This is the PDF for the 10th issue of the Hudson Valley Radical (September 1-7)
Inside this issue:
-A preview of the September 3rd Labor Day Rally in Poughkeepsie
-Fred Nagel on MoveOn's Bad Rap
-A report from the August 26th Rally to Defend Women's Rights in New Paltz
-The Tar Sands Blockade Kicks into Action
-Labor Updates from New York, Chicago, and South Africa
-Chapter 8 of Hal Draper's "The Two Souls of Socialism" on 'The 100% American scene'
Featured Article:
Moveon's Bad Rap
by Fred Nagel
While tuning up my guitar for May Day in Union Square, I was approached by a cameraman and two assistants. Would I consent to a filmed interview about the "Guitarmy," the hundreds of guitar players who planned to accompany Tom Morello in the park and then march through lower Manhattan that day?
When I asked what organization they were filming for, they looked at each other in pained silence. Finally one assistant called out to a women standing in the background. "Laura, can we tell him?"
Laura introduced herself as the head of publicity for MoveOn. "We have gotten such a bad rap lately that we don't make a big thing of who we represent," she explained. I did the interview without disputing her analysis.
Every day there is a new e-mail from MoveOn, praising the 99% and attacking the big banks. How is it that an organization that says all the right things is so maligned by the left that their film crew has to operate under cover?
Criticism of MoveOn is not hard to find in the progressive media. The organization has been accused of subverting the Occupy Wall Street movement by stealing its enthusiasm, trying to capture its leadership, and trivializing its message. A number of articles have gone beyond opinion in documenting MoveOn's cozy relationship to the Democratic Party, the ultimate beneficiary of MoveOn's massive e-mail lists. A look at MoveOn's webpage supports such conclusions. Angry about the maldistribution of wealth in America? MoveOn's solution is always a talking point of the Democratic Party, in this case a page devoted to the "Buffet Rule."
The recent "99 Percent Spring" campaign brought a new round of criticism. Named to imply a connection to Occupy Wall Street, the series of "training sessions" was purely a MoveOn event, planned without the type of consensus building that OWS has become known for. The event's timing was also suspect, especially when some liberal periodicals covered it extensively rather than OWS's own May Day rallies.
Does all this condemnation of MoveOn overlook the fact that political parties in the US have always evolved by adopting the ideas of third parties and popular movements? Why can't MoveOn be seen as a highly organized and well funded vehicle for injecting progressive ideas into the Democratic Party? Or at least as a mechanism for pulling candidates to the left?
The problem with this scenario comes down to the ultimate goals of organizations like MoveOn. Third parties and populist movements have almost always been led by people who have actually believed what their organizations were publicly advocating for. MoveOn's decisions are almost always made by influential Democratic Party insiders, whose political goals have been the election of Democratic candidates. In short, MoveOn does a good job in identifying issues like war, economic injustice, and racism in American society, but does a terrible job in advocating for real change. Their answer to all that's wrong with America is to blame Republicans and get out the Democratic vote.
Mario Cuomo's 1996 advice to the Democracy Alliance, a select group millionaire funders of the Democratic Party, bears repeating. Calling the Iraq War "a gift to Democrats" in the next election, Cuomo urged his party to think in terms of "big ideas" in 2008.
Matt Bai, in his book /The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics/, describes what happened next. "An uncomfortable silence hung over the ballroom. No one had yet expressed the situation quite that crassly..."
Why the silence and unease? All the big ticket donors knew that the Democrats had no intention of ending the wars. What was being presented a little two bluntly was a public relations opportunity, not a change in the direction of the country.
In order to understand MoveOn, one must understand that the two party system is all about image and very little about divergent goals for public policy. Perhaps considering the record of Obama as candidate and then as president is most informative. His run for presidency was based on all sort of progressive ideas that were to bring about "change you can believe in" once he was elected. It was Orwellian doublethink; he ran on the very thing he would not do in office, change the direction of the Bush administration. It was all show and no substance.
MoveOn's campaign against the Iraq war mirrored Obama's sellout of the American people. There were endless antiwar vigils called before he was elected. Once he was in office, MoveOn forgot about the wars in the Middle East. That "uncomfortable silence" again.
MoveOn is incapable of changing the Democratic Party simply because it is already of wholly owned subsidiary. It will do nothing to really advocate for social change if that change ultimately threatens Democratic candidates. If we had a functioning media in this country, MoveOn would pay a price for its rank hypocrisy, as would our sitting president. But Obama and MoveOn are impervious to real shame since they are nothing more than publicity campaigns in the first place.
There are a large number of older, more affluent Americans who like to think of themselves as supportive of peace and social justice. That's MoveOn's basic tactic, to encourage progressive talk, but enable liberal Americans to play it safe when it comes to dismantling the system. MoveOn members get to feel good about what they believe in without threatening their social status or spending too much time confronting police in the streets. They dutifully learn to hate Republican and third party candidates, pat solutions that reenforce the status quo.
For real social change to happen, the corporate controlled two party system has to be exposed and resisted. The Occupy Wall Street movement understands this basic truth, while MoveOn works tirelessly to obscure it.
- Fred Nagel, a veteran, is a filmmaker and political activist. A resident of Rhinebeck, New York, he also hosts a show on Vassar College Radio (classwars.org).
Inside this issue:
-A preview of the September 3rd Labor Day Rally in Poughkeepsie
-Fred Nagel on MoveOn's Bad Rap
-A report from the August 26th Rally to Defend Women's Rights in New Paltz
-The Tar Sands Blockade Kicks into Action
-Labor Updates from New York, Chicago, and South Africa
-Chapter 8 of Hal Draper's "The Two Souls of Socialism" on 'The 100% American scene'
Featured Article:
Moveon's Bad Rap
by Fred Nagel
While tuning up my guitar for May Day in Union Square, I was approached by a cameraman and two assistants. Would I consent to a filmed interview about the "Guitarmy," the hundreds of guitar players who planned to accompany Tom Morello in the park and then march through lower Manhattan that day?
When I asked what organization they were filming for, they looked at each other in pained silence. Finally one assistant called out to a women standing in the background. "Laura, can we tell him?"
Laura introduced herself as the head of publicity for MoveOn. "We have gotten such a bad rap lately that we don't make a big thing of who we represent," she explained. I did the interview without disputing her analysis.
Every day there is a new e-mail from MoveOn, praising the 99% and attacking the big banks. How is it that an organization that says all the right things is so maligned by the left that their film crew has to operate under cover?
Criticism of MoveOn is not hard to find in the progressive media. The organization has been accused of subverting the Occupy Wall Street movement by stealing its enthusiasm, trying to capture its leadership, and trivializing its message. A number of articles have gone beyond opinion in documenting MoveOn's cozy relationship to the Democratic Party, the ultimate beneficiary of MoveOn's massive e-mail lists. A look at MoveOn's webpage supports such conclusions. Angry about the maldistribution of wealth in America? MoveOn's solution is always a talking point of the Democratic Party, in this case a page devoted to the "Buffet Rule."
The recent "99 Percent Spring" campaign brought a new round of criticism. Named to imply a connection to Occupy Wall Street, the series of "training sessions" was purely a MoveOn event, planned without the type of consensus building that OWS has become known for. The event's timing was also suspect, especially when some liberal periodicals covered it extensively rather than OWS's own May Day rallies.
Does all this condemnation of MoveOn overlook the fact that political parties in the US have always evolved by adopting the ideas of third parties and popular movements? Why can't MoveOn be seen as a highly organized and well funded vehicle for injecting progressive ideas into the Democratic Party? Or at least as a mechanism for pulling candidates to the left?
The problem with this scenario comes down to the ultimate goals of organizations like MoveOn. Third parties and populist movements have almost always been led by people who have actually believed what their organizations were publicly advocating for. MoveOn's decisions are almost always made by influential Democratic Party insiders, whose political goals have been the election of Democratic candidates. In short, MoveOn does a good job in identifying issues like war, economic injustice, and racism in American society, but does a terrible job in advocating for real change. Their answer to all that's wrong with America is to blame Republicans and get out the Democratic vote.
Mario Cuomo's 1996 advice to the Democracy Alliance, a select group millionaire funders of the Democratic Party, bears repeating. Calling the Iraq War "a gift to Democrats" in the next election, Cuomo urged his party to think in terms of "big ideas" in 2008.
Matt Bai, in his book /The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics/, describes what happened next. "An uncomfortable silence hung over the ballroom. No one had yet expressed the situation quite that crassly..."
Why the silence and unease? All the big ticket donors knew that the Democrats had no intention of ending the wars. What was being presented a little two bluntly was a public relations opportunity, not a change in the direction of the country.
In order to understand MoveOn, one must understand that the two party system is all about image and very little about divergent goals for public policy. Perhaps considering the record of Obama as candidate and then as president is most informative. His run for presidency was based on all sort of progressive ideas that were to bring about "change you can believe in" once he was elected. It was Orwellian doublethink; he ran on the very thing he would not do in office, change the direction of the Bush administration. It was all show and no substance.
MoveOn's campaign against the Iraq war mirrored Obama's sellout of the American people. There were endless antiwar vigils called before he was elected. Once he was in office, MoveOn forgot about the wars in the Middle East. That "uncomfortable silence" again.
MoveOn is incapable of changing the Democratic Party simply because it is already of wholly owned subsidiary. It will do nothing to really advocate for social change if that change ultimately threatens Democratic candidates. If we had a functioning media in this country, MoveOn would pay a price for its rank hypocrisy, as would our sitting president. But Obama and MoveOn are impervious to real shame since they are nothing more than publicity campaigns in the first place.
There are a large number of older, more affluent Americans who like to think of themselves as supportive of peace and social justice. That's MoveOn's basic tactic, to encourage progressive talk, but enable liberal Americans to play it safe when it comes to dismantling the system. MoveOn members get to feel good about what they believe in without threatening their social status or spending too much time confronting police in the streets. They dutifully learn to hate Republican and third party candidates, pat solutions that reenforce the status quo.
For real social change to happen, the corporate controlled two party system has to be exposed and resisted. The Occupy Wall Street movement understands this basic truth, while MoveOn works tirelessly to obscure it.
- Fred Nagel, a veteran, is a filmmaker and political activist. A resident of Rhinebeck, New York, he also hosts a show on Vassar College Radio (classwars.org).
No comments:
Post a Comment