We can wait until the next inevitable capitulation--anyone want to take bets on the Bush tax cut expiration deal?--or we can keep debating about what has already, predictably, happened. We can complain about the Tea Party, FOX News etc--but I confess to being bored by that discussion simply because, get over it, they are here and it doesn't advance OUR movement much to belittle adversaries.
Or--we can start to think about how to change the path we're on. Let's spend some energy on that.
Where I end up on this is where I've been for a long time: if we want to change the system, I think we have no alternative but to stop the system from humming along in its efficient obliteration of anything resembling a decent society.
It's not that hard to do--or at least to imagine a modest step: pick the 25 largest cities and recruit 2,000 people per city to engage in peaceful civil disobedience or acts of peaceful resistance, on the same day. I personally would commit to this.
We should not replicate the orchestrated, police-coordinated, police-approved protests that result in a few hours of inconvenience--a ballet that I have participated in. That has very little effect, though it makes one feel virtuous.
50,000 people out of a population of 300 million is not a lot.
50,000 people out of the tens of millions of people who do not have decent, full-time paying work is not a lot.
50,000 people out of the many millions who will suffer from the bi-partisan embrace of austerity at a time of growing social needs is not a lot.
50,000 people out of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have been maimed, physically or emotionally, in immoral and illegal wars is not a lot.
Of course, there are barriers to getting this done. I think the most significant barrier is NOT finding the people. The anger is deep, and the people are there.
But, we need some institutional backbone--not the least of which is some financial resources for the coordination and execution...you can't do this just on air and good will, IMHO.
But, the institutions that should make this happen are, at least to this point, unwilling to do so--for a whole host of reasons. Institutions are, well, institutional. In other words, the leaders of institutions are very leery of taking on something that actually might risk their institution--but might also, by the way, build an institution.
Okay, you don't think that's the best idea. No problem.
What is YOUR suggestion?
A few thoughts on debate--these are not rules.
1. I am not persuaded that the solution is electing better Democrats. I do not believe that comes first. But, if you think that is a strategy, by all means, lay out your plan.
2. I am not particularly interested in the obsession or focus on Obama because, as I've written, I don't think this is really about him, at the end of the day. But, if you do, by all means, let's hear what your view is.
3. I would add a small addition/caveat to #2: I was asked by a reporter yesterday whether I thought a primary against Obama was in order. I don't find that strategy particularly useful, as a long-term, movement-building exercise UNLESS the primary is explicitly about building a long-term movement i.e, drawing together the semblance of a progressive movement that holds together way beyond 2012. We don't have that today.