Carl Davidson : Occupied Wall Street and the Emergence of a Popular Front

Photo by Emily Laermer / Crain’s.

We shall not be moved!
A report from occupied Wall Street:

A new popular front against finance capital, encompassing a progressive majority of the country, is beginning to take shape.

By Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog / October 19, 2011

NEW YORK — Riding the New York City subways in a rush hour is always an adventure. But experiencing the crowds of people on the downtown train to Wall St at 5:30 a.m., Friday Oct 14, 2011, was a special treat. The closer we got to the financial district, the more workers with union jackets poured into the cars, in a militant and upbeat mood, ready to assert their power.

I was in town for a speaking engagement at a union hall the night before, when our small group got the word of an email blast from the national AFL-CIO, saying, “Everyone who can, get down to Wall Street by 6 a.m. We’re going to block Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to evict the protestors with the police.” The after-meeting chatter ended quickly, since we knew we needed to get some sleep for a long day ahead.

It was still pitch dark as we climbed out of the Wall Street station. We could hear the noise from Zuccotti Park, but batches of cops were everywhere, putting up barricades as a kind of obstacle course. I was with Pat Fry and Anne Mitchell, both SEIU staffers and leaders of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

“Goodness, look at all the media,” said Pat, noting the hundreds of reporters, together with vans and cranes erecting their cameras. When we got to the park it was jam-packed with more than 1,000 young people, mostly sitting in the dark with arms linked. The incoming thousands of supporters from labor and the general public began encircling the park until they were about three deep in front of the wall all around it.

Anne spotted an open space on the wall. “Let’s get up here,” she said, as we each got a hand lifting us into position.

From our vantage point, even in the darkness, we could see an inspiring but intense scene unfolding. The police had paddy wagons and empty buses for mass arrests trying to find positions, but getting blocked by traffic. Every few minutes, hundreds more emerged from the subway stations as additional trains rolled in. You could tell who was there from the jackets, caps, and t-shirts — Teamsters, SEIU, the Transit Workers Union, and many more.

“No way there’s going to be an eviction,” I said to my partners. “The cops are way outnumbered and outmaneuvered. All they can do is teargas the entire plaza, but then what? That would create a fight shutting down the entire financial district. They’re not ready for it yet.”

Inside the park, an amazingly ordered but still spontaneous “General Assembly” was underway. The “human microphone” was in play, a technique developed to counter situations where amplified sound equipment was banned. A speaker would shout out a relatively short statement, and then it would be re-shouted in turn by the dozens around him or her, and re-shouted again by much of the crowd, aiming their voices out into the streets. The only limitation is that you have to speak and pause as if you’re being translated, but it’s English-to-louder-English.

The speeches were intermixed with call-and-response chants. “Tell me what democracy looks like?” was met with the return roar, “This is what democracy looks like!” When someone wants to speak from different part of the park, they yell out “Mike check!” and when it gets repeated loudly enough by 20 or so people, they get their turn, and at any given spot, there will be a “stack” of people lined up with something to say, managed by a “stack-keeper.” For this dramatic period at least, it worked beautifully.

Finally one speaker yelled out, “We’ve finally got the official word. At a meeting just a few hours ago, the city agreed to postpone the eviction. We’ve won!” The occupiers were jubilant — and even a good number of cops seem relieved. Soon after the announcement, one speaker was a member of New York’s City Council. “You need to hear that you have more friends than you know about inside the council!” In other words, the mass pressure from below forced a split, and now there was a crack in the ceiling to be taken advantage of by the occupiers.

We stood on the wall for another hour or so, listening to a few speeches but mainly talking with friends and comrades who spotted us on our perch. Jay and Judith Schaffner, retired unionists, had driven in from the Poconos, and reported on what was happening even in the small towns of Northeastern Pennsylvania. Many activists with New York City’s Labor Left Project stopped by, as did people we knew from the Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party, USA.

A good number of veterans from the old SDS of the 1960s came up and said hello. “We’re everywhere!” I noted with a smile. I also had a surprising number of young people I’ve never met come up and say, “Hi! I’m one of your Facebook Friends!” The new media seemed to be working well.

By this time the gray light of dawn arrived. Some people were leaving the square to go to work while more were still arriving. “I don’t know about you guys, but I need some coffee and a serious breakfast,” said Anne. We agreed, jumped down, made our way through the police lines to one of New York’s ubiquitous coffee shops. Over our eggs and sausage, we discussed the meaning of it all before Pat and Anne had to get to work.

In choosing Wall Street as their target, and taking direct action defined by moral clarity against a range of injustices, the young occupiers had opened up a new public sphere. It was a dynamic and flexible political space open to all whose issues, demands, hopes and dreams had been swept “off the table.”

An arrogant and dismissive ruling class, determined to impose more neoliberal austerity and longer wars, was in for a rude awakening. If those at the top thought the bottled up frustration and rage of millions at the bottom “had nowhere to go,” they were now facing this new insurgency in the streets.

Young people in the 1960s had acted as a critical force, holding up a mirror to the rest of society, prodding it to respond. The Black student sit-ins in the Deep South were a prime example, as were the anti-war students on the campuses and the young alienated GIs returning from Vietnam.

But this new insurgency was different in important ways. First, the “long wars” had fed a deep crisis abroad, feeding both the Arab Spring “square” occupations and a long-frustrated antiwar majority at home. Second, the financial crisis had alienated millions in the working class and other strata in a deep way.

The labor upsurges in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio revealed an angry discontent in the U.S. heartland. So instead of taking years of “critical force” protests to create and awaken a progressive majority, the young occupiers rather quickly found that they had large and important allies.

That was evident in the rapid support they received from Leo Gerard of the Steelworkers, from Richard Trumka speaking for the AFL-CIO, from the 20,000 workers mobilized by New York’s unions in a solidarity march a week ago, and finally, from this morning’s dramatic intervention blocking the eviction. An important new alliance between a radicalizing youth movement and the more progressive wing of organized labor has been forged in the streets — and it was ongoing and open-ended.

It also didn’t stop with labor. A number of city councils across the country, themselves suffering at the hands of Wall Street-imposed neoliberal cutback policies, passed resolutions and spoke up in defense of the occupiers. Others equivocated, and tried to restrict and disperse the actions, resulting in nearly 1,000 arrests across the country.

Electoral groups like the Progressive Democrats of America urged its members to go ‘all out’ in support of the occupations, and PDA’s allies — Bernie Sanders in the Senate and the Progressive Caucus in the House — also spoke up. Even Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, gave her support. And while President Obama didn’t go that far, he tipped his hat to the effort, acknowledging the validity of “their concerns.”

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka visits Occupy Wall Street protest. Photo by Pat Ivers / consortiumnews.com.

A new popular front emerging

The implications of all this are deep, complex, and strategic. A new popular front against finance capital, encompassing a progressive majority of the country, is beginning to take shape. It is emerging against the neoliberal intransigence on Wall Street, against the GOP-dominated Congress, and against a White House that too frequently conciliates with the right wing of both parties. It brings together many demands, many voices, and several contending platforms, but all aimed against a common adversary — the “99 percent versus the one percent,” the most popular theme in the protests that sums it up.

After breakfast, I headed back to the park to spend a few hours talking to people and taking it all in. There was a lot of activity reassembling the different facilities of the occupiers that had been taken down the day before to sweep and scrub the occupied zone. The Mayor had been using the sham excuse of “unsanitary conditions” as to why he was going to clear the area. “If the Mayor was serious about this,” said one young guy with a broom, “he’d give us the porta-johns and dumpsters we’ve been asking for since we started. But they’re still refusing, so we do the best we can.”

The cleanup was actually very good. A large number of young people were also by now sleeping in the various sections of the park. They had covered their spaces with tarps and folded cardboard signs that doubled as sleeping pads for their sleeping bags. They had been up all night and were exhausted. All the sleeping was out in the open since the city had banned tents in the area, as well as amplified sound.

Not that the sound restriction mattered all that much. On the west end on the square was a huge drummer’s circle with about a dozen people beating out a constant background of rhythms. The styles changed as one cultural grouping took over the drums from another — African American, Puerto Rican, Jamaican, women, white rockers, and various mixtures of all sorts. The drone was actually a pleasant background, creating an energized atmosphere.

You could tell that many protestors were from a new and fresh layer of young activists. The reason? Four huge American flags were constantly being waved over the drummers. There were also a few red flags, an Earth flag, and several rainbow flags — but in a more seasoned left event, especially with a large proportion of anarchists, the American flags would not likely be there.

The youth also seemed quite diverse. There was one small “Class War” corner with several dozen kids dressed mainly in black, other areas with kids mainly in tie-dyed shirts, and even one young man, very busily engaged in cleaning up the area, was dressed in his full Eagle Scout uniform, complete with all his merit badges.

The matter of ‘demands’

The media pundits had been criticizing Occupy Wall Street (OWS) for not having a set of specific demands. Rather the occupiers were simply underscoring vast inequalities and demanding a new world.

What the pundits ignored was the fact that one reason the movement was resonating so deeply with wider circles of people was that all decent demands made over the last few years — ending the wars, Medicare for all, full employment legislation, and especially the demand to fund all reforms with a financial transaction tax on Wall Street speculators — had all been rejected, declared “off the table,” and not even allowed to come to a vote in Congress and other government bodies.

In any case, OWS actually had come up with a long list of indictments, which were widely circulated on the internet, even if they were ignored in the higher circles of power.

I spotted two students standing on the wall holding up a cardboard sign — “Education with Debt Is Not Justice! It Never Will Be!” — and struck up a conversation. They were burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and weren’t nearly finished with school yet.

“What’s the difference between then and now?” one asked me, about being a student in the 1960s. My tuition at Penn State, I explained, was about $1,500 a year and I could survive for a term on $500 for room and board, which I could make with my campus job as a janitor. If I took off to run around the country organizing against the war, no one’s mortgage was at stake.

Today’s students have to deal with $15-20,000 per year, a severe hardship for many, and a strong motivator behind the “Occupy!” movement.

But the occupiers were interested in everything, not just their own situation. There were several discussion circles of a dozen or so people going on simultaneously. Stopping by one, the topic was radical movements in Latin America. At another, the subject of militarism and the defense budget was being dissected. At still another, a small group of Ron Paul libertarians were trying to hold up under a barrage of friendly criticism.

Once you had an overview, it was clear that everything was fairly well organized. Right in the middle of the park were two long black chalkboards, propping each other up back to back. On one side was the entire schedule for housekeeping tasks — cleanup, food, dealing with the media, medical issues, and so on. On the other side was a timetable for various events and speakers, workshop times and topics, and the times of the daily General Assembly.

Next to the schedule blackboards was the food pantry. At the center was a can for money donations, along with a suggestion to bring canned goods and fresh fruit. One might get an odd variety of things to make up a meal, but if you were broke, the price was right. All along one side of the park was a line of lunch wagon trucks selling a variety of things. “What’s best?,” I asked someone who looked like he had been there a while. “The guy with the falafel truck. Awesome!”

The cleanup section, logically, was next to the food. Here were four large plastic bins with soapy and clear water to keep utensils and dishes sanitary. Lugging the water in and out was a chore, but it otherwise worked fairly well. Finally, next to that, was the first aid station, with a variety of bandages and such. “What’s been your most serious medical problem?” I queried. “Pepper spray burns by far, after the confrontation with the cops last week.”

The struggle continues

In the days ahead, the flexible plan seems to be to send out forays of marching demonstrators, of varying sizes, to assorted targets around the city, while keeping Zuccotti Park as a more secure base area. Today one relatively small group headed further south toward Battery Park, taking over the center of a street, but they got dispersed by the cops, and a few were arrested.

The following day, Saturday, saw a huge victory rally of tens of thousands in Times Square. One group, trapped on a side street by irate cops who wanted the street cleared, ended up with about 70 being arrested. But the kids are becoming more streetwise, now avoiding situations like last week where about 700 got trapped in a police net on the Brooklyn Bridge and were carted off to jail.

What happens next will depend a lot on vigilance, organizing skill, and the relation of forces. One ominous report in the news revealed the gradual buildup of a huge encampment of militarized police, with different sub zones encircling the entire Wall Street area. But through their determination, planning and audacity, fanning the flames of discontent, OWS has already scored a tremendous victory.

Similar actions are now taking place in over 500 cities around the world, and in nearly every major city and state capital in the U.S. In one month, they have changed the political conversation in all sectors, putting finance capital on the defensive at least tactically.

The latest opinion polls show a majority of Americans are supporting them to one degree or another, revealing the deep class divide between Main Street and Wall Street. If there’s any attempt to shut down any of the hundreds of occupations by force, a much wider and deeper solidarity effort is likely to emerge.

[Carl Davidson is a national co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a national board member of Solidarity Economy Network, a writer for Beaver County Blue, the website of PA’s 4th CD Progressive Democrats of America, and a member of Steelworkers Associates. He is the author of several books, including New Paths to Socialism, available online. In the 1960s, he was a national leader of SDS and a writer and editor for the Guardian newsweekly. This article was also published on Carl’s blog, Keep On Keepin’ On. Read more articles by Carl Davidson on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Alyssa Burgin : Cronyism, Corruption, and the Keystone XL Pipeline

Don’t mess with Texas. Photo by Jon McLaughlin / National Resources Defense Council.

‘Regulatory capture’:
Cronyism and corruption in the

Keystone XL Pipeline approval process

By Alyssa Burgin / The Rag Blog / October 19, 2011

AUSTIN — On November 6, 2011, thousands of environmentalists — and people who never thought of themselves as environmentalists — will join together to encircle the White House.

Nebraska farmers, Alberta tribal elders, Texas lumbermen, and young adults from everywhere who understand that their very future is at risk — these and many more will present their symbolic plea to President Obama: do not approve the permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is set to transport crude mined from the Alberta, Canada, tar sands to Port Arthur, Texas.

This protest represents the final link in a chain of events that have embroiled the State Department, charged by law with recommending a “Yay” or “Nay” to the President, in a swirl of corruption allegations. Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed an overly cozy relationship between the pipeline contractor, TransCanada, and the State Department, exemplified by Hillary Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, Paul Elliott, being hired by the company as its chief lobbyist.

It was he who facilitated what should have been flagged as an astoundingly blatant conflict-of-interest, and therefore, he who prompts this exploration of “regulatory capture.”

For those who might not be familiar with the phrase, regulatory capture is the process by which regulators — in this instance, the State Department — lose track of their responsibilities, and grow to identify with, and therefore protect, those whom they are tasked with regulating.

It occurs on every level; it’s the municipal code inspector accepting the plumber’s invitation to go fishing on his new bass boat — and subsequently failing to flag his substandard shower drain, because, after all, they’re “buds.” What occurred at the State Department was not all that different, and certainly no less calculated; influence was purchased, and “we the people” were harmed.

The extent of that harm has yet to be determined. What is known is that the State Department chose a subcontractor to conduct public meetings, compile comments, produce both environmental and historical-preservation impact studies, create a website, and collect citizens’ emails on the topic; incredibly, they asked TransCanada to make a recommendation, and when they came up with Cardno ENTRIX, their own long-time subcontractor, already under fire for its inadequate environmental damage assessments, there were no objections.

There was no surprise, either, when the Federal Environmental Impact Statement found “no adverse effects.”

Jackelin Trevino of Austin speaks out against the Keystone XL pipeline. Photo by Ricardo B. Brazziell / Austin American-Statesman.

What followed should have been a serious discussion on the wisdom of transporting corrosive tar-sands oil across the Canadian border, through major aquifers and reservoirs, across sensitive archaeological sites, and into drought-ravaged forests and the Gulf Coast.

Climatologists could have offered their expertise on the toxicity of emissions from the dirty oil that will be refined from this resource; hydrologists could have explained that the amount of water required in the refinery process makes it a product that drought-stricken Texas can ill afford. Energy experts could have explained that this oil would not make the U.S. energy-independent, that in fact, the oil is to be sold on world markets. And academics could have offerred a far different assessment of the number of jobs that will be gained than what TransCanada has been claiming.

But other than the voices raised by the hundreds of environmentalists, including several noted scientists who were arrested in summer protests outside the White House, there was far too little examination of the consequences. In public hearings held in places like Port Arthur and Austin, pipeline supporters in brightly colored t-shirts were bussed in from around the country and paid for their time.

Their outbursts rapidly turned the Port Arthur hearing into a pep rally, and their domination of available time reduced others’ speaking opportunities. And Cardno ENTRIX? Their employees registered speakers, kept time clocks, recorded the proceedings, and generally made it clear that they were in charge. A State Department employee seemed a mere symbolic presence as she robotically smiled and thanked speakers.

The Austin hearing lacked much of the cheerleading, but it produced its own controversies in the manner in which it allotted citizens time to speak. A so-called elected official, actually a recent Perry appointee, was allowed to speak ahead of others, and yet dozens of citizens who had stood in line for hours were never given an opportunity.

One man was arrested for protesting — and for speaking the truth — about Cardno ENTRIX’s involvement.

The hearing in the nation’s capital brought out additional facts about this developing cronyism scandal, and about the parts played by TransCanada and the State Department. At that late date, it was merely an afterthought. The fix seems to be in. But many questions remain, chief among them — will President Obama cut through the web of lies spun by proponents of the pipeline? Will he vote with the people, and against the greedy interests of Big Oil — and take action against this latest example of regulatory capture that is strangling our democracy?

We must take action as Americans to ensure that he does. As noted climatologist Dr. James Hansen has said, it will be “game over” for the next generations to mitigate the disaster that is climate change if this project is approved. To give our children and grandchildren a chance to live out their lives, we have to end this threat to their future, and to the future of the planet. It’s truly now, or never.

[Alyssa Burgin is the Executive Director of The Texas Drought Project. She attended the Port Arthur, Austin, and Washington, D.C. hearings. She asks that all readers call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 and prevail upon the President to say NO.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Bernardine Dorhn: Never the Good Girl, Not Then, not Now

An Interview with The Rag Blog

By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog

Bernardine Dohrn will be Thorne Dreyer’s guest on Rag Radio on KOOP 91.7-FM (and streamed live on the Internet), Friday, Oct. 21, 2011, 2-3 p.m. (CDT). Also, go here to listen to Thorne Dreyer’s Oct. 7, 2011, Rag Radio interview with author/activist Jonah Raskin.

Who doesn’t have a reaction to the name and the reputation of Bernadine Dohrn? Is there anyone over the age of 60 who doesn’t remember her role at the outrageous Days of Rage demonstrations, her picture on FBI “wanted posters,” or her dramatic surrender to law enforcement officials in Chicago after a decade as a fugitive?

To former members of SDS, anti-war activists, Yippies, Black Panthers, White Panthers, women’s liberationists, along with students and scholars of Weatherman and the Weather Underground, she probably needs no introduction.

Sam Green featured her in his award-winning 2002 film, The Weather Underground. Todd Gitlin added to her iconic stature in his benchmark cultural history, The Sixties, though he was never on her side of the ideological splits or she on his. Dozens of books about the long decade of defiance have documented and mythologized Dohrn’s role as an American radical. Of course, her flamboyant husband and long-time partner, Bill Ayers, has been at her side for decades, aiding and abetting her much of the time, and adding to her legendary renown and notoriety.

Born in 1942, and a diligent student at the University of Chicago, she attended law school there and in the late 1960s “stepped out of the role of the good girl,” as she once put it. She has never really stepped back into it again, though she’s been a wife, a mother, and a professional woman for more years than she was a street fighting woman.

Since 1991, she has served as the director of the Children and Family Justice Center at the Northwestern University School of Law. At the same time, she has never been admitted to the bar in any state in the United States and has never practiced law. Her past might not haunt her, but it certainly has haunted character committees established by the legal profession to keep lawyers in line.

I first met Dohrn in the late 1960s when she worked for the National Lawyers Guild, and from afar began to follow her radical activities as reported in underground newspapers. It wasn’t until she was on the lam, a fugitive, and went by the name Molly that I spent days with her in discussion and debate about all the global and local issues of the 1970s, and began to see the woman behind the image.

She turned out to be much more vulnerable, nuanced and sensitive than I had been led to believe. Since then, I have heard her speak at conferences, visited her in Chicago, and continued our conversation that began more than 40-years ago.

I don’t know any other woman of her generation who has been as controversial, as optimistic and hopeful, and as committed to what I’d have to call “political struggle” as she. The word alacrity fits her better than any other single word in my vocabulary.

While many of the men around her — her husband, Bill Ayers, her former Weatherman comrade, Mark Rudd, and her own son, Zayd — have written accounts of their experiences in, around, and after the revolution, Dohrn never has and perhaps never will. Probably someday someone will write her biography and attempt to reconcile what The New York Times described, in an article about her published in 1993, as “the seeming contradictions” in her life.

That author might also attempt to show how her own personal contradictions have reflected the larger contradictions of the society to which she belongs and at the same time has opposed, confronted, and aimed to reform as well as overturn. On the cusp of her 70th birthday, I asked her if she’d be willing to be interviewed. “Sure,” she said without missing a beat. “Love to have a reason to be in touch with you.”

A Rag Blog interview with Bernardine Dohrn:

What would you say is the predominant thread that runs through your life?

The great good fortune to have come of age at a time of revolutionary upheaval at home and abroad, which opened a path to lifelong justice and antiwar activism. The equally predominant thread is the joy and challenge of raising our children and now, grandchildren.

Why is 2011 not 1968?

U.S. economic and social domination of the world is now obviously declining, although fierce military dominance continues to exercise a cruel grip. We now know that the damage done to the planet from unlimited plunder and exhaustion of oil, coal and non-renewable resources may not be reversible. That reality weighs more heavily, perhaps, than the bomb in our childhood. As Dr. King said in 1967 — “the greatest purveyor of violence on this earth is my own country.” That gives us all a great responsibility.

How do you think living and working in Chicago has shaped you?

I’m such a Midwest gal, summer lightening over the lake, city-stopping snowstorms, the spirits of Ida B. Wells Barnett, Jane Addams, Clarence Darrow, Gwendolyn Brooks, Studs Terkel — all the real deal, unpretentious and intrepid. Always an immigrant city but characterized by Black and white, and now Chicago has one million Mexican-Americans, plus newcomers from everywhere. Here, you can make a difference. Visiting the coasts and the south is essential but this is home.

What are your main impressions of Occupy Wall Street?

Smart, savvy, horizontal, participatory, resisting leaders, spokespeople and demands, growing, listening, innovative and zesty. I’m in!

How have your feelings about Obama changed over the past four years?

The President was and remains a centrist, intelligent, compromising politician, first in Illinois and since in DC. As the highly financed hard right, finance titans and the military machine have gained influence and consolidated power, politicians who try to occupy the center move right. Howard Zinn explains it perfectly, writing about JFK.

In what ways does this generation of protesters remind you of yourself and the young rebels of the 1960s?

They are smarter, more global, curious, courageous and diverse, and open to elders at the get-go. But yes, they do remind me of our generation in their determination to act, to make meaning, to be smitten and inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, Madison and Greece but to be local, to make art by shifting the frame of the possible.

Once upon a time we read Che, Mao, Marx, and Malcolm. Who do you read now that gives you insights and inspiration?

Vijay Prashad, Barbara Ransby, Adam Green, Martha Biondi, Grace Lee Boggs, Rashid Khalidi, James Bell, Charles Dickens. Lots of murder mysteries and spy novels.

What lessons about an underground organization do you think are worth remembering now?

I have no idea. Maybe that what looks invincible and dominant can be also vulnerable.

Sexism, racism, imperialism seem awfully powerful today. What differences, if any did we make on the society?

We helped remind people that white supremacy is tenacious, takes new forms, and has not been uprooted. The big “we” could not end the Vietnam War, but our resistance helped limit U.S. military intervention options from 1975-1990. Ditto modest constraints on the FBI and CIA, totally unleashed since 9/11. And our progeny have transformed the world we know: women, LGBTQ, Native Americans, the disabled, environmental activists, new stirrings among labor.

Why do you think Americans are so docile and so deferential to the 1% that owns 99% of the wealth?

Not docile, I don’t think. Mad, cheated, scared, self-doubting, and envious. But also poking fun, using humor to ridicule the 1%, savvy about the naked theft. The trick is to avoid cynicism. Ordinary people have the wisdom but they don’t know they have the power.

You’re about to celebrate your 70th birthday. How has aging surprised you?

Are we really still on our feet? Aren’t you 35 Jonah?

I never understood why so many 1960s radicals became lawyers and judges. Can you explain that for me?

Lawyers, teachers and midwives, I thought. Because we needed great lawyers and we cared about justice. Law’s a great place from which to fight the power. I still love our work of representing individual youth accused of crime and delinquency and working to downsize, close and abolish the mass incarceration/prison system.

What is your most vivid memory of the 1960s?

Meeting with the Vietnamese in Budapest and Cuba. Grasping the gravity of our location and our responsibility.

Jonah Raskin is a regular contributor to the Rag Blog and a professor at Sonoma State University.

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Bernardine Dorhn: Never the Good Girl, Not Then, not Now

An Interview with The Rag Blog

By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog

Bernardine Dohrn will be Thorne Dreyer‘s guest on Rag Radio on KOOP 91.7-FM (and streamed live on the Internet), Friday, Oct. 21, 2011, 2-3 p.m. (CDT). Also, go here to listen to Thorne Dreyer’s Oct. 7, 2011, Rag Radio interview with author/activist Jonah Raskin.

Who doesn’t have a reaction to the name and the reputation of Bernadine Dohrn? Is there anyone over the age of 60 who doesn’t remember her role at the outrageous Days of Rage demonstrations, her picture on FBI “wanted posters,” or her dramatic surrender to law enforcement officials in Chicago after a decade as a fugitive?

To former members of SDS, anti-war activists, Yippies, Black Panthers, White Panthers, women’s liberationists, along with students and scholars of Weatherman and the Weather Underground, she probably needs no introduction.

Sam Green featured her in his award-winning 2002 film, The Weather Underground. Todd Gitlin added to her iconic stature in his benchmark cultural history, The Sixties, though he was never on her side of the ideological splits or she on his. Dozens of books about the long decade of defiance have documented and mythologized Dohrn’s role as an American radical. Of course, her flamboyant husband and long-time partner, Bill Ayers, has been at her side for decades, aiding and abetting her much of the time, and adding to her legendary renown and notoriety.

Born in 1942, and a diligent student at the University of Chicago, she attended law school there and in the late 1960s “stepped out of the role of the good girl,” as she once put it. She has never really stepped back into it again, though she’s been a wife, a mother, and a professional woman for more years than she was a street fighting woman.

Since 1991, she has served as the director of the Children and Family Justice Center at the Northwestern University School of Law. At the same time, she has never been admitted to the bar in any state in the United States and has never practiced law. Her past might not haunt her, but it certainly has haunted character committees established by the legal profession to keep lawyers in line.

I first met Dohrn in the late 1960s when she worked for the National Lawyers Guild, and from afar began to follow her radical activities as reported in underground newspapers. It wasn’t until she was on the lam, a fugitive, and went by the name Molly that I spent days with her in discussion and debate about all the global and local issues of the 1970s, and began to see the woman behind the image.

She turned out to be much more vulnerable, nuanced and sensitive than I had been led to believe. Since then, I have heard her speak at conferences, visited her in Chicago, and continued our conversation that began more than 40-years ago.

I don’t know any other woman of her generation who has been as controversial, as optimistic and hopeful, and as committed to what I’d have to call “political struggle” as she. The word alacrity fits her better than any other single word in my vocabulary.

While many of the men around her — her husband, Bill Ayers, her former Weatherman comrade, Mark Rudd, and her own son, Zayd — have written accounts of their experiences in, around, and after the revolution, Dohrn never has and perhaps never will. Probably someday someone will write her biography and attempt to reconcile what The New York Times described, in an article about her published in 1993, as “the seeming contradictions” in her life.

That author might also attempt to show how her own personal contradictions have reflected the larger contradictions of the society to which she belongs and at the same time has opposed, confronted, and aimed to reform as well as overturn. On the cusp of her 70th birthday, I asked her if she’d be willing to be interviewed. “Sure,” she said without missing a beat. “Love to have a reason to be in touch with you.”

A Rag Blog interview with Bernardine Dohrn:

What would you say is the predominant thread that runs through your life?

The great good fortune to have come of age at a time of revolutionary upheaval at home and abroad, which opened a path to lifelong justice and antiwar activism. The equally predominant thread is the joy and challenge of raising our children and now, grandchildren.

Why is 2011 not 1968?

U.S. economic and social domination of the world is now obviously declining, although fierce military dominance continues to exercise a cruel grip. We now know that the damage done to the planet from unlimited plunder and exhaustion of oil, coal and non-renewable resources may not be reversible. That reality weighs more heavily, perhaps, than the bomb in our childhood. As Dr. King said in 1967 — “the greatest purveyor of violence on this earth is my own country.” That gives us all a great responsibility.

How do you think living and working in Chicago has shaped you?

I’m such a Midwest gal, summer lightening over the lake, city-stopping snowstorms, the spirits of Ida B. Wells Barnett, Jane Addams, Clarence Darrow, Gwendolyn Brooks, Studs Terkel — all the real deal, unpretentious and intrepid. Always an immigrant city but characterized by Black and white, and now Chicago has one million Mexican-Americans, plus newcomers from everywhere. Here, you can make a difference. Visiting the coasts and the south is essential but this is home.

What are your main impressions of Occupy Wall Street?

Smart, savvy, horizontal, participatory, resisting leaders, spokespeople and demands, growing, listening, innovative and zesty. I’m in!

How have your feelings about Obama changed over the past four years?

The President was and remains a centrist, intelligent, compromising politician, first in Illinois and since in DC. As the highly financed hard right, finance titans and the military machine have gained influence and consolidated power, politicians who try to occupy the center move right. Howard Zinn explains it perfectly, writing about JFK.

In what ways does this generation of protesters remind you of yourself and the young rebels of the 1960s?

They are smarter, more global, curious, courageous and diverse, and open to elders at the get-go. But yes, they do remind me of our generation in their determination to act, to make meaning, to be smitten and inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, Madison and Greece but to be local, to make art by shifting the frame of the possible.

Once upon a time we read Che, Mao, Marx, and Malcolm. Who do you read now that gives you insights and inspiration?

Vijay Prashad, Barbara Ransby, Adam Green, Martha Biondi, Grace Lee Boggs, Rashid Khalidi, James Bell, Charles Dickens. Lots of murder mysteries and spy novels.

What lessons about an underground organization do you think are worth remembering now?

I have no idea. Maybe that what looks invincible and dominant can be also vulnerable.

Sexism, racism, imperialism seem awfully powerful today. What differences, if any did we make on the society?

We helped remind people that white supremacy is tenacious, takes new forms, and has not been uprooted. The big “we” could not end the Vietnam War, but our resistance helped limit U.S. military intervention options from 1975-1990. Ditto modest constraints on the FBI and CIA, totally unleashed since 9/11. And our progeny have transformed the world we know: women, LGBTQ, Native Americans, the disabled, environmental activists, new stirrings among labor.

Why do you think Americans are so docile and so deferential to the 1% that owns 99% of the wealth?

Not docile, I don’t think. Mad, cheated, scared, self-doubting, and envious. But also poking fun, using humor to ridicule the 1%, savvy about the naked theft. The trick is to avoid cynicism. Ordinary people have the wisdom but they don’t know they have the power.

You’re about to celebrate your 70th birthday. How has aging surprised you?

Are we really still on our feet? Aren’t you 35 Jonah?

I never understood why so many 1960s radicals became lawyers and judges. Can you explain that for me?

Lawyers, teachers and midwives, I thought. Because we needed great lawyers and we cared about justice. Law’s a great place from which to fight the power. I still love our work of representing individual youth accused of crime and delinquency and working to downsize, close and abolish the mass incarceration/prison system.

What is your most vivid memory of the 1960s?

Meeting with the Vietnamese in Budapest and Cuba. Grasping the gravity of our location and our responsibility.

Jonah Raskin is a regular contributor to the Rag Blog and a professor at Sonoma State University.

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Greg Moses : Even Weather Turns Spiritual at Occupy Austin

General Assembly at Occupy Austin. Photo from Occupy Austin.

Even the weather turns spiritual:
Onward through the storms at Occupy Austin

As Occupy Austin entered its second week, organizers were looking more rested, wholesome, happy, and relaxed as they mixed themselves into the festival of people…

By Greg Moses / The Rag Blog / October 19, 2011

AUSTIN — For Bernice King the timing of things must be spiritual. There must have been a reason she says for Hurricane Irene to move in on the August schedule and force a delay to October so that when the monument to her father was officially unveiled Sunday, it would be presented to a nation properly prepared.

For Martin the Third, time also seemed to flow spiritually from the season of his father’s death right into the economic justice movements that are springing into view across the globe inspired by Occupy Wall Street. It was an economic justice movement that occupied Martin Luther King, Jr. the day he took his last fall.

Occupying the only memorial on the National Mall not dedicated to a president or a war, the stone-hewn image of our beloved American prophet transfixes our national conscience upon renewed possibilities. Tourists banned from the Washington monument due to earthquake damage will be compelled more than ever to stop looking at where we came from and go find out where we’re going.

The weather in Texas also had been holding out. Sunny skies greeted the opening-day festival for Occupy Austin on Thursday, October 6, and stayed for the sidewalk picket of Bank of America that Friday. When the storms finally hit Austin on the second Saturday of October they broke the harshest season of heat and drought on record, pouring down their pent-up refreshments all over the first weekend of Occupy Austin.

It wasn’t an easy night for Occupy Austin organizers who showed up to the matinee edition of Sunday’s General Assembly with fatigue and desperation barely contained. What they needed was unity right away. But the thing about real organizing work is that you don’t get what you need when you think you need it most. And so you learn in real time how to stretch yourself across an abyss because somehow it still seems easier than falling apart.

What was most interesting about the first stormy weekend of Occupy Austin had to do with the issue that churned this predominantly white movement nearly to early dissipation. It was the issue of the indigenous peoples and what any real economic justice movement should do about that?

Although the Occupy Austin General Assembly had passed a resolution in support of indigenous peoples on that stormy first Saturday, it was an expensive lesson in the deep-rootedness of all problems American. And for weary organizers who showed up for Sunday’s aftermath, there was a real fear expressed that the occupation might have already seen its last hour.

So it wasn’t an easy meeting up at the City Hall amphitheater, where the west-side railings were still wrapped in black plastic as an improv windbreak. But eventually things worked out. A set of Unity Principles was adopted that would keep the compass of Occupy Austin fixed upon its “true North” purpose as an action guided by the example of Occupy Wall Street.

On Columbus Day, a banking holiday in America, the indigenous movement staged a symbolic protest outside Bank of America and then rallied at the Texas Capitol against a half millennium of occupation. On the Saturday after Columbus Day, the 9th Annual Indigenous People’s march stepped off from the Alamo, joined by folks from Occupy San Antonio.

Meanwhile city officials from Austin to New York were working out their own unity principles, and their word of the week was “sanitation.” On Wall Street the sanitation issue became international news and city officials backed down from their ultimatum that the occupied park should be cleared for proper cleaning. In Austin a few arrests were reported during the sanitation action, but the movement was too young and sparse to make much of an issue out of it.

As Occupy Austin entered its second week this past Friday, October 14, organizers were looking more rested, wholesome, happy, and relaxed as they mixed themselves into the festival of people that array themselves around the Guitar Cow at City Hall Plaza. On my third visit to the occupation I still count more than 100 participants, about 40 of them beginning to look like regulars.

Folks sit up in the amphitheater, hold signs along Cesar Chavez St., mill about the stone plaza, or arrange themselves into small groups on the limited grassy area near Lavaca St. Huddled up against the East side of the amphitheater is another tiny patch of grass that supports knee-high stone blocks. This is where some of the more “official” occupation activities take place, like a food table, an info table, or a small organizing meeting.

On the second Friday of the occupation around 5:30 p.m. about a dozen mostly young folks are discussing strategies of nonviolent communication. This is a survival skill for the occupation movement as any casual visitor to a General Assembly will see. Either this movement will be able to organize itself through group discussions or it will fall apart.

And this is worth remarking in our age of social media. What all the Facebook, cell phone, text message, and Twitter technology has created here is an electrifying need for face-to-face solidarity.

Among the dozen participants who hold handouts at this nonviolence workshop, you don’t hear the usual questions such as what’s nonviolent communication got to do with me? Instead you hear voices who are up to their necks in the need for this skill, and you listen to questions eager to understand how it works.

Just as I’m catching the flow of discussion about the distinction between a request and a demand, up comes a visitor to the occupation who wants to know if we are anti-corporation.

A young man who I recognize as an organizer points to the sky in a gesture that appears to signal something like hey dude that’s not what we’re here to discuss, but one of the facilitators of this workshop checks him with a glance before addressing the questioner.

“How does it make you feel when you hear the words anti-corporation?”

“It pisses me off.”

“When you think about the corporations that you are familiar with, do you think of them as addressing the kinds of problems that we are here to solve?”

No. Clearly our questioner has a lot of corporate experience and he shares with us his mental checklist. One by one, we listen to him tell us how none of the corporations that he knows personally could be counted on to join this movement for economic justice. They all have something else in mind.

“Well, we’re here discussing nonviolence,” says the facilitator.

“I grew up with nonviolence,” says the questioner, a remark that sort of calls attention to his Black skin.

“Nonviolence?” says a white guy who is walking his bicycle through the occupation. “How far are you willing to take that?”

“The question sounds vague to me,” says the second facilitator. “Can you make it more clear?”

“I mean how would you respond if someone was doing violence to you?”

“With compassion,” answers the second facilitator introducing a longer answer that involves Gandhi and some core principles of self-protection.

Soon enough we’re back into the flow of our workshop on nonviolent communication and very pleased to have such handy examples to think about.

Out on the plaza a three-piece band is putting out a vibe. The keyboards hit at the opening chords of “Higher Ground” and soon enough the keyboardist is singing, “People!”

It feels good to see the organizers smiling and chatting casually during this Friday evening festival. The skin that seemed so drained last weekend has come back flush with life. They’ve had a chance to shower and rest and eat and get to know each other a little better.

Back on stage the guitar player strikes a few hard chords and asks us to sing along if we’d like.

“Once upon a time, you dressed so fine…”

And suddenly it’s like people don’t walk past each other any more, but everybody checks out everybody else’s eyes just to make sure they’re sharing the feeling. The keyboardist and bass player dig into their notes. And everything is suddenly new all over again.

[Greg Moses is editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review and author of Revolution of Conscience: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Philosophy of Nonviolence. He can be reached at gmosesx@gmail.com. Read more articles by Greg Moses on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Dick J. Reavis : ¡Que Vivan los ‘Plantonistas’ de Wall Street!

Plantonistas” protest Mexican election results at Mexico City’s Zócalo plaza, Nov. 11, 2011. Photo by Régis Lachaume / Wikimedia Commons.

Borrowing From Mexico:
The Wall Street Plantón

By Dick J. Reavis / The Rag Blog / October 19, 2011

The widespread demonstrations that have taken place since September 17, when “Occupy Wall Street” began, deserve a better generic name than “occupations.” After all, in American English at the moment, “occupation” is not a felicitous term. It usually refers to a spot in the labor force — and today that may connote a suspect privilege — or worse, the actions of the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody wants to be an “occupier.”

Furthermore, we do not say, or want to say, “I spent two hours at the occupation today.” Instead, New Yorkers say, “I spent two hours at Liberty Square today,” unless they are policemen, who prefer “I surveilled Zuccotti Park today.” Elsewhere, most people say they were at “the Capitol” or “City Hall.” These words are too localized for generic use.

Our Mexican neighbors have been staging protest campouts for more than 50 years. In 2006 thousands of them raised tents and kitchens in the Zócalo, Mexico City’s main plaza, for two months in protest of vote fraud that denied leftist presidential candidate Andrés Miguel López Obrador a victory.

The era is long past when Americans had little choice but borrow words from the Athenians, Romans, French, or Germans. Mexicans are now our same-street, next-door neighbors and sometimes our kin — or us — and their term for a protest campout that lasts for day is un plantón (Plaahn-TONE). We should adopt it.

My Larousse dictionary says that un plantón is “a group of people who congregate and stay a certain time in a public place to protest or make demands.” In popular usage, el plantón is the generic site where they gather. The word is derived from the reflexive verb plantarse, which the Larousse dictionary defines as “to stand firm in one place,” as in, “She planted herself in the doorway and wouldn’t let anybody pass.”

What this means to us is that we should be able to say, “I spent two hours at the plantón this morning.”

The makings of a plantón. Image from Oaxaca: The Year After.

But even the Mexicans, with their long and essentially tragic history of protest, have not perfected protest terminology. They generally call people who attend plantonesmanifestantes,” a term that is transparent even in English, but does not distinguish between ordinary demonstrators and those who overnight in a square or on a capitol grounds — or advocate doing as much.

Most Americans are familiar with the term “Sandinistas” to denote disciples of the Nicaraguan rebel Augusto Sandino. A few years ago, we even coined the term ‘Clintonistas’ to refer to minions of a president. Mexicans haven’t adopted a specific term for people who take part in or advocate plantones, but following the logic of their language, we can coin a derivative which maybe they’ll borrow. We should not only say, “I spent the night at the plantón” but also “I am a plantonista.”

[Dick J. Reavis, who was a contributor to the original Rag in Austin, is an associate professor of English at North Carolina State University. He may be reached at dickjreavis@yahoo.com. Read more articles by Dick J. Reavis on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

David P. Hamilton : What Occupy Wall Street Has Accomplished

Eat the Rich: Occupy Wall Street is made for TV.

What the Occupy Wall Street
movement has accomplished so far

By David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2011

Plenty.

1. The implantation of the tactical innovation of the occupation model into the U.S. One day mass march-and-speeches demonstrations had run their course, largely because the ruling capitalist elites adopted the strategy of refusing to take them seriously. A wholly new phenomenon is presented when the demonstrators refuse to go home, set up housekeeping on the doorstep of the ruling class, and become unruly neighbors.

The MSM could no longer avert its gaze. It’s made for TV and it has gained traction. Now they can’t stop talking about it and their audience wants more.

2. Internationalism in action. The Occupation movement began in Tunisia last spring with the action of one man, Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in protest of the dictatorial Tunisian government. From this spark the Arab Spring began. Then came the Indignados of Spain and Greece protesting austerity measures and lack of opportunity while the 1% prospered.

Both movements arose from similar origins and around related issues. The Occupation Movement is the most graphic expression of this new wave of international insurgency in the U.S. Egyptian movement veterans have joined the demonstration on Wall Street. It is a propitious moment for the development of new international relationships on the left.

3. For the first time since the 1930’s, a broad-based, explicitly anti-capitalist movement has sprung forth in the U.S. and its themes have quickly demonstrated great resonance among the general population. It was laughable when the MSM critics complained that the movement had no central message. That we have a ruling elite, the 1%, who rule corporate capitalism, that they have corrupted American democracy, and that their interests are contradictory to those of the other 99% is quite a bit of message. That message is, of course, Marxist to its core.

4. The Occupation movement has already changed the terms of the political debate. Liberal Democrats (Feingold, Rangel, Lewis, etc) are trying to associate themselves with the occupations and they will be strengthened by that association. It is reported that Obama has plans to “incorporate” the Occupation movement into his reelection campaign, if only rhetorically.

But with the Occupation movement, the manifestation of class warfare where the oppressed actually fight back against their class oppressors has become legitimized. It is now within the established paradigm to point fingers at the “malefactors of great wealth” again and hurl unequivocal abuse. This genie, whose central demand is simply for economic justice, will be difficult to re-bottle or to satisfy with rhetorical bromides.

5. The alliance of organized labor with the Occupation movement is historic and will serve to energize both. But this is only part of the great diversity of this movement that is drawing support from a very wide demographic.

I was shocked in Oakland that the homeless had joined the Occupation encampment until it occurred to me they had more reasons to be there than anyone else. Wandering among them, we were joined in conversation by a 60ish white nurse from San Rafael and a young anarchist brother in a Chomsky t-shirt while a middle-aged Chicana played the guitar and sang in Spanish to the assembled.

6. The Occupation movement emerged with amazing spontaneity. Sparks are lit all the time. Finally, one of them ignited because the objective conditions were so ripe. This clearly fits an anarchist model and is a rejection of the Leninist model. Perhaps the most astounding element at this point is that current polls show the “occupiers” twice as popular among the general public as the Tea Party.

The consciousness is there and anxious to be led in militant new expressions that, given our major party’s pervasive prostitution to the 1%, transcend what conventional party politics can offer.

Back to the barricades!

[David P. Hamilton has been a political activist in Austin since the late 1960s when he worked with SDS and wrote for The Rag, Austin’s underground newspaper. Read more articles by David P. Hamilton on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

OCCUPY AMERICA

By David Van Os / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2011

The young people who started and grew the Occupy Wall Street movement have given their country and the world an incredible gift. We should all thank them a million, billion, trillion times.

I’ve participated in Occupy Austin several times at the Austin City Hall Plaza where the Austin branch of Occupy Wall Street has its nerve center. It is inspiring to experience people of all backgrounds coming together through their natural human rights to speak freely and assemble in public places because they hold common grievances against an unresponsive political-economic system and have decided in common that enough is enough.

It is especially inspiring to experience the horizontal decision-making processes of the movement, showcasing full participatory democracy without ego-tripping leaders or control hierarchies.

The right to revolutionary change is deeply rooted in the American psyche. For example, the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article 1, Sec. 2, TEXAS CONSTITUTION) states that “all political power is inherent in the people”, and that the people have “at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.” This inalienable right is subject only to “the preservation of a republican form of government”, i.e., self-government by the people. Various other state constitutions contain similar confirmations of the inherent sovereignty of the people.

Respectfully, I submit that the articulated mission statements, demands, and goals of the movement need to call for change of a more revolutionary nature. The movement should demand not reform of the established order, but its downfall. I submit the demands should deliver a message that the entire oligarchy controlling the unresponsive political-economic system has to be peacefully removed and replaced to give the people a fresh new start. Listed below are some demands that I suggest. (My endnotes are simply commentaries. They are not part of the demands themselves. A mass movement’s demands must be basic and plain. The final details evolve in the people’s ongoing self-government of the movement in response to the fluidity of situations.)

1. That every member of the U.S. Congress resign and new elections be held in every state and district, with open access to the ballot and equal access to free airtime on broadcast media.[1]
2. That every director and officer of every Wall Street bank permanently resign.
3. That every Wall Street bank’s charter to do business be revoked.
4. That the banks be broken up in order to get new charters.
5. That the new charters place strict caps on executive compensation.
6. That every corporate charter be amended to prohibit corporate contributions to political parties and candidates.[2]
7. That the old usury laws be restored: absolutely no interest greater than 10% per annum can ever be charged on any transaction.
8. That the Federal Reserve Board be abolished and no individual private bank or group of private banks ever again be given a monopoly over the issuance and control of the nation’s currency.
9. That the president and vice president resign and the replacement elections take place through a speedy election process that reduces the influence of money. [3]

In other words: Replace the government, Break up Wall Street, Disarm the bankers, End the power of money in politics, End corporate contributions, and End the Fed.

A mass movement’s demands must be continuously repeated and the mass occupation and peaceful street action and guerilla theater must continue, grow, and escalate until the demands are met. The established order will not fall overnight. But if we stay true to ourselves and resolve ourselves to fight till hell freezes over and then on the ice, it will fall.

Power to the people.
Revolution now.
OCCUPY AMERICA.

[David Van Os is a populist Texas democrat and a civil rights attorney in San Antonio. He is a former candidate for Attorney General of Texas and for the Texas Supreme Court. To receive his Notes of a Texas Patriot — circulated whenever he gets the urge (and published on The Rag Blog whenever we get the urge) — contact him at david@texas-patriot.com.Read more articles by David Van Os on The Rag Blog.]

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Lamar W. Hankins : Religion is the Elixir of Republican Politics

Religion as magic elixir. Image from Photobucket.

Religion:
The elixir of Republican politics

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2011

An elixir is a substance taken to cure one’s ills, or it’s a substance used to carry an ingredient to perform its intended function. Both definitions seem to fit the role religion has played in this year’s Republican politics (though Democrats are not averse to using it, as well).

Most reporters and commentators on the political scene seem to have missed that religion has no constitutional role in U.S. politics, but that hasn’t kept it from being an unnecessary diversion at times, and from being ignored when it should be examined.

The latest unnecessary diversion about religion is the persistent inquiry into Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. CNN host Candy Crowley insisted recently in an interview that two candidates for the Republican nomination for president state whether Mitt Romney’s Mormonism made him a Christian.

What nonsense. Whatever Romney’s religion, it is irrelevant (as those candidates said) to the political position he seeks, because he’s not running for president as a Mormon. He is running as a Republican. And he is a candidate with experience as a governor and as a businessman. Those are relevant qualifications, not his religious views.

As most readers know, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This is what makes Romney’s religion — whether Christian or not — irrelevant politically.

Yet Candy Crowley, in a recent interview, insisted that both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann give us their opinion on the question. Cain responded, “I’m not running for theologian in chief. I’m a lifelong Christian. And what that means is that one of my guiding principles for decisions I make is I start with ‘do the right thing.’ I’m not getting into that controversy.”

But after more prodding, Cain finally satisfied Crowley to some extent by declaring that a candidate’s religion is a “valid concern.” It’s not, unless the candidate makes it part of the reason that candidate is running for public office. Romney has not done so.

If Cain had just stuck to his decision not to get involved with the “Mormons as Christians” debate, I would have new-found respect for him. But when he decided that it was important to point out that he is a Christian, he revealed that his earlier statement was just a convenient ruse for letting his Republican base know that he is one of the good guys.

And a few days ago, Cain went even further. In an Associated Press interview, Cain pointed out that he has been a Christian since age 10. While he claims falsely not to mention religion often in public settings, he said, “But people can see it on my website, and when they read my credentials they can see that I’m a staunch Christian conservative.”

I guess the Constitution doesn’t really mean much to Cain.

To her credit, Bachmann refused to take the bait in her interview with Crowley, even after Crowley suggested that refusing to answer the question would be perceived as dodging a direct question. Bachmann stuck by her answer: “We have religious tolerance. We understand that people have different views on their faith, and I have a very sincerely held view on faith and I think we just leave it at that.”

Crowley should have taken the hint that being Christian is not a requirement for holding public office. Constitutionally, any religion or no religion is fine. She could have asked whether the candidates agree with that statement, which is a relevant matter under the Constitution.

Crowley typifies the mainstream media’s propensity to focus on the irrelevant, but titillating. If one’s religion is not a prerequisite for political office, there is no reason to deal with it unless the candidate has made it integral to his or her campaign. Both Bachmann and Rick Perry have done so. The mainstream media should be asking these two, along with Herman Cain, their views on the separation of church and state. If there were ever candidates who used religion as a political elixir, it is these three candidates.

But it would be fitting to ask all of the Republican crowd whether they agree with then-candidate John F. Kennedy’s statement about religion and politics: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

That last point is interesting. In fact, it is illegal for a pastor to tell his congregation how to vote. This ban from such politics is the price churches, along with all other tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations, pay for their tax-exempt status. While the IRS is not terribly diligent in enforcing the politics ban against churches, it does occasionally take legal action against a few churches for overstepping the non-political rules.

My knowledge of Mormonism is limited. I know a few Mormons. I’ve talked with Mormons and listened to their critics and detractors. Nothing I have learned has convinced me that whether or not one is a Mormon has any relevance to his or her ability to hold political office.

Perhaps the Mormon Tabernacle Choir would be asked to sing at the inauguration of a new president who is Mormon. If so, I would probably enjoy the music, just as I enjoyed hearing Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen perform at one of President Obama’s inaugural events. Beyond that, I can’t see that presidential governance would be any different with a Mormon as president, any more than it was affected by Richard Nixon’s Quaker upbringing or John Kennedy’s Catholicism.

Nothing that Romney did as Governor of Massachusetts seemed related specifically to his Mormonism.

Religion is relevant only if the officeholder tries to fulfill the responsibilities of office by applying his or her religious precepts and dogma to the public’s business. Based on their previous positions, this possibility does concern me with the candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachman, who tend toward a theocratic view of governance.

Perry’s official sponsorship as governor of the prayer rally held in Houston in August is one example. Some have even called Perry and Bachmann Dominionists — conservative Christians who want to influence or control secular civil government by imposing their biblical beliefs on the country.

While there isn’t enough evidence for me to call them Dominionists, we do know that both Perry and Bachmann say that God has called them to be president, or at least to run for that office. Now, Anita Perry, Rick Perry’s wife has gone further, explaining in a campaign speech in South Carolina why her husband should be president: “God was already speaking to me, but he [Rick Perry] felt like he needed to see the burning bush. I said, ‘Let me tell you something: You might not see the burning bush but other people are seeing it for you.’”

The Perrys, along with some of their friends, want the rest of us to believe that Rick Perry is the chosen one — chosen by God for the U.S. presidency. Michele Bachmann must feel betrayed since God previously chose her, or so she said. It is wiser probably to ignore all such self-aggrandizing proclamations by politicians and their supporters and pay attention to their actions, their positions on the issues, and the work and views of those close to them.

At the recent Faith and Values Conference, Perry chose the Rev. Robert Jeffress to give his formal introduction before he spoke. Jeffress said that Perry is a true Christian. Jeffress also told the press that he believes Mormonism is a “cult,” and that Mormons aren’t true Christians, views that were well-known to Perry and everyone else who has paid attention to Jeffress. Perry refused to repudiate the injection of such irrelevant and offensive views into his presidential campaign.

What appears to be happening in this political season is that Perry and some others are using religion to send messages to their evangelical supporters and to curry favor with the religious right. Perry may be sincere in his religious beliefs. I can’t judge that. What I can judge is the ways in which he uses religion for political benefit. In this, Perry has no peer.

When it comes to using religion for political benefit, Romney is a no-show. For that, Romney should be commended.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins. Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Religion:
The elixir of Republican politics

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / October 18, 2011

An elixir is a substance taken to cure one’s ills, or it’s a substance used to carry an ingredient to do its intended purpose. Both definitions seem to fit the role religion has played in this year’s Republican politics (though Democrats are not averse to using it, as well).

Most reporters and commentators on the political scene seem to have missed that religion has no constitutional role in U.S. politics, but that hasn’t kept it from being an unnecessary diversion at times, and from being ignored when it should be examined.

The latest unnecessary diversion about religion is the persistent inquiry into Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. CNN host Candy Crowley insisted recently in an interview that two candidates for the Republican nomination for president state whether Mitt Romney’s Mormonism made him a Christian.

What nonsense. Whatever Romney’s religion, it is irrelevant (as those candidates said) to the political position he seeks, because he’s not running for president as a Mormon. He is running as a Republican. And he is a candidate with experience as a governor and as a businessman. Those are relevant qualifications, not his religious views.

As most readers know, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This is what makes Romney’s religion — whether Christian or not — irrelevant politically. Yet Candy Crowley, in a recent interview, insisted that both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann give us their opinion on the question.

Cain responded, “I’m not running for theologian in chief. I’m a lifelong Christian. And what that means is that one of my guiding principles for decisions I make is I start with ‘do the right thing.’ I’m not getting into that controversy.”

But after more prodding, Cain finally satisfied Crowley to some extent by declaring that a candidate’s religion was a “valid concern.” It’s not, unless the candidate makes it part of the reason that candidate is running for public office. Romney has not done so.

If Cain had just stuck to his decision not to get involved with the “Mormons as Christians” debate, I would have new-found respect for him. But when he decided that it was important to point out that he is a Christian, he revealed that his earlier statement was just a convenient ruse for letting his Republican base know that he is one of the good guys.

And a few days ago, Cain went even further. In an Associated Press interview, Cain pointed out that he has been a Christian since age 10. While he claims falsely not to mention religion often in public settings, he said, “But people can see it on my website, and when they read my credentials they can see that I’m a staunch Christian conservative.” I guess the Constitution doesn’t really mean much to Cain.

To her credit, Bachmann refused to take the bait in her interview with Crowley, even after Crowley suggested that refusing to answer the question would be perceived as dodging a direct question. Bachmann stuck by her answer: “We have religious tolerance. We understand that people have different views on their faith, and I have a very sincerely held view on faith and I think we just leave it at that.”

Crowley should have taken the hint that being Christian is not required to hold public office. Constitutionally, any religion or no religion is fine. She could have asked whether the candidates agree with that statement, which is a relevant matter under the Constitution.

Crowley typifies the mainstream media’s propensity to focus on the irrelevant but titillating. If one’s religion is not a prerequisite for political office, there is no reason to deal with it unless the candidate has made it integral to his or her campaign.

Both Bachmann and Rick Perry have done so. The mainstream media should be asking these two, along with Herman Cain, their views on the separation of church and state. If there were ever candidates who used religion as a political elixir, it is these three candidates.

But it would be fitting to ask all of the Republican crowd whether they agree with then-candidate John F. Kennedy’s statement about religion and politics: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

That last point is interesting. In fact, it is illegal for a pastor to tell his congregation how to vote. This ban from such politics is the price churches, along with all other tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations, pay for their tax-exempt status. While the IRS is not terribly diligent in enforcing the politics ban against churches, it does occasionally take legal action against a few churches for overstepping the non-political rules.

My knowledge of Mormonism is limited. I know a few Mormons. I’ve talked with Mormons and listened to their critics and detractors. Nothing I have learned has convinced me that whether one is a Mormon has any relevance to holding political office.

Perhaps the Mormon Tabernacle Choir would be asked to sing at the inauguration of a new president who is Mormon. If so, I would probably enjoy the music, just as I enjoyed hearing Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen perform at one of President Obama’s inaugural events. Beyond that, I can’t see that presidential governance would be any different with a Mormon as president, any more than it was affected by Richard Nixon’s Quaker upbringing or John Kennedy’s Catholicism.

Nothing that Romney did as Governor of Massachusetts seemed related specifically to his Mormonism.

Religion is relevant only if the officeholder tries to fulfill the responsibilities of office by following his or her religious precepts and dogma by applying them to the public’s business. Based on their previous positions, this possibility does concern me with the candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachman, who tend toward a theocratic view of governance.

Perry’s official sponsorship as governor of the prayer rally held in Houston in August is one example. Some have even called Perry and Bachmann Dominionists — conservative Christians who want to influence or control secular civil government by imposing their biblical beliefs on the country.

While there isn’t enough evidence for me to call them Dominionists, we do know that both Perry and Bachmann say that God has called them to be president, or at least run for that office. Now, Anita Perry, Rick Perry’s wife has gone further, explaining in a campaign speech in South Carolina why her husband should be president: “God was already speaking to me, but he (Rick Perry) felt like he needed to see the burning bush. I said, ‘Let me tell you something: You might not see the burning bush but other people are seeing it for you.’”

The Perrys, along with some of their friends, want the rest of us to believe that Rick Perry is the chosen one — chosen by God for the US presidency. Michele Bachmann must feel betrayed since God previously chose her, or so she said. It is wiser probably to ignore all such self-aggrandizing proclamations of politicians and their supporters and pay attention to their actions, their positions on the issues, and the work and views of those close to them.

At the recent Faith and Values Conference, Perry chose the Rev. Robert Jeffress to give his formal introduction before he spoke. Jeffress said that Perry was a true Christian. Jeffress also told the press that he believes Mormonism is a “cult,” and that Mormons aren’t true Christians, views that were well known to Perry and everyone else who has paid attention to Jeffress. Perry refused to repudiate the injection of such irrelevant and offensive views into his presidential campaign.

What appears to be happening in this political season is that Perry and some others are using religion to send messages to their evangelical supporters and curry favor with the religious right.

Perry may be sincere in his religious beliefs. I can’t judge that. What I can judge is the ways in which he uses religion for political benefit. In this, Perry has no peer. When it comes to using religion for political benefit, Romney is a no-show. For that, Romney should be commended.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins. Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Suzanne Goldenberg : Perry Officials Alter Environmental Report; Scientists Rebel

Texas Governor Rick Perry. Censorship of scientists’ report sparks revolt. Photo by Evan Vucci / AP / The Guardian.

Rick Perry officials doctor
scientists’ environmental report

Scientists ask for names to be removed after mentions of climate change and sea-level rise are deleted by Texas officials.

By Suzanne Goldenberg / The Guardian / October 17, 2011

Officials in Rick Perry’s home state of Texas have set off a scientists’ revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state’s environmental agency.

By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. “None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed,” said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Center.

“To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does,” Lester said. “We can’t be censored.” Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer’s season of wildfires and drought.

However, Perry, in his run for the Republican nomination, has elevated denial of science, from climate change to evolution, to an art form. He opposes any regulation of industry, and has repeatedly challenged the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Texas is the only state to refuse to sign on to the federal government’s new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. “I like to tell people we live in a state of denial in the state of Texas,” said John Anderson, an oceanographer at Rice University, and author of the chapter targeted by the government censors.

That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. “The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax,” said Anderson.

But scientists said they still hoped to avoid a clash by simply avoiding direct reference to human causes of climate change and by sticking to materials from peer-reviewed journals. However, that plan began to unravel when officials from the agency made numerous unauthorized changes to Anderson’s chapter, deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise, and wetlands destruction.

“It is basically saying that the state of Texas doesn’t accept science results published in Science magazine,” Anderson said. “That’s going pretty far.”

Officials even deleted a reference to the sea level at Galveston Bay rising five times faster than the long-term average — 3mm a year compared to .5mm a year which Anderson noted was a scientific fact. “They just simply went through and summarily struck out any reference to climate change, any reference to sea level rise, any reference to human influence — it was edited or eliminated,” said Anderson. “That’s not scientific review. That’s just straight forward censorship.”

Mother Jones has tracked the changes. The agency has defended its actions. “It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it,” Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. “Information was included in a report that we disagree with.”

She said Anderson’s report had been “inconsistent with current agency policy,” and that he had refused to change it. She refused to answer any questions. Campaigners said the censorship by the Texas state authorities was a throwback to the George Bush era when White House officials also interfered with scientific reports on climate change.

In the last few years, however, such politicization of science has spread to the states. In the most notorious case, Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, who is a professed doubter of climate science, has spent a year investigating grants made to a prominent climate scientist Michael Mann, when he was at a state university in Virginia.

Several courts have rejected Cuccinelli’s demands for a subpoena for the emails. In Utah, meanwhile, Mike Noel, a Republican member of the Utah state legislature, called on the state university to sack a physicist who had criticized climate science doubters.

The university rejected Noel’s demand, but the physicist, Robert Davies, said such actions had had a chilling effect on the state of climate science. “We do have very accomplished scientists in this state who are quite fearful of retribution from lawmakers, and who consequently refuse to speak up on this very important topic. And the loser is the public,” Davies said in an email.

“By employing these intimidation tactics, these policymakers are, in fact, successful in censoring the message coming from the very institutions whose expertise we need.”

[Suzanne Goldenberg is the U.S. environmental correspondent for the London-based Guardian newspaper, where this article was first published. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle East, and in 2003 covered the U.S. invasion of Iraq from Baghdad. She is author of Madam President, about Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the White House.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment