Robeson, Guthrie and Seeger: Legacies of the Cultural Front: a 2013 radio broadcast

https://beta.prx.org/stories/94864-robeson-guthrie-and-seeger-legacies-of-the-c

REVISITING "AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM" AGAIN

Harry Targ

Continued study and research into the origins of the folk music of various peoples in many parts of the world revealed that there is a world body-a universal body-of folk music based upon a universal pentatonic (five tone) scale. Interested as I am in the universality of (hu)mankind-in the fundamental relationship of all peoples to one another-this idea of a universal body of music intrigued me, and I pursed it along many fascinating paths. Paul Robeson, Here I Stand, 1959.

America’s destiny required the U.S. “…to set the world its example of right and honor…We cannot retreat from any soil where providence has unfurled our banner. It is ours to save that soil, for liberty, and civilization….It is elemental...it is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth.” Senator Albert Beveridge, Indiana, Congressional Record, 56 Congress, I Session, pp.704-712, 1898).

“With all the problems that America is facing, it is still the best place in the world," he (Garry Kasparov) said. "Trust me, I’ve traveled around the world, and here is where you have a chance to realize your potential.” (Sasha Patil, "Activist Talks Leaving Russia, Becoming Democracy Advocate," purdueexponent.org. September 15, 2021)

United States foreign policy over the last 150 years has been a reflection of many forces including economics, politics, militarism and the desire to control territory. The most important idea used by each presidential administration to gain support from the citizenry for the pursuit of empire is the claim that America is “exceptional”. 

Think about the view of “the city on the hill” articulated by Puritan ancestors who claimed that they were creating a social experiment that would inspire the world. Over three hundred years later President Reagan again spoke of “the city on the hill.” Or one can recall public addresses of turn of the twentieth century luminaries such as former President Theodore Roosevelt who claimed that the white race from Europe and North America was civilizing the peoples of what we would now call the Global South.  Or Indiana Senator Beveridge’s clear statement: “It is elemental….It is racial.” From the proclamation of the new nation’s special purpose in Puritan America, to Ronald Reagan’s reiteration of the claim, to similar claims by virtually all politicians of all political affiliations, Americans hear over and over that we are different, special, and a shining example of public virtue that all other peoples should use as their guide to building a better society and polity.

However, looking at data on the United States role in the world, the United States was at war for 201 years from 1776 to 2011. Ten million indigenous people were exterminated as the “new” nation moved westward between the 17^th and the 20^th centuries and at least 10 million people were killed, mostly from developing countries between 1945 and 2010 in wars in which the United States had some role. In addition, world affairs was transformed by the singular use of two atomic bombs;  one dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 instantly killing 80,000 people and the other on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 killing another 70,000.

Comparing the image of exceptionalism with the domestic reality of American life suggests stark contrasts as well: continuous and growing gaps between rich and poor, inadequate nutrition and health care for significant portions of the population, massive domestic gun violence, and inadequate access to the best education that the society has the capacity to provide to all. Of course, the United States was a slave society for over 200 years formally racially segregated for another 100, and now incarcerates 15 percent of African American men in their twenties.

The United States is not the only country that has a history of imperialism, exploitation, violence, and racism but we must understand that our foreign policy and economic and political system are not exceptional and must be changed.

Finally, a better future and the survival of the human race require us to realize, as Paul Robeson suggested, what is precious about humanity is not our differences but our commonalities. Exceptionalist thinking separates us. Sharing what we have in common as human beings, both our troubles and our talents, is the only basis for creating a peaceful and just world.

NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIZATION, AUSTERITY, RESISTANCE AND REACTION: a repost

https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/2015/07/neoliberal-globalization-austerity_6.html

TURNING THE CORNER: BUILDING A MASS MOVEMENT FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE

Harry Targ

                                                   
                             There's something happening here
                              But what it is ain't exactly clear  

There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking' their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?

Everybody look - what's going down?

“For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

Hundreds of thousands of people, reflecting the diversity of America hit the streets in over 700 cities and towns to declare that “Families Belong Together.” The specific occasion for the mobilization of so many people in such a short time was the news of at least 2,000 migrant children being separated from their parents along the Texas/Mexican border amid the smug assertion of Trump administration spokespersons that the children and their parents were in the United States “illegally.”

In addition, Fox News commentators were framing the separations as a net gain for the children: comfortable quarters, summer camp-like conditions instead of the reality of children housed in cages. The specific crisis of the children reinforced anger at the general brutality caused by the broken immigration system that has led to the brutalization of people seeking refuge from violence and poverty in their home countries.

Named organizers of the rallies around the country included Moveon.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, Amnesty International, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Women’s March.  Also, many actors and actresses, such as Alicia Keyes, and politicians participated in rallies, particularly in coastal cities.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Democrat from the state of Washington, expressed the anger and frustration of masses of people: “The idea of kids in cages and asylum seekers in prisons and moms being separated from breast-feeding children, this is beyond politics, it really is just about right and wrong, (Alexandra Yoon-Hendriks and Zoe Greenberg, “Protests Across U.S. Call for End to Migrant Family Separations,” The New York Times, June 30, 2018).

The marches and rallies represented a sense of outrage, an expression of the fact that, as the Congresswoman suggested, certain government actions may be just plain wrong, grotesquely immoral. And in those cases people of good will must stand up and say “enough is enough.” Families Belong Together, the event organization, articulated three central demands: that separated migrant families be reunited immediately, the government end family detentions, and the Trump administration end its “zero tolerance” immigration policy.

But beyond this extraordinary mobilization is perhaps a deeper meaning, a deeper purpose, and a possibility of hope for change. First, the placards signaled how marches were seeing the connection between the tragedy of the 2,000 children separated from their parents and broader issues: “fight for families,” “childhood is not a crime,” “human rights have no borders,” “abolish ICE,” “my people were refugees too,” “November is coming,” “no hate no fear, immigrants are welcome here,” “no one is illegal on stolen land,” “Nazis were following the law too, abolish ICE,” “Trump for prison, lock him up.”

Second, a multiplicity of organizations, beyond the mainstream national ones, participated in mobilizations around the country. Youth organizations, progressive alliances, and democratic socialist groups played a role in organizing the events and brought out their members to support the actions. For example, in Milwaukee, Democratic Socialists (DSA) participated in two mobilizations with placards calling for the abolition of ICE. In addition a radical immigrant rights group, Voces De La Frontera, which concentrates on immigrant rights and class issues participated prominently. Also, in Milwaukee, there was a strong representation from progressive sectors of various faith communities: Christian, Muslim, and Jewish.

Third, the June 30 Families Belong Together nation-wide mobilization may be the largest since President Trump assumed office. Beginning with the inauguration day rallies led by women, there have been mobilizations around peace, immigration, guns, women’s rights, the right of workers to organize, and against police violence. Peoples’ movements are growing in size. Mobilizations more consciously seek to connect the particular issues that occasion rallies and calls to action with other issues. And, with the emergence of the New Poor People’s Campaign, spokespersons of that movement are making the case that issues around poverty and racism are connected to militarism, war, and the destruction of the environment and all these are connected to the history of the brutalization of  Native Americans, African Americans, and immigrants seeking asylum from violence and poverty in Latin America. As Reverend William Barber calls it there is an emerging “fusion” of issues and a “fusion” of movements.

Will this lead to a well-organized purposive, multi-issue movement that will challenge capitalism and imperialism?  Will it create the building blocks for a humane and democratic, and socialist future? As the song says: There's something happening here. But what it is ain't exactly clear.

IT IS TIME TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATION

Harry Targ

There have been dramatic changes occurring in higher education over the last decade. For instance, colleges and universities have expanded online programs to appeal to non-traditional students. Even though these programs have been initiated with little public discussion, it is laudable that they target students who work full time, cannot afford attending a campus, are raising children, or are older than students who enter college directly from high school. In addition to the non-traditional students, appeals are made to youth to pursue degrees at home. For example, the television commercial showing a young woman in her pajamas declaring that she is taking a course online is one kind of metaphor for this trajectory.  

In addition, powerful and wealthy lobby groups have sought to transform higher education in ways that promote their political agendas and ideologies. They have pressured universities, public and private, to downsize or eliminate certain academic programs, particularly in the liberal arts.  Media education commentators and these same special interests have advocated universities to further prioritize so-called STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), mostly at the expense of the humanities and social sciences.

To facilitate the transformation of higher education wealthy individuals, such as the Koch Brothers, have bankrolled the hiring of certain faculty or the construction of certain research and instructional programs that promote so-called “free market’ economics.

Also, in an increasingly competitive market for students, universities have built upscale dormitories that include exercise facilities, high-end food courts, and high-tech classroom buildings, all to increase enrollment. Increasingly simplistic metrics are being used to determine student wants and needs, performance potential, and post- graduate job satisfaction. Academic programs “infantilize” students and professors by monitoring greater facets of the instructional process.

Furthermore, with a forty-year downward trajectory of support for public higher education, universities have been shifting more toward contract research: high tech military research and corporate funding for new generations of commercial products in agriculture, technology, transportation, and drugs. Some universities have prioritized research that would lead to commercial success.

These trends are not surprising given the truism that the educational process since the industrial revolution, particularly higher education, has always served the needs and interests of dominant sectors of the economy. During the 1960s Clark Kerr, President, University of California, argued that the “multiversity” was needed to support American capitalism and to aid in the development of US national security in a world threatened by international communism.

However, there also is a long tradition in higher education that contradicts the view that institutions should just serve the interests of economic and political elites. Universities have promoted the study of the humanities, have stimulated the development of curricula that connect scientific theory to human beings and nature, and have encouraged discussions about how to create more just and humane societies. To protect this more hallowed conception of the university, faculty, through collective action, were able to popularize and institutionalize the idea of “academic freedom.” Academic freedom defended the right to free and unbridled debate on issues of relevance to scholarship and public discourse. In addition, to academic freedom, the American Association of University Professors and other organizations of educators have called for “shared governance,” arguing that the faculty should have a right and an obligation to participate in decisions about the educational and research activities of the university. 

From time to time, the model of the university promoted by economic elites, boards of trustees at universities, and many university administrators has clashed with the ideal of the university as a place where more fundamental societal issues are discussed and debated. Recently, boards of trustees and university presidents have been making decisions of import to educational and research, like those suggested above, without faculty discussions. Shared governance is being replaced by non-transparent decision-making by the few.

Two examples from Purdue University are illustrative: Purdue University’s unsuccessful bid to help manage the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and the purchase and incorporation of the online Kaplan University into Purdue Global University. In both cases, it was declared after the fact that transparency, that is having an open conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the university commitments, would violate the secrecy that was necessary during critical negotiations with government bodies or corporations. While this may be correct it is also possible that the Purdue decision-makers knew that the commitments they were ready to embark upon might be opposed by many faculty and students.

In the Los Alamos case, Purdue was to partner with the Bechtel Corporation which had been a co-manager of the nuclear facility. The National Laboratory announced it was opening a bid for a new contract because under Bechtel’s management health and safety at the nuclear site had been compromised (See Rebecca Moss, “Two Leading Bidders for Lucrative Los Alamos Lab Contract Have Checkered Safety Records,” Pro Publica, May 8, 2018).  Also, data had shown that Bechtel, a leading global engineering firm, had incurred criticisms for contracted work around the world, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bolivia (See Matthew Brunwasser, “Steamrolled,” Foreign Policy, January 30, 2015).  Moreover, the Los Alamos bid would require serious conversation about the use of nuclear power as an energy source, building new generations of nuclear weapons, and the growth and expansion of nuclear weapons programs around the world. Discussions in the university community about whether Purdue University should bid on the Los Alamos contract would have been important for the intellectual integrity and the public face of the university.

The belated public announcement of Purdue’s acquisition of the Kaplan online university became controversial in part because there had been media reports in recent years of Kaplan’s failures in educational performance and job placement, coupled with the generation of enormous student debt incurred by Kaplan students. But these issues were not part of discussions raised in the university community until after the Kaplan/Purdue connection was announced. And there was little opportunity to discuss the efficacy of online education, the appropriate mix of online and on-campus combinations (so-called blended programs) and whether the state of Indiana should support the new Purdue Global or allocate resources to make regional campuses and technical colleges more user friendly for non-traditional students (See Doug Lederman, “Online Options give Adults Access, But Outcomes Lag,” Inside Higher Education, June 20, 2018.)

Since there was no full airing of the issues around Kaplan, online education, blended education, the appropriate consumers of new educational programs, and who the faculty teaching in online programs would be, confusion and skepticism remain (except for statements from the Purdue Administration and members of the Board of Trustees celebrating this new venture).

Nancy MacLean, in Democracy in Chains, argues that special interests advocate a whole host of public policies, about privatizing public institutions, deregulating the economy, and downsizing social safety nets, which are not popular with majorities of people. So, she says, their advocates, have contrived to circumvent democratic input and thus eliminate opposition.

In sum, higher education in recent years has experienced a substantial shift from transparency and shared governance with faculty and students to non-transparency in decision-making. In addition, decisions are made about trends in higher education with declining input from the public.  Non-transparency breeds discontent among faculty, public cynicism, and a growing awareness that higher education is less about the public good and more about private aggrandizement.

 

PAPER: Twenty-First Century Global Capitalism, Work, Repression and Resistance: Bringing It All Together

Twenty-First Century Global Capitalism, Work, Repression and Resistance: Bringing It All Together

By Harry Targ

DEMOCRACY IN CHAINS: THE WEAKENING OF A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY

Harry Targ

(Reading the press release from Purdue University last week reminded me of a prior secret effort to develop Purdue University collaboration with Los Alamos. As is often stated by Purdue administrators such collaboration serves US national security. A space for intellectual discourse and debate would include a discussion of what national security is and whether nuclear weapons' research (and nuclear power for energy use) constitutes an appropriate way to think about national (and global) security.)

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/2025/Q3/purdue-los-alamos-sign-mou-to-collaborate-on-key-national-security-research/

The Purdue University community first read on April 6, 2018 about a contract bid that the university and the Bechtel Corporation proposed to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The contract would be worth $22 billion over a decade, a huge boost to Purdue’s finances.  In an updated story on May 27 readers were reminded that the National Nuclear Security Administration could decide on whether the Purdue/Bechtel bid would prevail over other competitors by the end of May (Dave Bangert, “Is Purdue Ready to Run Los Alamos?” Journal and Courier.)

The first story came as a surprise to most members of the Purdue community. The May 27 story refers to Purdue President Mitch Daniels’ explanation about his reluctance to reveal too much about the contract bid as it was originally reported in April. “At the time, Daniels was treading lightly-out of respect, he said, for the bidding process-but offered this to the J&C. ‘I do believe this is the sort of level Purdue should be playing at, let me put it that way.’”

The relative secrecy of this bid to run the nation’s major nuclear weapons facility is reminiscent of the argument made in a recent book by historian Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. In it, MacLean traces the intellectual development of the libertarian right and their organized connections with the Koch Brothers and state programs to promote their political agenda.  What is relevant here is MacLean’s argument that many of the libertarian right’s policy proposals would be opposed if public discourse and majoritarian democracy prevailed. Consequently, she suggests, efforts are made to limit transparency, public discussion, and legislative and electoral participation in major public policies. This approach contradicts universities where faculty should have some role in decision-making on research and educational policy.

There are a number of issues that the Bechtel/Purdue relationship raises. First, Bechtel and the University of California ran the labs from 2006 through 2017 and lost their contract because of serious workplace accidents. As Pro-Publica puts it: “Analysts and experts say the fact that Bechtel and UC are even in contention for such a plum contract shows that the government prioritizes the lab’s nuclear-related work over workplace safety,” (Rebecca Moss, “Two Leading Bidders for Lucrative Los Alamos Lab Contract Have Checkered Safety Records,” ProPublica, May 8, 2018).

Second, in addition to its problematic university partnership in managing Los Alamos, Bechtel, as one of the largest engineering and construction companies in the world, has been criticized for quality of contracted work done in Iraq, Eastern Europe, and Bolivia, including poor planning and inadequate construction. (See Matthew Brunwasser, “Steamrolled.” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/30/steamrolled-investigation-bechtel-highway-business-kosovo/

Third, there are broader policy questions about the managerial control of the largest nuclear laboratory in the United States. For example, should corporations and universities with financial interests in particular research projects be given the authority to manage and determine the work of the laboratory?

Fourth, two distinguished Purdue alums have served in executive positions with the Bechtel Corporation and maintain close ties to their alma mater. Do these connections raise questions about the Purdue collaboration?

Fifth, research on nuclear weapons and energy policy deserve intense public discussion. The Obama and Trump administrations have committed to the development of a new round of nuclear weapons. The commitments violate promises to denuclearize the world made at the time of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. And US government campaigns to restrict the possibility of nuclear development in North Korea and Iran contradict this US policy of building new weapons.

Sixth, prioritizing nuclear energy in a post-carbon energy world is controversial. What are the nuclear energy projects of the Los Alamos Laboratory? Are there alternatives being researched at universities such as Purdue University?

Seventh, the United States is the only country that has used atomic bombs in human history. The decisions to drop the bombs, and to maintain upgraded weapons of much greater magnitude, raise ethical questions about their continued research and development.

In the end, the university is a space for public discourse on ethics, public policy, research and teaching programs. As a public university, engagement with civil society is appropriate. The issues raised about the Los Alamos National Laboratory, collaboration with any corporate partner, and the use of university resources are complicated and require transparency and much public discussion. Purdue University, with its  strong programs in Engineering, Science, and the Liberal Arts, is particularly equipped to engage in public discourse which could lead to more effective university policies. And, as Nancy MacLean warns, circumventing public discussion weakens democracy.