Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Criticism 

What's the point of having a blog if I can't respond to some of the criticism of my book? I promise I won't make a habit of this but two months after publication I can no longer resist a few comments.

In The Washington Post yesterday, Ann Hornaday wrote a very generous profile of me. I was amused by the response she got from the office of Senator Joseph Lieberman regarding my criticisms of his role in the 2000 Presidential campaign. I have written that Lieberman's incessant attacks on youth culture pushed millions of young people away from voting Democratic. Hornaday writes: "Through a spokesman, Lieberman said that he hasn't read Goldberg's book but doesn't "feel the need to respond to the political analysis of a record producer. Suffice it to say he shouldn't give up his day job." In other words, it doesn't make any difference what I say or that The Washington Post is doing the asking -- the mere fact that I'm in the music business makes me unworthy of any attention from the Senator. The arguments are not worth responding to -- but a snide remark is apparently meant as an example of Lieberman's celebrated "wit". (By the way, I'm not a record producer. Record producers are the people who direct the recording of albums. I am a record company executive -- the person who runs my company, Artemis.)

In the past I've also been a personal manager and a PR person but never had the talent to be a producer. This is not the only time that an attack like this has been made. If it was just me personally, it would be "ad hominem" but the kinds of attacks I'm referring to are really against an entire community.

Reviews in both the Washington Post Book World and In These Times suggested that my motives in defending popular teen culture such as Eminem were suspect because I made my living from selling records. What difference does it make whether or not I make money from rap music? If my arguments are weak, why not respond to the argument instead of a personal attack? The reason, I think, is that such critics cannot comprehend that any moral person would sincerely think teen culture is worth defending. To me, this only reflects on the generational bigotry and small mindedness of the critics and reinforces my premise that the middle-aged political culture, especially on the Democratic and liberal side, is terribly weakened by such biases.

For what its worth, I've never made a penny from any of the high profile controversial records that Lieberman et al have attacked such as Eminem, Dr. Dre, Marilyn Manson, etc.. Undoubtedly, over the years, I've released some records that William Bennett would think immoral, but those have only been a small portion of my business. Currently, for example, the big record for Artemis is the Warren Zevon album, "The Wind", which offends no one. In any event -- none of the attacks on rap or rock music has cost anyone in the record business a penny. They have had no adverse effect on sales. In a few cases, such as the Ice T / Body Count album "Cop Killer", (which I also had nothing to do with) such attacks actually increased sales. So if I were motivated by greed I would want politicians to attack my music. There has been only one effect of all of the attacks on pop culture by people like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, etc: The alienation of some young people from politics.

The Post article also said that several people who work on registering young people to vote disagreed with my analysis that culture attacks had been part of reason young people didn't vote. I agree that there are other reasons, such as an excessive focus on issues like social security and little or no focus on issues that matter to younger people such as the drug war or scholarships. I have also written about the need for a moral construct for progressive politics instead of a shopping list of issues.

However, I would like to know, if not culture bashing, what IS the explanation for a dramatic decline in the Democrat margin from 19 points among 18-24 year olds in 1996 to ZERO in 2000 when Gore and Lieberman ran and emphasized attacks on culture in the campaign -- and UP to a 20 POINT margin for Democrats among young people in 2002?


posted by Danny 7:04 PM [+]
...

Michael Moore 

When I complain about deficiencies in left communication I can see that people sometimes wonder what I'm talking about. The enemy is the right wing -- why carp about our own side? The reason is that I want our side to WIN.

Every once in awhile something comes along so striking and powerful and effective that it sets the bar for what political communication should be -- which shows me that it really IS possible.

Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" DVD is out. Among the "special features" is a speech he gave in Colorado six months after the film was released. It's so spectacular in emotion, intelligence and political power. The film holds up quite well too.

posted by Danny 9:01 AM [+]
...

Joe Conason 

For anyone interested in progressive politics, Joe Conason's new book "Big Lies" is an essential primer. He takes a dozen or so myths that conservatives try to spread about liberals and painstakingly and methodically demolishes them. It's a good read and a great reference work for these times.
posted by Danny 2:07 PM [+]
...

Schwarzenegger 

I've been in California most of the Summer and it's impossible here not to talk about the recall election for Governor Davis and the array candidates to replace him if the recall succeeds, especially the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I can't help think that its' so typical of political culture the last twenty years that yet another movie star is embraced and nurtured by Republican politicans such as former LA Mayor Richard Riordon and former California Governor Pete Wilson who long ago spotted Schwarzenegger as a possible candidate and provided advice, endorsement, encouragement, staff, etc.

With all of the actors who are ardent liberals or Democrats it's not an accident that none of them have ever been thus encouraged by progressives or Democrats in politics to enter the fray. Not Barbara Streisand, not Warren Beatty, not Rob Reiner, not Mike Farrell, not Richard Dreyfuss, not Ed Asner -- one of them would have been interested I bet. But the left and Democratic culture doesn't want to go there. Not that I think this is any kind of panacea -- it's only occasionally that the climate is right for a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger -- but the pattern is symptomatic of the Democrats cultural myopia. Hopefully, little by little, they'll wake up to a more populist style.

If I were a California voter I would vote against the recall and on the second half of the ballot (which everyone can use whether they're for the recall or not) vote for Cruz Bustamante, the only Democrat who is running for the 'if-recalled' section of this weird election.

I love Arriana Huffington and think she'd be a great Governor -- but I'm nervous about another Nader scenario in which a moderate Democrat could be defeated by a Republican because of voters from the left. She'd said originally she wanted to avoid this as well, so, hopefully after enunciating the issues as only she can, she'll endorse Bustamante while urging people to vote against the recall. Not only would this be good for California -- it would be good for Arianna.

posted by Danny 7:23 PM [+]
...

Worth reading 

Worth reading is an OP-ED piece in today's New York Times by Sam Tanenhaus called "How the 'Radicals' Can Save the Democrats". He makes the point that the Goldwater defeat in 1964 was far more valuable to the Republicans than more "moderate" candidates had been in defeat to either party. The difference in 2004 is that Bush is a lot weaker than Johnson was in 1964 -- and the so called "left" candidates such as Dean are much more mainstream and less vulnerable than Goldwater was. Thus the energy that comes from what Tanenhaus calls "the base" and which I think is totally related to "teen spirit" -- could actually help victory this time -- more like Reagan in 1980.

Also worth reading (and continuing to discuss) is Bob Herbert on the importance of Gore's speech.

posted by Danny 7:06 AM [+]
...

Al Gore 

Anyone who has read my book knows that I have been very critrical of Al Gore in the past, particularly the way he ran the 2000 election. However, I have to say that Al Gore's speech yesterday for members of Moveon.org and the NYU College Democrats (read the transcript here) was brilliant and timely.

Watching Gore give the speech on C-Span last night, I was taken not only by the words but by Gore's demeanor which, although professorial, lacked any hint of smugness. He was sober and self effacing which made his stark, methodical and logical criticisms of the Bush administration devestatingly effective.

All current Democratic Presidential candidates should study and learn. Gore is no populist but he laid out the intellectual skeleton of a serious critique of Bush in a vital and useful way, while noting and effectively debunking the media "impressions" that Bush used to persuade American public opinion to support his tax cuts and his war.

In general, Gore has been much more coherent since he decided not to run for President, starting with a surpirsingly loose and enjoyable Saturday Night Live appearence, continuing with a focused speech last year. Perhaps he had mixed feelings about his ambition to be President which distorted his personality and created his unappealing 2000 persona.

It is a sad commentary on the nature of running for office in a media society that self-doubt (which often reflects a higher character than blithe self-assurance) is such a liaibility. In any event, and for whatever reason, sobered and unburdened by his loss, Gore's intellect, stripped of artifice, turns out to be a real treasure for Democrats.

posted by Danny 5:19 AM [+]
...

spreading 

The following is a letter that came to the site. I wanted to post it because it reflects a number of deeply gratifying responses I've gotten and also because it mentions The Right Christians which is one of the most inspiring sites I've seen in terms of formulating a cosmic communications strategy for progressives.

Mr. Goldberg:

A fellow blogger here, referred to you by the exceptional Allen Brill of The Right Christians.

I can't emphasize enough, in the attempt to build a newer and better (winning) progressive coalition, how this breaking story from Alabama--on the Christian Coalition supporting a progressive taxation plan from a Republican governor, and on the basis of Judeo-Christian values--can totall transform our nation in a progressive direction. George Bush's favorite philosopher, Jesus, would have indeed approved of this plan, and now that the Christian Coalition, that most right-wing of ideological religious organizations, has endorsed the plan, it's very easy for ALL people of faith to now push Bush toward a direction of progressive taxation that looks out for the poor. This can be a seminal moment in our political history if we maintain focus on this story. The Democrats can appeal to Christians--and broaden their base, mostly a secularist one--if they make light of this for a long-enough period of time.

Thanks for your OUTSTANDING writing on such vital questions and issues!

Best wishes,

Matt Zemek
The Wellstone Cornerstone


posted by Danny 12:42 PM [+]
...

McGovern & Mondale 

The Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) recently had a conclave at which their spokesmen again cautioned the Democratic Party not to go too far to the "left" so as to avoid the huge defeats like "McGovern and Mondale." Without mentioning Howard Dean it was pretty obvious that the DLC was trying to stigmatize him.

McGovern and Mondale are completely different cases and it's a weak, bordering on pathetic, intellectual argument to lump them together simply because they each lost by twenty points against a Republican incumbent.

McGovern was certainly the outsider, anti-war candidate. As I've written elsewhere, there were many reasons that he lost so decisively that had nothing to do with his ideology. He had an inexperienced campaign staff, was the victim of Nixon's dirty tricks, and his anti-war views were co-mingled in the minds of the public with numerous other cultural issues in a way totally irrelevent to the 2004 landscape.

Mondale on the other hand was the insider candidate, a former Vice-President, the front runner endorsed by most party officials who beat off two challenges from the left, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart. Although Mondale had generically liberal positions on most issues, he ran primarily as the candidate of "competence" saying in one of the debates that Americans needed a "President who knows what he's doing." He avoided populist language, popular culture and passion. His opponent, President Reagan used all three. If there's a current candidate most reminiscent of Mondale, it's not Dean but Gephardt who has had national Congressional leadership and lots of labor support.

I'm not on the Dean bandwagon yet. No one is holding their breath to see who I support anyway. But I think it's about time that regular Democrats start seriously considering Dean. He's the only candidate who has exceeded expectations, and who has created any exictement. All these reports from Republicans who supposedly would "love" to run against him are pretty suspicious. They know that the only result of making such views public would be to hurt Dean and make it less likely for him to oppose Bush. My guess is that they have a very clear playbook against the insider candidates and are a bit nervous about Dean - simply because he is an outsider (W, Reagan, and Clinton all won as "outsiders") and harder to put in a box.

In any event, the DLC seems to delude themselves that they put Bill Clinton on the map. It's the other way around - they were one of many disparate groups put on the map by Clinton. They need to take a deep breath and understand that a Democratic party without enthusiastic support from racial minorities, feminists, gays and young people is a party that literally won't exist.


posted by Danny 8:06 AM [+]
...