In forming his administration, President Obama abandoned the movement that had begun during his campaign for deal-making and a pragmatism that hasn't worked. That movement is still possible and needed now. Here is look at what is required, and how a version of it is forming in California.
We begin with this week's triple whammy.
Freedom vs. The Public Option
Which would you prefer, consumer choice or freedom? Extended coverage or freedom? Bending the cost curve or freedom?
John Boehner, House Minority Leader, speaking of health care, said recently, "This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years I have been here in Washington....It's going to lead to a government takeover of our insurance] for you."
This is exactly what Frank Luntz advised conservatives to say. They have repeated it and repeated it. Why has it worked to rally conservative populists against their interests? The most effective framing is more than mere language, more than spin or salesmanship. It has worked because conservatives really believe that the issue is freedom. It fits the conservative moral system. It fits how conservatives see the world.
The Democrats have helped the conservatives. Their pathetic attempt to make any deal to get 60 votes convinced even Massachusetts voters that government under the Democrats was corrupt and oppressive, not just inept, but immoral.
All politics is moral
All political leaders argue that they are doing the right thing, not the wrong thing, that their policies are moral, not evil.
Conservatives understand this, liberals tend not to. Conservatives know a morality tale when they see it: Greedy Wall Street bankers, who have cost people their homes, their jobs, and their savings get billion-dollar bailouts from the government, while those honest hard-working people get nothing. Corruption. Oppression. A threat to freedom.
The conservatives are winning the framing wars again -- by sticking to moral principles as conservatives see them, and communicating their view of morality effectively. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama ran a campaign based on his moral principles and communicated those principles as effectively as any candidate ever has.
But the Obama administration made a 180-degree turn, trading Obama's 2008 moral principles for the deal-making of Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner, assuming it would be "pragmatic" to court corporations and move to the right, in the false hope of bipartisan support. A clear unified moral vision was replaced by long laundry lists of policy options that the public could not understand, and that made ordinary folks feel they were being bamboozled. And in many cases, they were.
Even the language was a disaster. Liberals thought that conservatives would like consumer choice. That's why they used "public option." As Harry Reid said, "It's public and it's an option -- a public option." But what did a conservative hear in the words "public option?" Say "public" and he hears "government." "Option" is a policy-wonk term, from the language of bureaucracy. Say "public option" and the conservative hears "government bureaucracy."
The results of deal-making in the name of pragmatism have been considerably immoral, as documented thoroughly by progressives like Drew Westen, Matt Taibbi, Robert Kuttner, and many others. Advice on what to do instead has not been lacking from other progressives. Advice is all over the blogs. Guy Saperstein is an excellent example.
We progressives are long on factual analysis, critique, suggestion -- and ridicule. Rachel Maddow is one of the best, and her popularity is well-deserved. What's more fun than ridiculing Tea Party-ers, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the like, by showing the factual errors, the flaws in their logic, and the cruelty of their positions.
But we have been dealt a triple blow. A year of failed deal-making by our side, the Tea Party win in Massachusetts, and worst of all, the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to turn our democracy into a corporate plutocracy. This is serious.
Democrats still have the presidency and a majority in the House and Senate, but the momentum is on the conservative side. Their victories in the framing wars have inevitably led to a crucial electoral victory and to a Supreme Court death threat to democracy itself, framed as free speech.
Democrats have electoral power, but progressives have not created an effective movement to take advantage of that power.
"Where's the movement?"
In the emerging Obama mythology, this is the question attributed to President Obama whenever he is asked to take the lead on a progressive issue. It is not an idle question. Leaders can only lead if there is a pre-existing movement for them to get in front of.
Moreover, there are other conditions. The idea behind a movement, and the language expressing its goals, must also pre-exist in public discourse. In other words, the movement must already have:
• a popular base;
• organizing tools;
• a generally accepted morally-based conceptual framing;
• an overall narrative, with heroes, victims, and villains;
• a readily recognizable, well-understood language;
• funding sources;
• and a national communication system set up for both leaders and ordinary citizens to use.
The base is there, waiting for something worth getting behind. The organizing tools are there. The rest is not there.
That is the present reality. Expecting Obama to be FDR was politically unrealistic. And complaining that he isn't doesn't move anything forward.
Howard Dean was right when he said, "YOU have the power." What is needed is an organized activist public with a positive understanding of what our values are and how to links them to every issue. Barney Frank was only half-right when he said that the public gets active only when it is angry. That may be true for isolated issues -- he was talking about regulating Wall Street. But anger is directed at isolated negatives. An effective movement must be positive, organized, and long-term, where an overall positive understanding defines the isolated negatives. And it must have all of the above.
The California Democracy Movement
We have the beginning of such a movement in California.
The central issue in California is basic democracy. California is the only state in America where the legislature is controlled by a relatively small conservative minority. Because it takes a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and Assembly to pass a budget or any tax, 1/3 plus one - 34% -- in either house can control the vote by saying no to measures that would finance public needs.
Conservatives exercise that control for the simple reason that they don't believe that government should serve public needs, that instead government should be privatized and shrunk to fit in a bathtub, as if governing would disappear with government.
But governing doesn't disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life -- like HMO's, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs.
An overwhelming majority of Californians -- over 60% -- disagree. They believe that government should serve public needs, and they have elected sensible legislators. But they don't quite make up 2/3. And so an extreme right-wing minority - about 37% -- controls the state, its present and its future.
Luckily, there is a way out for the majority in California. The initiative process that created this situation can get us out. I have proposed The California Democracy Act as an initiative in the November 2010 election. It changes two words in the California Constitution - "two-thirds" becomes "a majority" in two places. It can be described in one simple sentence: All legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote. That ballot initiative needs only a majority to pass. It would return majority rule to the legislature on everyday economic issues, bringing democracy back to California. Those interested can join the campaign by clicking on www.CaliforniansForDemocracy.com
Democracy is the central issue, and that is what our movement is about. We are setting up an infrastructure in California, with a statewide organization and a speakers' bureau, for those who want to continue democratizing the state after the election.
Democracy is The Issue
The majority vote campaign gives us a chance to talk not only about this particular issue, but about democracy as it affects all issues. The clearest articulator of what democracy is about has been Barack Obama -- the campaigner we cheered for, campaigned hard for, and voted for.
Democracy, he has observed, is based on empathy -- on citizens caring about one another. That's why we have principles like freedom and fairness, for everybody, not just for the rich and powerful. True empathy requires responsibility, not just for oneself, but also for others. And since we, as individuals and as a nation, are far from perfect, empathy demands an ethic of excellence, of making oneself better, one's family and community better, and one's nation better.
That view of citizenship in a democracy comes with a view of government. Government has two sacred moral missions: protection and empowerment.
Protection goes well beyond police and the military and the fire department to consumer protection, environmental protection, worker protection, health care, investor protection, social security, and other safety nets.
Empowerment is what the stimulus package was about: building and maintaining roads, bridges, public transportation, and public buildings; systems for communication, electricity, water; education, from pre-school through graduate and professional schools; scientific research and technological development; a banking system that works; a stock market that works; and a judicial system that works.
No one earns a living or lives well without protection and empowerment by the government. That is what taxes pay for. And the more you make from what the government gives you, the more you should contribute to keeping it going.
Tax Shifts
When you cut taxes that pay for public needs, you are actually shifting taxes. You are taxing others. In California tax cuts for corporations last year led to cuts in the support for public universities, which led to 32% higher tuition and a drastic cut in the number of students educated. That 32% constituted a tax on those students and their parents, and when they had to borrow the money for college, interest payments on the loan effectively double the cost of the loan. That's a very high tax shift. But an even higher tax is shifted onto students who cannot afford the higher tuition: the tax of a lost education lasts all one's life and its cost is not only monetary, but a cost in human potential. It is also a cost to employers, who get less educated workers, and to society, which gets less educated citizens.
The Movement
We will be talking about all of this and more. Take economic democracy. California is the world's seventh richest economy. It is ludicrous to say that there is no money in California. If the money for public needs is there, where is it? In California, the richest one percent owns more assets than the bottom 95 per cent. The money is concentrated at the top.
Just about every issue comes down to the issue of democracy. That is why we are starting with the California Democracy Act, which would finally end the rule of the state by a small minority of ultra-conservative legislators. It would finally give the voters of the state a voice in their own future and the future of their children and grandchildren.
If you live in California (one out of eight Americans does), then join the California Democracy Movement. If you live elsewhere, form your own democracy movement and unite with us. The principles are simple, and they are Obama's:
Democracy is about empathy -- caring about your fellow citizens, which leads to the principles of freedom and fairness for all. Empathy requires both personal and social responsibility. The ethic of excellence means making the world better by making yourself better, your family better, your community better, and your nation better. Government has two moral missions: protection and empowerment for all. To carry them out, government must be by, for, and of the people.
It's only a paragraph. The principles apply to all issues. That's the basis of a democracy movement. That's what separates a movement from a coalition. Coalitions are based on interests. Movements are based on principles. We need a movement that transcends interests and goes beyond coalitions.
Movements also transcend particular policies. The framing of moral principles comes first and the policies elaborate on the principles. The way to unite a movement is to form policies that carry out the principles in ways that everyone can understand.
The time is now
We have a triple disaster on our hands: the administration's failure at deal-making in the name of pragmatism and bipartisanship; the Tea Party victory in Massachusetts fueling and propelling ultra-conservatism; and the anti-democratic 5-4 ruling of the Roberts Court. We can no longer sit on our hands and just criticize the President, or give him advice and hope he can do it alone. We have to provide the answer to his question: Where's the movement?
Ellis Goldberg
Northern CA Field Director
Californians For Democracy
925 451 4303 cell
925 831 8355 office
EllisG237@aol.com
Ellis Goldberg
Northern CA Field Director
Californians For Democracy
925 451 4303 cell
925 831 8355 office
EllisG237@aol.com
I agree that Obama has lost or surrendered the ability to frame his message potently, in a way that hits on the hot-button words that make Americans rally (freedom, etc.) and that counters the deluge of false but flashy attacks from the right.
I do wonder if the sheer onslaught of crises (financial, charitable, etc.) and the constant blizzard of of criticism, much of it phony but fueling the scandal-du-jour BS of 24/7 cable news, has thrown Obama off his game. He's only human, and his task (in my crude estimation anyway) seems more massive than many other presidents who at least were somewhat sheltered and had the nation's biggest bully pulpit.
But I also must ask: where are the people who should be protecting, nudging, urging him to adopt some of your points? Where are the brilliant message-mongers who can elevate the dialogue again, harness the public will and help Obama be bolder and more true to his promised ideals? He can't do it alone. He needs a team he can trust -- which may start with David Plouffe, but that's not enough either.
I'm just sort of amazed that since this whole country is so advertising driving, so fickle and open to suggestion, that he doesn't have the world's best "framers" working for him......
MandateTHIS
www.MandateTHIS2.blogspot.com
If you subtract the Blue Dogs, who can generally be counted on to vote *against* progressive legislation, there are only 50 progressive votes in the Senate and 202 in the House. These are the "real numbers" we should base our strategies and estimate our prospects on. Any votes we get beyond these will require *compromise* --- something many progressives seem to forget.
The corporate news media have sold us the narrative that the election of Barack Obama was some new kind of Age of Aquarius or something, where politics will magicly dissolve into a sudden flurry of progressive legislation. We have gone along with the narrative, and have set unreasonably high expectations for the current President --- in effect, we have confused our hopes with our dreams.
Now we are seeing a backlash against a reality which we should have recognized and predicted from the very beginning. The failure to get great progressive victories on the climate treaty, healthcare reform, or the reform of a financial system suffering from 30 years of regulatory neglect aren't due to any failure or malfeasance by the President; it's due to the reality of the number of votes in both houses of Congress, and to the lack of any strong public pressure by progressives to change those votes.
- I also did not expect that Insurance Servitude Mandate, a freeze on spending AFTER corporate bailouts, a huge expensive new war, and total disregard for unemployment and evidently the assumption that the unemployed will just die quietly and cheaply after they fall through the cracks.
-I did not expect banks to be given a year or so to jack up interest rate before "regulation".
-I did not expect that, when banks just ignored the foreclosure help initiative, Obama would just give them the equivalent of frowny face stickers.
-I did not expect that almost 20% of our GDP will be handed over to the very corporations that Obama called greedy and crooked or whatever
At this point, I think Obama would help us hapless voter folks more by getting his own ranch in Texas to cut brush on, and stop coming up with depressing new ways to do the exact opposite of what he campaigned on.
I will certainly be voting in any upcoming elections, but if that Mandate passes, I won't be voting Dem. Expecting miracles is one thing - seeing Wall Street fawned over and Main Street get the shaft is an entirely different thing.
Obama needs to read articles like George Lakoff's and the comments too. Arianna Huffington also has written good, constructive, criticism of Obama.
As Judge Judy would say " You need to put your listening ears on, Barack ".
But it is a misreading of the problem, if you don't realize the role of Obama's technocratic triangulations in the depressing stagnation of progressive initiatives in the past year. Each of his epic efforts for bipartisanship or appeasement or triangulation with the right have not only been pointless and unsuccessful, but also a waste of political capital and time.
Understanding and correcting for that will be critical to achieving anything of note.
As I stated, without majorities in either house, the President has no choice but to seek support across ideological and party lines. You can call it triangulation or bipartisanship if you want to, but that still won't buy votes. Success of any legislation depends on votes, and votes depend on compromise.
You can blame Obama, or you can blame whoever invented arithmetic --- they are about equally to blame.
The word you're looking for is socialism, not democracy. And because you were afraid to use it I think you're "movement" is doomed before you started. You're either woefully ignorant or you don't have the courage of your own convictions.
I disagree vehemently with this line. Not that he abandoned the movement that got him elected. Oh no. That was all too clear by the time he had named his cabinet. It's what he abandoned us FOR that I have a problem with.
He didn't leave for "deal making and pragmatism that hasn't worked". In the first place "pragmatism that hasn't worked" is a contradiction in terms. "Pragmatism" is doing what works. And very little of what Obama did in the last year "worked" for either the nation or his political future. Second, in "deal making" you first assume there are two sides and second that each side gets something in "the deal". I see no evidence that there are "two sides" between Obama and big business and I see no evidence that ANYONE but big business got anything out of Obama's first year.
He's a corporatist. He's not with us and he's not coming back because he never planned to. We were the suckers he used to get into office.
If you have "a movement" then I suggest you internalize these basic truths and start figuring out who you're going to back in 2012 that might be friendly towards your "movement". It won't be Obama unless you're a large corporation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
It's commonly used today to mean government of the people by the corporations for the rich. Note the differences between the approach Obama used on the Bank Bailouts (can't give them too much or put any restrictions on it!) and the "Stimulus" (Cut what the economists say we need in half, waste much of it on tax cuts and business hand outs).
The skilled jobs went to India. The non-skilled jobs went elsewhere - all due to stock analyst suggestions to benefit their portfolios, or to cut costs. A person's job skills are irrelevant - Verizon is cutting 13.000 or whatever jobs this year - not because those people are unskilled, but because they didn't make enough profit to suit Wall Street.
College graduates - the ones who can afford to go - can't find a job, either.
Wake up. Read the news.
His shift from values and vision to pragmatism was jolting. I am all for pragmatism, but you don't start with it. You lead out from a position of values and principles, not from a perspective of 'sausage making' as he did with health care reform. I was stunned by his absolute abandonment of principle at the expense of getting things done.
Yes, one settles for 'good enough' in the end, but one fights for the vision of the best until the bitter end.
Values? The man never had any values. Read his books. Carefully. See what 'values' you can find in them, what hopes and wishes he expresses for anyone.