Notes from the Left Coast

Drummond Pike’s Blog

I’ve been thinking a lot about the state of the Progressive community as we prepare for the coming transition to a new administration in Washington, DC. In my adult life, I’ve witnessed two significant transitions from Republican to Democratic administrations - Ford to Carter and then, more than a decade later, from Bush (1) to Clinton. There is no way of predicting if we will see another such transition this year, but it’s certainly possible. What I noticed in those prior experiences was how difficult it was for progressives to maintain their voice in the process. Friends and fellow travelers were jumping into the new regime’s many roles and jobs, and it became hard for folks to criticize them.

The right has had a better experience in this regard with their many, well-heeled independent think tanks and research outfits. They have readily criticized their friends in whatever new administration if they moved away from recommended policies. There is a lesson in this for progressives. We must think about the longevity of important voices outside the halls of government. For instance, I pray that a new administration doesn’t recruit Bob Greenstein (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) to be Treasury Secretary or head of OMB (both of which he would be brilliant at) for the simple reason that he is the best independent voice on tax and budget policy. And, Larry Michel at EPI (Economic Policy Institute) plays a similar role on labor and economic policy. We have so few effective advocates at a national policy level, and we need to treat them like the national treasures they are, and THAT means that we need to support their work effectively for the long term.

The Democracy Alliance was formed with this premise in mind. While some would argue that it hasn’t completely fulfilled its original vision, it has come a long way in the right direction. Several of us agreed to constitute their new “investment committee” with the charge of looking into the future and trying to discern what will be needed in 2009 and beyond. An interesting challenge, as it won’t be until November of this year that we even know what the landscape will be in Washington. Nonetheless, the importance of stepping back, looking at what is likely to be, and then formulating some ideas about what the most important elements of a continuing “progressive infrastructure” will be could not be a more crucial task.

Do you all have any ideas for this? What do you think of as the most important organizations or voices that promote progressive policy? How can they be encouraged to maintain their independent role over the coming cycle?

It’s a sad state of affairs when our two leading progressive candidates for the Presidency sit around taking swipes at one another about who has a better understanding of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s role in moving forward the civil rights legislation in the 1960’s. That the two are the first viable candidates representing groups historically precluded from such lofty ambition (women and African Americans), and this cycle may see for the first time one of them competing in the general election, only brings home the sad state of modern, TV news cycle driven politics. Hardly the “shining beacon of democracy” the current White House resident wants the world to think of our country. Can’t we ask them to “get real” and focus on substance?

Somehow the bickering between Obama and Clinton about MLK got to me. Less than two weeks prior, the most stable African democracy - Kenya - endured an election seen by most outsiders as corrupt. It was also an historical election when, for the first time, it seemed possible for a member of the second largest tribe - the Luo - to prevail in a national election. Indeed, Odinga’s party - the Orange Democratic Movement - dominated the outcomes of parliamentary elections, but somehow there was either a great deal of split voting (unlikely) or the tabulations for President were altered. The consequences speak volumes. Hundreds dead. An economy in a tailspin. Kofi Anan trying desperately to get the two sides to sit down and talk. It’s a mess likely to worsen before it improves.

And did you see the lines of people waiting hours to vote? Have you experienced the degree of alienation felt by those certain the election was stolen? People there care intently about the outcome, and they participated at levels we should admire.

Historically, progressives have brought together coalitions of the marginalized and, when successful, they have molded them into a viable coalition. This spat between Clinton and Obama risks growing into a deep tear in the fabric of our historical coalitions. We best beware. Identity politics in the US is a far cry from the tribal underpinnings of the conflict in Kenya, but there are some similarities. In Kenya, a dominant tribe has basically ruled since independence from Britain. As is true in many other parts of Africa where Colonial era borders ignore tribal histories and conflicts, the Kikuyu have played off one smaller tribe against another for decades. Many of those who were killed were in the Rift Valley where post-Colonial land reform was corrupted resulting in Kikuyus and allies getting most of the land in areas dominated by other tribes. An imperfect record on a social reform led to “blow back”.

There are some who predict that either way it goes, the Dems will lose in the general because those whose candidate doesn’t win the primary may simply walk away from the process. Without a significant black vote, without a “gender gap” with women breaking significantly for the Dems, or without rising rates of Latino participation in the electoral process, progressives are destined to lose. While no one would argue that this may lead to Kenya-like political violence, there will be consequences that should be avoided. So, can’t we get these candidates to stay on substance and off the divisive and immaterial “sound-bite” friendly sniping?

Perched out here on the western edge of the continent, sometimes what is happening in the middle of the country seems difficult to read. Like Iowa. They are voting today in the famous caucuses that will constitute round one of the Presidential slugfest that could actually extend longer into the year than any primary season I can remember. Republicans can’t seem to find their rhythm this time around, and the Democrats seem perplexed by too many attractive options: the first woman, the first African American, the first Hispanic, or the first true populist in generations - which will they choose?

As I write this, the winds are coming up for what is expected to be the biggest winter storm in years to hit the West Coast - a great parallel to the political storms hovering over Iowa. But it’s a curious thing, you know. We live in a country that is diverse, urban, and suffering through one of the more complicated economic transitions in our history as globalization meets climate change. And yet, for reasons most cannot fathom, we rely on two small, largely white and rural states to determine the early directions for our political parties to take in determining leadership choices. It’s not exactly a representational process, now is it? The ‘average American’ more likely lives in a major city, suffers a decaying school system, fights traffic for hours a day to get from affordable housing to a job that probably pays less in real wages than it did five years ago. I wonder how such people might vote in an early primary? Instead, I fear, these voters will be choosing from a narrower set of choices with momentum set from all the efforts that have gone into garnering votes in Iowa and New Hampshire. Somehow, I don’t have the impression that Iowans share the same concerns in the same ways as my “average American.”

I guess it all comes down to this. These early primaries may tell us something about the mood across rural America. But what will they tell us about diverse, urban, disappointed, and alienated America? If the latter come out to vote in big numbers in later primaries, perhaps trends will shift again in the pollsters’ eyes and produce different results. What will be lost, though, if those voices aren’t seriously heard until March?

And then, of course, Bloomberg may jump in. Now that would be a pretty squall, no? Who we he draw away from whatever candidates the major parties have selected? Anyway, it’s going to be an interesting ride these next several months. In the meantime, the best weather indicator is probably coming tonight from the caucuses in Iowa. Anyone bring an umbrella?

See Why Tuesday? [Fixing Our Voting System, one Question at a time] The Iowa Un-Caucus Episode:

I just spent an hour surfing the web to learn something about the manufacturers of explosive materials such as those used by the suicide bomber who assassinated Benhazir Bhutto last week. What a curious collection of web-pages emerged. Curious, and deeply disturbing.I began with curiosity about those involved in the manufacture and distribution of C-4, the explosive of choice for militaries and terrorists across the globe. I wondered if they slept poorly when the headlines confirm yet another deadly use of their “product” - presumably manufactured under strict regulation. I’ve often thought of the corollary to the makers of Oxycontin, the painkiller that rapidly became a street drug, abuse of which hit the headlines when Rush Limbaugh was caught with hundreds (or was it thousands) of pills. If you make something, and a lot of it ends up being used illegally, don’t you on some level simply have to know? Purdue Pharma, by the way, pled out to federal charges in the middle of 2007, for having criminally mislabeled, intentionally published false research, and other actions involved in promoting OxyContin’s sales. The tab? $630,000,000 in fines. And that’s for pushing a drug.

In the case of C-4, the stakes are measured in human lives.

When you search on the ‘net for C-4 or plastic explosives, some interesting stories emerge. Like the 12 year old kid in upscale Newport Beach, CA who was just arrested for having the components of an “acid / base” bomb in his locker. Or the teenager in Norwich, CT who police arrested when a friend reported he was following “howstuffworks.com” instructions on how to mix up his own batch of plastic explosive “just to see how it explodes”. Or the ex-Navy SEAL arrested in Suffolk, VA with a huge arms cache including C-4.

So who makes this stuff? It turns out that one of the big manufacturers is Holston Defense Corporation. HDC, in turn, is the 100% owned subsidiary of something called Eastman Chemical - a Fortune 500 company that is primarily known for its polymer and plastics business used in many household products from water bottles to store displays. HDC, by the way, just saved the Marines nearly $20 million by re-using a stockpile of old explosives to make new ones. Recycling, Pentagon style.

So, how do those 11,000 Americans working for Eastman see their contribution to global terrorism. Do they realize that in one corner of the business, not one that sees a lot of publicity or light I should add (HDC isn’t even mentioned on the company’s website), their company makes the exact same stuff that Bhutto’s assassin wrapped around his body to extract his fatalistic revenge? Do they connect this product of their company to the string of IED’s that made 2007 the worst year for GI fatalities in Iraq? I wonder. If I were among them, I think I’d have a lot of trouble sleeping at night.

Benazir Bhutto, on Frost Over the World, on November 2, 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

As someone born and reared in the west, I have a great affinity for one writer in particular, also an offspring of the western US. She wrote in her recent book, In the open space of democracy:

“we are listening - ears alert - we are watching - eyes open - registering the patterns and possibilities for engagement…our strength lies in our imagnination, and paying attention to what sustains life, rather than what destroys it…Open lands open minds.”

However, Terry Tempest Williams confuses me. She captures the most heartfelt, deep sentiment about what exactly America is, and, more important, that to which it aspires. She makes a connection to social justice, and how corporations are unaccountable for prosperity’s costs to both community and the commons, but I so wish she would write about prescriptions and actions we could take to get to the other side.

I am the child of the WWII generation. My dad was in the Air Force and trained pilots in the use of the top secret airborn radar systems. My mom was accelerated into full medical practice straight out of medical school as civilian America adjusted to deal with the realities of the war. Few women of her generation even made the attempt, but our mom, at least according to family lore, got the hard training as a new doc by treating military families at McLellan Air Force Base near Sacremento. Eventually she became the first female pediatrician in Marin County, on the north end of the GG Bridge. Those years were a remarkable period during which regular challenges emerged to long-held social assumptions about the social roles, the international order, ideologies, and the relative roles of government and business.

In reflecting on that era, as many have come to do in recent years, much is made of the last “world war”, the rise of the American industrial/military capacity, and the march of the middle class into the previous void between the haves and the have-nots. What drove this, though, was innovation, creativity, and, above all, necessity. Solutions mattered more than anything.

I think what Al Gore has been trying to tell us is that there is no great value now in discussing research on climate change, exploring our feelings about it, or matching wits across an ideological or values divide. Rather, it is time for us to act into the crisis and begin doing things. Having a slightly more open-minded resident of the White House may help, but the machinery and processes that get people there still far outweigh any inclination to do right. Business has now decided that “green is the new green” and they are scampering to productize - what a word! - all things environmental. Serious investment in solutions is paltry.

The sad truth, and one to which we all must become accustomed before business can do right, is that it has to come to grips with the fact that we have a very different playing field one that shortly governments, citizens organizations, labor, and consumers must come together to define. Terry, if she’s listening, can help us not simply to understand what is happening, but what to do about it.

• Hear an audio clip of Terry Tempest Williams, in an interview about her book Open Space of Democracy:
  http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/wildsidenews/wsnsegments/091604c.wax