I don’t know about you, but the volatile discussion on the site lately around possible and actual "left/right" (and "progressive/libertarian") coalitions to move forward particular political issues and initiatives has encouraged me to think more deeply about such coalitions.
Firedoglake’s recent declaration of willingness to join with teabaggers and right-wingers who also seek to kill the prospects of health care reform legislation (admittedly flawed and imperfect) really helped me to clarify my concerns. I want to share them with you. "Libertarian," I believe is an inaccurate (and dangerously lulling) term that obscures the important complexities of a number of the organizations that are proudly included in FDL's search for common cause.
I suppose I ought to establish my credentials for talking about these things. I’m a white, pro-Second Amendment, rifle-owning Montana resident and former Goldwater Girl (thankfully now gone bad) who once toiled as a working-class, young teen volunteer in what I, years later, came to recognize as a vile, hate-and-fear motivated campaign that relied on stoking anxiety, animosity, and unbridled rage as its preferred path to political power.
Goldwater Girls (not including RadioGirl) on cusp of going bad
Fortunately, that particular campaign hit a huge pothole, no thanks to me, and later on, I began to learn some painful but powerful lessons about the brutal racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and economic violence embedded in right-wing movements and campaigns.
Eventually, I morphed into a proud poster child for one of the right’s worst nightmares: a radical lesbian feminist/Buddhist whose political work has always been situated at the intersections of race, class, gender/gender expression, sexuality, spirituality, and (for me) nonviolence. But before I transmuted into a (I like to think) nicer, more just human being, able to experience a wider and more life-affirming range of spiritual, fleshy, and cultural pleasures, I learned about the right. I’ve never stopped paying attention to what they’re up to. A number of the groups I'll highlight here are not groups with whom I have common cause.
What I have to say isn’t focused solely on firedoglake, but it is directed at good folks everywhere who say our cause will be served by fresh, innovative, truly bi-partisan alliances that include groups from the far right.
Hey. I’m all for fresh. Love innovation. Never been one to write off good, kind and compassionate people of any political stripe. In my own neighborhood organizing and earlier, in national faith-based progressive political work, I’ve seldom pigeon-holed folks and worked for progessive change across issues and constituencies. Here in Montana, the same folks (including then-gubernatorial candidate Brian Schweitzer who so enthusiastically embraced one of those despicable amendmentsdefining marriage as only between a man and a woman (Schweitzer also, quite unnecessarily declared against civil unions) also helped to pass a medical marijuana initiative and shoot down a corporate mining effort to repeal a statewide ban on cyanide heap leach mining.
So I get complexity. My own organizing/activist life is rife with political complexity, and I bet yours is too. And I do believe there are genuine libertarians who love and work for real justice, while also seeking to reduce the size and scope of government. But for me, there's a profound difference between organizing respectfully across differences and actually joining in coalition with organizations that utilize a "libertarian" cover to obscure agendas that make mockery of any authentic vision of social and economic justice – and religious freedom – for all.
Yikes! This is the Emergent, New Left/Right Consensus?
And so, I respectfully challenge the FDL realpolitik that is summed up by Jane Hamsher in this way:
"It's scary to think that people this obscenely stupid are running the country. All the while, the painfully obvious left/right transpartisan consensus that is coalescing against DC insiders of both parties appears to be taking everyone by surprise."
Wow. Disdain, anyone? I wonder if that makes anyone "obscenely stupid" who doesn’t support her point of view, or who thinks this talk of "transpartisan" consensus is nonsense. I truly hope she doesn’t really hold that much contempt for fellow progressives. It’s really hard to organize authentic justice movements when you have contempt for so many others. But it is easy to organize injustice that way. Just ask the Right – they’ve been doing it for decades. (Deoliver47 made the point quite powerfully the other day about what it means for people of color to hear that progressives should ally with teabaggers to scuttle the current Senate health care proposal.)
So let’s take a cursory look at some of the leaders and groups that apparently represent part of this allegedly emergent "tripartisan" consensus and "populist outrage" on health care reform and economic policy that is so promising for America. Along the way, ask yourself: whose liberty do these groups support? Whose liberty are they trying to undermine? What are the (sometimes hidden, but in my view, always high) costs of aligning with particular right-wing groups for specific strategic or tactical purposes?
I want to make it clear from the beginning that I am not accusing Jane Hamsher, anyone else associated with FDL, Chris Bowers (Open Left), or other political progressives who advocate for left/right coalitions of embracing the views described below. I feel confident that they do not. However, I take serious issue with their political judgment and believe they have completely underestimated the risks of allying with certain groups and individuals.
First up, a couple of perennial faves: Phyllis "Equal Rights for Women: Wrong then, wrong now" Schlafly and the Eagle Forum.
Phyllis contributed an article on protecting U.S. sovereignty from United Nations "encroachment" to this exciting book edited by Jeb Bush, published in 2004, and featuring thrilling contributions lauding Bush's "compassionate conservatism" by Focus on the Family's James Dobson, Mike Huckabee, and more!
Hard right from the get-go, Phyllis Schlafly helped Barry Goldwater win the 1964 Republican nomination with her book A Choice, Not an Echo, basically a screed accusing moderate Republicans (East Coast elites) of taking over the party. Three million copies were distributed. In the 1970s, she successfully prioritized defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, and launched virulent attacks against lesbian/gay rights.
Health care reform: on our side? Not much. She fought relentlessly in the 1960s to defeat Medicare. She doesn’t want meaningful health care reform, however imperfect. Here’s her idea of reform
We should repeal all state laws that forbid insurance companies to compete across state lines, so that individuals can buy health insurance in states other than their own. Where are the free-trade devotees when we need them? -- Phyllis Schlafly
It's a scary Phyllis world out there. So what is she doing to make us safer? Well, championing English-Only, for one thing, and keeping American borders safe - not to mention, promoting racist and criminalizing narratives about immigrants of color.
Phyllis' fresh and innovative ideas about safety/security
We support immediate border security to stop the entry of illegal aliens, illegal drugs, women seeking to give birth to "anchor babies," Third World diseases, criminal gangs, and potential terrorists. We oppose all variations of amnesty and guest-worker visas.
We oppose all encroachments against American sovereignty through United Nations treaties or conferences that try to impose global taxes, gun registration, energy restrictions, feminist goals, or regulation on our use of oceans.
But Phyllis and the Eagle Forum don't stop there; after all, they're professional panic-mongers, just workin' away to build that tripartisan consensus!
Red alert to parents: If you send your children to a public school, they may be secretly indoctrinated in the cult of Obama-worship. If that's not your plan for your children, you had better act now, before it's too late.
We now know that the "I pledge" video shown in Utah in August, and only afterwards discovered by parents, was not isolated evidence of indoctrination of public schoolchildren in the new cult of Obama-worship. Second-graders in New Jersey were taught to sing songs of praise and fidelity to Barack Obama in February and again in June, and parents only found out about it this September.
Public schoolchildren are now forbidden to sing Christmas carols that mention the real meaning of Christmas (only songs like "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer" are allowed), but in New Jersey, second-graders were taught to sing the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children" in which Jesus' name was replaced with Obama's. They sang, "He said red, yellow, black, or white/All are equal in his sight/Barack Hussein Obama."
Before Obama's election, it was considered a political no-no for Republicans to use his middle name. Beginning with his inauguration in January, he and his followers use Hussein to glorify his Muslim heritage and connections.
And because our newly emerging tripartisan consensus doesn't want to leave out queers, the Eagle Forum also warns of the slippery slope of rights for those pesky homosexuals:
The Horror! The Horror!
In 2004, a 4-3 decision of the Massachusetts supreme court mandated same-sex marriage. Soon same-sex relationships were taught to children in public schools. In 2005, a kindergartner named Jacob Parker was given a picture book called Who's in a Family?, which included pictures of two-dad and two-mom families.
Public school indoctrination increased. In 2006, second-grader Joey Wirthlin was subjected to a story of a prince who had been ordered by his mother to get married. The prince rejected several princesses, and then chose another prince. The book showed a wedding scene of the two princes, and the last page shows the two boys kissing with a red heart over their mouths.
Let's move on to The Rutherford Institute and John Whitehead. Check out their website today, and you'll see a slick, newer version of their work and agenda, but they've been around since the early 1980s. Here's what Political Research Associates, a highly regarded progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society and also exposing movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights, has to say:
From its founding, the Rutherford Institute has pursued a highly-politicized ultra-conservative agenda. A review of Rutherford Institute newsletters, reports, and direct mail appeals going back seven years shows a long pattern of attacks on liberals in government and President Clinton in particular. Whitehead consistently puts forward an apocalyptic conspiracist vision of devout Christian activists under concerted attack by corrupt and repressive government officials in the service of godless and immoral secular humanism.
In the late 1990s Whitehead claimed he had changed his earlier views, giving a detailed interview on the subject to Christianity Today in December of 1998.120 Yet Whitehead's shift is more tactical rather than a shift in basic ideology, and reflects the trend in the Christian Right toward re-applying the principle of "hating the sin, but loving the sinner," even when the goal is still theocratic and monocultural.
Here's some more background from PRA:
God's Law According to Whitehead
Whitehead believes, according to an article by Martin Mawyer published in the May 1983 issue of the Moral Majority Report, "that courts must place themselves under the authority of God's law."
Mawyer's article explains, "The Institute states that 'all of civil affairs and government, including law, should be based upon principles found in the Bible.'" That statement is a simplified definition of Christian Reconstruction, an important movement within evangelical Christianity.
From the beginning, the Rutherford Institute has taken a militant position. "We need to be very aggressive, not passive," Whitehead said in a 1983 interview. "Take the initiative. Sue rather than waiting to be sued. That's where we've been weak. We've always been on the defensive. We need to frame the issue and pick the court. The institute, if necessary, will charge that government is violating religious freedoms rather than the church waiting for the government to charge it with violating the law
Moving right along, I present the Campaign for Liberty, an organization whose idea of meaningful health care reform is summed up in the pithy phrase, "Health Care is a Privilege, Not a Right."
Air, Property Rights, Starvation & Privilege: The Campaign for Liberty Tells Us About Health Care
Besides lowering life expectancies under their totalitarian regime, the Soviet Union had it all wrong of course. Health care is not a right. You have a right to breath because air is abundant on our planet - there is no scarcity of it. Although your life is extremely scarce - there is only one of you - you do have a right to your life - to suggest otherwise is slavery.
You have a right to your property - to suggest otherwise is theft.
You have a right to freedom of expression and to believe what you wish - to suggest otherwise is tyranny.
However, people must pay for things like health care or food. Does a starving man have a right to enter a supermarket and eat whatever he wants? Health care providers have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a "right" to health care, then you must have the ability to force health care providers to serve you.
Therefore health care is a privilege. Health care is a good and a service that everyone pays for.
Finally (there are actually more ultra-right leaders and groups on the so-called "Left/Right" coalition list, but sheesh, we're all already exhausted), how 'bout that Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform. He favors the elimination of numerous federal organizations including the Internal Revenue Service, the Food and Drug Administration, Education Department and the National Endowment for the Arts. Just for starters, a Grover justice vision would gut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and so much more.
""My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." -- Grover Norquist
Does that mean I never favor "strange bedfellow" coalitions? Well, in the 1990s, a left/right coalition helped move the Religious Freedom Restoration Act forward. This law applies to all religions, but was/is particularly important to the spiritual practices of Native peoples. The politics were intricate, but a positive good articulated by Native American peoples was at stake. So I suppose I'm not an absolutist.
But today, this issue at hand is whether left/progressives should join with the Right to impede something - health care reform – that, while flawed falling far short of what we ultimately need, is considered by many of us to be an important stepping stone toward greater change.
In no way do I consider the left/right coalition to kill health care reform legislation a positive good. But let's complicate the discussion even more for a minute.
Yep, many prominent nonprofit and other advocacy organizations do this kind of thing a lot – sign on together to particular letters or press statements to advance a common goal. slinkerwink wrote a recent diary about that, and Markos has spoken out, too.
I know firsthand of "left/right" coalitions to advance noteworthy goals, such as the the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). What could possibly be wrong with those worthy causes? Well, nothing’s wrong with the cause - to support it surely is to be on the side of the angels.
But are we really fighting the same battle in most of these right/left coalitions?
Conservative/right-wing media and organizations framed the Prison Rape issue in ways that reified not only homophobia, but a virulent form of racism.
Through the lens of the Right, prison rape was framed as predominantly a narrative about violent, "hardened" black male criminals assaulting "innocent," more passive white male victims. Such a criminalizing narrative isn’t just about black male prisoners; it’s about black men in general – and it fuses this racist narrative about the presumptive violent and hypersexual of men of African descent with a volatile and equally criminalizing narrative about the purported predatory and violent nature of homosexuality. The Right further links the spread of HIV/AIDS to the specter of violent, black, male homosexuals.
"Especially men who are young, slender, and white – first offenders who lack street smarts. These are the ‘fresh fish’ who are reeled into the cells of sexual predators–the prison piranha who gang-rape and torture newcomers..."
- Ann Morse
Young whites like King, a minority in prison, are thrown to the wolves, and they know they can expect no protection or sympathy from prison officials, liberal opinion or societyin general when they are bullied and raped. The fear and humiliation they suffer is almost unimaginable, and it goes unreported.
"In such snake pits, their only safety may lie in joining racial gangs"
- Joseph Sobran
"Prison rape also carries strong racial overtones. Prison administrators ‘want to keep the black gangs quiet," says Ginnette West, the mother of a prison –rape victim who runs the small Illinois-based activist group Mothers Against Prison Rape-HIV-AIDS. ‘They know they’ll be in an unroar if they don’t get something to release their sex drive, and usually it’s young, nonviolent inmates of a different race.’" -- Eli Lehrer
That is reprehensible. Equally reprehensible was the fact that none of the major liberal/left organizations working for PREA appears to have monitored or challenged these racist, criminalizing narratives.
The point: left/right coalitions are fraught with risk. No matter how narrow and single-issue focused the coalition may be, the fallout in terms of how the Right works these issues can be profound. We should never enter such coalitions without careful assessment of the risks. I don't think any such risk assessment underlies the so-called emergent "tripartisan consensus" coalitions that FDL, Open Left, and others are currently promoting.
For what it’s worth, I offer these thoughts – always unfinished – for now.
RadioGirl’s Personal Rules of the "Left/Right Coalition" Road.
• Good organizing depends on working with folks where they are, not where we want them to be. But there’s a real difference in reaching out to individuals and constituencies across chasms of difference and allying with right-wing organizations that actively seek to gut racial, gender, and economic justice.
• Before you sign onto a letter or statement with other groups, make sure there’s a baseline of values and justice commitments. If one or more of those groups has actively stoked racist, sexist, xenophobic, or homophobic/transphobic fears in pursuit of its own agenda, don’t join that group letter. Write your own.
• If you don’t know the history of other groups with whom you are asked to unite in a statement or demand, ask others who do. Nobody’s perfect, but you’re not looking for perfection; you’re digging to find out if a group has actively sought to undermine general principles of racial, gender, sexual, and economic justice. Can groups change over time? Yeah – but if they have a bad history, work to see if they actually named, took responsibility for, and renounced that history – and if their actions to date reflect real atonement and change.
• Same holds true for groups whose policy positions work to gut unions and/or only favor the rich and well-to-do while trying to eliminate basic economic supports for folks who are poor and low-income, for folks with disabilities and special needs, and for seniors.
• Same holds true for groups that promote a theocratic agenda.
• Don’t imagine that a lot of folks in the groups most hard-hit by repressive, right-wing policies, campaigns, and positions are going to applaud and embrace your coalition with the groups that promote them.
• The whole "means/ends" calculus matters a lot. Do you really think you can get to social and economic justice working with hard right groups whose agendas organically embrace racist, heterosexist, and often misogynist views of the world? I don't. Those groups fund themselves through the aggressive promotion of racism and other forms of fear and smear.
My mother always told me that it wasn't just what I did, but that how I did something mattered just as much. It was good advice then, and it's good advice now.
UPDATE: And as Deoliver47 and her mother say: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. (No insult intended to the dogs.)