« Time Out For Fun | Main | LIVE BLOGGING of Al Gore Policy Speech!! »
Looking Backwards, Looking Forwards
The Roman god Janus looked in two directions, as does Shiva, the Hindu god of the dance, creation and destruction. Yesterday, so did I.
A presentation at the University where I teach took me back to the 1960s, a heady time indeed. The topic was the role of universities in creating liberal, if not radical, activists who were active in the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements.
Four university professors who were part of that time shared reminiscences--lessons for OUR times now:
One remembered the university being shut and locked down following the Kent State student shootings. "I could not even get onto the campus to meet with my advisor. The National Guard had the entire campus surrounded. They all had gas masks and bayonets. You could smell the tear gas from an earlier foray."
Another remembered the Last Protest--April 18, 1975, the Bicentennial, where President Ford spoke of the 200 year history of military strength, as Saigon fell, and protesters tried to forge the Concord River to speak truth to power.
I shared Dick's understanding of the downfall of the Clamshell Alliance in the late 1970s--the largest nonviolent action in US history shut down--for a time--building the nuclear facility at Seabrook, New Hampshire. Clamshell--founded by Quakers--was committed to a process of complete consensus. Every member had to come to agreement in order for any action to be taken. As the Alliance grew, of course, this was more and more difficult. It also allowed for crazies, much less government infiltrators, to stop the process completely, by merely refusing to agree with an action.
Another recalled the split between the Trotskyites and the more mainstream liberals. The presenter talked about an equally, if more divisive split on the right--the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF, the counterpoint to SDS and other leftie student groups). The right wing at that time consisted of two groups: the libertarians, who were mostly upper-middle class "cradle conservatives" and the social conservatives, many of whom were Catholic, working class, first generation college students. The libertarians were anti-Vietnam War; they wanted government out of the bedroom and the boardroom. The social conservatives were pro-war, pro-business, and pro-McCarthy. The disagreements became so huge, the YAF dissolved in 1969.
Of all the groups, one produced a number of entry-level politicos. Guess which one? Hint: It wasn't the libertarians, the Trotskyites, or the liberals. Todd Gitlin famously pointed out that "the right captured government; the left captured the English Department".
We learned that one Richard Cheney had actually been a speechwriter for the President of the University of Wisconsin during the student activist days of the late 1960s. Well, we knew he wasn't in Vietnam, right?
Looking forward to today--there are protests scheduled (see www.democracycellproject.net--the front page--for information) on the takeover of the judicial appointments by these same social conservatives.
But let's remember the cautionary tales of expectations that we are after the same ends. John Kerry spoke of a big tent, and we are all hoping for a coalition of all good people--no matter what ideology, religion, culture, political party--to come here and participate. That's what a democracy is, and what it does.
I recalled an event I witnessed back in my own early days of political activism. We had taken over a building--for good reasons, of course--and were preparing a list of demands, along with a rich, all-night discussion of concessions we were willing to negotiate on. The Revolutionary Communist Youth gang showed up around 1 am, insisting on an additional, non-nogotiable demand--that the US government turn itself over to Moscow.
More "rich" discussion ensued. At 4 am, we threw them out. The big tent can only hold the reasonable and rational, we decided. Looking back, they were probably provocatuers anyway. As we move ahead in THIS struggle, let's keep talking about that big tent, who gets to come in, who gets to stay, and what the process is for decision-making.
In the struggle to return our country to democracy, we must be constantly vigilant that the strategies we adopt do not kill the democratic process, nor allow it to be hijacked by those who would kill it down the road. It's a tricky dance. Rich discussion is the essential antidote. Let us commence:
Find & attend a rally - they are today.
To search for rallies in your area, click here:
http://www.moveonpac.org/event/judicialrallies/
The growing public resistance to the "nuclear option" is due in no small measure to our work together: Hundreds of thousands of flyers, phone calls, letters to the editor, window signs, petition signatures, dollars donated to run ads and urgent water cooler conversations.
But right-wing groups are mobilizing, and Frist is fighting back hard, twisting arms to win votes. Moderate Republicans need to hear from us now to counter growing pressure from party leaders, corporate donors and the extreme right. And Democrats who've suggested confirming some of Bush's blocked judges need to know we expect them to fight with all their strength to protect our courts -- and that we'll support them when they do.
We've designed these rallies to be fun, interactive, and impactful. And to ensure our message gets out, volunteers have been inviting media. With a record turnout tomorrow, we can send a clear message straight to Washington that we are not willing to sacrafice our courts or our democracy—and we have the strength to win.
Dang I missed reading all of your all posts! You are all a breath of fresh air! Thanks - Cooker (Matt) Fox
I don't come here often enough, but I have still being doing quite a bit behind the scenes...
.. and DANG, I missed all those good rib recipes!
Good to see ya, Cooker... hope all is well in KC!
"People need someone to offset the fear, anxiety and concern that has replaced life, liberty and happiness. This country is desperately seeking that person, right now. That is what those numbers mean.
"By definition a True Leader takes charge of the situation regardless. When that person shows up, unafraid of polling data and ready to Lead, they will be followed by the entire Nation."
Posted by: Toolmaker at April 26, 2005 04:19 PM
I couldn't agree more. I think the popularity of Jon Stewart speaks volumes about this issue. He redicules political leadership today. He has those he respects, to be sure, but his analysis of the political scene as something to laugh at seems to strike home.
In a country where 89% of the people get 100% of their news from TV, it seems that the media has a lot to do with whether or not people follow a leader. It could take a decade for people to find out. It's all well and good to say "the internet, the internet" but that still only reaches a tiny minority of Americans. Talk to others you say; well, that's where the ten years comes in.
So I share an experience. A few days ago I called the local progressive talk radio station and asked for bumper stickers. They sent me a bunch. (Thanks, Mike at KPOJ 620 Portland!) I put one on my car - I live in a neighborhood described well by someone else - a red area that is rural but not all farms, has some suburban housing here and there.... and is growing. In this environment, we concerned folks have difficulty finding eachother. And I had three people stop to ask about the station just in my one trip to "town." That's three more people that are going to tune in to hear Ed, the plain truth guy. And we have Thom Hartmann here - he's great too. And they might hear Randi, always first with the facts, and Al, with his great guests. So I don't have to spend hours talking to these folks; they can tune in.
I highly recommend putting a bumper sticker on your car with the local progressive radio station on it. Even if no one approaches you, someone might just tune in when they see it.
I got this from Congressman Jim Shadegg...
Thank you for contacting me regarding energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and logging on public lands. I appreciate
having the opportunity to address your concerns and apologize for the delay in responding.
I believe that oil production and the environment can co-exist in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). On April 11, 2003 by a vote of 247 to 175 as well as on August 1, 2001 by a vote of 236 to 189, bipartisan majorities of the House of Representatives voted to allow oil exploration and production on 2,000 acres of the nineteen million acres within ANWR.
Twenty years of development in an area 70 miles to the east of ANWR at Prudhoe Bay accounts for 24 percent of U.S. oil production and has proven that case. Unfortunately for gas prices and national security, production at Prudhoe Bay is in steep decline and the oil from ANWR is sorely needed for its replacement.
ANWR comprises an area the size of the State of South Carolina - 19 million acres. The area that would be open to leasing and exploration is the
1.5 million acre Coastal Plain and the amount of land which would actually be disturbed is approximately 2,000 acres -- a space roughly the size of Sky Harbor Airport. This is the same 1.5 million acres that were set aside in 1980 to study its oil and gas potential. Geologists have determined that there are at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil, and as much as 32 billion barrels of oil, in the Coastal Plain.
This utilization would take place only along the extreme northern coast of ANWR, which is barren and frozen for nearly nine months of the year. Moreover, the exploratory work would take place only in the winter on ice roads; thus, if no oil is found, there would be no direct impact to the surface whatsoever. As long as the necessary steps are taken to preserve the environment, I support the exploration and development on the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
You also expressed your concern with logging on public lands. I believe in the multiple use principle, which allows National Forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) areas to serve multiple public needs, including a wide range of both consumptive and non-consumptive uses. People need reliable supplies of timber and minerals to enable the economy and our way of life to function and areas managed by the Forest Service and BLM are important sources for these
materials.
In addition, many local economies in Arizona and throughout the nation are dependent upon the consumptive use of natural resources from public lands. Such consumptive uses as logging and mining provide high-paying jobs and a stable tax base for local communities. If access to these resources is denied, the result is the loss of employment and resulting poverty for the people whose livelihoods depend upon these industries.
At the same time, it is important to protect the environmental and aesthetic qualities of these areas. As you may know, all major federal
actions, including logging projects, must be reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine whether they are appropriate and, if so, how they can be conducted to minimize negative envrionmental impacts.
While there is an ongoing debate over the extent to which agency decisions made during the NEPA process should be subject to challenge, there is widespread agreement that environmental protection is extremely important and must be a
factor in deciding whether to proceed with a project, as well as how to conduct the project.
Please be assured that I do not support the degradation of our public lands. I do support a balanced approach to public land management which takes into account both aesthetic factors and the economic needs of the nation as a whole as well as individuals whose livelihoods depend upon consumptive industries.
Again, thank you for sharing your views. I look forward to hearing about issues of importance to you in the future. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my web site at http://johnshadegg.house.gov where you can sign up for my E-mail newsletter The Shadegg Source.
Looking in two directions...i like it
Our Nation is coming under the influence of a group that looks in only one direction, with One purpose, one goal. All of which are in conflict with what this Nation is predicated upon, what Senator Kerry called the Big Tent. We have a Huge Tent, nobody at the door asking what you believe in, nobody asking who you will vote for, nobody cares who you are. You are Welcome.
In the Tent of the Evengelicals, there is no Welcome mat. There are tests to pass, faiths to profess, and beliefs to acknowledge. Which is fine if the tent is a Church. If the Tent is a Nation created and founded upon the Constitution, then this movement cannot be defined as anything other than hypocrisy.
The sadness and tragedy is this group does not understand their own beliefs and teachings.
It is in the AIDS wards, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, womens shelters, childrens programs,health care clinics, and community centers, we see the face of God. When we empower these programs, we touch the face of God.
Looking in two directions, Good Analogy.
Another letter from Shadegg
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 685, the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005." I appreciate the opportunity to reply and apologize for the delay in my response.
Reform of the existing bankruptcy system is sorely needed as our nation witnesses an unsustainable epidemic of personal bankruptcies. In 2004 alone, individual bankruptcy filings rose to 1.6 million. I find it particularly alarming that this increase is not occurring in the midst of a recession, but during a time of relatively strong economic growth. These numbers show that bankruptcy has become an alternative for people who are able to repay some of their debt. This has serious ramifications for the average American.
Approximately $400 of the typical American family's hard-earned money is used annually to support this failing system by means of higher credit card interest rates, higher down payments on car loans, higher late fees, and a myriad of other expenses. In essence, you and I are picking up the bill for those who are unable or unwilling to pay off their debts.
This legislation creates a need-based bankruptcy system. One of the more important provisions assures that individuals can no longer file bankruptcy and liquidate their debts without passing a "means test." The test would determine whether or not an individual's income, minus all reasonable expenses, is enough to implement a payment plan.
Congress established the bankruptcy system in 1978 to relieve true debt burden for those who could not sustain themselves without government assistance. Those who need a fresh start are still protected under the new system. The newly added means test allows government to ascertain which claims are valid and which are taking advantage of the system for personal gain.
Again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any issues of importance to you.
John Shadegg
Congressman
Arizona 3rd District
U.S. House of Representatives