The Daily Dispatch

This is a repost of an article that I wrote in June of 2003. Events of the past week called it to mind.

“In each generation, with toil and tears, we have had to earn our heritage again. If we fail now, we shall have forgotten in abundance what we learned in hardship: that democracy rests on faith, that freedom asks more than it gives, and that the judgment of God is harshest on those who are most favored.

“If we succeed, it will not be because of what we have, but it will be because of what we are; not because of what we own, but, rather because of what we believe. For we are a nation of believers.”

– Inaugural Speech of Lyndon Baines Johnson, January 1965

For many years I would fly an American flag at my home on every day that weather permitted. From my earliest recollection it has represented something very deep and spiritual to me. It has represented unity.

At first, it was the unity of national identity – my tribe. In Oreana, Illinois, USA the tribe’s members were typically native midwestern, Anglo and Christian, but I had the sense very early that there was a bigger tribe. I was taught that America was a big place where all kinds of people came from all over the world. E Pluribus Unum – “From the Many, One.” What made us “one” people? Why did so many folks come from so far away and endure such hardship? They did it because they wanted to be free. So, sometime during grade school the flag began to represent freedom.

As I grew a little older, I began to learn that freedom is relative. I remember seeing Norman Rockwell’s depiction of “The Four Freedoms” – freedom from fear, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom from want. Growing up in the 1960s, it was easy to sense that some people living among us weren’t completely free. The ideal wasn’t being fully expressed and experienced yet. We had to keep working for it. This was only right and just and our duty as Americans. So the flag began to represent justice.

When I was 11 we moved to Decatur and I still recited dutifully with my hand over my heart every morning in home room – “with liberty and justice for all.” The flag was so beautiful. It embodied the most noble and desperate longings of humankind, and it belonged to me. It belonged to all of us at Stephen Decatur High School. It belonged to the Blacks and the Italians and the Greek girls who came to school with ashes on their foreheads at the beginning of Lent. It belonged to my history teacher, who was Jewish. It belonged to every creed and race, even us mutts of generic European extraction. It belonged to us all. The ideal belonged to us all. The dream belonged to every one of us, and we belonged to each other. One tribe out of many. E Pluribus Unum.

Now that I’m older, I realize how naïve some of my perceptions may have been about our distance from the ideal. The truth is that for many people in our society the words “liberty and justice for all” have sometimes been akin to a cruel joke. Despite that, I’ve never once doubted the ideal itself.

People used to poke fun at me for flying my flag all the time. “What’s up with the flag? It’s not a holiday today.” Then it seemed as if overnight that changed. Suddenly, there were flags everywhere. Stores were sold out of flags that had collected dust for years. People put flag decals on their cars and taped newsprint flags to their windows.

I’d like to fly my flag along with the others, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean the same thing to me as it does to most of the people waving it so frantically these days. In fact, the sentiment expressed by many is like some dark, shadow version of my American Ideal. It’s full of anger and revenge and political partisanship blended with no small measure of religious and racial bigotry. My flag isn’t like that. My flag isn’t about hatred or fear.

I worry about my flag and my country. The America we live in today seems so different from the America of my enduring imagination. I wonder if that America will survive this age of abundance. We’re obviously at a crossroads, at a time both of great opportunity and grave danger, and may well look back on this decade as a defining moment for generations to come.

I don’t know how well my generation will stand the test of “toil and tears” required to earn our heritage. I do know that what we have and what we own, our military and economic hegemony, these things will inevitably pass. What we are, what we stand for – unity, freedom, justice – these ideals will last.

Can we become, finally and truly, “a nation of believers?”

Having vowed that I would not vote for President Obama again after he went back on his word and signed the NDAA, I have been a man without a party for much of the year. I’ve examined all of the candidates who are on the ballot here in Illinois (and several who are not). After months of thoughtful and prayerful consideration, I’ll be voting for the Green Party ticket of Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala on November 6th.

Here’s why.

The Greens’ platform, which focuses on democracy, social justice and sustainability, reflects my deepest values and concerns. It does that better than any other party on the ballot in Illinois. Also, the Greens have a record, both in the United States and worldwide, of putting these values into action when elected. I agree with what they propose, and I trust them to hold with it once in office.

The Greens are here to stay. The Republicans and Democrats do their best to keep a lock on ballot access throughout the United States. As a result, it is difficult for other parties (whether on the left or the right) to maintain a national presence over time. The U.S. Greens have continued to grow since first winning local races in Wisconsin back in 1986. They have contested the Presidency since 1996, and as a voluntary confederacy of state parties, they continue to build from the ground up. It seems to me that this is the only way to effectively challenge the powers that be over the long term.

The Greens are worldwide. The most serious problems we face in this age are not peculiar to the Unites States. In fact, I believe that our very existence as a species on this planet depends on organizing and working in solidarity internationally. The Greens are well established in Europe and Canada, and are gaining a foothold in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and throughout the Americas. Their call to “think globally and act locally” seems a practical approach to finding and implementing solutions.

My vote for the Greens can make a difference. Michael Harrington once remarked that the Democratic Party is “the left wing of reality” in the United States. Forty years later, one might well say the same thing of the Greens. I have no illusions that Stein will be elected President in 2012, but I do believe that helping the Green Party reach the threshold that offers them likely ballot access in future elections is the one cause where my vote will actually make a difference.

I’ve not yet decided to formally join the Green Party of Illinois. I plan to continue to learn more about their activities and organization over the coming months, as I’m doing with a lot of leftist and left-leaning groups at this point. I’d also like to see where leadership emerges and consensus develops on the left as the global political and economic crisis unfolds.

I know that my decision to cast my vote for the Greens this year will draw some criticism, particularly from my erstwhile colleagues in the Democratic Party, who will say that a vote for anyone other than President Obama is, in effect, a vote for Romney. To them, I simply reply that if Obama can’t win Illinois without my vote, then his candidacy is already doomed.

I also know quite a few Illinois Socialists who are still stinging from the Green Party’s challenge to their ballot petitions this year, and who may be sore at me for giving the Greens my support. Still other friends believe that participating in the electoral process at all only serves to support a decadent system that is at the root of most of our troubles to begin with. All I can say in response is that old habits die hard. I just can’t fathom staying away from the polls, or casting a write-in vote that won’t be counted.

A Fellow Worker that I once knew was fond of musing “If all of the people who say they wish there was a viable alternative would vote for an alternative, it would be viable.” My conscience tells me to put that sentiment into practice this year.

Some words become so overused or misused that they become practically meaningless. “Fascist” seems to be one of those words. If you perform a Web search, you’ll discover nearly twenty-million results, ranging from historical information relating to the Fascist governments of Italy, Germany and others during the first half of the Twentieth Century, to current wild-eyed conspiracy theory, to polemics on the right condemning “eco-fascists,” “feminazis” and such.

I’ve posted some thoughts and resources about this subject here in the past. I believe that Fascist tendencies are real (and perhaps even ascendent) in American political life today. The threat they pose to justice and freedom cannot be overstated. Therefore, it is important to understand what Fascism really is, to recognize it when one sees it, and to oppose it with all of our will and resources.

First of all, here is what Fascism is not. Fascism is not simply any ideology that seeks to pressure or coerce or impose compliance. It is not ever a leftist, or Liberal ideology. Fascism should not be conflated with authoritarianism (although authoritarianism is certainly a central aspect). Fascism does not merely mean oppression, intolerance, bullying or totalitarianism.

George Orwell addressed these misuses of the term in 1944, noting that he had heard it applied to Conservatives, Socialists, Communists, Catholics, fox hunters, bull fighting, shopkeepers, Olympic Committees and others. He also made note of the central issue in defining Fascism. “It is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.”

What is Fascism, really? Mirriam-Webster defines Fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

So Fascism is, first and foremost, nationalistic in the extreme. It is also racist, authoritarian, regimented and coercive. Fascism stands opposed to liberty, equality and international solidarity – the classic hallmarks of Liberal Democracy (and the ideals of The Enlightenment).

Laurence W. Britt did a thorough study of Fascist regimes for a novel he wrote about right-wing extremists coming to power in the United States. He outlined the fourteen common characteristics of Fascism in Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. I would encourage you to read the entire article as published in Free Enquiry. Here are the bullet points.

• Powerful and Continuing Expressions of Nationalism
• Disdain for the Importance of Human Rights
• Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
• The Supremacy of the Military/Avid Militarism
• Rampant Sexism
• A Controlled Mass Media
• Obsession with National Security
• Religion and Ruling Elite Tied Together
• Power of Corporations Protected
• Power of Labor Suppressed or Eliminated
• Disdain and Suppression of Intellectuals and the Arts
• Obsession with Crime and Punishment
• Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
• Fraudulent Elections

Here is how I summarized the basic framework of Fascism in an earlier post.

• The core Fascist values are nationalism, Anti-Marxism, and a profound disgust for Liberal Democracy.

• Fascists glorify the past, before the country was “debased” by foreigners, homosexuals, minority religions and the like. Fascists see themselves as a reaction to those who are a threat to “our way of life,” and they identify (and attack, sometimes literally) these scapegoats.

• The movement (and the state) is organized around corporatism and largely serves corporate interests.

• Violence against external and internal “enemies” is encouraged to the point of glorification. Wars, torture, executions, assassinations and the use of excessive force by the police are welcomed in the battle to “protect us.” There is an obsession with militarism, and likewise with crime and punishment. There is a flexible attitude toward basic human rights and the rule of law, if infringements are seen as helping the cause.

• There is utter disdain for (and there are attacks made on) labor unions, intellectuals and the arts.

What can we do to fight against Fascism? As is the case with so many issues in life, the first step is to recognize the problem. It’s important that we see things for what they are, and call them by their proper names. When we see people coalescing around a nationalistic philosophy which denigrates the arts and intellect, which glorifies militarism, which uses religion to justify discrimination against homosexuals and Muslims, which seeks to scapegoat immigrants and the poor, which attacks organized labor, which serves the wealthy and the corporations – that is Fascism, plain and simple. We should call it that, and we should debunk the oft-asserted notion that such a philosophy is equally valid to others. The history of the last century has shown us again and again what happens when this insidious ideology is allowed to take root.

We should also miss no opportunity to stand up for freedom, equality and solidarity. We must support those who are the victims of Fascist rhetoric. This means speaking up for human rights, equality and justice for all – for homosexuals, for immigrants, for minority religions, for the captives in our burgeoning prison system, for the poor and the dispossessed. We must support our labor unions when they come under attack in the name of “fiscal restraint” and must guard against the infringement of the right to organize. We must defend and support artists and intellectuals, in both the marketplace and in academia. We must oppose the idea that uninformed opinions and specious arguments are valid and are equal with fact-based, well informed and well reasoned ones. We must boycott and otherwise oppose the moneyed and corporate interests in favor of the small, the local and the economically oppressed.

Perhaps more than anything else, we must gather together with others of good will in our local communities to build relationships of trust and commitment, dedicated to the values and practice of democracy, justice and cooperation.

If this sounds like a tall order, that’s because it is. I have come to believe that it is now a matter of survival, not just for our liberties, but for human life on the good Earth.

James Waterman Wise once said that Fascism would come to America “wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of The Constitution.” It would appear that such an ideology  has, indeed, come – and very much as he predicted.

Shall we stand up?

★ ★ ★

More Reading:

Fascism, Anyone? - Laurence W. Britt, Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

What is Fascism? – George Orwell, London Tribune, 1944

Quotes on Fascism – Wikiquote

The Menace of Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It – Ted Grant, Oswald Mosley – Revolutionary Communist Party Pamphlet, 1948

I have been a Democrat most of my life. Not once have I voted for a Republican candidate for President, and very seldom have I voted anything other than a straight D punch. There have been a few times that I may have felt it necessary to hold my nose while voting, but I “did my duty” and cast my vote for the Party if not the individual.

My sister calls me a “Dyed-in-the-Wool Democrat.” I have preferred the term “Yellow Dog Democrat” – meaning that if a yellow dog was running on the Democratic ticket, I’d have been inclined to vote for him.

But not this year. Here’s why.

On the national level, both parties have become so corrupted by the influence of big money that it’s impossible to trust either of them to do what’s right. For example, the healthcare reform bill that was signed into law by President Obama in 2010 was a massive gift to the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies, having been largely shaped and molded by their lobbying efforts. If one of the defining achievements of the Democrats under Obama’s leadership is so tainted, how can one have faith in the rest of their policies? I won’t even start on the cozy relationship between the Obama Administration and the banksters, the revolving door between the government and Monsanto, the extrajudicial execution of American citizens, the codifying into law of indefinite detention. This is what the Democrats have to offer. None of it is acceptable to me.

Yes. Yes, I know. Of course the Republicans “are worse” – both in measure and in kind. So have we come to a lesser of two evils as default? Is that truly the only choice left to us?

Let’s turn to the local level. In my state, Democratic governor Pat Quinn has announced his intention to make deep cuts in Medicaid and human services and in the state’s pension programs. The result of these cuts will be increased misery for working people, children, the poor and the elderly. Protecting the most vulnerable among us from the ravages of poverty, and ensuring that there are opportunities for everyone in our society to advance in life is at the very core of what it has meant to be a Democrat for nearly a century. It is painfully evident that such is no longer the case.

Yes. Yes, I know. “Somebody has to make these hard choices. Somebody has to be the grownup in the room. Somebody has to deal with these shortfalls.” Again, of course the Republicans are worse. They offer no solutions, except even further cuts to essential programs, plus the prospects of further tax cuts that will make the problems even more acute. Does the obvious fact that the Republicans offer no viable alternative relieve the Dems of their obligation to offer principled solutions? I, for one, think not. How about ending giveaways to the Chicago Board of Trade, Sears, the Mercantile Exchange, et al, before we start hammering the piss out of the poor?

The examples cited above barely scratch the surface. To catalog the entire range of egregious sins of the Democrats in our day (both nationally and locally) would take more time than I care to offer, and I suspect that I’m boring you already.

It should be noted that I do not come happily to a decision to leave my Party this year. I was an early and ardent supporter of President Obama (and I still hope against hope that he will surprise us in a second term and lead us beyond the rocky ground). I was the coordinator in my county for Governor Quinn’s election campaign last time (though I now fear that he is beyond redemption). I still serve as treasurer of the Coles County Democratic Party, and plan to complete my term (a few more weeks). I wish the Democrats every success. I cannot, however, support them with my vote nor my contributions until their conscience has been found.

In the meantime, I’m a man without a party. I will not vote in the Primary Election in Illinois this year for the first time since 1976. I have not yet decided whether to vote in the Fall of 2012. That will depend on whether or not there is a candidate and a platform outside of the two major parties that reflect my convictions.

Godspeed the day when we face better choices once again.

It is bewildering how many really smart, well-formed, progressive thinkers seem to have not yet achieved a critical shift in perception concerning the worldwide struggle for freedom and democracy.

Naomi Wolf recently wrote in The Guardian that Occupy needs to avoid getting “bogged down in consensus decision-making” and instead should focus on “media exposure, a clear message, smart soundbites, clearly stated demands, and, most importantly, tasked, empowered negotiators working on the inside in concert with mass disrupters applying pressure from without.” She cites some excellent examples of effective political advocacy from the past, including the work of Act Up in gaining fast-track approval for AIDS drugs that have since saved millions of lives.

This sort of “get to the point” criticism of the Occupy Movement has been raised from many quarters nearly ad nauseam since the very start – and it completely misses the point. Consensus decision-making is, in this movement, not a means to another end. It’s not about which method is most effective in building the movement or in achieving political goals. It is the goal.

Our current economic and governmental systems are pushing up against the natural physical limits of sustainability. They are, without a single solitary doubt, coming to an end – and quite soon, I think. The question is not whether the old order will fall, the question is what sort of new order will take its place.

As I see it, there are only two alternatives: slavery or community. Either we will drift increasingly toward a system that is dominated by ever more repressive governments at the service of multi-national corporations (that will continue to plunder and exploit until nothing is left), or we will find ways to create local, self-governing, non-coercive associations where people willingly work together to ensure that everyone has the basic necessities of life and the opportunity to develop their true human potential.

The Occupy Movement is creating and demonstrating that model. Making decisions by consensus is the entire point. If that process is abandoned for the sake of “efficiency” – or even “effectiveness” – the battle will have already been lost.

It is a waste of precious time and energy to tinker around at the edges in a quest for political influence over systems that are already crumbling. It is time to create the new society within the shell of the old.

The “leaderless movement” is leading the way.