Intro: I maintain that the Democratic Party must change radically in order to address this nation's ills. Does this make me a "contrarian"
Section: politics
I was well and thoroughly pilloried for suggesting that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are hardly ideal role models for the Democratic Party today (see Jimmy Carter as Progressive Role Model at
http://www.dailykos.com/... ) Not a single comment was supportive of my thesis.
Has no one out there read Walter LaFeber's Inevitable Revolutions, or Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, or Chalmers Johnson's Blowback, or Joseph Stiglitz' Globalization and its Discontents? With the possible exception of Chomsky, none of these well respected authors can be considered to be extreme, and Chomsky has solid repute across the board for factual accuracy. Keith Harmon Snow, a less well-known, yet prize winning analyst describes Clinton's African policy in a recent article titled Depopulation as Policy. It can be found at http://www.africa-talk.com/...
All of these works testify to a foreign policy that doesn't change much from presidency to presidency, regardless of which party is in the White House. Carter and Clinton supported the massacre of thousands in pursuit of U.S. corporate interests, while expounding sincerely to the public about nations' moral requirement to treat all people decently. Reagan and Nixon tended to scowl and mutter "Screw 'em if they can't keep up!"
Pretty much the same is true as regards domestic policy targeting people on the bottom of our society. Democrats wax eloquent on the importance of universal social justice and basic humane supports, for all citizens. Esteemed Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson's brilliant empirical studies -- mainstream in their political orientation -- make inescapable the conclusion that the situation for poor people of color in this country has deteriorated just as rapidly under Democrats as under Republicans. In my experience, only fairly well off white liberals have found much positive to say about Clinton's approach to public welfare, and even then they tend to damn him with faint praise.
What, attributes, then, do my critics perceive, that I don't, that make Carter and Clinton (or any of the leadership of today's Democratic Party with the possible exception of Howard Dean) appropriate role models for the Democratic Party of today and tomorrow? The only promise they appear to offer is insurance that well employed liberals, working in cities mostly, will continue to enjoy the benefits of citizenship rapidly declining for them as the religious fundamentalist right rises in power. Is this really the issue? Imperialism and racism and gender discrimination are acceptable to many liberals and progressives, so long as these processes occur within a context of "correct," though mendacious rhetoric and don't radically impact their standard of living?
One critic called me "Contrarian." I guess this means that s/he perceive me to be petulantly against "things," but for nothing. Here's what I advocate. The construction of a Democratic Party committed to insuring that citizen-power really means something. Is this beyond hope of achieving? Howard Dean didn't think so, but was undermined by the leadership of his own party for saying so. Dennis Kucinich didn't think so either. And there are a good number of other prominent Democrats who don't think so, but presently have little voice. How to achieve real citizen power? First adopt an issue that brings most non-elite citizens together. How about universal health insurance? What if the Democratic grassroots decided not to support any candidate, whatever their other positions, who wasn't all-out committed to universal health insurance?
The ramifications of such a position -- such a movement -- would be far reaching. It would transform the relationship between the citizenry and corporations. It would weaken the power of money to determine elections. It would create a viable public. This public could then decide what else it considered crucial. Getting out of Iraq? Women's freedom to control their own biological processes? People's freedom to be whomever they are sexually? The internal fighting over such issues would surely be intense, but at least those arguing would know that when the sun set, whatever they collectively decided would have real and significant impact on Federal policy.
This isn't the case now. The average uncommitted getting-poorer citizen accurately perceives that the Left has no substantial grassroots organization to embrace and protect her/him from the excesses of power. The extreme right does, however, offer real and substantial protection -- at least in the short run. Unfortunately, the kind of protection the right offers is the protection of a gang for its support group. Its policies are ruthless and brutal, and in the long run pathological and doomed. These insights are not lost upon joiners of the extreme right, however much many liberals may wish to characterize them as benighted. Many discussions with people about these issues during the last few years convinces me that many fearful, cynical citizens perceive what I stated above -- that during their lifetimes, no political party's support for those most victimized by Power has been more than rhetorical. They find it difficult to believe that Democratic politicians more than Republicans will either attempt, or be able if they do attempt, to stand up for the rights of citizens in the future.
Yes, most on the right are white, and many are racist. Nevertheless, a Democratic Party genuinely and demonstrably committed to social justice for all, and to the principal of decency in general, must encourage them to abandon the dark ship they ride to oblivion. This Party must and can be constructed -- it does not now exist. Built with politicians and statesmen such as Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and people of wealth such as George Soros, perhaps. But mostly it has to built from the bottom up. The leadership we need will emerge, when we really want it.
Does this sound contrarian? If so, I wear the appellation proudly.