July 07, 2008
The Problem, in Brief
Earlier today, someone linked to an essay of mine from February of this year. I hadn’t looked at it in quite a while. That piece concerned a program called InfraGard, which ought to scare the crap out of you. It’s described in this post: “‘Partnership for Protection’ — and for the Destruction of Liberty and, Possibly, of You.”

In the course of my discussion, I offered some excerpts from Gabriel Kolko’s pathbreaking book, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916. Kolko’s thesis challenged the “conventional wisdom” about the Progressive era, and replaced the then commonly held view with a much more accurate one, one which is now widely accepted (at least, by those who spend any substantial time studying this era). Unfortunately, far too many Americans still are largely ignorant about what actually happened during this critical period. It was not a time when “the people” claimed greater power or when “populism” triumphed; to the contrary, it saw the consolidation of control by the ruling class, through an intricate and ever-expanding series of complicated interrelationships between key, nominally private business interests and government — or, if you will, the amalgamation of wealthy, influential private interests and the power of the state. As a result, it was, as Kolko styled it, “The Triumph of Conservatism.” Not the story your mother told you. (A lengthier discussion of Kolko with further excerpts from his invaluable book will be found in, “It’s Called the Ruling Class Because It Rules.”)

After the Kolko excerpts, I wrote the following. I offer it again here, because I think this summarizes the fundamental problem quite well:

“Over the last century, these dynamics have become the foundation of every aspect of American society and culture. The entanglements of the public and private sectors have grown increasingly byzantine and almost impossible to decipher much of the time, but the major theme is unaltered. Let’s keep the primary lesson simple: The most wealthy and powerful private interests align with government — and this partnership between the most powerful private interests and the state gets what it wants. You — the “ordinary” citizen — are of no importance whatsoever in these calculations, except insofar as your labor, and occasionally your life, are required so that the ruling elites are assured of getting what they want. You — your life, your work, your family, your friendships, your happiness — are entirely dispensable.

Try to understand this. This intricate and ornate series of interrelationships between and among various private and public powers has grown and metastasized over more than one hundred years. It will not be dislodged overnight. It will not be altered except by a deliberate and painful process of de-linking, which would require several decades at the very least. But history tells us that, once a corporatist system has reached an advanced stage such as that which now prevails in the United States, it will only be changed by a major disruption and, more probably, by a series of disruptions: financial weakening and possibly collapse, and/or a major war or series of wars, and/or natural catastrophe, and/or…use your imagination to fill in other possible factors. But, like children who still believe in Santa Claus, and like those who desperately hope for salvation in foreign affairs, many liberals and progressives now look for a miracle to save them on the domestic front. Call the miracle Obama if you wish; the name you give it doesn’t matter a damn. And try to understand this: miracles do not happen. It was not a miracle that brought us here. It is only an understanding of the full nature of the problem we face and a determination to alter our course that will save us, if anything can. History, it must be noted, is not encouraging on this point.

None of this is a reason for terminal despair, although I keep reading comments about my essays to the effect that they are “too depressing,” that they make people “suicidal” or “bitter,” and the like. People who react in these ways may have some understanding, but not nearly enough. And they may have everything — except vision and courage. I will discuss these particular issues in a future essay. For the moment, I will say this: I will not tell you, as people often tell me, that you need a “thicker skin,” since I consider the views underlying such prescriptions to be uniformly destructive. But what you do need is more understanding, and much, much more courage.”

Quite a few months ago I suggested to Glen that he was a Garveyite. He was offended and replied that no, he is if anything a Du Bois man. At the time, I thought he had taken offense because his self-image is that of an intellectual more than a man of action. But after your “rational analysis” of Glen’s shortcomings, I’ve realized that his contempt for white Americans is solidly based on the fact that Marcus Garvey was irrelevant and outdated even in 1930’s America. Classical Marxists — which Glen may think of himself in the category of, if anything, should be so realistic.

I’m sorry that rational analysis upset you so much. However Dan’s involvement in McKinney’s campaign will not change much this year because of the Green Party’s weakened and fractured condition. Dan himself expressed doubts. This shouldn’t be a cause for “despair” but a cause for reason.

The message that I have expressed is that building a “movement” will not happen if you do not understand who are the true allies and who have agendas to disrupt and diffuse such alliances. This is what occurred in the anti-war — which was a real movement — in 2003. The real “traitors” IMO were on the left.

Yet I’ve seen remarks such as those from Ford and others made blaming voters. I find such comments to be ruses used to divert analysis away from the fractured stated of the left and in many cases obscure the influence of Zionism among the rank on the left.

Despair is the result of ignorance. Hope is the direct result of strategic thinking.

“Pragmatism”, you say? If there was any advantage to be gained for the majority of African Americans by supporting Obama & adding credibility to the snowjob for which he stands, I’d tend to say Go For It.

First Dan, let me say I’m in full agreement with your analysis and critique of the role and influence of Zionism on the U.S. political economy.

My argument for the sake of clarity has been with Glen Ford’s inconsistencies and especially his critique of the Black population in general who has decided to support Obama. His critique has been extremely shrill and unfair. I have NO problem with his critique of Obama per se. However his critic of the typical Black voter is in the same kind of right-wing “blame the victim” vein. Which IMO does more to set Ford up to be in a pious and above it all “I told you so” position than it does to provide the kind of needed clarity which would be many times more persuasive. Ford should be the last to criticize since he himself in the past has supported WHITE Democratic candidacies.

Who did Blacks support in2004 — John Kerry — why? Because he was the Democratic candidate. Why else would they support him. Only because he would be in power and blacks would prefer to see a Democrat in power than a Republican. This has nothing to do with “Obamania” or “Colonization of the Mind” but of practical politics. If McKinney could win the Presidency she would be supported by African Americans. Obama as the likely Democratic nominee and with the left weak and divided unfortunately offers no practical alternatives.

I think you yourself have made very useful points and observations regarding some of the weaknesses of Ms. McKinney candidacy within the Green Party. We are completely aware of the sabotage of the Green Party in 2004 by Medea Benjamin and David Cobb and the entire ABB crowd. Also the Green Party has never really conducted any outreach to oppressed communities. This is why I had hoped in 2008 for Nader and McKinney to join forces this year rather than split an already weaken left. However as you’ve pointed out the ZPC role should not be ignored when considering politics on the left.

Another way to look at things is if Obama was white would Blacks be flocking to the “left” even with McKinney running the on the Green Party ticket? I don’t think so since her candidacy is not really all that viable especially since the GP LOST ballot lines due to their poor showing in 2004.

Obama shifting rightward on issues my cause some folks to consider an alternative but in the end Blacks will still overwhelmingly vote in huge numbers for the Democrats because there are NO alternatives.

And that is my point. Ford blames the Obama supporters WITHOUT an analysis about the sorry state of the left. Ford may argue that Obama had to kiss AIPAC ass but Obama is no different than Dean’s kiss up to Zionist ideology four years ago. On the other hand has Ford ever done an analysis of why the anti-war movement fizzled due to Zionism ON THE LEFT? Has Ford clarified why there is NO real alternative for African American? Has Ford examined his own contradictions?

Why should blacks embrace the “left” when the “left” will certainly betray them. Blacks, for the most part, sympathizes with oppressed people. In this case clearly the Palestinians. The Trots in the ISO may bolt and become neo-cons — which is the true origins of the neo-conservatism. This points only serve to reinforce my critique of Ford.

What is needed from Ford and BAR is the kind of REAL analysis, truth and honesty that you yourself wrote in your previous two posts. It is extremely unfair to blame Blacks who are just voting for the lesser evil while the “left” engages in their own sordid brand of evilism.

This is also why I am less concerned about a “black-led” movement and rather see an anti-Zionist movement. Zionism is the 21st century racism that must be firmly confronted and alliances will be needed that extend outside of the African American community.

Thus I hope this post helps clarify my arguments and outlook.

I hadn’t started reading Black Commentator regularly when Deaniac-ism was still in vogue, so am surprised to hear that Glen F bought into that scam then. However I think BAR has publically distanced itself from Dean & the Dem Nat Cmte he heads. Perhaps BAR should make it a lil more explicit, so we could get on with what’s happening right now: To B.O. or not to B. O.
“Pragmatism”, you say? If there was any advantage to be gained for the majority of African Americans by supporting Obama & adding credibility to the snowjob for which he stands, I’d tend to say Go For It.

But it’s a total sucker play. Obama is not even pretending he gives a s*** what happens to US Blacks, or any other people of African origin.

DB, did you ever happen to see Chappelle’s segment about the blind Black man who thought he was Wyt & so joined the KKK, became a leading Klan mealymouth? Turns out to be a case of reality outdoing fiction, as your favorite Tom hurries to pre-emp McCain from the right.

Your whole rap about how Ford shld feel guilty about attacking Black Community Obama supporters is so corny I’m amazed. You sure you’re the same DB I put on my email list? Wow.

Lissen man, any Black or otherwise person so stupid as to publicly come out in support of Run Tom Run should be grateful if a kind person takes the time to go upside they head w/ a 2X4. Because BO stinks, has stunk from the jump, and will really start stinking up the joint once he takes over the Wyt House.

Well, better I shut up, before you Obama-luvven wanabe Black Kleagles send the Secret Service around to see me. Artillery Hillery’s goons only subjected me to a lil False Imprisonment cum Misdeanor Assault when I hollered Bullshit to her Sacto hostesses slander of we assembled in protest of her support for War on Iraq etc. So wonder what the Fruit of Obamania will do given the chance?

Oh man, Colonization of the Mind. Gimme a break.

You know Mr. Rowsey I did not disrespect your views and position with name calling and an ad-hominum attack. What I did was to point out the contradiction in Ford’s arguments and position. The fact that you are calling for “dan e” to act as a “surrogate” to formulate your own arguments reflects your own intellectual laziness and your own inability to formulate a rational and reasonable rebuttal.

My argument is that Ford has throughout the primary season attack has not only been against Obama but against every African American who has supported him. That attack has been totally unfair when Ford himself supported Howard Dean in 2004 while ignoring Ralph Nader that same year and this year he dubbed Dennis Kucinich the “black” candidate while in 2004 clearly did not do the same. So why the shift?

African Americans vote for the Democrats out of pragmatism and nothing more. The left has offered no alternatives and McKinney does not offer an alternative in 2008. The left is divided and the left would have offered a much stronger front had Nader and McKinney been able to coalesce their campaigns.

If you disagree then I’m sure you are intelligent enough to formulate a cogent retort.

Thanks,
Deadbeat

Maybe you could read The Idiot’s (Deadbeat’s) reply to my post above and reply with even just a fuck you, signed “Lloyd Rowsey” if you like. I don’t have time. AND all I do is type, keep myself alive in a totally hostile neighborhood, and send a few bucks to people and organizations I respect.

Knowing there’s just one of you actually participating in Cynthia’s campaign, and evening out the Activism Score for me, makes my day.

And if any of this seems inconsistent with something you recall I’ve posted before, noto bene, it’s VERY hard to be VERY consistent, especially when reality’s changing so fast.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do exchange emails with Glen Ford. And maybe…. no, fagiddaboutit. Glen doesn’t enter the shitstorms at DV, ever.

Let me see if I can remember all the changes to my Cynthia strategy take:

The situation is that whatever is not controlled by Republicans, that is by open racist colonialist militarists etc, is controlled by the Democrats, most of them also openly racist/militarist/colonialists while others are more in the Zio-dem mold: ostensibly Liberal, even “Progressive” but push comes to shove defend Izzylandia/Zionist Power Config.

Key fact: the “antiwar” portion of the US Political Spectrum, ( aka the Peace piece of the Big Pizza) was long ago infiltrated/invaded and occupied in overwhelming numbers by Democrat Party operatives & supporters, i.e., “progressive Zionists” (sic).

The two main pillars of this “progressive-zionist (sic) consensus” are the pro-Status Quo African American activists led by the Congreasable Black Caucus, and the Zionists occupying the key posts in the so-called US “Labor Movement”, esp. those Black trade unionists like Bill Fletcher & Bill Lucy who pose as oh so radical but when closely watched are quite obviously complicit in the Histadrut-hatched schemes pushed by the Sternies & the Sweenies, such as the plot to take over the Puerto Rican Teachers Union and turn it into a beachhead for Zionist ideology to penetrate the Latin American labor movement.

So if you try to challenge the Zionist hegemony over the US trade union scene, you are immediately confronted by these Black piecards who’ve made careers out of fronting for the primarily Jewish Zionist piecards who run all the signif. labor unions & organizations.

Now, or shld I say “in the current coyuntura”, with the appearance on the scene of the superbly talented & supremely skilled B. H. Obama, what White person can challenge the Zionist Consensus he so ably represents? I don’t think there are too many African Americans who will pay much attn to a White politician or journalist who tries to challenge Obama on the issues.

So originally I in my innocent naivete “assumed” (okay Dan the Dummy, write it another 5K times on the blackboard: Assume Nothing!) that Cynthia McKinney was ideally suited to play the role of the “Anti-Obama”. But such is the power of Obamania, such is the hold this First Serious Black Candidate for POTUS has on the imagination of “The Black Voting Public”, that to try to swim directly upstream against the snowballing momentum in support of The Nominee– well, maybe after she nails down the GP nomination next week she might see her way to becoming a little more candid re what she really thinks about Obama & Obamism?

Meanwhile R Nader & his keemosabe w/the nice haircut continue to talk about the Jr. Sen from Illinois like a dog, scoring a lot of direct hits to the delight of the Wyt Far Lefties. However don’t think Ralph & pal are paid much attn by said Black Voters or Opinion Ldrs.
Of course when push gets to shove, Nader continues to peddle the Two State Illusion, i.e. the fantasy that the Zionazi State cum US ZPC will at some pt become amenable to reason if only enough people vote for Ralph. Also on the Nader-Gonzo Menu: “It’s a War For Oil, Stupid”, what I call the Antoniajuhacks Version which chooses to ignore the published facts in favor of What Everybody Knows. But I digress, Nader will be history by December. What mischief Gonzo is capable of is imposs. to predict. my guess is twill be considerable, wait, Assume Nada so wait& see. Anyway.

The underlying reason to support Cynthia’s campaign is the idea of using it to launch a new Black-led mass movement vs the Stasis Quo, to lay the basis for a vast unified comprehensive Collective Effort to Change Conditions (as Angela D usta put it). But hold it,
the McKinney Campaign that I’ve been in contact with seems to be composed entirely of White People, except for Cynthia herself. At least that’s my perception.

Now that BAR has come out in full support, the picture becomes much less a case of “white-out”. But one Online periodical no matter how superb is not by itself a Mass Movement.
Well I better take a break. 5 13 pm fortha july oh ate

First, I have to apologize for all the beating around the bush; I’m having a terrible time these days coming to the pt. I get a flash & suddenly it’s all clear in my mind, so start typing but always find myself chasing all sort of rabbits, usually forgetting the idea that impelled me to the kbd. “I don’t have time to be brief”? Anyway, here’s a note I sent yesterday to somebody I respect:

Hey… I’m inspired to write by your column re McKinney as the only alternative to Obamania. Props to you for a v. good job.

You probably remember that I’ve been in Cynthia’s corner from the jump, which in my case was Mar 20 2004 at Jefferson Square in SF Fillmore Dist. So I agree with the pts you made, in fact have said much the same from time to time, if not nearly so eloquently.

Matter of fact, I’m listed as a McKinney delegate to the GP Convention in Chi, July 10 — of course no way could pay freight to go in person so my vote will be cast by a Designated Proxy. Managed to initiate two local appearances, one at UCDavis, one at Carol’s Books, plus the earlier “Meetup” at Underground Bks. I find myself thinking of Cynthia as almost like a relative, after sending her a lot of email and receiving a surprising amount of direct response.

However I’ve also found myself expressing to her a lot of misgivings about some of the people/orgs I see playing visible roles in the Campaign. Her response has been along the lines of “don’t worry, we’re on the same page, all will be revealed in good time”.

One aspect I’m not sure I’ve gone into with her is the Reconstruction Party. When I read the Draft Manifesto, then learned a little about Colia Clark & read the Recon Pty grp “minutes of mtg”, I got real enthusiastic. Well, actually I first read about Colia C. in an issue of “The Organizer” out of SF, devoted to Katrina etc.

I made some copies of the coverage & editorials in the issue & passed them out various places. But eventually I started having second thoughts. Alan Benjamin is a v. smart guy with a solid grasp of Marxism, that is a certain Trotsky-derived version of same — but far as I’m concerned he’s at bottom a Zionist. Looking again at the Draft Manifesto, I’m struck again by how it avoids the subject of Zionist control of the US Congrease, which is exercised via control of both major parties plus the arm of the Imperial State customarily called “the mainstream media”.

Cynthia is v. smart, and is a v. canny practical politician, which I am not, not by several lightyears. So my guess is she knows what she’s doing and it will come out positive in the end. But I will never be totally comfortable until she distances herself from scum like that cheap crook David Cobb, aka Mr Anybody But Bush.

The Green Party, esp. it’s more “left” elements, is heavily influenced by Trotskyist outfits, mainly the “International Socialist Organization”/ISO, which adheres to/advocates the “War For Oil” snowjob concocted to divert attn from the role of the Izzy Lobby/Big Jewry in first drafting, then implementing the PNAC scenario.

As Aesop said in his Fable: watch out for them Adders, specially when all warm & cozy to your Bosom. From here it looks to me like Cynthia is involved with some very untrustworthy & likely unscrupulous elements.

Okay, I’ve got my fingers crossed & am keeping a low profile. But that’s my take. If urged could go into considerable more detail when time permits. For now, am content to just drop this into your hopper & see if any of it resonates?

Take it easy,

Dan

Two problems with the first two paras of your reply to Ford, Deadbeat. (1) you accept what he DOES say (about McKinney), and than condemn him for what he didn’t say (about Barbara Lee). The “left” simply has to stop this sort of shit. (2) Glen Ford did not say the progressive movement in America must be black-led. He said that progressives can only register their outrage at Obama, AND support a Black-led movement for social change, by voting for McKinney.

There are a several problems with your rebuttal:

[1] Ford writes the following…
[B]egin the process of rebuilding a mass, Black-led movement for real social change.

It’s very clear in that sentence what Ford wants. I disagree with that sentiment especially because the percentage of African American representation is declining that therefore African Americans must broaden their alliances.

[2] Ford has been very contradictory in his criticism of Obama while at the same time he very much supported the Dean candidacy in 2004. Obama position on issue are no different that Dean.

[3] McKinney voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. There seems to be a contradiction here that Ford either ignores or deliberately omits. Liberals are touting the “War on Terror” canard that Iraq was a “mistake” and that resource should be shifted to Afghanistan. The fact is that the FBI had NO solid evidence that Bin Laden was involved and clearly the Afghan government and people were NOT involved. So why isn’t McKinney being held to account for that vote.

[4] Ford also choses NOT to explore why Nader and McKinney could not JOIN forces and broaden their coalition. That would have strengthen the left and clearly would have demonstrated a coming together of the progressive especially oppressed group in coalition with enlightened whites.

[5] The “shit” that has to stop is SOLELY blaming the Democrats without any account upon the FAILURE OF THE LEFT. Before there can be any coalition building on the left people have to understand and come to terms with WHO ARE TRUE ALLIES and who have agendas to diffuse any possible coalitions.

Unfortunately what Ford ignores is that McKinney voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. Only Barbara Lee had the courage to vote against that awful action. There was no evidence that the Afghanistan government or the Afghan people had anything to do with 9-11. In fact the Afghan government response was to assist the U.S. government with the capturing of Bin Laden if they had any evidence of his involvement.

Also Ford believe that the progressive movement MUST be “black” led. I did agree. I believe it must a coalition of the OPPRESSED. Which is to say I have no problem with Ralph Nader and I supported his candidacy in 2004, whom Ford and then the Black Commentator, did not support. In fact they were very enamored by the Howard Dean and displayed outward support for his candidacy. Obama, who they disdain, position on the issue are very much aligned to that of Dean’s 2004 position. As an example, Dean certainly was kissing up to AIPAC.

However in 2008 what should have occurred is the JOINING of forces among Nader and McKinney. In that sense you would have a stronger coalition. Alas, that did not happen for reason that would have been useful for Ford to explore this. But since Ford is bent on solely a BLACK candidate, I think he is missing the fact that the percentage of the overall African American population is shrinking and therefore new alliances needs to be constructed — and fast!

Not to take anything away from McKinney, she is honorable and perhaps the best candidate and deserves support. But in reality she is merely represents a protest vote not a movement.