Notes from the Left Coast

Drummond Pike’s Blog

Among European progressives, there is a strong rallying cry for financial reform through the closing of tax havens. A French leader was just at the PES Congress podium decrying the loophole – perhaps in the EU? – that permits tax havens to escape more stringent regulation because there 12 of them and they have treaties with one another. If one has 12 such treaties, then you are somehow off the hook. I clearly need to learn more about this! It’s fascinating that progressives in the US aren’t more focused on this issue. This recent case with HSBC where the IRS finally has acquired access to a list of thousands of American holders of offshore accounts only addresses part of the problem and hardly serves to take the issue off the table.

It is an interesting thing, as I’m becoming more familiar with the issues before the PES Congress (http://www.pes.org/), to begin to understand the confusion European progressives seem to be experiencing in their failure to gain more traction with the voters even in this period of economic dislocation. It’s vaguely reminiscent of the confusion plaguing the Republicans these days – they are so certain they were right, they just can’t understand why folks don’t respond. Perhaps it’s just the natural swinging pendulum.

Just now, a French leader is decrying the failure of Europeans to address the financial crisis because of their ongoing failure to leave national agendas at the door and address the system as a whole. 

She’s then followed by the Finance Minister (I think) of Austria who argues that the financial crisis is not over because the stock market is rising – instead, the true measure is when the unemployment rate declines. He went on to push for an aggressive requirement that the financial industry be required to finance an insurance pool that will preclude the need for taxpayer funded bailouts in the future.

Next up is the head of the Czech Socialist Party who argues for a unified surveillance program or capability as well as the Tobin Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax) that has gotten a good deal of attention at this Congress.

Last, Javier Moreno Sánchez – Global Progressive Forum’s new leader – announced a new campaign for financial reform – get rid of toxic products, pass a Tobin-like Tax, and implement a regulatory regime; the campaign is called the Europe Campaign for Financial Reform. Unlike the US, where energy seems to be flagging to get these ideas in front of a Congress preoccupied with healthcare and other matters, Europe seems more prepared to address this thorny issue. Not the first time, I should think.

* * * *

As the PES Congress winds down, delegates slowly head for the trains or the airport. In a slowly emptying hall, a couple of fascinating speeches concluded the gathering.  The first, by a French leader whose name I didn’t catch, noted the absence of elected officials from the crowds. In part, he said, this reflected the electoral challenges experienced by social democrats and socialists in the recent EU elections. But in part, he argued, this resulted from the struggle of progressives to establish a clear identity. As with the first day, this sounded much like an echo from the post-2004 US experience.

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen then returned to conclude the proceedings. His remarkably personable way of communicating helped him accent the plan that gave rise to his runaway election to another term as President of the PES: grow the activist base of the Party from 20,000 to 50,000 by the next Congress, strengthen the structure of the organization, and run campaigns that clarify what progressives stand for: job growth, a green economy, and financial reforms. I conclude that we will see much more of this man over the coming years.

*  *  *  *

After lunch, I was sought out for a meeting with Javier Moreno Sánchez, the new Secretary General of the policy organization associated with the PES, the Global Progressive Forum, and several of his staff. Having delivered a speech in the morning, and otherwise been running ragged for the duration of the Congress, he looked tired but happy. His talk, referenced above, reflected his dominant policy interest – the passing of effective financial reforms for the EU. It turns out they had been hoping that Rob Johnson, my good friend who is now heading up a new program on economic policy with the Roosevelt Institute, would have been with us today to deliver a speech, but missed his plane. Needless to say, it would have been warmly received.

As we explored the ways the GPF and Tides might collaborate over the coming period, and there were many, I had the sense that this wild-haired idea of coming so far was indeed a stroke of good fortune for us both. Our nascent project to establish a presence in Europe will get a real jump-start as we build this relationship on the many topics of mutual interest: financial reform, immigration policy, Afghanistan, gender equity, and advancing the possibility of a green economy. The PES/GPF network is comprised of our European counterparts, and we should look forward to getting to know them over this next period.

As the only American attending this conference (so far as I could tell), I wondered if the boatloads of our colleagues, jostling one another for a glimpse of the official sessions as the meetings in Copenhagen commence, will be as fortunate. Somehow, I doubt it.

I’m an outsider attending the 1500 plus PES Congress in Prague (this is the European Union Party that collects progressives, labor, social democrats, and socialists from the various national parties throughout Europe). At yesterday’s preliminary session, I heard several familiar arguments, and some surprising ones.

First, Poul Nyrop Rasmussen, the President of the PES (roughly “Party of European Socialists” in several languages) talked with distain about the last election, not because the PES lost the election for the EU Parliament, but because “the sofa party” won. Turns out the “sofa party” was not a political acronym, but literally a sofa. Some 56% of the electorate did not vote. Sounds like America. One reason, it turns out, is that the social democrats and the more labor-oriented socialists in various countries split their votes between 2 candidates and thus muddied the message and lost the EU election.

While out of power, though, the PES seems to be borrowing from the US experience, circa 2004, in assembling a broad array of interests to create a clear political program built around three enets: creating green jobs through substantial public spending on Climate Change, a reinvestment in education and re-education of the workforce, and, in a fashion far more aggressive than current American proposals, reform of the financial markets. They are decidedly not anti-market, but want to manage markets with and through effective regulation – an idea far more acceptable on this side of the pond. Much of their thinking is embodied in a new book, shared with many at the conference, called The Next Left. Not exactly a quick read for the next plane trip, but effective and discursive as an intellectual framework worth examining.

Just now, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen was re-elected to the Presidency of the PES for another term. 320 some odd versus 6 votes. On the stage, he joked that it seemed like a “soviet era” election and then seriously took pains to see the election as a statement of trust in the program they are trying to build. He is part promoter, part cheerleader, and part strategic advisor. Watching the well-orchestrated Congress, and just beginning to understand the implications for Europe that a revitalized PES might mean, I come away impressed with the prospects they have to shift leftward the political winds in Europe. What I’m curious about is just how they will build a relationship to the work of the Green Parties – a smaller, but effective pan-European party that concentrates its efforts on environmental issues.

At Tides, we have long been on the receiving end of rightist critiques of our many activities and programs. Full of innuendo, remarkably bad conspiracy theories, untruths, and half-truths, their theory seems to be that our commitment to sustainability, human rights, and social justice makes us highly suspect at best, and downright anti-American at worst. The latest examples, of course, are these bizarre constructs being promoted by FOX’s Glenn Beck insinuating that Tides is promoting a communist and/or socialist agenda on the unsuspecting public according to a grand plan. It’s all part of the scorched earth approach that Paul Krugman alluded to in his recent column.

We’ve considered various ways of responding, legally and otherwise, and invariably receive the advice that its just better to continue on our way and not get bogged down in a fruitless effort to set the record straight.

While I’ve developed a fairly thick skin as a result of the frequent screed directed at us, and at me individually, I find myself deeply saddened by the condition of current social policy debate in this great country of ours. In all of our years of supporting progressive ideas and organizations, I don’t think we (Tides) ever lost respect for the views of others. And for most of our 33 years, conservatives have held the reins of government, and, until recently, the support of many voters. But in the tradition of a loyal opposition, we have always thought that advancing alternative views was central to the democratic process. It is in this spirit that we hosted the recent Momentum 2009 conference. Videos of all the speakers are available to all to view, consider, and, if moved, comment upon, in the hopes of fostering intelligent dialog about solutions to the difficult problems of our day. There is no secret agenda. We simply invite an open exchange of ideas. The question is, though, is that still possible?

There are many voices, particularly in some corners of the broadcasting world, that seem to believe the best way to prevail is to silence your counterparts by trashing them personally, often without any factual basis. Just bully them out of the way. I’ve been on the receiving end of this, in my small way, as a result of this blog. One recent comment gives a flavor of what one can expect these days: “Hey, Drummond, how’s it feel to be hit on the head with a shovel? Get used to it. There’s more coming.”

I’m too old to have my feelings hurt by such things, but it is a sad thing to see that our political discourse has dropped into the gutter in this way. Much in the tradition of “yellow journalism” practiced in the late 1800’s, the anonymity of the Internet invites extremists to vent. In response, many simply cringe. And, as we have seen recently in Kansas, some resort to violence.

Politics has always been a rough and tumble game, not for the faint of heart. But during most of my adult life, there has always been a parallel experience where rational minds come together to wrestle out where the common ground lies. In the best cases, they try to develop palatable solutions that most can agree upon. Many would argue this has been the source of much human progress. While I’d not argue that progressives start in that middle ground, the gargantuan problems facing us in so many realms suggest that we need to find this path as we seek the solutions we so desperately need to find.

Irving Kristol’s passing reminds us all of the tradition that he founded that many call “neo-conservatism.” In his approach, and that of William F. Buckley and perhaps our generation’s David Brooks, intellectual rigor, rational thought, and facts mattered in constructing conservative positions and proposals. Propaganda and character assassination had no place. Buckley, for instance, would face off against smart people with differing views in the most intelligent exchanges one can imagine. Quoted in a Salon.com article a decade ago, Kristol’s son William said this about Buckley, “Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate.”

Fatalists sometimes argue that the rising seas will put out the fires of human conflict and the few survivors will have no choice but to cooperate or die. Even the figuratively shovel-wielding commenter noted above might agree that civil discussion has some merit in contrast, especially if we can actually begin to work together to solve humanity’s problems.

Dear Mr. Beck,

Thank you for giving Tides such extraordinary and generous attention on your shows. In the “no such thing as bad publicity” category, it doesn’t get much better. My mother drilled into us that manners really matter, so thank you.

I doubt you realize it, but you’ve really begun to rally folks behind a commitment to change, of the sort that was so decisively demonstrated in last fall’s elections. I have to say that of all the things you decry about the people and programs we support, going after a video explaining sustainability to kids is really something.

Of course, your assertions about last night’s topic, The Story of Stuff (www.storyofstuff.com) were absurd, but the attention you brought to them really helped. It:

• Drove more than 25,000 new visitors to the www.storyofstuff.com site – more than twice their usual number of daily visitors. Thanks to you, 25,000 (and counting) visitors heard The Story of Stuff’s message and many signed up to get involved.
•  Raised more funds to help The Story of Stuff increase its impact and reach. Contributions are streaming in from existing supporters, as well as from brand-new donors who are now much more interested in supporting The Story of Stuff because you oppose it.
• Sparked an avalanche of calls and emails from parents, teachers, principals and school administrators from coast to coast about how valuable The Story of Stuff is to teaching kids about sustainability.
• Fired up the progressive netroots and grassroots in support of The Story of Stuff.

You’ve really done your part to help increase The Story of Stuff’s impact, and as our elected leaders grapple with the very real issues of global climate change and the need for sustainability, your assistance in rallying progressives has been just wonderful.

You know, with all you’ve had to say about Tides in recent months, we’ve never had the chance to talk. But if you are ever in San Francisco — you know, like for a wedding or something — I’d love to buy you a cup of coffee: Fair Trade, of course!

All the best!

After a couple of days to recover from Momentum 2009, Tides’ terrific conference on ideas for progressives…

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, on Green For AllJohn A Powell, on Opportunity and Race

Manuel Pastor, on Majority-Minority Economics

Jacquette M. Timmons, on the Economic Collapse…I returned from the mountains Sunday to the normal backlog of hundreds of emails, calls, and correspondence – all demanding attention. Somehow, I missed the Fox sting operation (Correction, 9/18/2009: The incident I’ve referred to was not a “Fox sting operation” as I wrote. Fox did not create the video, they broadcasted it. Several individuals unconnected with Fox shot the video) on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) that has been raging through the airwaves. What a story. A couple of “gotcha journalists” posing as a pimp and a prostitute sought financial and housing help from one of ACORN’s many offices around the country that serve the poorest of the poor. And they found one or two where part-time counselors with poor judgment were taken in and supposedly tried to help them game the system. It would be interesting, of course, to see what would happen if they had similarly set up “stings” with payday lenders, tax refund lenders, and other parasites out there who prey on the poor, but Fox, with an ideological agenda to reduce its antagonists to their knees went after ACORN.That the secret taping violated laws and ethics seems overlooked and, to most, irrelevant. The immediate firing of the employees by ACORN also seems unimportant to most. What matters is the smear – very successful, very American. To be associated with a scandal, even one invented for the sole purpose of harming an organization of poor people, not to mention one that is not real, is the door to obscurity in American social and political life, and ACORN, according to some, is headed through that door.I wonder how many nonprofit organizations – even big, well-heeled ones like the Nature Conservancy or the Red Cross – could withstand the kind of media assault and unscrupulous tactics deployed by Fox? I doubt many could. Night after night, the Fox mouthpieces babble on about ACORN. According to them, it’s some incredible scramble of a fascistic criminal enterprise foisting communism and socialism on an unsuspecting public. And people buy this drivel. The Senate yesterday passes a bill to ban ACORN from funding they use to counsel low-income people on housing as a result. One fake prostitute and pimp has managed to do what Bill Riley and Glenn Beck couldn’t do for a decade.

Of course, in the ways of modern media wars, it matters not that ACORN was decrying predatory lending (read subprime insanity) for years before the meltdown. Yes, they believed banks should lend to low income people, but no, they argued strenuously that subprime perpetrators should be prevented from issuing loans that were unaffordable to the low income borrowers. If regulators and Senators had listened to them, we might have avoided the entire mess. But Fox has a better idea: kill the messenger.

Tides Momentum Conference
Videos: http://fora.tv/partner/Momentum
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tidesmomentum
Tweets: http://twitter.com/TidesMomentum
Share: http://tidesmomentum.posterous.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TidesMomentum

It’s only been a week since we called to order the 2009 Momentum Leadership Conference that began 2 and a half days of non-stop exploration by some four hundred intrepid progressive donors and leaders from across the country. And, no, Stephen Colbert never did show up, the chicken. We’ve been trying to figure out how to superimpose a flapping chicken over his overused, and decidedly undeserved, eagle. Know any video hackers out there?

More seriously, the Conference exceeded our expectations remarkably. People came, people listened, and then people engaged on a panoply of topics from climate change to the economy to the role of race in America. The idea of Momentum is to provide a venue for some of the best, most innovative, thinking emerging from the progressive community. With this in mind, I was asked many times did I think we had succeeded. My answer? It was a simple, “you tell me. Did you meet someone you didn’t know, hear about something new and exciting to you, and did you come away with a different perspective on a topic of interest to you? If the answer was yes to any of those questions, we succeeded. If the answer was yes to ALL of those, then we are happy beyond measure.”

We’re fortunate to have partnered with FORA.tv which has been diligent and quick to post the videos of the 20 minute talks. Here are three of my favorites: Larry Mishel, who heads up the Economic Policy Institute in DC, gave one of the most cogent, coherent analyses of the economic meltdown and what we need to do about it. Just brilliant. Second, Kate Kendall spoke about the freedom to marry in the most compelling way I’ve heard. Finally, Sony Kapoor held forth about the abuses in the international financial sector, and the prescriptions to the problem, in terrific form.

A special evening greeted the participants seven nights ago: Alexis McGill interviewed Congresswoman Donna Edwards and NAACCP President Ben Jealous on the challenges facing young, emerging leadership in the African American community. It was a frank, earthy conversation that had the room buzzing.

We are now beginning to think about the next round. I hope you will suggest speakers, topics, ideas, and tools that you think we should feature at Momentum 2010. Email me at drummond@tides.org or post a comment here.

A LETTER TO VAN…

Dear Van,

Thanks for taking one for the team. It is so unbelievably absurd to experience the power of the rightwing attack machine, especially when what you are doing is so basically decent, and smart, and intended to help everyone, even the morons who went after you.

We know one thing about dealing with these people. Facts don’t matter. Fear matters. Whatever they can do to twist things to make you into a scary force intent on destroying our way of life, they will do. And they will do it in what Charles Blow so aptly describes as “talking in bumper stickers.” These are the same people who deride the President as being racist, who belittle anyone who tries to address global warming or poverty (not to mention healthcare), and who have literally nothing to offer other than wild conspiracy theories of a vast leftwing plot, though a plot to do what is always vague.

Now that you have stepped down, I wonder whose turn it will be next for the sick game of character assassination directed at pretty much anyone advancing ideas of social justice or sustainability. I agree with many of the voices responding to your resignation – it’s time we stand up against the McCarthyism and hateful speech that’s being thrown our way – and especially yours. It is un-American and anti-democratic.

Anyway, here’s to you and all you stand for in this world. I know you will land somewhere very soon doing critically important work. In the meantime, sleep, rest, and play with the kids. While we all know you didn’t leave to “spend time with the family”, it’s not such a bad idea.

All the best, my friend
Drummond

I sit here watching two high performance sailboats getting ready to race on this crystal clear day in San Francisco. It’s a wonderful time of year in the late summer, when the fog retreats and the people come out to the shore. Absolutely glorious. But me? I’m hunkered down in front of my screen trying to sort through my opening remarks for Momentum, our fourth conference highlighting the best of new ideas to advance progressive public policy.

Don Hazen, the character who conceived of and has built AlterNet, the wonderful aggregator of progressive news and commentary, has asked me a couple of provocative questions about Momentum. Several revolved around the idea that progressives are confused about how to speak to the new Administration. Are we supporters or critics? Have we already been so burned by the healthcare debate that we are ready to turn on the new team, or what? He wanted to know if our conference, very nearly sold out, much to our surprise in this most difficult of years, was going to answer some of these questions.

As I told him in response, that’s not really our role. First, the progressive community is larger — much larger — than the 300 plus folks who will assemble on Monday afternoon at the W (SF). One would have to be seriously delusional to think we might speak for the entire progressive community, although to hear Glenn Beck talk about us, well maybe we do! However, I digress.

News people, like Hazen, want a story, and they are very good at getting them. At Momentum, though, we are looking for what might become a story in the future. All good political stories begin with ideas that somehow take flight, get traction, and sometimes become policies, or at least political fights about policy, that really are newsworthy. At Momentum, we concentrate on the ideas. Last year, for instance, Jacob Hacker held forth on the transition from our current broken healthcare system and argued brilliantly for an approach that saw a "public option" as a pivotal tool that would help move the chances for change forward. Little did he know that his "compromise" position might so quickly have become the lightning rod for the debate we see this year.

One voice on this year’s program that should be galvanizing is Sony Kapoor from Europe. He will be talking in very direct and compelling ways about the critical need for international financial reform, picking up from last year’s speaker Rob Johnson who sharply depicted an "oligopoly" comprised of 6 firms that traded derivatives among themselves while telling all it was a "marketplace." Some of us, of course, wish we’d paid just a tad more attention to Johnson. We could have avoided much of the meltdown, but that’s another story. Kapoor, who worked in the belly of the beast, will describe how the problem is really much bigger than the U.S. Solving it, needless to say, will take more than reforms in Washington. And speaking of that fair city, we’ll also be hearing from Laura Quinn about Catalist, one of the most important new tools for progressive advocacy and voter engagement groups in a generation. Then, early Wednesday, we’re delighted to have John Kao (author of Innovation Nation) talk about what is needed to truly foster imagination and innovation in society. It’s all going to be quite a ride.

So, this all is probably not a very good answer to Mr. Hazen, but what I can assure him is that if he spends a couple of days next week with us, he will likely take away more than a few ideas that he probably hasn’t heard before. For change really to happen, isn’t that where it all begins?

I came to Yokohama, the historical port for Tokyo, to give a talk about our new GreenSpace enterprise to support development of new green, Nonprofit Centers. The occasion is the “TBLI” (Triple Bottom Line) Conference that occurs regularly each year in Europe and Asia.

The trip turned into a wonderful opportunity to reprise my time in Japan nine years ago, lecturing to those active in the nascent movement to create a nonprofit sector in Japan. A new law was passed in 1998 creating the possibility for these corporate structures which hadn’t previously existed in Japan. Since, there have been three refinements in the law, and there is much work being done to expand the applicability for tax deductibility. Only some 300 NPO’s are deductible out of the 36,000 that have been formed, and there are other aspects to the question of establishing clear boundaries for appropriate NPO activity in the advocacy sphere. It’s a vibrant time in this small sector of Japanese social landscape, and it holds so much potential.

One of the most interesting conversations I had was with Professor Kanji Tanimoto and a small seminar group at Hitotsubashi University (in Tokyo) comprised mainly of executives with multi-nationals and banks (Microsoft, HSBC, etc.). We spent a good deal of time talking about Katherine Fulton’s premise that the for-profit and nonprofit sectors are converging toward each other. The old paradigm where business really ONLY cared about the bottom line is giving way to a new paradigm where success in business may in fact be more linked to practices that incorporate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) aspects into HOW businesses do business. In Japan, it would seem, the NPO sector can play a role in working with businesses to embrace this emerging awareness.

This discussion was a wonderful connector back to the TBLI Conference that had brought me to Japan in the first place. More on that in another blog post.  Let it suffice to say that while our friends on the right continue to see Tides and progressives in a very limited light, there is an expanding and fascinating world out there in the business community that ties together strands of creative private enterprise and deep commitments to addressing social justice and global sustainability. The inanity – and occasional tragedy (witness the assassination of Dr. Tiller) – of the right / left divide simply must give way to a new synthesis.

Japan has unique characteristics as a society – a very different and non-western society – that may enable it to make significant contributions to this evolving possibility. A more homogeneous society, Japanese have the ability to forge a new consensus and move quickly to pursue implications of a changing awareness.

A week ago, I attended the Global Progressive Forum, organized by Poul Ryup Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark and held in the Parliamentary hall of the European Union – an amazing space for such an event. It is called the Hemicycle and is a large oval space surrounded by 3 floors of “sky booths” containing the translators who were borrowed from the EU for the purposes of this two-day session. For an American, at least of my generation, it is with some embarrassment that I watched many of the representatives from various African, South American, Asian, and European countries in a facile way move between languages depending on who their audience happened to be. Me, I was consigned to grabbing the earphones whenever the speakers departed from English. (I’m happy to say that both of my children have avoided the mono-linguistic shortcomings of their father…)

A second, equally simple, observation at the GPF was the comfort that virtually the entire rest of the planet has with the idea of socialism and, perhaps more to the point, social democratic systems where the state plays a far more important role ensuring the social welfare of all its citizens and workers. America’s often outright hostility and deep skepticism of the role of government – not to mention the idea that government can be as well run an enterprise as any private organization of similar scale – has confused me for years. After all, my parents generation benefitted from the astonishingly successful governmental intervention in both the domestic economy and in international relations with more success than any other period in modern history. Government was the answer to the Depression and to the rise of fascism across the globe. No private enterprise could have achieved either outcome, much less had the foresight that was the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan and Korea. Yes, and the same generation was on duty when Vietnam happened and the Cold War flourished, but as a whole, there were an awful lot of good things about that era, and one has to think we may well be headed into a similar time. Lord knows, there are as many compelling challenges on the table.

May we live in interesting times.