Glenden BrownIdealism in the Service of Realism
Robert Reich writes:
Are we approaching another turning point, like 1968, but one that reverses the great pendulum of American politics and moves the nation back to the left? The George W. Bush presidency has been such an abject failure — only 26 percent of Americans approve of the job he has done — that America may be ready. Polls show a significant majority of Americans believing the country is off track. The economy is heading toward a recession, or worse. Inequality of income and wealth are wider than they’ve been in a century. Iraq is a mess, and America’s image has plummeted in much of the rest of the world.
The Bush administration has failed on so many fronts it’s impossible to fully comprehend how truly, deeply bad its been. I can’t think of a single successful policy initiated by the Bush administration.
Reich, however, says we will not see a return to 60s era leftism. He may mourn that but I do not. 60s leftist radicals were the most boring, naive people I can imagine. (I once said as much in a reflection at church and immediately had a dozen defending the 60s radicals as cutting edge, interesting folks; I said there’s nothing interesting about drugs, free love and fashionable politics.) Sure, their hearts were in the right place, but in terms of actual ability to motivate people, build and maintain institutions and effectively lobby the government, outside of the Civil Rights movement, 60s activists were simply ineffective.
Anyway, Reich praises Obama - suggesting he has the same impossible to describe quality as the Kennedy brothers:
Yet the striking thing about Obama, and the enthusiasm he has stirred up, has little to do with the specifics of the policies he advances. It is rather his almost pitch-perfect echo of the John F. Kennedy we heard in 1960 and the Robert Kennedy last heard in 1968. It is a call for national unity and national sacrifice — not in the interest of military prowess but in the cause of social justice, both in the nation and around the world. His appeal is for more civic engagement, not necessarily more government. He has the voice and wields the techniques of a community organizer (which he was on the streets of Chicago), asking people to join together, calling the nation to form a more perfect union. Not since the sixties has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals. Not since then has America– including, especially, the nation’s youth –been so inspired.
It is easy for cynics to write off Obamania as a passing fad, as lofty rhetoric that can’t and won’t hold up on close inspection — another bout of the kind of naive and romantic enthrallment that occasionally claims American voters until common sense sets in. This is surely what Hillary Clinton and my friend from forty years ago are counting on. But if the Clintons stop to think back to what they felt and understood in those years leading up to 1968, they may come to a different conclusion, as have I.
Neither John F. Kennedy nor his brother Robert were idealists. They were realists who understood the importance of idealism in the service of realism. They grasped the central political fact that little can be achieved in Washington unless or until the public is energized and mobilized to push for it; the status quo is simply too powerful. The ideals they enunciated helped mobilized the nation politically. That mobilization contributed to the subsequent passage of civil rights and voting rights laws, Medicare, and environmental protection. For purposes of practical electoral strategy as well as high-minded moral aspiration, they never tired of reminding the nation of its founding principles — most fundamentally, that all men are created equal.
(Emphasis added.)
Maybe I’m an idealist or a fool, but I can’t help but think that’s the real power of Obama. And FWIW, I think back now and that’s what inspired me about Ralph Becker’s campaign - he is a realist who is nevertheless comfortable with the language of idealism. Government can serve the people and make our lives better - it is our government and it should serve us. That this is an idealist notion today suggest to me the depth of the betrayal by conservatives of American ideals. Government of the people, for the people by the people - has been perverted by conservatives who believe that corporations are actual people and that if government benefits the rich, powerful, and connected that somehow it is good.Â
As Salt Lake City’s government attempts to serve the needs of Salt Lake City’s people, our state legislature is doing everything it can to stop that. Nothing speaks more deeply of the corruption of today’s conservatives.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
It’s interesting to note that there is almost no difference between Hillary and Obama on the issues. There is, however, a profound difference between “no you can’t” and “yes we can.” Also between a 17-state strategy and a 50-state strategy.
I don’t trust Obama. I believe that if he were in the Senate in October 2002 he would have voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq along with every other senator with presidential ambitions. He’s the best we’ve got now, though.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Richard - In terms of policy positions, Obama and Clinton aren’t hugely different but style matters and Obama has got the kind of charisma that can inspire and motivate people. Hillary - strong though she is - doesn’t have Obama’s charisma. I think it makes a different.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
What I find fascinating is that all the problems and failures are attributed to this one man, who is perfect for the job, as he doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He is the ultimate response to the aggregate American body politic. Give yourselves a slap on the back democrats for so countering the man. If anyone is the Svengali master these past 8 years, it has been bush. How else can we explain the trance democrats have been in?
I know, bush mastered the Jedi mind trick….
Exactly so, Sanjaya moves forward. He can’t sing, or explain what he will do, but he is well liked just the same. It is not what he says that matters, it is how he says it.
Style over substance, and we wonder why things screw up.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“Yet the striking thing about Obama, and the enthusiasm he has stirred up, has little to do with the specifics of the policies he advances. It is rather his almost pitch-perfect echo of the John F. Kennedy we heard in 1960 and the Robert Kennedy last heard in 1968. It is a call for national unity and national sacrifice — not in the interest of military prowess but in the cause of social justice, both in the nation and around the world”.
Yes, it was quite a call to service and sacrifice that Kennedy made.
Who started the Vietnam War utilizing an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin that never happened?
Sounds a lot like the non existent WMD in Iraq.
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” … The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Attributed to Alphonse Karr, in 1849, a year after the monarchies of Europe repressed peasant revolutions in the uprising of action and hope of 1848.
Are you sure you really want to make that comparison Mr. Rich?
“Maybe I’m an idealist or a fool”. Now that is progress(ive).
February 29th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I think Robert Reich was a very good influence on the policies of the 90’s. I hope he gets a big position where he can start to fix things again. I’m sure Obama will replace all of the people in the important jobs with competent individuals instead of cronies who are told to do everything the opposite of the way Democrats would do it.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:50 am
I don’t know where pop gets his information, but I’ve heard Kennedy was going to pull the troops OUT of Vietnam.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:31 am
This is off topic, but be sure to go back to Cliff’s post concerning Don Siegelman. My last post includes a short, but good Karl Rove video on the subject!
February 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Uh Larry, kennedy was president during all the troop increases, and sent the original advisers, and expanded the conflict, after he was murdered, johnson the great society democrat escalated the conflict beyond all reason,using the phony attack on the Maddox and scaring up the Gulf on Tonkin resolution. Here is the timeline
Let’s not forget the kennedy inspired Bay of Pigs invasion(1961) fiasco that resulted in castro wedging himself into power for near 49 years. 49 YEARS!! Then a missile crisis(1962), that almost got the world blown up, as the Soviets armed the Cubans to keep the US from attempted invasion. Yeah, kennedy was quite a peace-maker.
More in detail.
It took nixon, a pile of bombs, and some effective domestic protest to help end it. No matter what Glendon says about the 60’s generation, they got ‘er dun. Would that this were true of our current protests.
A damn committed enemy levered us out. The domino theory, good stuff, the war began our deficit spending, that has never ended, and was good enough a play to keep the war going 11 years. Along the way was Laos and Cambodia, they turned out just perfect.
For a person who is old enough to have lived through it, I figure you might know these details. Were you trippin’ during 60’s?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
more in detail
http://www.utdallas.edu/library/collections/speccoll/Leeker/laos3.pdf
February 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Back in the ’60s, the activists on the left saw themselves as being separate from and in opposition to “the establishment.” They saw government and other institutions as things that had to be changed from the outside (through peace marches, sit-ins, boycotts, protests, etc.). In contrast, conservatives have been happy to change government from the inside; to effect change not by influence but by direct control. The current progressive movement is as effective as it is because we’re getting people organized, “crashing the gate,” and running for office ourselves, not engaging in street theater.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Lucidity - I think you are absolutely right - and I think the current progressive movement is going to continue to grow more effective. The failure of 60s era activists was their naivete in believing they could change the system from the outside and in defining those inside the system as enemies. That alienated a lot of people who would otherwise have been sympathetic to the causes (and who did eventually become sympathetic. Bill Clinton, in My Life, described that dynamic perfectly - examining how 60s activists hurt themselves and their causes with their antagonism toward anyone not in the movement.
Historically, the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn’t really become effective until progressives moved into government- they created the New Deal and managed it with remarkable effectiveness and lack of corruption. Once they did that, they forged a national progressive consensus that held sway from the 30s through the 80s (though by the 80s it was starting to come apart). With the exception of national health care, they achieved most of their policy goals. I think today’s progressives need to learn from that.
Pop - you need to review your history. The Vietnam war had broad bipartisan support. Anti-war protestors had almost no effect on US policy in Vietnam. It wasn’t until mainstream Americans opposed the war in overwhelming numbers that Nixon decided it was time to get out - a move that didn’t happen until 1975 after Nixon left office.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Richard and Lucidity, regarding your point just above and the efficacy of lefties in the sixties, one juicy element that you’ve both left out was COINTEL-PRO. Talk about restistence from behind. We had ‘em just where we wanted ‘em, I’d say.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:04 am
pop:
I’m no expert on Kennedy, but he struck me as the kind of guy who would call in people from the left and right to arrive at policy. Maybe he took wrong advise from the conservatives in the military. They were known to push him around and even ignore his policies when it suited them. I just know that I’ve heard he was planning on getting out of Vietnam. It is listed as one reason he may have been assassinated.
That being said, I still think your ‘they’re all the same’ argument is crazy. Are you saying there isn’t any difference between Kennedy and Chimpy. Come on!
I was in my teens when Nixon was in the White House and wasn’t very politically active at all until Reagan came in and I started getting letters from environmental groups. Yes, I was tripping too and definitely a tree-hugger, thinking heavily about life and being terrified and awed at what I saw. It was a wonderful and weird time. A necessary tearing down of everything our parents told us. It happens in every generation and results in new ideas. Some bad, some good. This is how we grow.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:34 am
lucidity:
In a perfect world and democracy, your method is undisputedly the best, but let’s not forget how Howard Dean got his support. It was by standing in the street and yelling, “You Have The Power!” That brought the sixties and it’s brand of idealism into the new century and inspired us. He never stopped condemning and exposing the Republicans with the truth. This is what you have to do in an age where you can’t be heard. It had the smell of freedom. It scared the wits out of people like Karl Rove and had to be stopped.
Democracy For Utah owes you EVERYTHING because you’re always there, and always working hard. Nobody else has done what you have. If our electoral system was perfect, there’s no way you could lose, because you have the truth on your side, but you’ve got to see the movie, “Uncounted.” The 2004 election was a sham.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
Thanks for the admission, the history is plain, despite any idealism, there are powerful forces on a president, and as Truman, another democrat stated, “The buck stops here”.
Powerful words from the democrat that gave the order to nuke a human population for the first, and hopefully the only time.
Apart from your personal likes, kennedys’ decisions led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans and over 3 million Vietnamese. Chimpy ‘aint even close. We’ll see how a dem president does if elected. We already have o’bombers promise to bomb Iran and Pakisstan if necessary. Scary stuff if you think these guys were/are men of character that military types and conservatives can push them around as easily as Johnny made his decisions.
No opinion on the missile crisis, brought on by the unilateral act of Bay of Pigs invasion?
Maybe they are not all the same, if you bear out history, the democrats are pretty damn dangerous, as they sport a bit more ideology, and stray from the dictums of reality, or Realpolitik, minding that there are , “no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent self interest”. Forget this, and you get played internationally.
Glendon, the Iraq war had widespread bi-partisan support. Ultimately though, if I read your selective memories, it is in this case all bushs’ fault, and using the same rationale, we can say that Vietnam was all kennedys’ fault. As debacles go, I’ll take this Iraq one, it is small potatoes compared to Vietnam.
In 8 years, progressive actions and anti war protesting has had ZERO impact on our actions in Iraq. 60’s activists got it done, and indeed had a large part in LBJ, another asinine democrat, from not running for office for a another term. Want to talk corruption? Let’s not embarrass the conversation.
What is it you are trying to say Glendon? Be sure if a democrat gets elected, this time dems will get to play out the end game, and take full responsibility for it.
Larry, they differ in style only, they all get their orders from an undemocratic place. The differences is in how they present them to the public. Or how they do the dupes…us.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Glendon and Larry, this is very much worth reading.
As much as nothing that anyone looks at, is as it seems, and completely straight forward.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:15 am
Pop - Your analysis is missing the anger that so many Democratic voters - myself included - felt over the betrayal of democratic principles in the lead up to the Iraq war. The Bushies - aided and abetted by a lazy, cooperative media - were cooking the books. Lots of people knew it; our elected Democratic leaders knew it. They couldn’t find it in themselves to say so. They let themselves get played rather than stand up to a lying, dishonest President and his lying, dishonest administration. They were so afraid of not looking “tough” that they went along.
That anger - more than anything - empowered the Dean campaign in 2003 and 04. It put Howard Dean in as DNC chair. That anger has left Hillary Clinton trapped - she was the ultimate DC insider who let herself get played by the Bushies. She can’t escape her past of supporting ideas that were horrifically wrong at the time. Barack Obama’s history is much more in keeping with Democratic principles. (FWIW, both Democratic as in the party and democratic as in democracy.)
Back in 2002, lots of Democratic politicians were quietly against the war but were too afraid to say so. When they should have been urging caution, when they should have been chanting a simple mantra (Iraq is the wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time) they were nevertheless playing an unprincipled political game. Sure, there were forced aligned against them, but a great many Americans would have backed them up. Those Americans were hungry for someone to give voice to their concerns. And our leaders failed us. At least, our Democratic leaders now know that the was was a mistake adn want out, as opposed to John McCain who wants to stay another 100 years.
The sad story of America’s Iraq invasion contains a key chapter - a dishonest president trying to compensate for his own glaring inadequacies lied the nation into a war that has accomplished the opposite of every publicly stated goal we had for going into that war. Most members of Congress willfully closed their eyes and pretended that pathetic President wasn’t lying because they weren’t smart enough to figure out the unprincipled political game being played and they ignored all the evidence that contradicted that pathetically uninformed president. It was the historical moment in which America’s political leadership reached its nadir. There can be no denying the failure of America’s leaders in 2001 and 2002.
Joe Klein in one of his books mused that its odd that the Baby Boomers - who were apparently so idealistic and principled back in the day - have nevertheless delivered America its worst leaders ever. As a generation, Baby Boomers have proven themselves to be callow, unprincipled, selfish, and blinkered leaders - blinded by ideology and self-serving in the extreme.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Glendon, Working to heal the 9-11 injuries by fomenting war in the east wasn’t done solely at the behest of our lying little president. There were and still are, aligned behind him, a plethora of corporated war profiteers, from Haliburton to the corporate media. In as much as shadow governments exist and puppet presidents are thier tools, that is the character of this one. The Afghanistan and Iraq crimes, when a peace dividend was even conceivable after killing off the crazy cold war, bumped the anger level of this pointless little quagmire all the higher. Those assholes ARE profitting handsomely though. Mission accomplished.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
All I can advise Glendon, is that by the look of things today, the apples don’t fall far from the tree.
Your entire analysis places blame for the problems today, on others. Of what consequence is anger to the point at hand but to further muddle the thinking of an opposition that should have opposed bush? This excuse does not greatness make.
Consider geopolitical reasons for the war in Iraq.It has to do with maintaining dollar hegemony, and of course turning chinas’ easiest logistical oil supply into a chaotic mess, while making billions for special interests. Win, win, win.
The democratic leadership knows as well as republicans where its bread is buttered. Everyone else was dragged along. As it goes for these reasons, it has been a smashing success. Perhaps not in maintaining the dollar, but the rich who made the plans aren’t holding dollars. We are. Buffet and Gates aren’t holding dollars either. Anyone smart, isn’t.
There can be no denying that the israeli lobby had a part to play in helping to drag everyone along for a war against saddam, this war serves its purposes well.
Can’t fault your analysis of baby boomers, but to be sure, they didn’t get us here alone. If people were more interested in the application of the Constitution to our future path, rather than using government as the means to effect their own personal visions of social change, or their pocketbooks, we would all be a lot better off.
Perverting the document by both sides has led to the destruction of viable government in my opinion. This democracy to me is in its final stages.
When the 635 representatives and the executives are beset upon by tens of thousands of PAC’s and lobbyists, there is a measure of inertia that no single man, or even the People apparently, can stop.
People wanted out of the war by a great majority. We no get.
People want our immigration laws enforced by a great majority. We no get.
People support civil unions by majority. We no get.
People in majority want laws controlling outsourcing. We no get.
People want real change in health care by majority. We no get.
People want to dump nafta by majority. We no get.
and we no get it… in a very bi-partisan way.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 am
Glenden:
Well that’s what they say, isn’t it? “They”, being pundits (learned persons) like Joe Klein. What did the idealistic people of the post-war generation really have to say about where our country was going. The powerful only needed us if we fought their wars, consumed or manufactured their products. They destroyed our culture as surely as the native Americans before us. They portrayed us as stupid, lazy, anti-American, you name it. The negative portrayal was so effective that it stands today.
Imagine how effective we could have been if WE had been able to use the media to portray the war profiteers and naked capitalists negatively for 30 years. It would be a much different story. We would be seen as the victors, and would be taking steps to make the world a better place.
We didn’t have a chance until people were able to use televisions to communicate with each other in an educational way. You’re looking at it right now. Let’s hope to God, they don’t take it from us. There are hundreds of powerful people working on that right now.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
More great comments from the learned readers of ‘oneutah’. My commendations. Cav.