Thursday, February 28, 2008
Obituary of the Day
The world has lost a very bad harpsichord player.
The "Father of Conservatism" has gone underground.
Truth of the Day: On social change
Meyerson's column compares and contrasts Fidel Castro with Ralph Nader for no better reason than a contemporaneity of events: The day Raúl Castro was elected President of Cuba was the very day Ralph Nader announced his candidacy to be President of the United States. Oh well.
But it would have been more interesting if Meyerson had examined what happened to the American movements he proclaims. Labor is at its nadir, schools are resegregated, prime black borrowers receive subprime loans if they can get them,1 and feminists have reason to fear that reproductive rights will not survive infancy. Meyerson turns a blind eye to the forces of counterrevolution—a mistake that Castro did not make.
There has indeed been a movement in recent times in America that in political terms must be dated from the election of Ronald Reagan, and it has certainly transcended the political parties. One of its odder features is that it has no name, or at least no name that refers to its content. Instead we call it "the Reagan Revolution."
Some time back I wrote that—
When it comes to government overthrow, left-wing revolutions tend to be more physically violent. They are, after all, "bottom-up" affairs, since rulers do not readily give up power through the democratic—or any other—process.
But right-wing revolutions are top-down matters—one oligarchy pitted against another. They can be subtle, even "democratic"—as was the case with Hitler—or minimally violent, as with the coup, where instead of blood in the streets we see blood in the palace followed by a massive crack-down on dissent.
We are in the midst of a right-wing revolution. Make no mistake about it. In fact, to say that we are "in the midst" is too mild; we are in the end-stage of that revolution.
The conditions would appear to be ripe for another revolution of sorts. The country has been driven into a ditch by the ideological successors to the Reagan Revolution, and the public is beginning to feel the effects—and only the first of those effects. Demand for change is in the air.
But what sort of change? The public is so politically naïve and hornswoggled that the notion of a "people's movement" now appears distasteful, as the oligarchs prefer. A leader will have to emerge.
Who might that be? Meyerson sees hope in Barack Obama—
In 2008, though, the race already has its movement builder: Barack Obama, the onetime community organizer whose ground campaign has roots in the teachings of legendary organizer Saul Alinsky.
That would be a treat. Alinsky wrote—
There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.."2
That Barack Obama is a "movement builder" is beyond dispute. His campaign is proof. But what the content of that movement is—aside from the election of Barack Obama—is anybody's guess.
The conditions of the early 70s when Alinsky wrote his formula for revolution have changed markedly and not for the better. Even if we assume that Obama once in office will cast off his Wall Street supporters, the "Reagan Revolution" has accomplished many changes in law and practice to guarantee the revolution against popular overthrow. And the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, always international, is now more global than ever.
In 2005 and 2006, over 50% of all loans made to African-Americans, and over 40% to Latinos, were subprime - compared to only 19% of white borrowers. Martin Gruenberg, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), said at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition's Wall Street Economic Summit in January, "Only one-sixth of this differential could be accounted for by the ability of the borrower." Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data shows that African-Americans and Latinos in New York City, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia and other cities were two to three times more likely to have subprime, high-cost loans than white borrowers with similar incomes and loan amounts.
The New York Times has reported on two neighborhoods in the Detroit area - one 97 percent white with a median income of $51,000, another 97 percent African-American with a median income of $49,000. In 2006, 17 percent of the loans made in the white neighborhood were subprime, compared to 70 percent of the loans in the predominately African-American neighborhood. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan recently pointed out on National Public Radio, "…An African-American earning more than $100,000 was more likely than a white person who earned less than $35,000 to be put in a high-cost, [subprime] loan…. Clearly there is discrimination going on."
2In the midst of the various "social" movements of identity politics blue collar workers were very much abandoned. And Alinsky's warning, unheeded, became reality. The wine-sipping, brie-slathering image of well-heeled "liberal" Democrats—indifferent to poverty and the working class—that was purveyed by the Right had a great deal of truth to it, notwithstanding that they were sipping the same wine and eating the same brie. [back]
Monday, February 25, 2008
Spring break, and a Poem for the Day
I have taken a few days to go on "spring break." I know that must seem perverse to anyone living in the frozen North, but here there are no crocuses in the snow—only redbuds, dogwoods and azaleas blooming in profligate indifference to Republicans, Democrats, wars and economic calamity.
Yesterday there was a yellow-bellied whatchamecallit cavorting about the camellia bush. I have no idea of its name, since the only birds I incontrovertibly recognize are crows and vultures. In any case I don't recall ever having seen one, and as I leaned forward in my chair for a better look, the bird spotted me, came to the same conclusion, and flew to a safer distance.
I have even attempted a bit of gardening. This consists mostly in hovering about an emerging tendril while I wonder whether it's a weed to be yanked or that rare specimen I brought home so proudly from last year's garden festival. A wait-and-see approach is called for, I conclude. Better to do nothing for the moment. So I retreat to the porch for some tea or, in the evening, a manhattan and watch it grow. It's good to get some exercise.
Meanwhile I've attempted to pen several Simply Appalling posts. I've gotten no further than some titles and a paragraph or two. Try as I will, I seem incompetent to color in the details, to compete with spring.
A Day at the Botanical Gardens
Like Dylan's park birds, we came early,
packing the lunch
that wasn't allowed on the grounds
and ate it anyway up on a hill
above the Shinto shrine.
Walked through groves, listened
to water splash on stone,
while the city roared outside
like a lion that couldn't get in.
Were simple, studied
pebbles, examined pine cones.
And having come
small, at odds, tense,
slowly grew deep as trees
and quiet as plants.
And took it along with us.
looked at each other from eyes
still kindly with stones and grass,
still gentle with sky.
Acquainted with a chance of bobcats (1969)
Poem of the Day (4/29/07)