Today's activists are so fearful of the right wing that they give Obama a pass on almost every issue

[Bluebear]

by Randy Shaw


The remarkable new documentary on 1960’s folksinger and activist Phil Ochs offers a striking contrast between 1960’s activists and those of 2011. The former engaged in massive anti-war protests against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson – despite his historic enactment of federal civil rights laws, Medicare, and the War on Poverty. Yet Barack Obama’s endless, $2 billion a week war in Afghanistan, and his capitulation to Wall Street proceeds without a peep. Even well-known musicians involved with social justice causes have avoided playing at protests against Obama’s policies. For all of their sometimes naïve idealism, 1960’s activists understood that “liberals” also wage unnecessary wars and weaken social and economic justice. But today’s activists are so fearful of empowering the right wing that they give Democrat Obama a pass on almost every issue, and then complain that he ignores progressive concerns...

It could be said that activists felt comfortable bashing Democrat Johnson, because the only Republican President they had lived under was moderate Dwight Eisenhower. Yet progressives protested Jimmy Carter after experiencing Richard Nixon’s presidency, and also engaged in massive resistance – recall the Battle of Seattle in 1999 – against many of Democrat Bill Clinton’s policies.

But either due to the legacy of George W. Bush or increased political conformity, fears of the right wing has stifled progressive dissent in the United States. Activists ignore Barack Obama’s actions in boosting Wall Street and the military industrial complex, when they would have been out in the streets protesting similar actions under previous Democratic Presidents...

Today’s progressive activists and groups understand Obama’s betrayals, but by limiting protests to Republicans they confuse – rather than clarify – the dynamics of national power.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9011

Randy Shaw is is the author of Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century, and The Activist’s Handbook.

[villager]

1. It's part of why the other side routinely wins -- we hold no one accountable for anything

n/t

[Bluebear]

2. 'Oh, you just want President Palin!!!1'

I see the writer's points made here daily! :(

[ClarkUSA]

3. "activists" must've been "so fearful of the right wing" that "they" gave Bill Clinton "a pass" too

I must've been imagining all the vitriolic garbage thrown at President Obama during the past two years.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xphile]

54. Actually the arguments used to give Clinton a pass are the same arguments

used to give Obama a pass.

So yeah the premise is correct.

You are wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

61. Really? Prove it.

[JoeyT]

71. Sure!

When we were raising hell about NAFTA the common response from the party liners was "OMFG! Do you want Republicans to win!? You have to support him! If you support him now all the good legislation will come later! We're going to fix it later after it passes anyway!"

So yeah. No real progressive legislation later. No fixes to NAFTA either. But every effort was made to keep the left quiet so the "sane adults" could help destroy the middle class a little bit more.

[FredStembottom]

72. Thanks, Joey T

I've been watching my family members get laid-off as a direct result of NAFTA - GATT for decades now......
but I have faith that the fixes are just around the corner!

...somewhere ...sometime

[Bandit]

69. The post was about the "Last Two Years"

But actually it has been longer. In fact I first noticed the hatred for Clinton from the Left (DU) as soon as DU was formed...Clinton is despised by many here. I don't think Obama is despised yet but he has certainly disappointed quite a few here..

[stillwaiting]

65. You're not imagining the vitriolic garbage being thrown at Obama.

I believe you just discount the very possible (and likely in my opinion) scenario that all of the vitriol being thrown by elected Republicans is mostly theater to get the real haters (the Republican base) riled up against us.

The vitriol being thrown by unelected base Republicans is genuine, but I don't believe for a second that elected Republicans, for the most part, believe most of the B.S. that they shovel. That is simply politics designed to divide and conquer the masses.

Wall Street and the multinational corporations have done very well with Obama and the Dems in power. We're at a point in our history that if the top 1% and Big Business continue to consolidate wealth and income then Main Street (overall) must be losing even more economic ground to them. They are not increasing wages and benefits (which they are cutting) at a time when they have record profits and cash on hand. The cost for items which we need to survive (food, energy, health care, housing) have been dramatically increasing in value despite official "inflation" statistics. We are losing. Still. I understand that there are some people who are doing better economically since Obama took power. That is inevitable. There will be some people from Main Street who do better economically if a Republican sat in the White House and there were Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. These individuals are certainly in the minority when considering the plight of Main Street. If you're part of the top 1-2% things have been fantastic for your economic situation the past few years. Luxury sales are UP, UP, UP!!

There IS a redistribution of wealth and income in our country. It's from the working and middle classes to the wealthy elite. There are interviews where some of them even admit to it. This redistribution has been occurring for over three decades now, and we desperately needed someone to successfully advocate for policies and laws that reversed the redistribution of income and wealth BACK to Main Street. It would be very rare for there to be a static, unchanging flow of income and wealth in a country at a given time for any substantial period of time. The laws passed and in effect encourage the flow of income and wealth one way or the other. It's STILL flowing up. Our middle class, working class, and poor will all be screwed if we don't change that soon.

[Catherina]

4. Same activists who consistently & coherently spoke out against Bush

are still speaking out. I don't think you can call fair weather activists with loyalties to a personality *activists*. Those are partisans.

Rec'd for the general point.

[leftstreet]

7. +1

"I don't think you can call fair weather activists with loyalties to a personality *activists*. Those are partisans."


well said

[ClarkUSA]

12. I don't think you can call 24/7 naysayers with antipathy to a personality "activists".

"Those are partisans."

[EFerrari]

20. Yes, in fact, you can because a personality is not central

to issues of social justice. How you feel about an individual is really beside the point.

[ClarkUSA]

25. I disagree. But shouldn't you also be saying this to Catherina in Reply 4?

Here's her idea I was speaking to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=717168&mesg_id=717226

[EFerrari]

76. Catherina is saying the same thing I am, I believe.

People who care about an issue still care about the issue no matter who is in the White House.

[Bluerthanblue]

68. isn't that bigotry? Predjuce? What about the fact that

everyone deserves to be treated with respect, even those with 'personality' you don't happen to "like"?

I'd say that is a KEY issue in social justice.

You don't have to 'like' someone, but you should be expected to treat them with common courtesy.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

75. No, it's not bigotry or prejudice to consider an issue directly

and not as somehow circling around one person or even a group of people.

That's not disrespect. That's looking at the issue.

[myrna minx]

70. Excellent point. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

45. I WANT Obama to fight for something..........

that he campaigned on. Even if he LOSES, he'll still get props for TRYING.

I had no problem being against LBJ over the Vietnam War and I have no problems being against Obama on things that I think are WRONG.

[Marr]

14. Very true. The party faithful aren't "activists". They just want their team

to get in the driver's seat. As we've seen, after that they pretty much stop giving a shit.

[ClarkUSA]

22. You're insulting Democrats who support the Democratic Party and this President.

FYI, there are plenty of activists in organizations across the nation who support this President and this party who give a shit about what happens to this country and who work damned hard every election cycle to make sure Democrats get elected everywhere rather than spend their every spare waking minute whining about not getting the perfect legislation they wanted which will never ever happen anyway in this divisive political environment. Hell, that's never happened in any political environment on Capitol Hill.

Liberal Democratic base voters like me, my friends and my entire family who approve of President Obama and what this party is trying to do against strong forces of opposition led by the Koch Brothers give a shit as much as you do.

[Marr]

36. Your concern for civility would carry more weight if you could express without direct insults,

like "whiny activists".

I would say that activists are motivated by particular issues-- not nebulous concepts like "the future of this country". People who are primarily interested in the welfare of a political party and the politicians in it's ranks are, as the other poster mentioned, more partisans than activists.

[ClarkUSA]

41. I spoke the truth. Blaming the victim is not evidence of personal responsibility.

<< People who are primarily interested in the welfare of a political party and the politicians in it's ranks are, as the other poster mentioned, more partisans than activists.>>

The liberal Democratic base voters like myself who support the Democratic Party and President Obama are partisans who are also activists who support the goals of both. Our activism happen to reflect not only Democratic party values but the political reality of legislative wrangling that is Congress.

"People who are primarily interested in" trashing the Democratic party's motives and President Obama's in particular are, as I mentioned, more self-interested partisans than activists. This group of self-interested partisans I speak of include but are not strictly confined to GOP teabaggers.

[Marr]

42. That's a distinctly partisan sentiment, in my humble opinion.

Critics aren't 'primarily interested in trashing the party'. They're primarily interested in advancing a certain idea, and they criticize the party when they they find it's support lacking.

The party is only a useful tool, not an end in itself.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Being an activist and partisan are not mutually exclusive, as Google proves.

"democratic activist": http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=democratic+activist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Marr]

44. A biting argument.

Did you know that unicorns are real?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=unicorn&cp=5&qe=dW5pY28&qesig=RDq46Zirpeunw2Zm3OC9UQ&pkc=AFgZ2tmT_uh_62b6wPMmDxgdO3DGXaA10enXvbycJFhTF6J94IQS4jRwZPhIlhF4Ml8KlKuhgopT3yP8Vznrubor7oBOnvTpTQ&pq=dracula&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=unico&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a0e1d04ac32ef934

[ClarkUSA]

47. Facts are difficult to deny except if one is in denial.

<< Did you know that unicorns are real? >>

According to your Google link, the very first credible source, Wikipedia, says they are not. See how easy it is to disprove myths?

Yet there are real Democratic acitivists, as my Google link of credible sources' many news stories proves:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=717168&mesg_id=719013

[Marr]

48. This is silly.

You're trying to prove your opinion like it's a math problem. You're no more "correct" than I am-- we simply disagree.

[ClarkUSA]

50. You may disagree, but that doesn't negate the fact that Democratic activists do indeed exist.

And we never "stop giving a shit" even when our party and President is riding high.

[Marr]

57. I consider them partisans, not activists.

And yes, we disagree.

[hulka38]

46. The liberals, like me, you're complaining about aren't

"primarily interested" in trashing the Democratic Party's motives. I'll trash the party when it's warranted. It's been warranted a lot lately. I think liberals are primarily interested in searching for the truth and they're not finding it by looking through the Democratic lens.

[ClarkUSA]

49. I never mentioned you or "liberals" and I wasn't "complaining".

Did you miss the part where I said, "This group of self-interested partisans I speak of include but are not strictly confined to GOP teabaggers"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=717168&mesg_id=718876

I respect your POV, however.

[hulka38]

53. I took that

to be a very thinly veiled swipe at lefty critics of Obama on this site, reinforced by all the tussling that I couldn't help but notice you've been doing with said posters of late.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Really? I saw "thinly veiled swipes" at Obama supporters on this site.

Funny how differing perspectives yield different perceptions.

[hulka38]

59. I'm sure

you have and I have no problem with it either way. Again, if your comment that trashing the Democratic Party and Obama is the "primary interest" of lefties here, (and I think it was - why be ambiguous?) I think you're way off base.

[ClarkUSA]

60. You're incorrect in your interpretation, as I am a liberal myself.

[JoeyT]

73. Uh huh.

I don't think you know what the words partisan or activist mean. You keep using them, but you're reversing the definition.

Activists are willing to fight for their cause against all who oppose it. Partisans only care about a cause as long as it advances team whatever.

Apparently you think being willing to not only ditch but actively oppose your cause the second someone with a spiffy speech comes along makes you an "activist". Are the laws of physics as different in your universe from the one Earth resides in as the definitions are? Have y'all got cold fusion yet? That'd be neat.

[Bluebear]

63. indeed.

[EFerrari]

19. Yep. Well said. n/t

[MuseRider]

28. To the point.

Well said.

[Lorien]

74. +2 nt

[CoffeeCat]

6. If this is true, then those people who give...

President Obama a pass on everything---are absolutely the moral equivalent of
the Glenn Beckians and Bush cheerleaders who said and did absolutely nothing
while Bush trampled on the Constituion---but NOW scream from the rafters that
Obama is not following the Constitution.

You can't take seriously people who behave like this.

[mochajava666]

40. You are exaclty right. Well said.

[Drale]

8. I don't like some of the stuff that democrats are doing

but the right has gone so extreme that if they where to gain any real power, it would destroy the United States and probably kill at least 50% of the population.

[Bluebear]

10. But then our only selling point is "Vote us, we're not Republicans!"

:(

[gratuitous]

9. When one adheres to principles rather than personalities

Conflicts with practically anyone or any political party are unavoidable. Although, I suppose "My country, right or wrong" or "America, love it or leave it" are principles, too.

[Mimosa]

11. Excellent Must read OP as usual, Bluebear

I see the name BlueBear on an OP or a post and I know it's going to be worthwhile.

I was a kid in high school when I first took to the streets protesting Vietnam. 'Hey, hey LBJ, How many babies did you kill today?'still rings in my ears.

Because all unmarried young males were subject to being drafted, it seems like people cared more about the issue of war.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sivart]

15. hello......the draft

How can you compare protest from the 60's to today without pointing out that there is no draft today.

If our young men and women were being drafted for all of these wars, you would see a completely different situation.

[Bluebear]

16. You think 60's activists were against war only because they were being drafted?

No.

[Bluerthanblue]

38. I can tell you from personal experience, it sure lit a fire under some

people who would have not gotten involved if it hadn't hit home to them in such a personal way.

If you don't think this is so, you're fooling yourself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Yep. And, they trot out Sarah Palin to shout "Boo!" at them.

And, of course, add the inspiring "not as bad" and "lesser of two evils" rationalizations popular among centrists who fear the left more than the right.

[Yavin4]

18. There Is Much To Fear from the Right Wing In This Nation

Just look at what's happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan. Look at the regressive laws that the Republicans are trying to pass regarding women's reproductive rights.

It's a a fear that's not unfounded.

The bigger, more real fundamental problem in American politics is that the American left has not, will not, and cannot build any significant political force that serves as an equivalent political force to the the American right wing.

By significant political force, I don't mean holding rallies on college campuses, watching Rachel Maddow, or posting on message boards. I mean fielding candidates in local, state, and federal elections and winning a significant number of seats.

Give me 15 more Bernie Sanders in the senate, and then we're talking.

[krabigirl]

31. There are lot of thing to fear from both wings of the corporate party, yes.

[Yavin4]

35. And The Only Counter Balance Is A Strong, Politically Vibrant Left of Center Party

which this nation does not have.

[CrossChris]

21. The GOP has put billions into psych research and thinktanks to help make this happen.

And it works.

There's no money behind the liberal message---because that message is detrimental to hoarding billionaires.

We have to use people-power, but soon the internet as we know it will be gone.

What do we do?

[Modern_Matthew]

23. No activist is told how to think and thinks that way. They call that a sheep. nt

[whatchamacallit]

24. Almost? (nt)

[xchrom]

26. recommend

[ClarkUSA]

27. Since when? There are complaints directed at this President on nearly every issue 24/7.

Randy Shaw must be too old to surf the internet otherwise he'd have understood what Joe Biden was talking about while back and never written such a laughably erroneous op-ed.

[MuseRider]

29. Thanks Bluebear! n/t

[spanone]

30. mr shaw should visit du, Obama never gets a pass here.

' Yet Barack Obama’s endless, $2 billion a week war in Afghanistan, and his capitulation to Wall Street proceeds without a peep.'

i hear lots of peeps.

[Bluebear]

51. lolol

[Fuzz]

32. It's getting to the point that the American people will enjoy being lead to their death if the

person doing it is someone from the party with which they identify.

[sad sally]

33. Don't know where we're headed, but we sure are making good time.

and it's whoops, over the cliff, kerplop - dead.

[killbotfactory]

34. Obama is getting such a free ride by the left n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

37. you forgot the sarcasm tag-

:shrug:

[Orangepeel]

39. maybe they decided that fighting the democratic president wasn't working

protest LBJ, get Nixon. protest Carter, get Reagan. Protest Clinton, get Bush. Protest Obama and God knows what kind of evil fuck might come next.

That's fear, but it might be rational fear.

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

52. Precisely the point of the article.

They fear the right wing so that they are not willing to criticize Democratic leadership.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

56. lolol! Shaw has clearly never read HuffPo, AMERICAblog, Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota or DU.

Much less the PUMAs over at Jane "Grover Norquist is my Kill The HCR Bill ally on Faux News" Hamsher's FDL... :puke:

[bobbolink]

58. I'm an activist but none of those descriptions fit me.

Just an outcast.

Failed again.

:hug:

[Bluerthanblue]

67. +1

:hug:

[Solly Mack]

62. K&R

[Scuba]

64. Doobie Brother's Taking it to the Streets works for me. C'mon on...

...join Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, Florida, Pennsylvania, DC and other parts of America in this wave of protest. Our numbers are overwhelming.


If you're not aware, one of the oldest adages in the biz world is "90% of success is just showing up". That certainly applies here, and now.

[Poboy]

66. R'd