An Invitation

My next GDAE Podcast episode, Number 37, starts as follows:

On the previous episode of GDAE Podcast (36) I re-visited my original motivation for people on the political left to reach out to principled people on the political right... a concern that extreme right wing demagogues are stirring up potential violence among uninformed people who are suffering real economic hard times. My "original" motivation was to promote relationships between genuine conservatives and progressives that could either prevent right-wing populism from growing ugly or at least be a mitigating force, a buffer, if society devolves further into darkness as some economists predict is a real possibility in the coming years.

My original motivation grew in early 2010 culminating in my March 31, 2010 Episode 29, which has become the first in a series. In less than 30-minutes, before the audio program shifts to some unusual music, I initiated an exploration that has held my attention for the past eight months and promises to maintain its hold on me for a while.

We could see the dot-com bubble-burst coming. We saw the Iraq war and security state coming after 9/11. We saw the housing and financial economic bubble-bursts coming. Now we can see the potential for the predictably destructive outcomes of right-wing demagoguery coming. This is my small attempt to do something about it, if only to raise awareness. You are invited to join me by listening to the initial Episode 29 and seeing where it leads.

Power of Principled People on the Left and Right

I continue to explore a subject that is summed up in the question,

"Do populists on the left and right have enough in common that they could join together and challenge the status quo establishment?"

I'm not talking about political party "bi-partisianship" in Washington. I'm referring to activists who advance positive change on the basis of promoting principled values and not necessarily through party politics.

The notion of "principled" seems to be a core concept that helps define what I'm talking about above. When I say "principled" I mean that they have consistent political views. Their ideology is consistent. Because, when somebody espouses what is supposed to be a core value, like saying that "freedom means minimal government intrusion in our lives," but then turns around and supports capital punishment at the hands of the same bumbling, corrupt, excessive government they want to limit.... I see it as inconsistent at best and perhaps even hypocritical.... they certainly aren't principled in their political views, because they are flip-flopping on their principles.

Since I come at this subject from the Left, my perspective is to ask the question,

"Which people on the right could be partners with people on the left?"

and up crops the answer,

"principled people who share common concerns about abuse of power in our country. People who are concerned that our democratic ideals are being subverted."

More on this: Examples of Left/Right Collaboration to Give Power to the People

Sources:

First posted on Challenge the Establishment Blog.

On My Mind March 11

On my mind:

• Where has honesty gone? A culture of half-truths and down right lies has invaded our TV sets.

• Common cause on the right and left. Don't trust the federal reserve? Think the bank bailout was an establishment bailout? Find the official 9/11 story to be spurious? Know that torture is Un-American? See through the excuses for going to war in Iraq and lament the profiteering? Then you must be a member of the right wing... no I mean the left wing... err... I'm confused.

Left Vs Right

Vocal Tea Party members often turn to historical references to justify their views. Yet, they also seem to have right wing views in support of the "free market" and constitutional rights of corporations. So, my question is, "are Tea Party members for the people or are they for the corporations?" Maybe they actually believe that corporations have the people's best interests at heart? ... as if corporations have hearts.

Left = government of the people, by the people, for the people

Right = government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

Adherents to the right wing reasoning seem to believe that the invisible hand of the free market will make all things good. Under this reasoning, it's in the people's best interest that the Wall Street insiders got phat-rich over the last decade AND got bailed out by the tax payers when their system collapsed. Of course, they argue that the collapse was all Clinton's fault, because he forced mortgage companies to sell houses to the poor.

Corporations are also "people" according to America's current laws, or at least according to activist judges making America's laws.

But fear not, slavery was once America's law of the land, and the Supreme Court upheld that law in . Not to be too cynical, history shows we can change the laws of the land. Yes, if we take the multi-generational view of our social struggle, we can envision hope.

BTW: Hit the "Follow" button to the right :-D

Left Vs Right Populism

This is just a teaser post.

Libhom left the following comment recently:

I listened to your podcast on the populist right a week or two ago [April 24], and I want to blog about the subject of left populism[...] haven't gotten around to it yet.

Left populism is a point of view that deserves a lot more consideration and support, yet I've read a lot of prose on the left against it.

A historian friend passed the following to me:

Ben Tillman, governor of South Carolina and later US Senator, is considered by some to be a right wing "populist" during the populist movement in the late 18o0s. He was part of the agrarian revolt that attempted to change economic policy to help farmers who lost their farms and were forced into share cropping, and unending debt. He never became part of the Populist Party and others think his adoption of Populist Party platform elements, while remaining a member of the racist Democratic Party, took support away from the Populist Party.




At the same time, Tom Watson, of Georgia, was a populist leader who allied with black people, which was taboo at the time. He could be considered "left wing" in some regards. It is said elsewhere that he supported a KKK organization. He served in the US House of Representatives and Senate in the 1890s and was supposedly considered as a running mate by William Jennings Bryan.

Suffice it to say, regardless of the specifics of these two individuals, the populist movement of the 1890s were composed of both "right" and "left" wing elements that shared common economic concerns. The same coalition could have a role in current politics, and in Baltimore, MD, a US Senate candidate (2006), Kevin Zeese, ran as a "fusion" candidate, drawing from both the Green Party (left) and Libertarian Party (right).

Much more could be said on this subject, hence the "teaser" aspect of this post.

Sources:

Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, is a good source.