Reading the history of American liberalism, one gets the impression that Americans have ideas up-side-down or down-side-up. For one, what we know today as the American Democratic Party (yes, the party of Barrack Obama) was once the party of racists, conservatives, and free-market proponents. This seems to be a shock to the uninitiated in American politics, most especially Filipinos. We Filipinos tend to view all American presidents (actually, American politics as well) as benevolent and noble. The jury is still in on the "benevolent" and "noble" part but what is certain is the fact that American politics has undergone shifts and realignments that we in the Philippines can learn a lesson from. There are three main eras in American political history that shifted American political sensibilites into which would result in what we know today as modern America albeit with drastic results for the underclass in American society.
The first major shift was the time of the progressive era from 1880s until the later part 0f the 1910s. During this time, an upsurge in progressive thinking accompanied by an upsurge in immigration contributed the reshaping of american thinking from being passive and largely conservative to more active and progressive. This was the time of the womens' suffrage movement and the prohibition of alcohol as well as the increase in labor unrest and and a sudden awakening of poor and exploited classes in the society. People began to question the inherent wealth accumulation of capitalists in contrast to the worsening condition in the urban areas of for immigrants and the labor flight and underdevelopment in the rural areas especially in the South.
The second major shift occured during the great depression right after the roaring twenties and the first wave of red-scare. It was by this time that the old doctrine of limited government intervention in the economic sphere was put into question. Prior to this questioning, the "mainstream" (what we really mean by mainstream is really the position taken by those in power) viewed a free market approach with little government intervention. This doctrine largely aided the rise of big corporations during the late 1890s until the beginning of the 20th century from being negligible government regulated enterprises. Because of this, financial activities and the expanding power of corporations were largely unchecked by government until this era of unregulation ended with the stock market crash of 1929 which obliterated ordinary americans' savings due to the the unchecked practices in the financial sector. At first, the free marketeers proposed that in order to correct the mistake, government should simply do nothing and allow the inefficient businesses to die out and let the market correct itself naturally. That was the main policy of Calvin Coolidge, the predecessor of Herbert Hoover. Of course, the problem was clear that it was not only big business which was affected by the crash and the ensuing depression. The most affected were really ordinary workers (by this time already helpless with the dismantling of the militant labor movements in the 1920s) and farmers. Franlkin Roosevelt saw the need the realign the economic thinking of the establishment (and his Democratic party) from supporting little government intervention to government programs of development. The child of this realignment was of course the New Deal: a massive government program of subsidies of industries and manufacturing as well as job creation. This ultimately changed american liberalism from being fiscally or economically liberal or free market to progressive or government interventionist.
The third realignment that contributed to the complete makeover of the Democratic Party occuring from the 1950s until the 1970s was the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. Although the emancipation proclamation of President Lincoln destroyed the institution of slavery and finally recognized all african americans as citizens, practice was very different from theory. The Negroe was still treated as a third class citizen and the Southern state governments passed laws to disenfranchise them based on property and ethnicity. The idea of separate but equal an idea of different but parallel institutions and services for whites and blacks was instituted to prevent the increasing black populations in the south from fully integrating into american society. This idea already looked terrible on paper and was far worse in practice. The blacks were guaranteed schools but the worst schools; hospitals but the worst hospitals; housing but the worst housing. It was not any better in the North of the country which was the center of industry at that time. Migrant blacks from the South working in the factories were paid lower wages compared to the already low wages of white workers.
People could no longer justify the concluded war in Europe against Hitler while also tolerating the racist regime in the South. Things had to change. The change was initiated by ordinary people through the organizing of black communities to improve their lot. Slowly but surely, opposition to segregation in the South began to make inroads in public opinion as the sight of police brutality against peaceful civil disobedience brought the sufferings of blacks into the consciousness of the pacified whites in the country. Soon, segregation was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and ordered integration ofwhites and blacks in the South. A major part of the Democratic party, the Southern Democrats, were soon alienated and ultimately expurged from the party. These southern democrats were largely supportive of the segregation and opposed the civil rights movement which was participated by democratic party leaders. With the exit of the southern democrats, a new political base entered into the party, the black voters.
The anti-war movement can be seen as largely an extension of the civil-rights movement as Rev. Martin Luther King poignantly connected the disenfranchisement of african americans with the siphoning of much needed funds from anti-poverty programs to the Vietnam war. Whites and Blacks saw common cause in their opposition to the war. Most affected were the poor , black and white, who were bore the brunt in the war effort. Sadly, the rich declared the war, but the poor fought it. Mainstream media tried to alienate the anti-war effort by depicting it as simply rabble-rousing by elite academicians and students. It was true that most in the academe did not support the war but media left out the fact that study after study indicated opposition from the lower classes to the anti-war effort. This movement had the effect of rallying the left-wing in the liberal movement and isolating the pro-war liberals especially in the democratic party. This eventually led to Lyndon B. Johnson to drop his plans of reelection. Instead, the left liberals chose as their candidate in the democratic party, Eugene McCarthy (not to be confused with Joseph McCarthy of McCarthyism) an opponent of the war and largely portrayed as an intellectual. He would eventually lose the party nomination to Johnson's vice president Hubert Humphrey. Nonetheless, left-liberals or what we know today as social liberals still opposed the war well into the Nixon Administration.
What we see from these realignments in American Liberalism is the possibility of realigning society politically through the exposition of hypocricies in government policies and mobilization of popular opinion. Putting the idea political realignment in the Philippine context and by viewing the journey of American liberalism I can say that there seems to be an impending realignment in political consensus. Surveys after surveys show that the population are now supporting progressive policies from reproductive health care, government intervention particularly in education and health, and dismantling of political dynasties. It seems though that there is a disjunct between what the populace thinks and their voting patterns. It seems that the population thinks and believes in progressive politics but vote conservative and traditional politicians.
I propose that in order to consolidate and to give voice to this growing progressive consensus, three things must be made by progressives to translate progressive attitudes into progressive votes.
First, there has to be a definition of Filipino Progressivism. For me, political spectrum-wise Filipino Progressivism has to encompass Social Liberals or Left Liberals largely from the left-wing elements in the Liberal Party and other mainstream political parties, the burgeoning Green political movement, the LGBT movement, Social Democrats from moderate Left parties, and lastly the Left or National Democrats with the exception of those who still advocate armed struggle. Hence, I believe Progressivism in our times and in our country has to fight on crucial issues of environment, education, health, jobs, industrialization, gender equality, and increased power for social movements and non-government and/or corporate institutions through mass mobilization and electoral mobilization both of which have to be peaceful and completely legal.
Second, there has to be an establishment of a unified movement of think-tanks and NGOs to project that progressive consensus from the ordinary people into the halls of power. This means two things, we have to abandon sectarianism that has divided progressives and we have to hammer on our message. We have to practice what we preach. When we say pluralism we also have to do it. Also, we have to hammer our message and policies by calling out conservative and traditional politicians and challenge their bases or power (i.e. local government units) while threatening them with the possibility of electoral defeat or being outcast completely from policy debate.
Third, there has to be an effort to reclaim three important words: "left", "progressive", and "socialist". Much damage has already been done to discredit people by connecting people falling into these three characterization as being communist. Its as if being branded a progressive ergo a communist ends the debate completely. We have to aggresively reclaim these words and highlight the positive meanings of these ideas and show that the rest of the population shares our views and show that out attackers are really on the fringes. By reclaiming these words we inevitably have to give the proper meaning to "center". The center of politics should not be confused with the right-wing. The center stays with the consensus of the people in a democracy and we have to show we are the center. Those claiming the center are therefore really conservative or rightwing politicians who have been utterly incompetent.
The first major shift was the time of the progressive era from 1880s until the later part 0f the 1910s. During this time, an upsurge in progressive thinking accompanied by an upsurge in immigration contributed the reshaping of american thinking from being passive and largely conservative to more active and progressive. This was the time of the womens' suffrage movement and the prohibition of alcohol as well as the increase in labor unrest and and a sudden awakening of poor and exploited classes in the society. People began to question the inherent wealth accumulation of capitalists in contrast to the worsening condition in the urban areas of for immigrants and the labor flight and underdevelopment in the rural areas especially in the South.
The second major shift occured during the great depression right after the roaring twenties and the first wave of red-scare. It was by this time that the old doctrine of limited government intervention in the economic sphere was put into question. Prior to this questioning, the "mainstream" (what we really mean by mainstream is really the position taken by those in power) viewed a free market approach with little government intervention. This doctrine largely aided the rise of big corporations during the late 1890s until the beginning of the 20th century from being negligible government regulated enterprises. Because of this, financial activities and the expanding power of corporations were largely unchecked by government until this era of unregulation ended with the stock market crash of 1929 which obliterated ordinary americans' savings due to the the unchecked practices in the financial sector. At first, the free marketeers proposed that in order to correct the mistake, government should simply do nothing and allow the inefficient businesses to die out and let the market correct itself naturally. That was the main policy of Calvin Coolidge, the predecessor of Herbert Hoover. Of course, the problem was clear that it was not only big business which was affected by the crash and the ensuing depression. The most affected were really ordinary workers (by this time already helpless with the dismantling of the militant labor movements in the 1920s) and farmers. Franlkin Roosevelt saw the need the realign the economic thinking of the establishment (and his Democratic party) from supporting little government intervention to government programs of development. The child of this realignment was of course the New Deal: a massive government program of subsidies of industries and manufacturing as well as job creation. This ultimately changed american liberalism from being fiscally or economically liberal or free market to progressive or government interventionist.
The third realignment that contributed to the complete makeover of the Democratic Party occuring from the 1950s until the 1970s was the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. Although the emancipation proclamation of President Lincoln destroyed the institution of slavery and finally recognized all african americans as citizens, practice was very different from theory. The Negroe was still treated as a third class citizen and the Southern state governments passed laws to disenfranchise them based on property and ethnicity. The idea of separate but equal an idea of different but parallel institutions and services for whites and blacks was instituted to prevent the increasing black populations in the south from fully integrating into american society. This idea already looked terrible on paper and was far worse in practice. The blacks were guaranteed schools but the worst schools; hospitals but the worst hospitals; housing but the worst housing. It was not any better in the North of the country which was the center of industry at that time. Migrant blacks from the South working in the factories were paid lower wages compared to the already low wages of white workers.
People could no longer justify the concluded war in Europe against Hitler while also tolerating the racist regime in the South. Things had to change. The change was initiated by ordinary people through the organizing of black communities to improve their lot. Slowly but surely, opposition to segregation in the South began to make inroads in public opinion as the sight of police brutality against peaceful civil disobedience brought the sufferings of blacks into the consciousness of the pacified whites in the country. Soon, segregation was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and ordered integration ofwhites and blacks in the South. A major part of the Democratic party, the Southern Democrats, were soon alienated and ultimately expurged from the party. These southern democrats were largely supportive of the segregation and opposed the civil rights movement which was participated by democratic party leaders. With the exit of the southern democrats, a new political base entered into the party, the black voters.
The anti-war movement can be seen as largely an extension of the civil-rights movement as Rev. Martin Luther King poignantly connected the disenfranchisement of african americans with the siphoning of much needed funds from anti-poverty programs to the Vietnam war. Whites and Blacks saw common cause in their opposition to the war. Most affected were the poor , black and white, who were bore the brunt in the war effort. Sadly, the rich declared the war, but the poor fought it. Mainstream media tried to alienate the anti-war effort by depicting it as simply rabble-rousing by elite academicians and students. It was true that most in the academe did not support the war but media left out the fact that study after study indicated opposition from the lower classes to the anti-war effort. This movement had the effect of rallying the left-wing in the liberal movement and isolating the pro-war liberals especially in the democratic party. This eventually led to Lyndon B. Johnson to drop his plans of reelection. Instead, the left liberals chose as their candidate in the democratic party, Eugene McCarthy (not to be confused with Joseph McCarthy of McCarthyism) an opponent of the war and largely portrayed as an intellectual. He would eventually lose the party nomination to Johnson's vice president Hubert Humphrey. Nonetheless, left-liberals or what we know today as social liberals still opposed the war well into the Nixon Administration.
What we see from these realignments in American Liberalism is the possibility of realigning society politically through the exposition of hypocricies in government policies and mobilization of popular opinion. Putting the idea political realignment in the Philippine context and by viewing the journey of American liberalism I can say that there seems to be an impending realignment in political consensus. Surveys after surveys show that the population are now supporting progressive policies from reproductive health care, government intervention particularly in education and health, and dismantling of political dynasties. It seems though that there is a disjunct between what the populace thinks and their voting patterns. It seems that the population thinks and believes in progressive politics but vote conservative and traditional politicians.
I propose that in order to consolidate and to give voice to this growing progressive consensus, three things must be made by progressives to translate progressive attitudes into progressive votes.
First, there has to be a definition of Filipino Progressivism. For me, political spectrum-wise Filipino Progressivism has to encompass Social Liberals or Left Liberals largely from the left-wing elements in the Liberal Party and other mainstream political parties, the burgeoning Green political movement, the LGBT movement, Social Democrats from moderate Left parties, and lastly the Left or National Democrats with the exception of those who still advocate armed struggle. Hence, I believe Progressivism in our times and in our country has to fight on crucial issues of environment, education, health, jobs, industrialization, gender equality, and increased power for social movements and non-government and/or corporate institutions through mass mobilization and electoral mobilization both of which have to be peaceful and completely legal.
Second, there has to be an establishment of a unified movement of think-tanks and NGOs to project that progressive consensus from the ordinary people into the halls of power. This means two things, we have to abandon sectarianism that has divided progressives and we have to hammer on our message. We have to practice what we preach. When we say pluralism we also have to do it. Also, we have to hammer our message and policies by calling out conservative and traditional politicians and challenge their bases or power (i.e. local government units) while threatening them with the possibility of electoral defeat or being outcast completely from policy debate.
Third, there has to be an effort to reclaim three important words: "left", "progressive", and "socialist". Much damage has already been done to discredit people by connecting people falling into these three characterization as being communist. Its as if being branded a progressive ergo a communist ends the debate completely. We have to aggresively reclaim these words and highlight the positive meanings of these ideas and show that the rest of the population shares our views and show that out attackers are really on the fringes. By reclaiming these words we inevitably have to give the proper meaning to "center". The center of politics should not be confused with the right-wing. The center stays with the consensus of the people in a democracy and we have to show we are the center. Those claiming the center are therefore really conservative or rightwing politicians who have been utterly incompetent.
No comments:
Post a Comment