[Mb-civic] time to scrape off the kerry sticker...

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-06/30street.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Time to Scrape the Kerry Sticker Off: On Democrats, Values, and the Lakoff
Thesis July 01, 2005 By Paul  Street 

Have you run across this person and/or his car?  He is a white male in his
late 30s with long curly hair.  He drives a 1990-something green Toyota
Corolla and lives near the campus of a major metropolitan university. 
There is a cloth peace symbol hanging from his rear-view mirror.  The back
seat of his car is littered with copies of the New York Times, The Nation,
and Mother Jones, and a plethora of crumpled Starbucks cups. 

He has an unusually large number of bumper stickers on the back of his
car.  They read: "Wage Peace;" "No Justice, No Peace;" "Wal-Mart: Always
Low Wages;" "Flush Bush;" "It Will be a Good Day When the Pentagon has 
to
Hold a Bake Sale to Pay for Another B-52 Bomber;" and "Bring the Troops
Home." At the bottom right, a sticker says "Kerry-Edwards: a Stronger
America."

"Reporting for Duty"

If you see this gentleman, please ask him to review the record of John
Forbes Kerry's presidential campaign.  It's fine for Kerry to bemoan the
media's failure to adequately cover the "fixed-intelligence" Downing
Street Memo (see Jefferson Morely, "The Downing Street Memo Story Won't
Die," Washington Post, 7 June 2005).  But the Democratic "opposition"
candidate did not seriously oppose George W. Bush's illegal and immoral
and occupation of Iraq or the culture of messianic militarism that Bush
has advanced..  John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry ran on the claim that he
was more qualified to properly finish the Iraqi mission. "I," Kerry
proclaimed (to crudely paraphrase), "am the better, more sophisticated man
of empire.  I am also," he added, "the only presidential candidate with
direct service in the American military assault on Vietnam."

"Not a Redistribution Democrat"

A review of the Kerry campaign will show that the Democratic candidate
lived up to his middle name by assiduously avoiding the pressing issues of
poverty and economic inequality. Consistent with Kerry's vast personal
fortune and related aristocratic bearing - so obvious that the satirical
weekly The Onion depicted Kerry delivering a campaign speech to workers
from the bow of a yacht - the Kerry campaign's socioeconomic radar barely
registered anyone beneath the middle-class. 

For what it's worth, Kerry would have been the richest U.S. president
since another multimillionaire Democrat from Massachusetts - John
Fitzgerald Kennedy. As he told a wealthy audience in New York City, "I am
not a redistribution Democrat."  Given the corrosive impact of America's
steep socioeconomic disparities (the top 1 percent owns more than 40
percent of the United States'  wealth)on functioning democracy, this made
it impossible for Kerry to be any kind of democrat at all (see "Kerry's
Predictable Failure to Make Bush Pay for Rising US Poverty," Dissident
Voice [September 8, 2004], available online at
www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/ Street0908.htm).

Missing Connections

As an openly declared non-enemy of both empire and inequality, Kerry was
naturally unwilling to make the basic connections between those two great
and dialectically inseparable problems. The links were well understood by
the people who came up with the B-52-bake-sale slogan in the 1960s, when
Vietnam War expenditures were strangling the "War on Poverty" in its
cradle and Martin Luther King, Jr. denounced what he called "the triple
evils that are interrelated": militarism, poverty, and racism. 

In 2004, as for more than two decades now, the Democratic Party
leadership's silence on poverty and the other "triple evils" created a
populist void that the hyper-plutocratic Republicans rushed to fill by
ironically posing as the party of "the little guy."

Facts, Frames, and Values

The problem with the Kerry campaign was different than what George Lakoff
describes in his bestseller Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values
and Frame the Debate (2004), which is being marketed as "the essential
[political] guide for progressives."

According to Lakoff, Democrats lose because they are unskilled at
articulating the core "traditional American values that progressives
hold." Those values, by Lakoff's account, include "fairness," "community,"
"open communication," "equity," "equality" (by which Lakoff means
"political equality," not social equality, revealingly enough),
"democracy," and "values-based foreign policy."

Democrats fail, Lakoff argues, to use their "liberal/progressive" values
to develop persuasive "issue frames" for understanding and acting upon the
troubling facts of American social and political experience. They operate
on the false Enlightenment-era assumption that stating those facts will
bring the masses into their electoral camp.

Lakoff is certainly on to something with the idea that facts and issues
need frames.  Many progressives do seem to be under the illusion that if
only people get the real factual story then they will come along to
challenge the powers that be.  Lakoff is right, moreover, to note that the
nation's in-fact radically regressive "conservatives" invest millions in
the construction and dissemination of powerful, redolent
moral-intellectual paradigms that do account (many Republicans sincerely
believe)for many facts (e.g., mass American poverty and mass civilian
casualties in Iraq) that drive leftists to fits of anger and despair.  

He's correct to note that liberal foundations and academics spend
insufficient time and money on developing values-based language to counter
the authoritarian world view of the right.

But Kerry and his handlers weren't ignorant of their supposedly genuine
but hidden progressivism. They didn't fail to "know their [progressive]
values."  Given their very own elitist, hierarchical, corporatist,
nationalist-imperialist ideological framework, they were all-too pleased
to ignore such basic facts as the number of Iraqi civilians the U.S. has
murdered or the 1 million black children living at less than half the
nation's inadequate official poverty level. These and countless other
terrible social and political facts do not bother many top Democrats
enough to compel them to look for the proper way to "frame" them.

An All-Too Perfect Foil for Rove et al.

If you meet the aforementioned gentleman with the green Toyota and the
bumper stickers, tell him to take a look at Thomas Frank's book What's the
Matter With Kansas?  How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004). 
How have Republicans been so successful in cloaking their militantly
regressive, "economically royalist" policy agenda with "culturally
workerist"(to use Frank's clever description of the Republican formula)
political language that paints the Democrats out as elitists? Frank
rightly places much of the blame on the Democratic Party's in-fact elitist
determination to take popular economic issues "off the table."

That determination makes it hard to evaluate the accuracy of Lakoff's
thesis that poor and working-class Americans are being diverted from
acting in accord with their economic interests by Republican "moral issue
frames" that encourage non-affluent people to vote "against their own
pocketbooks." How do we know that the right's authoritarian frames are
trumping workers' economic self interest in determining electoral choices
(such as they are) when top Democrats have made the not-so "progressive"
moral determination that courting corporate political money and flattering
the well-to-do are more valuable activities than addressing non-affluent
peoples' moral-economic issues?

It's a hell of a deadly formula the Republicans have working for them.
Frank leaves out some of that formula's key ingredients because he fails
to pay sufficient attention to the Republicans' exploitation of national
security fears and (more hidden) racial conflicts. To make matters yet
worse, the Republicans benefit from the reactionary biases of dominant
corporate-state media, which favors strict-authoritarian over
"liberal/progressive" values and frames.

The best way to fight back against the resulting Republican hegemony over
the American political system is neither simple nor self-evident.  One way
NOT to resist is ought to be clear, however: putting forth a hopelessly
aristocratic, super-opulent candidate who refuses to engage substantive
facts and issues of social and moral-economic justice. Fundamentally
incapable of calling Republicans on their pseudo-populist,
false-"workerist" bluff, the economically royal and culturally elite Kerry
was an all-too perfect foil for the Karl Rove Republicans. He was
astonishingly well-suited to the G.O.P.'s Orwellian misrepresentation of
itself as the party of ordinary, non-affluent people and its related
parody of the Democrats as nothing more than snooty, latte-sipping
elitists.

It didn't help, of course, that Kerry refused to call for an end to the
occupation of Iraq, a murderous operation that most of his voting base and
convention delegates opposed. On this and other issues, of course, he was
all too accurately described by Republicans as a morally inconsistent
"flip-flopper."

John Kerry was in fact "the lesser evil" in a "winner-take-all" political
and media system that provides little if any space for a serious left
presidential run.  The world might well be a somewhat safer and saner
place if we had in fact "flushed Bush" last November. 

But the patrician Kerry was not the plumber for that job.  He lacked not
just the way but also the will to mount an effective "progressive"
challenge to American Empire and Inequality, Inc., whose pinnacles he
wanted to climb, not dismantle.

Individual candidacies aside, it is by no means clear that the Democratic
Party will ever again channel significant popular resistance to
concentrated wealth and power in the United States.  It may well be too
permanently subject and beholden to corporate-imperial direction,
structures, and values to meaningfully play that role in the future. Only
time and activism will tell.  In the meantime, progressives who still
can't seem to let go of their Kerry stickers and posters are displaying
gross value confusion.

Paul Street (pstreet99 at sbcglobal.net) is the author of Empire and
Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers, 2004 ); Segregated Schools: Race, Class, and Educational
Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005);
and Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, Policy and the State of Black
Chicago (Chicago, IL, 2005)


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050708/74c1f4f5/attachment.htm