Letter From Internet Jail: Embracing HCR Extremism
Primary tabs
Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.
- MLK, March 1966
From where I sit, HCR is the civil rights issue of our time, closely equivalent to the struggle against Jim Crow. The fact that it has been an uphill, mostly losing fight is not surprising to me in the slightest. What does surprise, and disappoint, me is that lack of urgency and willingness to escalate our collective efforts to achieve what most Americans want and all Americans need.
Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, observed that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor--in this case, freedom as access to healthcare is being denied by corporatists. Sadly, we haven't really demanded this freedom so much as mildly express our opinion through the passive acts of voting, signing petitions, etc. I suppose it's because the majority of Americans have health coverage, as tenuous and unsatisfactory as it may be, and Tocqueville was correct that they will not rise up against oppression in such an environment.
I admit I'm still not entirely used to having ostensible allies vehemently reject my calls for stepping up our actions. While they're not the only direct actionists out there, Code Pink seems to catch as much flak from "the left" as we do from our natural opponents on the conservative side of the spectrum.
I'm fine with people not engaging in our tactics and happy with their constructively critiquing them and coming up with alternatives--I've enjoyed discussion threads in that vein. The outright attacks, however, are troubling, particularly because they generally are fairly petty and/or come from a position of ignorance. Objections I've seen recently range from complaints about using the color pink, to complaining that "stunts" piss off people and set back the cause, to protests don't even work and we should stop.
Liberals--LIBERALS!--down on active dissent? Shocking.
I have to remind myself that any time one pushes people out of their comfort zone, the reactions will oft be negative. Even Dr King ran into resistance as he strategically used nonviolent tactics to effect change. He addressed this famously in his Letter From Birmingham Jail:
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depth...The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
...
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
If I might borrow King's MO and quote some verse: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
This passage, updated slightly for the current context, really spoke to me yesterday when I re-read King's Letter:
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with moderates. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that reform's great stumbling block in its stride toward universal healthcare is not the Conservative Republican or the Blue Dog Democrat, but the moderate, who is more devoted to "passing something" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's health; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the activist to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Okay, that's probably a stretch, but certainly how I feel much of the time. King at first took umbrage at being labeled an extremist, then decided it pleased him. Despite my own frustrations, I embrace it as well.
So my family and I will continue fighting for HCR, mostly focusing on efforts at home here in Vermont. We've got at least three different single-payer bills in our Leg and lots of hearings being held. We'll be attending--respectfully--a good bit of the sausage making process, and engaging in other nonviolent tactics that might be considered rude and counterproductive.
There are many approaches we all can bring to bear, and no single one will win us true reform nor set it back. Let's just get to work and create some tension.
ntodd
(Post at Pax Americana, Dohiyi Mir, Green Mountain Code Pink, Corrente and Daily Kos.)

- ntoddpax's blog


- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
speaking for myself only
I look at the demonstrations of MY lifetime and judge what I thought worked and what I thought was less effective.
Both the Civil Rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement worked. Demonstrators were well dressed and well groomed. In the civil rights movement they always carried American flags. They were confrontational, but in a dignified way.
The sit down demonstrations at the Health Insurance offices have gone well. I also like the humor of the PDA's demonstrations at AHIP's HQ, with the hospital gowns and the signs "health insurance is like a hospital gown, you're not really covered."
Code Pink is very uneven, some times their stunts are effective, sometimes not. The question you have to ask yourself, will this stunt convince anyone? How will this come across to a potential ally that is not entirely convinced.
It is necessary to look back and what worked and what was ineffective.
Constant reassessment
What attracted me to Code Pink 3 years ago was their willingness to experiment, tweak, and abandon things that don't work.
One mistake people make is assuming that the "stunts" are designed to garner sympathy. Nonviolent action takes myriad forms and each tactic has a different goal.
I'd also submit that somebody who is really an ally would not be swayed by tiaras and pinkers dancing against what they believe is right. Somebody who objects in that vein really is looking for a reason to reject the message--that kind of cognitive dissonance ain't easy to crack with even 'polite' or 'rational' methods.
Wow, does this speak to me.
I see this all the time from friends and relatives. I get blank stares when I talk about the Health Whatever bill and its effect on women's rights. In fact, some people who really should know better have asked me if I'm happy because I am getting universal health care! I almost cried when I heard that one.
My thought is that they do not want to understand, because understanding requires action; real action, not just signing a petition (although if enough sign, I do think it helps create the tension MLK was talking about).
Keep on fighting the good fight, NTodd. It's good to see you here.
Yeah, it's amazing
I've chatted with so many "liberals" who were totally cool with the House bill after Stupak: hey, it gets us closer, etc, so don't fret about reproductive rights. Once the PO was tossed under the bus with women, then it was KILL THE BILL!
And then, if you want to burn the ships and agitate for real HCR in HR676, you're stupid, insane, and don't care about poor people.
This is why we lose.
And the PO was meaningless,
whereas the effects of the House/Senate bill on women are all too real...and by the way, women are 70% of the world's poor, something "liberals" who insist that feminists don't care about poor people always tend to gloss over.
I'm ambivalent on Code Pink myself. I do support Hillary Clinton, although I am far to the left of her on matters of war and peace. Had she been elected, I am quite sure I would have been calling, writing and marching in the streets if she did even 1/10th of the authoritarian, warmongering crap Obama has done.
We live in interesting times.
I'd be marching no matter what
I hear ya.
Even if DK had miraculously won and followed through on all his promises, I still would've been doing what I did last year because of Congress at the very least. I planned to be in DC before the nominations were even set--made my rez at the Code Pink Activist House weeks before the conventions, had my Amtrak tix, etc.
Corporatism and the MIC hold sway right now, so in many respects it doesn't matter who's in the WH (yeah, yeah, McCain would've been worse, whatever). What matters is our own passivity. We collectively need to be more engaged in between elections.
Code Pink ain't everybody's cuppa, and that's just swell. Just wish more people would find one more thing they could do to help with this shit. Join a more palatable organization and hit the fucking streets a smidge more aggressively. At the very least you all will look sane compared to us dancing in spandex with giant puppets.
ntodd wears spandex so i don't have to!
i live in a very pro-war, republicans can do no wrong part of the country, so i don't have to go very far left to look like raving loony tunes compared to my neighbors, but thanks to you and code pink i can be a little more left than expected and still look sane. thank you.
not to relive the primariez or anything, but i thought obama's i'm not against all wars, i'm just against dumb wars was far more ominous than hillary's [admittedly belated and nonapologetic] explanation that she thought she was voting for a military strike instead of an all-out war. so i didn't follow you on to working for obama, but i've loved every minute of your antiwar
anticswork. we were going to get another war president in 2008 whoever won, so i thank you from the bottom of my heart for that.Dumb Wars
Yeah, I've blogged a few times about that damned speech and tried to remind him of it every now and then. Also remind him of his admonition to the world about being judged by what you build, not what you destroy.
He follows in a long line of Commanders-in-Chief who speak of peace whilst holding a gun. See War Made Easy for the horrible truth about America's "reluctant" warriors...
Code Pink lost me
with their bird dogging of Clinton and their support of Obama. They're a bunch of worthless clowns. Clinton was to the left of Obama in every single aspect and yet they helped shove that Reaganite down our throats.
When they have the integrity to stand up and say they got it wrong, and they should have supported Clinton, I'll take them seriously again. But as long as they continue to hide behind the lie that Obama was a liberal, then they have no value as liberals, progressives or lefties.
Wow
We bird dog anybody who voted for the war. I don't recall Code Pink support Obama over Clinton--most of my friends in the organization supported Kucinich. I'm not convinced a DLC Democrat is more "left" than Obama.
And guess what Code Pink does now? Push Obama and Clinton. So maybe you could join in instead of reliving the primaries.
Well, there is Code Pink's Bird Dogging Hillary site
here.
And this:
Bird Dogging Hillary -- compare to Obama page: a very, very different attitude toward each.
Obama:
(emphasis added)
compare Clinton:
or this Camille Paglia quote featured on the top of their press page:
It looks like Bird Dogging Hillary hasn't been updated since spring '08. But just flipping through a few pages of Hillary vs. Obama, it's really, really clear that Obama isn't being judged by the same standard even now that Clinton was.
I don't really know all that much about Code Pink (although the dogging Clinton but adoring Obama stuff did filter through a bit on some level). I'm happy you're here to help fill us in, and the discussion of nonviolent tension as well as what works and doesn't for activism is really helpful. But somewhat less helpful are gratuitous comments about 'reliving primaries'.
As I said
We bird dog lots of people, including Hillary, Nancy, etc.
And I'll note that Jodie is NOT Code Pink (how did I know you'd bring up the bundling thing about her?). My friends in the organization supported Dennis because he was the only real peace candidate.
Everybody makes different political calculations. Jodie didn't trust DK the way some of us did, and was down on Hillary as many people were because of her vote for AUMF.
I myself campaigned for Obama for months in rural DC after the DNC. And I joined Jodie and the many other Pinkers at the Inaugural to remind him (and his Democratic Congress) of his promises, then joined them for the Mother's Day vigil in front of the WH, etc.
Rather than rip ourselves apart because we don't like somebody's choice of a candidate within the limited spectrum of Democrats, which you know is a right we Americans have, why not figure out where you can find common cause and work for the goals we share? Let go of the primaries and focus on the real opponents to change.
You admit ignorance...
You're pissed because Americans made a choice during a democratic contest and now can't bring yourself to acknowledge their work for change. Call them clowns, then say my comment is gratuitous even though it's clear you are reliving the primaries? Wow.
I think the problem is
that not being able to let go of the "let go of the primaries" shtick is asking us to let go and work together while demonstrating you're not willing to do the same. That is, "we all need to work together" actually means "you need to suck it up and work with me."
The "get over it" meme, from the mouths of the sorest winners I've ever seen before the primaries were even over, was toxic then. It's still toxic now. It's never helpful, it only alienates. I mean never; never in the history of the world has "get over it" induced a response "gee, you're right, now I'm totally on board with you!". The reason is that it's condescending, invalidating and demeaning; shockingly, people do not react well to either, even in the circumstances when they should get past something.
There are lots of folks that share Code Pink's goals, if not necessarily every tactic. I get what you say about not every action needing or intending to evoke sympathy. But is its/your purpose to actually alienate potential supporters? I'm happy to be educated, but not if insults are part of the package.
that not being able to let go
that not being able to let go of the "let go of the primaries" shtick is asking us to let go and work together while demonstrating you're not willing to do the same.
Clearly I am willing to do the same, as I noted wrt my support of Kucinich. I didn't bring up support for any particular primary candidate, yet you equated one member's support of Obama with an entire organization's and gratuitously called CP "clowns". That's not an entirely auspicious or friendly start.
But is its/your purpose to actually alienate potential supporters?
Nope. If somebody supports the ideal, then our wearing pink or dancing or singing isn't going to alienate them. If somebody is looking for an excuse to not support the ideal, we might as well separate the wheat from the chaff. And just as with canvassing, for every person we might alienate for whatever reason, we interrupt the cognitive dissonance and status quo for plenty more people.
You said you didn't know much about Code Pink and that what turned you off was Jodie's support of Obama during the primaries. Doesn't seem to me that our tactics have anything to do with your dismissal of us.
I'm happy to be educated, but not if insults are part of the package.
I'm happy to educate, and ask that you not start off with an insult founded upon ignorance. And I'll note there was a shitload of education in this post, but you dwelt on a reference to a group that was honored as the most valuable progressive organization of the Bush years by The Nation. That strikes me as not really being all that receptive to education. YMMV.
Sorry
Excuse me, I realize in the nested thread that you, Valhalla, didn't call CP clowns, and I apologize.
Regardless, my points stand.
sometimes the nesting gets in the way
and so does my lack of clarity.
When I asked whether it was your intent to insult or alienate I wasn't actually referring to Code Pink's tactics, but dwelling on the get over part of your comments.
As someone who thinks there are lessons of the primaries that still haven't been learned, it was directed as much to those like me as at the commenter you were responding to. An example of what might have been learned from the primaries, fresh in my mind: don't mock people you hope will vote for you, about their trucks; don't insult what you imagine to be people's psychological motivations, if you hope to get them on your side.
As far as Code Pink's tactics go, what I was trying to express is that I don't know very much about them and am interested in knowing more. I certainly don't think all activism has to invoke sympathy. I remember many were aghast and appalled at the tactics of ACT-Up in the '80s, but it got people's attention and eventually swayed some significant part of public opinion. Heck, I'm even interested in the Tea Partiers tactics, since they seem somewhat effective, even though I don't agree with the effects themselves.
All that said, I'll let this topic go and look forward to more information from you about CP's activities.
Fair enough
Meta process arguments do detract from the real discussions at hand, and I know it takes two to tango, so I'm happy to move forward acknowledging my own role in the matter.
I'll just leave it by saying that these tactics are not Code Pink's, but well-documented, generally-successful methods that have achieved great change in a variety of times and environments. We happen to use them in particular ways, but aren't the only people doing so. I'll be posting more about their application in NV strategy and how everybody can experiment with them individually and collectively.
And as a Quaker, I appreciate the historical rudeness of our ilk, and do not shirk from knock down arguments.
Adding
The whole point of 'tension' as MLK called it is to create crisis through psychological, physical and economic means. That's why it's a mistake to think that NV action strives for sympathy.
Also, I'll note that my being associated with Code Pink--and some other extremists in VT--has aided my efforts to build relationships with my Congressional delegation. Sort of a good cop/bad cop thing. Having the extreme apply pressure creates space for negotiation.
Various permathreads
[I deleted this to move it here, so if anybody responded to it and then had their comment disappear, that's why]
1. On the AUMF, I don't care one way or the other in policy terms (which is not to say that a double standard didn't operate in 2008). The empire was never on the table in 2008, and to this day it isn't, and more power to those who try to get it onto the table, no matter who they upset in the process.
2. On "change." I think, given how 2009 has worked out, that the critique of those I shall call realists has turned out to be correct, and that if this was not evident after FISA, it was certainly evident after TARP. (To be fair, those who were in the thick of the fray during the bailouts probably couldn't follow the detail; there's a noticeable difference between people like Ian or Yves (and, though I say it, me), who were detached from the horse race in the Fall of 2008 and following the bailouts and those who were not.)
3. On the primaries generally, and especially regarding caucus fraud, I'm with Lincoln, at least metaphorically: "... until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword..." A process much like that is working its way through the Democratic Party now, and that process will continue until justice is done or the party is destroyed. Everybody who posts here needs to understand, even if they don't agree with, that bedrock perspective.
And all that said: The NV work that NTodd is doing is very, very important, and we need to learn from it. It may save our lives and our country. That's why I invited him to post here. I do not say forgive and forget, but I do say let's at least try to live and let live, and especially for the footsoldiers as opposed to the generals. Take what you like, and leave the rest.
Live and let live
Amen.
If I held onto my disappointment and frustration that people who claimed to be anti-war and pro-HCR rejected DK, I'd just sit around playing Farmville all day. And delete half my friends from Facebook.
We have to be honest with each other and constructively critical, which is one reason why I appreciate the discussions here and elsewhere, as well as the opportunity for education, outreach and advocacy. What's less than helpful is the People's Front of Judea calling the Judean People's Front 'splitters'...
Well, sure
But my quote was drawn from the Civil War, and not Monty Python. For good reason.
And that said, NV is, so far as I can tell, the only way forward.
Civil War?
Never heard of it. SPLITTER!