I wish I could say I am surprised. Unfortunately, some Dems have been complicit in the assault on public sector unions, especially as part of corporate education reform. In addition, during the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, you say the same thing among Democratic mayors, at a time when public sector unions were a key arena for energetic Civil Rights activism (and public sector jobs were one of the only paths to the middle class for most African Americans). Unions stand in the way of corporatizing government – a key goal for conservatives and neoliberals alike, and they are one of the most important barriers for the agendas of corporatists in both parties. That, incidentally, in one of the reasons revitalizing unions is so essential.

This was often the way Republicans found a way to talk about race without being explicit about it, which Altwater famously pointed out was necessary (mentioned above). But in addition, Democrats (like the DLC) who wanted to distinguish themselves from traditional Democrats adopted very similar themes. It strikes me that one of the key ways to fight back is to tackle issues like crime, drugs and poverty head on from a progressive perspective. Their biggest strength is in how callow Democrats get when these things are brought up. There is no point in avoiding these things, since Republicans will always bring them up – we need to make these issues our own.

As I have said before, I think your point about Democratic consultants fearing any discussion of race in the wake of the VRA / CRA is quite right, and it has the added bonus of the powers that be in the party of helping us avoid talking about the way opportunity and security is distributed by society. Certainly the media will never begin discussing what is going on here if Democrats refuse to.

In addition to the obvious intend of this nation wide campaign to disenfranchise voters of color, I also think it is important to note why. It is not just to win elections, although this is part of it. It is designed to advance a far right agenda of dismantling security and opportunity for everyone outside the 1%. It is to advance punishment for the 99% and lawless predation for the 1%.

Democrats, and here I do not mean only elites but activists and partisans as well, do not seem to like discussing the intentions behind these policies. We point them out and says it will hurt some class of people, but rarely talk about why it is wrong. I asked this question in another context the other day – if Democrats were free to make policy without interference from Republicans or even corporate Democrats, what would we do? How would we address inequality, the economy, jobs, democracy, to name a few? What principles would guide us? Without knowing the answer, we are hobbled in our ability to parry these assaults.

To this day the FBI operates with no legislative charter.

What the what?

I am not sold on the idea that liberty and security are opposing forces. Much of the kind of liberty busting activity, it seems to me, is about silencing legitimate dissent or overreacting to stereotypes. Both make us less safe, not more. Unmooring surveillance, for example, from legitimate suspicion that someone(s) are committing crime distracts from actual threats. Do you have examples where they really was a tension that you discuss in the book?

Forgive me for repeating myself, but culture wars, like race relations, is an odd way to describe an argument about who counts as a person.

Thanks for this Glenn. It has been driving me batty to see the nature of the progressive response on this. The issue is not simply that evidence is on our side, or that their position is unpopular, or that they have not been consistent in taking this position. It is that they are taking a position that denies freedom to women, under the guise of protecting religious freedom. It is that they are denying, implicitly, that women are fully human. They believe in the freedom of churches, employers and husbands to make decisions for others. This is about different approaches to freedom.

You have been highlighting this problem for a long time – that progressives refuse to talk about their values. I do wish more people were listening.

The whole focus on hypocrisy and lack of sincerity is a distraction. It enables us to avoid talking about our values. Given our difficulties on this score, we cannot risk that.

Culture wars is an odd way to describe an argument over whether certain people do not get to count as a person.

The quest for freedom of movement and thought is always contested by the desire for control, order and authority. Those moved by the latter have their own conceptions of freedom, of course. Some inquisitors think freedom is possible only within strict hierarchy and order. They can be terrified by threats to order. Others are simply cynical manipulators who impose order on others so that they can enjoy the freedom of the oppressor.

Corey Robin in The Reactionary Mind argues the conservative view of freedom is a freedom for some to rule over others – in the governmental sphere, it has manifested as a defense of segregation against those who seek equal citizenship, or as the ability to rule other countries under the guise of combatting communism or terror. In the non-governmental sphere, it has manifested as the power of a husband to rule over his wife, the employer over his/her employees. The solution is to offer a better view of freedom – one that rejects the false choice, as you say, between chaos and order.

Overturning Citizens United would, at best, end the role of corporate money in politics (which could be achieved via other means) but it would not eliminate unlimited spending from politics – which has been legal since 1976. The pre-Citizens United campaign finance system was already broken.

For those who think the filibuster can serve progressive ends (leaving aside its undemocratic nature), I wonder – when has the filibuster actually blocked significant conservative legislation? When Dems used it to block conservative nominees, Republicans were ready to use the nuclear option to end it, and the Gang of 14 essentially agreed not use the filibuster. This is exactly what would happen in the future – Republicans will not allow Dems to use it to serve progressive ends.

Thanks ksix. That article really explains what the contours of this discussion look like. I cannot overstate how important this piece is.

Until we have full public financing of elections, money, like water, will find its way into the hands of candidates. The world before Citizens United featured a good deal of influence-peddling, after all. But that’s no reason to turn on the spigot full blast. An amendment banning corporate personhood would have a number of applications to the benefit of society. And it represents a rallying point for progressives, to create a more perfect union.

I agree that public funding is the key, but that is why I find this all so maddening. Public funding (as long as there is no trigger) would not be struck down by the Court. It does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be pursued at the state and federal levels. And it would deal with much more of the problem, rather than focusing on corporate spending. There are other things that could be done as well – such as people-powered electoral strategies (that obviously cost less), shareholder rights laws, pressuring institutional investors to tamp down on political spending (including lobbying), ensuring former staffers get good pensions (so they can leave with less temptation to go into lobbying) or changing the way consultants are paid so that they do not get more money for running more ads.

We seem to be focusing on the most difficult path to a partial (at best) solution. And much of it seems based on a misreading of CU (which was not really about personhood anyway). And if we are going to have an amendment related to elections, why not include something to better protect the right to vote as well – since disenfranchisement is clearly part of the problem too.

This all seems to be misguided, both strategically and tactically.

I am not sure what you mean (likely because I was not clear), but as far as this goes:

It isn’t resentment that holds the power. It is discovering respect for self that drives any successful civil rights movement.

I agree entirely.

I think the larger point is that the reasons people bring to protest are not relevant to what protest (and the protester) becomes. The failure you see is, I would say, not the result of who joined the anti-war movement but the failures of the movement in building something more. Protest is, at least partly, an educational experience.

The resentment thread was a great conversation, and I think there is something to that. I was also thinking about the way people talk about protest. There is always a push by some to denigrate protesters on the basis of their internal states. They are only there because they think it is cool, they do not care what they are protesting, etc., it is not like the Civil Rights Movement. I have read enough about the CRM to know there is nothing new here – plenty of people went to their first march or meeting to meet girls. The reasons why people do the right thing are often unknowable, yet less relevant then whether they are doing the right thing. Most activists act before they believe – the fully developed ideas that make sense of the action are often a product of the action rather than their cause.

I do too. I really am stumped, though, by the aggressive opposition to this sort of thing. I am always surprised when I see it and do not have any insight into what motivates it.

I am impressed by those that can self-promote. It is not a skill I have, but it is important. If someone is doing something worth hearing (I am also thinking about writers on politics in addition to artists) than we should want them to get a wide audience.

It makes me wonder what are the assumptions that would lead you to decide that a person with a message (as opposed to everyone else) should be forbidden from promoting their work. I cannot even begin to guess…

Good morning Glenn. My favorite recent one is the Springsteen rendition is Bring Em Home.

This is another great reason for having state run public banks – a great antidote to this type of Predator State tactics.