AMERICA'S FORBIDDEN WORD - "SOCIALISM"

     There is a revival in some circles of the word "socialism."  In an open letter to The Nation Bhaskar Sunkara a young self-styled "socialist" argues that liberalism--including much of what's published in that magazine--seems well-intentioned but inadequate, and that the solution lies in the re-emergence of American radicalism - more.

     It's not clear what Sunkara means by such terminology.  He never deconstructs the military-industrial complex which was a prime focus of '60s "radicals" aka socialists.   

     As an old unreconstructed '60's radical, now an aging pre-baby boomer and grandpa, I'm pleased to know that somebody out there is willing to take seriously the term "socialism" which is reviled, feared and misunderstood by so many in this nation.  Too many in America can't distinguish "democratic socialism" from "totalitarian communism." 

     My concept of "socialism" harkens back to Marx who famously said back in the day "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." 

     Democratic socialism is a part of the socio-political fabric of contemporary European politics in one form or another - as the government de jure in places like the Scandinavian countries or in much of the democratic world from Canada to Japan as the loyal opposition.  And the oft maligned New Deal "liberalism" owes its soul to socialist ideas/ideals.  

     In the USA progressives, liberals or socialists, grounded their beliefs on concepts of social and economic justice.  What is termed "positive" freedom or the "social gospel" envisions a collective not individualistic "pursuit of happiness."  It requires an engaged citizenry and a regulatory regime to checkmate "bad actors" who use the system to line their pockets. 

     The problem with Americans is that we don't know our own history of class struggle and protest politics. 

     But aside from the defunct Occupy Wall Street movement, I see no evidence on the streets, in the academy or in the corridors of power that "socialism" is on the resurgence.  Quite the contrary as Mr. Sunkara suggests what we have is "technocratic liberalism" and "welfare liberalism."  

     As an illustration of the bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism my fellow Oregonians only have to look at the ludicrous politics of Portlandia to see how intellectually rudderless contemporary so-called progressive politics has become.  We just finished a food fight over "fluoridation" which was a hot button issue in the '50s for the Right.   

     Fluoridation was a John Bircher issue in the '50s, now it's on the Portlandia enviro hit list.  Go figure!   

     And when one spends time in the Salem Puzzle Palace, one sees suburban Demos and Governor "Happiness" wanting to lavish tax breaks on the "traded sector" of corporate Oregon as their idea of job creation.  But many of such traded sector global entities out source production to low wage nations like Bangladesh.  

     This leaves a demoralized and intellectually incoherent GOP to be the defender of the "old economy" of the family farm, small business and family values.  There was a time when progressives were against the banks, railroads and for the little guy - now in Oregon at least - they are the mouth pieces for the "job creators."  How and why did this happen? 

     Politics is about the allocation of resources.  A budget is a values statement.  When values become private sector centered the public interest evaporates. 

     The devolution of the Democratic Party and progressive politics took a major hit when Bill Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" - as a pro big business, let's make government smaller neo-liberal.  A series of failed presidential campaigns did the D's in - Humphrey in '68, McGovern in '72, Carter's malaise in '76 leading to the Reagan-Bush I era. 

     To win back the presidency Clinton concluded that old fashioned liberalism was dead and that only a corporatist anti-welfare version was marketable.  Remember Clinton ended welfare as we knew it, attempted health care reform while rejecting single payer (sound familiar?) and ran the tables with a good economy during the boom years of the '90s. 

     Beware of politicians who can sing your favorite hymns and like soulless used car salesmen are willing to do anything to make the sale.    

     Clinton's electoral formula for victory combined southern white voters, African-American voters, labor union voters plus an emergent woman's, youth and gay vote.  This coalition wasn't much different than  the one which elected FDR. Truman, JFK and LBJ.  And eight years later Barack Obama would ride a similar horse to victory and repeat in 2012. 

     But the Clinton and Obama victories would be more "personal" victories not ideologically transformational victories.  People just threw the "bums" out in the case of Bush I and Bush II - largely due to a bad economy.  But there was no underlying message coming out of these victories and progressives were just glad to have one of their own back in the Oval Office. 

      Electing an African-American POTUS turns out to be more symbolism than substance!  Will Hillary be any different? 

     And ever since 9/11 the nation has been blinded by the war on terrorism while divided by the old guard of the GOP fixated on stopping Obama and the the Tea Party trying to roll the clock back to the 1920s.  Both have deflected attention from the bread and butter issues of the past - family wage jobs, tax fairness, saving the middle class and the safety net. 

     Now that Obama has downsized drones and the War on Terrorism, maybe we can get back to the "economy stupid."  

     Aside from 9/11's distraction, progressives have focused too much on niche litmus test issues which targeted at upper income liberal voters - a woman's right of choice, gay rights and the environment. The traditional commitment to workers rights has been lost in the wake of debates over immigration, NAFTA and quotas. 

     Litmus test, single issue, niche political messaging is a slippery slope to nowhere!   

     So where does this leave the Left today?  One only has to look at the data points here in Washington County now a solid Democratic county.  Thanks to Intel, Nike et al we are the economic engine of Oregon.  We have the lowest unemployment rate in Oregon, 6%.  But we are also are a county with rising poverty, a large Latino population and the underemployed. 

     We are a county of contradictions where some live in the "best of times" while others live in the "worst of times."  And what do our "electeds" focus on - jobs promised by Nike and Intel on the premise of tax breaks which nobody else gets.  Oregon has been fully Clintonized.  Obama era has not changed the mood music and Kitz plays the same tune.

     Our local traded sector corps not only out source abroad but when they hire locals they are put on contracts with no benefits.  This is the brave new economy our high school and college grads will inherit.  And if one doesn't have the requisite skill set - you get to sit at the back of the global economy bus, one step away from homelessness. 

     Homelessness is decreasing but we have 5000 on the housing authority's wait list.  It will take the county 150 years to met current demand...   Oh Joy! 

     Now lest one thinks this once "radical" 60s dude has thrown in the towel, you've not been paying attention.  I'm fully committed to the Tom Hayden brand of Democratic (socialist) politics.  But I don't talk "ideology" much these days, I focus on community organizing around local issues - homelessness, stop the stink, foreclosure and land use.  

     You won't get anywhere in Washington County or Oregon by raising the banner of "socialism."

     One can make a difference by coalition building issue by issue fighting for clean air and water, stopping predatory banks and reminding legislators from the "other" Oregon how good things were when IKE was POTUS and presided over the biggest public works project in history - the building of the interstate highway system including I-5. 

     So while wistfully waiting for the Promised Land of Democratic Socialism we have work to do saving Tom McCall's legacy and keeping Oregon green! 

     This requires an activist federal and state government willing to invest in people not corporations, willing to invest in infrastructure which puts people to work and not waiting for the marketplace to raise all boats via trickle down economics.  You can call it what you want - liberalism, socialism or just common sense - the point is to "just do it."  

     The Tea Party and Occupy WS have one thing in common their loathing of banks too big to fail.  Maybe that's the basis for a grand bargain!  

     In 1917 Lenin brandished the phrase "all power to the Soviets," that ended badly.  I prefer "power to the people" - the people in this case being residents of Portlandia involved in neighborhood associations, in Washington County in CPOs, the family farmer, the small business person and the 32 groups of WC-CAN who remind us "all politics is local." 

     If the 60s taught us anything it was the power of "bottom up" politics.  Today we have too much "top down" politics.  

    

CLIMATE CHANGE - WALKING THE TALK...

     One of my friends from WC-CAN commutted with me to Salem today to attend a rally on Climate Change sponsored by OregonCAN.info and endorsed by a local anti-LNG group in Washington County. 

     We assumed we'd see a lot of friends from Western Washington County.  None showed up.  Alas movement politics via social media has its limitations.  It's easier to send out an e-mail but more difficult to take time for a 100 mile round trip drive to the Capitol. 

     One of the speakers who spoke at the rally was Representative Peter Buckley (D, Ashland) who is one of the most powerful legislators in the Puzzle Palace - co-chair of Ways & Means. 

     His message was simple - those who care about climate change must engage with their legislators because right now that issue is not on the agenda in the legislature but it can be if legislators are confronted with an engaged citizenry who cares. 

     My friend and I took Representative Buckley's words to heart, as we have been doing this entire session.  We went from the rally in the rain and under the dome in the Rotunda to several legislator's offices to talk about this issue and to find out where bills on this subject were in the process. 

     All but one were dead but SB 537 is currently in Senate Revenue chaired by Senator Ginny Burdick (D, Portland). 

     Representative Jules Bailey presented HB 2435 before the Senate Revenue Committee.  That bill is intended to support the growth of bio-diesel fuels recycled from cooking oil waste from the restaurant industry in Oregon.  This has created a unique alliance between two business groups which rarely work together - let alone on sustainable politics. 

     Summary of HB 2435 in the "comments" section below. 

     We talked to Representative Bailey after his committee testimony. He gave us pointers who we should talk with in the Senate on this bill and climate change in general.  So unlike the people at the rally we didn't simply "talk the talk," we actually "walked the talk."  As Peter Buckley said you've got to change the conversation inside the Dome. 

     It's too bad the people at the rally didn't really "get" Rep. Buckley's message!  If you want change you have to do it as Professor Kingsfield in the Paper Chase would say - "the old fashioned way" by burning up shoe leather and relationship building.  It's not enough to know your issue, one has to talk truth to power.  It's time to grow up!  

     If this sounds harsh on you self-appointed "enviros" - it's meant to.  To the young people in the rally today especially the environmental studies major from SOC who spoke at the rally - you can know everything there is to know about climate change but if you don't educate legislators it doesn't matter - they have the vote, you don't.

     The 100 or so people at the rally were a mixed blend of "young" and "old" which was nice to see.  But groups like 1000 Friends, Audubon Society, OLCV, Oregon Coalition for a Livable Future were not in attendance.  Unlike the Housing Alliance I find it odd that these groups don't testify for each other's legislative bills. 

     The evidence of climate change is obvious but the time is late.  It's not good enough to be right on an issue, you've got to build a "coalition" which is irresistible to those in the Puzzle Palace.  It requires going door to door in the Puzzle Palace, not reinvent the wheel or sit in your silos.  Politics is a sport played by adults and it's a marathon not a sprint. 

     My friends at WC-CAN got the message, it's time for others to avoid the cynic's way out by saying it's too late.  As a good friend of mine says, "if not us, who?"    

KITZHABER'S EDUCATION PLAN TO "NOWHERE"

     RAD observed a legislative hearing in the Puzzle Palace on Tuesday discussing some modest reforms of  Governor Kitzhaber's bogus "achievement compact" concept.  The current Education Investment Board consists of handpicked governor appointees rubber stamped by the Legislature. 

     The Oregon Education Association, OEA (the teacher's union) along with several other groups wants to add a school board member and a teacher to the EIB to broaden the stakeholders on the EIB but the Governor's man, former State Representative Ben Cannon nixed the idea. 

     I guess the Governor is scared that any possible avenue of dissent from running K-12 and higher education as a business is anathema to Kitz.  The legislature gave Kitz carte blanche to change the desk chairs on the education Titanic of Oregon and seems inclined to keep to the original game plan despite a looming iceberg called reality. 

     In 1991 I saw a similar legislative (il)logic prevail on the Katz plan, then called Oregon's Educational Act for the 21st century.  That reform which involved the infamous CIM and CAM was like the Kitz plan a top down reform process imported by Vera Katz from the Carnegie Foundation.  There seems no end to these bogus ideas about reforming education. 

     You can't reform education by mandating (imposing) top down change, it requires ownership by classroom teachers in K-12 and by professor-types in higher education.  Given the testimony there was no evidence of such a "buy in" by those on the front lines, merely a stubborn and stupid full speed ahead mantra by Kitz et al. 

     But what irks me the most is that after Sunday's op ed piece by Professor Melody Rose (PSU) and interim higher ed Chancellor, as long as Oregon refuses to invest in higher education, no amount of top down visioning will achieve the lofty goals of 40/40/20 the Govenor has embraced. 

     To illustrate how ludicrous is designing education via a business model, apply the concept of outcomes based education to parenting.  What would you say to a state "family" Investment Board if they demanded you could only be "licensed" as a parent "if only" you would agree to specific child outcomes?   

     Well that's the logic of Kitz the education czar!  Instead of investing in kids, we are investing in bureaucracy as the agent of change.  I've seen this futurism gone bad before and in ten years the Oregon Investment Board will be dismantled only to morph into another corporatist reform idea! 

     The more things change, the more they stay the same in the Puzzle Palace! 

"DANCING WITH THE STARS" - RECOUNT!

Kelly & Derrick won tonight which proves that the "demographics" of Country Western beats the Disney Channel.  On the dance floor we all know who the real winner was. 

Zendaya

Zendaya Coleman is an American actress, singer and dancer.

Born: September 1, 1996 (age 16) 

Height: 5' 10"

Full name: Zendaya Maree Stoermer Coleman

Parents: Claire Stoermer, Kazembe Ajamu Coleman

 

OREGON'S DISAPPEARING AMERICAN DREAM

     For a state which has regained only 50% of the jobs lost and about 60% of the wages lost in the Great Recession one can hardly make the case that Oregon is on the comeback trail despite the rosy revenue forecast which came out of the Puzzle Palace on Thursday. 

     As I said in my most recent blog "it's the best of times" for higher income Oregonians and corporate Oregon, but "the worst of times" for the increasingly marginalized middle class, the working poor and those on the edge of homelessness. 

     Fellow political scientist, Melody Rose, currently the interim Chancellor of Higher Education in Oregon points out in an op ed piece in the unOregonian that funding for higher ed for the current biennium, 2011-2013, is $668 million compared to $755 million back in 1999-2001. 

     It's a not so shining example of Governor Kitzhaber's mantra "doing more with less." 

     Rose also points out that Oregon students attending public universities are paying for 70% of the cost of going to college while ten years ago this figure was "flipped."  Oregon is 44th in supporting higher ed students at places like Quack Attack U and Beaver Nation.  But hey we're top of the heap in NCAA football and baseball!     

     Rose praises Governor Kitzhaber, the business community and donors for their support of higher education.  She also talks about how to cut costs by encouraging students to take AP courses in high school and taking community college courses before transferring to a 4 year college which will enable students to "skip" semesters. 

     I disagree with Rose who is a top notch scholar but the idea of "downsizing" the 4 year college experience will cheapen the ultimate reward of a college degree.  My experience is that high school AP courses are not equivalent to college courses and attending a community college is not the qualitatively the same as attending a 4 year college.  

     On a personal note I was an adjunct professor at PSU from 2005-2009.  I enjoyed my PSU experience but was "riffed" because of budget cuts. 

     Rose as an "educational bureaucrat" embraces "collaboration" - a euphemism for gradualism.  Her "incremental" reforms will do little to address the fundamental problem - Oregonians have less disposable income to devote to everyday necessities to say nothing of the "luxury" of paying for a college education in the public system. 

• Let's collaborate to promote college affordability
  

     The reality is that it takes 6 years not 4 years to graduate from college.  The idea of saving money by taking AP or community college courses is a false saving in quality and also in time since transferring from one college to another one often loses credits and has to make them up. 

     Frankly an alternative investment strategy for families is to look at what Oregon's private independent colleges offer in more robust financial aid packages compared to their public sector counterparts.  The cost/benefit analysis of a liberal arts college in terms of faculty advising, class size, study abroad and internships is worth a look.

     One can get an excellent education at a mega-university.  But the student has to know how to navigate the system.  If not they can easily get lost in the shuffle by poor advising, large classes and bureaucratic indifference.  

     It comes down to the fact that Oregonians, like most Americans, make 60% less today than in the past if they are among the "lucky" 50% who have a job.  That's the "new normal" which Oregon families and would be college students face.  Until that changes, more and more Oregonians will be denied entre to college and the "American Dream." 

     Back in the 1950s the federal government funded the GI Bill which allowed returning vets to get a college degree and transition from a fighting force to the work force.   As long as Oregon and national leaders adhere to the illusion that the marketplace will raise all boats, more and more people will be lost at sea and the future generation will be imperiled. 

     Oregon can't get from 44th place to the top 10 by nickle and dime approaches.  We've got to invest in our future and an investment strategy doesn't mean more tax giveaways for the likes of Nike, Intel et al.  Corporate Oregon complains our educational system from K-12 to higher ed is broken.  Well who's divested in the system - eh?

     The last 20 years have proved we can't get from here to there!  It's time to invest not in tax free equipment from the traded sector but in Oregonians and not Californians who pay out of state tuition!