| Poetic Matrix Comm Page #3 |
This page is intended as an exchange of ideas, poetry, comments and concerns. Via our
email address I invite your expression on this page. (poeticmatrix@yahoo.com) Write what you
feel is appropriate, it will be reviewed and placed on this page for others to see and comment
on. Comment on the material on this website, send in a poem, address issue of concern for
poets and lovers of poetry.
We take as a general theme:
"The role of the artist in community"
For previous discussions go to Comm Archive #1 and Com Archive #2 on the Archives Page.
email address I invite your expression on this page. (poeticmatrix@yahoo.com) Write what you
feel is appropriate, it will be reviewed and placed on this page for others to see and comment
on. Comment on the material on this website, send in a poem, address issue of concern for
poets and lovers of poetry.
We take as a general theme:
"The role of the artist in community"
For previous discussions go to Comm Archive #1 and Com Archive #2 on the Archives Page.
Letters etc.
How Can Progressives Protect the “Atmosphere” of a Democratic Presidency
by John Peterson
Jennifer Stone, long time commentator for KPFA- progressive radio - out of Berkeley, indicated
in a show sometime back that progressives were already critiquing John Kerry as not being far
enough to the left, she called for a more even approach to Kerry’s candidacy from those on
the progressive left. This kind of critique of the Democrats is a staple of progressives
whenever a Democrat finds their way to the White House. It is clear over the years that
progressives have been critical in unseating and disarming both Republicans and Democrats
that strayed to far from key elements of what is perceived as a humane, albeit, liberal agenda.
Progressives were instrumental in forcing LBJ to refuse the run for a second term. They were
highly critical of Hubert Humphrey’s failed run for president. With relentless pressure from
progressives and others Agnew and then Nixon were driven out of office. Progressives were
instrumental in creating the climate for Jimmy Carter to capture the White House. Though
Reagan and then Bush senior keep the White House for 12 years progressives kept the heat
on and exposed amongst other improprieties their illegal contra war. Progressives launched
Clinton into the presidency, like it or not, and surely progressives created a climate to call
Bush’s arrogance into question and make a real space for Kerry to unseat Bush though this
ultimately failed.
Progressive is a not so secret “code” word for all of those who seek enlightened change, from
Democrats that are left of the center of that party, to liberals with socialist inclinations, to
environmentalist, to peace activists, to out and out radicals that see the need for a major
revolutionary overhaul of the American system. Central to the Progressive agenda is the
critique of corporate capitalism (this may need to be redefined in light of socially responsive
business) and US Military dominance in the world; the continuing hegemony of white male rule
(the lack of multicultural inclusions and women’s right) both in US society and around the
world; and the class based society that still dominates the US and leaves many on the lower
socio-economic rungs out of the “American Dream,” whatever that might be. Most on the
progressive list believe in the American way of life and wish America to live up to its best
principles and are deeply and incontrovertibly bound up in American institutions whether they
be academic, professional, economic or religious, yet there are those considered progressive
who wish for a different “experiment” in social order.
The desire for a social form that matches one’s personal or group inclinations and values
seems to be integral to what we understand as a fully developed person. One’s social nature
grows along with other more personal aspects of one’s being and wishes for a full expression.
Individual characteristics need a place to manifest and it can be catastrophic if this is not
allowed to happen or is throated in some way. So too, it seems, that the part of one’s nature
that grows into a social being likewise wishes to have a means of expression out into the world
– into, as it were, the social world. The fundamental principle of one’s social nature, and the
very foundation of social consciousness, is that it is inclusive and not monolithic. The nature
of healthy social behavior is that one may hold to one’s beliefs and allow the beliefs of others
to have a place in the larger community as well. What indeed would social mean other than
the interaction with others? There may well be a part of the growing person that requires a
monolithic nature, but in the social domain that is not the case.
Even in what appears to be monolithic cultures or dominant cultural forms we find there are
various expressions as they move into the social realm. Within Islamic states there are Sunni
and Shiite divisions. Within socialist ideologies there are the diversity of Marxists and Social
Democrats, poles apart on many issues but still beholding to basic socialist views; even within
Marxism we saw the Lenin/Trotsky split plus many others. In the US there are the Democrat
and Republican (and we wish many more) Parties. In our dear Republican Party, there are
NeoCons and “Rockefeller” liberals (or there use to be). And of course Democrats are vastly
more splintered than monolithic (from the relics of Dixiecrats - Zell Miller - to socialist – Tom
Hayden). In our present political environment, we are told that the polarization has reached an
extreme not seen for sometime. This may or may not be the case. Not being a professional
student of history still I recall that Jefferson and Hamilton lead significantly different factions of
the new republic. Lincoln of course led the nation during its split into two states during the Civil
War. Through the Great Depression and during the run-up to the Second World War the
country was split heavily and viable socialist parties were significant players on the political
scene. At the time of my first presidential election Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy
presented two very different views of the direction America would head. And of course during
the Vietnam era an opposition developed that over time not only helped bring that war to an
end but also brought the country around to the realization that it was a war that should never
have been waged.
So opposition is not a bad thing. In the realm of duality, that realm where everything is seen in
its opposites, having competing views is the norm. Still, on occasion, we must find that place
where we see through the duality and recognize the unity that is the foundation of all
existence, including a country’s. But, we must also recognize that there are times when we
must enter the world of duality and resist one pole or another. Lord Krishna, in the
Mahabarata, presents to Arjuna a great quandary. In the looming battle with Arjuna’s family
Krishna offers either himself as councilor to Arjuna or all of Krishna’s cohorts, his thousands of
warriors and confidants. Arjuna who is stunned that it should come to this eventually chooses
Krishna; Krishna’s cohorts go to the opposition and the battle ensues. Certainly this cannot
be seen as a battle between good and evil as Krishna’s cohorts are not also evil. There are
many great lessons in the Mahabarta to be unfolded and at least one is that conflict is rarely
between the ultimate good and the evil genius. Mostly it is between various views of the good
but still it may be fought and so it is best that we recognize the humanity of all sides in the
conflict and act accordingly.
But what does this mean to the progressive voice in the current debate. A basic logical error
one learns early in the study of philosophy is the ad hominen argument or the “argument
against the man.” When one fails to articulate the real flaws in an argument one proceeds to
attack the individual who espouses the point of view. This sounds very much like the negative
advertising that political contests eventual devolve into in this country. But this is very weak
and assumes that we are addressing people who do not have the capacity to really
understand what is going on. It devalues the individual and seeks to exploit the emotionality of
the issue. Satirizing the foibles of a candidate may be legitimate, as on The Daily Show, but
quickly turns into bad taste and character assassination when the focus is to demean.
Progressives are guilty of this as well as archconservatives. But, as history will attest, even
when this kind of behavior carries the day we can be sure that in the next go-round this kind of
hostile behavior will be used, with greater rancor, on the candidate of our choice, often by the
progressive themselves. This I believe is what Jennifer Stone was alluding to.
The extreme right abused Bill Clinton viciously during his Presidency, and yes he did bring
much on himself. Did some of this stem from the viciousness of the attacks on Reagan and
Bush senior by the left, possibly? Some of the ill will toward Clinton came from the more
progressive elements on the left. I had a good friend who quickly withdrew support from
Clinton soon after he became President because Clinton did not adhere to certain liberal
agenda items that were dear to him. Did the right wing’s attack on Clinton insure that Bush
would be treated in a similar way when he came into office, certainly and certainly Bush has
brought much on himself. What then will be the abuse heaped on a future Democratic
Presidency? Indeed it will be vicious beyond belief and has already started. Opposition at
times must be total and still we must articulate what the “bottom line” truly is. Corporate
business claims the “bottom line” to be its financial gain, political strategist claim the “bottom
line” to be all out character assassination. In both cases progressives must claim the “bottom
line” to be that that holds the highest regard for human dignity.
Where does this lead? After 40 years of political awareness I firmly believe that progressive
ideas and analysis have been the driving force for much that is good about America. From
union organizing to the civil rights movement; from child labor laws to opposition to the death
penalty; from women’s rights to the peace movement, progressives have been out front
analyzing the issues, forcing them before the American people, and demanding that politicians
deal with them. The left of center agenda has held sway, but the more radical socialist agenda
has not. That is a truth about American history and political life and must be dealt with. If
progressives can continue to act in the name of the good and the true regardless of the
outcome than a better American society is possible. This does not mean that ideals should be
denied and it does not mean that dreams should be deferred. This does not mean that in the
long term some very deep and fundamental principles of the “American experiment” don’t
need correcting.
It is indeed possible to analysis American history to a point of denying its legitimacy; the
original determination that a Negro was to be counted as but 2/3 of a man, and even then only
to give the south a larger population stake in the new congress, may well de-legitimizes the
entire experiment as even once the change is made to full suffrage still the social order may be
operating on this old primacy and yet now it is hidden in the political and social landscape. Also
the genocide of the native peoples give deep concern about the viability of this historical
movement and raises again the question whether the words can be realized in the flesh. Still,
ideals are important in moving a people towards the good and certainly figures like Thomas
Jefferson can be seen in this light. And here we are more than two hundred year into it and
gains have been made, corners turned and we must, it seems, continue on. It is the history of
progressive gains that adds a new substance to the old history.
If progressives are to have a political role in a future Democratic Presidency, and we can hope,
what should be the focus of the progressive agenda. Jerry Brown, in one of his runs for the
Presidency, said something to the effect that, once one starts on the path to the Presidency
one’s choices become narrower and narrower. We see this in even the most liberal
Presidents. It is those historical conditions that drive most decision making that determine
much of what a President does. So, what is it that distinguishes a President like Jimmy Carter
from a George W. Bush, a liberal from a conservative, a Democrat from a Republican? Given
that many decisions will be mandated by the office itself, such as the threat of military force,
used essentially by all presidents at one time or another, or the adherence to capitalist
economic principles, the protection of trade, the appointment of essentially middle of the road
politicos. What is the difference and why should progressives line up behind someone like a
John Kerry, a classic liberal (though his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War gives him a
special mandate in progressive circles)? That difference is “atmosphere.” Yes “atmosphere!”
Given that much of what a President can do is narrowly defined by the historical imperatives of
this country still the nature of liberal philosophy gives the populous as a whole a greater
opportunity to flourish and grow. Liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy differ in
many respects but they different most essentially in their view of the individual. A conservative
view sees the individual as essentially “bad” that is, needing strict outside control to insure
right behavior. It is founded on a mostly Judeo/Christian view of original sin and the need for
outside forces to bring the individual back to God or some state determined concept of the
good. Like it or not fascism is the outside extreme of a conservative agenda. The level of trust
that individuals will behave properly is very low. Liberal philosophy is built off of humanistic
assumptions about the essential goodness of the individual. Given the right conditions an
individual will choose to do good rather than evil as it will lead to greater pleasure (and not the
pleasure of gratification but the pleasure in living a good life). The classic liberal does indeed
enjoy the good life (wine, cheese and a night at the concert) hand in hand with the good
political battle. For the liberal, setting up the right conditions (atmosphere) is critical in creating
the good society where individuals will do the right thing because it makes sense to do the
right thing. Laws are still necessary but they can be less controlling of individual behavior and
more controlling of what is construed as exploitive behavior i.e. wages lower than that needed
to survive. Much personal behavior can be left in a non-legal status. Should there be laws
about driving drunk, yes, but should there be laws about smoking marijuana, no, this should be
left in the non-legal realm.
And so the liberal “atmosphere” can assist in growing the progressive agenda but only if it is
seen so and only if it is utilized in a powerful way. What does an atmosphere mean? What
might that be? Attitude, first of all! Atmosphere comes from attitude and attitude comes with
that first essential view that distinguishes the liberal view from the conservative view. But, that
is only the first, yet the necessary first condition. From that condition flows certain actions.
LBJ’s war on poverty flowed from that view, and his extension of the Vietnam War flowed from
his conservative roots, he was a man and a President in deep conflict. This is not unusual in
the American psych. Jimmy Carter’s liberal atmosphere flowed from a personal view of the
good and he lived through that while his theology may well have thwarted some of what he
could do. A man like Clinton had a better opportunity to express his liberal nature in his
Presidency, and did so, and much of what he did accomplish was to create that “atmosphere”
for the good to evolve. Much of his ability to act was stifled by the very conservative Congress
and the extreme conservative forces that lined up against him. That is where the progressives
must take aim in the eventuality of a future Democratic victory.
Progressives will hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire on many issues, that is the nature of
progressive action. But, to chip away at Democrats will be counter productive, what will need
to be chipped away at is the extreme conservative forces that are trying to permeate all
aspects of American life. If progressive forces line up in a concerted way to take on those
conservative element then that liberal “atmosphere” may allow some good to come forth.
What must the progressive forces focus on?
First and foremost is to not give up mainstream media to the so-called conservative, anti-
liberal agenda. Somehow in the post Vietnam era conservatives were able to brand much
mainstream media with a “liberal” bias as if that were somehow bad and progressives could
not and would not counter that tag and insist that if “liberal” media was in fact the case than so
be it. In fact progressives have gone on what could be considered a counter-offensive to paint
the mainstream media as “conservative” and beholding to the large corporate conglomerates
that own them. This, though beholding they are, is, I contend, counter-productive.
First, a local example: Recently in Fresno California on a local news channel, came the
announcement of the opening of the new, and largest in the country, Planned Parenthood
Clinic. The news team announced that the facility would deal with a wide variety of
reproductive health issues from dispensing contraceptives to pre-natal care to counseling on
unplanned pregnancies which include options from keeping the child to adoption to abortion in
the first trimester. The Clinic Director did a good job of indicating that abortion was only 1% of
what they did at the clinic and that Planned Parenthood dealt primarily with low income people
giving them options and choices and high quality, safe reproductive health care where that
might not have been the case in years past. Anti-abortion people showed up to protest the
opening of the clinic and of course to single in on the 1% of abortion. The point is not that anti-
abortion forces should not be there, progressives do support the right to protest. The point is
that progressive forces should not allow the anti-abortion forces to define the issue.
Progressive forces must define the issue as the right to full reproductive care and support not
only Planned Parenthood but also the mainstream TV Station that in fact did a good job of
indicating the scope of the abortion issue at that clinic. By the insistence of the Clinic Director
that abortions were only 1% of clinic activity, and the news teams iteration of that point more
than once, the news report significantly undermined the protesters very narrow and
uninformed view. Progressives must be more vigilant in focusing on the serious issue of high
quality, safe reproductive health care and that Planned Parenthood deals primarily with low
income people giving them options and choices concerning their reproductive care. This is
true on the local scene as well as the national scene of a Democratic Presidency.
Failure from progressive forces to remember the past infringe on this “atmosphere”. The issue
of Vietnam military service brought up by Democrats during the Kerry/Bush Election was such
an infringement. As a Vietnam Veteran and a veteran of the peace movement upon my
discharge from the military, bringing up the issue of George W. Bush’s military service lead to
the bring up of Kerry’s military service and his subsequent peace activities. To question Bush’
s service during a time when so many were looking for ways to protest the war and not serve in
Vietnam was a foolish error on the part of the Democratic Party. I knew some who burned draft
cards, some who fled to Canada, some who went to jail, some who used family deferments,
some who stayed in school under less then sterling circumstances. Did George Bush use less
than sterling mean to not go to Vietnam, maybe. Did Dick Chaney use less than sterling
means to skip military service, maybe. Should these be reason for criticism, I say no, and to
bring them up was a foolish political foible. To Kerry’s credit he did not deny his peace
activities and instead embraced them. The charge of not warranting one of his purple hearts
was soon seen as grasping at straws on the part of right-wing critics. Progressives need to be
consistent and remember history. Vietnam War resisters need to be recognized as having
placed their lives on the line to alter the destructive course that the country was on. Resisters
need to be honored as heroes of the first rank in American history and given the recognition
they deserve. No lines of demarcation should be made about the ways in which this resistance
occurred.
River
The word river sounds like the river
But
not only does it sound like the whole
river that runs through Vietnam
through rice paddies and jungle and
villages because that's what language is
supposed to do
But it
sounds like the whole
river that runs through
Clearly progressives must take back the language that has been hijacked by an anti-
intellectual right wing. Michael Moore in Dude, Where’s My Country? has begun this process.
In the chapter A Liberal Paradise he describes an extremely liberal country and ends by saying
“You don’t have to go the moon (to find this country) because...you’re already there! This
Land O’Left paradise I speak of is none other than...the United States of America!” He is
taking back the word liberal for all those in the US who in fact share the values that the word
stands for. It is now time to take back the term liberal from the phony use of it in the
description of modern corporate capitalism or Liberal Capitalism as used in the current
extension of corporate capitalism in the mostly non-white world. This capitalism has nothing to
do with liberal and progressives must see to it that it is not attached to this extreme form of
exploitation. To use liberal in this way confuses the understanding that many “average
Americans” have regarding liberals. Are liberals part of that group of abusive capitalist? Also,
to call this rewrite of colonialism globalization, or the global economy or world economy is a
disgusting usurpation of the word global and world and all they stand for. When we talk about
the world community or global community or global village we are not talking about the control
of the world through corporate economic and political dominance.
Bopal
TV news report
of the Union Carbide pesticide leak, 1984
that poisoned and killed two thousand
in Bopal India.
This was immediately cut to a bombastic ad
for Vacation Holiday Cruises
to various parts of the world.
This image one on the other,
close to the new language of the earth,
so close to the earth in speech
that it cannot be misunderstood.
Close to one heart beating in another.
As a poet who deeply understands that one of the functions of poetry is to take language back
to its meaning and truth thorough the examined use of language, I also looks to a wider form of
poetic discussion that through poetry insists that our social discussion seek those truths in all
discourse and expresses them fully. Progressives must be in the forefront of this and demand
of the media the same. To challenge the right wing on these issues is paramount to protecting
the “atmosphere” of a Democratic Presidency. If we allow the distortions of purposeful
victories by conservative political “character assassination” on sacred gains we are fools and
worse.
Equating the liberation of women with the right to serve in combat and fly fighter jets is a
usurpation of the women’s liberation movement. Defining gay liberation by the recent push
for gay marriage instead of for the right to be treated as an equal in society is a distortion of
both the gay rights movement and the mostly progressive push in years past to break down
the ridge barriers that traditional marriage had built in the society including the shot-gun
marriage, the dictums against interracial marriage, and the stigma against the practice of living
together without being married. Progressives need to keep these issues out front. To applaud
the black corporate CEO, while on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Meridian Mississippi
black people live in shacks that would have been a travesty in slave days, is a corruption of
the “dream.”
Yes, these are broad stroke issue and must be focused as they come up in each unique case
but the issue here is where the progressive must focus their critique. If it become a critique of
the Democrats policies and whether they are left enough we will have once again given the
right the opportunity to sneak up and deliver blows that will dissipate the growing “atmosphere”
of liberal/progressive possibilities. This would be another of the great mistakes that have
plagued the left for so long here and around the world. Do progressives have the discipline to
extend the “atmosphere” into that world where we really will see a change of condition for
those in need here and abroad, I think so.
by John Peterson
Jennifer Stone, long time commentator for KPFA- progressive radio - out of Berkeley, indicated
in a show sometime back that progressives were already critiquing John Kerry as not being far
enough to the left, she called for a more even approach to Kerry’s candidacy from those on
the progressive left. This kind of critique of the Democrats is a staple of progressives
whenever a Democrat finds their way to the White House. It is clear over the years that
progressives have been critical in unseating and disarming both Republicans and Democrats
that strayed to far from key elements of what is perceived as a humane, albeit, liberal agenda.
Progressives were instrumental in forcing LBJ to refuse the run for a second term. They were
highly critical of Hubert Humphrey’s failed run for president. With relentless pressure from
progressives and others Agnew and then Nixon were driven out of office. Progressives were
instrumental in creating the climate for Jimmy Carter to capture the White House. Though
Reagan and then Bush senior keep the White House for 12 years progressives kept the heat
on and exposed amongst other improprieties their illegal contra war. Progressives launched
Clinton into the presidency, like it or not, and surely progressives created a climate to call
Bush’s arrogance into question and make a real space for Kerry to unseat Bush though this
ultimately failed.
Progressive is a not so secret “code” word for all of those who seek enlightened change, from
Democrats that are left of the center of that party, to liberals with socialist inclinations, to
environmentalist, to peace activists, to out and out radicals that see the need for a major
revolutionary overhaul of the American system. Central to the Progressive agenda is the
critique of corporate capitalism (this may need to be redefined in light of socially responsive
business) and US Military dominance in the world; the continuing hegemony of white male rule
(the lack of multicultural inclusions and women’s right) both in US society and around the
world; and the class based society that still dominates the US and leaves many on the lower
socio-economic rungs out of the “American Dream,” whatever that might be. Most on the
progressive list believe in the American way of life and wish America to live up to its best
principles and are deeply and incontrovertibly bound up in American institutions whether they
be academic, professional, economic or religious, yet there are those considered progressive
who wish for a different “experiment” in social order.
The desire for a social form that matches one’s personal or group inclinations and values
seems to be integral to what we understand as a fully developed person. One’s social nature
grows along with other more personal aspects of one’s being and wishes for a full expression.
Individual characteristics need a place to manifest and it can be catastrophic if this is not
allowed to happen or is throated in some way. So too, it seems, that the part of one’s nature
that grows into a social being likewise wishes to have a means of expression out into the world
– into, as it were, the social world. The fundamental principle of one’s social nature, and the
very foundation of social consciousness, is that it is inclusive and not monolithic. The nature
of healthy social behavior is that one may hold to one’s beliefs and allow the beliefs of others
to have a place in the larger community as well. What indeed would social mean other than
the interaction with others? There may well be a part of the growing person that requires a
monolithic nature, but in the social domain that is not the case.
Even in what appears to be monolithic cultures or dominant cultural forms we find there are
various expressions as they move into the social realm. Within Islamic states there are Sunni
and Shiite divisions. Within socialist ideologies there are the diversity of Marxists and Social
Democrats, poles apart on many issues but still beholding to basic socialist views; even within
Marxism we saw the Lenin/Trotsky split plus many others. In the US there are the Democrat
and Republican (and we wish many more) Parties. In our dear Republican Party, there are
NeoCons and “Rockefeller” liberals (or there use to be). And of course Democrats are vastly
more splintered than monolithic (from the relics of Dixiecrats - Zell Miller - to socialist – Tom
Hayden). In our present political environment, we are told that the polarization has reached an
extreme not seen for sometime. This may or may not be the case. Not being a professional
student of history still I recall that Jefferson and Hamilton lead significantly different factions of
the new republic. Lincoln of course led the nation during its split into two states during the Civil
War. Through the Great Depression and during the run-up to the Second World War the
country was split heavily and viable socialist parties were significant players on the political
scene. At the time of my first presidential election Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy
presented two very different views of the direction America would head. And of course during
the Vietnam era an opposition developed that over time not only helped bring that war to an
end but also brought the country around to the realization that it was a war that should never
have been waged.
So opposition is not a bad thing. In the realm of duality, that realm where everything is seen in
its opposites, having competing views is the norm. Still, on occasion, we must find that place
where we see through the duality and recognize the unity that is the foundation of all
existence, including a country’s. But, we must also recognize that there are times when we
must enter the world of duality and resist one pole or another. Lord Krishna, in the
Mahabarata, presents to Arjuna a great quandary. In the looming battle with Arjuna’s family
Krishna offers either himself as councilor to Arjuna or all of Krishna’s cohorts, his thousands of
warriors and confidants. Arjuna who is stunned that it should come to this eventually chooses
Krishna; Krishna’s cohorts go to the opposition and the battle ensues. Certainly this cannot
be seen as a battle between good and evil as Krishna’s cohorts are not also evil. There are
many great lessons in the Mahabarta to be unfolded and at least one is that conflict is rarely
between the ultimate good and the evil genius. Mostly it is between various views of the good
but still it may be fought and so it is best that we recognize the humanity of all sides in the
conflict and act accordingly.
But what does this mean to the progressive voice in the current debate. A basic logical error
one learns early in the study of philosophy is the ad hominen argument or the “argument
against the man.” When one fails to articulate the real flaws in an argument one proceeds to
attack the individual who espouses the point of view. This sounds very much like the negative
advertising that political contests eventual devolve into in this country. But this is very weak
and assumes that we are addressing people who do not have the capacity to really
understand what is going on. It devalues the individual and seeks to exploit the emotionality of
the issue. Satirizing the foibles of a candidate may be legitimate, as on The Daily Show, but
quickly turns into bad taste and character assassination when the focus is to demean.
Progressives are guilty of this as well as archconservatives. But, as history will attest, even
when this kind of behavior carries the day we can be sure that in the next go-round this kind of
hostile behavior will be used, with greater rancor, on the candidate of our choice, often by the
progressive themselves. This I believe is what Jennifer Stone was alluding to.
The extreme right abused Bill Clinton viciously during his Presidency, and yes he did bring
much on himself. Did some of this stem from the viciousness of the attacks on Reagan and
Bush senior by the left, possibly? Some of the ill will toward Clinton came from the more
progressive elements on the left. I had a good friend who quickly withdrew support from
Clinton soon after he became President because Clinton did not adhere to certain liberal
agenda items that were dear to him. Did the right wing’s attack on Clinton insure that Bush
would be treated in a similar way when he came into office, certainly and certainly Bush has
brought much on himself. What then will be the abuse heaped on a future Democratic
Presidency? Indeed it will be vicious beyond belief and has already started. Opposition at
times must be total and still we must articulate what the “bottom line” truly is. Corporate
business claims the “bottom line” to be its financial gain, political strategist claim the “bottom
line” to be all out character assassination. In both cases progressives must claim the “bottom
line” to be that that holds the highest regard for human dignity.
Where does this lead? After 40 years of political awareness I firmly believe that progressive
ideas and analysis have been the driving force for much that is good about America. From
union organizing to the civil rights movement; from child labor laws to opposition to the death
penalty; from women’s rights to the peace movement, progressives have been out front
analyzing the issues, forcing them before the American people, and demanding that politicians
deal with them. The left of center agenda has held sway, but the more radical socialist agenda
has not. That is a truth about American history and political life and must be dealt with. If
progressives can continue to act in the name of the good and the true regardless of the
outcome than a better American society is possible. This does not mean that ideals should be
denied and it does not mean that dreams should be deferred. This does not mean that in the
long term some very deep and fundamental principles of the “American experiment” don’t
need correcting.
It is indeed possible to analysis American history to a point of denying its legitimacy; the
original determination that a Negro was to be counted as but 2/3 of a man, and even then only
to give the south a larger population stake in the new congress, may well de-legitimizes the
entire experiment as even once the change is made to full suffrage still the social order may be
operating on this old primacy and yet now it is hidden in the political and social landscape. Also
the genocide of the native peoples give deep concern about the viability of this historical
movement and raises again the question whether the words can be realized in the flesh. Still,
ideals are important in moving a people towards the good and certainly figures like Thomas
Jefferson can be seen in this light. And here we are more than two hundred year into it and
gains have been made, corners turned and we must, it seems, continue on. It is the history of
progressive gains that adds a new substance to the old history.
If progressives are to have a political role in a future Democratic Presidency, and we can hope,
what should be the focus of the progressive agenda. Jerry Brown, in one of his runs for the
Presidency, said something to the effect that, once one starts on the path to the Presidency
one’s choices become narrower and narrower. We see this in even the most liberal
Presidents. It is those historical conditions that drive most decision making that determine
much of what a President does. So, what is it that distinguishes a President like Jimmy Carter
from a George W. Bush, a liberal from a conservative, a Democrat from a Republican? Given
that many decisions will be mandated by the office itself, such as the threat of military force,
used essentially by all presidents at one time or another, or the adherence to capitalist
economic principles, the protection of trade, the appointment of essentially middle of the road
politicos. What is the difference and why should progressives line up behind someone like a
John Kerry, a classic liberal (though his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War gives him a
special mandate in progressive circles)? That difference is “atmosphere.” Yes “atmosphere!”
Given that much of what a President can do is narrowly defined by the historical imperatives of
this country still the nature of liberal philosophy gives the populous as a whole a greater
opportunity to flourish and grow. Liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy differ in
many respects but they different most essentially in their view of the individual. A conservative
view sees the individual as essentially “bad” that is, needing strict outside control to insure
right behavior. It is founded on a mostly Judeo/Christian view of original sin and the need for
outside forces to bring the individual back to God or some state determined concept of the
good. Like it or not fascism is the outside extreme of a conservative agenda. The level of trust
that individuals will behave properly is very low. Liberal philosophy is built off of humanistic
assumptions about the essential goodness of the individual. Given the right conditions an
individual will choose to do good rather than evil as it will lead to greater pleasure (and not the
pleasure of gratification but the pleasure in living a good life). The classic liberal does indeed
enjoy the good life (wine, cheese and a night at the concert) hand in hand with the good
political battle. For the liberal, setting up the right conditions (atmosphere) is critical in creating
the good society where individuals will do the right thing because it makes sense to do the
right thing. Laws are still necessary but they can be less controlling of individual behavior and
more controlling of what is construed as exploitive behavior i.e. wages lower than that needed
to survive. Much personal behavior can be left in a non-legal status. Should there be laws
about driving drunk, yes, but should there be laws about smoking marijuana, no, this should be
left in the non-legal realm.
And so the liberal “atmosphere” can assist in growing the progressive agenda but only if it is
seen so and only if it is utilized in a powerful way. What does an atmosphere mean? What
might that be? Attitude, first of all! Atmosphere comes from attitude and attitude comes with
that first essential view that distinguishes the liberal view from the conservative view. But, that
is only the first, yet the necessary first condition. From that condition flows certain actions.
LBJ’s war on poverty flowed from that view, and his extension of the Vietnam War flowed from
his conservative roots, he was a man and a President in deep conflict. This is not unusual in
the American psych. Jimmy Carter’s liberal atmosphere flowed from a personal view of the
good and he lived through that while his theology may well have thwarted some of what he
could do. A man like Clinton had a better opportunity to express his liberal nature in his
Presidency, and did so, and much of what he did accomplish was to create that “atmosphere”
for the good to evolve. Much of his ability to act was stifled by the very conservative Congress
and the extreme conservative forces that lined up against him. That is where the progressives
must take aim in the eventuality of a future Democratic victory.
Progressives will hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire on many issues, that is the nature of
progressive action. But, to chip away at Democrats will be counter productive, what will need
to be chipped away at is the extreme conservative forces that are trying to permeate all
aspects of American life. If progressive forces line up in a concerted way to take on those
conservative element then that liberal “atmosphere” may allow some good to come forth.
What must the progressive forces focus on?
First and foremost is to not give up mainstream media to the so-called conservative, anti-
liberal agenda. Somehow in the post Vietnam era conservatives were able to brand much
mainstream media with a “liberal” bias as if that were somehow bad and progressives could
not and would not counter that tag and insist that if “liberal” media was in fact the case than so
be it. In fact progressives have gone on what could be considered a counter-offensive to paint
the mainstream media as “conservative” and beholding to the large corporate conglomerates
that own them. This, though beholding they are, is, I contend, counter-productive.
First, a local example: Recently in Fresno California on a local news channel, came the
announcement of the opening of the new, and largest in the country, Planned Parenthood
Clinic. The news team announced that the facility would deal with a wide variety of
reproductive health issues from dispensing contraceptives to pre-natal care to counseling on
unplanned pregnancies which include options from keeping the child to adoption to abortion in
the first trimester. The Clinic Director did a good job of indicating that abortion was only 1% of
what they did at the clinic and that Planned Parenthood dealt primarily with low income people
giving them options and choices and high quality, safe reproductive health care where that
might not have been the case in years past. Anti-abortion people showed up to protest the
opening of the clinic and of course to single in on the 1% of abortion. The point is not that anti-
abortion forces should not be there, progressives do support the right to protest. The point is
that progressive forces should not allow the anti-abortion forces to define the issue.
Progressive forces must define the issue as the right to full reproductive care and support not
only Planned Parenthood but also the mainstream TV Station that in fact did a good job of
indicating the scope of the abortion issue at that clinic. By the insistence of the Clinic Director
that abortions were only 1% of clinic activity, and the news teams iteration of that point more
than once, the news report significantly undermined the protesters very narrow and
uninformed view. Progressives must be more vigilant in focusing on the serious issue of high
quality, safe reproductive health care and that Planned Parenthood deals primarily with low
income people giving them options and choices concerning their reproductive care. This is
true on the local scene as well as the national scene of a Democratic Presidency.
Failure from progressive forces to remember the past infringe on this “atmosphere”. The issue
of Vietnam military service brought up by Democrats during the Kerry/Bush Election was such
an infringement. As a Vietnam Veteran and a veteran of the peace movement upon my
discharge from the military, bringing up the issue of George W. Bush’s military service lead to
the bring up of Kerry’s military service and his subsequent peace activities. To question Bush’
s service during a time when so many were looking for ways to protest the war and not serve in
Vietnam was a foolish error on the part of the Democratic Party. I knew some who burned draft
cards, some who fled to Canada, some who went to jail, some who used family deferments,
some who stayed in school under less then sterling circumstances. Did George Bush use less
than sterling mean to not go to Vietnam, maybe. Did Dick Chaney use less than sterling
means to skip military service, maybe. Should these be reason for criticism, I say no, and to
bring them up was a foolish political foible. To Kerry’s credit he did not deny his peace
activities and instead embraced them. The charge of not warranting one of his purple hearts
was soon seen as grasping at straws on the part of right-wing critics. Progressives need to be
consistent and remember history. Vietnam War resisters need to be recognized as having
placed their lives on the line to alter the destructive course that the country was on. Resisters
need to be honored as heroes of the first rank in American history and given the recognition
they deserve. No lines of demarcation should be made about the ways in which this resistance
occurred.
River
The word river sounds like the river
But
not only does it sound like the whole
river that runs through Vietnam
through rice paddies and jungle and
villages because that's what language is
supposed to do
But it
sounds like the whole
river that runs through
Clearly progressives must take back the language that has been hijacked by an anti-
intellectual right wing. Michael Moore in Dude, Where’s My Country? has begun this process.
In the chapter A Liberal Paradise he describes an extremely liberal country and ends by saying
“You don’t have to go the moon (to find this country) because...you’re already there! This
Land O’Left paradise I speak of is none other than...the United States of America!” He is
taking back the word liberal for all those in the US who in fact share the values that the word
stands for. It is now time to take back the term liberal from the phony use of it in the
description of modern corporate capitalism or Liberal Capitalism as used in the current
extension of corporate capitalism in the mostly non-white world. This capitalism has nothing to
do with liberal and progressives must see to it that it is not attached to this extreme form of
exploitation. To use liberal in this way confuses the understanding that many “average
Americans” have regarding liberals. Are liberals part of that group of abusive capitalist? Also,
to call this rewrite of colonialism globalization, or the global economy or world economy is a
disgusting usurpation of the word global and world and all they stand for. When we talk about
the world community or global community or global village we are not talking about the control
of the world through corporate economic and political dominance.
Bopal
TV news report
of the Union Carbide pesticide leak, 1984
that poisoned and killed two thousand
in Bopal India.
This was immediately cut to a bombastic ad
for Vacation Holiday Cruises
to various parts of the world.
This image one on the other,
close to the new language of the earth,
so close to the earth in speech
that it cannot be misunderstood.
Close to one heart beating in another.
As a poet who deeply understands that one of the functions of poetry is to take language back
to its meaning and truth thorough the examined use of language, I also looks to a wider form of
poetic discussion that through poetry insists that our social discussion seek those truths in all
discourse and expresses them fully. Progressives must be in the forefront of this and demand
of the media the same. To challenge the right wing on these issues is paramount to protecting
the “atmosphere” of a Democratic Presidency. If we allow the distortions of purposeful
victories by conservative political “character assassination” on sacred gains we are fools and
worse.
Equating the liberation of women with the right to serve in combat and fly fighter jets is a
usurpation of the women’s liberation movement. Defining gay liberation by the recent push
for gay marriage instead of for the right to be treated as an equal in society is a distortion of
both the gay rights movement and the mostly progressive push in years past to break down
the ridge barriers that traditional marriage had built in the society including the shot-gun
marriage, the dictums against interracial marriage, and the stigma against the practice of living
together without being married. Progressives need to keep these issues out front. To applaud
the black corporate CEO, while on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Meridian Mississippi
black people live in shacks that would have been a travesty in slave days, is a corruption of
the “dream.”
Yes, these are broad stroke issue and must be focused as they come up in each unique case
but the issue here is where the progressive must focus their critique. If it become a critique of
the Democrats policies and whether they are left enough we will have once again given the
right the opportunity to sneak up and deliver blows that will dissipate the growing “atmosphere”
of liberal/progressive possibilities. This would be another of the great mistakes that have
plagued the left for so long here and around the world. Do progressives have the discipline to
extend the “atmosphere” into that world where we really will see a change of condition for
those in need here and abroad, I think so.
Lawrence O'Neal Rouse
on John Lennon's birthday Dec. 8th.
Dear Friends,
This week we remember brother John
Lennon in a special way. If you need
someone to say something then hear
my words today.
I moved to San Diego in 1980 and
went to work for the Navy as a
defense engineer, working on sonar
for our submarines. A few months
later I got up in the morning to go to
work and the news told me my
favorite musician had been
assassinated in New York.
I couldn't cry for six months later till
on the freeway to work I heard Sir
John singing Bernie Taupin's song
"Hey hey Johnny, can you come out
to play?."
A year earlier John Lennon was
photographed in New York standing
up with an old Gibson electric,
saying "I'm ready to play with the
Beatles again.."
Walter Cronkite came on the tv and
signed off saying, "He was a gentle
man whose main goal in life was to
be a good father and a house
husband."
To me it is important to remember
that John Lennon was only 40 years
old when he died. Fourty years old
and all that had happened. As I recall
Mozart was in his 30's somewhere
when he went over the hill.
However it happened, a crazy man, a
guided gun, whatever, the fact
remains that act of violence changed
nothing about my feeling and respect
for John Lennon, what he and his
compadres taught me, and my
commitment to good music and love.
So if you want to do something for
John today, smile brightly at a
stranger, help
somebody you love, tell a young
person they are worthy, and listen to
some good music.
Strawberry Fields Forever,
Lawrence
on John Lennon's birthday Dec. 8th.
Dear Friends,
This week we remember brother John
Lennon in a special way. If you need
someone to say something then hear
my words today.
I moved to San Diego in 1980 and
went to work for the Navy as a
defense engineer, working on sonar
for our submarines. A few months
later I got up in the morning to go to
work and the news told me my
favorite musician had been
assassinated in New York.
I couldn't cry for six months later till
on the freeway to work I heard Sir
John singing Bernie Taupin's song
"Hey hey Johnny, can you come out
to play?."
A year earlier John Lennon was
photographed in New York standing
up with an old Gibson electric,
saying "I'm ready to play with the
Beatles again.."
Walter Cronkite came on the tv and
signed off saying, "He was a gentle
man whose main goal in life was to
be a good father and a house
husband."
To me it is important to remember
that John Lennon was only 40 years
old when he died. Fourty years old
and all that had happened. As I recall
Mozart was in his 30's somewhere
when he went over the hill.
However it happened, a crazy man, a
guided gun, whatever, the fact
remains that act of violence changed
nothing about my feeling and respect
for John Lennon, what he and his
compadres taught me, and my
commitment to good music and love.
So if you want to do something for
John today, smile brightly at a
stranger, help
somebody you love, tell a young
person they are worthy, and listen to
some good music.
Strawberry Fields Forever,
Lawrence
