Harry Targ
Political activists bring frames of reference to
political conversations. These frames are shaped by competing visions of the
nature of politics and what proper individual and state behavior should be.
Neoliberals
celebrate
the long-term performance of the capitalist economic system and urge that state
regulations of economic activity be very limited. Neoliberal ideology is
supplemented by one of two outlooks on how the United States should behave in
the world. Neoconservatives argue
that as the world’s dominant power, mostly military, it should use that power
to remake other countries in its own image. With power come opportunities and
obligations they say. Humanitarian
interventionists suggest that the United States role in the world,
economically and militarily, should be measured and limited. As “the
indispensable nation,” United States power should be used selectively when
there are clear humanitarian reasons for doing so. Decisions about when to
intervene, of course, are to be determined by the United States itself.
New
Deal Liberals, in the tradition of British economist
John Maynard Keynes and descendants of sectors of the Democratic Party, see government
as a potential positive force to modulate and limit the negative consequences
of unbridled capitalism. The historic model is the evolving policy agenda of
the Roosevelt Administration which included increased regulation of finance
capital, workplace conditions, and worker rights. The transfer of funds to
stimulate economic activity was vital.
Economic
nationalists are not opposed to a government role in
the economy but view it as a tool for protecting domestic manufacturing and
finance from the international economy. The promotion of domestic capital and
protection from global penetration are hallmarks of this outlook. Economic
nationalists are more comfortable with isolationism in foreign affairs and
visions of racial supremacy at home (including “American exceptionalism”),
although racism has been embedded in all of United States history.
Capitalist
critics take the view that the problems of the
concentration of capital, income and wealth inequality, racism, patriarchy, and
environmental devastation are inevitable byproducts of the workings of the
capitalist system. According to this view, in addition to the domestic problems
that the vast majority of people face, capitalism is intimately connected to
war and imperialism.
Of course, in the world of real politics discourse
involves synthetic and sometimes contradictory elements of these four
perspectives. Ordinarily politicians articulate perspectives that fit more than
one of these frames or “theories” of the policy process. Oftentimes they
proclaim positions that are designed to appeal to particular audiences.
But there is another way to think about the political
process. This way, the bottom line for most progressive activists, emphasizes
core values or basic principles. In fact, for most of these activists it is
basic principles that inspire people to involve themselves in politics in the
first place. These include opposition to:
Killing.
Most
activists find mass slaughter, over 100 million died in the two World Wars of
the twentieth century, despicable. They are aware that millions of Asians were
killed by two atomic bombs, wars in Korea and Vietnam and covert operations in
Indonesia and the Philippines. Killing today--drones and bombings, coups and
terrorist acts against other countries and peoples are paralleled by police
shootings and gun violence at home. Culturally violence is celebrated in film,
television, and the internet.
The
shift of wealth from its producers to the tiny ruling class.
Much of human history since the rise of capitalism as a world system has
involved the expropriation of wealth from the many to the few. Capital
accumulation has led to monstrous consolidations of wealth and power to a mere
several hundred corporations and banks while fifteen to twenty percent of
humankind lives in abject poverty and another thirty percent barely earns
enough to survive from day to day.
Starvation
and inadequate housing, health care, education, and security in old age. On
a worldwide basis one or more of these basic needs are not met by up to a third
of the human race. And the lack of security against precariousness is
characteristic of a large percentage of the United States population impacting particularly
on women, people of color, and youth.
Destruction
of the environment. Every
day people around the world experience toxicity in air and water, rising water
levels, extreme weather patterns, and the transformation of natural landscapes
into bricks and mortar, asphalt, holes in the ground, and leveled mountains.
Lying.
Governments lie. Corporate spokespersons lie. Politicians lie. Religious
leaders lie. Educators lie. Journalists lie. The perpetuation of economic and
political institutions has become the determining motivation for organizational
behavior; the pursuit of profit basic. In such an environment populations get
angry, cynical, or feel powerless.
Dehumanization
and objectification of human beings. To defuse growing
opposition to the spread of human misery and systems of exploitation based on
class, race, and gender elites have divided people into categories; pitting one
against another. To do so, the complexity of human potentialities has been
reduced to stick figures, stereotypes of kinds of people. Given the power of
economic, social, and political institutions, the stereotypes of others and
ourselves become broadly repeated in the media, cultural institutions, and
educational systems.
These objections to ongoing injustice become, for
many, the basis for the development of a progressive political consciousness.
People who oppose killing; shifting wealth and income from the many to the few;
starvation, and inadequate health care, housing, education, and security in old
age; destruction of the environment; lying; and dehumanization and
objectification of human beings begin to rise up angry.
But in addition to anger, progressives can look to
the frames of reference, the narratives, the ideologies that pervade political
discourse. They can ask which of these adequately address the objections
raised. During election seasons, people can ask which, if any, of the
candidates, adequately reflect what greater numbers of progressive people are
opposing.
When the basic principles are placed alongside the
economic and political institutions that dominate our lives, the ideologies
that are used to justify the status quo, and the candidates who are seeking
support, what needs to be done, what kinds
of organizations must be created to create a better world, and which individuals and groups are most likely
to provide leadership and support for building a just society become clear.
