“How to Build a Progressive Tea Party”

Here’s an idea.  When government officials say we have to cut this or that service, what about the corporations and multi-gazillionaires who aren’t paying their taxes through off-short hide-aways or other loopholes?  When a state says, we can’t support this 50 million K program, what about a company that owes 50 million and hasn’t paid it?  Why is it that most of us shlubs pay our taxes, but corporations and the mega-rich don’t pay theirs?  In Great Britain, an organization called UK Uncut has created a sensation by staging protests and sit-ins at stores whose parent companies have not bothered to pay their taxes.

I don’t see this as solely  a liberal thing at all.  We should all have to play by basic rules that the law fairly applies.  That’s also a deeply conservative value.  Maybe tea party fans could join in too.  If an entity or person is not paying what they owe, then we have the right to pressure the government into making sure that they do.  This is inspiring.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party?page=full

Profile of Arianna Huffington

Or how someone can move from a Greek immigrant to a follower of self-help gurus to wife of a Republican multi-millionaire to conservative icon (and supporter of Newt Gingrich!) to liberal icon to media maven.  Wow, that leaves me breathless.  She sure knows how to reinvent herself.  And everyone seems to like her, no matter their political persuasion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Feb/08/can_huffington_transform_aol_like_she_has_herself_.html

Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt

I don’t agree with Religion Link’s description (http://www.religionlink.com/topic_110131.php) of the Muslim Brotherhood as “not simply a religion, but a way of life.”  Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood believes that.  Yet, even though the Muslim Brotherhood is not monolithic, it also believes that Egypt should be an Islamic state, as should other Muslim countries in the Middle East.  It does not historically affirm freedom, openness, an entrepreneurial economy, or secular democratic values such as a free press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.  Unlike Iranian Shi’ites, the Mujhadeen, and Jihadists generally, the Muslim Brotherhood is not wedded to intimidation and violence as the primary means of achieving its goals, but it is willing to use violence when it sees fit.  For example, members assassinated King Abdullah I in Jordan in 1951, tried to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954, were implicated in the assassination of Anwar El Sadat in 1981, assassinated a number of moderate Arab leaders in the 1950’s, and perpetrated other terrorist attacks including the Hebron massacre of Jews in1929.  Since the 1970’s and 80’s, it has renounced violence and has spoken of Islamic democracy, but given its history and its hostility to generally accepted democratic values, it would not be unreasonable to view its democratic advocacy very skeptically.  Further, Hamas (which rules Gaza) is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it has consistently used violence against both Israelis and Palestinians as an important tactical component.  In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood views Israel as the enemy of Arabs and Muslims.  The Muslim Brotherhood has also had a long-standing, well-documented admiration of, and support, for Nazi ideology.  In general, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt now uses moderate tactics, but its goal is still an Islamic state.  And, remember, calling for Islam to be a part of government is not the same as calling for an Islamic State, with Sharia law and all its accoutrements.  There’s certainly the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood has changed and will continue to evolve into a democratic movement, but there will have to be more evidence to trust that.

Here is a link from Juan Cole, suggesting that a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is unlikely.  Many Egyptians who are religious and who oppose the current government also have democratic, secular values.  And there is a long tradition of secular politics in Egypt.  There is also widespread support for Islamic values, but not necessarily for an Islamic state:  http://www.juancole.com/2011/02/why-egypt-2011-is-not-iran-1979.html .  I hope Cole is right.

That said, in the final analysis, prosperity and peace in the Middle East depend upon Muslim/Arab societies developing democratic traditions and cultures of openness,  That will be good for everyone, including the US and Israel, in the long run.  Of course, the “long run” can take a long time, and there can be a lot of turbulence and suffering in-between.

Nick Popaditch, Violent Rhetoric, and Antisemitism

Antisemitism is on the rise.  That’s not a surprise in hard times, but it gets a little disturbing when an election night loser (Republican Nick Popaditch, known as Gunny Pop on Facebook) takes a mob of his supporters and corners the winner (Democrat Bob Filner) at his victory celebration on November 2 (2010).  Using physical intimidation and lots of nasty language, including shouting “Jew” at Filner and his wife, the bullies get their chance to intimidate someone who is “liberal” (whatever that means) and Jewish.  Wonder if that bears any resemblance to the . . . 1930’s.

In any case, this is just one of many examples of violent rhetoric run amok.  We all need to take a hard line against over-the-top language and posturing, whether on the left or the right.  People have a right to speak wherever and however they want, but we have a right to ask them to stop when they step over the line, not to listen to them when they continue, and to prevent physical intimidation.  Otherwise, we enter a gateway into tyranny and authoritarianism.

http://lastblogonearth.com/2010/11/03/nick-popaditchs-last-stand/ (particularly the second video at the bottom of the page)

http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/4690

http://gawker.com/5733427/angry-man-screaming-jew-at-congressman-is-not-a-great-face-for-tea-party?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gawker/full+(Gawker)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOeRGjkC42g&feature=player_embedded

Theory and Practice: China Has an Economic Plan — The US Does Not

Robert Reich notes the fundamental difference between the economies of the US and China:  China has a plan, and we don’t.  This hands-off approach has characterized both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations.  In general, the US relies on faith in the free market place, while China assumes that the government must make careful plans to advance its interests.  Consequently, the Chinese invest heavily in green industries, even when there is no immediate profit and cost is high, because this technology is the future.  Whoever controls it will have an enormous advantage in global competition.  The US engages in talk, but not much action.

The US has an almost magical faith in the free market.  It’s almost as if the US believes that simply reciting an ideological creed will guarantee economic success.

The US still has one advantage:  the deep creativity and inventiveness that marks our culture.  Americans do not rely on the past and on tradition, but look for new and original ways of doing things.  This has always carried the US through before, and I hope it will continue to do so.  But can the US rely on this, while others make plans?

The whole issue relates to an even more fundamental matter.  Will human beings rely on ideology or on practical, integrative approaches to solve problems?  Ideology is  pure theory, ideas separate from concrete reality.  Communism, Marxism, radical free market capitalism, absolute pacifism, religious fundamentalism, and postmodern theory all fall into that category.  They are ideologies rather than evidence-based methods. Significantly ideologues exist on both the left and right. among both the secular and the religious.  Even when something contradicts the theory, followers of the theory simply ignore the data, because fundamentally day-to-day life is messy, confusing, ambiguous, contradictory, and therefore too difficult to interpret.

While the US has recently been primarily concerned with ideas about what should work, the Chinese and others are approaching matters pragmatically, testing for what actually does work.  The US would do well to return to its historical roots in pragmatism and develop more of a balance between theory and practice.

http://robertreich.org/post/2830348699

Tucson: Others as Alien

An astute observation from Robert Wright:  Whether we’re on the left or the right, when we isolate ourselves from those who disagree with us and put them into the category of “alien,” we dehumanize others and make violent acts easier to commit.  Blessings, Larry

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/before-hatred-comes-fear/

Tucson: Real Violence Rather than Civility is the Issue

This is an excellent piece, emphasizing the existence of real violence over the past two years.  Frank Rich argues that you don’t have to look to rhetoric, but to actual acts.  Though violent rhetoric and threats of violence are likely to encourage and foment actual violence, Rich has a point when he argues that we should pay particular attention to violent incidents.  Even when they cause minimal damage, they are precursors to larger scale bloodshed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/opinion/16rich.html

On rhetoric, see my piece:  http://mysticscholar.org/2011/01/10/violent-rhetoric-and-tucson-again/

Violent Rhetoric and Tucson Again

Neal Boortz says that people have a right to be angry and use whatever imagery they wish as long as they do not resort to violence. Of course, there is no legal question here. Free speech is guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. But is it wise to use such imagery? I’m angry about many things in our culture and politics, but I would try not to use imagery that others can misinterpret or take literally. When we talk about targeting a political opponent with gun imagery, or taking second amendment remedies if we lose at the ballot box, or publicly describing our opponents as evil, unamerican, or alien, or musing or joking about assassinating politicians we don’t like, we have crossed the moral line.

Further, metaphors and symbols are not simply colorful ways of speaking, but the core elements of communication and expression which human beings use to articulate ideas and give voice to feeling. They express our most deeply held worldviews and values. When we use them, we are tapping into powerful currents of visceral emotion. By using war and combat imagery, we are not merely offering persuasive rhetoric, but we are appealing at a visceral level to a deep need for aggression that is latent in all us and part of the biological memory of our species. It is not surprising or unexpected that there are those who would take the metaphor literally, because the distance from violent language to violent action is not all that great.

The vast majority of us would not do so, but there are those who are disturbed or unbalanced who could well do so.  Now no one has responsibility for this assassination attempt and mass murder except for Jared Lee Loughner.  But what we say and do influences others, both directly and indirectly.  Whatever Loughner’s particular motivations, it is unlikely that he would have acted in this way without living in a culture of violence, including violent language and symbolism.

Whether or not Loughner listened to particular radio shows, belonged to specific groups, or was conservative or liberal is not the most important factor here. What matters is that the language we use sets a tone that affects the behavior of others, especially the mentally ill and disturbed. Those of us who speak and write in public venues have a great responsibility because others are watching us and following us. Gabby Giffords understood the violent context in which she worked and many (including her) have rightly noted that “words have consequences.” Indeed they do, because they are not “merely” words, but images and symbols that connect to primal, archetypal emotions.

It is not a question of assigning blame to the right or left or to any group, but rather of understanding the context in which our politics take place. There is a sense that it is legitimate to dehumanize others by using violent metaphors about them. Those on all sides of the political spectrum have done this. We don’t need to aggravate the hostile climate further by focusing on individuals who have made poor use of language and imagery, but we simply must ask them to stop doing it.

Let’s find other words and symbolism to express our anger and frustration.

Violent Rhetoric and Tucson

As we see today in Tucson with the attempted assassination of a congresswoman (Gabrielle Giffords), plus the shootings and murders of many bystanders, violent imagery and language can set the context for real-life horror. Whatever your political point of view (center, right, left, independent), let us please pledge ourselves to civility, humanity, and mutual respect.

Pima County (Arizona, Tucson) Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, says it powerfully:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

“The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business … This has not become the nice United States that most of us grew up in.”

Please keep the victims and families in thought and prayer.

A Jewish Bronx Tale

I received this over e-mail from David Wekstein:

GREAT JEWISH BRONX TALE

The  South Bronx in 1950 was the home of a large and thriving community, predominantly Jewish. In the 1950s the  Bronx offered synagogues, mikvas, kosher bakeries, and kosher butchers — all the comforts one would expect from an observant Orthodox Jewish community.

The baby boom of the postwar years happily resulted in many new young parents. As a matter of course, the  South Bronx had its own baby equipment store, Sickser’s.

Sickser’s was located on the corner of  Westchester and Fox, and specialized in “everything for the baby” as its slogan ran.

The inventory began with cribs, baby carriages, playpens, high chairs, changing tables, and toys. It went way beyond these to everything a baby could want or need. Mr. Sickser, assisted by his son-in-law Lou Kirshner, ran a profitable business out of the needs of the rapidly expanding child population.

The language of the store was primarily Yiddish, but Sickser’s was a place where not only Jewish families but also many non-Jewish ones could acquire the necessary for their newly arrived bundles of joy.  Business was particularly busy one spring day, so much so that Mr. Sickser and his son-in-law could not handle the unexpected throng of customers.  Desperate for help, Mr. Sickser ran out of the store and stopped the first youth he spotted on the street. “Young man,” he panted, “how would you like to make a little extra money? I need some help in the store. You want to work a little?”

The tall, lanky black boy flashed a toothy smile back. “Yes, sir, I’d like some work.” “Well then, let’s get started.”

The boy followed his new employer into the store. Mr. Sickser was immediately impressed with the boy’s good manners and demeanor.

As the days went by and he came again and again to lend his help, Mr.Sickser and Lou both became increasingly impressed with the youth’s diligence, punctuality, and readiness to learn. Eventually Mr. Sickser made him a regular employee at the store. It was gratifying to find an employee with an almost soldier-like willingness to perform even the most menial of tasks, and to perform them well.

From the age of thirteen until his sophomore year in college, this young man put in from twelve to fifteen hours a week, at 50 to 75 cents an hour.  Mostly, he performed general labor: assembling merchandise, unloading trucks and preparing items for shipments. He seemed, in his quiet way, to appreciate not only the steady employment but also the friendly atmosphere Mr.Sickser’s store offered.

Mr. Sickser and Lou learned in time about their helper’s Jamaican origins, and he in turn picked up a good deal of Yiddish.

In time the young man was able to converse fairly well with his employers, and more importantly, with a number of the Jewish customers whose English was not fluent. At the age of seventeen, the young man, while still working part-time at Sickser’s, began his first semester at City College of  New York . He fit in just fine with his, for the most part Jewish classmates, hardly surprising, considering that he already knew their ways and their language.

But the heavy studying in the engineering and, later, geology courses he chose proved quite challenging. The young man would later recall that Sickser’s offered the one stable point in his life those days.

In 1993, in his position as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two years after he guided the American victory over  Iraq in the Gulf War, General Colin Powell visited the  Holy Land. Upon meeting  Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in  Jerusalem, he greeted the Israeli with the word
“Men kent reden Yiddish” (We can speak Yiddish).

As Shamir, stunned, tried to pull himself together, the current Secretary Of State continued chatting in his second-favorite language. Colin Powell never forgot his early days working at Sickser’s.

Jon Stewart as Change Agent

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

We often think of comedy and satire as letting off steam or entertainment.  However, a brilliant comedian can use them and his laugh pulpit to shame those who would deny our commitment to the suffering heroes of September 11, 2001, and to push the government to honor its promise to those who protect and defend our nation.

Revolution

The world does not need a revolution, but it needs leaders who can respond to the revolution that is already happening.

Sinai and Human Authority

Jews believe that at Sinai the Source gave human beings the authority to make their own decisions and run their own affairs.

10 Tragic Moments in Food Propaganda

http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2010/06/10/food_propaganda/slideshow.html

“From Freedom Fries to Mecca Cola, a slide show of sadly politicized food to embarrass all eaters…”

Social Networking and the Movement of Money and Power

With global social networking, money and power move much more effectively and faster horizontally than they do vertically in traditional structures.

Triumph of Social Networking in Politics

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37468.html
I’m most interested here in social networking and its synergy with media. The triumph of social networking activists on both the left and the right shows the diminishing power of long-established political institutions and traditions. Money and power move faster horizontally than they do vertically. Fast-growing social networking promises just as fundamental changes for other institutions as well: business, education, religion, media, newspapers, publishing, transportation, environment, etc. Organizations that do not transform themselves in fundamental structural ways will find themselves replaced by others that understand the new dynamics.

An Adult

He was an adult in a field where there are too many children. The difference between adults and children is that children want power so that they can be somebody, and adults want power so that they can do something.”

Eric Severeid’s radio commentary on the death of John Foster Dulles
in 1959 (via Albert Pennybacker)

Fiercely Independent

I describe myself as fiercely independent. Leave conformity behind and seek creative solutions. The terms, “liberal,” “conservative,” and “moderate,” just don’t cut it for me. I think for myself as best I can, not according to some ideology or set of rules or party platform. Of course, I’m influenced by others and by their ideas, but I come to my own decisions. When anybody tells me how I should think. I generally rebel. Ultimately decisions need to be based on a list, but on one’s own judgment. I’m sure that there are some who would regard me as very liberal on some issues, but there are others for whom I’m too conservative. It’s all relative, but I make my own choices. And I’m not moderate either, since I’m pretty firm when it comes to certain positions (my wife, Dianne, got me to realize this; they just don’t conform to the boxes that others want to put me in.

Political Psychology

http://www.truth-out.org/why-you-need-understand-political-psychology58214

This is a very interesting discussion of political psychology. There’s also a really cool set of surveys that allow one to see the different responses that liberals, conservatives, and centrists give to a whole variety of moral and political questions, as well as visual markers (dots, lines, triangles, colors, etc.): http://www.yourmorals.org/. Many of the questions are problematic and flawed, but they’re all intriguing. I’ve done about ten of the surveys, and my responses do not seem to correlate very well with any of the groups. In quite a number of instances, I’m considerably more liberal than the liberals, and other times I score more closely to conservatives. Sometimes I’m in-between. I call myself “radically independent,” and so this might make some sense. Thought-provoking.

Not Democrats vs. Republicans, but Elites vs. Working People

I think that this by article by Dan Gerstein is excellent.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-health-care-republicans-democrats-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop

See also this piece on smart populism: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html

And see this one on progressive vs. populist politics: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/03/the-progressive-and-the-populist.html

The real issue in the U.S is not Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, big government vs. small government, libertarian vs. communitarian, raise taxes vs. cut taxes, etc. Rather the fundamental division is between the elites and the working class (which is the vast majority of us). Many of us don’t like to think of ourselves as working stiffs, but we are if we have to work to live or if we can’t afford to pay massive hospital bills. Those in power would like us to imagine that we will all be billionaires or that our tastes (food, literature) make us better than others, because that keeps us divided and impotent.

There are elites from the entire political spectrum. The extreme wealthy back both Democrats and Republicans. We are chumps if we think otherwise. And then there are those in both parties who have contempt for working people–and many of those who express that contempt are themselves working people. Many conservatives sneer at those who are unable to get adequate medical care, because for them it’s an individual responsibility. Many liberals have contempt for those who express frustration with taxes that make it impossible to live in many communities. Many conservatives look on anything intellectual, scholarly, or environmental as a waste of time. Many liberals scorn sports, pick-up trucks, budget restraint, and down-to-earth pragmatism.

I consider myself a radical independent and a progressive populist. For me health care is essential and a top priority. I consider access to adequate health care a basic right and a prerequisite for a civilized society. But people are hurting economically right now and fearful about employment, and they need relief. If the government does not address the basic fear of those in the workforce and show that it understands what we are facing, then no reform will ever get done on anything. We need leaders who comprehend what it is to struggle in day-to-day life and address those of us who deeply want reform, but who also have to work.

Right now our leaders may talk about jobs and the economy, but I don’t have the sense that they identify with working people. Until they do, one party will defeat the other, only to be defeated again. It is an illusory cycle of change, where movement seems to take place, but actually we’re standing still. And, as the world changes swiftly around us, our government will be in effect non-functional (as it seems to be now). And then there will be two choices: a demagogue (or a demagogic movement) will find his or her way into the vacuum and take us in to some kind of authoritarian hell; or (I hope) a grass roots movement will force a third party or some other mechanism to emerge that will make our political leaders responsive to the concerns of those of us in the trenches and move us forward as a free society.

1948 in Modern Imagination: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism

I wrote the following email in response to a friend who sent me an article (by Alain Epp Weaver) arguing that much of Christian critique of Israel is not antisemitic: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/archive_2005/0818.shtml

——————————————————-

This is interesting.  The events of 1948, however, are far more complex than the author indicates.  Arab nations not only rejected Israel’s statehood, but also rejected the U.N. partition plan that would have offered Palestinian Arabs almost half of what is now Israel.  Arabs preferred to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, even though Jews had lived in then Palestine for two millennia.  In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were many areas with Jewish majorities. In 1948, Arab nations encouraged Arabs in Palestine to leave their homes so that they could create a crisis that would lead to the destruction of Israel.  The Israeli military was implicated in some expulsions, but Arabs nations took an even greater interest in seeing the Arab residents of Palestine expelled.  In general, Arabs simply did not like Jews and wanted them out.  The Mufti of Jerusalem had even sided with Hitler and the Nazis.  If the Germans had ever taken charge of the Middle East, you can imagine what Arabs would have done to resident Jews.  The bottom line:  in 1948 Israeli Jews wanted to make accommodation with their Arab neighbors, but the Arabs despised Jews and (later in the words of  Gamal Abdul-Nasser and Yasser Arafat) preferred to drive them into the sea.

If you want to know how large numbers of Arabs view Jews, take a look at these attachments, especially the video clips from an Egyptian state television soap opera (2002) that depict the Protocols of Zion (the notorious, forged anti-Semitic document) and even the more ancient blood libels against Jews–these clips are among the most chilling and disgusting I’ve ever seen.  And this is not fringe, but mainstream Arab and Muslim opinion in the Middle East.  See my August 9 post in this blog on these documents: http://mysticscholar.org/2005/08/09/antisemitism-in-the-middle-east/

Next Entries »