Uncovering Writing

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Marx is still relevant today, without a doubt. In 1848, he has written a manifesto that still speaks to today’s society and economies: the concentration of money in fewer hands; the exploitation of workers in order to increase capital; globalization; propaganda to turn workers against their own needs, etc.

Who can’t look at our current unemployment numbers while corporations pay ridiculous and scandalous salaries and dividends and not resonate with Marx when he writes about the modern working class. “A class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”

If you haven’t read this, read it. If you have read it, read it again. This work is as important today as it was more than 150 years ago.

This starts off as a fantastic read and is so useful for just the first 30 pages or so that highlight the similarities between the Great Recession of today and the Great Depression.  The historical data pre-Depression through today makes this book worth purchashing, reading and keeping on your shelf.  It’s a good policy wonk book too.  Reich nails it on the head by noting like many others before him that even uber-capitalist Henry Ford understood that to stay in business and grow, your employees were also your customers.  If you don’t pay them enough, they can’t buy your products, and then you limit your ability to grow and keep succeeding in business.

Reich also notes the rise of the extreme right that’s willing to blame anyone who a populist talking head or politician targets for why their lives aren’t as good as they used to be.  He could delve into it better, touching on the sexist, racism, isolationism and religious bigotry that floods the airwaves and internet every second.

While this is a great book, I have some criticisms.  He probably would have addressed if this was a longer book, but since he didn’t, this book can’t be a blueprint but more of an extended soundbite with good historical analysis.  Reich keeps the focus on the need for Americans to be able to afford schooling.  Sadly, he pushes the meme that vouchers are the answer, undermining a public school system that flourished and helped create & sustain the Great Prosperity.  He also thinks that a college degree will guarantee a better life. In the past, this was true, but the largest growth sector for Americans who cannot travel abroad is in the service industry.  You don’t need a degree for that.  However, in an interesting vein, he also suggests that student loan payoffs be linked to subsequent earnings, so that high earners pay more while those contributing to the social good pay less.  I like that idea.

Another question that I have, and to which I don’t have a perfect answer to yet, is the focus by Reich, and capitalist economists in general, is that more and more consumption is good for the economy.  We need to consume, but always buying more and more sounds like it’ll end in the same problem again, i.e. even with better wages and good social safety net, if you always increase your consumption, you’ll eventually have to borrow to pay for it.

One thing that really stands out is his lack of addressing gender and race, especially when he talks about the Great Prosperity from the end of World War II until the 1970s.  It’s almost “Leave it to Beaver” again, in that racism and sexism are barely, if ever, touched upon by the book.  Thus, a return to fiscal poilcy of the past MUST take into account the impact of including those who were excluded the last time around.  Noticably, Reich also glosses over class issues in the US, except to talk about the middle class and the top 400-500 earners in the economy.  Class is important in America and ignoring it simply delays dealing with the problem.

One last thought is with respect to his ideas on campaign finance reform.  He suggests a blind trust be established so that politicians won’t know from whom a contribution comes from.  The idea is that this would negate the “pay to play” system currently in place.  While this sounds good on the surface, it lacks depth.  E.g., the pool of people who could contribute large amounts to political parties (be they real people or Citizens United corporations), is very small.  The identity of those contributors would hardly be difficult to determine.

After all that, I’d like to still say this is an important book to read.  It’s starts the discussion.  And, unlike so many tomes, it provides solid historical financial data to back up some of its points.  The key take away is that “An economy where the middle class lacks the means to buy what it produces” cannot succeed in the long run.

I’m such a political geek. I went to the Greek islands and Athens and took along Naftali Bendavid’s new book: The Thumpin’: How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution. It was published two days before we left for Greece and I picked it up and took it along. It was fun for the plane rides to and forth.

The book chronicles Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL 05)’s term as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC, “D Triple C” or simply “D Trip”) during the 2006 election cycle. With rare inside access, Bendavid gives us insight into how this much-hated and much-loved politician helped win back a majority for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. With great quotes and some “fly on the wall” scenes, the book is a quick read that moves from Rahm’s appointment in early 2005 until a few days after the November 2006 elections.

This book is a fun read, especially for insiders who played a role in this election cycle. Unfortunately, Bendavid glosses over a lot of detail about specific races and the tactics that Rahm used to select, or in many cases, un-select a Democratic challenger. While he spends a little time talking about the infamous Illinois 6th primary race between longtime Democrat Christine Cegelis and newcomer, but Iraq War veteran, Tammy Duckworth, he doesn’t cover other races such as Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Les Roberts (NY-24) and Eric Massa (NY-29). Granted, this book was an overview, but such a discussion would have gone a long way to balance out these historic elections.

Finally, I wanted to see an analysis of the implications of Emanuel’s strategy of picking sometimes very conservative Democrats in traditionally Republican enclaves. What does this say for the future of the Democratic Party in places like North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 8th? Rahm picked conservative Democrats Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth to win these seats, and it’s hard to see either of these newly elected Congressman as Democrats. What about the 2008 election too? For that cycle, which we’re already in, Chris Van Hollen (D-MD 08) will be running the DCCC. In 2006, he was one of Rahm’s closest lieutenants. We shall see.

I just finished reading Jimmy Carter’s controversial book on the Palestine-Israel conflict. It’s both fascinating and accessible. Everyone should read it, no matter where they stand on this divisive issue. President Carter, responding to some of the vitriol that surrounded his book tour, said that we need to have a discussion and his book opens up space to have that discussion. I heartily agree.

Carter provides much needed historical and political context to the problem, covering the issue not only from the dominant Israeli / US point of view but also from Palestinians, surrounding Arab nations and his own personal intersection with the region through his faith, his presidency and his work with The Carter Center. In the conclusion, he writes “voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories” (Carter 2006:209). This book helps bring other pieces of information and experience to the table.

A common theme throughout the book is Carter’s insistence that the United States needs to talk to both its friends and its supposed enemies. Diplomacy is paramount. While you surely can talk to your friends, it’s imperative that you reach out to people with whom you disagree. The U.S. did that with its deadliest enemy, the Soviet Union, but in recent years and under the George W. Bush administration, it has failed to practice this fundamental tenet of international relations. Carter writes, “A major impediment to progress is Washington’s strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands” (Carter 2006: 202-203).

He also writes about how the White House and U.S. Congress have been less than vocal in response to illegal Israeli actions, partly due to the immense power of the Israeli lobby in the United States. This influence is strengthened by its practice of silencing dissent by labeling it anti-semitic. Let’s just be clear here, opposing Israeli state policy is not anti-semitic in and of itself; just as opposing Iranian state policy is not anti-Islamic.

Very near the end of the book, Carter reflects back on a remark he made to the Israeli Knesset in 1979 that still rings true in 2007: “The people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacles to peace” (Carter 2006:211). He meant leaders on both sides as well as international actors. It is sad that almost thirty years have passed, countless lives have been lost, millions have become refugees, and still our leaders cannot sit down, talk and settle this problem. Let’s hope this book kicks the process in the butt and gets it moving once again.

Jimmy Carter has a new op-ed in today’s Washington Post, responding to the critisism of his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. The harsh (and baseless) attacks on his book have ignored the situation he so clearly lays out and discusses. Many attacks have focused on his book’s title and knee-jerk support for Israel without ever listening to any other point of view. Let’s hope there’s movement forward on Palestine in 2007.

I just love Jimmy Carter. Some say he’s the best ex-President there ever was. Time will tell, since Bill Clinton’s been doing amazing work with his foundation, especially with respect to negotiating cheaper AIDS drugs and other health issues.

On Good Morning, America, which I was watching while at the gym this morning, President Carter was talking about his newest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. His interviewer, Robin Roberts, was toeing the bipartisan U.S. party line that any criticism of Israeli policy is both wrong and antisemitic, no matter who says it and no matter what they say. Certainly there is antisemitism, certainly there are important security concerns for the sovereign state of Israel, but that cannot be the only lens through which to view the situation.

Carter deftly responded, noting that his experience in the region, U.S. policy, UN resolutions, and the majority of the Israeli public, all show that the current situation in Palestine is a colonial occupation and exploitation that cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed observer.

For more on this story, see Raw Story piece. You can also see a short excerpt from Carter’s book, provided by ABC News.

I just finished reading George Lakoff’s don’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate. Published in 2004, it appears to be a collection of essays and thoughts he has pulled together over the years. Frankly, it could have been reduced to about a 30-40 page primer that might get a wider audience. However, at 119 pages, it’s a quick read.

The book is about frames, i.e. how we understand the world, how we know what we know. Frames control how we deal with new facts that are presented to us. If a fact agrees with the frame, it’s accepted. If a fact disagrees with the frame, in more cases than not, the fact will be discarded, regardless of whether it is true or not. According to Lakoff, frames rule our world.

His book is for progressives and goes a long way to de-vilefying conservatives and “red-state voters”. He notes that progressives can’t call people who voted for Bush as stupid or moronic. The frames they have developed, and that have been reinforced by 40 years of conservative communications, simply won’t allow these facts to overwhelm their worldview. Lakoff urges progressives to think in terms of ideas, frames, and moral values. Everyone has these and it’s a matter of framing progressive values and repeating them often to get our message across. It can’t be done overnight, and as he repeats often, “the truth will not set you free”. Facts by themselves are not sufficient. One of his best examples is the frame of “tax relief”. It just sounds good, doesn’t it? Relief. Relief is a good thing. Relief from what? Taxes. If it’s relief, then taxes must be bad. If progressives talk about tax relief and say that it isn’t any good or helps the wrong people, they’re still using the tax relief frame and are simply reinforcing the idea of relief. We need to talk about it differently. We need to talk about how government built the interstate system, how it created the internet, how cures and vaccines have been developed by the national health institutes. Paraphrasing Lakoff, your tax refund can’t pay to build a highway to drive to work.

One thing I’d like to mention is his differentiation of framing from spinning. He sees spin as manipulative use of a frame. However, I would argue that it’s spin, regardless of whether it’s for good or for manipulation. Speaking in frames is an attempt to manipulate, or change, an individual’s world view and how they process facts. We frame it one way in order to counter another frame. He says framing is good if we articulate frames we believe in and that we see as morally good. But, isn’t that what conservatives, and all groups, do? They believe in what they’re saying and use a frame that articulates that belief system. Propaganda, as Lakoff rightly points out, is something entirely different and bad. He defines it well by calling it the use of a frame that is known to be wrong and selling that frame for political or economic benefit of the purveyor.

To end on a high note, his last chapter on how to respond to conservatives is a must read. That chapter along with the introduction of frames and a few examples make this book worth a look, but it really should have been edited down to a few dozen pages.

After the recent attack on me, I thought it might be useful to provide some insight into where I’m coming from. As I like reading and writing, I think you can get a taste for who Drew really is by checking out my thesis and reading the following books:

Fiction

• The Fall, by Albert Camus
• The Sheltering Sky, by Paul Bowles
• The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck

Nonfiction

• Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues, by Paul Farmer
• Power and Its Disguises: Anthropological Perspectives on Power, by John Gledhill
• The Motorcycle Diaries, by Ernesto Guevara
• Socialism: Past and Future, by Michael Harrington
• The Politics of Culture in the Shadow of Capital, by Lisa Lowe and David Llyod
• Marxism and Literature, by Raymond Williams
• The New Poverty Studies: The Ethnography of Power, Politics, and Impoverished People in the United States, by Judith Goode and Jeff Maskovsky