Sunday, January 30, 2011
In the footsteps of Saul Alinsky
In a previous post I advised my liberal-progressive-Democratic friends to let Obama go about the constitutional job of being President and not depend on him to start or promote new initiatives toward reforming our undemocratic, corporate-ridden political and economic system. Starting something new is something we have to do ourselves. Our opponents on the Right have been working for years to develop a coherent movement that, even though it is a minority, is so disciplined and organized that it has become more influential than the majority of our citizens. As Democrats, we have a tradition of obstinate independence that precludes the discipline shown by the Tea Party movement. We need to have at least agreed goals that conform with our views about what's wrong.
Unlike the Tea Party Movement, we can't vent our frustration with the system and at the same time advocate fundamental changes that will, if enacted, simply reinforce the things about the system that we hate. Fortunately, we are not that disciplined and not that inclined to listen to demagogues who use our frustration and energy to promote their own selfish interests.
Let's start with agreeing on what needs to be changed.
We can not depend on favorite candidates for office to make these changes. We need to use techniques recognized in the constitution itself: public protest and petition. History teaches us that peaceful protest is more effective than violent protest. Look at Russia! The people rose up and violently ended the rule of the tsar. What replaced it? The rule of Stalin. In these days, the rule of Putin. It is not sufficient to overthrow a government that is oppressive. There must be a profound change, not only in the government, but in the people. Peaceful, if rowdy, demonstrations eventually wear down the prejudices of the people and bring about changes in the government. I am talking here about an effort that will take two or three generations. It isn't going to happen in the election of 2012.
Unlike the Tea Party Movement, we can't vent our frustration with the system and at the same time advocate fundamental changes that will, if enacted, simply reinforce the things about the system that we hate. Fortunately, we are not that disciplined and not that inclined to listen to demagogues who use our frustration and energy to promote their own selfish interests.
Let's start with agreeing on what needs to be changed.
- A great deal of wealth has been created in the past thirty or more years. Most of it has gone to a tiny segment of society. Most of us have not participated in becoming more wealthy. CEO's of large companies typically receive salaries and other forms of remuneration 400 times that of the average worker. In the rest of the industrialized world, excepting perhaps China, the ratio is only about 20. Some of this wealth needs to be redistributed, starting with the tax code.
- We no longer have a system of representative government. Our elected Representatives and Senators do not accurately represent us. They represent the interests of those individuals and organizations who have money to spend on election campaigns. This situation needs to be changed. The supreme court decision a year ago simply verified what was already in effect; namely, that organizations with money have political influence.
- Our country has blundered into several needless wars: Viet Nam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. None of these wars was started in the constitutional way by a simple declaration of war by Congress. None of them would have been started if the American Public had been consulted. We can debate the question of whether we obtained any of our objectives in these wars, but in general the situation in each case has settled our of probably will settle out to be just what it would have been if there had been no war.
- We need to do a great deal more than we are doing about global warming. It is too late to discuss the question of whether human activity is a cause. We have to plan for a warmer environment, a rising sea level, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, and other undesirable changes in the weather. Our government is doing practically nothing. No reputable institution is advising us on how we must change our ways of living to cope with the coming climate changes.
- We put too many people in prison. We require long prison terms for minor offenses. Prosecutors use the threat of long prison terms to try to induce drug retailers to rat out their suppliers. The retailers don't talk - they don't dare - and accept the long terms to protect their lives and their families' lives. We should rely much more on a system of probation for minor offenders. Probation is cheaper than prison.
We can not depend on favorite candidates for office to make these changes. We need to use techniques recognized in the constitution itself: public protest and petition. History teaches us that peaceful protest is more effective than violent protest. Look at Russia! The people rose up and violently ended the rule of the tsar. What replaced it? The rule of Stalin. In these days, the rule of Putin. It is not sufficient to overthrow a government that is oppressive. There must be a profound change, not only in the government, but in the people. Peaceful, if rowdy, demonstrations eventually wear down the prejudices of the people and bring about changes in the government. I am talking here about an effort that will take two or three generations. It isn't going to happen in the election of 2012.
Labels: reform achieved by patient activisim, Saul Alinsky, Stalin, tsardom
Sunday, May 03, 2009
A Contrary Opinion
Having passed my 86th birthday, I have to keep proving to myself that my brain is still functioning as well as it did on my 76th birthday, my 66th birthday, etc. As you conclude when you read this blog, I belong to a class of writers who are loosely called “liberal.” In fact, my friend H considers me to be a far leftie, perhaps even more “left” than Senator Kennedy.
I plead guilty to H’s charge. H and I exchange e-mails often. We accuse each other of being set in our ways of thinking. He can not think of a single good thing to say about “liberals.” I can not think of a good thing to say about “conservatives.”
There is a reporter here in Los Angeles who writes a blog about the political doings, both above and below the board, in our city. I wrote to a friend that he seems to be concerned about inefficiency, waste, and fraud in government and that these are standard and respectable Republican issues. My friend wrote back that the reporter is actually a Democrat. Democrat or Republican, I have to approve of his task of exposing inefficiency, waste, and fraud among our civic leaders.
My thinking doesn’t always go in a straight line. This experience of guessing wrong about the reporter’s political preference led me to consider writing an essay about an imaginary debate, in the style of Galileo, with characters defending and attacking the admirable features of conservative and liberal thought. I realized that I am no Galileo, and decided instead to try to write something to justify the thinking of an honest and sincere conservative. Most of the time I think of H as honest and sincere, even though wrong.
Conservative thought in this country seems centered on the question of government. How big and powerful should government be? Should government try to stave off a severe depression by spending oodles of money to spur the economy, as Mr. Obama is doing? It seems to me that an honest conservative fears the consequences of a government powerful enough to prevent a depression as being worse than the depression itself. Hence, there is sincere conservative opposition to Obama’s economic plan.
I have to concede that there is good reason for this conservative fear. The world has been treated to countries that managed their economies. A good example is the former Soviet Union. The government not only set goals for all the various economic activities in the country, but also used its power to stifle criticism and dissent. Although many argue that Russia, as part of the Soviet Union, was a special case in that criticism and dissent were never encouraged under the previous regime of the czar, we all have to respect the saying of the British political philosopher Lord Acton, that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Both Czar Nicholas and Josef Stalin demonstrated the validity of that saying.
One definition of conservatism is that the conservative knows that conditions are not very good, but he or she is reluctant to try to make changes because the changed condition may be worse than the original one. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” At present we know about the devil of depression. Or, at least we think we do. We forget that a severe depression can lead to a revolution. Franklin Roosevelt could not prevent or cure the great Depression of the 1930’s but I believe that he did save the nation from a communist revolution. A conservative probably wouldn’t share my belief.
To summarize, conservatives fear big government. They have good reasons. Liberals like me, who advocate some serious reforms in certain aspects of society, like health care and the welfare of workers, have to be able to convince conservatives to take some chances on experiments. Obama’s economic policy is an experiment. A change in our health care system will be an experiment. There are degrees to the depth of belief among conservatives. Some will agree to some experimentation, others will not. We liberals will have to make compelling arguments and be willing to accept compromises that we won’t like very much if we are going to persuade the public to try to make changes.
I’ll leave the original question to you, the reader. Is my brain (mind) operating as well as it did ten, twenty, thirty, or more years ago? Do you detect incipient mental degradation? Am I about to succumb to dementia? I certainly hope not.
I plead guilty to H’s charge. H and I exchange e-mails often. We accuse each other of being set in our ways of thinking. He can not think of a single good thing to say about “liberals.” I can not think of a good thing to say about “conservatives.”
There is a reporter here in Los Angeles who writes a blog about the political doings, both above and below the board, in our city. I wrote to a friend that he seems to be concerned about inefficiency, waste, and fraud in government and that these are standard and respectable Republican issues. My friend wrote back that the reporter is actually a Democrat. Democrat or Republican, I have to approve of his task of exposing inefficiency, waste, and fraud among our civic leaders.
My thinking doesn’t always go in a straight line. This experience of guessing wrong about the reporter’s political preference led me to consider writing an essay about an imaginary debate, in the style of Galileo, with characters defending and attacking the admirable features of conservative and liberal thought. I realized that I am no Galileo, and decided instead to try to write something to justify the thinking of an honest and sincere conservative. Most of the time I think of H as honest and sincere, even though wrong.
Conservative thought in this country seems centered on the question of government. How big and powerful should government be? Should government try to stave off a severe depression by spending oodles of money to spur the economy, as Mr. Obama is doing? It seems to me that an honest conservative fears the consequences of a government powerful enough to prevent a depression as being worse than the depression itself. Hence, there is sincere conservative opposition to Obama’s economic plan.
I have to concede that there is good reason for this conservative fear. The world has been treated to countries that managed their economies. A good example is the former Soviet Union. The government not only set goals for all the various economic activities in the country, but also used its power to stifle criticism and dissent. Although many argue that Russia, as part of the Soviet Union, was a special case in that criticism and dissent were never encouraged under the previous regime of the czar, we all have to respect the saying of the British political philosopher Lord Acton, that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Both Czar Nicholas and Josef Stalin demonstrated the validity of that saying.
One definition of conservatism is that the conservative knows that conditions are not very good, but he or she is reluctant to try to make changes because the changed condition may be worse than the original one. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” At present we know about the devil of depression. Or, at least we think we do. We forget that a severe depression can lead to a revolution. Franklin Roosevelt could not prevent or cure the great Depression of the 1930’s but I believe that he did save the nation from a communist revolution. A conservative probably wouldn’t share my belief.
To summarize, conservatives fear big government. They have good reasons. Liberals like me, who advocate some serious reforms in certain aspects of society, like health care and the welfare of workers, have to be able to convince conservatives to take some chances on experiments. Obama’s economic policy is an experiment. A change in our health care system will be an experiment. There are degrees to the depth of belief among conservatives. Some will agree to some experimentation, others will not. We liberals will have to make compelling arguments and be willing to accept compromises that we won’t like very much if we are going to persuade the public to try to make changes.
I’ll leave the original question to you, the reader. Is my brain (mind) operating as well as it did ten, twenty, thirty, or more years ago? Do you detect incipient mental degradation? Am I about to succumb to dementia? I certainly hope not.
Labels: Conservatism, Czar Nicholas, dementia, Franklin Roosevelt, old age, Senator Kennedy, Stalin
