MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
The election frenzy…seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls.
— Howard Zinn, April 2008
The Bernie phenomenon has landed in my neighborhood. I am referring to “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, heavily focused on Iowa, home to the nation’s earliest presidential Caucus. Last Saturday, downtown Iowa City’s usually quiet Robert A. Lee Recreation Center, six blocks from my house, was packed with 1100 liberals to hear Sanders talk. I looked down into the center’s gym, where I occasionally shoot baskets alongside no more than 5 or 6 young and poor Black men. It was wall-to-wall with middle class white folks, many white-haired
Comments
Very interesting take, thanks Lulu. But I don't agree with the Paul Street's thesis that a Sanders campaign is counterproductive because it will 1) "suck up political energy that would be better expended elsewhere" and 2) produce a "deepened sense of popular powerlessness" when he loses.
Both premises are false. Contrary to 1) "political energy" is not a finite fuel. National campaigns and grassroots movements feed off each other by exciting and inspiring people. They don't "suck up" political energy; they create new political energy. Contrary to 2), political defeat is often galvanizing, especially when caused by powerful outside forces like SuperPACs. Far worse is the feeling of "popular powerlessness" caused the absence of any appealing candidate.
In American history, social change movements have always gone hand-in-hand with high-profile quixotic political campaigns. From Van Buren of the Free Soilers to Fremont of the Republicans, Eugene Debs of the Socialists to Bob La Follette of the Progressives, and (on the flip side) Goldwater of the Libertarians, losing presidential campaigns have helped galvanize supporters and attract new advocates.
Now Sanders is not an ideal candidate, and I don't expect him to ignite a prairie fire that will change the world, but Paul Street's sour attitude about Iowans' enthusiasm for Sanders says more to me about what's wrong with the left wing than any of his criticisms.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 11:32am
I think this left wing sour group isn't very large and mostly very young men. They are pretty noisy group on the internet and mostly get ignored. Most of them cannot even articulate what they want except all the CEO's must be hung from light posts. They also hate Hillary Clinton. What they don't understand that change is a process with many players not just some hero. It is easy to criticize but making solutions is hard work that takes time.
There is a lot of old hippies that are happy to hear Sanders speak.
by trkingmomoe on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 1:58pm
Actually, that's my biggest concern about Sanders. He's an old leftist who mostly appeals to old leftists. Don't get me wrong, I love old leftists. But we also need a lot more young leftists to make a difference.
by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 06/06/2015 - 8:26am
by anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 06/06/2015 - 10:52am
Sanders it the only campaign that has contacted Move On. org after they wrapped up their Draft Elizabeth Warren campaign. He wants them to stay voicing their ideas for this election cycle. He would also like their support.
The most reliable voters are the elderly and many of them have been voting Republican. He could very well pull some of them to the left. I have more in common with my grandkids then their parents politically. It is just too soon to see what effect Sanders will have on this cycle. So far it has been positive.
by trkingmomoe on Sat, 06/06/2015 - 3:37pm
I have long believed that capitalism is probably the best economic system but one that has been corrupted by the rich to their advantage and to the disadvantage of everyone else. This leads me to believe that with the right sort of regulation it could be de-corrupted and then more fairly serve people as a whole. Good luck on that but it is certainly worth persuing. Sanders seems to agree. As it is though, capitalism is an organizing force, a driving force, and also a tool, of subjugation and extraction from the less powerful to the lopsided benefit of the more powerful. I believe, along I think with Street, that capitalism as it exists now in our country is ultimately doomed to implode even if it doesn’t first push the world to explode.
Maybe Sanders will be effective in moving Hillary’s rhetoric somewhat to the left and that would seem to have some value, as you suggest. But,I do not believe that there is any substantive issue which Hillary as President would act upon after her election in any way differently because of some campaign position she had mouthed in response to to Sanders campaign. Sander’s effect will be to help elect a person he claims to fundamentally disagree with on major issues and he then promises to support after she is elected and Street indicates that even if Sanders was to become President that his voting history shows there would probably be little difference in his policies regarding the greatest and most imminent threats we, as a country, face and in those areas the neocons [Aptly called “the crazies’] are very comfortable with Hillary. I say that in the belief that our aggressive militaristic policies are helping create the situations of hardship and depredation both at home and abroad and the resulting counter-productive feedback loop in which relatively small wars will eventually bankrupt us even if none of them explode into a major war which actually becomes an existential threat and in which case would be much different than any previous war. The closer we are to going broke the more aggressive I expect us to become. We will not go down easy. We will try to bully our way out of bankruptcy. Our end, if and when it happens, may be with a whimper but it will be after a hard fight if that is what it comes to. We will use whatever weapons we have in the war we get. We should realize that in that sense we are definitely not “exceptional”, there is a world chock full of people at least as willing to fight when pushed hard enough as we are to send our neighbors kid to fight based on largely unexamined stories we are told. I do not see a happy ending without a sea-change in in our national conscience. Street’s criticism of Sanders on this issue is what I see as most important and most instructive in what he has to say.
I am not ‘against’ Sanders but I believe he is overrated and that any great hope of his pushing the Democrats to the left based on his candidacy is misplaced. At the same time, I hope his views do get wide coverage just like I was happy to see some of Ron and Rand Paul's issues injected into the national conversation for due consideration.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/06/2015 - 1:48pm
Michael, I lost a paragraph at the end that was approximately this: When you say, “...but Paul Street's sour attitude about Iowans' enthusiasm for Sanders says more to me about what's wrong with the left wing than any of his criticisms”, it begs the obvious question, What does that sourness say about what is wrong with the left wing and what would be an improvement? Should we be upbeat about our good chance of electing the lesser evil? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, Hillary as lesser evil than any Republican is my conclusion but Sanders would seem to agree and Street would seem to put Sanders in that same relationship to Hillary. I am, apparently, on the left wing and I have a very sour attitude about Democratic politics within a world of politics that is completely disgusting. What would be a better way, a better attitude? Should I go with Sanders and positively support Hillary just because the Republicans will take us down the same ruinous path quicker?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/06/2015 - 2:16pm
Lulu, if the left goes silent after a Clinton election, then I certainly agree with you that she would not alter her behavior as President. The left should press Clinton for policy promises during the campaign AND hold her to them post-election. I say that with the understanding that this strategy may not work well right now. The left wing of the party is still too weak to threaten serious damage. But this is a long game. Ultimately, the left must rebuild itself into a more potent political force, and I believe that Sanders's campaign can contribute to that effort.
Which gets me to your question. The American left suffers from poor political strategy, limited vision, disunity, and apathy. Instead of griping about Sanders' failure to satisfy ideological benchmarks and complaining that the campaign will suck energy from his own agenda, Paul Street might have welcomed the enthusiasm for a populist, progressive candidate like Sanders and recognized that strategic political campaigns are an essential tool for achieving social change.
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 06/07/2015 - 11:03am
I think Street, a socialist himself, is more critical of Sanders as a socialist than as a Democrat or as a candidate.
Andrew Levine in the same issue at Counterpunch has good observations on many of the declared and potential candidates including Webb. When he gets to Sanders his take is much like Street’s, Sanders is just not his kind of socialist either. I think Levine's analysis is worth checking out.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/no-need-yet-to-abandon-all-hope/
I think you are right about the ‘long game’ but that is a bit discouraging seeing as how the Republicans are the only ones playing it affectively or who even seem to know what the game is. Corey Robin has a post about part of their team and the power game they play.
http://coreyrobin.com/2015/06/07/how-corporations-control-politics/
On another front and though not directly about electoral politics, something very significant in the long game is happening in the academic world according to Michael Shwalbe.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/05/twilight-of-the-professors/
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 06/07/2015 - 11:05pm
Ugh, I didn't realize that Street was a socialist. That makes it even worse. When was the last time a self-declared socialist received serious political coverage? You'd think Street would be enthusiastic--even if Sanders' ideology is only socialism-lite.
Interesting piece about academia. I think it's more complicated than economics, though that certainly plays a big part. Other factors include the rise of academic specialization and the post-modern fetish for obscure language. I also think the effect is not limited to progressive and radicals, though it's more pronounced on the left. You don't see many Milton Friedman's or Allan Bloom's these days either.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 4:48pm
Worse? No, at least IMO, but just coming from a different place. Street and Levine stand well to the left of Sanders and are saying that if he wants to call himself a socialist that he should move closer to them, over where the 'real' socialists stand.
When was the last time that a committed, charismatic, dedicated, soft-spoken, moderate centrist hoping to make some small changes ever inspired a revolutionary movement? Or, even modest improvements that went against the prevailing power structure? Still, if he helps change the national conversation in that direction and help pave the way, I am for all it.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:26am
I'm pro-leftwingloudmouth. Sanders may not be the loudest and leftiest man in America, but he's louder and leftier than anyone else on the national stage except perhaps Elizabeth Warren. For this reason, we should welcome his candidacy.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:34pm
I think you've just written Sanders' new bumper sticker: Bernie - He's the Leftiest!
by MrSmith1 on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:53pm
When reviewing the pros and cons of all the other candidates, to consider the best
Bernie - is what's left
by Resistance on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 12:33am
Sanders may have the same impact on Democrats that John Edwards had in 2008. Edwards force the debate to the Left. Here is a link to Krugman's take on Edward's role.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=0
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 12:11pm
That's so cool to hear. And for the record, he refers to himself as an "Independent Socialist" who joins with the Democratic circle. I just can't imagine the far right wingers reaction if his candidacy catches some momentum. At the very least it will give Clinton a break.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 12:19pm
Zinn's apparent thesis in the quote was that elections and voting in America do not, in fact, matter.
I suppose the 2000 Jeb Bush administration in Florida which worked like fiends to disenfranchise Democrat leaning voters and rig the outcome for GWB would applaud Zinn on this assertion.
Zinn on the 2000 election, in which Zinn supported Nader:
I would say there was a helluva lot of difference between GWB and Gore. That's why the GOP and the war profiteering right stole the election.
The late Mr. Zinn, and Paul Street, sing the beltway gospel of the MSM is that 'both sides do it'.
Both "are equally to blame for every stalemate, fiasco, war or shortfall in government."
By doing so they are obfuscating truth, avoiding assignment of accountability, erasing history and complementing the work of the Koch brothers/GOP to disenfranchise Americans and keep them from voting.
by NCD on Fri, 06/05/2015 - 1:04pm
Sanders does talk about the plight of African Americans.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-wants-to-put-a-million-young-people-to-work-heres-how/
He is framing it as a job issue.
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 06/07/2015 - 6:43pm
He also talks about how many we have in jails now.
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 06/07/2015 - 6:58pm
I can't wait for Bernard to be selected as our Great Leader, he'll be our first Labor Zionist bringing Socialism to the masses. Every state will get an F35 base just as the People's Republic of Vermont has.and will enjoy their MIC Socialism because the other Socialism is impossible with militarists such as Bernie, Warren or Clinton.
Bernie's Run has pumped new life into the disillusioned leaderless Liberals who can now point and cheer at the proof that the system still works if we will only believe.
We've already seen that once a Democrat rules in Washington war becomes more tolerable and necessary to protect our interests. With a socialist like Bernie in power promising a more equal sharing of the profits many people may start waving their little Amerikan flags again as the military executes the necessary murder and mayhem to guarantee those profits.
by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 12:26pm