[Dialogue] [Oe List ...] The Distinction Between Hillary andObama

Tue Mar 4 14:49:22 EST 2008

Jim and all,

  Regarding the dynamics of the establishment, follow the link below to an article entitled "Learning from the Cultural Conservatives:Messing with Their Minds."

  It is an excellent article regarding the fact that the neocon revolution was the product of a very intentional strategy, the first step of which was to get in people's heads with the conservative story.  The trouble with the article, written by an "enlightened liberal," is it recommends that the "progresssive movement" use the same tactics to deal with the "conservative enemy," with a heavy dose of "us and them."  Seems to me Obama's message bears at least a hint of transestablishment thinking.  My question is, if he, or Hillary for that matter, is elected, does he/she then become the establishment?

  Randy

  http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/learning-cultural-conservatives-part-i-messing-their-minds

James Wiegel <jfwiegel at yahoo.com> wrote:
    Keep in mind that Brooks is a conservative columnist.  Nevertheless, this focus on competing theories of social change brought back memories of the ol' days and the New Social Vehicle.

  In his book, The Courage to Lead, Brian Stanfield devoted a chapter to the transestablishment, something I consider an important conceptual breakthrough we had in the midst of everything and allowed us to define a role which, 3 decades later, is behind the whole profession of facilitation -- that in any situation, there are those who are being served and benefiting from the structures that have been established (we called this the PRO establishment) and there are those who are not being served, not benefitting, or have fallen out of the structures that have been established (we called this the DIS establishment).  Most theories of social change, or revolution, talked about either working patiently within the structures to gain power to make change, or  mobilizing the disestablished to overthrow the pro established and create a new social order.  In the work on the new social vehicle, we suggested a third force -- the transestablishment that worked to bridge the two,
 moving them forward.  This imagery was inspired, in part, by the movie Little Big Man, in which Dustin Hoffman, as Jack Crab is tossed between "the indians who call themselves human beings" and the white man.

  There was an interesting article in the current issue of The Progressive by Howard Zinn (who has done a lot trying to write history from a "people's" perspective vs. the perspective of those in power) 
    Election Madness    
        By Howard Zinn, March 2008 Issue

  There’s a man in Florida who has been writing to me for years (ten pages, handwritten) though I’ve never met him. He tells me the kinds of jobs he has held—security guard, repairman, etc. He has worked all kinds of shifts, night and day, to barely keep his family going. His letters to me have always been angry, railing against our capitalist system for its failure to assure “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness” for working people.
  Just today, a letter came. To my relief it was not handwritten because he is now using e-mail: “Well, I’m writing to you today because there is a wretched situation in this country that I cannot abide and must say something about. I am so enraged about this mortgage crisis. That the majority of Americans must live their lives in perpetual debt, and so many are sinking beneath the load, has me so steamed. Damn, that makes me so mad, I can’t tell you. . . . I did a security guard job today that involved watching over a house that had been foreclosed on and was up for auction. They held an open house, and I was there to watch over the place during this event. There were three of the guards doing the same thing in three other homes in this same community. I was sitting there during the quiet moments and wondering about who those people were who had been evicted and where they were now.”
  On the same day I received this letter, there was a front-page story in the Boston Globe, with the headline “Thousands in Mass. Foreclosed on in ’07.”
  The subhead was “7,563 homes were seized, nearly 3 times the ’06 rate.”
  A few nights before, CBS television reported that 750,000 people with disabilities have been waiting for years for their Social Security benefits because the system is underfunded and there are not enough personnel to handle all the requests, even desperate ones.
  Stories like these may be reported in the media, but they are gone in a flash. What’s not gone, what occupies the press day after day, impossible to ignore, is the election frenzy.
  This seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.
  And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.
  Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections?
  The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.
  Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won’t allow them in.
  No, I’m not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death. 
  I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes—the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
  But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
  Let’s remember that even when there is a “better” candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find it dangerous to ignore.
  The unprecedented policies of the New Deal—Social Security, unemployment insurance, job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing—were not simply the result of FDR’s progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus Army—thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.
  In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.
  Without a national crisis—economic destitution and rebellion—it is not likely the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.
  Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.
  They offer no radical change from the status quo.
  They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.
  They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live.
  None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.
  So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.
  Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  For instance, the mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes—they should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War, when small farmers, many of them war veterans (like so many of our homeless today), could not afford to pay their taxes and were threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by the thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take place. 
  The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents should remind us of what people did in the Thirties when they organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back in their apartments, in defiance of the authorities.
  Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.
Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
  Howard Zinn is the author of “A People’s History of the United States,” “Voices of a People’s History” (with Anthony Arnove), and most recently, “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”

401 North Beverly Way 
Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
+1 623-936-8671
+1 623-363-3277
jfwiegel at yahoo.com
www.partnersinparticipation.com

Strangely enough, this is the past that somebody in the future is longing to go back to. Ashleigh Brilliant    
---------------------------------
  Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search._______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080304/f10fc732/attachment.html 