Wednesday, July 25, 2006

TO: VISITORS TO THIS SITE
FROM: DANNY GOLDBERG

Excerpt of new introduction from forthcoming paperback edition of my book 

Last night I had a dream
That the world had turned around
And all our hopes had come to be
And the people gathered 'round
They all brought what they could bring
And nobody went without
And I learned a song to sing
The revolution starts now.
Steve Earle


Don Imus hated the title of the original hardcover edition of this book, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and urged me to change it to the subtitle, How the Left Lost Teen Spirit. "Dispatches sounds like you're a member of the Communist Party or something," the talk-radio superstar grumbled.

Besides being my personal homage to Kurt Cobain, I appropriated the phrase "teen spirit" to refer to the energy that a political movement needs�not only to mobilize young people, but also to touch older people who make political decisions based on emotional and spiritual reasons rather than purely intellectual ones, and who are thus more affected by the language of popular culture than by the language of editorial pages. In the quarter-century since Ronald Reagan was elected president, Republicans and conservatives have understood such populist emotions better than Democrats and the political left.

This book is a rant in the form of a memoir. The rant is against a particular kind of liberal self-destructiveness that masquerades as pragmatism but has been, instead, one of the main causes of the decline of progressive political power despite widespread support for progressive political goals.

I have been in the music business for more than thirty years as a PRguy, a personal manager, and, for the last decade, a record-company president and owner. I have worked with rock legends such as Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, KISS, REM, Warren Zevon, and Nirvana, with pop icons such as Diana Ross and Madonna, with politically committed musicians like Joan Baez, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Bruce Springsteen, and Steve Earle, and with gangsta rappers, singer-songwriters, boy bands, heavy-metal icons, classical tenors, country divas, jazz masters, and critical darlings, as well as with counterculture icons such as Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, William Burroughs, and CornelWest. I am fifty-four years old, a "baby boomer" and an "aging hippie." I am also a businessman. I live in New York now, which is where I was born. But for most of the 1980s I lived in Los Angeles, and when I visit there I am still a "Hollywood liberal," and have worked with such conservative targets as Norman Lear, Barbra Streisand, and Jane Fonda.

My wife, Rosemary Carroll, and I are parents of a girl and a boy, which, contrary to conventional wisdom, hasn't made us any more politically conservative. We have hosted fundraisers for, among others, liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and Ted Kennedy, and worked with independent progressive leaders like Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader (although not in 2004!).

To some establishment Democrats, it is people like me who have screwed up the party. I was against the war in Iraq, and I met with and supported Howard Dean in the early stages of the primary campaign, thinking that he was a strong vehicle for that opposition. I have been involved with political fundraising concerts, I'm an ACLU board member, and I'm a friend of Michael Moore. To me, it is the conventional wisdom prevailing in Washington, D.C. that has screwed up the party.

In November 2004, many Washington pundits began reviving the term "culture wars." Post-election polls indicated that "morality" was the number-one issue for voters. Of the 22 percent who said that issue motivated them, more than80 percent voted for George Bush. Democratic soul-searching began in earnest and focused primarily on three areas, all of which have long intrigued me: youth, spirituality and religion, and cultural positioning.
posted by Danny 2:00 PM [+]
...

Recent articles 

Hollywood on Trial
http://www.alternet.org/story/20567/

Looking Back, Looking Forward
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&c=5&s=forum

posted by Danny 1:30 PM [+]
...

Advice to Kerry 

I dont blog much but post Republican convention I wanted to shares these thoughts:

Sept 6,2004 Labor Day

ADVICE TO THE KERRY CAMPAIGN:


The Clintonization of the Kerry campaign will not be enough to defeat George W. Bush .

Unlike the 1992 election where “it’s the economy stupid” was the right frame--- this year’s electorate is primarily concerned with security.

It’s safety stupid.

The Democrats already tried to run an election against George W. Bush in which they ignored security. They ran 2002 mid-terms on social security, jobs and prescription drugs and they suffered one of the worst mid-term defeats ever for a party not in control of the White House.


Bush’s decline in popularity 2003 and early 2004 had nothing to do with the economy it as the result of a huge and justifiable loss of public confidence about his conduct of the war on terror.


Some pollsters claim that their research shows that the economy is the biggest issue that comes out of their focus groups but it defies common sense to assume that the various colored alerts and the memory of the World Trade Center attacks do not dominate the psyche of American voters. Any research that tells politicians to ignore security is flawed and is failing to get at the core emotional issues effecting Americans.

Karl Rove knows this. The over riding theme of the Republican convention that created such a bump for Bush was related to September 11th and the war on terrorism . Tax cuts and other Republican issues were mentioned only in passing.


“Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?” The answer is “no.”

1.Bush was commander in chief on Sept. 11th. Richard Clarke’s book and testimony to the 9/11 commission makes it clear that the low significance Bush gave to the Al Qaeda threat made us less safe.

The 9/11 report itself says that America’s “domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction and they did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportations systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts. The public was not warned.”

As Thomas Powers points out in the New York Review of Books---“These things that were not done must have been not done by somebody and the somebodies reporting to them are not criticized by name” That is because the 9/11 commission was bi-partisan. The Democratic campaign need not be. George W. Bush was the responsible officer of the government who did not do the things that the 9/11 Commission said needed to have been done.

2.Bush was the commander in chief during the time of the prison abuses of Abu Gharib. Regardless of who is directly responsible—there is no question that the top level position papers of his legal counsel Albert Gonzalez and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld didn’t create the best climate for the command structure. Notwithstanding Rush Limbaugh’s assertions to the contrary, most Americans do not believe that this kind of humiliating and immoral conduct makes Americans safer.

3. Bush’s pre-emptive approach to foreign relations that led to war with Iraq, and that could lead to wars with Iran, Syria and North Korea….makes Americans less safe. We need governments and populations of other countries to help find and arrest terrorists. American workers and tourists around the world are now less safe.


4.Bush’s insistence on offending traditional American allies make sit far more difficult to get their help on the war on terror, and it makes the full $200 billion plus cost of the war
America’s burden. This reduced funds for domestic security, protection of our borders, better equipment for police and fire-fighters, etc. This makes America less safe.

5.Bush’s constant religious rhetoric about the war on terror, beginning with his reference to it as a “crusade” has needlessly converted millions of Moslems into anti-Americans. It’s bad enough that we have to deal with Jihadists like Al Qaeda, who indeed must be stopped by force. But making such fanatics sympathetic to extreme anti-American rhetoric—makes Americans less safe. Pakistan, which does have a real nuclear arsenal is less stable. These things too make Americans less safe.

In all of these areas, Kerry has policies that would make Americans more safe.


posted by Danny 10:03 AM [+]
...

Reagan 

Ben Varkentine's blog points out that there is a great interview with Ron Reagan, the late President Reagan's son on the Salon.com site in which young Reagan excoriates the presidency of George W. Bush and makes is clear that he sees far more differences that similarities between his father and the current president. The interview was done a few months ago but it's highly relavent.Ron Reagan can make a huge conversation to the national conversation about leadership in months to come.

I wrote about Reagan a lot in my book because I feel that progressives can learn an enormous amount about how to communicate their ideas in an accessible, morally toned, emotionally meaningful way. As far the policy shortcomings of the Reagan administration, I again refer readers to the Nation whose issue this week has several excellent pieces, as well as to Paul Slansky's brilliant "The Clothes Have No Emperor" and Mark Green's "Reagan's Reign of Error." But none of Reagan's shortcomings obviate he accomplishment in making peace with Gorbachev when a lot of the neo-cons were against it.

Many of my progressive friends want to prod John Kerry . I agree that he needs to more clearly differentiate himself from Bush and he must not take for granted the votes of veryone fed up with the current regime. Young people and other undecided voters particularly need clarity or else they will be tempted not to vote or to vote for Nader.

However I cant help bt be optimisitc about Kerry. I think he has more of a common touch that his overly formal speaking style owuld indicate. I like the old photos with John Lennon. I like the emotiuonsl connection he has to many fellow veterans, and I thought his silent dignififed appearence at the Reagan library was exactly the right touch.
posted by Danny 10:38 AM [+]
...

Nation 

Great issue of the Nation re punkvoter.com & youth vote issues.
posted by Danny 1:31 PM [+]
...

Kerry etc. 

May 11,2004.

This is my pollyanna blog--but it's how I feel today.

My book consisted mostly of complaints about how the political left and Democrats had screwed up in communicating with younger people and in using the popular American language. At this point in time, eleven monhts after it came out,(and eighteen months after I finished writing it) I think it's important to look at the positive changes
in the last year from the progressive standpoint.Part of being effective politically, part of speaking to young people and part of undersanding American culture is to understand the role of optimism and positivity. For progressives, things may still suck in many important ways--but things are much better than they were a year ago.First of all Kerry,whatever his flaws is a much better candidate than Gore was, and I believe at his core, is more progressive than Clinton was as well.Secondly, the war, and Bush's wierd stubborness about everything has created an environment in which there is much more interest than there has been in several election cycles. MTV execs have told me that at the peak of Clinton's schmoozing of MTV in 1992--the highest rating they got for a half hour program with him was a .6. Last month, MTV did a half hour with Kerry--with only very limited promtiion--and they got a 1.6--almost triple the
rating Clinton got at his peak...close to two million people.

Kerry's challenge is not to get overly influenced by pundits who pressure him to reach out to the mythical "center," and to focus--at least as much--on reaching out to the people who currently tell pollsters that would vote for Nader. Kerry need clear statements to distinguish himself from Bush in the minds of such voters. If he picked up the Nader vote--he'd be clearly ahead now.

Bush is anti-choice, Kerry is pro-choice.
Bush is for a consistutional amendment banning gay marriage, Kerry is against it.
Bush doe snot have a budget to fully fund Head Start, add police officers and fire fighters etc,Kerry is for those things.
Bush is for tax cuts for millionaires, Kerry is against them.
Bush is for cuts in environmental regulation, Kerry is for increases (not as much as progresives would like--but clearly better than Bush)
Bush support everything n the Patriot Act, Kerry is opposed to many of the most anti-civil libertarian provisions.Again not as much as I would like but far better than Bush.And its impossible to imagine Kerry appointing an Attorney Geenal who wouldnt be better on civil liberties than Ashcroft,even though its likely that ACLU types like myself will complain about certain policies of any government.
Bush is irrationally certain that his plan in Iraq is perfect--Kerry is rationally uncertain.Kerry needs to embrace the part of him that likes to think things over and contrast it with Bush's loony insistance on never admitting a mistake.Again, progressives may want a more accelerated exit from Iraq than Kerry will support--but there can be no quetion that Kerry could improve America's image in the world and would be less comitted to macho violent solutions to
a complex clash of civilizations than Bush is.

Meanwhile, Air Ameerica is up and running,proressive think tanks are being funded,Moveon.org has emerged as a populist progressive force, and the best seller list is filled with progressive books. Things could be better--but they could be a lot worse--and they have been...
posted by Danny 9:44 AM [+]
...

Lack of Blogging 

Sorry I became such an unreliable blogger. With a "day job" as CEO of Artemis Records, (check Artemisrecords.com)being a parent of two school age kids, continued releases from RDV Books (upcoming Yossi Belin's memoir of the peace process) etc. I just havnt gotten back into the groove.

For what its worth, although I remain an admirer of what Howard Dean contributed to the Presidential race, I am an enthusiastic supporter of John Kerry. From a progressive point of view, he's the most exciting candidate to run in my lifetime.

I remain deeply committed to the political and cultural ideas in my book and I welcome correspondance at dgoldberg@artemisrecords.com.


posted by Danny 10:40 AM [+]
...

Dean McGovern 

Dean is not McGovern



As so often happens in Washington, especially among would-be Democratic wise-men, the experts all agree about the popular favorite for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Newsweek's Howard Fineman wrote that many party insiders “ see Dean, as a disaster in the making: George McGovern Reloaded.” Columnist Bruce Bartlett wrote that Dean “is the most left-wing candidate to seriously compete for the Democratic nomination since George McGovern in 1972. “ On the Meet The Press Thanksgiving show, host Tim Russert asked half a dozen Washington journalists to reflect on the Dean/McGovern comparison.

Here are the logical arguments against this facile formulation:

1.America in 2004 is not America 1972, it is thirty two years later. 1972 really was in the wake on the nineteen-sixties and there really was a culture war going on in the country .Guys with long hair were still beaten up in bars in many parts of the country ,and not just in what we now refer to as “red” states. The Roe v Wade decision had not yet occurred and while abortion rights were every bit as divisive as they are today, only a small minority supported them. The legal by-products of the civil rights movement were less than a decade old and the anger and dislocation of suburban white because of school bussing,open housing etc was far greater than it is today. Profanity in entertainment had just been legalized by the courts. Thus the Republican epithet that McGovern stood for “amnesty ,acid and abortion” although untrue, had some resonance.
Today a pure anti-abortion position is more of a political liability than an asset. Trent Lott was driven from Republican leadership what was de rigeur for southern politicians in 1972. And in the new century, George W. Bush trades one liners with Ozzy Osborne and Republicans and , yes , southerners, are as likely to enjoy “Bad Santa,” or dance to rock and roll or hip hop as northern liberals are.


2.Geo W. Bush is not as popular as Nixon was and has a far weaker base. In the 1968 election, prior to 1972, the anti-liberal candidates combined, Nixon and George Wallace, got almost 10% more votes than the Democrat, Hubert Humphrey. In the 2000 election the left of center candidates, Gore and Nader got around two points MORE than the conservative candidates ,Bush and Buchanan.

3.McGovern took the left wing position on every issue. Dean does not.(Contrary to Bartlett’s assertion, there have been numerous more left leaning “serious” candidates than Dean in recent years including Gary Hart, Tom Harkin and Jesse Jackson). Dean is a centrist on economics(McGovern advocated giving $1000 to every man woman and child) and on gun laws where is to the right of Clinton and Gore. Dean supported the war against Afghanistan and the first Gulf war. Pundits who try to equate Dean’s having signed a civil unions bill for gays with the controversies of the sixties are kidding themselves. A recent Public Opinion Watch poll showed that the Vermont approach is supported by 52% of Americans .This is not the stuff of Willie Horton commercials. Although all such comparisons are primitive, Dean has far more in common with Jimmy Carter in 1976 than he does with McGovern.

Those who compare Dean to McGovern do so because both candidates were against anti-war and because they were both opposed by party insiders. However a reading of history shows that these were not the reasons McGovern ran so badly. According historian Theodore S. White’s “Making of The President 1972,” which is considered the definitive account of the campaign, writes of McGovern “the problem in the public mind was simply his competence.” McGovern mis-managed his own convention to the point that his acceptance speech was broadcast at three in the morning Eastern time and seen by only 3.6 million homes compared to the more than 20 million who would see Nixon’s. Most disastrously , McGovern selected as his running mate Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton who was soon revealed to have had electric shock treatment for depression. McGovern first backed Eagleton “1000 %” and then rapidly turned on him. He then publicly offered the VP slot to several Democrats who turned him down before getting Sargent Shriver to accept. White writes that McGovern was never able to recover from the perception of instability in his leadership style created during that crucial ,high profile period at the peak of his visibility. McGovern also alienated the AFL-CIO because of a blunder on a Senate vote and was the first Democratic candidate in twenty years not to get the union’s endorsement. According to White, McGovern, already well known as an anti-war candidate, had narrowed the gap behind Nixon to a mere 5 points prior to the convention. After McGovern’s fumbling of the Eagleton matter, the gap was 23 points.

So much for logic. Former Clinton aide Dick Morris got more to the emotional core of the Dean-is-McGovern crowd when he wrote :” Dean is to the Democratic Party what the Christian Right is to the Republicans - a force moving the party into territory which offends the values and views of the mainstream of America's voters. He threatens to make the Democratic primaries a killing ground where any candidate who can win nationally is eradicated.

This IS the view of many Democrats who believe that excessive passion is dangerous and unmajoritarian—a candidate who will drive “swing voters” away from the party. Dean is painted as the product of self-destructive lefties in the Democratic party who care more about venting their frustration than they do about winning power, a syndrome which is portrayed as having its roots in the pot-smoking nineteen sixties.

To win, say the so-called pragmatist “experts” Democrats should support the President on foreign policy , avoid divisive social issues, and focus on the economy. The problem is that this was the precise strategy of Congressional Democrats in 2002 with one of the worst results for in out of the White House party in history, and was essentially the strategy of President Gore in 2000.

Contrary to Morris’ implication, Republican strategist Karl Rove has had President Bush embrace conservative Christians at every turn. While Democrats timidly avoided the emotional rallying cries that animated the best of the nineteen sixties social change movements , New Gingrich joyously referred to his successful effort to take back the House as a “revolution” and his Budget Committee Chairman, now Fox TV host John Kasich makes approving public references to the Grateful Dead and Radiohead.

In a recent interview in the American Prospect, Bill Clinton said that the moderate posture he took in 1992 would not work today. But even Clinton at that time made sure to work closely with MTV, to bond with Rev. Jesse Jackson for the general election and during his presidency, and supported gays in the military. Clintonism stripped of Clinton’s charisma and his carefully crafted links with the Democratic base would create a Democratic candidacy such as those of Mondale or Dukakis.

Without the support of young people, the support of those whose primary language is that of the popular culture, not merely the OP-ED pages, with a high turnout and small donations from a passionate base, the Democrats don’t have a prayer. Maybe Dean can’t go the distance and under any circumstances is will be hard to beat George W. Bush.But so far, Dean is the only one who seems capable of getting Democrats excited. That’s undoubtedly why the intensely pragmatic Dennis Rivera delivered the Hospital Worker’s union endorsement.


And lets not forget that at least McGovern left behind a list of hundreds of thousands of activists who supported progressive organizations for the next two decades. Mondale, Dukakis and Gore left nothing but good intentions and the tongue clucking support of Washington “realists.”




posted by Danny 3:01 PM [+]
...

wimping out 

I often have complained about politicians wimping out on national TV so I am somewhat mortified to have wimped out myself recently when I was interviewed by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough for his MSNBC Show “Scarborough Country.”

The week before I had moderated a panel discussion at the New School on the occasion of the paperback release of the anthology “It’s A Free Country” which is about civil liberties in the United States since 9/11. I edited it along with my father Victor Goldberg and film and TV producer/director Robert Greenwald. Anyone familiar with our views will not be surprised to know that the book is a strong critique of Ashcroft justice. The panel consisted of Princeton Professor Cornel West, Newsweek investigative editor Michael Isikoff, ACLU Executive Director and Jeanane Garafalo.

Scarborough has long been obsessed with Garafalo, frequently using ,out of context excerpts from her public remarks as a point of departure for assorted forms of bad-mouthing and condescension. His show has a crew shoot the event , which was accurately described in a recent piece in the Observer by Lizzy Ratner.

Sure enough, during my brief interview, Scarborough played an excerpt of something Jeanane said –the excerpt and the dialogue went as follows.


GAROFALO: Neo-know-nothings in the White House now, the neocons, believe they can absolutely operate outside of the law.


SCARBOROUGH: Now, Danny, we've had a lot of fun with Janeane Garofalo, but there is a serious underpinning to it. And that is, there are shrill attacks from the left. There are shrill attacks from the right. Everybody is calling everybody else a liar or saying they're breaking the law.

Do you think that sort of talk, that sort of rhetoric, attracts young voters to the process or repels them?

GOLDBERG: I think robust, passionate debate, people who believe in what they're saying, resonates with younger people. I think people who only talk like lawyers and politicians tends to bore young people and make them anesthetized.


Here what I SHOULD have said is: Joe---Janeane Garofalo is an American hero. She cares enough about what’s happening to our country that she has been willing to take mockery from the likes of you. I only wish that Democrats had as much idealism—and if they do they will surely resonate with young people.

The reason , frankly, that I wimped out is that I suddenly got nervous when I heard the world “shrill.” And I realize that this is one of the main tactics that Republicans and conservatives are using….to try to psych out Democrats and progressives and make us nervous about being “shrill” or “negative.” Of course it’s absurd for Republicans to be complaining about “shrillness.” Where was Scarborough when
People on the internet made up a “traitors” list that included both Jeanane and me simply because we questioned Bush administration policies? And—WHERE was all this call for civility during the Clinton years!!!!!!!!!??????


posted by Danny 4:00 PM [+]
...

Imus etc. 

Don Imus has me on again this morning.I just want ot publicly say THANK YOU to him for his increidble support of my book. What a fascinating, unique figure he is in American culture.Many of my friends on the left despait at the mainstream media because,at times, it seems so monolithic in it's support of the a very narrow agneda. But I continiue to find that up close, there are various cracks and crevices in which contrarian ideas can make thier way.Last night I moderated a panel about civil liberties in conjunction with the papaerback release of "It's A Free Country" an anthology I edited along with Robert Greenwald and Victor Goldberg. The panel consisted of ACLU Excecutive Director Anthony Romero, Janeane Garafalo, Cornel West and Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Isikoff was very hard on Clinton. In fact he was the conduit through which Linda Tripp et al got the Monica Lewinsky story into the media. On the other hand, he's been unrelenting in going after the Bush administration on matters of secrecy.

And of course there's the world of books where,as I have previously noted, numerous progressives have been onthe best seller list recently including Al Franken and Michael Moore both at #1.


posted by Danny 9:20 AM [+]
...

Liberal media 

Cable News programmers claimed, over the last few years, that there is an audience for conservative pundits but not for liberals. Fox News was the supposed proof of this and the result of this perception has been shows hosted by the likes of Allen Keyes, Cal Thomas,
Jon Kasich,Joe Scarborough etc.

The demise of Phil Donahue's show supposedly proved that there as not an impassioned motivated cable news audience on the left. The best we can hope for is a representative in two-sided shows such as Bill Press vs Pat Buchanon, Allen Colmes vs Sean Hannity etc.

Like many conservative bromides--this is untrue.

The recent flurry of progressive best sellers proves that there indeed is a significant audience for left of center opinions: Al Franken, Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, Eric Alterman, Joe Conoson, Arianna Huffington,and Paul Krugman, have joined Hillary Clinton on the best-seller lists.

Progressive should deluge cable news channels with demands that ONE person on our side gets to host a show. This would be a big breakthrough in terms of being able to put ideas onto the media agenda. Experience shows that pressure on the media works.
posted by Danny 3:27 PM [+]
...

Arnold 

After Arnold Schwarzeneger's election the quesiton haunts me even more. Why didn't he run as a Democrat?

He is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, talks eloquently about his father in law Sargent Shriver's work for the Peace Corops and War on Poverty, and vocally opposed the attempot to impeach President Clinton. So he's a fiscal conservative---so is Howard Dean and many other Democrats.

The only answer I can come up with is that Republicans such as ex LA Mayor Richard Riordon and ex Governor Pete Wilson reached out to him, mentored him ,nurtured him and supported his aspirations whereas Democrats must have looked at him as another celebrity they could go to for fund-raising or photo-ops.


posted by Danny 10:54 AM [+]
...

Dean, Israel etc 

Bad For The Jews

There they go again. Some self appointed Jewish-American “leaders” and some of the Presidential candidates who covet their favor hit a new low point last week when they beat up on Howard Dean, twisting innocuous and sensible comments he made about the Middle East and unfairly accusing him of insufficient ardor in his support of Israel. (see Salon )

These attacks are unlikely to seriously damage Dean who, in any case, can’t expect to become President without having to deflect such nonsense and worse. However, the supposedly pro-Israel demagogues not only tarnished their own credibility but they added to the odious trend of narrowing the space for much-needed creative thinking and dialogue in dealing with the Israel-Palestinian problem.

The contretemps was set off by an interview Dean did with the Associated Press in which he used the words “even-handed” and said that in the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations which the U.S. mediates like those at Camp David, “it’s not our place to take sides”.

Several self-interested demagogues pretended that Dean was not simply referring to such mediations but that he meant that the U.S. shouldn’t “take sides” in terms of our general policies in the region.

It is worth noting that Dean’s wife Deborah Steinberg Dean is Jewish and their two children were raised as Jews. Dean's national campaign co-chairman, Steve Grossman, a former president of the ardently pro-Israel group AIPAC stated what was obvious to all concerned. "Howard Dean sees himself as a president who from day one will be deeply engaged and will build credibility with all parties to the conflict."

Nonetheless Senator Joseph Lieberman who has been badly trailing Dean in New Hampshire and Iowa, accused Dean of advocating “ a major break from a half a century of American foreign policy." Lieberman supporter former Congressman Stephan Solarz added, "It's a deeply disturbing expression of moral and political neutrality."

"Either he's not very knowledgeable or he's on the wrong side," chimed in Mark Mellman, a pollster for another Dean opponent, Senator Kerry. "Howard Dean is saying he wants to take American policy vis-à-vis Israel in a radically different direction than it has been under Democratic and Republican policy for the last 30 years."

Not only are these hysterical reactions totally unfair, it is almost certain that the people making the charges know it. He was talking about playing a role similar to that of President Clinton. In fact the main message of Dean’s interview was that President Bush should ask Clinton to play such a role now. To espouse anything other than Dean’s position would be to eliminate any role for the U.S. in a future Middle East peace process, which would be terribly damaging for both the U.S. and for Israel.

Dean’s second supposed transgression was even more ephemeral. Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer whether he opposed or approved of Israel’s "assassinations of Hamas militants" Gov. Dean replied, "… there is a war going on in the Middle East and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war and therefore it seems to me that they are going to be casualties.” In other words, Dean was supporting Israel’s moral right to kill members of Hamas. Jack Rosen, President of the American Jewish Congress huffed on the Fox News show 'The Beltway Boys', “According to international law, as well as common sense, Hamas terrorists are not soldiers but murderous terrorists who kill children. It's clear Governor Dean didn't bother to differentiate between terrorists, murderers and innocent civilians that are being attacked by Hamas.“ Of course, Rosen knows that Dean had not been asked to make that particular distinction but whether or not it was okay for Israel to kill Hamas members. Nonetheless, the AJ Congress sent a hysterical email with the gleeful headline “Alert!!!! Alert!!!! Alert!!!! Dean Slips Up Again“ (and, yes, they really used four exclamation points after each “Alert!!!!”).

Desperate for traction in his lackluster campaign, Kerry entered Willie Horton territory when he shamelessly distorted Dean’s meaning by claiming that "In going out of his way to term members of Hamas as 'soldiers,' Gov. Dean insults the memory of every innocent man, woman and child killed by these suicidal murderers."

As if in acknowledgement of the intellectual dishonesty of their attacks, many of these same critics quickly shifted their criticism of Dean from substance to style. Implicitly acknowledging that Dean was no threat to Israel, they accused him on “inexperience” in using words that could be “perceived” that way. Of course no one perceived Dean inaccurately except the very same people who intentionally pretended to do so in order to attack him for their own political agenda.

Howard Dean may yet stumble and fall in his ambitious and unlikely race to become President, but he would have to descend significantly to disgrace himself as much as Kerry, Lieberman, Solarz, Rosen and others have who cynically play word-games about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at a time of great peril for both Israel and the United States.

posted by Danny 10:16 AM [+]
...

Teen Spirit Watch 

Following are some grades of Democratic Presidential candidates in terms of their recent effectiveness at expressing "teen spirit". Criteria include:

- Expression of issues that effect young people
- Use of pop culture
- Memorable, understandable language
- Moral inspiration

The group of voters effected by such behavior includes not only young people but older voters whose primary cultural language is "pop."

John Kerry (B)

John Kerry has been photographed on motorcycle and played electric guitar last week joining a local Boston band, Popgun 7, in a rendition of Bruce Springsteen's "Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out." What's more, according to today's New York Times, he played on a 1961 album in a local band, The Electras, the liner notes of which called him a "producer of a pulsating rhythm that lends tremendous force to all the numbers."

This qualified Kerry as a bona-fide student of Bill Clinton's 1992 saxaphone playing on the Arsenio Hall Show. Of course Clinton already showed an affinity for old rock and roll eleven years ago and these are different times so the cultural statement doesn't mean that much.

I've got nothing against Kerry. In fact I think he'd be a terrific President and he's been more focused since he formally announced his candidacy than before. But Kerry is still fundamentally running as the guy who was a war hero. Not only will this rationale be dramatically undercut if Wesley Clark enters the race moreover, although George W. Bush and most of the hawks in his administration didn't serve in the Armed Forces, Bush still has, and will have, a lot of supporters in the military if for no other reason than that people in the military in recent years tend to be Republicans.

Richard Gephardt (B+)

Gephardt gets points on "language" for his repeated use of the phrase "miserable failure" to describe the Bush presidency. Although such repetition in recent debates and subsequent interviews does come across as a contrived, pre-planned "soundbite" it was nonetheless effective and re-positioned Gephardt.

Howard Dean (A-)

Dean still gets points for moral believability. He's handled the barrage of attacks on his minor political faux pas with grace and confidence and he still comes across as the only candidate other than Al Sharpton who has a mind of his own.

Al Sharpton (B+)

Sharpton is still the most entertaining candidate and the best natural speaker but he needs a more compelling vision if he's going to fill Jesse Jackson's shoes or more.

Wesley Clark gets an (A) for motivating a letter from Michael Moore, currently the definitive "teen spirit" arbiter... but this could quickly fade if he doesn't announce or if his announcement cycle doesn't live up to the hype.

Edwards, Mosley Braun, Kucinich get "incompletes" because at this moment I don't feel them in the game.

Lieberman as always, gets an (F), this time for petulant petty attacks on Dean for supposedly vacillating on support for Israel (Dean's position on Israel is, in fact , maddeningly conventional). Kerry lost some points for this too -- but he did it in a more pro-forma way whereas Lieberman's bitter satisfaction at "nailing" Dean had all of the intellectual dishonesty and pettiness of the worst High School Asst. Principal.

posted by Danny 10:11 AM [+]
...

Young Missouri 

Follows is an email typical of many young organizers I've heard from around the country who are not currently getting the appropriate support from the Democratic Party:

Mr. Goldberg,

First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to call me back, and listening to me prattle on. I'll try not to take up much of your time. Here's a quick list of things that the Young Democrats of St. Louis would do with contributions.

Our first concern is operating costs. We would not want to eat up a lot of capital on items like office space, phones and net technology, but it's something we will need in the coming months. We also want to purchase personalized business cards for our officers. If we don't buy union made, it's bad for our reputation. The Young Democrats are also active in recruiting candidates, and helping all Democrats to be elected to office. We will use a portion of the funding to go directly to campaigns, but our help usually comes in the form of people power. We make phone calls for candidates, and distribute literature as well.

Our second need is to have funding for advertising. This is my main goal at this point. The Young Democrats, and the Democratic party in general, does not do enough to market itself to the general public. If this were done on a regular basis, we would not have many of the problems that we are experiencing in today's political climate. I would use the bulk of funding to put together a campaign to raise our membership. I would buy airtime on radio stations who market primarily to the 18 to 34 demographic, and our main message would be for young people to lend their voice to ours, and to be the advocate for our generations. We are also interested in organizing events that would not be necessarily "Democratic" in nature, but would be to get the Young Democrat name out there. I would like to be able to book concerts for bands sympathetic to the cause, and have forums that focus on the issues of young people in Missouri. We also have to conquer the racial divide in St. Louis, and this won't be easy, but is possible with the right support. I believe that we can accomplish all of this with a marketing campaign that is done correctly, and we will be able to appeal directly to the self interests of the 18 to 34 demographic by opening the process up to them. We will use this to apply pressure to the hierarchy of the State Party to address the concerns of those who will inherit this country next, and to set up the young Democrat organization to be a force for the next generation of leaders as well. This should result in Democrats no longer being pigeonholed by the Republican Party's definition of issues in this state.

Here's an example of the ineffectiveness of the State Party, and what I would do differently if I had the resources to do so: President Bush is coming here today for a fundraiser for our Senior Senator, Kit Bond. He has been receiving free advertising from the local news at every news update they air. He has come to St. Louis 12 times since he was selected, and each time the news agencies give him half the coverage of the entire newscast each for each visit, and at the same time, they largely ignore the protesters outside these events. The state party has done nothing in the way of getting the word out, showing a presence at these events, or offering a counter argument to the media in any way. I feel they are making a huge mistake. I would fight fire with fire, and I would use part of the monies raised by you to mobilize Democrats with advertising on the radio.

Unfortunately, this will take a lot of capital, and since all of the State Party's resources are going to the Gephardt Campaign, (much to my chagrin) and our party's growth is being curtailed by this. It is exactly as you describe, that the Democratic Party is only focused on persuading the Lipitor vote to go Democratic. This is a short sighted strategy, and it's why I was motivated to call you.

I know I'm asking a lot, but we need the help. 11 electoral votes that will potentially swing this election, as well as the life and health of the Democratic party for the next generation, is counting on possible contributors like you. There are no limits on what the Young Democrats can receive, and the more money we can raise, the more effective we can be in taking the party from the entrenched, Good Old boy system, and reviving the Missouri Democratic Party.

Thank you once again. I hope to hear from you very soon.

Sincerely,
Joe Bruemmer
Press Secretary,
Young Democrats of St. Louis
(YDSTL)
(314) 565-6127
posted by Danny 9:18 AM [+]
...

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 10:04 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 12:01 PM [+]
...

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 5:07 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 10:23 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 10:06 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 8:19 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 3:42 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 11:06 AM [+]
...

One Thousand Reasons 

Need a reason not to vote for Bush, check out One Thousand Reasons
posted by Danny 8:58 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 2:50 PM [+]
...

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 Murdoch’s 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 doesn’t 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 “Heartland". Kasich was a Newt Gingrich protégé (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 doesn’t 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 O’Reilly 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 O’Reilly about the latest tabloid murder. O’Reilly himself refrained from sneering or insulting me, and only got pissed when I referred to Republicans as “your guys”. In high dudgeon he interjected “Mr. Goldberg you obviously don’t watch the show. We are independent. I just criticized Bush today about the environment.”

I’m not trying sugarcoat Fox News. A lot of what they do, as Janeane Garofalo says, panders to "the dumb and the mean” 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 “Saddam Hussein must love you!”. This kind of awful debasement of legitimate criticism and questioning, whether vicious attacks on the Dixie Chicks or Tom Dashcle; or, in Ann Coulter’s 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 don’t sound as pompous or as predictable as the other networks. I don’t for one minute think that Fox News is "fair and balanced”; but, like a lot of their viewers, I don’t think the phrase is a cynical joke, which is why O’Reilly, the most successful of all Fox News personalities, is so intent on maintaining an “independent” image.

David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who takes credit for the phrase “axis of evil”, has been appearing on various talk shows (including a Tim Russert Show with me) gleefully claiming that there is a tension between “NPR liberals” (who he describes as anti-war and pro-civil liberties) and supposedly epitomized by Howard Dean, and “economic liberals” whose union-supported champion is Richard Gephardt. According to Frum’s formulation, the working class “economic liberals” 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. O’Rourke don’t agree about everything). But working class people are the exact people who make artists like Eminem and shows like “Friends” 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. McGovern’s loss was partially from a country that wanted to re-elect Nixon but McGovern’s biggest mistakes were not ideological but professional (losing control of his convention to the point that his acceptance speech wasn’t on until three in the morning; selecting a running mate who resigned the next week after it was revealed he’d received electro-shock treatment for depression, etc.). And, of course, McGovern’s 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 it’s 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 Hoover’s odious excesses make John Ashcroft look like a paragon of civil liberties. (see also).

Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem didn’t 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 (”Get Your War On” ) and Joel Andreas' “Addicted to War” all published by small independent presses -- and the 800 pound gorilla “Stupid White Men” 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, didn’t 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 singer–songwriter will develop passionate followings like Conor Oberst. Not every progressive will have Michael’s Moore’s gift for entertainment. But they can at least do their cultural homework as diligently as John Kasich.

posted by Danny 9:18 PM [+]
...

Teen Spirit and Democrats for President 

I’ve been working on a piece about “teen 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 “authenticity", often used as if it were a rare trait one is born with such as blood type. In fact, “authenticity” 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 “authentic” 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 Clinton’s current memoir “Living History,” in which she writes that people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one “still (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 future”.

In other words, it is not the job of older people to inspire younger people — it’s the job of younger people to salute. It’s their own fault if they don’t 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 “practical” 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 “apathy” 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 Lakoff’s book “Moral Politics”).

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

Dean’s 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 Bush’s 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 “appearing weak on defense during times of world threat” 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. (There’s obviously no danger of Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton being seduced by this nonsense, but they have a different problem, which is that they haven’t yet figured out how to find a poetic vision of government. Their campaigns are an earnest shopping list of progressive positions that, thus far, don’t 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 Carter’s suggestion that he was too right-wing: Take a deep breath, shake their head ruefully, smile unthreateningly and say “there you go again”. It’s amazing what a few wistful smiles can do.




posted by Danny 11:02 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 9:14 PM [+]
...

RAVE Act 

6/13/03

There's a terrific piece by Neal Pollack on Alternet.org about the RAVE Act which holds concert promoters and club owners criminally liaible for drug use at concerts or dances. As Pollack points out, Democrats are as involved with pushing such legislation as Republicans, a similar pattern to the bi-partisan culture bashing I've complained about in the past.

One need not be for drug legalization to oppose over-reaching and onerous drug laws. Democrats make a terrible mistake when they support measures such as the RAVE Act which, I'm sorry to say, was pushed by Democratic Senator Joe Biden. Not only are many such laws morally dubious, giving huge penalites for non-violent "crimes," but they further the perception among young people that both political parties are out of touch.


posted by Danny 1:26 PM [+]
...

Punditocracy 

06/11/03

I've had no problem criticizing either Bill or Hillary Clinton but much of the pundit response to the new books by Hillary Clinton and by Sid Blumenthal seems ridiculous to me. Today's New York Times editorial amits that political memoirs are inherently an insincere artform, but the paper still chose to write a editorial dismissing Mrs. Clinton's. I don't recall such editorials about books by Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan or for that matter President Reagan. Similarly a lot of normally intelligent people have attacked Sid Blumenthal's book for being excessively flattering to Clinton.

Why on earth shouldn't there be at least a few books that tell the Clinton adminsitration's story from a positive point of view? There have been countless attack books and hundreds of attack commentaries. Clinton was elected President twice by this country and left office with very high approval ratings. I can understand conservatives attacking any Democrat -- but why on earth should anyone else in the media be so hostile?

Typically, the punditocracy is out of touch with large chunks of the public -- the very kinds of people who should be their audience. Blumenthal's book came right on the best-seller list and Hillary's broke all records for first day sales.

A policy oriented critique of Clinton from the left is appropriate -- but this mindless mudslinging evokes the absurdity of much of the Washington establishment during the impeachment period. Many pundits say it's a mistake for the Clintons to remind people of impeachment. I think it's much worse for those in the political media who supported or enabled it to remind people of how wrong they were.


posted by Danny 12:25 PM [+]
...

Twisted Sister & USO 

06/02/03

I had lunch with Dee Snider, the leader singer of Twisted Sister the other day. He had just gotten back from doing USO shows with the band for American military in South Korea. Snider loved the irony of performing for the U.S. government. Twisted Sister were attacked by several members of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in the mid-nineteen eighties when Tipper Gore and Susan Baker had included the band among their targets. I attended the hearing in which Snider testified and crossed swords with the sternly disapproving Senator Al Gore. The music video of the teen anthem "We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore" was shown to the Senate Committee as an example of toxic culture. Of course that was the very song that got the biggest response among the troops.

posted by Danny 11:03 AM [+]
...

Polls etc. 

05/31/03

Last night the cable news shows were filled with poll info that showed there has been a decline of Americans' trust in the news media which was released on the heels of a poll that showed there has been an increase in the trust for the military, especially among young people. Pundits speculated that these two findings were somehow related.

First of all it should come as no surprise that the military is more popular. They just won a decisive victory. Moreover, almost everyone who opposed the Bush foreign policy, made it clear that they respected the troops.

As far as the media goes, there has, for decades, been a section of people on the political right who say they don't like the media, somehow buying into the notion that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News aren't "the media." Who are the new 10-15% who are added to lack of trust in the media? My guess is that a lot of it is among the 25% of the public that at no time ever supported the war. The near unanimous support of the war by mainstream media made millions of people feel abandoned.

At the same time that Fox News increased viewers, the ACLU membership has grown from 300,000 to 400,000, Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men" has been on the best seller list for almost sixty weeks, months more than any other non-fiction book, and The Nation's circulation has dramatically increased. So "distrust" of the media isn't neccessarily an indication of a public trend toward conservatism. It just as easily could mean a large outcry from people to the left of the mass media who echo the attitude expresed in Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media."
posted by Danny 7:57 PM [+]
...

Young Conservatives 

May 26,2003

In yesterday's New York Times Magazine Section there was a cover story about conservatives on campus. As has been case in numerous such accounts over the last couple of decades, the conservative college students said that campus speech codes which were perceived as having been imposed from the left, helped push them to the right. If progressives wish to have credibility with young people, they need to get rid of the idea of such speech codes and embrace a pure free speech position. Free speech was the issue that helped create much of sixties progressive activity. It is impossible to be seen as having the moral high ground without a commitment to free speech.

posted by Danny 1:57 PM [+]
...

Welcome! 

Hi!
Welcome to my new website. Check here often for the lastet blog postings.
Read an interview with Danny Goldberg.
posted by Danny 10:27 AM [+]
...