What Obama can’t do for the progressive movement
By Joe Brewer and Evan Frisch
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

This is an exciting time for progressives. An inspiring new approach to politics has mobilized millions of politically ambivalent citizens. There is, for the first time in our lives, a genuine optimism that we can reclaim our country from a corrupt and morally bankrupt extremist group that has hijacked the discourse – and thus the dominant institutions – of the body politic.

And yet, there are dangers far greater than the smears we have seen so far.

As members of the Rockridge Institute, we have been unable to comment on the promise of the Obama campaign, and the perils progressives face in its midst, due to the restriction against partisan activities by 501(c)(3) nonprofits such as ours. The Rockridge Institute closed this week and, so, we are able to comment directly on our analyses of political campaigns. Now that we are free from legal constraints, we feel the need to help our fellow progressives prepare to face the challenges that lie ahead.

First, a note about the Rockridge Institute. This nonpartisan progressive think tank was founded by George Lakoff to shift the political debate through insights and analyses from the cognitive sciences. You can read the announcement declaring the end of the Rockridge Era here. In this article, we call for a new era for progressive politics informed by the opportunities and pitfalls we discovered through our work at this small shop based out of Berkeley, California.

A Wake Up Call for Progressives

Obama has ignited the civic passions of millions with an inspiring call to transcend the politics of the past and deliver on the promise of a more perfect union. His campaign is grounded in the fundamental American values and principles that have brought about progressive changes throughout our history. The success of this approach, though often criticized in the media, exemplifies a basic tenet that Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute have advocated for a long time, namely that voters are motivated by shared values and authenticity.

The Clintons and others criticized Obama when he rightly pointed out “Republicans were the party of ideas,” in recent decades, because they “were challenging conventional wisdom.” At a time when his opponents were trying to represent Obama as too far to the right, they linked these comments to his insightful observation that Ronald Reagan had successfully “changed the trajectory of America,” which they spun as Reagan worship. A key insight missed by the media during that trifle is that conservatives have indeed shifted the common sense of our nation – for the worse. For decades, conservative think tanks have churned out and propagated strategic initiatives that have undermined the founding principles of the United States. Meanwhile, progressives have been stuck in reaction mode, struggling to defend the policies of the past, issue by issue.

It has been an uphill battle to get progressives to recognize the need to (a) challenge the conservative principles behind all of their policies and (b) advance progressive principles to replace them. So, for example, when conservatives call for privatization of the central functions of government, progressives recoil in disgust. But when asked how to respond to privatization and the defunding of successful social programs, progressives remain stuck in the reaction trap and position themselves against the conservative thrust.

When prodded about their stance, they generally lack a proactive progressive response – such as the recognition that government has a positive moral mission to protect and empower its people, which led to a large middle class and our historic prosperity. An expansive middle class doesn’t happen naturally as the conservatives have worked to convince us. (Nor will global climate change just go away.) It takes community understanding of shared prosperity achieved through an infrastructure of government support and protection. But progressives aren’t getting this understanding out there. While the rich get richer and the middle class struggles, while we wait for polluters to voluntarily clean up their act, too many people continue to believe that middle class prosperity and clear skies just happen.

This lack of a coherent progressive vision leads to the creation of many single-issue organizations that simply react to conservative efforts to privatize, defund and dismantle X, Y or Z. Such organizations compete with each other for resources and fail to establish a public understanding of the vital role of government. It may be obvious to the people who work in these organizations, but it’s not the current common sense. Why not? Why aren’t good works enough? Because, everyday for the last 40 years, conservatives have been investing in long-term strategic efforts to undermine public appreciation for the positive and necessary role of government in a thriving society. Even failures, such as the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, enable conservatives to strengthen the perception that we can’t count on government to protect us. Too many people cannot separate Republican governing failures from government itself. And, so, we acquiesce to Republican privatization – instead of strengthening the Federal Emergency Management Administration, we get a transfer of governance to private companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.

Continue reading →

As the 2008 election approaches, few issues have been identified as greater concern to voters than the economy. Actually voting, unfortunately, is not always so simple.

Tough to Vote, Tough to Get By: Economic Insecurity and Barriers to Civic Participation, a free online course organized by Demos and YP4, is now enrolling.

Over six weeks, you’ll cover the following topics:

Not Getting By: A Look at Economic Insecurity
Debt: De facto safety net
Middle class insecurity
Youth economics
Election Reform: Breaking Through Barriers to Voting
Allegations of voter fraud and voter ID laws
Understanding the potential of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)
Improving access to the polls – the case for Election Day registration

Sign up for the free course here.

This course starts April 21 and runs through May 30; enrollment will be open until April 28.

Corporations, industries, labor unions, governments and other interests spent a record $2.79 billion in 2007 to lobby for favorable policies in Washington, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has calculated. This represents an increase of 7.7 percent, or $200 million, over spending in 2006.

And for every day that Congress was in session, industries and interests spent an average of $17 million to lobby lawmakers and the federal government at large. The drug industry spent more than any other, increasing its lobbying 25 percent last year.

Read the full news release here.

See OpenSecrets.org’s Lobbying Database here.

By Michael Winship
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

I haven’t worked in the realm of children’s television in more than a decade, but lessons learned in that world are lessons learned for life.

First and foremost: never condescend. When writing for kids, think of them as slightly shorter grown-ups with fewer bad habits and better credit.

Would that the Bush administration followed the non-condescension rule for adults. Instead, they’ve taken a page from the playbook of the late Uncle Don, host of a kiddy show during the glory days of radio.

It’s apocryphal, one of those hoary urban legends, but the story goes that after finishing the broadcast of his usual half-hour of moonbeams and treacle, Uncle Don turned to a colleague – not knowing the microphone was still hot – and said, “Well, that ought to hold the little bastards.”

Similarly, the White House seems to believe, all evidence to the contrary, that dispersing the same old, Uncle Don-style effluvium to the American public will continue to placate and hold us close. But more and more of us know it’s nothing more than a bad smell.

A comparison of two noteworthy speeches last week – Barack Obama on race, George Bush on Iraq – shows the difference between a candidate who talks to us like grown-ups and an incumbent who seems to think he’s still reading “My Pet Goat” to second graders in Sarasota.

Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s candidacy or the continuing issue of his past affiliation with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, last Tuesday’s speech in Philadelphia was formidable, candid, sophisticated rhetoric.

As Republican Peggy Noonan, a virtuoso of speechwriting for Ronald Reagan, observed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, “He didn’t have applause lines. He didn’t give you eight seconds of a line followed by clapping. He spoke in full and longish paragraphs that didn’t summon applause. This left TV producers having to use longer-than-usual soundbites in order to capture his meaning. And so the cuts of the speech you heard on the news were more substantial and interesting than usual, which made the coverage of the speech better. People who didn’t hear it but only saw parts on the news got a real sense of what he’d said.”

Continue reading →