Wade’s Journal – August 7, 2011

Contents:
--The American Dream Movement
--Happiness Research
--5 Ways To Listen Better
--Obama and the Debt Ceiling
--My Birthday Videos
--My New Declaration

+++

The American Dream Movement

Two months ago, Van Jones, whom I hold in very high regard, initiated the American Dream Movement with support from scores of prominent progressive organizations. They declared “the American Dream is under siege,” called for a new national movement to fight back, solicited ideas for policy positions to advocate, and convened house meetings to evaluate the enormous numbers of proposals that were submitted online.

When I learned of the project, I sent Van the following email:

****

Dear Van,

I signed up for a July 17 event and like your call to build an American Dream movement.

However, two points seem to be missing: the need to nurture spiritual growth and mutual support.

As reported in the abstract of "The Polls—Trends" by Sandra L. Hanson and John Zogby in Public Opinion Quarterly, Sept 2010, Vol. 74 Issue 3, pp 570-584: "Results from a number of U.S. public opinion polls collected in the past two decades [concerning] attitudes about the American Dream … suggest that a majority of Americans consistently reported that the American Dream (for themselves and their family) is more about spiritual happiness than material goods."

The pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the American Dream. Building the American Dream movement therefore needs to be rooted in contagious happiness and a deep concern for how we treat each other. Promoting happiness requires more than changes in public policy.

Far too often, progressive activists are too materialistic, task-oriented, impersonal, intellectual, and arrogant, among other weaknesses. We need to learn how to steadily correct those mistakes and improve how we treat people, which requires self-improvement.

My hope is that the American Dream movement will clearly, explicitly affirm a commitment to spiritual growth and mutual support.

With great respect,

Wade Hudson

****

My house meeting was cancelled at the last minute, but Paul Loeb reported that about 20,000 people participated in events throughout the country. Since then, Van has spoken at events and to the media representing the movement. Their website has a frequently updated blog, asks supporters to “help spread the word and show our strength with … American Dream signs and logos,” and states “If we can get these signs to start popping up everywhere, nationwide, we'll show the public and the media that our movement is gaining steam fast!”

I’ll continue to follow the development of this project and hope for the best, but it strikes me as largely more of the same, whereas new strategies are sorely needed.

+++

Happiness Research

According to a report from three Italian researchers, data from 1975 to 2004 collected by the annual General Social Surveys that monitors change in U.S. society through interviews with thousands of Americans reveals that Americans are less happy today than they were 30 years ago thanks to longer working hours and a deterioration in the quality of their relationships with friends and neighbors.

Studying the same data, a University of Chicago professor “noticed definite upticks when the nation flourished economically. For example, she found that 1995 was a very good year on the happiness scale.”

In 2010 a Conference Board survey of 5,000 U.S. households showed just 45% of respondents say they are satisfied with their jobs, down from 61% in 1987, the first year in which the survey was conducted, according to the Wall Street Journal, which concluded:

Lower job satisfaction over the past 20 years has come as more companies have dropped or cut pension benefits and asked employees to contribute more to health care. Meanwhile, wage growth has been relatively stagnant. Ironically, the two-decade decline in happiness has coincided with substantial increases in worker productivity. Gains in the tech sector have ensured that even as workers become more unhappy, they have become more productive

+++

5 Ways To Listen Better

An excellent TED Talk. To watch, and listen, click here.

+++

Obama and the Debt Ceiling

Evaluating Obama’s performance in the debt-ceiling battle is not easy. But what is clear to me is that a major problem is the lack of an effective movement to pressure him to take stronger stands.

I believe Obama probably made certain mistakes on the debt issue. Those decisions appear to be rooted in deeply held incorrect convictions, as William Greider argued in “Obama's Bad Bargain“ when he said, “I think Obama has at last revealed his sincere convictions.” Ironically, Obama who has talked so much about transcending ideology seems confined by his own ideological bias, which Jim Sleeper summed up as “neo-liberal” in his thoughtful “The Republic After Obama.”  Obama seems to really believe his rhetoric when he brags about the federal budget being as small relative to the overall economy as it was under Eisenhower. So he has failed to clearly argue that the deficit is best dealt with by establishing tax fairness and restoring economic growth, even if we have to wait a few years to reduce the deficit substantially.

And Ray Teixeira may be right when, in “Obama’s Unhealthy Obsession With Independents,” he charges that when Obama and his team look at independent voters they “want to see teeming hordes of voters who are above the partisan allure of party, untroubled by the bad economy (or, at least, not planning to vote on that basis), and pining for a Washington where the parties, darn it, just work together. So that’s what they see.” In fact, however, most independents are less concerned about the deficit than they are about the jobs situation. So Teixeira faults Obama for accepting “the GOP framework that cutting debt, not creating jobs, was the country’s central problem.” The consequence, he argues, is that “we have a deal that severely undercuts Democratic policy priorities and cuts government spending just as the economic recovery is showing signs of tanking.”

But the debt ceiling issue gets complicated upon closer look.

Leftist critics want Obama to be like FDR and lead an angry assault on the “economic royalists.” They want Obama to be a cheerleader for a left populist attack on corporations and/or the wealthy, to lead a movement that does not exist. They lament that Obama did not transition his campaign organization into an insurgent force that would challenge and threaten moderate Democrats, like the Tea Party confronts Republican incumbents. Many of them want to fight the good fight, organize the masses, and trust that they will win eventually, even if the Presidency is sacrificed in 2012.

But FDR had powerful grassroots force pushing him, whereas Obama does not. If Obama were to act like FDR, he would risk going out on a limb that would endanger his re-election. His left critics focus on what would be ideal policy, but neglect political calculations concerning the impact of various options on his electoral prospects, especially with independent voters. Rather than scapegoating Obama and spending so much time complaining about him, these critics should concentrate on building an effective grassroots movement.

I believe it is important to re-elect Obama, if only due to his court appointments and the many positive, under-the-radar policy changes made by his Administration, as well as the fact that he’s more open to persuasion than any likely Republican President would be. Political calculations therefore are important. Independents can swing an election and Obama’s attention to the deficit could help him with independents who care strongly about the deficit. So I’ve been irritated by most leftist critiques of Obama because they ignore those political concerns, especially when they lapse into ad hominem arguments.

During the debt-ceiling battle Obama did manage to help de-legitimize the House Republicans. His “angry” press conference illuminated key issues. He did use his bully pulpit to flood Congressional switchboard with supportive phone calls. And the American people still disapprove of the Republicans even more than they disapprove of Obama.

In talking about future political battles in Congress, Nancy Pelosi recently said, “[W]e wouldn't let our country default.” This comment touches on the political risk that would have followed if Obama and the Democrats had called the Republicans’ bluff. Republicans would have charged Democrats with indifference to the deficit and creating default in order to protect their “tax-and-spend” ways.

Instead, the compromise protects many programs that serve the neediest, enables the Democrats to project an image of being concerned about deficits, and provides the Democrats with the ability to run against the “Roadblock Republicans.” Even Standard and Poor’s pointed to the Republican-created gridlock as a major problem when they downgraded our credit rating. Most Americans still blame Bush more than Obama for our economic woes and they favor Obama’s economic policies over the Republicans’. Considering how bad the economy is, the fact that Obama’s approval rating has not fallen more than it has indicates that he has operated with considerable skill. So Obama and the Democrats may be in a better position for 2012 than would have been the case if they had refused to settle the debt ceiling issue as they did.

By temperament Obama wants to try to facilitate consensus. As he made clear during his campaign, he is not inclined to inflame conflict at the outset of addressing an issue, but is willing to fight if and when consensus proves impossible. He wants to try to be bipartisan as long as there is hope for agreement. That approach makes sense for a President, who is not Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

But late July may well have been the time to really confront the Republicans on the debt-ceiling issue. I tend to think so.

A key question for me is how far the House Republicans would have pushed their opposition to any increased tax revenue if Obama and the Democrats had insisted that the deficit-reduction plan be “balanced,” a position supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including most Republicans. It strikes me as strange that I’ve seen no commentary on that question: would enough Republicans have changed their position in the face of a sustained stock-market collapse?

My cab passengers whom I’ve asked, including well-informed workers in the financial sector, have said that the Republicans would’ve eventually backed down.

My own suspicion is that they would have refused to raise the debt ceiling until the August 2 deadline passed, but after the stock tanked for two or three days, enough of them would have voted with the Democrats to raise it (in conjunction with a balanced plan to lower the deficit). After the matter was settled, Pelosi said, “They didn’t have the votes.” I take that to mean the Republicans would have been unable to sustain their hard line.

That scenario could have enabled Obama to project the image of a strong leader who will fight for his principles and avoid late-night jokes such as David Letterman saying that when Obama celebrated his birthday, he “asked for an iPad, [and] let Republicans negotiate him down to a wad of gum.”

But maybe Pelosi was right. Perhaps it would have hurt Obama and the Democrats in 2012 if they (and the Republicans) had “let our country default.” We’ll never know. But as Pelosi suggests, now that the Republicans are emboldened, we may see similar brinkmanship later this year. And this time it may be easier for the Democrats to stand firm. Regardless, come the 2012 election, we’ll probably see a more combative Obama.

+++

My Birthday Videos

To celebrate my 67th birthday, my sister and brother-in-law communed with Mother Nature in Marin County. Some video that I shot is on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRhn0u3mGE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXsFb6oU8OU and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2318250113827 and http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2318296674991.

+++

My New Declaration

I’m working steadily on drafting a new manifesto to summarize my thinking about a new approach to community organizing geared toward social transformation. I look forward to discussing it soon, both online and in person.