Obama's America: How Progressives Talk About July 4

Article by Ian Reifowitz - cross Posted from Daily Kos

As I always do, I really enjoyed Meteor Blades' post about July 4, which centers on Frederick Douglass's iconic speech "The Meaning of July 4th for the Negro," delivered in Rochester, NY in 1852. As many of you know, the speech delineated the alienation slaves, and African Americans in general, felt from July 4 specifically but from America more broadly as well.

Although the most often quoted section is about that sense of alienation, it is also important to remember Douglass's conclusion to the speech:

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.

Even in this speech, Douglass remained optimistic about the future, despite the reality that the present in 1852 was so awful for blacks in this country. That's important to note as well.

President Obama gave a speech on June 30, 2008, called "The America We Love," which bears some resemblance in terms of approach to Douglass's speech. It wasn't a speech about the meaning of America for blacks as a whole, but of what America meant to him as an individual. Also, only one of the speakers was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Nevertheless, we can fruitfully compare the two speeches. In fact, Colbert I. King of the Washington Post did so just after Obama made his.
King noted that Obama, even in this speech, even while running for President and having his patriotism questioned, did not whitewash America's history by ignoring the dark chapters therein. Although as a boy he had expressed a childlike love of our country, his patriotism remained strong even as he gained more knowledge and a fuller understanding of our past:

Obama said that as he got older, that instinct, "that America is the greatest country on earth -- would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections."Racial strife, poverty and the political corruption revealed by Watergate, Obama said, were outweighed by the "joys of American life and culture, its vitality and its freedom."

King then neatly summarized the differences between Douglass's and Obama's speeches:

While Douglass noted his estrangement from America's experiment with democracy, Obama claimed America as his own and the Fourth of July as a time to rejoice.

My suspicion, especially given his hopeful conclusion, is that were he alive today Douglass would speak about America in a way that resembles Obama (not only in the above cited speech but in the body of his public remarks over twenty years) in the broadest sense. (My forthcoming book, Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, examines Obama's public rhetoric on the meaning of America.)

Neither would ignore the horrific crimes of the past, nor the way the legacy of those crimes continues to resonate for the descendants of the victims in the present. Neither would shrink from highlighting the continuing, fresh injustices being visited on African Americans and members of other groups today. But both would also present a narrative that is, while full of struggle, one of hope and of gradual progress. That's a narrative that is both accurate and far more likely to be accepted as consensus by a broad swath of Americans of all backgrounds. That matters, in political terms, and Douglass, even though not running for office, was a political figure and activist of great importance.
In terms of black Americans specifically, I believe both Obama and Douglass would characterize black Americans' relationship to their country as follows: Blacks have both dreamed of a better future in America and fought to make it happen over time.

We progressives must emphasize that our responsibility as a country is to make those very American dreams of equality and justice come true for members of every group that make up our people.
Frederick Douglass was a hero, and his speech of 1852 was heroic. It's also very appropriate in 2012 to remember that speech, especially on July 4. My comments here do not imply in the slightest that I believe we should not. What I am doing is using Meteor Blades' post about Douglass as a jumping off point for a different discussion.

MB was right, we do too much "heroification" in the U.S. And he's right to identify Frederick Douglass as a hero, maybe even the greatest hero in American history. I'll only add that sometimes, we on the left have to be wary of focusing too much collectively on feelings of alienation from this country. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should feel, no one can or should do that. I'm talking about what we publish, our public rhetoric, and it's strategic value. What we cannot do, what Douglass himself did not do as seen in the conclusion to his 1852 speech, is cede patriotism and an embrace of America to the right wing.

Even in writing this, I feel reluctant because I know how these comments can be construed. I'm emphatically NOT saying that Meteor Blades or anyone else should tone down criticizing this country's flaws or injustices, whether in the present or the past. To be more specific, I am NOT saying that black or brown or red or gay people or anyone should keep their thoughts to themselves because they might scare the straight white folks. I'm saying that there has to be a way we can shine a light on the problems in our country that need attention while still publicly embracing a commitment to the whole country, the whole community. We have to do both of those things at the same time, over and over again, in order to get our point across successfully.

As politically engaged progressives, we know that this country can and must do better on a whole host of different fronts, and in order to do so we need to understand our history in full. A history that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the opposite, one that presents our history as one solely bathed in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle of the road Americans are likely to be more attracted to the former simply because it sounds more familiar and feels better.

We have to make sure that we present a balanced picture. That way we can get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes to remember them and to commit to reversing their effects, rather than dismiss us as "anti-American" or some other such nonsense because we talk only about the negatives in America. We have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast those to the values of those whom we oppose.

This is the way Barack Obama speaks about America's past, present, and future, and connects his vision of America to policies he is proposing going forward. We can see it in his remarks of July 4, 2012:

On that July day, our Founders declared their independence. But they only declared it; it would take another seven years to win the war. Fifteen years to forge a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Nearly 90 years, and a great Civil War, to abolish slavery. Nearly 150 years for women to win the right to vote. Nearly 190 years to enshrine voting rights. And even now, we’re still perfecting our union, still extending the promise of America.That includes making sure the American dream endures for all those -- like these men and women -- who are willing to work hard, play by the rules and meet their responsibilities. For just as we remain a nation of laws, we have to remain a nation of immigrants. And that’s why, as another step forward, we’re lifting the shadow of deportation from serving -- from deserving young people who were brought to this country as children. It’s why we still need a DREAM Act -- to keep talented young people who want to contribute to our society and serve our country. It’s why we need -- why America’s success demands -- comprehensive immigration reform.

Because the lesson of these 236 years is clear -- immigration makes America stronger. Immigration makes us more prosperous. And immigration positions America to lead in the 21st century. And these young men and women are testaments to that. No other nation in the world welcomes so many new arrivals. No other nation constantly renews itself, refreshes itself with the hopes, and the drive, and the optimism, and the dynamism of each new generation of immigrants. You are all one of the reasons that America is exceptional. You’re one of the reasons why, even after two centuries, America is always young, always looking to the future, always confident that our greatest days are still to come.

And of course that's what successful progressives have long done. Frederick Douglass did it, even in the speech discussed above. So did Martin Luther King in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," where he predicted that the Civil Rights Movement would succeed because "the goal of America is freedom," and in his "I Have A Dream" speech, where he proclaimed the dream of which he spoke that day was "deeply rooted in the American dream." So did Harvey Milk, when he said, "All men are created equal. Now matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about.” So did Barbara Jordan, who noted, "What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise."

Progressives must criticize, that is crucial. But we also need to inspire, because inspiration is how we motivate action.

Allen West Calls the Founding Fathers Communists

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

A few days ago Rep Allen West (R-Crazytown) came up with a whopper that 80-81 Democratic members of Congress were "Communists". The controversy on this was widely discussed with the addition of Barney Frank's awesome response.

Today on my Facebook feed, Rachel Maddow posted how Allen West has "Gone around the bend" (an awesome turn of phrase) with his silliness regarding his commentarty that 80-81 members of Congress that he called "Communists" (hint, hint - he was really talking about "Progressives") but watch the claims he makes... that the Wilson Administration was Communist (or that it was not far and only separated by a thin line) around :28. But then he goes further, and starts talking about "Nationalizing production" (which yes is a tenet of Communism but is hardly a tenet of American Progressives)

BUT at around the 1:00 minute mark the fun really kicks in: Apparently, the concepts of fairness, and economic justice are COMMUNIST ideas. WOW... who knew? I mean who would have thought that all these years anything to left of outright fascism (a corporate state) is (cue evil music DA-DA- DUM)....COMMUNISM!

BUT, at 1:07... he goes completely overboard. Apparently, (according to West) Communism is about the creation of a secular state. Our founding fathers - well, guess what, they must've been "Commies".



After that, from 1:10-1:19 West gets into the whole War on Women and how the government is forcing it's ideology on the population talking about Women's contraceptive rights.

Of course after that he says: "You tell me that this government is not about nationalizing industry, like the Auto Industry, Cap and Trade....." I mean the EPA, and the NLRB are apparently communists. Who knew?
But West says that he is "Standing by his comment" and that he is calling a "Spade a Spade" (his words).
The craziest thing about this is that West wants to have an argument focused on ideology and ideological definitions only. AND he wants to call this administration Communist. Well, perhaps before he does that he may want to learn what Communism really is and just how far fetched it is to call an administration that has led in the creation of Private Sector Jobs, an administration that has seen the Stock Markets rise close to 6,000 points, an administration that passed the ACA, which puts PRIVATE BUSINESS front and center in healthcare, communist.

Welcome to today's Republican Party. The founders in creation of a Secular State... Commies. Brilliant

ANNOUNCEMENT... IN PROGRESSIVE FASHION WE SUPPORT #OCCUPYWALLST.

Just a quick note... in true Progressive fashion (not like the faux progressives that only support one issue and don't even support progressives there) we will be posting articles and photo diaries from the #Occupy Wall St. people.

This is truly a progressive movement with grassroots at it's base and it seeks economic and social justice for all Americans.

It is very similar to the Tent protests of the Israeli Summer in Tel-Aviv. So now along with I/P issues you will see a number of progressive themed articles appearing.

We are after all "Progressive Zionists" and being Progressive means supporting Progressive causes the world over, not just supporting the Jewish People's Legitimate Right to a homeland and self-governance.

Shalom!

Progressive Except for Palestine: The Real Meaning

There comes a time when every movement needs to look within itself and face some ugly facets of it's being. Any ideology at some point creates problematic situations particularly as it grows in size and adherence. Look at the implementation of Communist ideology in Russia or China, look at what unbridled Capitalism brought to the United States in it's earlier "Robber Baron" era and what it's adherents are trying to do now.

Just as these two ideologies fail so does the ideology of "Progressivism" when it hits the ugly reality that is the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.

Yesterday on Daily Kos we got to see this first hand. In an article that rightfully criticized Israeli handling of an attack by settlers (some of whom were off duty police) on left wing activists, what I consider anti-Progressive elements moved into the article to claim the false equivalency of comparing the Israeli Government to the Nazi Regime of Germany from the thirties to the mid forties. In this story so called "progressives" (though they are hardly that) made or fully supported this analogy. Their only objection to this analogy was that it was "unhelpful" to the discussion and served as a distraction so that their message was muddied. However, they were more than happy to have someone who called the Israelis "Nazi's" continue to partake in their little discussion as long as this person didn't make the "unhelpful" comparison. Not only that but one of the leaders of this group made a Nazi analogy himself, he doubled down by supporting a comment saying that the current Israeli Government was equivalent to the German Government of WWII.

What was sad and disappointing here was that many so-called "progressives" and "human rights" activists not only turned a blind eye to this rhetoric but actively engaged in lying, and defamation to support their friends making those statements. Here are supposed progressives calling other progressives "Israel first trolls" and "pro-occupation users" all the while whistling in the air as one of the most offensive meme's imaginable passed by.

Only one person of these so-called "progressives" said anything about how wrong this was. Only one.

Now, aside from the obvious offensiveness of making comparisons between the genocidal Nazi regime and the Government of Israel, it takes an amazing leap of illogic to even make an allusion toward this. The Nazis brutally murderd millions of people (including 6 million Jews) in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish people from the planet. As I said yesterday in the article in question on Daily Kos:

Here is what the Nazi's did:

After systematically denying the humanity of entire ethnicities they took members of those ethnicities and tossed them into Concentration Camps (the lucky ones) were they were fed 850 calories per day and forced to do heavy slave labor. The unlucky people were shipped to DEATH CAMPS where they were systematically either worked to death, were starved to death or were gassed to death (or burned to death), where they then turned into lampshades, soap or other fine household items. Some were medically experimented on and then killed.

Both the "lucky" and "unlucky" victims of the Holocaust were shipped to these camps in Cattle Cars with little to no ventilation, no food, no water, no bathroom facilities and no place to sit for days on end....

Nothing, the Israeli government does resembles anything remotely even approaching this. Yet so-called "human rights activists" merely sat on their hands and allowed the demonization of Israel and it's supporters continue unabated.

Similarly "progressives" and "human rights" activists gladly will take assistance from the most vile anti-Semites (just take a look at the sewer that is mondoweiss.net to see what passes for progressive commentary) if they can help them in their cause. They happily suck up nonsense spewed by Paulbots (supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) who is the farthest thing from Progressive there is but they love him and all is forgiven due to his favoring of  U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East) or known bigot and lunatic Lyndon LaRouche. That "progressive website" they so love features such luminaries as Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmom, and Holocaust Revisionist Jeffrey Blankfort (it was the Zionists fault), amongst the usual neo-Nazi and racist cranks that populate that site. What is disappointing is that the progressives trying to get in front of this issue blindly turn away or make excuses for this all in the name of "the cause".

But enough on that, but these so-called "progressives" put their support into a Palestinian Polity that has absolutely ZERO progressive credentials. They support some mythical One State solution where Palestinians will happily protect Jewish rights all while ruling in a perfect democracy. Of course, the fact that the Palestinian and Arab polity has never exhibited anything remotely resembling this is besides the point. These "human rights" activists don't care. They are happy to overlook that the people they want to turn over the government too, have a law on their books stating that anyone selling land to Jews will face the Death Penalty. They overlook or try to excuse the Palestinian Authority President who said that the Occupation of Palestinian land had to end and then stated that the Occupation was from the founding of Israel. They overlook a PLO Ambassador that stated that Jews and Palestinians could not live together and that any Jew living in Israel since the Occupation started would not be allowed to stay. Somehow that gets ignored.

Then these so-called "progressives" miss or make excuses for the other part of the Palestinian polity that is made up of religious quasi fascists that suppress their people with impunity and carry out acts of terror. But none of this matters. I constantly ask these so-called human rights activists what is it about the Palestinian Polity that is Progressive. Generally they cannot name anything. But they don't care because really being progressive is not on their agenda. They may talk about some mythical One State Solution that has the support of exactly...no one. Well no one outside of a small group of Utopians. Well, that or simply a Palestinian State where Israel ceases to exist.

So where is the Progressivism here?

Now on the Israeli side, true progressives speak up against the growing nationalistic sentiment that is changing the very democratic character of the State. True progressives speak up for Social and Economic justice in the Israeli polity. While the demands of the "tent protests" were not as coherent as they could be, they spoke to a frustration that the average Israeli feels (just look at the support levels throughout the country for the protests) with neo-conservative destructive economic policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cronies.

As to social justice, not only does a true progressive ask for social justice for Israelis but also for Palestinians that live in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. This does not mean that one supports the Palestinian bid to end Israel and true progressives recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish people to self-governance. But it does mean that minorities within Israel need to be treated as full citizens with full civil rights.Whether or not the Arab/Palestinian side supports this doesn't matter, it is what we do for ourselves that does matter. It is how we define ourselves within the Zionist framework

For the Occupation.... a true progressive works for a Two State solution where both the Palestinian and Jewish people have safe and secure nations based on historical precedent and current realities. I believe a true progressive stands against increased settlements and the continued encroachment on land that really should be Palestinian Land or that realistically will be Palestinian land come any "reasonable" Two State Solution. I think a true progressive does not do this because it empowers Palestinians, only they can do that for themselves. I believe a true progressive does that because of a moral sense that promotes the legitimate self governance of the Palestinian people. It comes from a stance that we should ask for others what we ask for ourselves.

Again, however all of this has to be done in a way that fosters real progressive ideas such as gender equality, protection of LGBT people, freedom of religion, press, and speech . It can't just support some vague Utopian idea that will have no progressive outcomes whatsoever.

Anyway, that is what I am discovering about progressivism and P.E.P. which is very much in evidence though not in the way most people mean it. The real progressive supports both peoples legitimate rights to self governance and respects the full rights of all people involved. The real progressive does not turn away from the racism and hatefulness that pervades one side or the other just for political expediency.