Thursday, July 31, 2003

One Thousand Reasons 

Need a reason not to vote for Bush, check out One Thousand Reasons
posted by Danny 5:58 AM [+]
...

House Democrats  

My book and many blogs -- see: aintnobaddude, suburbanguerrilla and checkBlogarama

have mostly complained about Democrats who I think don't get it; but I have to say, I've seen some rays of light recently.

Twice last week I tuned into C-Span and saw Democrats in the House of Representatives speaking passionately.

The first time was Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts and some other Democrats engaged in a colloqy about how much money was being spent in Iraq, how much the tax cut cost, and how many vital programs were being cut everywhere in the country including funding for police departments, fire departments, and schools. They obviously had planned out how to talk about this issue and were doing so with wit and passion rarely seen from Democrats in recent years.

A few days later I saw George Miller of California talking to a panel of Democrats about a shocking development in education funding. Miller and Senator Kennedy, who was also at this hearing, had worked with President Bush on the "No Child Left Behind" Bill. Both of them agreed (to the chagrin of some on the left) to accept Bush's insistence on standardized testing as a requirement for federal school funding. In return, Bush agreed to the funding that everyone knows is vital to insuring decent class size, and rudimentary tools of education such as books, pencils, etc. The Bill passed. Bush did photo-ops about it and conveyed the impression to Americans that he really was concerned about children -- and yet in the new Bush budget NO MONEY IS ALLOCATED TO FUND THE PROGRAM THAT BUSH HIMSELF SAID HE SUPPORTED!!!

The outrage and pain among the Democrats about children in poor areas being deprived of basic educational opportunity was great. AND the outrage about Bush's dishonesty was great.

C-Span rants take months to resonate. Gingrich went after Jim Wright for the better part of a year before it pentrated the rest of the media. But if Democrats in the House keep it up -- this will really make a big diffference. They obviously have worked on their presentation and the curse of being in the minority may really have a silver lining. It's given them the time to really focus on the roots of why they're in office and forced them to express it in ways that eventually will re-activate many Americans.

After having my eyes glaze over in hundreds of previous C-Span experiences -- it is really a thrill to hear arguments presented in a way that no one, regardless of their sophistication level, could fail to understand the difference between a progressive vision and a conservative vision.

Since politicians are insecure and since Democrats are new to this kind of strategy, it would be good for those who share my enthusiasm to write to the Congresspeople doing this and encourage them to continue.

Write to Bill Delahunt here and George Miller here.

Consigned to extremely limited institutional clout because of the way the rules of the House allow a majority to control the legislative agenda, it seems like some of the House Democrats have studied some of the techniques that Newt Gingrich used when the Republicans were a minority and are trying their own version.


posted by Danny 11:50 AM [+]
...

Fox News,Radiohead etc. 

It seems impossible to have a conversation about progressive or Democratic political hopes without someone lamenting the corrosive influence of Fox News. This seems like a cop-out to me. The problem expressing and actualizing progressive ideas long predates the existence of Fox News and was, in fact, one of the precipitating factors in the creation of Tikkun, during the Reagan era, long before Fox News was a gleam in Rupert Murdochís eye (also see).

Moreover, Fox News is far more complicated and entertaining than simplistic put-downs would indicate. Part of the job for progressives at this time is to learn how to use some of the same cultural tools in service of a different philosophy. There are several progressive initiatives regarding media. If they are to succeed they need, not only to be progressive, but to be as engaging as Fox is.

It doesnít mean all that much that John Kasich of Fox News wanted to schmooze with me about what it was like to have worked with Neil Young or what I thought of the new Radiohead album. I did an interview to plug my book on politics and culture for his show ìHeartland". Kasich was a Newt Gingrich protÈgÈ (he was in the House of Representatives for eighteen years and was made Chairman of the House Budget Committee after the Republicans took over in 1994). Not only did he vote with Gingrich on the big issues, he even voted to prohibit needle exchange and medical marijuana in Washington, D.C. even while he publicly affected hipness by mentioning his enthusiasm for the Grateful Dead.

It doesnít mean all that much but I wish there was a single Democratic Congressperson or liberal pundit among the dozens who even knew who Radiohead was.

My other experiences with Fox News were pretty good as well. I walked in with trepidation to their headquarters in New York for an in-studio interview with Bill OíReilly and was greeted by an effusive John Gibson who recalled some interaction we had in a Seventies rock and roll context. Geraldo Rivera, who palled around with John Lennon, was amiable in the green room, as he prepared to do an interview with OíReilly about the latest tabloid murder. OíReilly himself refrained from sneering or insulting me, and only got pissed when I referred to Republicans as ìyour guysî. In high dudgeon he interjected ìMr. Goldberg you obviously donít watch the show. We are independent. I just criticized Bush today about the environment.î

Iím not trying sugarcoat Fox News. A lot of what they do, as Janeane Garofalo says, panders to "the dumb and the meanî constituencies in American politics. Garofalo, the actress, writer and comedienne who has fearlessly challenged the Bush foreign policy tells of appearing on a Fox show to be introduced by a host whose first words to her on the air were ìSaddam Hussein must love you!î. This kind of awful debasement of legitimate criticism and questioning, whether vicious attacks on the Dixie Chicks or Tom Dashcle; or, in Ann Coulterís case, on fifty years of liberals, are disgusting and the mobs they arouse are capable of doing great evil.

But I have relatives who are Republicans, who are neither dumb nor mean, who are charmed by the entertaining, accessible style of the Fox News team, and who like that they donít sound as pompous or as predictable as the other networks. I donít for one minute think that Fox News is "fair and balancedî; but, like a lot of their viewers, I donít think the phrase is a cynical joke, which is why OíReilly, the most successful of all Fox News personalities, is so intent on maintaining an ìindependentî image.

David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who takes credit for the phrase ìaxis of evilî, has been appearing on various talk shows (including a Tim Russert Show with me) gleefully claiming that there is a tension between ìNPR liberalsî (who he describes as anti-war and pro-civil liberties) and supposedly epitomized by Howard Dean, and ìeconomic liberalsî whose union-supported champion is Richard Gephardt. According to Frumís formulation, the working class ìeconomic liberalsî are uncomfortable with popular anti-war rhetoric, free speech, etc.. This is a mostly false dichotomy. Of course there are all sorts of clashes within a potential Democratic coalition as there is in the Republican electorate (I imagine Jerry Fallwell and P.J. OíRourke donít agree about everything). But working class people are the exact people who make artists like Eminem and shows like ìFriendsî so popular. They are also overwhelmingly likely to be the people whose friends and relatives are in danger of being killed or wounded in Iraq for a purpose which gets more obscure as time goes by.

Republican strategists pretend that they would love to run against Howard Dean when in fact the candidate they would really like to run against is Joe Lieberman. They are trying to psych-out Democrats into fearing another George McGovern because they want an opponent who will leave no footprints which was the case with Mondale, Dukakis and Gore.

George McGovern spawned a mailing list which animated progressive public interest groups for the next decade and countless political professionals, including the young Bill Clinton, got their start in politics in a campaign based on idealism. McGovernís loss was partially from a country that wanted to re-elect Nixon but McGovernís biggest mistakes were not ideological but professional (losing control of his convention to the point that his acceptance speech wasnít on until three in the morning; selecting a running mate who resigned the next week after it was revealed heíd received electro-shock treatment for depression, etc.). And, of course, McGovernís campaign was bedeviled by illegal dirty tricks that were among the reasons Nixon was formed to resign two years later.

Conservatives understand the importance of political footprints. The modern conservative movement was born in the unsuccessful but passionate Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964.

It is beyond the control of most of us whether or not George W. Bush self-destructs or cleverly re-positions himself, whether Howard Dean rise to the occasion or gets stuck as a candidate whose only emotional tone is anger; whether John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich or Richard Gephardt find some political poetry to accompany their earnest boring prose.

Whatever happens in the national campaign of the next year itís vital to remember that for progressives, things were much worse in the past. McCarthyism and black-listing make what happened to Bill Maher and The Dixie Chicks a day at the beach. J. Edgar Hooverís odious excesses make John Ashcroft look like a paragon of civil liberties. (see also).

Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem didnít become famous and influential because of corporate media support. They developed powerful grassroots followings that gave them currency with the media.

The answer, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, is to light candles instead of cursing the darkness.

Many candles have recently been lit in recent months in the independent book work producing six figure sales for such anomalies as those by Scott Ritter, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Aaron McGruder, David Rees (îGet Your War Onî ) and Joel Andreas' ìAddicted to Warî all published by small independent presses -- and the 800 pound gorilla ìStupid White Menî notable not just for its sales or more than one million hardbacks (more than Rudy Giuliani) but for the fact that Michael Moore and his wife Kathleen Glynn marketed the book with absolutely no help from Harper Collins who, after Sept 11th, didnít even want to put it out. Michael had a Number One book for weeks with no major reviews and no ads -- and only then was he invited on "60 Minutes" and written about in People Magazine.

Of course not every cartoonist will sell like David Rees. Not every comic will get ovations like Janeane Garofalo. Not every singerñsongwriter will develop passionate followings like Conor Oberst. Not every progressive will have Michaelís Mooreís gift for entertainment. But they can at least do their cultural homework as diligently as John Kasich.

posted by Danny 6:18 PM [+]
...

Teen Spirit and Democrats for President 

Iíve been working on a piece about ìteen spirit" vis a vis the race for the Democratic nomination that goes like this:

Political pros tend to like political prose so there are rarely, in the coverage of political campaigns, references to the poetry that actually binds people to candidates. Instead we get the buzzword ìauthenticity", often used as if it were a rare trait one is born with such as blood type. In fact, ìauthenticityî is the result of a series of choices: John McCain, although respected as a war hero, was perceived as just another Senator until he opened his Presidential campaign in an almost unrestricted way to the media, coupled with an unshakeable commitment to campaign finance reform. One thing ìauthenticî candidates of such diverse ideologies as Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader have in common is a disproportionate appeal to young people.

The sullen attitude of most Democratic politicians towards young people is reflected in Hillary Clintonís current memoir ìLiving History,î in which she writes that people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one ìstill (have) the lowest registration and voter turnout of any age group. Their apathy makes it less likely that our national politics will reflect their concerns and safeguard their futureî.

In other words, it is not the job of older people to inspire younger people ó itís the job of younger people to salute. Itís their own fault if they donít appreciate what the left did for them in the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies, not the fault of the leftist academics who support speech codes on campuses, nor the Democrats who made their principal issues in 2002, social security and prescription drugs, and who communicate with language comprehensible only to devotees of C-Span, and indulge in periodic attacks on youth culture.

Howard Dean and John Kerry who are running neck and neck in early polls for the New Hampshire primary would be well advised to ignore such ìpracticalî advice. Not only do young people represent a sizeable segment of undecided voters, their energy and enthusiasm influences many older voters just as their taste in fashion and entertainment influence the general pop culture.

The way for older politicians to counter youth ìapathyî is to take some responsibility for changing it. This includes picking youth-oriented issues (see Thomas Geohagan in last week's The Nation), using contemporary American cultural language instead of Washington-speak (George W. Bush certainly does), and expressing a coherent moral vision not merely a shopping list of issues (see George Lakoffís book ìMoral Politicsî).

Dean's îsurprisingî surge has benefited from a conscious youth-inclusive strategy. In his announcement speech he said his campaign is for ìthe young and young at heart.î He has empowered his campaign to create the most dynamic and inclusive internet strategy which adds a strong affect of hipness to many netizens.

Deanís potential weakness is that he appears to be fueled by anger which often morphs into self-righteousness. He has been the prime beneficiary of the majority of Democratic activists who opposed Bushís war in Iraq, he needs to express a respect to the moral decency of those (including many young people) who disagree. Dean needs to beware of coming across as contemptuous of those who part company with him on one issue or the other as Ralph Nader often did. Another unfortunate similarity Dean has to Nader is that, thus far, he has a virtually all-white campaign.

In Nixonian fashion, Joe Lieberman ostentatiously let it be known to a New York Times reporter that he had written a phrase in a speech criticizing those ìappearing weak on defense during times of world threatî but, pious guy that he is, said that he chose not to utter the barb aimed at Dean so as not to engage in personal attacks. Lieberman and his allies in the DLC, many of whom compulsively want to re-fight battles from several decades ago, are trying to psych-out progressives by warning them that they could be perceived as un-mainstream as George McGovern did in 1972. A campaign which no one under forty remembers. (Thereís obviously no danger of Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton being seduced by this nonsense, but they have a different problem, which is that they havenít yet figured out how to find a poetic vision of government. Their campaigns are an earnest shopping list of progressive positions that, thus far, donít seem likely to impact the primaries.)

It is John Kerry who seems hobbled by the McGovern psych-out. The more relevant cautionary example for him, however, is Al Gore. In 2000, Gore ran away from his genuine progressive views about the environment and the Clinton policy legacy and was literally unable to convey his beliefs in the debates in a way that was comprehensible to the voters he needed. If Kerry is going to draw young people away from Dean he needs to evoke, not only his time of military service, but his birth in politics as a protester. He needs to tune in with his pre-Congressional intensity. He needs to balance his Washington gravitas with a twinkle in his eye.

If there is any McGovern baiting in the primary debates, progressives can deal with it the same way Ronald Reagan handled Jimmy Carterís suggestion that he was too right-wing: Take a deep breath, shake their head ruefully, smile unthreateningly and say ìthere you go againî. Itís amazing what a few wistful smiles can do.




posted by Danny 8:02 AM [+]
...

July 13th 

If anyone has checked this site, I apologize from the bottom of my heart for a month of non-blogging. Since the last one, the book has appeared in stores, I've done press events in half a dozen cities, I turned 53 on July 4th, I've taken some time off with my family, and I've continued to concentrate a lot on my work at Artemis Records.

Yesterday I did a taped interview with former Congressman John Kasich, a Republican who was close to Newt Gingrich when the party took over the House of Representatives in 1994. Now he hosts a show called "Heartland" for Fox News. After the interview, which I did by remote from Los Angeles, he asked to speak to me off camera. He wanted to hear about my experiences working with Neil Young and asked what I thought of the new Radiohead album "Hail to the Thief" which he knew better than I did. I know that taste in music doesn't have much, if anything to do with someone's politics. I just wish that once I could have a conversation like that with someone whose politics I agree with.


posted by Danny 6:14 PM [+]
...