I would like to hear from people who know something about John Tasini and about his candidacy for Hilary's seat.

I started working on my own to pull together a small Tasini group in Staten Island, NY and then I heard he did a bad job as president of the Writers'Union. That may be bad mouthing from a writer who didn't cut the muster, so we are trying to find out more about him and his candidacy.

We don't see Hilary as beatable, but would like progressives, etc. to have an opportunity to voice dissatisfaction with her.

Thanks.

joncehart

I thought Chris' response to the "Death of Environmentalism" article was excellent.  He recognized its crucial value, and made an important contribution with his distinction between the purpose of special interest organizations and labor unions--that "the goal of labor unions is for workplaces to be democratic areas that allow workers a voice in their working conditions".

And I agree with his picture of

"a true alliance between labor and environmental groups could be formed not just by working to dismantle industries that are not sustainable and replacing them with new, sustainable industries, but  instead by working with labor to change the laws surrounding collective bargaining that currently are overwhelming slanted in favor of employers."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/2/18/2148/96045

He made one statement I would like, however, to build on and go beyond:

"If the labor movement's goals were the same as other special interests, collective bargaining would not exist. Instead, top consultants would work simply to pass laws that improve people's working conditions without any input from the worker's themselves."

Right now we are trying to get traction for a movement to reverse the tide of the last 40 years.  That tide--our system of wealth distribution--is only one wave of what has been the predominant political force in our country since at least the Civil War, but probably even before our Revolution.  There is no long-term hope of success unless we think of thoroughly transforming our anti-democratic system of wealth.  That is a mammoth, long-time project, but it needs to be the context for all of our short-term and medium-term planning and action.  And it can't be done without us becoming a peaceful democratic revolution.

In short, we--all of us--need to think and dream beyond our present tasks, and realize deeply

1. that individually and collectively we are not yet democratic enough to generate the cooperative power necessary for transforming the underlying anti-democratic forces within our nation and culture;
   
2. that to achieve reforms we can envision now, and then to go beyond them to substantial change will require the building of a movement that develops grassroots democracy--a herculean task;
   
3. that labor unions need to think and plan long-haul in terms of changing the whole system of wealth discrimination, which is the underlying driving force blocking not only workplace democracy, but a deep, broad-based strong democracy;  
   
4. that there can be no real democracy unless
   

   a) workers and everybody else share in some  way in the wealth they either create or help to create,
   b) we learn to participate actively, which does not come naturally since we are so acculturated to flight/fight, passivity/aggression, and
   c) unions are an active, vibrant part of the communities they are embedded in;
5) that traditional special interest groups need to become, like the unions, a powerful force for developing a broad-based strong democracy at the grassroots, which will give them far more service than the "top consultants" within the beltway.

I discuss this at some length at http://joncehart.mydd.com/story/2005/3/18/72751/9714#readmore, RE-DESIGNING OUR SYSTEM OF WEALTH: The Project for a 21st Century Progressive Movement--Update [2005-4-8 21:1:52 by joncehart]:

 (I would have preferred to have posted this as a comment on Chris' original posting, but I can only visit the site irregularly.)

SUMMARY: This paper proposes that the cornerstone for a 21st century progressive movement be a radical redesign of the basic tool of capitalism—the corporation—and a full dismantling of our system of wealth discrimination. The proactive goal is to experiment with fully incorporating the corporation and our capitalist economy into our democracy and way of life without destroying either. This should be thought of as a century long project that becomes the foundational context in which strategies, initiatives, projects, and programs are thought about, planned, and implemented. Speaking strategically, the most representative symbol of our system of wealth discrimination is the pre- and anti-democratic doctrine of “shareholder primacy.” If the entire system is the strategic target, then the structure of the corporation is the bulls eye and “shareholder primacy” the center of that bulls eye. Fixing it will not fix everything. Changing this doctrine will entail radically altering one of the most entrenched pre- and anti-democratic frameworks we brought with us into our experiment in democratic governance. We have carried this framework into the present from the ages of feudalism and aristocracy. It has been and is in full opposition to our democracy, our common wealth, and the shared life we have as one nation. This foundational contradiction has confronted us with three awesome challenges to our democratic project: racial discrimination, sexual discrimination and wealth discrimination. All three center around pre-democratic ideas about property that gave full dominion over property to an elite group white males. Now—as the Radical Republican ascendancy has peaked and the spirit of our 230 year-old democratic project is re-awakening—is the time to build a multi-racial, multi-class coalition to bring the racial and sexual liberation movements to fruition by ending wealth discrimination and its throttle-hold on our economy, our political system, and our individual freedom. This is, at least, a century-long task, but it is also the opportunity for a quantum leap in the work of democratizing ourselves, our institutions, and our culture. Developing a national grassroots participatory democracy to this extent is the essential means to the target task, but it nothing like it has ever been accomplished. Not even close. If this challenge is picked up, the risk of failure is large. At least in terms of fulfilling the whole vision. Partial success, however, would be a significant accomplishment and would equip our heir’s heirs with resources to go further. History almost compels us to do our planning of progressive action and objectives now in a 100-year foundational framework. Think of our civil rights movement from 1865 to 1965, our feminist movement that got rolling in the late 19th century, the Radical Republican movement since before 1964 up to now, the achievement of much of the 20th century progressive movement, and the defeat of the apartheid system in South Africa. Regarding breadth, there is hardly any progressive cause that does not deal directly with our system of wealth discrimination and the overpower of large corporations. Further, the objective being proposed here has very strong appeal to many moderates and more than a few genuine conservatives as well. There are five specific ways a national project built around a genuine marriage between capitalism and democracy could serve as a long-term progressive strategy right now:  it would connect directly to the personal experience and concern of virtually every American citizen, and people across the globe;  it would directly interface with the primary objectives of almost every progressive and liberal cause as well as many conservative ones;  as such it could become the rallying point and hub for a powerful and stable progressive network in every state of the union that could lobby this idea incessantly for however long it takes to succeed, and could and serve as the channel for the network’s support of a whole range of progressive issues;  it could help to cleave—maybe permanently—the Radical Republican coalition by dramatically exposing the inherent contradiction between the ‘Growth Club’ wing and the blue collar ‘Sam’s Club’ wing of that coalition; and  in doing all of the above it would be the process for evolving a language and narratives that would re-define the entire relationship between our capitalist economic system and our democracy. However, to temper our enthusiasm, it is essential to realize that the pre- and anti-democratic ideas in which the doctrine of shareholder primacy is grounded are themselves deeply rooted in our nervous system and culture. This is probably the major factor making the proposed project extraordinarily difficult. This point is critical. It is why we have not raised the political understanding and will to make the needed changes, if a genuine democracy is indeed what we want. This current predicament could not have been any other way. When we started this great experiment we were what we were, just as we are now. We could see and understand only what we could, just as now. We could only do what we could, as we can only do so now. Yet, we have struggled all along to transform these contradictions into opportunities for evolving our democracy and democratizing ourselves in the process. Today we are still struggling with these contradictions and systems of discrimination, especially that of wealth discrimination. Today we can still transform our conflicts into further evolution of our democracy. And to engage in this transforming process means becoming more democratic in our own attitudes and behaviors.

A New Twist: Oil & Nuclear Industries Taking-over the Liberal Narrative

In his latest column Patrick Doherty sees a big push coming by oil and nuclear companies to fix their control of the energy industries:

"The new year saw the launch of a well-orchestrated, multi-pronged campaign calling for America to end its dependence on oil through massive federal investments in nuclear energy."

This sounds to me like the liberal narrative about the dual threat of our oil addiction to our  national security and to climate change are now being transformed into a narrative to
 promote nuclear energy
 maintain US dependence on oil for 20 years so oil companies can sustain huge profits,
 allow nuclear energy the time and federal subsidies to develop large capacity, so that
 oil giants can pass off control of energy to the nuclear industry.

He outlines what he sees as a "well-orchestrated, multi-pronged campaign calling for America to end its dependence on oil through massive federal investments in nuclear energy."

And discusses at length an emerging alternative vision he refers to as an "innovation economy":

"This preservation of the status quo denies America the opportunity of a century: A chance to build an "innovation economy" that delivers not only energy independence but a booming era of growth--growth in large part made possible by transforming our energy infrastructure...
To the extent that America can exploit our scientific and technological advantage to produce the energy and resource efficient products and services the developing world needs, we will be able to dig our way out of the insecurity, indebtedness and inequity that defines today's consumer economy."

"No Nukes!", http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_nukes.php

Ruy Teixeira gives us good summaries of the important finding by the latest Democracy Corps poll on January 30, 2005 ("Public Not With the Bush Program")  
 and February 4, 2005 ("What Do the Democrats Stand For?") at http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/.

In the first commentary, he gives the major discovery as:

It should give Democrats pause that the GOP's top associational advantage is "know what they stand for" (+28). They will not be able to generate that much political progress from the indisputable fact that the public, in many important ways, is not with the Bush program if they cannot convey to the public what Democrats stand for and what their vision for the future is.
This point is amplified where Democrats have only slight advantages or disadvantages vis a vis the Republicans.
(Abridged by me)

In the second, which comments on the Democracy Corps memo on the poll, he points to the positive meaning this has for the party:

"For all the problems Democrats have on clarity, strength, values and advocacy, they are nonetheless at parity with the Republicans. Imagine if this period brought new clarity, a defining framework and direction, a new unity in challenging the Republicans, greater attention to values and a passionate advocacy for average Americans.
What is striking is how much of the values playing field is contested and up for grabs. Right now, the voters mostly cannot distinguish between the parties on reform and change, opportunity, or improving America and new ideas...after the culture war waged by the Republicans, how can they have no advantage on shares your values, trustworthy, and being for families?

But then, he identifies our predicament:

"How can the out-of-power Democrats throw out the Republicans when Democrats have almost no advantage on change and reform?"

The Democracy Corps poll report is at http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/surveys/Democracy_Corps_January_2005_Survey.pdf.

with useful accompanying charts
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/surveys/Democracy_Corps_January_2005_Graphs.pdf).

The Democracy Corps memo is at
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Toward_a_Democratic_Purpose.pdf.

I found the Democracy Corps memo on its post-2004 election poll ("Re: Solving The Paradox Of 2004") the most illuminating document on the election,
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/solving_the_paradox.pdf.

In his op-ed piece today, David Brooks laser beams a critical issue:

"The decline of fraternal associations and the emergence of these professionally run groups for the educated class diminished communal life. The change also reshaped politics.
"Since the 1960's there has been a breakdown in the machinery that allowed Americans to work together across class and other divisions. The educated class has come to dominate, and the issues of interest to that class overshadow issues of interest to the less educated and less well off."
"A Short History of Deanism", http://nytimes.com/2005/02/05/opinion/5brooks.html?pagewanted=print&position=

He then argues that:

If you are "progressive" and write with passion and have a metro card, you can take a ride on a subway.  If you are "progressive" and write with passion and good, strong thinking, you might help build a genuine alternative to the neoconservative and neoliberal politics.  We need the latter desperately and joyfully.

Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation recently gave us a painful example of from-the-hip, laundry-list thinking in her "Editor's Cut" on a progressive alternative to the Bush doctrine. http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2165

This is of little help to building a stable, long-term majority coalition. In fact, I think it is a serious impediment. As she says, "Ideas matter." They matter because they are the tools that bring us together, open our minds, disturb our rusty brains, raise our energy, and enable us to dialogue with ourselves and our fellow citizens.  A democratic culture will rise from platitudes.

Compare the quality of her piece to the Michael Lind article she cites ("How the US Became the World's Dispensable Nation", http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts359.html), or to any of Patrick Doherty QUO  VADIS articles I referred to yesterday, ("Quo Vadis: From Crisis, Opportunity", http://www.tompaine.com/articles/quo_vadis_from_crisis_opportunity.php).  In her own way she can match that quality of work.

My point here is about building a powerful dialogue, and demanding a lot from each other. Katrina vanden Heuvel has an important role at the Nation, and does great work there.  Anyone of us should hear from each other when we are not up to snuff so that we can go on and do better.

I love reading Patrick Doherty, who writes the "Quo Vadis" column at Thomas Paine.  He makes very complex international stuff so understandable--and shocking--by 1) cutting to the nexus point of a complex of dynamics, 2) laying out the consequences of a major fallacy or  fallacies, 3) presenting a solid and positive alternative, and 4) re-presenting over and over a new grand strategy for America in the context of the specific issue or event he is focusing on at the moment.

His last piece, "Retire The Carter Doctrine" ]
is a good example.  First the core of the problem and its importance:

The Bush doctrine and the mess in Iraq rest upon a powerful, bi-partisan consensus: the Carter Doctrine. America is now out of military options in Iraq, making the Carter doctrine obsolete. Only if Democrats withdraw their support for that dysfunctional doctrine can America hope for prosperity at home and peace abroad.
Iraq now sits on a precipice and can go one of two ways:
 years of volatile, bloody instability or
 outright civil war.
Failure in Iraq threatens to destabilize the region that contains 65 percent of the world's oil reserves. A threat to those reserves is a threat to the global economy.

(Throughout this posting I am not quoting Doherty directly.  I have abridged some of his text and edited the sequence of his statements.)

Then the history and the consequences:

[In 1980 Carter declared our strategic interest in the Persian Gulf was so important that "any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be  regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and...will be repelled by any means necessary including the use of force."
The doctrine is based on "the overwhelming dependence of the Western democracies on oil supplies from the Middle East."
Since Carter announced his doctrine:
 Reagan dutifully armed Iraq,
 Bush the elder liberated Kuwait, and
 Clinton contained Iraq with sanctions, inspections and no-fly zones, and
 our dependence has grown as the percentage of global oil reserves held in the Persian Gulf has risen from 54 percent to 65 percent.

[Then:
 Bush and the neocons used the banner of the war on terror to massively expand American control of global oil reserves
 By 2003 the Asian economies--led by China--started to take off at unanticipated rates,
 creating a huge surge in demand,
 which doubled the price of oil,
 which spiked the U.S. trade deficit,
 forcing a rise in interest rates
 that now threatens to burst our housing bubble.

[And maybe:
 the price of oil could more than double to $85/barrel in 2007.]

[Next, an alternative, which is a core part of his grand strategy:

Yet there is no reason why this must come to pass. America can eliminate up to half of its oil consumption with off-the-shelf efficiency technologies like hybrid engines and ultra-light automotive materials. In addition, investing in efficiency at home--not military occupation abroad--means high-tech, high-wage jobs for U.S. workers.
Democrats should paint the bigger historical picture now and admit that oil drives our policy--before global events limit our options even more.]

Finally, he shows where the Party is stuck and the political risk it must take:

[Yet the Democratic leadership has failed to question President Bush's national security strategy.  Instead, they accept President Bush's national security strategy but challenge his implementation, just as Kerry did.
Such a departure will not be an easy step to take. Democrats will have to break a solemn rule of American politics: that partisanship stops at the water's edge. It will be especially difficult at a time when our soldiers are in harm's way.]

I come away not only thinking about this issue better, but bettter able to think about in a large context.