Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Vote for Democrats—Then Organize to Kick Their Butts by Chip Berlet

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Anderson

unread,
Oct 14, 2012, 2:58:02 PM10/14/12
to
excellent article...the title doesn't do it justice.

dave

http://logosjournal.com/2012/fall_berlet/


Vote for Democrats—Then Organize to Kick Their Butts
by Chip Berlet

Of course it is lousy situation. These days voting for Democrats,
however, helps build a bulwark against elitist reactionary rage at
restrictions on their greed, and right-wing populist fears among white
people over demographic changes in our population. Since the 1930s
Organized Wealth has been trying to shred the meager social safety net
woven during the Roosevelt Administration. These self-delusional
greedsters have been working with right-wing ideologues to exacerbate
fears of changes in “traditional” hierarchies of race and gender to
genuine economic anxiety. The result is that today we face a
Republican Party electoral campaign effort built on prejudice,
scapegoating, and conspiracy theories. These vicious tools of fear
have already given permission for aggression and violence against the
named enemies of the “Real Americans.” This trend will outlast the
election. It must be met with resistance.



I understand the appeal of third parties, but the US is not a
parliamentary system, and they have little chance of success. As G.
William Domhoff notes:

When it comes to electoral systems, the United States is the most
extreme of the countries with a single-member district plurality
system, meaning that its third parties have been very small and
ephemeral. They rarely win more than a percent or two of the vote, and
rarely last more than one or two elections when they do receive more
than a few percent.

Boycotting the election may make you feel superior, but frankly my
dears, no one else gives a damn. Go for the tactic not the antic.

Strategically, we need to rebuild a broad-based and diverse movement
for progressive social change. Strong militant social movements move
electoral political parties in their direction—it is never the other
way around. We need to be bold and take risks to stop the reactionary
juggernaut. We know it is much more effective to organize from inside
movements rather than pontificating about them from Ivory Towers of
privilege. It is time to stop masturbating about real revolution and
make real change with multiple partners. The next best thing to sex is
the successful climax of an organizing campaign. (Often the two are
related).

We need to craft a broad popular alliance while reclaiming the term
“progressive” from Democratic Party hacks, former liberals, and
neoconservatives. Obama is a centrist, not a progressive. He only
appears to be on the Left to so many otherwise sensible people because
the country has been shifted so far to the Right. Over a decade ago I
wrote that progressives needed to face four fronts. I have updated the
text slightly. We must organize against:

• The rise of reactionary populism, nativism, and fascism with roots
in white supremacy, xenophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, subversion
panics, and the many mutating offspring of conspiracist theories.

• Theocracy and other anti–democratic forms of religious
fundamentalism, around the world, which in the US is based in White
Anglo-Saxon Protestantism with its subtexts of patriarchy, misogyny,
and homophobia.

• Authoritarian state actions in the form of militarism and
interventionism abroad and government repression and erosion of civil
liberties at home.

• The antidemocratic neocorporatism of multinational capital with its
attack on the standard of living of working people around the globe.

Some of the most provocative and useful discussions of this
multi-front approach are collected at Three Way Fight, “an insurgent
blog on the struggle against the state and fascism.”

Use Effective Methodologies

We need to defend dissent, promote power structure research,
publically challenge conspiracist theories, and use new forms of
communication.

Defend Dissent

We need to challenge oppression and repression. Political repression
is rampant in the United States, and hampers our ability to reach
whole sectors of our society. The new slogan of the Defending Dissent
Foundation where I am a vice president is “Dissent is Essential!”
Progressives should not be cheering when the government represses
right-wing movements, groups, and individuals. Why would we encourage
the abuse of state power when we or our friends will inevitably be the
next targets of repression? Take the chant “No free speech for
fascists” and rework it as “No free speech for environmental
activists.” Green is the new Red. Every progressive activist, no
matter what our key issue of concern, should help restore the civil
liberties we have lost since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
To do this we should not fear temporary tactical alliances with
conservatives and libertarians in defense of civil liberties, before
all of us dissidents across the political spectrum get to chat about
it together in the camps. Just trying to get your attention….

Promote Power Structure Research

C. Wright Mills’ famous study The Power Elite was published in 1956.
It was a fortuitous moment, and was picked up by progressive activists
along with the work of Karl Marx, John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Paulo
Freire. Miles Horton collected the works of these authors and others
at the library of the Highlander Center which trained civil rights and
labor activists, including Rosa Parks and a young minister named
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Student activists participating in the Civil Rights Movement returned
to their campuses and began to challenge entrenched autocratic systems
of authority. Power structure research became the leading analytical
tool within Left movements. From these roots sprang critical race
theory, feminist theory, queer theory, ecological theories, and a
variety of other analytical forms that grew in the 1970s and 1980s.
Central to all of these analytical approaches is the idea that power
structures are not composed of a few bad individuals and are not
easily transformed with minor legislative tinkering. Instead, what is
required are radical changes to the systems, structures, and
institutions of power.

Well-known progressive activists who follow these analytical
traditions range from democratic socialists Barbara Ehrenreich and
Cornel West to left-libertarian egalitarians (anarcho-libertarian
socialists), best represented by the work of Noam Chomsky. Today,
academics such as G. William Domhoff, Adolph Reed, Jr., Henry Giroux,
Abby Scher, and Jean Hardisty—as well as journalist-activists such as
Holly Sklar, Roberto Lovato, Laura Flanders, and Amy Goodman—have
refined the power structure research model. What all of these
perspectives share is an analysis of complex systems of power, rather
than a fixation on individuals who may or may not be involved in
commonplace minor conspiracies. These sorts of conspiracies may line
some bank accounts but almost never dramatically shape major historic
social or political processes.

Publically Challenge Conspiracist Theories

Conspiracist theories are toxic to democracy because they are a
narrative form of scapegoating. Matthew N. Lyons and I argue that:

Opposing scapegoating is both a moral issue and strategically vital
because of the role scapegoating plays in building rightwing populism
which can be harvested by fascism. Fascism begins by organizing a mass
movement with bitter anti–regime rhetoric. Human rights organizers
working for social and economic justice need to encourage forms of
mass political participation, including democratic forms of populism,
while simultaneously opposing scapegoating and conspiracism that often
accompanies right-wing populism.

The removal of the obvious anti–communist underpinnings assisted left
wing conspiracists in creating a parody of the
fundamentalist/libertarian conspiracist critiques. Left wing
conspiracists strip away the underlying religious fundamentalism,
antisemitism, and economic social Darwinism, and peddle the repackaged
product like carnival snake oil salesmen to unsuspecting sectors of
the left. Those on the left who only see the antielitist aspects of
right-wing populism and claim they are praiseworthy are playing with
fire. Radical-sounding conspiracist critiques of the status quo are
the wedge that fascism uses to penetrate and recruit from the left.

While few right-wing populist movements move on to become neofascist
movements, fascism itself is the most aggressive form of right-wing
populism.

More than a decade after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001 we
still see some on the Left embracing 9/11 conspiracy theories woven
into critiques of US foreign policy by neofascists and antisemites,
including former participants in the LaRouchite network. Examples
include material from the Left/Right conspiracist Voltaire Network
which end up posted on websites such as Counterpunch and the Centre
for Research on Globalisation.

Use New Forms of Communication

We need to learn the new information dissemination methodologies made
possible by electronic and online communications systems such as the
Internet and cell phones. If you don’t use Facebook and Twitter to
organize, you are a dinosaur. At least post to a website or blog, or
support one financially. Become familiar with online information
sources including Alternet, the Public Eye, Talk to Action, and Z
Magazine’s ZCOM. There are many more worthy of support.

Reach Across Boundaries and Build Bridges

Issues of class, race, and gender are “omnipresent in the background
of all forms of collective action,” writes Buechler, and they reflect
“institutional embeddedness within the social fabric at all levels.”
These are distinct yet overlapping structures of power that need to be
assessed both independently and jointly, according to Buechler, and to
do this it is important “to theorize the different, specific,
underlying dynamics that distinguish one structure from another.”

Over the years I have worked at bridge building with organizers such
as Jean Hardisty, Suzanne Phar and Loretta Ross. Jean Hardisty is the
founder and former director of Political Research Associates where I
worked for thirty years. Pharr is former director of the Highlander
Center in Tennessee, and author of, In the Time of the Right:
Reflections on Liberation; Ross is the former national coordinator of
Sistersong, a women of color reproductive health collective in
Atlanta, Georgia. Back in the mid-1990s it was clear to a large number
of progressive organizers that we were facing a well-funded right-wing
backlash against equality and liberation. Pharr asked Ross and me if
we would help organize a national strategy meeting to talk about the
breakdown in communications among different progressive
constituencies. We called ourselves the Blue Mountain Working Group
and after several days of intense conversation we issued a statement
that included advice:

It is vital that we all share information, advice, criticisms, and
assistance as we learn to work together. The anti-democratic right has
a multi-issue strategic agenda, but its tactic is to focus its attacks
on one high-visibility target constituency at a time. No single
segment of our society has demonstrated an ability to resist these
attacks alone. We must learn to work together. We urge everyone who
desires to defend and extend democracy to join together in forming
broad and diverse locally-based coalitions to resist the rollback of
rights; to block the backlash; to fight the right.

Especially when bridge building, it is imperative to listen
respectfully to the stories and grievances of the people we are
mobilizing and recruiting. As Ross puts it, “You can’t organize people
you don’t respect. And don’t try to pretend otherwise…people aren’t
stupid and they know you are just pretending.” As we speak truth to
power, we must learn to use plain language and not be afraid to show
emotion which connects us to the real struggles of most people.

We also must challenge the language of liberalism. There is a slogan
in anti-racist work: “In Tolerance there is no Respect.”
Anti-prejudice programs that avoid dealing with systems of oppression
(and our complicity in perpetuating them) tend to shift the solutions
to law enforcement by talking about “extremists” and “extremism” or
“hate groups.” This fails to address the roots of bigotry in
hierarchies of power, and to also undermine civil liberties. The term
“extremism” itself was popularized in the mid-1960s as a way to lump
the white racist Segregationist Movement and the pro-equality Civil
Rights Movement together as troublemakers. Every time a person on the
Left uses the term “extremist” to blast right-wing opponents, it
further marginalizes out work as progressives who strive for radical
change.

And when speaking about language, those of us who only can speak
English should consider learning another language spoken in the area
in which we live. My spouse and I are learning Spanish. Loro viejo
aprende a hablar! (Idiomatic equivalent of the old dog can learn new
tricks, except it is a parrot).

Make Movement Building a Priority

Effective social movements need a stable infrastructure to survive and
force substantial changes in a society. What does it take to build a
strong social movement? With a tip of the intellectual hat to a
boatload of sociologists and other social scientists, here is a list
of ingredients:

• A discontented group of politicized persons who share the perception
that they have common grievances they want society to address

• A powerful and lucid ideological vision linked to strategies and
tactics that have some reasonable chance of success I The recruitment
of people into the movement through pre existing social, political,
and cultural networks

• A core group of trusted strategic leaders and local activists who
effectively mobilize, organize, educate, and communicate with the
politicized mass base

• The efficient mobilization of resources that are available, or can
be developed, to assist the movement to meet its goals

• An institutional infrastructure integrating political coordination,
research and policy think tanks, training centers, conferences, and
alternative media

• Political opportunities in the larger social and political scene
that can be exploited by movement leaders and activists

• The skillful framing of ideas and slogans for multiple audiences
such as leaders, members, potential recruits, policymakers, and the
general public

• An attractive movement culture that creates a sense of community
through mass rituals, celebrations, music, drama, poetry, art, and
narrative stories about past victories, current struggles, and future
successes

• The ability of recruits to craft a coherent and functional identity
as a movement participant

Starting in the 1970s, the Political Right funded a conservative
social movement that stood outside the Republican Party. They funded a
robust infrastructure that allowed the network of social movement
organization to pull the Republican Party to the Right. Since the mid
1970s a small group of us have studied how right-wing organizers and
corporate strategists accomplished this. It was never a mystery. They
wrote how they planned to do it. Then they did it. A few years ago
with much ballyhoo the liberal Democracy Alliance was formed and
raised tens of millions of dollars with the claim they had discovered
the secret to how the Right-wing juggernaut was built. Radical left
movement publications had been explaining it for years.

We knew that the elites of organized wealth and corporations (working
with political right ideologues) funded opposition political/electoral
work and movement building; both opposition research and strategic
research; both national and local organizations; both campaign
advertising and small publications and journals where ideas had
consequences. The Democracy Alliance spent millions to create
inside-the-beltway think tanks and other organizations tied to
Democratic Party political campaigns and electoral opposition
research. Some of these groups have done useful work…but it is not
movement building. Meanwhile scores of progressive organizations have
gone under, or refocused their work to chase dwindling foundation
dollars for projects that appeal to the latest liberal fad—along the
way burning out their own progressive staff in a desperate attempt to
survive.

We need to recover the idea of setting “principles of unity” for
coalition events, and develop methods for dealing with disruptions in
our organizations that humanely reach out to troubled persons yet
allow work to go forward. Every group needs to develop their own
unique approach to how to handle disruptive persons. In doing so we
need to condemn “agent baiting,” in which persons are accused of
working for the government without a shred of evidence.

If a coalition event is built around closing an incinerator in a
people of color community, then speakers from the podium should
respect the principles of unity and not call for an end to the war in
Afghanistan, no matter how sincere they are about that belief. Adding
a laundry list of demands to an event is not an effective educational
practice. It makes potential recruits feel they have no place in a
larger movement. Sociologists now know that people join movements
because they have a specific grievance. As they get recruited into a
social movement, they then learn the larger ideological issues and
broader explanations through exposure to frames and narratives.

Sociological narratives are simply stories that serve as teaching
tools. They work best when told in the first person. It is better to
help train union members on strike (and their spouses) to tell the
story of their experiences and the stress put on their family than to
have an academic give a lecture on capitalism and surplus value.

Use a Human Rights Framework

Many of us are already using Human Rights as a compelling master frame
for uniting progressive movements. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights recognizes the inherent dignity of all members of the human
family. Human Rights are those rights that are universal and
inalienable; and which provide the foundations for justice and peace
in the world. Human rights include specific social, economic,
cultural, civil, and political rights for people of all ages; races;
ethnicities; religious, spiritual, or ethical beliefs; gender; sexual
orientation; or ability. This type of “Panoply Praxis” prepares us for
facing multiple issues and multiple aggressors. Panoply is a term
culled from the early Greek for a complete suit of armor.

A progressive human rights perspective sees liberty, freedom, laws,
and rights as an essential framework, but envisions justice as the
goal. Democracy thrives where human rights are defended and justice is
honored as a collective goal of society. No justice, no peace.
Ultimately, the successful assertion of “collective human rights” or
“group rights” depends on the “linking of ethnicity/race, class,
gender, and sexuality,” argues Felice, because this linkage “mutes
supremacist tendencies by denying the right of any one group to assert
supremacy over a different group”.

See Yourself as a Link on a Chain

Organizing for human rights is like canoeing upstream…if we stop
paddling we go backwards. We must embrace humility and learn from our
mistakes; criticize constructively, and be willing to step aside and
trust the next generation of activists.

For example, Marina Sitrin, an experienced progressive activist and
scholar, thinks too many in the traditional organized Left have
misconceptions about the Occupy Movement. Sitrin was drawn to the
Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York City from its earliest days.
She recognizes that the way Occupy functions is confusing or
frustrating to some on the Left.

“There are people who think Occupy is wrong because we don’t share the
same strategy as they do.” According to Sitrin she has seen this,
among people from the Old Left who are “really convinced that building
strong left political parties,” is essential for organizing. “They
have very strong positions on this question and they have lived for a
very long time championing those positions. Then they run into a
movement that does not want to build a party, confront agencies of the
state, or take over the government, and they don’t know what to make
of us.”

“Some people think that since Occupy doesn’t issue demands and does
not engage the state directly that we have not been effective, says
Sitrin. “Our point of reference is each other. We organize not by
letter writing or voting or asking the state for concession—we occupy,
and that has been effective.” Sitrin argues “it is not a contradiction
for this to be true” and has documented her claim:

Throughout the United States, in large cities and small towns, people
inspired by the politics and tactics of Occupy have been organizing to
defend people from evictions, from the neighborhood of Bernal Heights
in San Francisco to suburbs in midwestern Minnesota and Iowa. The form
is the same. Neighbors come together, sometimes going door to door,
sometimes meeting in a person’s home, and discuss who is at risk of
foreclosure and what to do about it, often physically defending homes
from eviction as well as petitioning for new terms for living in the
home with the bank. Anyone who has been to one of these home defenses,
or even looked at the photos, will quickly get a sense of what this
means: teenagers in sports jackets, mothers holding children,
grandparents and neighbors and activists, all together gather to
prevent an eviction or foreclosure from taking place. In most cases
they win, forcing the banks to allow people to keep their homes
instead of being cast out on the street.

As a scholar, Sitrin has studied and written about different concepts
of power in liberatory social and political movements and the use of
autonomism and horizontalism as organizing frameworks for creating
change. She points out that autonomous social movements in Argentina
are part of a global phenomenon of horizontalism that emerged before
the Occupy movement, and similar structures were later established in
Greece.

In the United States, “Occupy as a movement or network is not
campaigning for any candidate in the 2012 election because we do not
believe that elections are how we choose to change the world,” says
Sitrin, “Most occupy participants will vote anyway – but this is not a
contradiction either, and does not mean that there is a confidence in
the electoral system as a site of change – more likely people are
seeing it as merely a defensive move.”

Defend the Promise of Democracy

As we promote progressive solutions, we must also join with all
persons across the political spectrum to defend the basic ideas of
mass democracy, even as we argue that it is an idea that has never
been real for many here in our country. The principles of the
Enlightenment are not our goal, but resisting attempts to push
political discourse back to pre–enlightenment principles is
nonetheless a worthy effort.

We have to have faith in democracy as a potential, and reject liberal
and conservative claims that democracy is a set of specific
institutions created by white male northern Europeans who stole land,
murdered the indigenous people, kept slaves, and then launched war
after war around the world. What a load of crap. Who are we kidding?

Democracy is not a specific set of institutions but a process that
requires dissent. Democracy is a process that assumes the majority of
people, over time; given enough accurate information, and the ability
to participate in a free and open public debate; reach constructive
decisions that benefit the whole of society; and thus preserve
liberty, protect our freedoms, extend equality, and defend democracy.

The end of our statement from the Blue Mountain Working Group issued
in 1994 still resonates as a call to action:

The time has come to stand up and vigorously defend democracy and
pluralism against the attacks orchestrated by cynical leaders of the
anti-democratic right. History teaches us that there can be no freedom
without liberty, no liberty without justice, and no justice without
equality; and we look forward to success because we know it is through
the never-ending struggle for equality, justice, liberty and freedom
that democracy is nourished.



Chip Berlet, a freelance journalist and scholar, worked as an analyst
and progressive movement strategist for over thirty years at Political
Research Associates. He is currently a vice president of the Defending
Dissent Foundation and working on a book on organized wealth and the
attack on working people. A webpage with online links illustrating or
expanding on this essay is at
http://www.organizedwealth.us/movement/building/kick-butt.html.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages