So writes Harold Myerson in this op ed in today's Washington Post, which is certainly worth reading. Consider for example this:
The America over which FDR presided was home to mass organizations of the unemployed; farmers' groups that blocked foreclosures, sometimes at gunpoint; general strikes that shut down entire cities, and militant new unions that seized factories. Both communists and democratic socialists were enough of a presence in America to help shape these movements, generating so much street heat in so many congressional districts that Democrats were compelled to look leftward as they crafted their response to the Depression. During Lyndon Johnson's presidency, the civil rights movement, among whose leaders were such avowed democratic socialists as Martin Luther King Jr. and James Farmer, provided a new generation of street heat that both compelled and abetted the president and Congress to enact fundamental reforms.
Let me explain why I choose to diary about this column today.
First, I view it as a logical follow-on to my diary of yesterday, Bob Herbert has "An Uneasy Feeling", in which I wrote
Many have remarked on our increasing economic inequity. That is accompanied by similar increases in social equity, in the ability to move from one economic status to another. We also see the impact in the increasing political inequity, where the voices of some interests representing relatively small minorities outweigh the collective voices - and needs - of the rest of us.
Bob Herbert has An Uneasy Feeling. I have grave concerns that the time to fix things is slipping away. I acknowledge the current political realities that seem to make radical change impossible right now. I see little effort to alter those political "realities" to be able to address the realities of the multiple crises we face.
Second, there was a subthread on the discussion on how perhaps people needed to go to the streets, to organize in some systematic way, if we were to move a progressive agenda forward.
Myerson notes now multiple Democratic presidents since FDR have tried to move forward a progressive agenda, but by and large failed. In the blockquote above I quote what he has to say about why LBJ was successful. To which you can add this:
In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe. No such movements were around during Carter and Clinton's presidencies.
.
Myerson argues that Obama has failed to motivate the activists that have supported him. I would argue that it is not necessarily for lack of trying - consider that those of us on the OFA email list regularly get missives asking for our support on certain initiatives, although in my case (1) I have no money to give, and (2) I am not inclined to make a major push on things I think are too timid. I suspect on the 2nd point I am not alone.
I understand the political reality as it currently is. I also recognize the real possibility that in one year we will no longer be able to claim 60 seats in the Senate to achieve cloture on issues of importance, and thus the need to act as forcefully as we can now, to move as much of the agenda as is possible, hoping that will change some of the dynamics of the current election cycle so that, for example, probable loss of the ND Senate seat would be offset by picking up a current Republican seat.
Myerson's final paragraph is worth reading, even as it might depress you:
The construction of social movements is always a bit of a mystery. The right has had great success over the past year in building a movement that isn't really for anything but that has channeled anew the fears and loathings of millions of Americans. If Glenn Beck can help do that for the right, can't, say, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help build a movement against the banks or for jobs programs? It might well be too little too late, but without left pressure from below, the Obama presidency will end up looking more like Carter's or Clinton's than Roosevelt's or Johnson's.
I do not think Keith and Rachel have the same impact upon our side as Beck and his ilk do upon tea partiers. For one thing, people on our side tend to think things through, to consider subtleties. And while both Keith and Rachel offer lines of attack against opponents, those are usually humorous, more tongue in cheek, and not appealing to visceral fears and emotions and distortions. They are a necessary part of what we need, but are insufficient even to totally balance the damage Beck is doing.
Do we need a movement? Or rather, do we need multiple movements? Is going to the streets going to be effective? Do we have existing structures that can function as did labor unions and civil rights organizations in the past? Do we need to organize new movements?
Have we already missed the opportunity to make the major change we recognize this nation needs?
Or perhaps we are making progress, perhaps not as quickly as we might like, and rather than being so negative about what has not been achieved in under 12 months of the Obama administration, we should be changing the environment by talking about how much we have already achieved, thereby helping build the larger and deeper movements necessary for more progressive change?
What say you? What are your though5s on this? Is Myerson right or wrong? And if he is right - and I would suggest that he is at least partially so - how to we build such a movement as quickly as possible?
I am interested in the collective thoughts of this community.
Peace.