I Like Mike

I confess: I’ve given money to John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich – not much, even by my standards, but some. I may give more – to both of them. In Edwards’ case, it’s because I think he’s better than the only other contender with any chance of sending the Clintons packing. [They could use their time away from the White House to write a joint memoir. For a title, I suggest How We Completed the “Reagan Revolution” and, With Sanctions, Bombs, and “Humanitarian Interventions,” Made Cheney’s and Bush’s Wars, Including their War on the Rule of Law, Possible.] To be sure, Edwards’ “all options are on the table” speech (with regard to Iran) in Herzliya last January was unforgivable. I understand that “serious” Democratic contenders have to pander to the Israel lobby; but this was over the top. Still, he’s better than Obama – on just about everything, but especially on trade and support for organized labor. I could live with Obama, though, if it comes to that. What makes the flesh crawl is the prospect of a Clinton leading a Clintonite Restoration. Where is Monica Lewinsky now that we need her!

Kucinich is better than anybody on the issues. He’s even better than Mike Gravel, whose campaign is too feeble to have much to say about many of them. It’s wonderful that Kucinich is able to make his points in the “debates,” even if what he says is ignored by the other candidates and the media (except when UFO sightings are involved). But the Kucinich campaign still leaves me uneasy; and it isn’t just because the candidate doesn’t seem “presidential.” My problem with the Kucinich campaign is that it exemplifies what the Left has become in recent decades. Bereft of all but the palest vision of what a better world might be like, and not very interested even in understanding how the actual world works, the Left has devolved into a motley of good causes, without much of an idea about how to get from here to there or, for that matter, about what there there is.

This was my problem with the Nader campaign in 2000 as well, though that was about more than just “issues.” It was also about party building. [Another confession: I supported that campaign financially to the maximum extent allowable at the time, and I don’t regret it.] In 2000, there was the prospect of getting the Green Party out of limbo; a goal that turned out to matter less to Nader himself than to many of his supporters (like me). A “third” party, clearly to the left of the Democrats that is too big to be marginalized would be a major boon to our political culture. To me, this mattered more than that Nader was good on the issues. In the end, though, the hopes I and others had for the Nader campaign were blocked by “liberal” Democrats campaigning against him rather than George Bush, and by the institutions twentieth century Republicrats installed to maintain their duopoly. But it was a noble effort. If we lived in a country with more open political processes, where political parties can enter and exit more easily, or even where ballot access is more readily and inexpensively available, it would have done much good. In the actual world, it was, in retrospect, a fool’s errand – but still one not to regret. Kucinich’s attempt to change the Democratic Party from within is also a fool’s errand. It just can’t be done by being the best on the issues. Change is possible, but not that way. What the Democrats need is a leader who can unleash a popular dynamic for progressive change – much as FDR did for a brief portion of his long reign. That’s why I want Edwards to be the candidate even if, by a miracle, Kucinich could somehow win. I agree with Kucinich more, much more, on the issues at hand. But that’s just not where the action is.

It is said that politics is “the art of the possible.” That’s not the same thing as getting the issues right. It’s understanding the constraints and, more importantly, understanding how to change those constraints – how to open up new possibilities – and therefore to make new issues. This is not to say that it isn’t important to be good on the issues currently in view. It’s good that somebody is. But if that’s all it’s about, why stop where Kucinich does or, for that matter, where Nader did? For more than two centuries, the world has abounded with proposals for changing life for the better – in ways that the positions Kucinich defends barely touch. In the political culture of recent decades, those proposals have been derogated as “utopian” or ignored as naïve and depassé. I don’t think they are. But I do think that the case against radicalism that afflicts what passes for a Left today applies, say, to Kucinich’s single-payer not for profit healthcare plan – obviously preferable to what the other candidates have in mind -- nearly as much as it does to leaping more boldly forward into the realm of freedom. Good policy positions are indispensable. But they are also radically insufficient. The way forward now, as it always has been, is by building collective movements organized around coherent visions of what can be, and sound understandings of what now is. Taking all that for granted and just being better on the issues pales in comparison.

Which brings me to Mike Gravel. He’s good on the issues too, though perhaps not quite as good as Kucinich. But, unlike Kucinich, he’s a breath of fresh of air. For Democrats these days, that seems possible only for septuagenarians no longer interested in being Washington “players.” [This might seem like an odd thing to say about someone running for President, but I think it fits the case. It’s also why, though I like Mike the best, I’m more reluctant to throw money his way rather than Kucinich’s or Edwards’.] Jimmy Carter is another example. To the dismay of the Democratic leadership, he’s free to state the obvious – about the Apartheid character of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, for example. Similarly, Gravel is free to speak truth of and to the other candidates, especially the front-runners. Thus, within the bounds of decorum, he takes every opportunity, as goody-goody Kucinich does not, to point out that the others, Hillary Clinton especially, are full of shit.

In this regard, the Iran portion of the December 4, NPR radio debate was particularly revealing. Only Gravel dared say that Iran poses no threat, with or without nuclear weapons, to the United States; that it never did and probably never will. He might have added that the United States long has and still does pose a very serious threat to Iran. Instead, he said something almost equally obvious – that it is Israel that wants the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that if we do it, it will mainly be for them. He might have added that it is the Israel lobby in the United States, in conjunction with their neo-conservative co-thinkers in the Vice President’s office, who are mainly behind this move towards yet another war. Saying such things is unthinkable in the United States where there is a strict taboo against speaking ill of the state of Yahweh’s Chosen People – my state, I suppose, though I want nothing to do with it. Gravel violated the taboo; he might as well have farted in public, the way the others pretended not to notice.

They ignore Kucinich too; Joe Biden is especially good at it. Biden is a case. It’d hard to believe that anyone could be as good at foreign policy as he thinks he is, or that anyone (this side of the Republican Party) could have as many dumb ideas about foreign policy as he does. His plan to dismember Iraq is at the top of the list, but it’s not the only item on it. Still, his performance during the China part of the NPR “debate” strains credulity. It’s fine that he wants the United States to be tough on human rights in China – not that it has any moral standing left in that department. But then he went on and on about how the Land of the Free would never let any ally – he mentioned France and Germany, specifically – get away with what it lets China get away with. Well, Joe, what about the dearest ally of all, Israel? He could hardly have forgotten about it; after all, he’s even more deeply ensconced in AIPAC’s deep pockets than the rest of them, including Hillary Clinton. If anyone needs a 257,000st reason to send the Clintons packing, think about this: Hillary is as likely as not to give that piece of work the job he’s always coveted – Secretary of State.

But to return to Mike Gravel, imagine that Israel/Palestine somehow was discussable. Here’s what I think he would say: he’d say that America should look out for its own interests, not Israel’s, and that there is no good reason for the United States to support that country financially and diplomatically to the extent that it now does. He would say, most likely, that the United States should treat Israel the way it treats other countries – not the way irresponsible parents enable their out of control children by letting them get away with anything (at no matter what cost).

On the other hand, in the rare instances when he cannot avoid the question, Kucinich says that the United States should throw its support behind the Israeli left. That’s a fine idea; better, by far, than the usual practice of giving carte blanche to the government of Israel. But it’s the issues thing all over again. What are the political, strategic and military constraints shaping American policy? How constraining are those constraints? Is a “two state” solution, the goal of the Israeli left, even possible anymore? To these and other pertinent questions, Kucinich is oblivious. Like so many others on today’s left, he seems to think that niceness is enough. But even with the Christmas season upon us, is there anybody who thinks that “good will to all” is a viable strategy? Mike Gravel understands that it is not. That’s why I like him.

NOTE: On Iran, Gravel also pointed out that the intelligence community has finally shown courage by digging in its heels to the great consternation of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons. With the just released NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) indicating that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons plans in 2003, the bureaucracies of sixteen agencies “dropkicked” the administration’s war plans right off the field. Gravel’s hope may be premature, but his observation is well taken. It is worth noting too that the information on which the NIE report is based has been shuffling around in government precincts for some time, and that it was well confirmed even before the 2006 elections. The Cheney/Bush government was able to suppress the news until now. Evidently, they no longer can. [For more on who knew what and when, look here.] Where were the Democrats while this was going on? To be sure, a few of them, like Dennis Kucinich, insisted all along that Iran is not a threat. But the vast majority played along with the neo-cons; indeed, as of the NPR debate, they were still at it. Yes, they favor “aggressive diplomacy,” not bombs (for the time being). Yes, they all – except Hillary -- reject the Kyl-Lieberman amendment effectively authorizing Bush to go to war. But the view of Iran that they project is no different from the view George Bush and Dick Cheney would have us all believe. How pitiful is that!

Kucinich and "the Issues"

No one quite understands how issues become issues, but the general contours of an explanation are clear enough. Media play an important, sometimes decisive, role – especially in filtering potential issues out into the margins of public life and in dumbing down political discourse. But media can also turn potential issues into actual ones. Watergate is the most important late twentieth century example. Whitewater and then Monicagate was another. That issue was manufactured by the extreme right wing; given how little they had to work with, it is remarkable how successful they were. Meanwhile, potential issues – for example, the mass incarceration of black youth – go unnoticed. In certain circumstances, social movements play a crucial role in bringing issues to the fore. Organized political pressure groups are important too – acting independently and in conjunction with media and social movements. How else explain the fact that abject support for whatever Israeli governments deem best for Israel is taken for granted throughout the political culture? Anti-Castro Cubans do nearly as well as the Israel lobby for much the same reasons.

Presidential campaigns can play a role too. Since it matters enormously in our not very democratic democracy who the Chief Executive is, and since our political culture is so thoroughly depoliticized, nomination contests and then general elections do more than anything else to focus the mind of the electorate. Presidential campaigns can therefore play a vital “educational” role. This can be important in its own right; it can also help determine what the issues are. In the 2004 contest for the Democratic nomination, Howard Dean made the Iraq War more of an issue than it would otherwise have been. [He fell into that role because the other “electable” contenders were so complicitous and therefore compromised, and because the more principled anti-war candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, were marginalized by the press.] In the current electoral cycle, John Edwards has had some success in making poverty an issue. But, for the most part, candidates are issue-takers, not issue makers.

As such, Edwards is pretty good on domestic issues; Bill Richardson is good on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq (he’d leave no soldier behind); Chris Dodd is good on environmental issues. Joe Biden is good for nothing. Barack Obama is vague on everything, though he does emit vibes that suggest that his positions on the issues, if he had any, would be decent. Hillary Clinton, true to her family’s traditions, is dreadful on everything, though she may seem OK from time to time, depending on the constituency she’s pandering to. Mike Gravel, one of the two media non-persons, bests all the main contenders on the Iraq War and on foreign policy generally. But, in the end, there’s no contest: Dennis Kucinich, the other media non-person, is the best by far – on everything, domestic and foreign. Should he therefore be the candidate of choice?

Not necessarily – and not just because he isn’t electable. [It was that kind of thinking that gave us John Kerry in 2004 and that may give us Hillary Clinton in 2008. When Democratic voters make electability their prime consideration, prepare for defeat.] If Kucinich has a coherent analysis of why America is in dire straits, at home and abroad, he has kept it a secret. But he is uniformly and consistently on the side of the angels. There’s no harm in that; niceness is good. But then neither are his positions, creditable as they may be, of much educational value. Still, it is important that he remain in the campaign and that his voice is heard in those increasingly pointless candidate forums. However pertinent or not the issues may be, getting them right is valuable in itself; it is also important for bringing the other candidates, the more “electable” ones, into line. No doubt, those more electable candidates would like him and Gravel gone. For them, those two are just nuisances. But there’s little danger that they’ll get their wish. So long as Gravel adds diverting colorfulness and Kucinich brings along his wife (a demonstrable camera magnet), the press corps want them there, if only as an antidote to the boredom of listening to the other candidates’ sound bites. So long as neither Gravel nor Kucinich appear threatening to the interests of the press corps’ bosses – a sure thing given how adept they are at marginalizing dissent – the bosses are unlikely to pull the plug.

Campaigns may focus the mind, but when it comes to governance, style -- charisma even -- matter more than positions on issues, especially in a political culture in which serious political education is out of the question. JFK was lousy on the issues. But, by being the figure he was (or was presented to be) – and by being assassinated when he was – he helped to make “the sixties” (and the seventies) possible. In right-wing circles, Ronald Reagan played a similar role. Unfortunately, Reagan had a more lasting effect than Kennedy; for this, blame the main implementer of the Reagan Revolution, Bill Clinton! The last quasi-progressive charismatic figure in recent decades in the United States was Robert Kennedy, though he only found his voice in year or so before his own assassination. Obama is hyped as a charismatic figure. So far, though, he has been charismatic more in the manner of Mick Jagger than of FDR or the Kennedys. Edwards has more promise. Can he take up where RFK left off? Probably not. For one thing, the Washington press corps doesn’t seem to like him; perhaps they think he’s a phony. Thus the $400 haircut won’t go away; neither now does the gotcha moment when they exposed his investments in private equity funds connected to predatory lenders in New Orleans. [He says he was unaware of the connections.] Like FDR and the Kennedys, he’s a rich guy claiming to be on the side of the poor. Could the difference be that FDR and the Kennedys were born to wealth, while Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer? Or is it that the Bush family has caused the whole idea of noblesse oblige to fall into disgrace; taking down nouveau riche oblige with it? In any case, Edwards should use a little more of his considerable charm on the boys in the press bus. It shouldn’t be that hard. If they could fall in love with John McCain, they can love anybody.

It may just be the lull of summertime and the fact that the Democratic leadership is out of Washington and therefore doing no harm but, at this point in time, I wouldn’t rule out the prospect of a Kennedyesque Restoration were John Edwards to become President of the United States. Kennedy was bad, very bad, on foreign policy too. Neither of them comes close to Kucinich on the issues. But, even so, a Kennedyesque revival would be a vastly more estimable outcome than a Clintonite Restoration, with or without a Clinton in charge. That’s why I think Edwards deserves “critical (and instantly revocable) support,” even though Kucinich beats him hands down on the issues. At this point, he seems our best hope for ridding the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, of the plague of Pelosiism and, the issues notwithstanding, for moving the country onto a better track.

The Second Debate

The most reasonable and also most obvious remarks coming out of last night’s (June 3) debate were made by Dennis Kucinich: that the way to stop the war is to stop funding it NOW; and that the best and least expensive way to provide universal health insurance is to adopt a not-for-profit, single-payer plan. The most remarkable thing is that he was able to get a word in edgewise. The crack team of cartoon character pundits that CNN deployed to New Hampshire was determined to marginalize candidates they deemed marginal – Kucinich, above all. [Being colorful, Mike Gravel got more attention.] They largely succeeded. On the other hand, it could have been worse. Wolff Blitzer did at least force the candidates to answer the questions posed to them.

Also, news reports this morning accurately reflect the main “drama” of last night’s debate – that John Edwards (politely) castigated Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for not “showing leadership” when Senate Democrats capitulated to Bush on war funding. [Edwards was less critical of Chris Dodd, as he should have been; the other Senatorial candidate, Joe Biden, didn’t even vote against funding the war himself.] Of course, what Edwards said was right, as far as it goes. The real problem is that Obama probably and Clinton certainly are Pelosiites – corporate neo-liberals, not shy of serving their masters by projecting American military power, who’ve adapted to the rising tide of anti-war sentiment brought on by more than six years of Bush administration incompetence. Pelosiites say one thing and do the other. For opportunistic reasons, if need be (as in the primary elections), they will even vote one way, and then facilitate the opposite outcome. [For a fuller account, see “Pelosiism: the Highest Stage of Clintonism,” entry for May 28.] The question is: when it comes down to it, is Edwards a Pelosiite too? His positions on trade and poverty – non-subjects in last night’s debate – suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the principal avatar of Clintonism – and therefore Pelosiism - today did say that, among all the Democratic candidates, there are only “minor shades of difference.” She might be right.