Taking the Tea Party Indoors

Posted on November 4, 2010 by David S. Meyer

It was an extremely crappy election for Democrats.  The 60 seat loss (thus far) in the House is historic, but it’s not all.  Democrats lost seats in the Senate and across the states.   You may be able to find the crazy optimist sifting through the crap and hoping to find a pony, but not here.

But bad news for the Democrats isn’t necessarily good news for the Tea Party movement,  and you’ll certainly remember the triumphalist (and mistaken) rhetoric that followed big elections in, oh, 1992, 1994, and 2008–to name just a few.  History hasn’t ended.

In trying to explain the most recent historic rout, politicians and pundits think more about the present.  Republicans say that the public rejected President Obama’s policies on health care, or the environment, or the deficit, emphasizing what they want to work on in the future.  Democrats chastise the president for being too bold or not bold enough, or just not working enough on communicating effectively.  (I don’t think you can really outcommunicate 9.5% unemployment.)

Current recriminations offer a useful take on the dilemmas the Tea Party movement and the Republicans now face.  Organizer and author Marshall Ganz, writing in the Los Angeles Times, takes Obama to task for abandoning the movements that got him elected:

Obama and his team made three crucial choices that undermined the president’s transformational mission. First, he abandoned the bully pulpit of moral argument and public education. Next, he chose to lead with a politics of compromise rather than advocacy. And finally, he chose to demobilize the movement that elected him president. By shifting focus from a public ready to drive change — as in “yes we can” — he shifted the focus to himself and attempted to negotiate change from the inside, as in “yes I can.”…

… the president chose compromise rather than advocacy. Instead of speaking on behalf of a deeply distressed public, articulating clear positions to lead opinion and inspire public support, Obama seemed to think that by acting as a mediator, he could translate Washington dysfunction into legislative accomplishment…

Seeking reform from inside a system structured to resist change, Obama turned aside some of the most well-organized reform coalitions ever assembled — on the environment, workers’ rights, immigration and healthcare. He ignored the leverage that a radical flank robustly pursuing its goals could give a reform president — as organized labor empowered FDR’s New Deal or the civil rights movement empowered LBJ’s Voting Rights Act….

Finally, the president demobilized the widest, deepest and most effective grass-roots organization ever built to support a Democratic president.

I’m sure you’ve already heard arguments like this, as well as the opposite position, that Obama neglected compromise and the political center.  What I’m interested in here is Ganz’s implicit advice to the Tea Party: maintain a link to the movement at the grassroots.

Like the Democrats, however, the Republicans in Congress face competing pressures, and now that the election is past, there’s less pressure or incentive to rally around the “R.”  The dirty laundry is out on the front porch, and partisans are beating each other with it.

Republican senators are castigating Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina), and by implication, the Tea Party (particularly Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express), for saddling them with, uh, suboptimal candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Ken Buck–in races that Republicans could have won.  The leadership is visibly worrying about at least some of the Tea Partiers who have gotten in, notably Rand Paul, who endorses the foreign policy views of his dad–which would isolate the United States from international commitments–and have clearly isolated the Paul family from the Republican mainstream.

And in the House, Tea Party stalwart Michele Bachmann, founder of the Tea Party Caucus, has announced the she will seek a leadership position in the Republican Caucus.  Once the challenge is announced, there’s not really a winning position for the Party; either it rejects a visible symbol of the Tea Party–who raised and spent enormous amounts of money on like-minded candidates–or it puts a set of personalities and policies supported by a small, and very passionate, minority, at the center of its public agenda.  It’s hard to see that as a winning strategy.

The movements that inspire people to engage in politics often make for awkward and demanding allies after the votes are counted.  The Tea Partiers want at least some of what they worked for–just as Democrats who heard candidate Obama promise to close Guantanamo, end the wars, or lift don’t ask, don’t tell, expected him to deliver once in office.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is the (Tea) Party Over?

Posted on November 2, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Mostly, yes.  On election night, before any results come in, I feel confident in saying that the influence of the Tea Party as a mass movement peaked 6-8 weeks ago, with the end of the primary season. The Tea Party movement is one of the most attractive stories of the year: populist revolt against intrusive government, mobilizing previously dormant constituencies, and shaking up the political process.  It’s such an attractive story that it will be told over and over again, even if it’s only a (tiny) part of the truth.

Important elections came relatively early in the Tea Party’s development, confronting activists with the dilemmas Madison built into the Constitution.  Frequent elections, and lots of them at lots of levels, mean that there is almost always the promise of affecting influence by channeling your efforts through the electoral system.  Madison’s insight was that government became more stable when you brought conflict into it.

But that system, as Madison argued, promotes moderation.  Seeking majorities in single-member districts, candidates play to the center of the district (or state), and activists have to decide how much to compromise their ideals in pursuit of a victory.

Once elected, politicians have to compromise with others elected by different districts in order to get anything done.  At the grassroots, activists again have to come to terms with sacrificing purity for pragmatic gains on matters of policy.

In the primaries, where turnout is low and passion is a value, the Tea Party exercised serious influence.  A very passionate minority can sway such elections, and some of those Tea Party victors will win office tonight.   The Senate contests in Alaska, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Delaware were shaped by the Tea Party movement; you can credit or blame them for the results.

But this election is more about the recession and near 10 percent unemployment than anything else.  Political scientists using the simplest models were predicting massive Democratic losses in the House months ago, as Michael Wagner points out.  (Thanks to Maryann Barakso for the reference.)  The Tea Party offers a more colorful and contingent way of working through the election results tonight.  It’s just not as good an explanation.

The better the Republicans do tonight, the rougher it will be for the true Tea Partiers.  Most Republicans want to win elections, organize majorities, and make policy, and are willing to compromise to do it.  The Republican leadership has already promised to sell out the Tea Party in its Pledge to America.  They wanted to say something to the Tea Party, but avoid saying anything specific enough that it might fracture a broad electoral majority.  Predictably, it engendered ridicule from the Tea Party base.  As Erick Erickson blogged at Red State:

These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.

I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.

Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.

It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. I like the butter, not the Brussels sprouts. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.

The election of a few true believers will not change the Republican leadership, nor more significantly, the electoral and funding constituency any set of Republican leaders will continue to need.  They will have to take positions on divisive issues the Tea Party has mostly avoided, including the role of social conservatives (anathema to libertarians) and foreign policy (Rand Paul’s stance on Afghanistan isn’t notably different from his father’s, and that was a non-starter for the Republican mainstream).  A Republican leadership concerned about winning elections will gesture to the radicals in the Tea Party rhetorically, and tack toward the mainstream where there are more votes.  (Jacob Weisberg makes this case clearly at Slate.)

So what will the Tea Partiers do?  The Tea Partiers have never rallied behind a clear agenda–beyond stopping President Obama’s initiatives.  The closer the Republicans come to running something, the more they will have to move beyond opposition to an agenda–and every initiative has the potential of fracturing their coalition.  And at the grassroots–and in the Tea Party organizations, some will swallow hard and endorse the party.  Others will grow disaffected and go home.  Still others will take the issues they care most about and continue to push them.  It’s not that it won’t matter, but it won’t be much of a party.

(More to come.)

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Billions for Civility?

Posted on November 1, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Stephen Colbert proclaimed that Comedy Central’s weekend rally drew 6 billion participants.  He may believe this; he is not to be believed.  (In the same way, Rep. Michele Bachmann’s estimate of one million at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally shouldn’t be taken seriously.)

CBS News hired the same outfit that estimated Beck’s turnout at 87,000 to take aerial photos and count the crowds at Jon Stewart’s “Rally for Sanity.”  They came up with a count of 215,000.  (You can find methods and photos here; we discussed how these counts are done here.)

This doesn’t mean, however, that the Comedy Central fans are likely to be three times more effective than Beck’s fans from FOX.  A March isn’t a Movement.

I was surprised that so many people attended the Comedy Central rally.  Organizers picked a more difficult date (colder, and after school starts) and, because of the relatively tight time line,  had less of a chance to publicize their efforts and coordinate logistics–including transportation.

At the same time, Beck’s 9-12 rally-ers can sign onto an organization and an ongoing campaign.  Despite Glenn Beck’s claims otherwise, there was plenty of politics at the rally, with prominent Republicans featured in the program.

In contrast, nearly three times as many Americans went to see a Comedy Central performance.  The leaders explicitly rejected politics (although Jon Stewart railed against polemics and mass media coverage), and candidates for office didn’t appear at the mic.   Neither Stewart nor Colbert fronts a political organization, and attendees were left with little clear direction beyond a call to be civil.

Rob Kleidman, a veteran of many demonstrations and many comedy shows, attended the Comedy Central Rally, and posted in the comments section.  He reports a good show, but an older and whiter crowd than Stewart claimed.  Further, Rob says:

Aside from Stewart at one point asking us to vote, and Kid Rock asking us to ‘care,’ there was no call for action, no outcome.

I’m thinking that some good may come out of the rallies:  if one million people live more moral lives and restore honor, and another six billion work to promote tolerance and civility, life will be better for all of us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Moderates Rally for “Sanity”?

Posted on October 30, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Is it sane for “moderates” to take their politics outdoors?

The Comedy Central Rally on the Washington Mall, led by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, apparently outdrew (I’ve seen estimates of 200-250,000 participants) each of the previous three large Washington demonstrations (Glenn Beck’s march to Restore Honor; Freedom Works; and organized labor’s Rally for One Nation)– but numbers are always a matter of dispute.   But size isn’t all that matters anyway.  (See reports here, here, here, here, and here.)

First, was it really a rally for moderates?  To the extent Stewart and Colbert’s politics are visible, they skew left of center.  Although the planners tried to bring a diversified roster of performers and participants, the crowds in photos look different than those at Beck’s rallies.  The people were younger, no lawn chairs in sight, and the signs they carried were less colorful and more self-conscious [“this is a sign.”]

A host of left and other groups tried to piggyback on Comedy Central’s crowds to put out their own messages.  PETA was particularly visible, pushing soy milk.  Is this moderation?

Was there a political message?  When he’s on message, Stewart always claims to be a comedian, first and throughout, with obligations not to politics, but to entertainment.  He did devote a full show to an interview with President Obama this week, but his questions were neither confrontational or fawning.  (For a fawning example, find Stewart’s interview of Bruce Springsteen.)   Still, sometimes an earnest critique of mass media creeps through.  His closing speech was pretty clear, and its clear targets were not politicians of the left or right so much as mass media:

This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith, or people of activism, or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times…

The country’s 24-hour, politico, pundit, perpetual, panic conflict-inator did not cause our problems. But its existence makes solving them that much harder…If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.

It’s hard to think that most of the attendees are likely to vote for Republicans on Tuesday (but plenty of other people will), or that most are committed to politics in any kind of substantial way.  The rally was an event, not a movement, and it’s not clear whether it’s a part of anything larger beyond the comedians’ careers.

When do moderates march?  In general, people turn out to protest when they believe their efforts are both necessary and potentially useful.  This means some kind of intense concern.  For the passionate activist, this comes with the cause.  For the moderate, it comes with the circumstance; the middle sometimes comes out in response to threats.  When Nazis marched in Skokie, Illinois, in the late 1970s, they were far outnumbered by anti-Nazi demonstrators.  Contemporary Ku Klux Klan demonstrations also typically draw far more opponents than supporters; they respond to the provocation.

But the demonstrators at the health care town meetings last summer would tell a similar story, that they were stirred into aggressive activism by the threat of government-run health care.

Moderation is relative–of course.

What’s this all mean?  Glenn Beck claimed his purposes were only partly political, but he provided a venue for Republican candidates for office, and publicity for his various commercial enterprises.  Stewart/Colbert claim they are primarily entertainers, and their program featured more music and comedy than the typical Washington rally.  In both cases, the attendees received the speakers’ messages, but brought their own to bear to the event as well.  Beck’s people skewed right, and Stewart’s left.

The movement question is, as usual, whether the demonstration is an isolated event, or part of something larger.  Glenn Beck clearly is doing more politics.  I’m not sure that Stewart/Colbert will be, but that doesn’t mean that some of their fans won’t make more of the sanity campaign than their hosts will.

If any readers attended, please post your experiences, thoughts, in the comments section.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Constitution classes for Congress

Posted on October 30, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Another entry in our ongoing “if people only knew more, they would agree with me” series: Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, has announced that she will organize classes on the Constitution for the members of the next Congress.

Bachmann, like many many members of the House, has a law degree (Oral Roberts University), surely knows that most members encountered some instruction on the Constitution somewhere in their educations.  But maybe they haven’t had the right teachers.  Bachmann’s classes would be closed to the media, and the list of instructors would not be public.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

What Glenn Beck knows (part II)

Posted on October 29, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Again, it’s not American history.  Beck does know, however, that people like to find authorities who agree with them.  The fact that people who like what Glenn Beck, uh, teaches, can log onto Amazon and find real books (bound and printed paper!) that endorse and amplify those lessons only makes Beck more credible–to people who already believe him.

That W. Cleon Skousen’s books inspire little credence among professional historians, or that they are not published by reputable scholarly presses is of little concern.  Indeed, it makes a certain amount of sense: if there’s really a conspiracy to keep these truths from the general public, then why would we expect the (completely corrupted) professoriate to give them appropriate attention?

But the choice of authorities based on their political positions is hardly limited to Beck’s 9/12ers.

An animal rights activist once told me that scientists learned nothing from research using animals that they couldn’t have discovered without animal experimentation.  When I suggested that most working scientists (indeed, virtually all working biologists) would disagree with that statement, she responded: Henry Heimlich.

The inventor of the Heimlich maneuver indeed condemned animal research at one point in his life.  His authority outweighed that of other scientists because he agreed with the animal rights activists.  Indeed, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (which opposes animal experimentation) has given awards for “innovative medicine” in Heimlich’s name.  It also features a list of expert authorities on health, medicine, and nutrition, who will support PCRM’s political line on animals.  What makes them credible experts is not necessarily training, research, or publications; rather, it’s their political line.

Climate change doubters have to look very hard to find scientists who dispute the recognition that human activity has changed earth’s climate, and that these changes are serious and demand collective responses.  But they find and then promote them.  For years, this meant Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish journalist with a Ph.D. in political science (like Woodrow Wilson!) received extraordinary attention for his 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.  Opponents of the Kyoto agreement trotted Lomborg out to legitimate their opposition to global action on the environment.  Working climate scientists, however, tore the book apart, dismissing its claims and emphasizing the ignorance and deceptiveness of its author.

Lomborg, however, has come around, and now says he pretty much agrees with Al Gore.  His new book will call for a carbon tax and global action on climate change.  Climate change skeptics, long his allies, have dismissed his apparent flip on the science as a lack of courage.  To be sure, they have found others with academic credentials to support their position, but not working scientists

Dinosaur rides at the Creation Museum in Kentucky

The scientific landscape is even worse for critics of evolution.  The number of working biologists who doubt evolution is somewhat less than a handful.  The very very few prepared to stand for the science of “intelligent design” can stay extremely busy, and can reach an appreciative audience that eludes scientists worried about publishing journal articles and designing replicable experiments.  The most famous, Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has largely abandoned peer review science based on experiments to promote intelligent design.  His department has taken the highly unusual step (I’ve never seen such a thing before) of defending his academic freedom while disputing his views on its website.

Crusaders against childhood vaccinations have argued that the MMR vaccine increases the likelihood of autism in children.  A key plank in their platform was a published study in the Lancet by Andrew Wakefield in 1998, based on a study of twelve patients.  Over time, all of his coauthors withdrew their support for the paper.  In February 2010, the Lancet officially retracted the article, announcing that its findings were fundamentally deceptive.  Other journals followed, retracting two other papers by Wakefield.  The UK’s General Medical Council also investigated Wakefield, and found his research and practice to be dishonest and irresponsible, striking his name from the medical register in Britain.

But Talk about Curing Autism, an activist group in the United States, continues to endorse Wakefield’s science, and is currently promoting his current book tour.

The main point is a disturbing one: people seek out authorities to endorse their views, trumpeting their credentials and research only when it supports what they want to say.

Are we all like this?  Think about the experts you decided to trust on the last controversial issue you cared about.  How about the last time an expert’s opinion changed your mind on something important?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

What Glenn Beck knows

Posted on October 28, 2010 by David S. Meyer

It’s not what he says he knows: American history or the  Constitution.  The factual errors in his history lessons appear routinely, draw criticism or correction, and then vanish into the ether.  They don’t appear to bother him, audience, or his employers.   Beck’s fans support the sentiments underneath his interpretations of history or the Constitution, and his critics emphasize his ignorance.

After all, although Glenn Beck claims to understand something deep about American life, does he really hold himself up as a scholar of the Constitution or America’s past?  A college dropout, Beck has been working too hard to develop much expertise in anything beyond cultivating an audience.  Aside from his television and radio shows, he endorses products, films commercials, and is constantly on the road giving speeches.  Before emerging as a busy star, he was a busy journeyman on the radio.  He’s spent so much time talking that he really hasn’t had the time to develop a command of the events of American history or the scholarship on judicial interpretation.  In some ways, just what he says doesn’t seem to matter.

The Princeton historian Sean Wilentz shows otherwise in a recent article in The New Yorker. Wilentz takes what Beck says more seriously, apparently, than Beck himself does, and traces the rants against government, taxation, Progressivism, and his easy (and completely ahistorical) association of Communism and Fascism, to the John Birch Society.  Founded by candymaker Robert Welch in 1958, the Birch Society dominated discourse on the loony right after Senator Joe McCarthy’s dramatic decline.  Welch saw President Eisenhower as every bit as dangerous as familiar conservative bogeymen like Franklin Roosevelt.

The most significant difference between Beck and Welch, according to Wilentz, is the reaction of a group of very conservative Republicans.  Led by National Review editor William F. Buckley, hardly a moderate, a respectable right condemned the Birchers, and worked to keep them insulated from any legitimacy or influence.  Perhaps they were motivated by the pragmatic politics of avoiding guilt by association, or perhaps it was some sort of moral commitment to telling the truth, but the conservatives condemned their lunatic fringe.  Years later, President Ronald Reagan recognized their political value, but still kept them out of the policy process.

Wilentz also looks at Beck’s academic inspiration, Willard Cleon Skousen, whose book, The 5,000 Year Leap, jumped onto Amazon’s best seller list when Beck promoted it.  Skousen was an activist, author, police chief (Salt Lake City), one-time FBI agent, and briefly, a professor at Brigham Young University.  Skousen argued that the Founders were divinely inspired, and rooted the Constitution firmly in the Bible.  Wilentz writes:

“The 5,000 Year Leap” is not a fervid book. Instead, it is calmly, ingratiatingly misleading. Skousen quotes various eighteenth-century patriots on the evils of what Samuel Adams, in 1768, called “the Utopian schemes of leveling,” which Skousen equates with redistribution of wealth. But he does not mention the Founders’ endorsement of taxing the rich to support the general welfare. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote approvingly in 1811 of having federal taxes (then limited to tariffs) fall solely on the wealthy, which meant that “the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”

Skousen also challenges the separation of church and state, asserting that “the Founders were not indulging in any idle gesture when they adopted the motto ‘In God We Trust.’ ” In reality, the motto that came out of the Constitutional Convention was “E Pluribus Unum”: out of many, one. “In God We Trust” came much later; its use on coins was first permitted in 1864, and only in 1955, at the height of the Cold War, did Congress mandate that it appear on all currency. The following year, President Eisenhower—who Welch charged was a Communist agent—approved “In God We Trust” as the national motto.

Skousen, like Beck, traces America’s decline to Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism.  For his views, Skousen was criticized not only by historians (understandably dismissive of his work) but also conservatives and mainstream Republicans, purged by ultraconservative groups, and condemned by the President of the Mormon church.

At Slate, historian David Greenberg elaborates on the current conservative fixation with Woodrow Wilson, a president no one is eager to defend, much less claim.  Greenberg identifies other, extremely marginal, academics who inform (odd verb in this context) Beck’s worldview.

Using the chalkboard and a few odd (very odd) texts on television, Beck offers what passes as an intellectual undergirding of his positions.  Professional historians, like Wilentz and Greenberg, understand the interpretive leaps that Beck’s sources make.  They care about looking at documents, evaluating evidence, and consulting existing scholarship.

Beck, and at least some of his audience, are not similarly encumbered.  What Glenn Beck knows is that they don’t have to be in order to exercise political influence.  In tough times, a good story, well-told, reinforces and sharpens the frustration people feel, and identifies villains and heroes.  It builds an audience, and even a following, for Beck himself.

But how stable is it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook

Posted on October 25, 2010 by David S. Meyer

I wish that line was mine, but it’s not.  Caroline Lee, skeptical about the potential impact of of social media on democracy in general and social movements specifically, offered the summary evaluation–along with some observations.

The question is whether all of the ostensibly lively action on the web actually translates into real politics.   We’ve talked about this before–and before.  Do our friends or followers online really care about us and what we think?  How strong are virtual ties?

I think the problem is that analysts confuse a form of communication with some kind of idealized social connection.

Online media are great at projecting a message to people we already know, but getting them to agree with you–or, even more, take some action, usually requires a little more effort than posting.  Our friends can block (technically or psychologically) some of our communications.  They might disagree, or they might just have better things to do.  The problem is thinking that posting a note about an issue or an event frees us of the need to do all that other organizing work.  A Facebook post works better if it’s followed by a phone call or visit.  The trap is getting a vicarious thrill and sense of participation by posting your analysis–and letting it go at that.  I certainly am not convinced that the one million people on FB who say they believe taxes are too high or gay marriage is good or any of a hundred other groups…matters in some substantial way.

At the same time, online media offer the promise of more unfiltered communication, achieved more easily.  Liu Xiaobo’s petition was online, but generated sufficient visibility to provoke the Chinese government’s crackdown–and win a Nobel prize.  Vaclav Havel’s Charter 77 was on paper.

Before the Soviet Union fell, activists there and in Eastern Europe practiced politics by circulating samizdat literature, hand-to-hand, in dense networks based on trust.  The same arguments can reach broader audiences more quickly now, albeit with less in the way of trust or personal connections.  Important action followed the efforts of authorities in cracking down or crushing these arguments and activists.

The Tea Party or Moveon.org can organize online, raising money and distributing information broadly–and relatively cheaply.  Getting people to do more requires more work.

And the challenge: getting a message to stand out from all the clutter in our inboxes, provoke attention and inspire action.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Strikes in France

Posted on October 21, 2010 by David S. Meyer

French citizens are taking to the streets in response to large cuts in social spending, most notably, an increase in the retirement age from 60 to 62.  Nicolas Sarkozy, like leaders in most of Europe, has pressed for these cuts as a response to both the recession and budget deficits.

And, as they have before, the French people are protesting in dramatic events, often organized by the large labor unions.  In contrast to the generational resentment brewing in the United States, young people have been aggressive in protesting against the hike in retirement age; they say they want French seniors to retire and open jobs for the next generation.

Sixty-two, you’ll note, is the age at which Americans can retire and collect reduced Social Security benefits; the top level of benefits is available to Americans who retire at 70.  And we know that life expectancy in the United States is about 2.5 years less than in France.  But American seniors haven’t taken to the streets to advocate for themselves–at least not yet.  Meanwhile, municipal workers in France have gone on strike; public transit has shut down and garbage is piling up in French cities.

French youth protest against hiking the retirement age

Oddly, the French seniors have both a greater sense of entitlement and far less meaningful political access than their counterparts in the United States.  American seniors, represented by very large and powerful groups like the AARP, protect what they have (especially Social Security and Medicare) throughvoting, campaign contributions, and lobbying.  For the most part, the Americans don’t build broad alliances with youth or labor.

The whole system of interest groups makes reform in the United States exceptionally difficult; it’s far easier to stop something–anything–from happening than to promote policy change.  And we don’t see those large and disruptive strikes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A March is not a Movement

Posted on October 19, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Fifteen years after the Million Man March, it’s hard to find any kind of substantial effect.  At The Root, Jon Jeter writes that Black community is more divided than it was in 1995, and that, as a group, Black men are doing worse.  Although he doesn’t provide much in the way of numbers, he could point to unemployment, income, college attendance, and incarceration rates, and make the case in frightful detail.  (Jeter also discussed his column on NPR’s Talk of the Nation.)

In retrospect, the controversies surrounding the Million Man March–and its initiator, Minister Louis Farrakhan, seem ridiculously overblown.  Among other things, Farrakhan preached self-help, and the march ended with a call for Black men to return to their communities and do better.  You could spend a lot of time searching for a political program there, as I–and others did–and not find one.  In a way, the march was a replacement for politics rather than a call to collective action.

Farrakhan’s relations with the political leadership of the black community were erratic at best.  His march was an event, not clearly connected to any kind of political program, nor to any coordinated campaign of collective action before or afterward.

A contrast with the 1963 March on Washington is telling.  The large demonstration, sponsored by several competing organizations, expressed many clear demands on government (you can see some in the photo).  Indeed, the organizers argued about just what those demands would be.  More significantly, the March on Washington was a dramatic punctuation mark in a much longer series of campaigns, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott (started in 1955), the Freedom Rides (of the early 1960s), SNCC’s sit-in campaign, started in 1960, and Freedom Summer (1964).  Other activists lobbied members of Congress, filed lawsuits, and generally mobilized supporters of civil rights across the country.  The large demonstration mattered to the extent it was embedded in something much larger.

But the Million Man March was not unique.  The Promisekeepers, a Christian conservative group, staged a large demonstration on the National Mall in 1997, calling on men to “stand in the gap,” and provide moral leadership for their families and for their country.  Very much like the Million Man March, men left the event feeling inspired and empowered, and no clear politics emerged.  (To be sure, conservative social movements continued, but the Promisekeepers were not a big part of them.)

So, what are we to make of Glenn Beck’s 9-12 March in August?  Although Beck hasn’t shied from political pronouncements, he has been clear that he is NOT a Tea Partier, and that his ambitions are different–and broader–than political change.   the 9 principles and 12 values offered as the core of Beck’s campaign embed expressions of limited government in a much larger web of religious and generic patriotic sentiments.  If this is all they do, it’s hard to imagine an impact greater than the Million Man March or the Promisekeepers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment