Farewell To The People's Historian

Howard Zinn died on Wednesday at the age of 87. He was a shipyard worker, a World War II veteran, a professor, an activist, and an author. He was probably best known for writing A People's History of the United States, which was first published in 1980 and was most recently edited to cover events through 2003. More than one million copies of the book have been sold. A People's History is unabashedly leftist. Zinn said that he wanted to present a history from the point of view of ordinary people, because previously history was written from the point of view of the powerful. Instead of a "great-man history" focusing on kings, presidents, generals, and the titans of industry, A People's History focuses on farmers, slaves, Native Americans, middle class families, feminists, and miners--the 99 percent of the population that are largely ignored in traditional histories. When times were bad, it was these people who suffered most. And when change happened, it was these people who drove it.

A People's History of the United States inspired a whole series of "People's History" books--A People's History of...the Third World, the American Revolution, the Vietnam War to name a few. I just started reading A People's History of the World, by Chris Harman. On the first page of the book is a poem that I think captures the spirit of Zinn and the people's histories.

Questions from a Worker who Reads

by Bertold Brecht

Who built Thebes of the seven gates?

In the books you will find the names of kings.

Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?

And Babylon, many times demolished

Who raised it up so many times? In what houses

Of gold-glittering Lima did the builders live?

Where, the evening that the Wall of China was finished

Did the masons go? Great Rome

Is full of triumphal arches. Who erected them? Over whom

Did the Caesars triumph? Had Byzantium, much praised in song

Only palaces for its inhabitants? Even in fabled Atlantis

The night the ocean engulfed it

The drowning still bawled for their slaves.

The young Alexander conquered India.

Was he alone?

Caesar beat the Gauls.

Did he not have even a cook with him?

Philip of Spain wept when his armada

Went down. Was he the only one to weep?

Frederick the Second won the Seven Years War. Who

Else won it?

Every page a victory.

Who cooked the feast for the victors?

Every ten years a great man.

Who paid the bill?

So many reports.

So many questions.

When I heard that Howard Zinn had died, the word irreplaceable came into my mind. Then I thought how ironic it is that many of us now consider Zinn, the people's historian himself, as a "great man" of history. But the difference between Zinn and most of the "great men" from whom he recaptured history, is that Zinn used his influence almost entirely to empower others. It's strange that it took a great a man to say, for the record, that we don't need "great men" to save us. We can change the world ourselves.

Near the end of his life, Zinn said, "I want to be remembered as somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power they didn't have before." That's exactly what his writing did for me.

Obama and House Republicans: The Smackdown We've Been Waiting For?

Right now, both CNN and MSNBC are showing highlights from President Obama's Q&A session at the Republican caucus meeting today. Apparently it was the White House's idea for camera's to be present. Afterwards at least one Republican admitted regretting that they allowed the cameras to roll. From the coverage I've seen so far, Obama made Republican leadership look like petulant children for over an hour. It's hard to imagine another scenario where Obama could so thoroughly dismantle Republican talking points in front of hundreds of Republican representatives while also reaching out to those same Republicans. I mean, I don't know how the media interpretation of this will develop over time, but right now it's coming off like the president was a man among boys. It looks like he's bargaining in good faith while clearly showing that the other side is not. This looks like a disaster for Congressional Republicans. B.S. only works as a legislative tactic if you don't have cameras rolling while the president dismantles your B.S. for over an hour.

Everyone on TV right now is calling it "extraordinary political theater." From what I've seen, I agree.

Did anybody see it live? I have to step out for a bit, so I'm going to miss the cable TV coverage. It looks like you can see the whole Q&A here. Or, here's full video and transcript.

State of the Union Speech Thread

Have comments on tonight's State of the Union address? Post 'em here.

Here are several things I'm looking for:

• I'd like to see the president offer a progressive populist narrative for the country's hard times that counters the standard conservative populism. In other words, tell us that government is not the problem. Corporate power, and its influence over government, is the problem. (BTW, stop saying "special interests" and start saying, "big corporations, their lobbyists, and the politicians who curry their favor.")
• I'd like to see Obama push Congressional Democrats across the finish line to pass health care reform. I doubt he'll get specific on the legislative details. But he could tell the House to pass the Senate's bill and then tell the House and Senate (using reconciliation and a simple majority) to pass a "fix bill" that makes it more progressive. Talk frankly about the role of the Republican filibuster in this process.
• I want the president to speak out forcefully against the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United vs. F.E.C. He should call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the decision and reclaim the First Amendment for people instead of corporations.
• I would like to see the president list some mistakes he's made in his first year. Somewhere near the top of that list should be, "I wasted too much time seeking bipartisanship, even in the face of extreme Republican obstructionism, while American working families needed quick action."

Check below for updates during and after the speech.

***************************************************************

Update 8:45pm EST: Diet Coke open, popcorn on standby.

Update 10:03pm EST: Well, he talked about the SCOTUS ruling, but called for "a bill" to fix it, not a constitutional amendment.

Update 10:05pm EST: Not a bad section, I thought, about Republican obstructionism. "Saying 'no' to everything may be good short-term politics, but it isn't leadership."

Update 10:13pm EST: "I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." It's about time!

Update 10:20pm EST: Speech finished. All in all, not bad, I think. I like that he made obstructionism and a Washington culture that tends to bog down any big progress the enemies. It's basically a way of telling Congressional Dems to get themselves together and wield the tremendous power they have in these big majorities, a way of telling the Republicans that there will be political consequences for their obstructionism, and a way of telling the American people that, "Yes, things suck, but I'm the only one offering anything."

Update 10:30pm EST: "Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated." I liked this way of calming the panicked Left who has felt lately like the wheels are coming off. It was also a way of explaining to the less politically involved not to get so excited about the general narrative lately, which has been about Obama and the Democrats "reeling."

Update 10:34pm EST: Did anyone notice Samuel Alito shaking his head while Obama was talking about the Citizens United case? I was looking away at the moment, but I heard someone on CNN mention it.

Update 11:15pm EST: The Nation's Chris Hayes complained, "There are not enough villains in this speech." He's got a point. Obama didn't really bring the hammer down on his enemies. But does he ever? I think he did what he needed to do putting the last year in perspective, explaining what he's trying to do now, and explaining what is stopping him from doing it: a minority party that will filibuster a Post Office naming resolution and "the culture in Washington." That's basically what Democrats need to be running against...though you could certainly add some more language about corporate lobbyists. But I think at this point the White House views public optimism as its key. If people think things are going to improve, Democrats will do well. If people are generally sick of everything about politics--including the nasty language necessary for bringing down the hammer--Democrats will do poorly.

Final Update 11:45pm EST: I'm heading to bed feeling good overall about the way Obama handled this. Let's see if it translates into some momentum on the Hill to pass health care and into a change in the media narrative away from, "The Democrats are falling apart!" toward, "Wow, despite continued opposition from Republicans and big business, Democrats are getting stuff done."

A Self-Serving Explanation And Solution For Haiti's Woe

In a previous post about Pat Robertson, I mentioned that I'd show some other reactions from American "conservatives" to the devastation in Haiti. The point here is not to compile a list of cold and heartless people, because I think Robertson and today's featured conservative probably mean well, on some level at least. The point is to build a case that modern American conservative philosophy (to which many good people subscribe) is cold and heartless.

Exhibit B is David Brooks' January 14th op-ed in the New York Times, titled, "The Underlying Tragedy."

Brooks rightly identifies Haiti's poverty as the main factor compounding the death toll from the earthquake. Ok, check. The piece then attempts to explain why Haiti is so poor and what should be done about it. Ok, check and check. We're all on board. He explains that Haiti is poor because of 1) a lack of personal responsibility, 2) neglectful "child-rearing practices," and 3) "the influence of the voodoo religion." Whaaa?

It's the same old "blame the victim" mentality dressed up in new clothes. First, is it not wrong to lecture Haitian parents while they're literally still pulling their children from the rubble? It's almost like Brooks is in a hurry to prevent other reactions to the crisis, like huge outpourings of sympathy and money. I'll admit that I don't know anything about Haitian child-rearing, but I doubt David Brooks does either. Even if Brooks is right about these cultural attributes, and even ignoring the crude timing of his comments, it's disingenuous of him to act like these cultural traits are entirely causes and not effects of poverty. He just brushes aside Haiti's history of oppression, slavery, and colonialism with a few sentences. Brooks' piece is full of the same themes you hear when conservatives pundits talk about Black urban poverty in America. It's like throwing someone to the ground, kicking them in the head, and then stepping back to scold them for clearly lacking a go-getter attitude. David Brooks' column says, "Hey look, they're just lying on around on the ground!" I can almost hear the voices in response, saying, "Yes, comfortable White man writing in your big newspaper, tell me why my struggles are all my fault."

So what should American do about Haiti's poverty? First, here's what Brooks says we shouldn't do: send aid or help with development projects. How convenient! Nothing much required from us! Brooks calls for a policy of "intrusive paternalism" to promote "a highly demanding, highly intensive culture of achievement." Just to be sure I got the nuance here, I looked it up. My dictionary defines paternalism as,

"the policy or practice on the part of people in position of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibility of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest."

I'd like to just close here by saying that David Brooks is literally making the old argument of colonialism. The problem is that the savages are intrinsically backwards. The solution is that we rule them, for their own good. It's strange how that works. You'd think that helping Haiti would require a sacrifice on our part. But according to the logic of David Brooks, a self-described moderate-conservative, we can only help Haiti by making ourselves more powerful and subordinating them to us. You can see now why blaming the victim is so important for thinkers like Brooks and why we see that tactic in a hundred different variations. It's meant to remove our own sense of responsibility and replace it with a sense of pride and entitlement.

Two Notes

1. Banks Looking For New Cheats?

We've known that big banks are thinking up new fees to stick us with to try to make up for some of the usury they can no longer practice. Well, yesterday Bank of America tried to stick me with a pretty lame one. I noticed that $20 had been deducted from my checking account for some bogus "monthly maintenance fee." I won't even bore you with their explanation for this, but I got the $20 credited back to me.

Point is: Be on the lookout. The banks are losing an estimated $50 billion as the new credit card rules go into effect. Who knows how much more they're going to lose from:

a) Other proposed regulations (reinstate Glass-Steagall, anyone?),

b) Other reforms (like breaking up "too big to fail" banks),

c) Consumer action (like people breaking up with their banks),

d) Obama's bank tax.

They're not going to take this sitting down. For now, they're able to make less money off your credit card, so they're going to try to make it up in your checking or savings accounts. They'll always have some excuse for a random fee that appears out of nowhere. So you might want to keep a closer eye on things. It saved me $20.

(BTW, I'm still moving out of Bank of America and into a credit union, which I still recommend. But BofA is able to hit me on the way out.)

2. BTM Programming Note

I'm going to be out of town for almost two weeks, so my blogging will be sporadic at best for a little while. I'm looking forward to returning in full force around the end of next week. It sure seems like a number of major issues are at critical points right now--backlash to the SCOTUS decision, health care reform, financial regulation, the administration's populist shift, Democrats' 2010 worries. (Man, my news addiction is gonna be hurting these next couple of weeks.) Anyway, keep the home fires burning. And keep up the good fight.

The Most Important Political Story Of The Last Year

It happened today.

The Supreme Court, in response to an obscure case related to campaign finance law, ruled that under the First Amendment, corporations have the right to spend UNLIMITED MONEY to influence elections.

Now, I've known vaguely that the ruling in this case was coming. And I assumed that the conservative Roberts Court would take the opportunity to strip away some aspect of campaign finance law. But, oh my God, this opens the floodgates. The 5 - 4 ruling (*Can you guess who was on which side? Find the answer at the bottom) overturns about a century of precedent that the government has the right to limit corporate money in elections. The ruling essentially enshrines the reactionary idea that corporations have the same rights as people and that political spending is free speech.

So you have the right to contribute $50, write a letter to the editor of your local paper, and volunteer down at the local campaign office in support of you favorite candidate. And now ConocoPhillips has the right to launch a billion dollar campaign for its favorite candidate.

Remember when conservatives railed against "activist" judges? Well, what do you call these judges?

This is a kick in the gut to anyone who still cares about the increasingly antiquated idea of representative democracy. I'm still trying to catch my breath. This ruling makes elections a joke. It changes everything. And it's not just that corporations will be able to run the only election campaigns that matter. The ruling implies that even more limits on corporate and super-rich political spending will be removed.

The court's ruling says that corporations must be allowed unlimited spending in support of a political candidate. The ruling did not touch existing laws that prohibit a corporation from donating directly to a candidate. Catch that? So Wal-Mart can now run the biggest parallel, shadow campaign that you've ever seen in support of its candidate, but it can't donate directly to the candidate's campaign. Not that the distinction matters much at this point. But if corporations are people, and political donations are "free speech," on what basis do any limits on corporate political spending stand? The Roberts Court basically says, No basis at all. And on what basis can the government limit a billionaire's "free speech" if he wants to donate, oh, just a billion to his favorite candidate?

To be sure, the people's opposition to this corporate power grab is rising to its feet. But like any mass popular movement, it's going to be sloooow. A coalition of public interest organizations has already thrown together a site called FreeSpeechforPeople.org and a YouTube video:

One of the best lines from the video puts the situation in perspective:

"In 2008 the Fortune 100 corporations had $600 billion in profits. Now imagine that those top 100 companies decided to spend a modest 1 percent of their profits to intervene in our politics and to get their way. That would mean $6 billion... or double what the Obama campaign spent, the McCain campaign spent, and every candidate for House and Senate [in 2008]."

So all the usual rag-tag democracy-defending organizations are going to rise up against this. But we've also got friends in high places. The White House and Congressional Democrats have been quick to say that they won't let this decision go unanswered. But with the Senate unable to do anything important these days, it's hard to see how Congress is going to do much of anything about this.

On a final note, maybe you, reader, still think of yourself as a "moderate" and you generally say things like, "Oh, I dunno. Democrats are good on some things, and Republicans are good on some things. It probably evens out." Well, this moment provides a crystal clear contrast between the core values of the two major parties. Take a look at what leaders from each party are saying, and ask yourself if there really is a "middle ground" here.

Here is Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."

Yes, Mitch, for too long corporations have been deprived of their rights by the little people with their pesky laws!

And here is Democratic President Barack Obama:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Hey, if he keeps talking like that, in 2012 he'll face a Republican opponent with a $500 billion campaign!

------------------

*Answer: Roberts (Republican-appointed), Alito (R-appointed), Scalia (R-appointed), Thomas (R-appointed), and Kennedy (R-appointed) in majority opinion for corporatocracy. Stevens (R-appointed), Breyer (D-appointed), Ginsburg (D-appointed), Sotomayor (D-appointed) in minority opinion for democracy.

After Massachusetts

Well as feared, Coakley got Coakleyed.

There will be another Republican in the Senate to oppose health care reform and any other major progressive legislation. There will no longer be the magical "filibuster-proof" 60 Democrats in the Senate.

The thing is, I don't think it will matter all that much. Any bill the Democrats pass is still going to be as bad as the 41st most conservative (or 60th most progressive) Senator on any given issue. The difference is that that Senator will now be an actual Republican instead of a Republican dressed up like a Democrat.

Others have guessed, and I'm hopeful, that there could be a significant silver lining to this loss. The Democratic leadership in the Senate might just wake up and realize they need to play some hardball, use reconciliation, and pass health care reform and other important legislation with 51 votes. This could lead to a much better health care bill than we would have gotten otherwise. Think of it, the bill would only have to be as bad as the 49th most conservative Senator instead of the 41st most conservative Senator. That removes Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Bayh, Pryor--all the so-called Democrats who helped water down health care reform--from the equation.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a 59-member Democratic caucus with aggressive leadership than a 60-member caucus waiting around for perfect consensus on every issue while Republicans and lobbyists pick away at them.