Agitation, Alliances, and Action

[bigtree]

OUR legislative agenda is best served when it is initiated and advocated from the ground up, but, at some point, to convert those grass-roots ideas into action, our progressive ideals need to be assigned to our legislators we elect to public office -- the caretakers and managers of the levers of our democracy -- to put them into realization.

Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for any movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin wrote in his book, 'Down the Line.'

"As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it." he said. "For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."

Another important point Ruskin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own diverse, progressive coalitions which have massed to march together in protest, and have advocated within and without the system (together or independently).

"In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."

Ruskin's advice about alliances is just the lesson I believe we need to heed as we face off against the republican opposition in this election season of discontent and anxious, frustrated citizens (understandably and correctly) taking their grievances to the streets.

I'm not talking about just rolling over and compromising our principles or our positions. Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other.

While our hundreds of in Congress legislators may come to office with similar goals, like reforming health care, for example, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals. Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder.

If we are to effectively begin any substantial reversal of the Bush administration's withering legacy of debt and economic turmoil, the solutions will have to come in the form of some sort of compromise, given the fragile balance of power in this Congress and the entrenched republican opposition. For many out here, that effort can't afford to wait for an uncertain change in that balance of power.

Speaking of the struggle for civil rights in his own time, Rustin wrote that, "Confronted with a new agenda, we had to come to terms with developing new tactics. When we had absolute demands for the rights of freedom and dignity, we could insist on absolute solutions. But when you are working within the political system,you can no longer deal in absolute terms. You must be prepared to compromise, you must be prepared to make and accept concessions," he wrote.

Achieving legislative solutions which will adequately confront the republican minority and cause them to move away from their obstinacy is no easy or certain task. That effort will, more than likely, take even more protesting and advocacy, but, as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.

[Axrendale]

1. An excellent thread, and an excellent point that bears repeating again and again.

The ability of popular movements to interact with, to not merely push and pull at but to provide real support for champions of their ideals who work within the political system is what defined the greatest successes that liberalism has had in American history. The great challenge facing popular liberalism today will be two-fold: not merely maintaining faith in the possibilities of the political system, but in finding the political figures who are capable of becoming the very allies and effective fighters that are required.

Reading this reminds me of one of the best books of American political history that I have read: Judgement Days by Nick Kotz, which chronicles the extraordinary partnership that developed between Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, and how by working together their formidable but highly different talents were able to achieve breakthroughs that civil rights activists had been seeking for decades. It makes for highly inspiring reading, and I'd recommend it to anyone.

[bigtree]

2. Judgement Days

I recall that Dr. King also held several meetings with President Kennedy, as well, working on details of civil rights legislation, I believe. That's about as good an illustration I know of the balance that's possible between both responsibilities.

I look forward to putting the primary on quite a few folks in Congress this time around and I hope some of these individual movements find folks who will agree to toe their line into office.

[Axrendale]

3. Indeed.

One might just as well make note of the connections that Abraham Lincoln maintained with prominent figures within the abolitionist movement during his presidency, or Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to draw left-leaning activist groups into the New Deal coalition. The same commonality runs through the history of all the great progressive Presidents - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ... their achievements as leaders were always at their highest point when they stayed connected too and demonstrated willingness to work with the various interest groups that were associated with the measures they sought to bring into being.

The level of disconnect between Democratic leaders who were in office at the time and the great natural bodies of potential support which existed goes a long way, one feels, to explaining the disappointments of the 2009-2010 period (and for that matter 2011). This is regrettable, to say the least, but hopefully it can be drawn upon as a moral.

If not, we may indeed be rapidly approaching the point of requiring new leadership...

[Axrendale]

4. I have to say that I'm surprised and disappointed that this thread hasn't

gotten much of a response thus far. If the lack of response is indicative of an indifference to the importance of seeking change internally to the political system as well as externally, then I fear for future chances of actually achieving liberal breakthroughs.

:(

[bigtree]

5. I wouldn't read it that way

I think that history has demonstrated that neither course is a panacea, in and of itself, but that both impetuses to progressive progress need to exist and operate almost simultaneously, if not in tandem. Power never concedes without pressure.

No one really wants to be made to feel as if someone is trying to limit their avenue of free-expression. To suggest 'compromise' suggests capitulation to most folks deeply committed to protest.

Yet, we are still challenged to unite, both outside of the political arena and within. The negative influences which are inclined to resist progressive change never fail to coalesce to advance their pernicious aims. Nor should we concede any alliances which further our causes.

[Marazinia]

6. I'm waiting on Democrats

To elect someone who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk. So far, I haven't seen it. But I want to see it. I can compromise and find middle ground with people who are politically to my right (I'm far left), but only if the people you elect actually start doing what they say they'll do, in Congress, in the White House, and in our states.

I have never seen it. Until I do, I think you're throwing your votes away and wasting your time and worst of all, giving false hope to people who are suffering because of continuing business and policy decisions that serve only the wealthy.

[bigtree]

7. I suffered through two terms of 'no hope'

false hope, to me, would be expecting the general election nominee for president to be an ideal choice. Given the nature of the electorate, the nominee is not likely to be as progressive as we might wish. It never has, in my lifetime -- or any other, I believe; not even the gregarious and peace-talking Mr. Carter who got my vote over John Anderson even though I supported the independent through the primary season.

At some point, we are challenged to choose between the two. I'm not buying the notion that there's no difference between parties in power either. I've been there and done that. I won't sit back and risk another republican administration in the WH and I'm sure not comfortable with any republican majority to be complacent about electing Democrats to Congress either.

Once we achieve the elevation of our party in office, we are still challenged to press for the things we voted for.

Not everyone is going to agree with everything a candidate does in office, or agree with all of their promises, but we can't afford to wait for some uncertain prospect of an ideal legislature just because our candidate isn't the type of progressive we might have wanted -- we can certainly fight for one, but it's not likely, in my view. It never has been in my lifetime, but that quest for a perfect candidate never stopped negative influences from persisting, and it shouldn't dissuade us either from coalescing or challenging the folks we manage to advance into office under our Democratic banner. It's a far better prospect than the alternative -- which can be absolutely catastrophic.

[Marazinia]

8. This isn't about small ideological differences

This is about seeing no difference between the two. I see none. Dennis Kucinich, I think if we'd elected him, we'd see a difference. Fill Congress with Kucinichs, we'll see a difference. But Obama is just like Bush. Nothing has changed. And every time things don't change, we're told to blame the Republicans in Congress, right? But for awhile he had a majority in Congress. And still nothing changed. They pushed pieces of paper around and blew smoke.

It's getting old.

And I remember Clinton and I remember NAFTA and opening trade with China and I remember how human rights and workers rights weren't on the table. So that was eight years right there that nothing changed either. Or not for the better.

[bigtree]

9. okay, I'll accept that many important things stayed the same -- many were worsened

. . . through the deliberate actions of the President and the administration.

But, 'nothing changed' . . .? I've been looking pretty closely and I'm seeing many, many changes in policy, direction, and in individual circumstances as a result of the change in administrations from republican to Democratic. I can accept that they aren't what you hoped to see. I can't reason that 'nothing' has been done, in the face of what I've chronicled. Modest progress on some fronts with record legislative successes. Of course, the shortcomings and mistakes are plain to see as well.

At any rate, it still doesn't mean that we're free to turn away from government and leave it to all of these negative influences. They won't turn away. They will continue to coalesce their influence into votes; votes into law.

We still are challenged to work through the political system to make any meaningful progressive change -- even if it's just a defensive effort with an eye to the future. We still need to build and maintain coalitions with disparate and diverse interests, even among ourselves 'outside' of government. Even in our protests.

[Marazinia]

10. You guys are the ones with power, or at least I hope you are

You'll get one more chance at the ballot box, maybe two. If we're lucky, we won't have collapsed by 2016 and we'll be able to vote. I'm waiting to see what you do. I don't trust your candidates, I don't trust voters to choose rightly among them. But I can hope. It's on you guys, the Democrats, to really change this. I already know I can't. All I can do is wait to see what happens, and if the worst happens, then elections will mean nothing anyway.