Movement Building and 2012

By Ted Glick, Reader Supported News

05 December 11

"But eventually, the greater danger to the movement is that it may dovetail into the presidential election campaign that's coming up. I've seen that happen before in the antiwar movement here, and I see it happening all the time in India. Eventually, all the energy goes into trying to campaign for the 'better guy,' in this case Barack Obama, who's actually expanding wars all over the world. Election campaigns seem to siphon away political anger and even basic political intelligence into this great vaudeville, after which we all end up in exactly the same place."
- Arundhati Roy

ver the last couple of weeks I've seen a number of articles about what the Occupy movement/the progressive movement/the climate movement should do about the 2012 presidential election. Here's my view:

I see virtually no chance that a broadly based and powerful progressive alliance is going to emerge to run either a credible third party presidential campaign or an anti-corporate insurgent presidential campaign within the Democratic Party. Either one of those developments would make possible a significant political realignment in 2012 given the emergence of the Occupy movement and other important developments, especially what is happening within the labor movement [Wisconsin and Ohio as the two best examples] and the ascendant climate/no tar sands/fracking/mountaintop removal/deep ocean offshore drilling/etc. movement.

Because this won't be happening, progressives and regular folks who are not committed to either the Republican or Democratic parties will be divided as far as what to do about the presidential election.

Many will give Obama critical support and their vote despite his repeatedly-demonstrated unwillingness to take on the 1%, the Pentagon, the fossil-fuel industry, the healthcare industry, etc., etc., etc. Lesser-evilism and "practical politics" are still very much alive and well within the progressive body politic, for understandable reasons. The tremendous barriers to a truly democratic, multi-party system and the absurdly regressive and dangerous positions and actions of the Republican Party leadership are influential things.

Others will support either the Green Party's presidential candidate, likely to be Massachusetts doctor Jill Stein, or an apparent Ralph Nader-like independent presidential campaign by Rocky Anderson, despite the fact that neither has a chance of winning or, almost certainly, gaining a significant percentage of the vote. This will especially be the case if it turns out that there are, indeed, two independent, progressive, third-party campaigns competing against each other for votes.

And others, very consciously and deliberately, will not support any presidential candidate and, for some, any election campaigns at all. The alienation from our undemocratic and dysfunctional, corporate-dominated, two-party system is deep and wide, leading to this reality.

From a grassroots activism standpoint, it is to be expected that there will be mass mobilizations around both the Republican and Democratic conventions, happening in Tampa, Florida, August 27-30 and in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 3-6. If these mobilizations are significant, if tens of thousands of people take unified action throughout each of the 4-5 days of these events, that could be an important way to make visible the reality of a national progressive movement outside of the control of either party which is coming together and building for the real thing as far as "change we can believe in."

And there is no question but that, over the course of 2012, there will be particular days of action or campaigns that attract the active support of many thousands or tens of thousands, manifested by street heat or building occupations. We should all be on the alert for these particular upsurges - like Occupy Wall Street, or the no tar-sands pipeline campaign, or the Wisconsin uprising - which show strength and staying power and which can lead to short-term victories.

But what's missing is a way that many of us, whatever our individual decisions about what to do on the presidential question, can work together on a common project that keeps us out there, visible, shows our strength and unity, and keeps stirring up justice-seeking activism.

What about this: Let's give people another way to vote, other than just for a candidate.

How? By organizing alternative ways that people can vote for what they believe in and feel strongly about.

Two examples from the US movement's history come to mind. One was in the summer of 1963, when the civil rights movement in Mississippi organized a "freedom ballot." Since black people were not able to register to vote or run their own candidates, they organized a way for people to vote at movement-organized locations for civil rights leaders for important local offices. 80,000 people took part, and the success of this tactic led to the emergence of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. The MFDP organized a powerful challenge to the racist, all-white official 1964 Democratic Party delegation to the Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, and this inspired a stronger movement for black people's freedom.

The other example, the People's Peace Treaty, took place in 1971. This treaty was put together by leaders of the National Student Association and leaders of student organizations in Vietnam. It was explained by the NSA in these words: "This is not a petition. It is a Joint Treaty of peace. Endorsing the principles of the Treaty is just the beginning of our work. The Peace Treaty will provide a focus for all our efforts to end the war. We need your commitment, your energy - we also need money - to carry the People's Peace Treaty into every home, church, professional society, union, city council, business group, school, club, and community organization."

It was an outreach tool, and for much of the peace movement 40 years ago it was a major focus of work. At least 130 organizations endorsed it and large numbers of individuals signed it. It helped to keep the pressure on, and two years after the campaign was initiated, the US government gave up on its attempt to take over the southern part of Vietnam and signed a US-withdrawal peace treaty with the government of then-North Vietnam.

We need something that combines the best elements of these two successful campaigns, and builds upon them.

I think that we need a campaign in 2012 to "Vote for a Clean Energy Future." I believe the climate crisis should be the central issue because, in my opinion, it is THE most urgent issue facing the entire world today, and the United States, under Obama, is misleading the world AWAY from facing up to the urgency of our situation. We are seeing this as I write at the United Nations Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa.

How urgent is it? Several weeks ago the International Energy Agency (IEA), by no means a radical group, warned publicly that we may have no more than five years to change course, to get serious about getting off fossil fuels, or it may be too late to avoid worldwide, catastrophic climate change.

In the words of IEA chief economist Faith Birol, quoted in the Guardian UK on November 9, "The door is closing. I am very worried - if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

2012 should be the year that the progressive movement as a whole demonstrates that it gets it on the urgency of the climate crisis and acts accordingly. Organizing a way for millions of people to vote clearly and unmistakably for a clean, renewable energy future would be a huge, hopeful step forward for all of humanity and all of the other species that are going extinct now or facing extinction.

How could people vote? There are lots of options:

• massive internet and social media outreach



• specific Days of Outreach are organized where tables are set up on street corners, people go door to door, etc.
  
  
• there might be an "election day," similar to what happened in Mississippi in 1963, where all over the country local events/fairs/rallies are organized and people come to vote throughout the day of those events



• collecting of votes on the clean energy future pledge are combined with voter registration activities



• candidates for office who publicly vote for the clean energy pledge are called upon to publicly talk about it and urge others to sign it

Are we up for it? Are we up for making 2012 truly a turning point year towards a jobs-creating, clean air and clean water-producing, civilization-saving renewable energy revolution? Or is there a better idea for how to do this? It's time. It's time. It's past time.

Ted Glick is the National Policy Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. Past writings and more information can be found at http://tedglick.com, and he can be followed at twitter at http://twitter.com/jtglick.

The Return of Bad Newt

By Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns, Politico

04 December 11

he all-too-familiar character from the 1990s has only peeked out in public a handful of times so far. But already, Newt Gingrich flush with pride over new polls showing his left-for-dead candidacy now leading the pack - is letting his healthy ego roam free again, littering the campaign trail with grand pronouncements about his celebrity, his significance in political history and his ability to transform America.

"I helped lead the effort to defeat communism in the Congress," Gingrich said this week on Sean Hannity's show.

"I'm going to be the nominee," he informed ABC News while in Iowa.

"I was charging $60,000 a speech and the number of speeches was going up, not down," Gingrich said in South Carolina, explaining why he didn't actually need his consulting fee from Freddie Mac. "Normally, celebrities leave and they gradually sell fewer speeches every year. We were selling more."

"The degree to which I challenge the establishment and the degree to which I'm willing to follow ideas and solutions to their natural consequence without regard to Republican or Democratic political correctness makes me probably the most experienced outsider in modern times," he told Radio Iowa.

Even descriptions of his wife Callista fall prey to aggrandizement: "She actually describes herself as being a cross between Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush with just a slight bit of Jackie Kennedy tossed in and I think there is, somewhere swirling in there, the model Callista would like to live up to."

The economy? There's a vainglorious boast for that, too.

"Obama is now 34 months into his presidency, and the economy has lost 1.9 million total jobs since he took office. At the same point in the Gingrich speakership (November 1997), Americans had created 303,000 jobs in one month alone, and had created 7.7 million total new jobs since he became speaker. This is an ‘Obama-Gingrich jobs gap" of 9.5 million," the former congressman said in a statement.

Longtime Gingrich watchers see clear signs that "Good Newt" (disciplined, charming, expansive in personality and intellect) is engaging in an internal battle with "Bad Newt" (off-message, bombastic, self-wounding) as his political fortunes rise.

"Remember, this is the man of the combination of Churchill and de Gaulle to begin with," conservative columnist George Will told radio host Laura Ingraham. "He's the embodiment of a nation in deep peril. The stage has to be lit by the fires of crisis and grandeur to suit Newt Gingrich."

"Gingrich [is] always a fine a line between charming and brilliant on one hand, and eccentric and borderline dangerous on the other," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "He's been ‘Charming Newt' for the last several weeks. But the last couple of days have been a reminder of his other side."

Gingrich "only has two modes - attack and brag," explained one veteran GOP strategist.

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond dismissed criticism about the speaker's self-regard, saying his boss is speaking the truth about the nation's problems.

"Newt Gingrich has been against the status quo in Washington since he first arrived from Georgia," Hammond said. "Many times he's the first to point out a dumb idea and say, ‘here's how to fix it.' And in many cases, he uses the words ‘dumb idea.'"

Gingrich's backers note there are various policy points that they say more than back up the former speaker's comment about communism, for example, saying he was referring to actions Congress took to thwart it while he was there.

There's no question Gingrich is working harder, and with more success, than he has in years to keep his flair for the grandiose in check - his talk is less fire-and-brimstone, and more positive, there's-another-way-forward.

At times, Gingrich sounds like he's consciously striking a different and humbler tone, telling audiences that he will need their help. He asks Republicans not to vote for him, but to "be with me."

"We have to have a team campaign," Gingrich told Iowa Republicans at a dinner event Thursday night. "I am totally committed to a team campaign."

During the same event, Gingrich delivered a notably moderate and nonpartisan riff - that is, for a politician long known for his sharp partisanship and rhetorical excess - telling the audience: "We need an American campaign, not a Republican campaign. And we need to be open to every person of every background."

But at the same event, Gingrich couldn't help himself, offering comparisons between his approach to politics to Thomas Jefferson's, and noting that he'd model parts of his campaign strategy on Abraham Lincoln's. Only a few hours before, Gingrich bragged of having overseen the creation of 11 million jobs as speaker of the House.

"The self-aggrandizing comments probably don't hurt him that much. They may strike his strongest supporters as a sign of confidence," said Schnur, adding that the policy pronouncements could be a bigger issue: "These ‘porridge for poor children' things probably don't do him much good."

That's the side of Gingrich that has some Republican insiders privately fretting that, for all their worries about Mitt Romney's failings, it is Gingrich who may be especially susceptible to damaging himself if he emerges as the party's nominee.

"He's going to blow up at some point, and I'm just hoping it comes before he gets the nomination," said one unaligned Republican insider, who has worked with presidential campaigns before.

"I'm waiting for him to say, ‘Literally, I'm the smartest guy to ever run for president,' " said the insider, adding that comparisons of Callista as Nancy Reagan fuel the notion that he thinks of himself as a new incarnation of The Gipper. "He's now kind of like the crazy scientist that's having his science proven correct….and you just don't know what the hell's gonna happen next."

Some Republicans are willing to say it on the record.

"He'd be a terrible nominee," said Long Island Rep. Pete King, who credited Gingrich with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s but also said Gingrich was driven out of the job because he "wears everybody else out."

"It's not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause," said King. "You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything."

Yet even if "Bad Newt" is back, given the fluidity of the race it might not be so damaging.

"Yes, ‘Bad Newt' is emerging again," said GOP strategist Alex Castellanos. "He refers to himself as a celebrity, when voters despise Washington's arrogance and he knows that was one of McCain's most effective assaults against Obama. He dismisses charges of corruption by telling us he's too successful to be tempted, when he's just seen what happened when Rick Perry declared he was "insulted" by charges that he could be bought for only $5,000."

But, he added, "So what? The rule in politics is that if you tell voters what they already know, they remain where they already are. You have to give voters new information to change how they react to candidates. We already know ‘Bad Newt' is undisciplined, even, reckless and has an inflated sense of self-worth. And Gingrich is leading in Iowa. A lot of ‘Bad Newt' is already built into the front-runner's stock price."

The options for conservatives, Castellanos added, are dwindling.

"Despite his best efforts, Newt may not be able to dispatch himself as easily as he did the first time," Castellanos said. "And the Christmas holiday is a great gift for Newt: he only has to hang around for a couple of weeks before Christmas freezes the race and mitigates his opportunity to damage himself."

Craig Shirley, another longtime Republican strategist, argued that Gingrich is giving people what they want right now.

"I think it's based on his instincts, but you know, other politicians have talked like this before and invoked great leaders and great writers - Ronald Reagan invoked Cicero and Thomas Paine and Winston Churchill, and quoted them and cited them," he said.

"I think what it says to a lot of voters is, this is a very self-confident man, and right now I think the country wants a self-confident man. That was the great contrast between Reagan and Carter. Carter was full of doubts and blaming the American people … He was lost in power. Obama was lost in power."