Cuba

What do you think about Cuba? Let that settle in for a minute.






Good. Now let's get down to business. It occured to me the other day that this is yet another issue on which conservatives have gotten the jump on liberals (say, 40-years-ish jump). Yes, this happened while watching The Godfather, Part II. But in any event...odd are that you, as a liberal, don't really have a particularly well-thought-out set of views with regards to Cuba - either in terms of present policies or post-Castro. Mostly, it's probably pretty oppositional to the interests of the rabid-right-wing Cuban exile community - which is something of a mistake, on some things.

Conservatives have a completely coherent set of views regarding Cuba and a very particular set of policies to implement now and post-Castro. Namely - they hate Castro, can't wait until he's dead, and are chomping at the bit to attempt to both restore ownership of seized assets to the Cuban exiles and then privatize the rest. Suffice to say, they don't think all too much about what the actual current occupants of Cuban - save for the "freedom" they rather meaninglessly extol, freedom meaning, in their minds, a dead Castro.

Now. Castro sucks. He is an arrogant windbag, represses free speech, tortures dissidents. He's stuck with a failed economic system that leaves his people with near zero economic production, and one of the lowest standards of living in the world - though, it's true, with excellent health care and education, and a pretty shockingly high life expectancy given the standard of living.

But Castro - and his brother, who will likely succeed him - can't be gone quick enough for my tastes. When that happens - and it will, in 10-15 years' time - this will be an enormous opportunity for both the American Left and the United States to improve its image all over the world, particularly Latin America.

How? Well, my feeling is that Cuba - as a state with high education and health - is a perfect laboratory for what can happen when post-welfare state, post-IMF social democratic policies are put into place. There will be a substantial social democratic political presence on the island among intellectuals and the populace who value the good things that Cuba has while also hating Castro's repression, and it will be important for the Left of the United States to support that movement, and keep it from getting steamrolled by the Bacardis/GOP/other extractive interests.

The issues are not simple - property ownership is a tricky river to navigate when you realize that, in addition to the Bacardis, there were indeed many Coreleone-style asset-holders, whose assets were perhaps not entirely legitimately acquired to begin with. [Side note - of special importance to yours truly is the preservation of Havana Club Rum's independence, and keeping it from getting smashed by the Bacardis, who are nervous as all hell about Americans actually being able to drink rum that is, you know, good]. But there are ways to do foreign investment that are of benefit to local populations, as well as being profitable.

Now, I haven't laid out anything much specific here, with good reason - I don't know quite what I think, myself (I had absolutely no idea what to think of the Elian Gonzalez deal lo these many years ago) . But I know that I ought to be thinking more about it; so, discuss.

Stand Up

Look, yesterday when I said on my other blog:

While we dither about on the American left talking about how to say the things we really want to say in order that we most effectively trick people into voting for us...

I meant it. I am sick of people talking about framing, just as I was sick of people talking about "electability" and what will "play well in the South." That dog don't hunt.

Iowa's two senators are Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin - Grassley is not a total unthinking Neanderthal, but he's definitely an old-school conservative. And all this blathering on about how Kerry was the most liberal senator? Please. The oldest of the old-school liberals is Tom Harkin. And yet both he and Grassley represent the same state - which voted for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004 - and get elected with pretty much the same share of the vote. Which is to say, by massive majorities.

The Senate seat of Tom Harkin's good friend, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, is now held by a man who, more or less, does whatever Bush wants.

There are very few true single-issue voters, as a share of the electorate. On anything. And there are almost zero situations where their party alleigance is not scripted in advance (that is, they aren't gonna vote for the other party no matter what, even if the candidate shares their views on the single-issue issue). Abortion is the one biggie, and the anti-abortion folks have more single-issue voters on that than we do for choice, but not, in practice, by a lot. It might even be a wash.

Most people vote with somebody they feel comfortable with. And people feel comfortable with leaders who do what they say and say what they mean - on either side. There is a vast pool of voters out there who are perfectly willing to disagree with mcuh of what a politician believes in but still vote for them 'cause they like 'em, and the other guy seems like too much of a 'politician.'

Be that, too - say what you mean, mean what you say, and respect people. 'k?

A common theme of common good.

So I'm thinking more and more about what I'd like to do, and speech writing or something near that continues to pop into my consciousness as an attractive endeavor.

I began to look through Americanrhetoric.com to read and reread some great speeches, and read parts of LBJ's "We Shall Overcome" speech. One section reminded me of a recently delivered speech. Each seems to be a call for unity and the common good that works.

The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue.
And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For with a country as with a person, "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem. And we are met here tonight as Americans -- not as Democrats or Republicans. We are met here as Americans to solve that problem.

And now Sen. Obama:

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Howard Dean from his December 7th speech:

In America, there is nothing black or white about having to live from one paycheck to the next.Hunger does not care what color we are.In America, a conversation between parents about taking on more debt might be in English or it might be in Spanish, worrying about making ends meet knows no racial identity.Black children and white children all get the flu and need the doctor. In both the inner city and in small rural towns, our schools need good teachers.When I was in medical school in the Bronx, one of my first ER patients was a 13-year-old African American girl who had an unwanted pregnancy. When I moved to Vermont to practice medicine, one of my first ER patients was a 13-year-old white girl who had an unwanted pregnancy.They were bound by their common human experience.There are no black concerns or white concerns or Hispanic concerns in America. There are only human concerns.

I don't quite know how, but these seem to me "words that work." Harnessing simple ideas that transcend some group distinction. Some small attempt to foster community through shared problems. I'd also suggest that we include shared successes. This seems ripe for environmental use. There is nothing black nor white about the water we drink, air we breathe and soil we plow. There are mighty forests in the red states and sprawling strip malls in the blue.

It's not about X or Y it's a matter of quality of life. If the air I breate is cleaner yours will be too. If my child gets a better education in the public schools I'd ask nothing less for yours.

There are other more cheesy things Local officials can talk about: There's nothing Democratic or Republican about loving the "Fighting Mustangs" or whatever. But by highlighting the size and breadth of the progressive vision we do ourselves a greater service. I don't quite know how to use this thought, but I hope someone can take it and give it legs.

See, There Was This Girl...

And her name was Jenna Bush. Did you hear that she will soon be working at a charter school in D.C.? Take this with a grain of salt (as you should given the Kevin Baconness of the degree to which I know this person) but she will be a teaching assistant whom the students call "Miss Jenna." Her primary responsibilities will include leading reading groups. It's unclear whether the students have actually realized "Miss Jenna" is the daughter of President Bush -- a fact that may prompt some untoward sixth-graders to cause a stir.

A few thoughts here: we always need more teachers, so fine. Should sixth-graders be able to recognize the President's family members? I think probably.

When did this blog get all Drudge-y? I'll try to post more enlightening items in the future...

What's Next

So I posted this over at my other blog, and wanted to post it here, too, as I think that,
a) I'm on to something, and
b) I haven't dug quite as deeply into it as can be done

So:

Next up after they end Social Security (or at least attempt to - that is what they're doing, make no mistake), the GOP is going to go after labor unions. Now, they've been going after labor unions for a while, but this next phase will be different. How?

They are going to challenge the ability of labor unions to even exist.

The way this will happen will be as follows: for the next several years, the economy is going to continue to sputter along (there's a growing chance that everything will just go to shit - this might help this particular effort, but it also would introduce certain elements of uncertainty that I can't quite account for yet), and there will be growing dissatisfaction with the economic situation. Then, sometime in 2005 or 2006 (maybe '06, after the midterms), the GOP will come up with the solution, the thing that is holding the economy back - unions.

Of course, this is ludicrous, as nearly all high-wage industries with heavy union saturation have been more or less eviscerated in this country (e.g., steel, heavy manufacturing). The remaining sectors of the workforce that are largely or partially unionized - teachers and other public-sector workers, hotel, hospital and service workers - are, for the most part, still underpaid relative to their value to society and/or their industry.

Breaking the back of America's remaining unions would do nothing but increase the debt level of middle class families who are already having trouble making it.

But no matter! The presence of unions - any unions, anywhere, in this country - keeps business from squeezing every last cent of short-term profit from the balance sheets (long-term, unions are essential for an advanced capitalist economy), which as far as the Bush administration is concerned is pretty much pure evil.

So, jabber away.

Aspiration vs. Situation

In the middle of yet another meeting with my boss I blurted out: people vote their aspiration not their situation. I think I was right.

A concern I have with general Democratic vernacular is that our populism talks about the evils of wealth. We talk about how those who have are benefitting while "you who are without" are suffering. That's reasonable if people expect to maintain the status of downtrodden little guy. But how well does that work when everyone seems to think that they are just around the corner from success. Lakoff argues that people vote against their economic interest quite often, because they vote their hopes and aspirations. Republicans offer policies that will "make everyone a king." And we talk about the evils of monarchy. It comes across as though we don't believe in people's dreams. Certainly most dreams are unrealizable, but the power of progressive politics is that they enable people to improve their lives. So instead of saying that the tax cuts are bad because they help the wealthy. Let's talk about how we Democrats believe in people. We believe that your work is worthwhile and that you should earn more. A family should be able to earn enough with one job, so we should raise the minimum wage. Then those who oppose us are standing in the way of the aspirations of the working class folks.

The best example of aspiration comes from religion. My feeble understanding of Christianity is that for many the bargain is: you're going to be poor but in the next life you'll be treated as a king. It's the same bargain the Republicans offer. You're getting shat upon now, but if you work hard and are a good person you could be a king in the times to come. We are basically saying....it's not true. You're getting screwed. You're going to be screwed. Things are rough. Don't you hate those wealthy folks. Sure they hate the wealthy, but they hope to someday be wealthy.

I don't have a great way of operationalizing all this. But I think we have to stop fighting greed with tools that suggest we are against people's natural aspiration to want wealth and a better life. We want people to be able to achieve their dreams, but I think our words suggest we have little confidence in their goals.

Anthropology lends a helping hand

I read an article over at Hullabaloo that seems relevant. It talks about a pre-civilization urge for humans (and lots of other animals) to construct their interpersonal interactions in a male-dominated adversarial manner. The idea being that fundamentalist religious movements are essentially an outgrowth of this well...fundamental human behavior. Sounds a little like anthropoligical guess work....but read Digby's post - it's fascinating. From the study that underlies the post.

From 1988 to 1993, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences sponsored an interdisciplinary study known as The Fundamentalism Project, the largest such study ever done. More than 100 scholars from all over the world took part, reporting on every imaginable kind of fundamentalism. And what they discovered was that the agenda of all fundamentalist movements in the world is virtually identical, regardless of religion or culture
...
The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of “alpha males” who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought. It is easier to account for this set of behavioral biases as part of the common evolutionary heritage of our species than to argue that it is simply a monumental coincidence that the social and behavioral agendas of all fundamentalisms and fascisms are essentially identical.

How do we use this information Digby says:

I can think of a few ways we might do this. The first that comes to mind is to pit fundamentalism against territory. If this retreat to fundamentalism is really a default to primitive biology, then we can frame this as America vs the fundamentalists. And lucky for us, it's easy to do and will confuse the shit out of the right. We have a built in boogie man fundamentalist named Osama on whom we can pin all this ANTI-AMERICAN fundamentalist dogma while subtly drawing the obvious parallels between him and the homegrown variety. We start by having the womens' groups decrying the Islamic FUNDAMENTALIST view of womens rights. These FUNDAMENTALISTS want to roll back the clock and make women answer to men. In AMERICA we don't believe in that. Then we have the Human Rights Campaign loudly criticizing the Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS for it's treatment of gays. In AMERICA we believe that all people have inalienable rights. The ACLU puts out a statement about the lack of civil liberties in Islamic FUNDAMENTALIST theocracies. In AMERICA we believe in the Bill of Rights, not the word of unelected mullahs.You got a problem with that Jerry? Pat? Karl????

One of the take aways from this is that we have to use symbols more effectively. We have to use the Bible. I've said for a while now that the three (and I'd change it to four) most effective sources of symbols in American politics seem to be: The Bible, sports, and War...I'd add in our founding documents.

You Don't Say

good advice from a bad source.

"The party needs to shake itself loose from top-down management, undergo a grassroots renewal and adopt a vigorous, positive agenda that flows from the priorities, views and values of citizens who involve themselves in that process ... Our party needs to frame its priorities more in terms of what we're for rather than what we are against." John Aschcroft following the Republican defeat in 1992.