Democratic (in)action

On not voting for Obama in 2012

Democratic (in)action, US politics
Published on Leave a comment on On not voting for Obama in 2012

Chris Clarke talks about his reasons not to vote for Obama next year and in the process creates the best metaphor for US national politics I’ve yet seen:

There are differences between the two parties. Despite the usual straw man, no one — except college students new to leftism and maybe Alexander Cockburn — ever really says there’s no difference between the parties except as the most shortened of shorthand. In point of fact, there’s as much difference between the parties as there is between clockwise and counterclockwise on a ratchet wrench turning a bolt. Turning rightward tightens the bolt. But you don’t want to break the handle by pushing too hard, so you relax and turn the handle back to the left. The wrench loosens a bit, if ineffectually — the bolt doesn’t move, but the pressure eases up. And then comes the next push to the right, tightening the bolt still further. Each cycle has its new status quo, its period of tightening up and release, and the result in the end? The leftward relaxation has merely made the rightward clampdown possible.

Endless compromise is not a strategy

Democratic (in)action, Pointlesss centrism, US politics
Published on

Matt Y. is right:

The basic dynamic here should be familiar. When Democrats decided about ten years ago to stop pushing for gun control legislation, that didn’t take the issue off the table it led to a wave of envelop-pushing pro-gun bills. When the GOP temporarily stopped opposing Social Security in the wake of World War II, it led to 30 years of steady increases in Social Security benefits and eligibility. Every conservative retreat from anti-gay bigotry inspires people to push deeper for equality. As long as a large minority of the public thinks people should be thrown in jail for having an abortion, we’ll either see continual fighting on this point or else continued slippage as the debate loses an anchor on the pro-choice side.

You can only win politicial fights by, erm, actually fighting rather than pre-emptively capitulating. It’s a lesson many liberal and soft left parties find hard to learn. In some cases, as with e.g. the way in which the Liberal Democrats surrendered so many of their own policies in order to form a coalition with the Tories, this is caused by a disconnect between electorial rhetoric and the party leadership’s true values. In other, as with the trouble the Dutch green party GroenLinks found itself in regarding a new Dutch mission in Afghanistan, it stems from being too eager to be seen as a serious party in a media climate more hostile towards leftwing than rightwing values.

‘If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next’

Activism, creative direct action, Culture, Democratic (in)action, liberalism, Life under Capitalism, Police Murder, Policing
Published on

Today is the 40th anniversary of the National Guard’s shootings of student Vietnam War protestors at Kent State University in Ohio.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – earlier today Martin posted about unwarranted police violence at a peaceable, permitted May Day protest in Rotterdamand this was his view on why the police attacked non-agressive, unarmed protesters:

I doubt that the police has explicitly gotten orders to crack down on political protests. If I had to guess I’d think that it’s a side effect to the Rotterdam police overreacting to what happened at the Hoek van Holland beach party of August last year — where inept policing and rioting football hooligans led to the police accidently shooting and killing an innocent man. Since then the Rotterdam police has become a lot harsher in dealing with potentially dangerous situations and since leftist demonstrations of this kind have always been seen as worrisome by them, it’s no surprise that this happened. Wrong, but not surprising.

I have to say, with all due respect, I disagree. Vehemently. State violence against dissenters is EU policy and therefore Dutch policy too.

The authorities’ violent response in Rotterdam, along with those at Kent State, Genoa, the G8 and G20 protests, Seattle, Minneapolis St. Paul, New York and countless other peaceful protests worldwide are part of an organised pattern of oppression and the silencing of popular opinion by supposedly democratic governments.Like I said back in 2007 when the Canadian police attacked a demo:

Protest isn’t all pink tutus, dogs on strings and rainbow flags: it can be fatal. Remember Carlo Giuliani, shot in the face, his head split like a melon by the wheel of a police landrover at Genoa? That’s what our democratic police are capable of when governments and elected representatives won’t listen and citizens feel forced to take to the streets to exercise their right to protest.

And the worst of it is, we’ve let them do it to us; rather than fight back, we’ve gone home scared, to watch ‘V For Vendetta’ on DVD and wish we could be braver human beings.

But it’s not very surprising is it, when just walking innocently through a demo on your way home from work can get you dead.

Oppressive violence against political dissenters is a feature of life under capitalism. After all, there’s money to be made from it:

Paramilitary political police on both sides of the Atlantic need only a discreet nod from the pols (and sometimes not even that) to go in joyfully and with boots, taser and fists. They love that sort of thing: that’s why they’re police. For every saintly murdered copper, devoted village bobby or innocuous deputy sheriff there are ten barely-controlled thugs with plenty of hate and plenty of gusto.

Every now and then they get let off the leash and someone notices. This time is was Salon. Then it all goes back to normal and soon these incidents just become part of the wallpaper of normal life, like warrantless wiretapping, torture, routine tasering or prison rape.

For anyone to expect that police on any continent will do anything but suppress any person or movement that might put their industry or jobs in jeopardy is very naive indeed.

I hate to keep quoting myself, but I don’t see the point of saying the same things year upon year in slightly different words. Police violence against dissenters is no occasional incident; to use that hackneyed phrase I’ve used so many times before, it isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

Our leaders can waffle on about their commitment to liberty band fredom for all – and don’t they just, here’s Gordon Brown pontificating on the subject in April 2008:

Among the measures he announced were:

• New rights of protest. This will mean watering down laws – introduced just four years ago – that ban any unauthorised protest within one kilometre of the Palace of Westminster.

• New rights of access to public information by extending the Freedom of Information Act to companies carrying out public functions, such as private prisons.

• Entrenched freedoms of the press to carry out investigative journalism.

• A review of the rule that allows Cabinet papers to be seen automatically only after 30 years.

• New rights against invasion of property after it emerged there are 250 laws allowing state agents to enter a home.

• A debate about a British Bill of Rights and Duties and the possibility of a written constitution.

Have we seen any of these things? Have we hell. We know what politicians mean when they waffle on about freedom:

That’s what the ‘freedom’ in Bush & Blair’s constantly reiterated talking point means – the freedom for capital to be entirely free of restraints, legal, moral or physical. The ‘democracy’ part refers to the periodic tv ratings contests that we laughingly call elections – and any pretence to those being free and fair is long gone, in the UK as well as the US. It doesn’t matter who you vote for really.
Even if you do go through the motions of voting, the only real power your representatives have is the power to decide which lobbyist’s request they will accede to, and what the quid pro quo will be.

The real business of governing, ie how to manage the electorate’s money, is done by unelected trade representatives, at talks in luxury settings, protected against dissent by cordons sanitaires of barbed wire and armed troops, for the benefit of those whose generous capital donations keep those governments triumphant in the ratings wars and in power.

And until we all get a bit braver, and have the gumption to stand firm in the face of state violence and tyranny, to fight back even, there’ll be even more Kent States.

UPDATE:

This sort of gumption:

A group of around 20 school teachers forced their way into the television studios of Greece’s state broadcaster NET on Monday evening, to protest against the government’s austerity programme.

Links For A Dull, Rainy Sunday

Capitalism, Corruption, Crisis? What Crisis?, Democratic (in)action, Kittens!, Life under Capitalism, Merkins..., Natural World
Published on

‘Nomnomnomnom’ goes the kitteh:

They could have turned off the Gulf oil leak like a tap. But they chose not to, and Obama was a wimp.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the well lacked a remote-control shut-off switch that is required by Brazil and Norway, two other major oil-producing nations. The switch, a back-up measure to shut off oil flow, would allow a crew to remotely shut off the well even if a rig was damaged or sunken. BP said it couldn’t explain why its primary shut-off measures did not work.

U.S. regulators considered requiring the mechanism several years ago. They decided against the measure when drilling companies protested, saying the cost was too high, the device was only questionably effective, and that primary shut-off measures were enough to control an oil spill. A 2001 industry report argued against the shut-off device:

“Significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident.”

However, a spokeswoman for Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority said the switches have “been seen as the most successful and effective option” in North Sea usage. Several oil producers, including Royal Dutch Shell, sometimes use the switch even when it is not required by country regulations.

(via Digby)

, cute baby badger alert. Talk to the paw… ’cause the ear isn’t there.

If you read nothing else on US politics today, readPapers, Please: Asserting White Supremacy Since 1492, a fantastic post from Jesus General on the naziesque ID laws passed by Arizona and the non-reaction of the allegedly libertarian teabaggers:

Even more noteworthy about all this is the reaction from the Tea Baggers — or perhaps I should say the lack of reaction from the Tea Baggers. We’ve sat through months of Tea Bagger complaints about government overreach and the threats to our liberty from government intrusions into our lives. In every case, there’s been little to no empirical evidence that their complaints were based on any reality.

The most generous perspective on those complaints is that the Tea Baggers bought into lies from Republican leaders who sought to increase their profile through fear mongering. A less generous perspective would be that they generally knew they were complaining about nonsense but did it anyway because it made them feel better because they didn’t have to admit openly that their real complaint was that a black man was in the White House.

So what are we to make about the overall lack of response to the Arizona “Papers, Please” law? Here is a genuine example of government overreach. Here is a genuine example of the government trying to infringe upon people’s individual liberties. Why aren’t the Tea Baggers protesting this? Why don’t large numbers of Tea Baggers go to the state capitol in Arizona with guns and threatening signs? Where are all the “Don’t Tread on Me” banners?

I don’t think that there is a “most generous” interpretation this time. It’s not plausible that the Tea Baggers are unaware of the law and it’s not plausible that they are unaware of how it will impact people’s lives. It seems to me that the only realistic interpretation is that they don’t care how the Arizona law will impact people because it won’t impact them or people like them — i.e., white people. Tea Baggers aren’t stupid and know just as well as the rest of us that white people won’t be stopped and asked for their papers like brown people will. More….

Lieberman was no mistake

Democratic (in)action, US politics
Published on

Lieberman has always been a childish, spoilt asshole of course, as apt to work against his own party as to support the liberal causes supposedly near to his heart, but ever since his defeat in the 2006 Democratic primaries and subsequent re-election as an independent — fully supported by the Democratic leadership btw — he has gone on a permanent sulk. Lieberman has rewarded the loyalty of the Democrats by becoming a Republican in all but name. Robert Farley examines how this could happen but draws the wrong conclusion:

The institutional failure, I think, was that the Democratic Party didn’t fully understand that it needed to put Joe Lieberman’s political career in the dirt in 2006. I think they believed that the choice was essentially between two Democrats, rather than between a Democrat and a guy who was going to be elected by Republicans and was going to loathe the party’s progressive base.

The wrong conclusion, because he blames the party for being naive about the true nature of Lieberman, rather than for making a deliberate choice to support the opponent of the candidate its base put forward. Supporting Lieberman in the 2006 primaries and election wasn’t done out of a misguided sense of personal loyalty on the part of the party’s elite, but out of a desire to squash a rebellious base. Ned Lamont was an outsider, a candidate of the base who ran against the interests of the party’s leadership and they’d rather see an obstructist rightwinger elected than lose control; had Lamont won, we might have seen more of these sort of leftwing challenges.