[PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Charles Brown]

One thing that makes me hesitate on the left learning from the successful
right strategy and tactics is , as I mentioned, it might not have been
better strategy and tactics, but basically infinitely more money than the
real left that made the right's method work. The left activities from 1964
-74 were significantly non-electoral too, but they didn't have any money.

Also, (this is loosely formulated), I have this idea that from a logical
standpoint, only real leftism, i.e. socialist-communist positions, can
refute the rightwing perspective. Liberalism accepts fundamental bourgeois
ideas on the main questions in dispute. Liberals argue with conservatives
with one arm tied behind their backs, because they agree with conservatives'
premise that capitalism is the best system. So, eventually, U.S.
conservatives won the arguments with liberals at the cite of U.S. public
opinion. Only fully socialist-communist arguments can counter conservative
arguments in a logically satifactory way; and real leftists never really had
the ability to broadcast to the American masses. Reaganite capitalism is
more internally consistent than New Deal capitalism, and therefore,
eventually, Reaganites defeat Rooseveltian arguments in the public mind.
Ultimately, it's not possible to argue congently for the New Deal while
arguing for anti-socialism and anti-communism.

I gotta give an example , I guess.  It is not possible to make the strongest
argument for unemployment insurance and welfare without saying that mass
unemployment and poverty are inherent to capitalism as a system , not due to
lazy,immoral individuals.  Liberals won't make this strongest argument for
unemployment insurance and welfare. Therefore, eventually, Reaganites can
defeat liberals in the public debates on these issues.

So bluecollar Reaganites in Warren, Michigan are actually being logical when
they accept Reaganite arguments over half-ass Democrat arguments...maybe ?

Also, the state-repressive apparatus was used to destroy the left movement
in '64-'74, but not the right movement. Rightwing radical leaders weren't
assassinated like left radical leaders. Rightwing radical organizations were
not infiltrated and destroyed as leftwing radical orgs were. Detroit had a
local red squad (operated by rightwing radicals in the police department),
but no white squad.

Gee, having said all that, now I'm amazed that the left accomplished as much
as it did in the last 45 years. :>)

CB


Michael Hoover :
-clip-
populist right's origins of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...
^
CB: The "other 60's": I wonder if that is to suggest that while the left
likes to think of the "60's" as a left upsurge, in hindsight, the right was
building its current successes at the same time, and we should diabuse
ourselves of a sort of romanticizing of the time period. The backlash has
turned out to be bigger than the frontlash ? Of course, the right-center had
all the money,making it easier for them to win.
<>

i posted below to pen-l some time ago, have bracketed additional
comments...   michael hoover

events between 64 and 68 eroded liberal direction in which country
*may* have been headed, set stage for conservative turn that rightists
were poised to take advantage of and turn into backlash, recall john
mitchell saying in 69/70 that u.s. would go so far to right as to be
unrecognizable...

long untold - and still too little recognized - story of 60s was
right-wing activism of likes of young americans for freedom (yaf) and
others who came out of goldwater candidacy...

[[in contrast to new deal consensus that eisenhower & reps of his ilk
accepted, goldwater platform railed against government intrusion
in economy, on stump goldater consistently called for voluntary system,
right-to-work laws, selling tennessee valley authority, in foreign
policy,
goldwater and rep platform excoriated dems for not sufficiently aiding
those
resisting communism, on social issues gop platform condemned moral
decline, called for constitutional amendment protecting ritual christian
prayer in public schools, on civil rights, goldwater and reps took
strong
stance in favor of states' rights placing it on side of segregationist
status quo, in each issue context reps staked out position in sharp
contrast to dems and 'liberalism'...]]

goldwater's defeat had been convincing enough for moderate reps such as
those in ripon society to argue that problem was not just his candidacy
but cause/ideology itself, rightist control of party meant electoral
defeats...

right-wing was much more activist - don't recall who used phrase
'fanatic volunteers' to describe goldwaterites - in its
pursuit of party control, strategy was to concede short-term electoral
concerns for long-term transformation...goldwater defeat enthused
conservatives who were spirited by fact that his campaign received
contributions from several million people in contrast to previous 

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Devine, James]

 
> I think it was only one of the commandments, "Thou shalt [not]
> commit
> adultery."

How many God-fearing, Bible-thumping, people ran out and committed that
sin?
Jim Devine 

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Carrol Cox]

"Devine, James" wrote:
>
> > I assuming the "not" in the fourth line from the end of
> > Jim's letter is a misprint,  but overall it is a good question.
>
> Yeah, it was a typo. (It's sort of like the version of the Bible that
> allegedly _left out_ the "nots" in the Ten Commandments...)
> Jim Devine

I think it was only one of the commandments, "Thou shalt [not] commit
adultery."


Carrol

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Devine, James]

> I assuming the "not" in the fourth line from the end of
> Jim's letter is a misprint,  but overall it is a good question.

Yeah, it was a typo. (It's sort of like the version of the Bible that
allegedly _left out_ the "nots" in the Ten Commandments...)
Jim Devine 

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/28/05 8:53 AM >>>
 Michael Hoover :
-clip-
populist right's origins of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...
^
CB: The "other 60's": I wonder if that is to suggest that while the left
likes to think of the "60's" as a left upsurge, in hindsight, the right
was
building its current successes at the same time, and we should diabuse
ourselves of a sort of romanticizing of the time period. The backlash
has
turned out to be bigger than the frontlash ?
Of course, the right-center had all the money,making it easier for them
to
win.
<>

i posted below to pen-l some time ago, have bracketed additional
comments...   michael hoover

events between 64 and 68 eroded liberal direction in which country
*may* have been headed, set stage for conservative turn that rightists
were poised to take advantage of and turn into backlash, recall john
mitchell saying in 69/70 that u.s. would go so far to right as to be
unrecognizable...

long untold - and still too little recognized - story of 60s was
right-wing activism of likes of young americans for freedom (yaf) and
others who came out of goldwater candidacy...

[[in contrast to new deal consensus that eisenhower & reps of his ilk
accepted, goldwater platform railed against government intrusion
in economy, on stump goldater consistently called for voluntary system,
right-to-work laws, selling tennessee valley authority, in foreign
policy,
goldwater and rep platform excoriated dems for not sufficiently aiding
those
resisting communism, on social issues gop platform condemned moral
decline, called for constitutional amendment protecting ritual christian
prayer in public schools, on civil rights, goldwater and reps took
strong
stance in favor of states' rights placing it on side of segregationist
status quo, in each issue context reps staked out position in sharp
contrast to dems and 'liberalism'...]]

goldwater's defeat had been convincing enough for moderate reps such as
those in ripon society to argue that problem was not just his candidacy
but cause/ideology itself, rightist control of party meant electoral
defeats...

right-wing was much more activist - don't recall who used phrase
'fanatic volunteers' to describe goldwaterites - in its
pursuit of party control, strategy was to concede short-term electoral
concerns for long-term transformation...goldwater defeat enthused
conservatives who were spirited by fact that his campaign received
contributions from several million people in contrast to previous rep
candidates whose contributions numbered in thousands (list of
contributors in 64 served as prototype for richard viquerie's late 70s
direct-mail politics)...

[[believe strategy of conceding short-term electoral concerns for
long-term transformation key point]]

most important element in immediate post-64 period was goldwater
faction that controlled rep party in south (even though goldwater
himself polled fewer electoral college votes in region than had
eisenhower and nixon), these people laid groundwork for so-called
'southern strategy', an often racist appeal to white southerners opposed
to civil rights and social change...

bigots thought they had found vehicle for their prejudices, young
americans for freedom opposed federal intervention in civil rights on
constitutional grounds ('dual' federalism), potentially volatile mixture
emerged within rep party...

right-wing was also more effective than moderates in defining ideology,
debates among conservatives - between libertarians ('libs') and
traditionalists ('trads') -o notwithstanding, they formed american
conservative union (acu) to develop conservative 'establishment' that
could compete with what they believed was 'liberal' establishment -
model was americans for democratic action (ada)...

most rightists believed that rep party was means to power but
post-goldwater right was neither candidate-dependent nor
candidate-specific (although reagan became darling for many),
as such, they formed numerous groups (many of them simply fronts) and
sought various coalitions, they maintained continuing presence
irrespective of electoral outcomes, they had functioning political
action
organizations not tied to electoral cycles or party hierarchies...

[[another key element - post-goldwater right was neither candidate
dependent nor candidate specific, had functioning political action
orgs not tied to electoral cycles or party hierarchies]]

if events between 64 and 68 eroded 'liberalism', those between 68 and
74 largely sealed deal (and sapped 'new left' of its energies)...nixon's
exit cleared away last hurdle in rep party and viguerie's direct-mail
efforts in response to late 70s i.r.s. decision to strip religious
schools of tax exempt status for racial discrimination was early flexing
of 'populist conservative' muscles...

--
Please Note:
Due to Florida's very broad public

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Doyle Saylor]

Greetings Economists,
Overall Chris Burfords proposal for reconciliation is acceptable to me.  I
can't speak for other disability oriented persons, but the call to integrate
feelings into the process is crucial to the movement for disabled rights in
my view.  There is nothing to guarantee someone arguing with me will ever
come around to supporting disabled rights as long this debating society
concept prevails.

In my view that is quite close to what Martha Nussbaum has proposed for a
way to fight oppression of disabled people in the legal system.  I will
remind here how much the language of this situation quickly degenerates to
calling the disabled rights movement barbaric.  That many quickly start
label disabled rights advocates as nutso, bizarre, etc. And turn right
around and write in plain English that is not the language of bigotry.   It
is expected we find a Jackie Robinson way of keeping our mouths shut while
others crow about their numerical superiority in the opinion polls.

It takes a long time to make headway against prejudice.  We intend to make a
difference against this sort of wind.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

[PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Charles Brown]

 Michael Hoover :

-clip-
populist right's origins of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...

^
CB: The "other 60's": I wonder if that is to suggest that while the left
likes to think of the "60's" as a left upsurge, in hindsight, the right was
building its current successes at the same time, and we should diabuse
ourselves of a sort of romanticizing of the time period. The backlash has
turned out to be bigger than the frontlash ?

Of course, the right-center had all the money,making it easier for them to
win.

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Chris Burford]

I assuming the "not" in the fourth line from the end of
Jim's letter is a misprint,  but overall it is a good question.
Perhaps the answer in part is that we may want a positive perspective
but not a positivist one.
These moral questions between people are even more tricky than the
conflicts between different rights, which as Marx points out, can only
be solved by force.
Already I submit, we have to posit not just the coming of socialism
(the lower phase of communism) but also the higher phase of communism,
in which the power of the state withdraws increasingly from some of
these moral dilemmas.
The battles of bourgeois right, using expensive lawyers, are
characteristic of capitalist society.
They privilege the rich, who can afford these battles. Though
occasionally now there are also class actions on behalf of collective
rights. Over the decades this might help tame firearms capitalism and
big tobacco.
But really the conflicts for Schiavo's parents and her partner are
ones that need understanding and reconciliation, as well as, yes a
decision on whether a tube is removed or re-inserted. It is the wider
emotional and social context that gets trampled on and ignored in
battles of bourgeois right through highly paid legal surrogates
fighters.
This is my long winded way of asserting that under a communist
non-violent society there will still be contradictions, and the clash
as well as the unity of opposites. There will remain very difficult
decisions. It will often *not* feel like a utopia.
There probably are *no* simple positive visions, except perhaps that
respect for each individual working person, the free development of
each, is perhaps the free development of all.
Who is offering bereavement counselling and reconciliation to those
around Terri Schiavo? It is not just the coming death but the death
that occurred a long time ago of the person they loved, but who cannot
be buried. Who, apart from his priest, can give Jeb Bush permission
*not* to have to say he only wishes he had the power to take the
decision himself, just because he is a Roman Catholic and has to fear
the Christian Right. No wonder he looked "emotional" on CNN this
afternoon. Much as dislike him, I do not think his distress was
entirely feigned.
I don't know if this takes it any further. Although there are no easy
answers I sense Jim is right to say that the left has to have a moral
as well as an economic and a political perspective.
Chris Burford
London
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Hoover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/25/05 2:12 PM >>>
Michael H's response was useful, but I was thinking more generally.
If the Left wants to revive, it needs a clear moral
perspective -- and a clear method of moral framing.
Sure, we can lambaste the establishment and its
system for hypocrisy and the like. But what is our
positive vision? Marx didn't help much here, because
his emphasis (perhaps rightly at the time) was almost
entirely a critique of capitalism.
In olden days, socialists were often utopians, often
bringing in religious ideas. Later, the USSR (or other
places) was the model to be trumpeted. That's gone.
Even people who see Cuba or Chavez as great don't
see these models as ideal for the US and other rich
countries.  What can we say now, beyond not hating
capitalism and other systems of oppression (patriarchy,
ethnic supremacy, etc.)  and resisting its depredations?
I know that this is abstract...
Jim Devine
<<<<<>>>>>
no disagreement with above, think it is imperative that left not
only
consider possibilities and develop ideas but that it actually create
'prefigurative practices & institutions' (in gramscian sense), some
of
which exist to varying degrees (and which, i would point out the
populist right has done good bit of and quite successfully, origins
of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has
generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...
i'm personally hopeful (a little anyway) about efforts being made in
direction of 'social unionism' (for lack of better term)
in which unions, community orgs, social justice (including religious
ones) groups are working together - with a little success - quite
small
steps obviously - in some places with 'living wage'...   michael
hoover

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/25/05 2:12 PM >>>
 Michael H's response was useful, but I was thinking more generally.
 If the Left wants to revive, it needs a clear moral
perspective -- and a clear method of moral framing.
 Sure, we can lambaste the establishment and its
system for hypocrisy and the like. But what is our
positive vision? Marx didn't help much here, because
his emphasis (perhaps rightly at the time) was almost
entirely a critique of capitalism.
 In olden days, socialists were often utopians, often
bringing in religious ideas. Later, the USSR (or other
places) was the model to be trumpeted. That's gone.
Even people who see Cuba or Chavez as great don't
see these models as ideal for the US and other rich
countries.  What can we say now, beyond not hating
capitalism and other systems of oppression (patriarchy,
ethnic supremacy, etc.)  and resisting its depredations?
 I know that this is abstract...
 Jim Devine
<>

no disagreement with above, think it is imperative that left not only
consider possibilities and develop ideas but that it actually create
'prefigurative practices & institutions' (in gramscian sense), some of
which exist to varying degrees (and which, i would point out the
populist right has done good bit of and quite successfully, origins of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...

i'm personally hopeful (a little anyway) about efforts being made in
direction of 'social unionism' (for lack of better term)
in which unions, community orgs, social justice (including religious
ones) groups are working together - with a little success - quite small
steps obviously - in some places with 'living wage'...   michael hoover





--
Please Note:
Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to 
or from College employees regarding College business are public records, 
available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail 
communication may be subject to public disclosure.

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Carl Remick]

From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why can't American workers be like French
workers?
They lack that certain je ne sais quoi :)
Carl

Re: [PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

At 11:12 AM -0800 3/25/05, Devine, James wrote:
Sure, we can lambaste the establishment and its system for hypocrisy
and the like. But what is our positive vision? Marx didn't help much
here, because his emphasis (perhaps rightly at the time) was almost
entirely a critique of capitalism.
What about Tom Walker's vision, based on Andre Gorz's (sp?) vision
among other socialists'?  That vision seems to be a big motivator for
the French working class, as the recent general strike in defense of
the 35-hour week shows.  Why can't American workers be like French
workers?
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: 
* Greens for Nader: 
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* OSU-GESO: 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

[PEN-L] moral framing, vision

[Devine, James]

[was: RE: [PEN-L] another Schiavo irony]
 
Michael H's response was useful, but I was thinking more generally.
 
If the Left wants to revive, it needs a clear moral 
perspective -- and a clear method of moral framing.
 
Sure, we can lambaste the establishment and its 
system for hypocrisy and the like. But what is our
positive vision? Marx didn't help much here, because
his emphasis (perhaps rightly at the time) was almost
entirely a critique of capitalism. 
 
In olden days, socialists were often utopians, often
bringing in religious ideas. Later, the USSR (or other
places) was the model to be trumpeted. That's gone.
Even people who see Cuba or Chavez as great don't 
see these models as ideal for the US and other rich 
countries.  What can we say now, beyond not hating 
capitalism and other systems of oppression (patriarchy, 
ethnic supremacy, etc.)  and resisting its depredations? 
 
I know that this is abstract...
 
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine 



From: PEN-L list on behalf of Michael Hoover
Sent: Fri 3/25/2005 10:04 AM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] another Schiavo irony



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/24/2005 12:50:29 PM >>>
Okay, so how is the Left (and I don't mean the Democratic Party Left)
going to do "moral framing"?
Jim Devine
<>

tempted to ask what left but will assume there is one for sake of
discussion...

...
maybe what one can do is put a few pieces of info together:

1) george bush signed law as texas governor authorizing medical panel
to override family wishes...

2) florida governor jeb bush has proposed changes to state medicaid
program that would leave future persons in such condition ineligible for
assistance...

3) likes of bush brothers support tort reform to prevent future persons
being able to pursue similar medical malpractice claims in court...

4) likes of bush brothers oppose 'court hunting' by which plaintiffs
file endless legal briefs until they find a judge who rules in their
favor...

5) 'states rights' advocates again express 'ad hoc' politics
by which state-centered or nation-centered federalism is chosen on
basis of partisan views...

6) assertion of congressional action on 14th amendment due process
grounds ignores 10 florida state court rulings...


etc.