During recent discussions here concerning progressive disappointment over Obama’s performance, a voice in my head kept telling me to go back and re-read the section in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States about when FDR took office. One of the common threads through Zinn’s book (at least my interpretation) is that real social change comes from the bottom and that elected officials, including FDR, act because their hands are forced. Or put another way, in most cases political leaders do not lead; they get in front of a parade already in progress.
In a few recent threads, a couple of writers have noted this dynamic where the “bottom” action came from MLK with others in the civil rights movement, and LBJ eventually had to act. I wanted to refresh my memory on the dynamics that lead FDR to enact what we now know as the “New Deal” and then compare that to today’s situation.
I’ve been as ready as anyone else to get on Obama for not using his ample talents to push the country in a more progressive direction. I’m still not willing to cut him too much slack, but after re-reading Chapter 15 (“Self-help in Hard Times”) of Zinn’s book, my conclusion is that, unlike FDR, Obama has no parade to lead.
Zinn notes that FDR’s reform legislation had to meet two “pressing needs”:
to reorganize capitalism in such a way to overcome the crisis and stabilize the system; also, to head off the alarming growth of spontaneous rebellion in the early years of the Roosevelt administration – organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities.
(Emphasis mine.)
The rebellion was real when Roosevelt took office. Desperate people were not waiting for the government to help them; they were helping themselves, acting directly.
Among the things people were doing “to help themselves”:
- Forming organizations to stop evictions.
- Bartering. Trading goods and services directly without money exchanging hands.
- Widespread labor actions, including strikes organized directly by workers, not authorized by union officials. These actions often lead to violence.
Many of these organizations had self-described communists as participants and leaders.
Among the labor actions was a new tool: the sit-down strike. Zinn describes one such strike:
The idea spread through 1936. In December of that year began the longest sit-down strike of all, at Fisher Body plant #1 in Flint, Michigan. It started when two brothers were fired, and it lasted until February 1937. For forty days there was a community of two thousand strikers. “It was like war,” one said. “The guys with me became my buddies.” Sidney Fine in Sit-Down describes what happened. Committees organized recreation, information, classes, a postal service, sanitation. Courts were set up to deal with those who didn’t take their turn washing dishes or who threw rubbish or smoked where it was prohibited or brought in liquor. The “punishment” consisted of extra duties; the ultimate punishment was expulsion from the plant. A restaurant owner across the street prepared three meals a day for two thousands strikers. There were classes in parliamentary procedure, public speaking, history of the labor movement. Graduate students at the University of Michigan gave courses in journalism and creative writing.
Especially note the assistance the strikers received from those not directly involved in the labor action.
Fast forward to today. While noting the Tea Party and some action in Wisconsin, there is almost nothing going on that one can compare to the turmoil in the 1930s. Without that pressure, Obama receives pressure from and succumbs to the only source of power: the corporate class. Even FDR had to relent when his hand wasn’t forced:
Where organized labor was strong, Roosevelt moved to make some concessions to working people. But: “Where organized labor was weak, Roosevelt was unprepared to withstand the pressures of industrial spokesmen to control the … NRA codes.”
This begs the question: Why isn’t there more of a societal uproar over the condition of the country today? I’m sure there are a lot of opinions about that. Certainly, the role of the right-wing message and media machine has a lot to do with it, pushing supply-side economic theory, making anything associated with “socialism” or especially “communism” a non-starter (and applying those labels to anything they don’t like even if it doesn’t fit), and vilifying the labor movement. The result is the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” effect: people working to enact laws and elect politicians that work against their own interests.
The very low rate of unionization in the private sector is very likely a contributing factor.
And maybe what FDR started has an even more important role: If the idea of the New Deal programs was to cushion the effects of economic downturns in order to pacify the masses, it may doing just that. If not for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits, would we be seeing more activity reminiscent of the 1930s?
It just might be the case that things will have to get much worse to see any significant progressive advances. What has to happen to get enough people to make enough of a stink to get Obama – or any president or Congress – to take significant action? A bunch of electronic signatures on a MoveOn petition doesn’t cut it.
Corporations finally relented to union organizing because the unorganized alternative was (to them) even worse. Is something similar needed to pull out of the current economic mess?
If we are lucky and work quite hard, Obama will get re-elected in 2012.
That’s only the beginning. The problem then becomes figuring out how to “encourage” him to do right by the federal budget and the economy. In the last two years, all the popular pressure has come from the Tea Party. There has been no similar, discernible pressure from our side.
Bigger victories in Wisconsin would have been nice here.
He is out of touch and seemingly OK with that.
The problem is: given the current situation, how do we attain the best possible outcome? A primary challenge is unlikely to succeed and, if it fails, even more unlikely to change Obama’s outlook. Any Republican gain in political power (White House or Senate) promises unimaginable hurt.
reminds me of a medical diagnosis giving you the choice to lose a foot or endure months of chemo and maybe still lose the foot. It hurts either way.
Self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one. Under such circumstances, hurt is the prognosis.
Maybe a medical analogy for hurt is less apt than a sports analogy: it’s time to wrap it up and get back into the game.
but it really stinks that the only game being played is the one where we play on their side of the field and score points for their team. LOL : )
Liberal has become a dirty word so people may use different terms. The key is what people believe on specifics, so by that measure there are a lot more liberals even if they don’t admit to the term.
I feel so much better now knowing that “liberal” is a dirty word.
Look at how the term progressive has been adopted by many who before would have been liberal. If the three choices are conservative, moderate, or liberal I can see people looking at the latter and thinking no way am I one of THEM. Sure, I agree with liberals on x,y,z etc. etc., but don’t you dare call me one of them.
Yes, the effect you cite does skew polling results, but it also skews voting results. It is a disadvantage that people who agree with liberals recoil from supporting liberals. The net effect is that the country is pretty conservative.
the bailouts and stimulus prevented us from hitting the true bottom we should have hit. Right now we are in a terrible place where that bottom is still there but we are all just hanging on and fighting to get back on safe ground. According to the polls, the parade has formed. More people want to tax the wealthy and fewer people want entitlement cuts. I am shocked that Obama seems unaware of this. He, as well as other democrats, are still using the “cut the deficit” talking points that are so yesterday. They look completely incompetent in their talking points. I’m sorry to have to say that, but it’s the truth. The Republicans sound even more imcompetent. Maybe that’s a win for the Democrats but is it a win for us as citizens of this country?
I agree about the effect of the bailouts and stimulus – combined with the existing social programs, the total effect has not been as disastrous as it could have been. But I disagree with “according to the polls, the parade has formed.” Compare this to the actions taken in the 30s. Public opinion alone isn’t what is going to make the President and Congress act. It needs to get uncomfortable enough to counter the influence of the big pockets writing the big checks.
You also make a good point of how Obama and other Dems have once again found themselves not only arguing in the right-wing frame, but defending that frame. One of the likely long-term effects of this is further cementing of those views in the minds of voters.
Continuing to validate the Tea Party’s central platform only perpetuates their power. Why Obama and some Dems continue to do this confuses me. Don’t they realize the tea party elites have revealed what they really stand for now and it’s not appealing to the general public. The
tea party could and would lose power quickly, unless they continue to be catered to, which they are.
I get that you’re saying we need a loud and assertive uprising to wake up our government. I absolutely agree. I don’t think it will take much more to make it happen. I’ve noticed changes in the faces of people at the grocery store. People are looking at products, then their prices, then they walk away without it with a disturbed look on their face. People are so aware that something is terribly wrong, and they are very angry.
Interesting … it strikes me that what you’re describing might also be summarized as “leading from behind” – exactly what the president says he wants to do with regard to the “Arab Spring.” Ironic that that’s what his “base” is saying they need him to do here.
over the debt ceiling, Obama took to the airwaves and specifically asked people to get involved and call their congresscritters. To date I’ve seen nothing, from any source, on the outcome of this nor the efficacy (if any) found therein.
I remember news reports of the “switchboards lighting up” in Washington. But as far as what messages were sent and what, if any, effect that had, I’ve also seen nothing.
And I think this counters the left-wing equivalent of the classic “things were so much better back in the past” complaint that seems to reappear in different guises. Namely, that political leaders like FDR and LBJ were “tough” and “very progressive” and today’s leaders little more than weak, closet right-wingers.
The fact is that at the time, even FDR and LBJ seemed too willing to capitulate (from the perspective of many people on the Left). It took grassroots movements to get these political leaders to act. In addition to the examples Jaisu mentions, consider the proposed march on Washington in 1941 led by A. Philip Randolph, the leader of the critically important Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Without this march, timed perfectly to cause FDR the most political pain if he didn’t accede to Randolph’s demands, FDR would have never taken the steps to combat racial discrimination that he did.
The point being that without strong and active grassroots support, progressives will have a hard time convincing any political leaders to take their side over the status quo. For all of their flaws (and admittedly, there are indeed some), unions have historically provided much of this grassroots movement. With the gradual decline of unions, the question is whether either unions can make a comeback or whether something else will take their place. I’m not sure how to answer that question, but getting an answer is probably the most pressing issue confronting modern-day progressives.
I just want to say that you have articulated what I have been clumsily struggling with in my own head for years. I should have known to go back to Zinn. Thank you.
What do you call the massive sustained demonstrations in Madison in response to GOP union-stripping bills? Alas, the President was nowhere to be found during that fight.
That’s the sort of action that is necessary, but it is small potatoes compared to what FDR had to confront. Strikes were taking out entire industries and regions of the country. The influence of communists in many of the self-help organizations was very real.
What’s happening in Wisconsin now that the recall effort fell short?
While writing this post yesterday, I had the recent violence in Britain in the back of my mind but did not end up including any mention of it. Today, there is an op-ed by Simon Waxman in the Globe that does discuss the causes and (in Waxman’s opinion) misdirected reactions to that violence, and discusses how the same conditions leading to the violence are here in the US.
Before going any further, I’ll make a point that Waxman also makes (before someone pounds me on it): Predicting or explaining the causes of violence is not the same as condoning it.
Zinn, of course, argues that voting (universal suffrage) is yet another method to keep the rabble from rousing. If you think you can solve the problems at the ballot box, you are less likely to get involved in either peaceful or not-so-peaceful protest.
Yes, I tend to figure if you can vote there is no legitimate reason to get violent against the government. However, peaceful politics takes mobilization as well.
It all seems to boil down to matter of what he can do and should do and what we can and should do.
What I’d like to see Obama do is speak loudly, even if he doesn’t have a big stick. Make the arguments and educate the electorate on our Democratic point of view as well our priorities. Rhetoric is action. Sometimes it is all that can be done. One of the successes of movement conservativism has been to affect political discourse in such a way that it is hard to say certain things. “Liberal,” for example, has become a sort of dirty word among many. If Obama shares central beliefs of the Democratic Party, he has failed the rhetoric war.
So what do we do? We talk and argue about it. Cumulatively, what we say matters. In a small, unmeasurable way, our conversation becomes part of political discourse, part of the political weather, with butterfly effect potential.
Long-term, we push our party back where it belongs. We do that by getting involved. Movement conservative took over and destroyed the Republican Party by taking it over. Barry Goldwater started it in 1964 when he surprised the Party and won its nomination. I’m working with the political arm of my union. I work on campaigns. I’m not bragging about my effect or sacrifices here–they’ve been very modest–but it’s a start.
I don’t things will change until there’s some sort of tipping point. The Tea Party was a sort of Tory response our country’s direction. They boiled over quickly and are evaporating. I think the rest of us will have our turn.
I am not saying I haven’t been disappointed at times with Obama, but he did get financial reform and affordable health care through Congress while he had the chance. I think his big mistake was to not raise the debt ceiling while he had a chance. Now we are stuck with a super committee?! Sheesh!
I do think, however, that it is up to us to push the President during the reelection campaign. What he needs to do is to offer some specifics. Like a jobs program through maybe some additional stimulus like a massive infusion into infrastructure repair. These things don’t need to pass, but I think he has become gun shy about specifics which is not good. He is asking us for ideas, we should give them to him and then keep pushing. Let’s not be afraid of ideas – the Tea Party really doesn’t have any.
There are also the examples of workers taking over idle factories in Argentina during their currency collapse a few years ago. We could also expand the current efforts on weatherization and solar barnraisings, time banking and local currencies, Common Security Clubs, the Transition Town movement, and many other self-reliance and self-sufficiency efforts.
End Poverty in California [EPIC] was the platform of Upton Sinclair’s campaign for the Governorship of California in 1934. Sinclair had won the nomination of the Democratic Party although he had been a member of the Socialist Party for decades. He got no support from the national party, the conservative Democrats helped field a third party candidate, and FDR avoided him like the plague.
Sinclair was also a writer and novelist, the author most famously of The Jungle, the book that made the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act and, eventually, the Food and Drug Administration possible. Naturally, he wrote a book about his experiences on the campaign trail.
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked by Upton Sinclair
Berkeley, CA: University of CA Press, 1934, 1935
ISBN 0-520-08198-6
(12-13) It is easy to imagine the unemployed of California in a system of production for use because of the efforts which they have made to establish such a system for themselves. All over the State self-help and barter groups have sprung up. There have been literally hundreds of them, and for a year or two I had been hearing stories of their achievements. In Compton, an industrial town south of Los Angeles, they served 19,745 meals at a total money cost of less than one-half cent a meal [$0.08 in 2009 dollars]. My friend, Hjalmar Rutzebeck, author of “Alaska Man’s Luck,” was active in the UXA (Unemployed Exchange Association) of Oakland, and told me marvelous tales about the complicated procedure whereby a group of several thousand hungry men would manage to make something out of nothing. They would find a farmer with a crop of peaches rotting on the trees, and who needed to have his barn painted. They would find a paint merchant who would accept some canned peaches in return for paint. Some of these operations were extremely complicated, involving an elaborate circle of activities with a dozen different participants.
One would have expected such efforts at self-support to be welcomed by the entire community. The cooperatives of Los Angeles county maintained 150,000 members for five months on a cash expenditure by the Government of only seventeen cents per family per month [$2.70]. Since a family is found to average 3.6 persons, this was less than one-sixth of a cent per person per day [$.03]. Here was Los Angeles county drifting into bankruptcy; here was the board of supervisors being besieged one day by hungry men demanding doles, and the next day by taxpayers clamoring against further taxes. For persons on the dole who did not belong to cooperatives the State of California was paying out in one way and another forty-five cents per person per day [$7.14], or 270 times as much as the cooperatives were costing. One would have expected that everybody in the county would hail the cooperatives as the most progressive, the most American, the most helpful of all the developments of these depression years.
But it was not so. The cooperatives were handicapped and hamstrung in a hundred different ways. Their funds were cut off, their leaders were bribed, they were broken by dissentions deliberately fostered.
A story was told to me by one of the leading society ladies of Los Angeles. a self-help group had got hold of some old baking machinery and got it to working and were turning out several thousand loaves of bread per day. Another group had got some land and grown some vegetables. They had an old truck and were exchanging bread for vegetables; but the bakery concerns objected to the bartering of bread, and the produce concerns objected to the bartering of vegetables, and the politicians forced the relief workers to cut off the gasoline supply of the truck, and so the operation was brought to an end.
This is how it is in our blind, anarchic society. When the State gives money to the unemployed and they spend it for bread in a store, that amounts to a subsidy for the stores; and in their greed for that subsidy the store-owners are willing to see the taxpayers driven out of their homes and the State driven into bankruptcy.
Even relief itself has become a racket. As I write, Senator Borah tells the American people that of the money which the Government gives for relief of the unemployed not more than one-half actually reaches the unemployed. The rest goes to the politicians along the line. In Democratic States it goes to build up a Democratic machine and in Republican States it goes to build up a Republican machine. California has been a Republican State for forty years and remains so, and the relief money serves to build up a machine of President Roosevelt’s enemies and to bring the New Deal to futility.
We are not the same country as we were in the 1930’s. Back then, monied interests lived in close proximity to the rabble. They had to – there were no highways or fast cars to zip them to a suburban estate. Not so today.
We may have similar demonstrations and uprisings, but they won’t threaten the people who hold the power because they are far away from the people with the problems. They won’t be as threatened, they will be more willing to let strife in the cities grow large.