Underground forum. In the past 72 hours, a few DUers had expressed outrage at my position on impeaching President Bush and VP Cheney. This is my response to them:


{1} "Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of papers instead of children. …. We could not, so help us God, do otherwise. For we are sick at heart, our hearts give us no rest for thinking of the Land of Burning Children. We ask our fellow Christians to consider in their hearts a question that has tortured us, night and day since the war began. How many must die before our voices are heard, how many must be tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened? … When, at what point, will you say no to this war?" – Daniel Berrigan

The above quote is taken from page 319 of James Carroll’s "House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power." It is the statement that Daniel made on behalf of the nine people who entered the draft board offices in Catonsville, Maryland, on May 17, 1968, and removed files that they burned in a parking lot. For many older DUers, the Berrigan brothers represented a large part of the social conscience of that era.

Later, Daniel would be found on the "underground." In the wonderful book "The Eloquence of Protest: Voices of the 70’s" (edited by Harrison Salisbury; Houghton Mifflin; 1972), his Letter to the Weathermen can be found. Daniel was, by some standards, an extremist. By my standards, Phillip and Daniel were heroes, and I was privileged to get to know them, though not well, in the Reagan era, when the democratic left was protesting the violence in Central America.

The Reagan - Bush administration damaged our Constitutional democracy with a series of crimes we call the Iran-Contra scandal. The congress should have impeached Reagan and Bush, but the democrats in office took the pragmatic approach that our nation could not afford the upheaval that this could cause, and that there "might not be enough votes."

{2} "And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond with compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not of the soldiers of each side, not the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war … They must see Americans as strange liberators. …. Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours. ….

"We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world – a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

"Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter – but beautiful – struggle for a new world. This is the calling for the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history." – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; A Time to Break Silence (aka Beyond Vietnam); Riverside Church, NYC; April 4, 1967

Martin Luther King was another of the great voices of conscience in the 1960s. I believe that this was his greatest speech. When we look back, 40 years later, we know he was right. Yet at the time, the speech was unpopular with a couple of the groups within the democratic party. There were those who believed Martin had sinned against the party, by questioning its leader, President Johnson. And it marked a split within the liberal community that had backed Martin so long as he kept his focus on public water fountains and rest rooms.

This speech would help mark the beginning of a new splinter group in the democratic party, the neoconservatives, which had been little more than a cult until then. And, of course, when Reagan took office, the neoconservatives became part of the "republican revolution." Some, of course, are still found in the democratic party today. One example is Senator Joe Lieberman. He views himself as liberal on most social issues, but is one of the Bush administration’s most reliable friends when it comes to the violent US policies in the Middle East today.

In the past week, here on the Democratic Underground, I have been advocating that those who want to stop the war in Iraq, and prevent a war with Iran, should be active in the organic process that can bring about the impeachment of President Bush and VP Cheney. I am motivated by the values that have been so powerfully expressed by leaders of conscience, including the Berrigan brothers and King.

I have also been inspired by my having attended a Teach-In on Impeachment. Two of the speakers there – John Nichols and Elizabeth de la Vega – presented many important ideas, some of which I am attempting to provide to those members of DU who favor impeachment. One thing that is very clear from the Nixon era is that once the congress began to take steps to impeach President Nixon, he began to communicate a willingness to wind down his escalation – or "surge" – of the violence in southeast Asia.

There are people who take a different view than me. They are focused on what I think we could agree they believe are the pragmatic interests of the democratic party. They hold beliefs that mean as much to them as mine do to me. They point out their belief that even if the House moved to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, that there would not be the necessary 67 votes in the Senate. Just as they speculate in good faith that there would not be, I speculate in good faith that there would be, especially in the case of VP Cheney.

But I also must admit that my motivation is not based entirely by counting votes that might be cast at some future day in Washington DC. I am motivated by those numbers that Daniel Berrigan noted when he asked, "How many must die before our voices are heard, how many must be tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened? … When, at what point will you say no to this war?"

On Power, Authority & Al Gore

The excitement among progressive democrats are feeling as a result of Al Gore’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize is encouraging. In the years since the US Supreme Court selected George W. Bush to be president, despite the fact that Gore won the election, the former US Senator and Vice President has undergone a transformation.

His books "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Assault on Reason" were evidence that he had moved beyond traditional politics. One could not seriously think that Bush, even with the help of five Supreme Court Justices, could translate his political power into a Nobel Peace Prize.
It is evident that many progressive democrats would like to see Gore use his current status to re-enter the field of traditional politics. Yet even those who have been most hopeful in the past year recognize that something has changed.

I thought it would be interesting to take a brief look at the concepts of "power" and "authority," and to apply them to the current situation involving the 2008 elections, Al Gore, and progressive democrats.

Some basic concepts about power within the human community comes from the great German sociologist Max Weber. He wrote about three types: legal-rational authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority. The legal-rational authority is the type that we associate with bureaucracies. It could be the school you attend, the industry you work for, or even the United States. Legal-rational authority is based upon the rules and regulations that are used by those in power to make the system flow to their best advantage.

Traditional authority is best understood as the consistent, multigenerational way of life of groups of extended families, which we can refer to as clans or tribes. It has been found among hunters and gathers, pastoral groups, and agricultural communities. In our modern society, there are groups such as the Amish and some Native American groups that are traditional societies. In the 1960s, some of the hippies lived in communes which were attempts to reestablish traditional community lifestyles. The most recognized power in these societies are the traditions of the past.

Weber also wrote about charismatic authority, which is found in individuals who are recognized as having personal power by the group. Charismatic leaders are found from time to time within all societies. Their power, which can be disruptive within the context of either a legal-rational (bureaucratic) or traditional society, tends to be relatively short-lived.

As a traditional society is transformed by means of production, such as an agricultural tribe being introduced to industrial trade/influences, there is often a specific type of charismatic figure, known as a reformation prophet. These figures attempt to bring their society back to the basic values found within their traditions. Sometimes, these individuals attempt to balance tradition with change, and at other times they simply reject any change.

Now let’s consider some of this in a slightly different context. We can think of another German sociologist, Ralf Dahrendork’s ideas, which are most famously expressed in his 1959 classic work "Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society." Many people focus on his comparisons with Marx’s ideas on class conflict, but we will look in what might be a less focused way. He views "authority" as the ability to issue commands that others follow.

Unlike Marx, who was confident that class struggle could be successfully ended, Dahrendork viewed it as essentially on-going. There are groups within the larger bureaucratic system that will always be vying for the authority or control within that system. If one looks at the United States today, and thinks of the republican vs democratic conflict; or the conservative vs liberal vs progressive within the democratic party; or the wealthy class versus the middle class and poor, we find some evidence that his theories can be applied to a certain extent.

Add to that the bureaucratic, legal- rational system’s conflict with more traditional societies that happen to have resources the larger society requires – be it the gold in the Black Hills in the late 1800s, the uranium found there a century later, or the oil in the Middle East – and we are witness to the conflicts which, by their nature, bring forth charismatic leaders who fall into the reformation mold.

When we look at an environmental advocate like Al Gore, or his friend Robert Kennedy Jr., we see that they are effective to an extent within the confines of the legal-rational system. Gore worked within the legislative and executive branch, and Kennedy within the judicial branch of our federal government. But, in time, the system could not fully accommodate either.

In his book "The Riverkeepers" (with John Cronin), Robert tells of being exposed to Native American tradition, when Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons told him, "It’s vanity to say we are protecting nature for the sake of the planet. The planet is four billion years old. Its crust is forty miles thick. It has survived freezing and warming and volcanoes and earthquakes. Nature will survive without us. But what will we be without nature?"

Robert told me that he recognizes that environmentalism and traditional Indian society are one in the same. That’s distinct from the concepts of reality as expressed by those with the power and authority in our legal-rational society. From a traditional point of view, leaders like Bush and Cheney are by-products from an irrational system. They are the definition of abusive power.

In "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy," Robert tells about how when he speaks to audiences, both democrats and republicans respond positively to his environmental message. That power is muted by the legal-rational system’s media, which can distort anything that a Robert Kennedy or an Al Gore says. Watching a :15 second film clip on a tv screen is not the same as listening to either man in person.

It seems that Robert has endorsed, at this time, one of the democratic candidates for president. Reportedly, Al Gore may be about to endorse another candidate. This isn’t because one of the two is more honest, or more sincere, than the other. It means that they have different ideas on how to translate power during the primary season.

Far more important is the authority each has outside of the primary contest. And that is because they are telling all of us – you and me – that the power to transform this society isn’t found inside the halls of Washington, DC. It’s inside of you and me.

That’s real power.

Jimmy Carter vs Richard Nixon

President Jimmy Carter’s statements about the nature of VP Dick Cheney as a human being, and his role in the current administration, has caused quite a reaction. Some in the news media, including several folks on MSNBC, are taking the position that ex-presidents should not speak ill of a sitting president. That, of course, indicates that they recognize the current vice president has a firm grasp on the reins of power in this administration – which is exactly what President Carter identified as a problem.

Should ex-presidents restrict their public role to administering social novocaine, in order to make the nation’s pain and suffering less noticeable ? Should President Carter find a higher calling in suggesting that the citizens of this nation should bury their heads in the sand? Or is it appropriate that he take his pledge to uphold the Constitution seriously?

I think it is interesting to compare Jimmy Carter with Richard Nixon. Both men’s presidencies ended as the result of major scandals: Nixon left when the series of crimes known as "Watergate" caught up with him, and Carter was defeated because of the manipulations by Reagan’s vice presidential candidate, when the seeds of the Iran-Contra scandals were first sown.

Both ex-presidents would become prolific authors, though for slightly different reasons. Nixon wanted to rehabilitate his stained image, and Carter wanted to improve the county. Both ex-presidents’ books are worth reading. For democrats who lived through their respective administrations, Carter’s books are obviously preferred. Yet, though we could not have possibly anticipated it, the ex-president Nixon seems almost wholesome when compared to the republicans who have controlled the Oval Office since 1980.

Let’s look at each of these ex-president’s last two books. In 1992, Nixon wrote "Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World." Nixon dedicates the book "To the democrats," but takes similar little stabs at republicans in chapters such as "The Former Evil Empire." Yet the most important chapter might be "The Muslim World," in which Nixon notes, "Many Americans tend to stereotype Muslims as uncivilized, unwashed, barbaric, and irrational people who command our attention only because some of their leaders have the good fortune to rule territory containing over two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves."

He goes on to say that some American leaders "warn that Islam will become a monolithic and fanatical geopolitical force, that its growing population and significant financial power will pose a major challenge …. (with) the forces of resurgent Muslim fundamentalism orchestrating a region-wide revolution from Iran …" Nixon notes that the diverse Muslim world actually had three primary types of leadership – fundamentalism, radicalism, and modernism – and that the US could actually establish good relations with the Islamic world if this country recognized that our stereotypes were the first stumbling block to be overcome.

When age and illness reduce a person’s abilities, we are often left with just the essence of their personality. Thus it is with Nixon’s last book, "Beyond Peace." The infamous I-am-not-a-crook president, notes that we "cannot successfully address the fearful increase in …crime without restoring punishment rather than rehabilitation as the central premise of our criminal justice system." If only President Ford had subscribed to that same belief.

His beliefs on Iraq and Iran are summed up in two sentences: "The United States should adopt a policy of isolation and containment of both. The objective should be to give both countries problems at home so that they cannot cause problems abroad."

Would a republican ex-president say rude things about a (then) current administration? "Mrs. Clinton deserves credit for her courage in articulating the absence of a higher purpose in life, despite the fact that since the late 1960s many of her most liberal supporters have relentlessly assaulted traditional values in the name of liberalism. Unfortunately, most of the administration’s remedies would make the problem worse." Nixon, never a man to hold grudges.

Carter has authored some fascinating books. None are more important than the last two. In "Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis," President Carter writes about "when President Reagan’s ‘neocon’ ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, denounced me as having attempted to ‘impose liberalization and democratization’ on other countries. She decried ‘the belief that it is possible to democratize governments anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances.’ Democracy, she said, depends ‘on complex social, cultural, and economic conditions,’ and takes ‘decades, if not centuries.’ She went on to extol ‘traditional authoritarian dictatorships’…

"Some neocons now dominate the highest councils of government, seem determined to extert American dominance throughout the world, and approve of preemptive war as an acceptable avenue to reach this imperialistic goal. Eight years before he became vice president, Richard Cheney spelled out this premise in his ‘Defense Strategy for the 1990s.’ Either before or soon after 9/11, he and his close associates chose Iraq as the first major target, apparently to remove a threat to Israel and to have Iraq serve as our permanent military, economic, and political base in the Middle East."

In his most recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," President Carter writes "that there is a formula for peace in justice in this small and unique portion of the world. It is compatible with international law and sustained American government policy, has the approval of most Israelis and Palestinians, and conforms to agreements previously consummated – but later renounced."

There are, of course, neoconservatives and neoliberals who attack President Carter for taking the positions that has. The Cheneyites in the republican party – and a few in democratic party – will dismiss Carter with insults and personal attacks. That’s because the neoconservative blueprint to redraw the map of the Middle East cannot accommodate any rational plan for the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Making change

{1} "First, our people have to become registered voters. But they should not become involved actively in politics until we have gotten a much better understanding than we now have of the gains to be made from politics in this country. We go into politics in a sort of gullible way, an emotional way, whereas politics, especially in this country, is cold-blooded and heartless. We have to be given a better understanding of the science of politics as well as becoming registered voters." – Malcolm X; Harvard Law School Forum; December 16, 1964.

Three Americans who had a great influence on my thinking were Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. They all recognized that in order for this country to function as a Constitutional democracy, every citizen had to have the opportunity to participate in the process. All three advocated voter registration, education in civics, and grass roots participation.

Malcolm became politically active after leaving the Nation of Islam. He met and was influenced by some of the revolutionary figures from around the globe. He never went so far as to commit his support to any national party. But he was closely associated with democrats like Charles Rangel, Percy Sutton, and Rep. Adam Clayton Powell. And he worked on grass roots campaigns with leaders such as Rev. Milton Galamison.

{2} "There are millions of Americans living in hidden places, whose faces and names we never know. But I have seen children starving in Mississippi, idling their lives away in the ghetto, living without hope or future amid the despair on Indian reservations, with no jobs and little hope. I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity – but the mines are closed, and the jobs are gone, and no one, neither industry or labor or government, has cared enough to help. Those conditions will change, those children will live, only if we dissent. So I dissent, and I know you do, too." – Robert F. Kennedy; University of California at Berkley; October 22, 1966.

For a lot of people my age, Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign for the presidency represents the promise of a "better way" for America. Few people have the ability to reach so many people on the level that RFK did. But one of the things that I remember the most about Senator Kennedy was his close friendship with labor leader Cesar Chavez.

Back in those days, Chavez said something that struck me as important. I do not have the exact quote, as it was some four decades ago. But when he was asked about how he organized people, he said that he would talk to the first person he met, then to the next person, and then the next one. And that is the essence of grass roots organizing.

{3} "The Negro vote at present is only partially realized strength. It can still be doubled in the South. In the North even where Negroes are registered in equal proportion to whites, they do not vote in the same proportions. Assailed by a sense of futility, Negroes resist participating in empty ritual. However, when the Negro citizen learns that united and organized pressure can achieve measurable results, he will make his influence felt. Out of this conscious act, the political power of the aroused minority will be enhanced and consolidated. ….

" We must utilize the community action groups and training centers now proliferating in some slum areas to create not merely an electorate, but a conscious, alert and informed people who know their direction and whose collective wisdom and vitality commands respect." – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Black Power Defined; 1967

There are many times when I wish Malcolm, Robert, and Martin were with us today. It can be something as simply as thinking that I’d like to see Malcolm debate some of the "journalists" on Fox, such as Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly. I would want to hear Robert address the US Senate on their responsibilities in regard to opposing the Bush war in Iraq. And I’d like to hear Martin encourage those of us at the grass roots to be conscious of the fact that we have the ability to organize, and to institute change in America.

We have a year to register voters, to engage in public education, and to organize local voting blocks. If each of us registered but one voter per month, that would increase our power twelve fold. If we registered one person per week, we increase our power 52 times. We have the ability to create positive changes in this country.

Coulmbus Day

I have a lot of good memories of Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. We used to have fun around Columbus Day. Different groups of people would come to Indian support group meetings with questions or suggestions, and area news reporters would call me to try to get a chance to interview Paul. It’s always interesting to see people from different cultures interact, and to see that when different cultures intersect, there is a lot of potential for both good or bad.

I remember good people asking Paul if he thought we should "protest" Columbus Day? And he would say that no, we should always start by thinking that if we are trying to interact with others, we need to understand where they stand, so that we can best communicate our message. And he said that while a lot of American people don’t really think about Columbus Day, that many others see it as a very positive thing. Paul said it would be an error to insult Italian-Americans by being aggressively anti-Columbus Day.

Chief Waterman said that the best thing we could do, was to take the opportunity to teach a more accurate history of what Columbus Day meant in terms of human history. He said that human beings do not learn the best when they are being attacked, insulted, or made to feel guilty about something – especially if it was something done by their ancestors’ ancestors. Instead, it is good to try to explore how different people view Columbus, and why.

Young people are usually the most interested in learning these things. When they reach a certain age, they develop a strong sense of right versus wrong, and sometimes feel outrage about historical injustices. We had some visits from college students who belonged to Native American or "students of color" groups. Paul loved them. A few of these were what we might call "militant." Paul used to teach that the most militant weapon we have is our minds, and that students should focus their minds on what is real, today.

A few times, we would have individuals who were from agencies with very different ideas on what is real today attempt to infiltrate and influence us. I remember one, who I will call "Ed" (Ed being his name), who always talked tough and advocated stupidity. He used to say we "had" to disrupt local Columbus Day parades by doing things like breaking 40 ounce bottles of "Crazy Horse Malt Liquor" in front of the people who are celebrating their heritage.

Chief Waterman had me tell Ed that no, that was not our way. That wasn’t the message we wanted to communicate. But Ed insisted that we weren’t true warriors. Paul had me give him a message which would convince his boss not to send him to us again. I laugh when I think back to that!

Chief Waterman could always make people laugh, at least most people. I remember when there was a group from the United Nations, talking to Indigenous Peoples about modern concerns. These were very serious meetings, and sometimes things that caused tension were discussed. During one very serious discussion, Chief Waterman "demanded" that the UN build three ships named the Pinto, the Nina, and the Santa Maria, that would be large enough to hold all the Euro-Americans. He said, "It was really nice that you came to visit. But you should probably be going home now."

Chief Waterman always got a kick out of the reporters who wanted to talk to him in the week before Columbus Day. He would tell them that Indians are Real People, and that good reporters should be using things like Columbus Day and Thanksgiving as vehicles to discuss the real issues that Native People face today.

One of his favorite tools for communicating the Native People’s message was a small book called "A Basic Call to Consciousness." I recently saw it re-issued in book stores, and it can be found on the internet. In September of 1977, the Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations held meetings in Geneva, Switzerland. Various Native People made presentations on the problems they face. The Haudenosaunee, or "Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy," made a fascinating presentation about how the current "modern society" abuses not only Native People and the environment, but is destroying their own sense of humanity.

And maybe that is the most important thing we should be focused on today. I think that we need young people who have the courage of a Christopher Columbus, and who will be brave enough to explore new ways of being Human Beings today.