• Home
• Press Titles
• Current letteR
• Archives
• Matrix Links
• Submissions

Poetic Matrix Comm Page #3

This page is intended as an exchange of ideas, poetry, comments and concerns. I invite your expression on this page via our email address, poeticmatrix@yahoo.com. Write what you feel is appropriate, it will be reviewed and placed on this page for others to see and comment on. Comment on the material on this website, send in a poem, address issue of concern for poets and lovers of poetry.

We take as a general theme:
"The role of the artist in community"

---

How Can Progressives Protect the "Atmosphere" of a Democratic Presidency

by John Peterson

Jennifer Stone, long time commentator for KPFA- progressive radio - out of Berkeley, indicated in a show sometime back that progressives were already critiquing John Kerry as not being far enough to the left, she called for a more even approach to Kerry's candidacy from those on the progressive left. This kind of critique of the Democrats is a staple of progressives whenever a Democrat finds their way to the White House. It is clear over the years that progressives have been critical in unseating and disarming both Republicans and Democrats that strayed to far from key elements of what is perceived as a humane, albeit, liberal agenda. Progressives were instrumental in forcing LBJ to refuse the run for a second term. They were highly critical of Hubert Humphrey's failed run for president. With relentless pressure from progressives and others Agnew and then Nixon were driven out of office. Progressives were instrumental in creating the climate for Jimmy Carter to capture the White House. Though Reagan and then Bush senior keep the White House for 12 years progressives kept the heat on and exposed amongst other improprieties their illegal contra war. Progressives launched Clinton into the presidency, like it or not, and surely progressives created a climate to call Bush's arrogance into question and make a real space for Kerry to unseat Bush though this ultimately failed.

Progressive is a not so secret "code" word for all of those who seek enlightened change, from Democrats that are left of the center of that party, to liberals with socialist inclinations, to environmentalist, to peace activists, to out and out radicals that see the need for a major revolutionary overhaul of the American system. Central to the Progressive agenda is the critique of corporate capitalism (this may need to be redefined in light of socially responsive business) and US Military dominance in the world; the continuing hegemony of white male rule (the lack of multicultural inclusions and women's right) both in US society and around the world; and the class based society that still dominates the US and leaves many on the lower socio-economic rungs out of the "American Dream," whatever that might be. Most on the progressive list believe in the American way of life and wish America to live up to its best principles and are deeply and incontrovertibly bound up in American institutions whether they be academic, professional, economic or religious, yet there are those considered progressive who wish for a different "experiment" in social order.

The desire for a social form that matches one's personal or group inclinations and values seems to be integral to what we understand as a fully developed person. One's social nature grows along with other more personal aspects of one's being and wishes for a full expression. Individual characteristics need a place to manifest and it can be catastrophic if this is not allowed to happen or is throated in some way. So too, it seems, that the part of one's nature that grows into a social being likewise wishes to have a means of expression out into the world – into, as it were, the social world. The fundamental principle of one's social nature, and the very foundation of social consciousness, is that it is inclusive and not monolithic. The nature of healthy social behavior is that one may hold to one's beliefs and allow the beliefs of others to have a place in the larger community as well. What indeed would social mean other than the interaction with others? There may well be a part of the growing person that requires a monolithic nature, but in the social domain that is not the case.

Even in what appears to be monolithic cultures or dominant cultural forms we find there are various expressions as they move into the social realm. Within Islamic states there are Sunni and Shiite divisions. Within socialist ideologies there are the diversity of Marxists and Social Democrats, poles apart on many issues but still beholding to basic socialist views; even within Marxism we saw the Lenin/Trotsky split plus many others. In the US there are the Democrat and Republican (and we wish many more) Parties. In our dear Republican Party, there are NeoCons and "Rockefeller" liberals (or there use to be). And of course Democrats are vastly more splintered than monolithic (from the relics of Dixiecrats - Zell Miller - to socialist – Tom Hayden). In our present political environment, we are told that the polarization has reached an extreme not seen for sometime. This may or may not be the case. Not being a professional student of history still I recall that Jefferson and Hamilton lead significantly different factions of the new republic. Lincoln of course led the nation during its split into two states during the Civil War. Through the Great Depression and during the run-up to the Second World War the country was split heavily and viable socialist parties were significant players on the political scene. At the time of my first presidential election Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy presented two very different views of the direction America would head. And of course during the Vietnam era an opposition developed that over time not only helped bring that war to an end but also brought the country around to the realization that it was a war that should never have been waged.

So opposition is not a bad thing. In the realm of duality, that realm where everything is seen in its opposites, having competing views is the norm. Still, on occasion, we must find that place where we see through the duality and recognize the unity that is the foundation of all existence, including a country's. But, we must also recognize that there are times when we must enter the world of duality and resist one pole or another. Lord Krishna, in the Mahabarata, presents to Arjuna a great quandary. In the looming battle with Arjuna's family Krishna offers either himself as councilor to Arjuna or all of Krishna's cohorts, his thousands of warriors and confidants. Arjuna who is stunned that it should come to this eventually chooses Krishna; Krishna's cohorts go to the opposition and the battle ensues. Certainly this cannot be seen as a battle between good and evil as Krishna's cohorts are not also evil. There are many great lessons in the Mahabarta to be unfolded and at least one is that conflict is rarely between the ultimate good and the evil genius. Mostly it is between various views of the good but still it may be fought and so it is best that we recognize the humanity of all sides in the conflict and act accordingly.

But what does this mean to the progressive voice in the current debate. A basic logical error one learns early in the study of philosophy is the ad hominen argument or the "argument against the man." When one fails to articulate the real flaws in an argument one proceeds to attack the individual who espouses the point of view. This sounds very much like the negative advertising that political contests eventual devolve into in this country. But this is very weak and assumes that we are addressing people who do not have the capacity to really understand what is going on. It devalues the individual and seeks to exploit the emotionality of the issue. Satirizing the foibles of a candidate may be legitimate, as on The Daily Show, but quickly turns into bad taste and character assassination when the focus is to demean. Progressives are guilty of this as well as archconservatives. But, as history will attest, even when this kind of behavior carries the day we can be sure that in the next go-round this kind of hostile behavior will be used, with greater rancor, on the candidate of our choice, often by the progressive themselves. This I believe is what Jennifer Stone was alluding to.

The extreme right abused Bill Clinton viciously during his Presidency, and yes he did bring much on himself. Did some of this stem from the viciousness of the attacks on Reagan and Bush senior by the left, possibly? Some of the ill will toward Clinton came from the more progressive elements on the left. I had a good friend who quickly withdrew support from Clinton soon after he became President because Clinton did not adhere to certain liberal agenda items that were dear to him. Did the right wing's attack on Clinton insure that Bush would be treated in a similar way when he came into office, certainly and certainly Bush has brought much on himself. What then will be the abuse heaped on a future Democratic Presidency? Indeed it will be vicious beyond belief and has already started. Opposition at times must be total and still we must articulate what the "bottom line" truly is. Corporate business claims the "bottom line" to be its financial gain, political strategist claim the "bottom line" to be all out character assassination. In both cases progressives must claim the "bottom line" to be that that holds the highest regard for human dignity.

Where does this lead? After 40 years of political awareness I firmly believe that progressive ideas and analysis have been the driving force for much that is good about America. From union organizing to the civil rights movement; from child labor laws to opposition to the death penalty; from women's rights to the peace movement, progressives have been out front analyzing the issues, forcing them before the American people, and demanding that politicians deal with them. The left of center agenda has held sway, but the more radical socialist agenda has not. That is a truth about American history and political life and must be dealt with. If progressives can continue to act in the name of the good and the true regardless of the outcome than a better American society is possible. This does not mean that ideals should be denied and it does not mean that dreams should be deferred. This does not mean that in the long term some very deep and fundamental principles of the "American experiment" don't need correcting.

It is indeed possible to analysis American history to a point of denying its legitimacy; the original determination that a Negro was to be counted as but 2/3 of a man, and even then only to give the south a larger population stake in the new congress, may well de-legitimizes the entire experiment as even once the change is made to full suffrage still the social order may be operating on this old primacy and yet now it is hidden in the political and social landscape. Also the genocide of the native peoples give deep concern about the viability of this historical movement and raises again the question whether the words can be realized in the flesh. Still, ideals are important in moving a people towards the good and certainly figures like Thomas Jefferson can be seen in this light. And here we are more than two hundred year into it and gains have been made, corners turned and we must, it seems, continue on. It is the history of progressive gains that adds a new substance to the old history.

If progressives are to have a political role in a future Democratic Presidency, and we can hope, what should be the focus of the progressive agenda. Jerry Brown, in one of his runs for the Presidency, said something to the effect that, once one starts on the path to the Presidency one's choices become narrower and narrower. We see this in even the most liberal Presidents. It is those historical conditions that drive most decision making that determine much of what a President does. So, what is it that distinguishes a President like Jimmy Carter from a George W. Bush, a liberal from a conservative, a Democrat from a Republican? Given that many decisions will be mandated by the office itself, such as the threat of military force, used essentially by all presidents at one time or another, or the adherence to capitalist economic principles, the protection of trade, the appointment of essentially middle of the road politicos. What is the difference and why should progressives line up behind someone like a John Kerry, a classic liberal (though his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War gives him a special mandate in progressive circles)? That difference is "atmosphere." Yes "atmosphere!"

Given that much of what a President can do is narrowly defined by the historical imperatives of this country still the nature of liberal philosophy gives the populous as a whole a greater opportunity to flourish and grow. Liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy differ in many respects but they different most essentially in their view of the individual. A conservative view sees the individual as essentially "bad" that is, needing strict outside control to insure right behavior. It is founded on a mostly Judeo/Christian view of original sin and the need for outside forces to bring the individual back to God or some state determined concept of the good. Like it or not fascism is the outside extreme of a conservative agenda. The level of trust that individuals will behave properly is very low. Liberal philosophy is built off of humanistic assumptions about the essential goodness of the individual. Given the right conditions an individual will choose to do good rather than evil as it will lead to greater pleasure (and not the pleasure of gratification but the pleasure in living a good life). The classic liberal does indeed enjoy the good life (wine, cheese and a night at the concert) hand in hand with the good political battle. For the liberal, setting up the right conditions (atmosphere) is critical in creating the good society where individuals will do the right thing because it makes sense to do the right thing. Laws are still necessary but they can be less controlling of individual behavior and more controlling of what is construed as exploitive behavior i.e. wages lower than that needed to survive. Much personal behavior can be left in a non-legal status. Should there be laws about driving drunk, yes, but should there be laws about smoking marijuana, no, this should be left in the non-legal realm.

And so the liberal "atmosphere" can assist in growing the progressive agenda but only if it is seen so and only if it is utilized in a powerful way. What does an atmosphere mean? What might that be? Attitude, first of all! Atmosphere comes from attitude and attitude comes with that first essential view that distinguishes the liberal view from the conservative view. But, that is only the first, yet the necessary first condition. From that condition flows certain actions. LBJ's war on poverty flowed from that view, and his extension of the Vietnam War flowed from his conservative roots, he was a man and a President in deep conflict. This is not unusual in the American psych. Jimmy Carter's liberal atmosphere flowed from a personal view of the good and he lived through that while his theology may well have thwarted some of what he could do. A man like Clinton had a better opportunity to express his liberal nature in his Presidency, and did so, and much of what he did accomplish was to create that "atmosphere" for the good to evolve. Much of his ability to act was stifled by the very conservative Congress and the extreme conservative forces that lined up against him. That is where the progressives must take aim in the eventuality of a future Democratic victory.

Progressives will hold the Democrat's feet to the fire on many issues, that is the nature of progressive action. But, to chip away at Democrats will be counter productive, what will need to be chipped away at is the extreme conservative forces that are trying to permeate all aspects of American life. If progressive forces line up in a concerted way to take on those conservative element then that liberal "atmosphere" may allow some good to come forth. What must the progressive forces focus on?

First and foremost is to not give up mainstream media to the so-called conservative, anti- liberal agenda. Somehow in the post Vietnam era conservatives were able to brand much mainstream media with a "liberal" bias as if that were somehow bad and progressives could not and would not counter that tag and insist that if "liberal" media was in fact the case than so be it. In fact progressives have gone on what could be considered a counter-offensive to paint the mainstream media as "conservative" and beholding to the large corporate conglomerates that own them. This, though beholding they are, is, I contend, counter-productive.

First, a local example: Recently in Fresno California on a local news channel, came the announcement of the opening of the new, and largest in the country, Planned Parenthood Clinic. The news team announced that the facility would deal with a wide variety of reproductive health issues from dispensing contraceptives to pre-natal care to counseling on unplanned pregnancies which include options from keeping the child to adoption to abortion in the first trimester. The Clinic Director did a good job of indicating that abortion was only 1% of what they did at the clinic and that Planned Parenthood dealt primarily with low income people giving them options and choices and high quality, safe reproductive health care where that might not have been the case in years past. Anti-abortion people showed up to protest the opening of the clinic and of course to single in on the 1% of abortion. The point is not that anti- abortion forces should not be there, progressives do support the right to protest. The point is that progressive forces should not allow the anti-abortion forces to define the issue. Progressive forces must define the issue as the right to full reproductive care and support not only Planned Parenthood but also the mainstream TV Station that in fact did a good job of indicating the scope of the abortion issue at that clinic. By the insistence of the Clinic Director that abortions were only 1% of clinic activity, and the news teams iteration of that point more than once, the news report significantly undermined the protesters very narrow and uninformed view. Progressives must be more vigilant in focusing on the serious issue of high quality, safe reproductive health care and that Planned Parenthood deals primarily with low income people giving them options and choices concerning their reproductive care. This is true on the local scene as well as the national scene of a Democratic Presidency.

Failure from progressive forces to remember the past infringe on this "atmosphere". The issue of Vietnam military service brought up by Democrats during the Kerry/Bush Election was such an infringement. As a Vietnam Veteran and a veteran of the peace movement upon my discharge from the military, bringing up the issue of George W. Bush's military service lead to the bring up of Kerry's military service and his subsequent peace activities. To question Bush' s service during a time when so many were looking for ways to protest the war and not serve in Vietnam was a foolish error on the part of the Democratic Party. I knew some who burned draft cards, some who fled to Canada, some who went to jail, some who used family deferments, some who stayed in school under less then sterling circumstances. Did George Bush use less than sterling mean to not go to Vietnam, maybe. Did Dick Chaney use less than sterling means to skip military service, maybe. Should these be reason for criticism, I say no, and to bring them up was a foolish political foible. To Kerry's credit he did not deny his peace activities and instead embraced them. The charge of not warranting one of his purple hearts was soon seen as grasping at straws on the part of right-wing critics. Progressives need to be consistent and remember history. Vietnam War resisters need to be recognized as having placed their lives on the line to alter the destructive course that the country was on. Resisters need to be honored as heroes of the first rank in American history and given the recognition they deserve. No lines of demarcation should be made about the ways in which this resistance occurred.

Clearly progressives must take back the language that has been hijacked by an anti- intellectual right wing. Michael Moore in Dude, Where's My Country? has begun this process. In the chapter A Liberal Paradise he describes an extremely liberal country and ends by saying "You don't have to go the moon (to find this country) because...you're already there! This Land O'Left paradise I speak of is none other than...the United States of America!" He is taking back the word liberal for all those in the US who in fact share the values that the word stands for. It is now time to take back the term liberal from the phony use of it in the description of modern corporate capitalism or Liberal Capitalism as used in the current extension of corporate capitalism in the mostly non-white world. This capitalism has nothing to do with liberal and progressives must see to it that it is not attached to this extreme form of exploitation. To use liberal in this way confuses the understanding that many "average Americans" have regarding liberals. Are liberals part of that group of abusive capitalist? Also, to call this rewrite of colonialism globalization, or the global economy or world economy is a disgusting usurpation of the word global and world and all they stand for. When we talk about the world community or global community or global village we are not talking about the control of the world through corporate economic and political dominance.

As a poet who deeply understands that one of the functions of poetry is to take language back to its meaning and truth thorough the examined use of language, I also looks to a wider form of poetic discussion that through poetry insists that our social discussion seek those truths in all discourse and expresses them fully. Progressives must be in the forefront of this and demand of the media the same. To challenge the right wing on these issues is paramount to protecting the "atmosphere" of a Democratic Presidency. If we allow the distortions of purposeful victories by conservative political "character assassination" on sacred gains we are fools and worse.

Equating the liberation of women with the right to serve in combat and fly fighter jets is a usurpation of the women's liberation movement. Defining gay liberation by the recent push for gay marriage instead of for the right to be treated as an equal in society is a distortion of both the gay rights movement and the mostly progressive push in years past to break down the ridge barriers that traditional marriage had built in the society including the shot-gun marriage, the dictums against interracial marriage, and the stigma against the practice of living together without being married. Progressives need to keep these issues out front. To applaud the black corporate CEO, while on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Meridian Mississippi black people live in shacks that would have been a travesty in slave days, is a corruption of the "dream."

Yes, these are broad stroke issue and must be focused as they come up in each unique case but the issue here is where the progressive must focus their critique. If it become a critique of the Democrats policies and whether they are left enough we will have once again given the right the opportunity to sneak up and deliver blows that will dissipate the growing "atmosphere" of liberal/progressive possibilities. This would be another of the great mistakes that have plagued the left for so long here and around the world. Do progressives have the discipline to extend the "atmosphere" into that world where we really will see a change of condition for those in need here and abroad, I think so

---

« Back to Archive

Poetic Matrix Press P.O. Box 1223 Madera, CA 93639
John Peterson, Publisher & Editor (personal page)
James Downs, Associate Editor
Member Council of Literary Magazines and Presses (CLMP)
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be used or reproduced in any matter whatsoever without
written permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.