| Home | About CDSA | New Ground | Events | Debs Dinner | Links | Join DSA | Audio | Email us |
New Ground 117March - April, 2008ContentsNew Ground 117.1 - 03.17.2008
New Ground 117.2 - 03.28.2008
New Ground 117.3 - 04.21.2008
New Ground 117.4 - 05.05.2008
Politics 2008: the Terrain and the Issuesby Bill Barclay The Candidates One way of thinking about the political terrain that progressives face in 2008 is through the biographies of the three remaining presidential candidates their inclinations, their strengths and weaknesses. Taking this approach is not to advocate the great (wo)man theory of history but simply to a useful device for thinking about tactics and strategy. Starting with the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, we see an individual who, although his biography might suggest otherwise, was not shaped by the Vietnam War in the way that most who lived through that era were. McCain was a Navy bomber pilot during the early phases of the war and had no experience in fighting on the ground in Vietnam. He was shot down in 1967 and remained a prisoner of war until 1972. Thus he experienced neither the growing anti-war sentiment nor actions of the US populace nor the debilitating effect of the ground war against a guerrilla army. He also, of course, comes from military family: both his father and grandfather were senior naval officers. His biography and his Vietnam experience make him inclined to continue the Iraq War until "victory" is obtained. Hillary Clinton's persona was partially formed during the 1960s but shaped even more profoundly by the experience of husband's presidency. The right-wing attack machine grew and matured during the Clinton years, resulting in both an effective media presence and a disciplined Republican party at the national level, more along the lines of British parties than the loose formations that characterized the US during most of the post World War II decades. The Clintons received the brunt of the attacks, partly for what they did or didn't do but mostly because they were there, the national representative of the Democratic Party. One result of this is a battle-scarred, hunker-down mentality on Clinton's part, including a strong reluctance to admit any mistakes such as voting for the Iraq War. Equally important, and a measure of the success of the right-wing attack machine, she carries very high negatives that seem undiminished to date in the presidential campaign. Barack Obama's biography was not written on the national political stage. As a result, his image and persona in the minds of the electorate is the least defined, something that has worked to his advantage to date in the campaign. Obama's defining characteristic is youthfulness, a generational shift that for many voters represents the possibility of alternative futures that may break the mold of US politics that has dominated the Clinton and the (latter) Bush years. This perception is, at least in part, the impetus for the large turnouts that Obama draws and for the pattern of a shift by Democratic voters from an initial inclination towards Clinton to support for Obama as actual primary dates approach and they learn more about him. For progressives who have wondered for years where the "missing" cohorts were (most of our meetings have the over 55 crowd and a sprinkling of under 25s) here is the answer. Obama has mobilized the 20 to 45 year olds in a way that no one else has in recent memory. A large number of people who are repulsed by much of the Bush administration's policies and political culture but who have been passive are now entering the political arena. For most, Obama is their chosen vessel, although Clinton mobilizes some also. Like all such vessels he is an imperfect one and, of course, not the one we would have chosen but nobody asked us. There is, of course, the question of whether the mobilization that Obama's campaign has managed to date can be continued to the election. But of greater significance is where, over the long run, their entry into politics takes this new cohort and where they themselves direct it. While some will undoubtedly drop away, many will find their lives transformed by the experience of political participation and will continue their involvement. The mobilization is real and offers a real opportunity. What can we progressives make of it? The Issues and the Campaign The biographies of the candidates intersect with and help define the issues on which each party seeks to fight the 2008 presidential election. It is clear that the GOP wants to fight the campaign around the issue of 9/11 and terrorism, leaving the War in the background. Bush will do his best to define this context by:
The administration has already begun building the latter case, charging the detainees with war crimes and seeking the death penalty. As the Pentagon's General Counsel, William Haynes, put it, "we can't have acquittals If we've been holding these guys for so long, we've got to have convictions." This strategy plays to McCain's strengths and his instincts. The risk for him, however, is that the War gets back on the front pages because the facts on the ground shift. Such a change may occur either because the insurgents reemerge with more cooperation among the different factions, because the long anticipated deterioration of US troops occurs due to lengthy tours of duty, or because the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates further. McCain will have some trouble with the Christian fundamentalist right, but, come election day, they will vote for him who else do they have? Whether there will be enough disaffection that turnout from this segment of the population is somewhat lower than in the last few elections remains to be seen. The strategy for the Democratic nominee, either Clinton or Obama, is less clear. Edwards' exit from the race allows the remaining two contenders to adopt the pundits' favorite advice of "moving to the center." While at first glance such a shift may seem adverse to progressives' hopes for this election, the reality may be less of a threat. Where is the center in today's US political terrain? On at least three key issues, the center is where the left staked out positions not long ago. Large majorities believe that:
One other issue may end up overwhelming any of the above: the possibility of a significant downturn in the economy. The "stimulus package" agreed to by Congress and Bush will have little if any impact. The Fed is already worried about inflation and that worry will make them more hesitant on further rate cuts. Housing foreclosures are growing rapidly. Although today there is limited sympathy for people who are seen as taking on more risk than they should and generally making bad financial decisions, that opinion may change as more people are pushed out of their homes and a contraction in consumer spending drives the downturn. Normally an economic crisis such as this should be to the advantage of the Democratic candidates, especially since McCain has confessed to know little about economics. (He has assured us that he will remedy that lack by reading Alan Greenspan's book.) Of course, neither Clinton nor Obama have established much of a record on economic policy, and both candidates have economic advisors from the earlier Clinton administration, so there are significant opportunities and risks here. What Should Progressives Do? First and foremost, we should welcome the entry into the political arena of those mobilized by "the Obama Phenomena." This generational shift holds the future of U.S. politics in its hands. Welcoming means working with them, not standing on the sidelines telling them of Obama's faults; the right-wing attack machine can do that very well and needs no help from us. Second, we must do all in our power to continue the shift away from the GOP that began in the 2006 elections. Pushing this shift does not mean enrolling in the Obama (or Clinton) campaign, although there is a role for those who want to do so. It does mean working to expand the electorate, particularly by adding voters are the young end. These young voters and potential voters are overwhelmingly against the War, do not have the same obsession with issue such as gay marriage that their elders often do, are concerned even terrified about the threat of global warming, and are worried about their future in terms of health care and retirement. Further, the numbers of these new voters identifying themselves as Democrats or independents overwhelm the numbers who identify themselves as Republicans. Thirdly, we have to insist that there is a significant difference (and a difference that will make a difference) between the two parties today. Unlike the time when George Wallace, running as a third party candidate, could claim there was not "a dime's worth of difference" between the Republicans and the Democrats, studies of voting patterns and ideological commitments show the smallest amount of overlap between Democratic and Republican House and Senate members in more than two generations. Put another way, there is a real difference between a party that is in denial about global warming, seeks to turn social security into a private insurance scam, is against a national health plan unless it can be accomplished by tax cuts, would continue to place obstacles in the path of workplace organizing, and wants more Supreme Court Justices on the Scalia and Roberts model on the one hand, and the alternative, whether the banner is that of Obama or Clinton at the national level. And, of course there is one more task for progressives in this election: to maintain an organizational independence from either party. Whether we participate in the electoral work at the national, state or district level, our organizations must continue to have their own life and dynamics. Thus if a Peace and Justice organization or a community group or a DSA or a Progressive Democrats of America chapter works in an electoral campaign, the work should be done as the group or the chapter, not as a set of atomized individuals absorbed into the party apparatus. This independence is crucial not just to demonstrate the contribution that we make to an electoral campaign but also because, when the voting is over and the term of office begins, we must be prepared to pressure those elected to live up to their rhetoric and promises. Such post-election pressure requires an independent basis for mobilizing for our politics. Editor's Note: Bill Barclay is a charter member of DSA out of the New American Movement, an Oak Park activist who represents the Greater Oak Park Branch on the Chicago DSA Executive Committee. Capital Punishment Is Percolating in Illinoisby Tom Broderick As I write this, it's been nearly nine years since the State of Illinois carried out its last execution. Just over five years ago, former Governor George Ryan commuted the death sentences of one hundred sixty seven human beings. It was an historic event. To give this perspective: Oklahoma Governor Lee Cruce spared the lives of 22 in 1915; Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller spared the lives of 15 in 1970 and New Mexico Governor Tony Anaya spared the lives of five in 1986. Governor Ryan spared more than four times the combined total of these other three mass commutations. Abolitionists in Illinois and elsewhere took part in lusty celebration. And then we stalled. We couldn't use this sweeping victory to bring about abolition. But, capital punishment is percolating in Illinois: Anita Alvarez is the Democratic Party candidate for Cook County State's Attorney. She wants our Legislature to deal with capital punishment. Originally, she suggested a referendum appear on the ballot so that the public could give direction. However, ballot referenda are non-binding, so she now says it makes more sense for the Legislators to take up the issue. This is a call echoed by many: The Chicago Council of Lawyers, the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Sun-Times among others. Given the inability of our Legislature to recognize that we have a criminal justice system that is more criminal than just, I see small chance of this body taking any significant action. This doesn't mean that we stop fighting. The tide is turning. Newspapers across the country (even in Dallas, Texas) are calling for abolition. The New Jersey state Legislature recently abolished the death penalty. The first state to do so since the U.S. started killing again. Several states have put a hold on execution. The U.S. Supreme Court is looking at whether the lethal injection system we use is cruel, and therefore unconstitutional. The same system that we use to kill humans has been outlawed in the killing of animals because it is considered cruel. Of course, in the United States of America, we enacted laws to protect animals from working under cruel conditions before we enacted laws to protect children from the same fate. During the primary run, I spoke with Ms. Alvarez' campaign manager, Dan Kirk on the issue of the death penalty and the current moratorium on execution. Mr. Kirk told me that Ms. Alvarez supports the death penalty as "appropriate for certain heinous crimes." On the other hand, she understands that there are problems with the system that have yet to be rectified, so she supports the moratorium. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the mid 1970's, eighteen people in Illinois have been condemned to death and then found innocent and released. There are likely others who have been less fortunate. It's amazing to hear a public prosecutor admit value in putting a hold on extermination. It has always seemed to me that the slightest possibility of executing an innocent person should rally all ~ even the most tough on crime ~ to end this cruelty. Taking a human life is a cruel and an unusual act, period. Exterminating in the name of justice is a heinous crime. Yet DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett wants Governor Rod Blagojevich to end the moratorium on executions. He claims it is unfair to have capital punishment without following through with executions. Joining him is State Representative Dennis Reboletti (R Elmhurst), who has introduced a House resolution to resume executions. No doubt they are impressed with the Iraqi approach: sentence and exterminate within 30 days. In this country, we have condemned people to death only to have them proved innocent 30 years after they have been condemned. Thirty days? Thirty Years? Haste? Justice? Birkett's wish to ramp up the execution process may well be a product of his mishandling of the Jeanine Nicarico murder. Initially Rolando Cruz and Alex Hernandez were condemned as the murderers. They were found innocent after spending several years on death row. Brian Dugan has been a suspect for twenty years. He has repeatedly offered to plead guilty for the murder in exchange for not facing execution. Instead, Birkett wants to go for death. This is a costly and senseless abuse of official power. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty cites estimates of up to $10 million in costs for Birkett's desire. If Cruz and Hernandez had been quickly put to death, the case would be closed and there would be no question of guilt. Dugan who? The Nicarico case? Once the condemned are killed in the middle of the night, justice is served. Birkett would not be responsible for murdering the innocent because we execute justice, not human beings. If Cruz and Hernandez had been quickly put to death, there would be no question of prosecutorial ineptitude or misconduct either. Former Governor George Ryan appointed a blue ribbon panel to investigate capital punishment in Illinois. After two years of research, the panel submitted a report that called for approximately 100 reforms to improve the system. In closing their report they declared that even if all reforms were enacted, there would be no guarantee that an innocent person would not be executed. Our Legislators enacted about twenty percent of the committee's suggested reforms. Birkett's call for resuming executions not-withstanding, there is no proof that even these few reforms we have enacted have made any difference in terms of justice. In fact, the refusal by our Legislators to confront the flawed and biased nature of our capital punishment system was key to the Chicago Tribune's editorial decision to call for abolition: "Who gets a sentence of life and who gets death is often a matter of random luck, of politics, of geography, even a matter of racism." Can anybody with a conscience call this abomination justice? We now have a new abolition (?) movement in Illinois: Abolition in Illinois Movement (AIM). AIM is pushing the idea that the cost of capital punishment outstrips its benefit. On the surface, I can only agree. However, AIM is promoting Life Without Parole (LWOP) as the natural option to extermination. AIM is also looking to expand the number of crimes that would make one eligible for mandatory LWOP. We have a race and class biased justice system, which means our system is flawed. It is also myopically focused on retribution. Those convicted need to suffer. Restorative justice is not a part of the discussion. I am also concerned that an expansion of LWOP-designated crimes would put more juveniles at risk of being sentenced to our penal system for life. Some juveniles commit horrific crimes, but condemning people this young to a caged life is also horrific. I am an atheist, but this is clearly hell's answer to humanity. AIM does not represent the abolition movement that I am part of. There are people who cannot be allowed to live and walk among us. This is unfortunate, but true. However, expanding LWOP is not a humane remedy to the injustice of execution. When we condemn someone to death or to LWOP, we have essentially said we don't believe this thing has any humanity. Cage it forever or kill it. The truth is that thing is still human. No matter what that thing did, it is still human. He or she is still one of us. If we had a society that treated people with dignity and respect from cradle to grave, there might be some merit in discussing whether or not snuffing human beings was just. And I'm not sure of even that. But we don't have anything remotely resembling such a culture. We live in a society that devalues life, that is racist, class biased, and sexist. The facts around women being sentenced to death revolve heavily around physical abuse. Back to AIM: If cost is the issue then putting more people in prison for the rest of their lives is questionable. As humans age, in or out of the penal system, the need for and cost of health care increases. It is estimated that the health care costs for elderly prisoners is three times that of younger prisoners. If AIM has addressed this, I missed it. And I don't have the time to get into the quality of health care administered in our penal institutions. Representative Tom Cross, R-84, may re-introduce his "NoDoubt" bill. This is supposed to narrow the application of capital punishment. Currently we have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The "NoDoubt" bill is supposed to limit capital punishment to only those who are clearly guilty and clearly deserving of execution. When this bill was previously floated it was divisive on both sides of the argument. Then our State Prosecutors came out solidly against the bill. Their concern seemed to be that such a standard would effectively prohibit success in capital cases. In a recent phone conversation with Rep. Cross, he said he wasn't sure about re-introducing the bill. He didn't want to introduce it as some kind of exercise. The first time around, the bill passed the House. After the fuss made by the prosecutors, particularly the retiring Cook County State's Attorney, Dick Devine and the previously mentioned Birkett, the Senate chose to let the bill die through procedural inaction. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is about to issue its yearly report on the death penalty. This report is the premier source on information on the death penalty in Illinois. ICADP follows the use of capital punishment throughout the state. This information is compiled in the report, which among other things, is delivered to each and every State Legislator in Illinois. Then key Legislators are targeted for personal meetings. The ICADP report presents death penalty developments and trends in Illinois, across the nation and even internationally. The United Nations General Assembly voted 105 to 54 with 29 abstentions to adopt a moratorium on the death penalty. The United States was one of the 54 "no" votes. The report looks at statewide use of the death penalty, the crisis of police accountability and the risk of wrongful convictions. It presents death penalty reform in Illinois for the past year. This is one of the shorter sections of the report. "Key reforms in the areas of arbitrariness were again ignored, notwithstanding the disturbing patterns in capital cases documented in each ICADP report since 2003." There is also section on the cost of the death penalty: remember the possible $10 million price tag that Birkett may stick the state with in his desire to prosecute a defendant who would plead guilty in exchange for a sentence that let him live. The report finds that "the record of the continuing failure of the Illinois capital punishment system is clear. Public officials have had the opportunity to enact comprehensive recommendations for reform for over five years, and have failed to do so. The combination of a failed system and a failed reform effort requires the General Assembly to confront the need to eliminate the death penalty." Finally, I want to mention that in the recent primary, there were six Democratic Party candidates seeking the office of Cook County State's Attorney. Three supported abolition of the death penalty: Tommy Brewer, Howard Brookins and Larry Suffredin. Now this gives me hope. Editor's Note: Tom Broderick is a "single co-chair" of Chicago DSA's Executive Committee and Co-chair of the Greater Oak Park Branch. The ICADP's annual report is (or will be) posted on their web site: http://www.icadp.org . Cook County Saved?by Bob Roman Supporters of county health care services (and supporters of county government in general) had some reasons to celebrate on March first after the Cook County Board, very much at the last minute and by the skin of their teeth, passed a "balanced" budget that preserves County services, including health care. Better still, from the perspective of the Emergency Network to Save Cook County Health Services, was the passage of an ordinance that essentially puts the county's Bureau of Health Services into receivership. The ordinance passed is largely the ordinance proposed by the Network except for one major pill embedded in the dog food. The original legislation proposed a board formed entirely independently of County government by representatives from a list of stakeholder organizations. As passed, representatives from a select list of "stakeholder" organizations will meet to nominate candidates for the independent board. From that list of 20 candidates, Todd Stroger (as County President) will select 9 board members. This board will be expected to reorganize the Bureau into a reasonably efficient organization, including setting up a billing system that will allow for greater reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. After three years, unless the County Board decides otherwise, management of the Bureau will return to the County Board. The reform ordinance was a way of taking health services out of the stalemate between those wanted to raise taxes and were defensive regarding management and those who, out of opportunism or out of middle class outrage or out of a hidden libertarian agenda, felt no tax increase was necessary but a lot of "fat cutting" was. The Emergency Network to Save Cook County Health Services was formed early last year with the blessings and support of AFSCME and SEIU when it became obvious that Cook County was headed for a fiscal crash landing with health services being one of the biggest casualties. Chicago DSA signed on in October. Based at Citizen Action/Illinois, it did a great deal of the coalition building necessary for this victory. Some of the members do not love some of the others though apparently they worked together well enough while facing the crisis. Afterwards, the self-congratulations often did not credit others in the effort. A great deal of credit also belongs to Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon. By some accounts, his shuttle diplomacy at the climax pretty much clinched the deal between County President Todd Stroger, liberal board member and swing vote Larry Suffredin, and some of the other stakeholders. The tax increases were no larger than immediately necessary and the health services reform ordinance was largely what the Network had proposed albeit possibly less "independent." Taxes were the big story for the mainstream media. This increase will make the sales tax in Chicago the highest in the nation. In addition to being regressive, it will likely discourage commerce compared to the suburbs. But this is only a small part of the story. The sales tax increase is estimated to be worth $400 million in additional revenue per year but only brings $74 million (the increase happens just in time for Christmas shopping) against the estimated $234 million deficit this year. The rest of this year's deficit is being made up by the anticipated surplus next year. But according to the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, Cook County's revenue problems are primarily structural. The taxes the County has available to it will not cover the anticipated increases in expenses. If this year's deficit was about $200 million, next year's will likely be about $400 million. The problem is resolved for this year, and with management efficiencies maybe next year, but feces will be airborne again in 2010. In this context, a possibly independent and professional board may be a risky victory. Stroger is certainly sensitive to the issues of services and good jobs in "The Community." Cynics will sneer, with more than a little justification, "patronage" instead. Yet most patronage these days is not in the form of jobs but in the form of contracts. Politics is nowhere near as labor-intensive as it once was; money counts for more. If County finances become impossible, what better armor for a politician's hind end than an independent board to make nasty decisions like privatization or massive cuts? The other part of the tax story, though, is the money not being collected. Some of this is part of the current left critique: the ubiquitous Tax Increment Financing districts that skim increases in property tax revenue to opaque and unaccountable local projects. But with regard to property taxes, there is always a considerable pool of other money that is not being collected. Tax bills that are being appealed, bills that are being contested in court, bills that are being settled for change on the dollar, bills that won't ever be paid. Likewise, the sales tax is also evaded. How many dollars are missing? It can amount to more money than you might expect, but that's a subject for another story. Forty years ago, poetry ruled the streets. The uprising of May 1968, during which tanks rolled onto the streets of Paris, was not just a radically defining moment in French history. The revolt by workers and students became a model of how to successfully challenge capitalist power and culture. Tens of thousands of students and 10 million striking workers (roughly half of the working population) took to the streets and shut down the country. Protesters behind barricades battled police whose tear gas and grenades could not stop the insurgency. Without airplanes, transport, gas, or telephone lines, ordinary life was at a standstill. The French government almost fell as President De Gaulle fled to West Germany, and those who thought revolution was not possible in the prosperous West were shocked as the impossible emerged on the streets. More than a student revolt, May-June 1968 was a unity among generations of people who achieved consciousness together, forging one of the biggest general strikes in history and a massive wave of popular factory and university occupations that made it impossible for the French government to intervene. Old and young workers struck for a 40-hour week with no reduction in wages, old-age pensions at 60 for men and 55 for women, a fifth week of paid holidays for young workers, and expanded trade union rights. A militant women's movement won the struggle for national nursery care, improvements at all levels of education, and the right to abortion. Throughout France action committees controlled by workers, professionals and students administered production and distribution of vital goods and services. All aspects of culture were transformed under democratic control of artists and intellectuals. Indeed, for almost 90 days the entire mode of existence in all its social manifestations came under attack. Join us as we examine this remarkable chapter of 20th century history, and reflect on how May-June 1968 has influenced contemporary social justice movements in Chicago and around the world. Michael Löwy, born in Brazil, has lived in France since the 1960s. He is emeritus research director in sociology at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Paris. He is a prolific author of many books in several languages. Joanna Misnik was expelled from France for her trade union activism and for her participation in the Marxist tendency led by Ernest Mandel. A life-long anti-war and union militant, she worked on the Jesse Jackson 1984 presidential campaign and is a member of SEIU Local 73. Dr. William A. Pelz is an historian of European history and an activist. This event is co-sponsored by Open University of the Left , the Chicago Socialist Party , Solidarity-Chicago Chapter, Chicago DSA and the New World Resource Center . No Private Armiesby Bob Roman Back in 1879, Herman Presser was busted for leading, down the streets of Chicago, a parade of armed men from the Instruct and Defend Association. He had no permit for the parade nor had the Association any license from Illinois to function as a militia. Loosely affiliated with the Socialist Labor Party (which eventually forbade joint membership), this militia had been active in Chicago since 1874 as a counter-threat to armed private employer security forces that were frequently used to "discourage", by any means necessary, strikes and strikers and unions in general. Something of an anarchist, Presser nonetheless appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his (and the Association's) rights under the 2nd Amendment had been violated. The Court, no surprise especially as it was 1886 just after Haymarket, decided Illinois and the other states had every right to regulate private militias. Fast forward to the 21st Century. The infamous private mercenary army, Blackwater, has invaded Illinois, establishing a training facility in northwestern Illinois' Jo Daviess County. Local citizens, mindful the loose gun play and casual disregard for human rights documented in connection with Blackwater and other "private security firms" react by forming Clearwater. The group has the immediate aim of forcing out a bad neighbor, but its overall mission is "to preserve the public nature and civilian control" of the military and of the police. More information about Clearwater can be found at http://www.noprivatearmies.org . With the active support of Clearwater, Illinois State Representative Julie Hamos (Democrat from Evanston) has introduced HB 5700, a bill that regulates such private security firms as Blackwater. A synopsis of the bill describes it as:
As New Ground goes to press, HB 5700 had been assigned to the House Homeland Security & Emergency Preparedness Committee and a hearing on this and two other items of legislation had been scheduled for March 13 in Springfield. In order for the legislation to go anywhere, members of the Illinois House of Representatives need to hear from you: members of the Committee in particular but not at all exclusively. What the bill needs now is cosponsors. So in addition to asking your representative to support the bill, ask your representative to become a co-sponsor. For more information on the campaign, contact Mary Shesgreen at 847.742.1406. Other Newscompiled by Bob Roman Yes We Can:
|
|
|
|
|