Transactional vs. Transformational
By Nicole Belle Friday Feb 29, 2008 6:01pmRep. Eric Schneiderman on Transforming the Liberal Checklist. A good primer for all of us who are interested in furthering a movement, however, I think it also provides some insight as to why Barack Obama's campaign has swept up so many new voters and independent voters and surprised so many election prognosticators:
I respectfully suggest that if we want to move beyond short- term efforts to slow down the bone-crushing machinery of the contemporary conservative movement and begin to build a meaningful movement of our own, we need to expand the job descriptions of our elected officials. To do this, we must consider the two distinct aspects of our work: transactional politics and transformational politics.
Transactional politics is pretty straightforward. What's the best deal I can get on a gun-control or immigration-reform bill during this year's legislative session? What do I have to do to elect a good progressive ally in November? Transactional politics requires us to be pragmatic about current realities and the state of public opinion. It's all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now.
Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on gun control or immigration reform in a year--or five years, or twenty years--will be better than the deal we can get today. Transformational politics requires us to challenge the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities. It requires us to root out the assumptions about politics or economics or human nature that prevent us from embracing policies that will make our lives better. Transformational politics has been a critical element of American political life since Lincoln was advocating his "oft expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion."
The need for a renewed focus on transformational politics is obvious when we compare the success of the conservative movement over the past thirty years with the collapse of the American progressive coalition. The important thing about contemporary conservatives is not just that they won elections--it's how they won. They didn't win by changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters--or where polls told them the voters were. They won by moving the voters closer to them, paving the way for the last decade of conservative hegemony.
Login or Register to post comments.
ain't it just more verbal hokus pokus?
Well at least somebody's read I'm Okay You're Okay.
It would help if elected officials weren't so corrupt. Nothing can be transformed if the corporations have the country by the throat.
And in the end convervatism imploded because all that "transformational" stuff turned out to be empty rhetoric.
You know, "just words."
anyone else experiencing an awful slowdown here?
i've notified site monitors, just in case...
Why does this guy fail to mention and/or consider the effects of the MSM? The conservative movement would not be where it’s at today without the MSM. Why are people afraid to call themselves Liberals and have to resort to calling themselves Progressives? Because the MSM has denigrated the meaning of the word liberal. Thank God for blogs or we would have never made it this far. When the MSM is held accountable, change will inevitably follow. The MSM has been a conservative tool for years. But as with all conservative agendas, they are in the process of collapsing. We can thank the blogs for that because that is where the power to transform lies.
I like to quote Mr T: All i hear is jibba Jabba.
Biff Limbaugh @ 1:
No, I don't think it is. Think about the contrast between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton is clearly a transactional (i.e., old school) politician. She's big on giving policies in her speeches, emphasizing her experience. Barack Obama is a transformational politician. He's selling a movement, challenging people to believe in bigger things than specific policies.
There's nothing wrong with either approach, per se. But Obama is clearly resonating more with voters. I suspect because after the last seven years we're all so tired of politics as usual. We want a new way of looking at things. Funnily enough, the more popular Obama is becoming the more entrenched in old style politics (going negative, etc.) Clinton is going. And that is EXACTLY the wrong response for her to make.
Nicole are you and Eric Schneiderman trying to say that congress, the courts, Republicans and Democrats are not part of a world wide conspiracy to push all power to the giant corporations and in-slave the masses? According to the comments on this and most other "progressive" blogs it's to late. The only way to save the United States and the World is to burn this government down and start over. I guess I am not a brainwashed fool of the corporate media and dupe to believe there is some hope we can overcome without massive bloodshed.
It's a good piece. I'd also recommend Digby's post on it:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/transformation-project
Biff Limbaugh @ 1:
No, it's short-term pragmatism combined with long-term vision. It requires us to be realistic in the moment, but unrelenting in pushing for something better. That includes letting the MSM and those who might be drawn to vote for Republicans know why they're voting against their own interests.
The idea that Edwards expressed earlier this week (in league with some of Obama's constituency earlier this week--the SEIU, MoveON.org, VoteVets, and some others) that the free-fall in our economy right now has some (*some,* I said, not all) antecedants in our ill-advised escapades in Iraq is one such example. There are connections, and the MSM ought to be hearing about them from us relentlessly.
To get a more easilly understandable version of "tranformationalism," go to the PBS website and watch last night's NOW. It's a half hour interview with Joe Trippi where he explains the difference between a top - down campaign (Clinton's) and a bottom - up campaign (Obama's). He calls Obama the first interactive candidate.
Nicole Belle @ 8:
I'd second everything you said, Nicole, except that someone could make the case that this has been going on since Reagan (and includes Bill Clinton's administration).
Peter G @ 2:
Yeah, Obama has...just add in a touch of "EST" and a smidgen of Dale Carnegie and there you have it.
I do agree with Schneiderman when he writes: "On every issue, with every group of activists, politicians who claim to be doing transformational work should be required to prove it."
Amen. Feet to fire.
Look, there's a big difference between transformational politics (read "policy") and transformational rhetoric. Obama's campaign is short (very short) on the former and built almost entirely on the latter. Neither his policy positions, nor Hillary's constitute anything close to "transformational".
Its style over substance...Pure American Pop Nincompoopery. P.T. Barnum was right.
Oh boy, was he.
HBO/ George Carlin / "It's BS and it's bad for you.."
Yes Katy @5 I am also experiencing a slowdown
you know i really wish that gun control was not one of the issues that I am apparently supposed to vote on. I am liberal and that includes gun ownership. I read the NYT article about this issue and it really makes me uncomfortable. It make me feel as if the people I am supporting are just waiting to go to town on this issue when many people don't feel that that should be part of the program. I lean left on every issue but this one. I think that is also a mistake for an election issue. On the other hand if that is the next step count me out. I would not vote for restrictions on gun ownership and I think that is a recipe for democratic losses in the general election. I can't think of a more devisive issue to bring up right now that would send the south republican.
Maybe i am wrong but I really think there are other issues and you will aleinate many voters with gun control. Now sueing manufactures for faulty products and so on go ahead. Saferguns full speed ahead. But no silly gun control lows they do not work and lose votes from people who would otherwise support changes for a better tommorrow. That is just my two cents.
You mean people are just figuring this out? Like, duh... And if Obama is elected the first comprise he makes, half his supporters will bail. As for transformational politics, check out the last 8 years of zero compromise. Sucks to be on the short end of that. Not sure that is necessarily good for America.
Maybe it's just me, but I never quite understood how someone can "transform, yet heed, public opinion". I guess it would entail some sort of set-up whereby the leader, let's call him Abe, listens to the people say "we want frisbees", acknowledges this desire for frisbees while, at the same time, using pressure groups and back channels to whisper to the general public that "frisbees are bad; y'all want fruit loops" until the people start yelling "we want fruit loops" and, at which point, he can agree with the people once again and pursue a pro-fruit loops agenda.
I think there have been plenty of examples throughout history where this sort of "transform, yet heed" ideology turned out bad.
Let me guess, the jaded ones, the "the world is already at an end" are Hillary fans. That is the under her appeal isn't it? The world sucks, might as well elect someone who understands that and "fights". Well I am tired of apocalyptic scenarios that only serve to entrench business-as-usual. If you want change, you have to engage in change. There really is not another option. Transformation is change. Transaction holds the ground (sometimes successfully, sometimes not [or as with the Congressional Democratic leadership most of the time not even when they have a majority). The condition of our environment, and a host of other issues not only require transformation, PRACTICAL broad-based transformation, but transformation soon. We can't fiddle while Rome burns here people. No one has even close to successfully argued that Hillary can provide the kind of catalysis needed to ignite and manage a transformational moment. In these times judgment and vision really do matter. And while we're talking, I'm getting more than a little sick of those cynical so-called progressives who would rather die believing they are right in a choking fog of pollutants than risk just their image, nothing more, to engage in transformation. Stopping being a lead weight and get off your collective butts. Use you imagination and your elbow grease. As Obama said, he is going to need us (and we will need each other) even more after he is elected President of the United States.
Zdenek @ 19:
History?Try the last 7 years.
Obama is none of those things. He is a great speaker, a polished package for his handlers behind the scenes -
handlers like Zbigniew Brzezinski...
one of the designers of the middle east policies we see today.
"The important thing about contemporary conservatives is not just that they won elections–it’s how they won. They didn’t win by changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters–or where polls told them the voters were. They won by moving the voters closer to them, paving the way for the last decade of conservative hegemony."
No, they won by cheating.
"It’s all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now."
Sorry, that's unnacceptable.
JMHO
Maybe we should try to take over the Republican Party istead of the Democratic Party. The GOP is a lot more disorganized right now, they might not see it coming.
CitizenZeus @ 20:
Of course we're "tired of apocalyptic scenarios" but the truth isn't ever pretty. Its going to get really bad really quick. All this "he is going to need us and we will need each other" stuff is about as meaningful, given that scenario, as "we are the ones we've been waiting for".
The times themselves will transform us as they did in 1896 and 1929. The question is, will there be an FDR to drag us out of the deep water? It takes more than an inspiration to do that. It was the circumstance that made it possible for FDR's charisma to sell the New Deal. The sad thing is, by any measure, Obama's politics (policies) doesn't measure up. Its Hillary in drag. Big Corn, clean coal and new nukes. That's not gonna cut it.
For full disclosure,I have already stated in past comments here that I will Not vote for president this year. I have no dog in this hunt. So,as an observer,there is an interesting dynamic with Obama supporters on one hand and the Clinton supporters on the other. And,another interesting dynamic is the campaign styles of each candidate which gives a window to how each would rule if elected.
RayC @ 9:
So, that would be 'transformational,' right?
Because it has ZERO chance as a series of transactions.
We need to free your mind instead.
Che's Lounge @ 23:
"Take half a loaf and come back for more" has been the watchphrase of the Congress for 220 years.
The entire gov't is a transactional interplay -- which is WHY we had a coup (they could not get all of what they want otherwise).
Paul in LA @ 27:
Good old Paul.Pontifiicating and telling US all how to think.
Scooter @ 24:
lol -- might work, but I'd rather sit back and watch the implosion.
Paul in LA @ 28:
I have no illusions. The electorate has been sufficiently manipulated into a state of terminal apathy.
And irrelevance.
Johnny2Bad @ 14:
You confuse 'campaigning' (getting people to support you) for transformation. "Rhetoric" is ALL a candidate has to offer, since without election there is no chance of 'transformation' along the line of the new representative.
Confusing Bush for an actual President is at this point HILARIOUS. If you don't know that the rightwing tried to take over the country AND FAILED, then you aren't paying attention.
The real issue is that a lot of generally INACTIVE whiners want transformation, and not getting it, they are prepared to hate everyone and anyone who fails to lead to their passive level of expectation.
Back in the day, Martin Luther King Jr. took TONS of anger (from actual working activists, and from the inert portion of the public) for being transactional, for dealing with LBJ. The results? Three civil rights bills, and our society transformed.
Was the transformation enough? Of course not. But the transaction was the ONLY way the transformation was going to come. What did Stokely Carmichael accomplish, by comparison, with his "Burn, Baby Burn" transformational argument?
David Hawes @ 29:
I am not a Pope, and you are no different.
Che's Lounge @ 31:
Defeatism is not transformational.
Paul in LA @ 34:
You kiss mirrors and your favorite speaker is your own voice. You're a clown.
David Hawes @ 36:
See, that's not an argument. It's piffle.
Transformational went from being a word we rarely hear to a boring cliche in no time. It's a meaningless, self-help Oprah-ish word. After all these years of phony Republican bullshit, people still want theatrics and manipulation. I don't get it. Enough with transformational.
Paul in LA @ 35:
Partisan politics is retardational.
No illusions here. We're in deep trouble. As long as the Feds keep shoveling paper into the markets every week and American Idol provides the smoke screen I suppose we might make it till Nov?
Truth B Told @ 22:
Obama isn't even the point, it's the grassroots that are supporting him which are the whole story. He's just smart enough -- AND TRANSFORMATIONAL ENOUGH -- to understand that.
Even so, he's trying to become an actual President. That requires a LOT of transactionalism. It may even require getting the support of someone like ZB. Because it's not election to a state of purity.
You underestimate your enemies, and turn your friends into enemies because you think they fail you. And then you sup on the positive resuts without any sense of shame.
L.A. Confidential @ 40:
We have ALWAYS been in deep trouble.
Che's Lounge @ 31:
Not sure if it's apathy, or working too damn hard to live. Besides, they don't need the electorate. Look at the eligible voting percentages. They claim a mandate with 51% of votes tallied, even though less than 50% voted cuz they were too damn busy trying to survive and had no time to vote.
ConcernedCanuck @ 39:
Yes, that's because there's no difference between the parties.
We've all heard that one. A real knee-slapper.
Paul in LA @ 44:
No that wasn't my point, but you are trying so valiantly to paint all things Dem, that you don't see it.
Paul in LA @ 42:
There's always Vegas or the Lottery right? The "New National Treasury".
Johnny2Bad @ 25:
Then what candidate will cut it, Johnny? Please do tell. You seem to be real short in solutions.
ConcernedCanuck @ 45:
If you think it is 'partisanship' to promote the Democratic party, you're fucking right. And 90% of anything worth anything in this country as a result of gov't has come from Democrats. Or from Republicans that the modern gang of traitors would never recognize (like TR's formation of the National Park System, which Republican L Ron Paul wants to dismantle and privatize), or, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, which Republicans like LRP now consider the cause of the Civil War.
ConcernedCanuck @ 43:
The actual facts -- as opposed to this claim of yours -- is that working poor turn out to vote in MUCH larger numbers than the lazy middle (and upper) class who do have time, and don't bother.
Their problem is getting their votes COUNTED, not in making the effort.
One of my friends keep pointing out to me that people stood in the snow for six hours in some Red State to vote for Obama. That blew his mind.
Paul in LA @ 48:
So what you are saying is that I am right, that the party really didn't mean anything in your examples. Right? And yet you blindly support because a D is beside Charles Manson's name. Nice Paul. Drink some more of that koolaid.
Paul in LA @ 49:
Nice that people stood in line for that long. In November see if you find the same stories. You won't. The recession will be pretty solid by then. I agree some people are lazy. I also know you don't know jackshit about why people don't vote. Try working at something like construction. You don't get time off to vote because you are too busy putting food on the table doing your average 12 hour routine. But you don't seem to grasp that. As Bush said "You have two jobs, how uniquely American isn't it?".....You as clueless as George?
I get it. This is how Barack Obama transformed Rezko's backyard into his own. I don't doubt that transformation is a great idea however we just have to be sure that the one speaking of transformation really can do it and means it. No one seems to have transformed Illinois politics into an honest condition yet.
I quite like this article. We do indeed need transformation, rather than transaction. The only transaction you can have with a relentless predator is to negotiate how few or how many of you are eaten. We need to transform the question: how few or how many predators do we allow to roam free?
cleo @ 52:
Barack does not have the power to singlehandedly change the landscape of Illinois politics, moreover, he is not involved in state politics any more. With our current idiot governor at the helm, you can bet nothing will change anytime soon.
Transactional? Transformational?
"One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions – what are you going to land on – one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics. Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you either love somebody or you hate them."
Word.
ConcernedCanuck @ 51:
How surprising that your prediction is negative.
In November, Obama will win by landslide, and the Democratic party will pick up something like 40 seats in the House.
You just keep picking your feet in Ontario, pretending that your defeatism is a better plan than my activism.
All that said, Schneidermann is wrong.
"They won by moving the voters closer to them, paving the way for the last decade of conservative hegemony."
The last decade of 'conservative' hegemony was paved with STOLEN ELECTIONS, death threats, and an endless stream of lies abetted by the lying press.
Nation-liberals are still trying to figure out what the grassroots realized five years ago, it seems.
Interesting, hardly new, but interesting. Without a doubt, the Conservative movement did well with transformational politics...only what they've worked to transform the country into is pretty f-ing scary.
Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish a real transformation is through serious people power. I'd like to use the term "grass roots", but when you say that, people picture the sexless, deathless, clipped into uniformity, and chemically sustained American lawn. Picture the grass roots as a stand of native prairie...that's what we're in need of. Perennial grasses, wild flowers, and annual "weeds" interacting with each other to form a mat of roots plunging 2 feet into rich, dark soil...so thick you can barely cut it.
We'll also have a hard time accomplishing such a feat of transformation with our current political system. Geographic representation is probably necessary, but we take it too far. It would be nice to see 50 Senators and some percentage of Representatives elected at large. In reality, your vote often doesn't count. Seats are made to be safe. Proportional representation would fix that. Note that in countries that use instant runoff voting and proportional representation, voter turnout regularly breaks 90%. Those systems also allow for smaller parties (and hence more ideas) to get a voice. European Greens never "win" much of anything, but the gain enough support that they must be listened to.
Finally (yes, an end to a long winded comment), if we don't want the corporations controlling our government then we'll first have to break their control of us. The consumer has the power to starve the beast, but do we have the will?
I'm sorry, sounds like a steaming pile of hocus pocus to me. Someone told me that BO is like the cute guy with typos in his resume, who doesn't have to work as hard but still gets the job over the woman who worked twice as hard and smarter. And that's just what it looks like to me too.
BRealistic @ 15:
carlins right! its all bullshit ,we dont have any rights !never did!we have a herd mentality in this country! the whole countrys headed towards a cliff and every swinging dick in this lash ups going over it! none of these goobers give a flying crap about you except for your vote! they are all corporation sluts this time next yr you all will be on here wondering what hit you in your mush , nothings going to change ! we will still be in iraq in afganistan , but thank god baseball players will think twice before they use steroids anymore!
I missed this article today,but I have to say that this is as important a piece as I've read online for quite sometime.I can't even begin to express the frustration I feel when it comes to Conservative framing and the pathetic dearth of conviction so painfully apparent on the Progressive side of the political equation.When oh when will Liberal politicians start truly standing up for what they supposedly believe in?Here we have the absolute worst Republican Presidency in history-in HISTORY-and yet the GOP is STILL successfully framing and controlling the outcome of vitally important issues.Issues that could very well spell the end of Democracy-such as it is-as we know it.It is well past the time for Liberals to stop God damned well shrinking away from the label.Liberals ARE AMERICA as far as I'm concerned.They represent every single thing I've ever admired about the USA.
Stand up and be counted you gutless Washington Pols.
Paul in LA @ 35:
Call it what you will. The MI complex and the MSM have become uncontrolled behemoths. If we try to take them down with any type of agenda that would result in their loss of power, they will kill us. From a historical perspective, 1968 was our last opportunity.
IMO the Dems are just as imperialistic and fascist as the dictators who executed the 2000 coup d etat you speak of. They will not be able to, or be willing to reverse the trends of the last 100 years (actually starting with the Spanish-American war). FDR was the last economically progressive leader we've had (? out of necessity), and they nearly took HIM down while he was in office. The Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations only perpetuated our international imperialist agenda, though they were not quite as brutal about it as the republicans (if you call vaporizing two Japanese cities less brutal). Even NAFTA was cloaked in progressive garb, but look what it has wrought on our economy. It has been a boon to the capitalists-until now.
Capitalism is failing this country big time. But I'm a firm believer in socioeconomic evolution as much as the biological type. Unfortunately we are going to go through some VERY difficult times before capitalism evolves into socialism. But it IS inevitable.
As long as we don't vaporize ourselves in the meantime.
Che's Lounge @ 62 "Call it what you will."
Great, because defeatism is what it is.
"The MI complex and the MSM have become uncontrolled behemoths."
Not. The military has been seriously damaged, and the MSM is completely disgraced. We will have the power in two years to start dismantling the MSM monopoly, and we now have unprecedented support from the military families themselves, who have finally had an UNDENIABLE object lesson in R deceit.
"If we try to take them down with any type of agenda that would result in their loss of power, they will kill us. From a historical perspective, 1968 was our last opportunity."
Defeatism, based on fear. Great! That will really motivate change.
"IMO the Dems are just as imperialistic and fascist as the dictators who executed the 2000 coup d etat you speak of."
There is very little to no evidence of that, unless you want to hang your hat on LBJ.
" FDR was the last economically progressive leader we've had (? out of necessity), and they nearly took HIM down while he was in office."
You, along with many others, over-idealize FDR.
"The Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations only perpetuated our international imperialist agenda, though they were not quite as brutal about it as the republicans (if you call vaporizing two Japanese cities less brutal)."
To call Truman's act "Democratic" is to lie to yourself. As for LBJ, he was a YELLOW DOG, which is a Republican who ran as a Democrat.
"Even NAFTA was cloaked in progressive garb, but look what it has wrought on our economy."
Democrats in general opposed NAFTA, we came within one vote of stopping CAFTA, and Dems are already putting NAFTA and CAFTA up for major revisions.
"Capitalism is failing this country big time."
REGULATED capitalism is the American form -- which is why Rapepublicans spent so much time breaking the regulations.
"Unfortunately we are going to go through some VERY difficult times before capitalism evolves into socialism. But it IS inevitable."
Dream fucking on. Your rhetoric drives you into a deadend.
The military has been seriously damaged, and the MSM is completely disgraced. We will have the power in two years to start dismantling the MSM monopoly, and we now have unprecedented support from the military families themselves, who have finally had an UNDENIABLE object lesson in R deceit.
We can discuss this again in two years - if it's still allowed. The military is as strong as ever from a leadership standpoint. And it only takes one or two crazed individuals to unleash hell on us.
To call Truman’s act “Democratic” is to lie to yourself. As for LBJ, he was a YELLOW DOG, which is a Republican who ran as a Democrat.
How convienient for you to disassociate him. I've not heard that arguement before. Novel. But in all fairness, I forgot JFK. But he paid the price, no? You really are naive.
Democrats in general opposed NAFTA, we came within one vote of stopping CAFTA, and Dems are already putting NAFTA and CAFTA up for major revisions
Yeah, missed it by THAT much, for the quadrillionth time. You see sincerity. I see a pattern.
REGULATED capitalism is the American form
Just as dead, though. Anyone know CPR? What's the number for 911?
You, along with many others, over-idealize FDR.
No, I simply point out that he brought us out of the Great Depression using socialized methods (WPA, etc). Nothing more -despite your presumptive opinion. It certainly wasn't regulated capitalism.
Your rhetoric drives you into a deadend
Evolution is not a deadend. It is a continuous process. You're entitled to your sarcastic opinions. But this site is populated by many critical thinkers. I'll let each decide for themselves.
Unlike you.
PIL,
You really should lighten up on those who debate you. I think standing on those street corners getting absolutely NOTHING accomplished has made you one angry SOB. Yet I fear that next time those APC's show up they won't back down. So far so good, as they have put enough fear into most people that there is no longer any significant street level resistance.
"The military is as strong as ever from a leadership standpoint. And it only takes one or two crazed individuals to unleash hell on us."
That has always been true, but it's not the case that the military is as strong as ever in leadership. You cannot take a volunteer force into a clusterfuck and preserve esprit d'corps. As for Congress, Warner is gone, and the idea of carrying on a major war is out the window, for a decade.
"How convienient for you to disassociate him."
LBJ would never have been elected as President, and never reelected without the assassination.
"But in all fairness, I forgot JFK. But he paid the price, no? You really are naive."
Naive is a clever little word. I lived through the Sixties; I remember its horrors plenty well.
"Yeah, missed it by THAT much, for the quadrillionth time. You see sincerity. I see a pattern."
The only way the R were able to pass CAFTA was by keeping the vote open for three hours, and directly threatening each vote Nay on their side, after midnight.
NAFTA was passed under Republican majorities in both Houses.
"No, I simply point out that he brought us out of the Great Depression using socialized methods (WPA, etc)."
WPA did not improve the economy -- it hurt it further. What it improved was the mood in the country. And FDR did NOT bring us out of the Depression -- WWII did that.
"You're entitled to your sarcastic opinions. But this site is populated by many critical thinkers."
It is not critical thinking to believe that socialism is on its way to the United States, except in the form of nationalized social programs, preferably with reduction of the capitalist control (insurance companies, etc.). It's a fantasy. The reason why I'm sarcastic about that statement of yours is that it is the reasoning you use to avoid countering your own defeatism and doing some WORK for change.
Che's Lounge @ 65 "I think standing on those street corners getting absolutely NOTHING accomplished has made you one angry SOB."
That's just more of your defeatism. My protest work accomplished quite a bit, in concert with many others. The police in Los Angeles were pushed back into line (with the help of lawsuits and a major scandal, along with change of police chief); the recall effort on Schw. almost made the ballot; Bush's crimes were protested publically (part of why Bush's approval in coastal California is ten percent); the rightwing was chased off the streets along with the pro-war idiots; I worked for two years on impeachment, which helped to shore up the Progressive resistance; and me and my fellow activists helped elect a loyal SecState in CA that has kicked Diebold and ES&S in the teeth (along with GOTV and efforts in Ohio and elsewhere that SoCal protesters did a lot to expose and correct.
What YOU did in the last seven years is more worthy of the title 'nothing.'
"Yet I fear that next time those APC's show up they won't back down. So far so good, as they have put enough fear into most people that there is no longer any significant street level resistance."
So live in fear. "Significant street level resistance" is not the source of change. Significant PROTEST is. If you think you can fight mano a mano with the military or the police you have odd ideas.
And, btw, Che, the idea that you with your expectation of DOOM are somehow less disturbed by events than I, with my activism and my anger, is quite the laugh. You predict we are doomed, doomed, doomed.
And then the anger of a protester looks out of line to you? At least I am not hopeless and justifying inactivity because 'socialism' has not popped out of the toaster as required by history.
Absolutely Transactional to Transitional. I believe there may be a third one as well. Perhaps it is implicit, but in many cases there is room for improvement. With that in mind perhaps a Tranformationalpolitics, if you will, could follow nicely and would be in order, after all, the work after the fact is as important as the work that lead up to the fact. "It’s all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now."
Transitional, Transactional, Transformational... ?
Jesus H Christ! The above comment, by yours truly, can and should be disregarded! It may be the wine talking! Sorry.
Maybe if I had written that the third "politics" could be "Transitional" I'd not seem so godawful drunk...
thepoetryman @ 69:
Transnational. Unless activists combine our efforts internationally, we cannot overcome the problems, much less the multinational corporate conspiracy that in many cases are racing to accomplish transformational goals instead of being forced into transaction with science, the resurrected Precautionary Principle, enlightened government, or social justice lawsuits under free courts.
[The precautionary principle states that when there is reasonable suspicion of harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action.]
"gun-control"
Um... that would be a just STFU.
Long before the white man came to this continent, the Iriquois nation would meet in council every four years and remake all their laws, as well as choose new leaders (guess where we got that idea). One of the most important considerations was the effect their choices would have for the next seven generations. THAT is transformational politics.
Transactional, transformational. Whew. What a collegiate way to say the Democrats need to get off their asses, grow a pair, and start serving the people with a little vision instead of grabbing hands with the Republicans and whoring for the corporations.
Paul in LA @ 71:
Paul IS the true King of verbal masterbation.
If you're going to use however in a sentence, you need to separate it from the clause it doesn't modify with a semicolon or an M-dash, or simply start a new sentence. I don't enjoy having to parse what you write in order to figure out what you are trying to say.
this is exactly why my views are that the ideal result for this current electoral process is a clinton/obama ticket... the conservative idiotology has dominated the political landscape for literally centuries now... it wasn't until the '60s that it started getting challenged... bill's years were, imho, a movement in (what i view as) the "right" direction... for all the pluses that many reagonites tout, his "reign" is also representational of a general movement in the "wrong" direction... which all boils down to the same argument that was furthered by (anyone remember this one?)... "it's the economy, stupid"...
8 years of clinton is only a chance to repair some bush damage from a pragmatic perspective while obama works to lay the groundwork for the following 8 years of his presidency... which imho as a product of the flower power generation, represents work that should have been done by now...
PIL,
Yeah I was whinin' a bit. Other's can be worse. I respect your activism. I get quite angry about things. The key is in directing the anger.
David Hawes @ 75:
And you, David, of mispelling.
Don't get your dick stuck in a dictionary.
Che's Lounge @ 78:
Ain't that the truth. We have plenty of actual enemies.
When we first started this latest protest cycle five years ago, it would be hard to enumerate the number of times I heard apparently rational people end the argument with "I don't care -- kill them all."
Made me a bit angry, but I focused my resolve instead of beating them to a pulp for their moral nonentity.
klunk @ 77:
That's it, exactly so.
Speaker Pelosi, the Chair of the Convention, was on Charlie Rose (grr) and clearly said the same thing as Dean, that the Convention will NOT be contested -- it will be unifying.
And she said that by November the choice between bankrupting America in an endless war we can in no way afford, and an orderly withdrawal to save OUR OWN country. So a landslide is coming, the likes of which have any self-critical 'conservatives' sleeping fitfully in sweatsoaked sheets.
Login or Register to post comments.