Plan B Forum

An excellent essay (originally posted on Facebook) from science fiction author David Gerrold on the Left, the Democratic Party, and the (small "d") democratic process. (Bonus points for use of the word "slumgullion"!)

• This particular observation isn't going to go down well with some people -- not even me -- but I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the impatience of the left is not good for the democratic party. And the slow movement of the democratic party is not good for the left.
  
  A little history. The sixties were a decade of profound social change -- and a lot of people got impatient. I did. Justifiably so. The wrongs we were confronting were horrendous -- we wanted change and wanted it now. And some of us acted like spoiled brats throwing tantrums. The sixties were marked by protests, marches, demonstrations, and riots -- and too often, there were self-appointed leaders making a lot of of blind demands that ignored the political realities. The founding fathers deliberately made it hard to implement dramatic changes. They feared the volatility of impatient democracy -- and they were right to do so.
  
  One of the biggest mistakes of the left, during the sixties, was that its leaders ignored the concerns of moderates, workers, the middle class, and those who had enough experience with national politics to know that Americans were skeptical of anything that looked too angry or too extreme. The riots at the 1968 Democratic convention (regardless whether they were started by the police or the protestors) handed the election to Richard Nixon. Humphrey's campaign never recovered. And to a great degree, the left has to take some of the blame. Yes, it was a police riot -- but there were opportunities to avoid it, opportunities which were ignored for the luxury of being self-righteous.
  
  Did anyone on the far left learn a lesson from that? Apparently not. Politically, the 70s were a lost decade for both parties. Reagan won in 1980 because the democrats still hadn't recovered from the two outsiders, McGovern and Carter.
  
  Bill Clinton had to move the party to the center to recapture the White House, but by then a lot of damage was done, the Reagan administrations, the people behind the scenes, had planted the seeds for the mess we're in today -- and that crop has impoverished the nation. The middle class has evaporated, workers are hovering at the poverty line, voting rights are under attack, our infrastructure is collapsing, our educational system is being destroyed, and the robber barons have looted our national treasury.
  
  That Clinton had to move the party to the center is frustrating to the far left, but you have to win elections to make a difference. It's the only opportunity to repair the damage and create a foundation for restoring the social progress we're hungering for. But you can't do anything unless you win the election.
  
  The republicans have tried to sell the narrative that America is essentially a conservative country. We aren't. We're a moderate country, a live-and-let-live country. Most of us just want to have a good dinner on the table at the end of the day. And based on the evidence, most of us want a return to the kind of economic health where a living wage meant you could afford a house and a car, and still be able to put something aside for a vacation, for retirement, and for the kids' college education.
  
  Personally, I think I might be much more of a leftist than most people are aware of. Having spent much of my life imagining alternate worlds, one of the questions that comes up is how do we get there from here?
  It's a long difficult journey.
  
  I believe we need to examine the essential elements necessary for a quality life and regard those as a civil right. Clean air. Clean water. A guaranteed minimum income. Free health care for everyone. Free education at all levels -- including art, music, and communication/relationship skills. Free meals for all children. Housing for the homeless.
  
  If we were a community of just a few hundred, or even a few thousand, we would have no problem on agreeing that those things are important -- but we're not a small community. We're a community of 320 million, and we've fallen into the trap of saying, "We can't afford it, and I don't want to pay for it, and I don't want to pay for other people to have it if I don't have it." And the result is that we have impoverished our national community.
  
  We need to start thinking of America as a shared vision, a community that includes all of us, with no one and nothing left out. When we can do that, then we can start thinking again about taking care of the children, feeding the poor, housing the homeless, healing the sick. But first, we have to give up the narrative of selfishness.
  
  Yes, I know -- those things are going to be expensive. But we can afford it.
  
  If we can afford trillion dollar giveaways to the rich, we can afford it. If we can afford trillion dollar wars, we can afford it. If we can afford a trillion dollar defense budget, we can afford it. All those things I listed above -- I'll bet they're still cheaper than another war. I'll bet we could fund a lot of that by cutting back our defense spending without damaging our military readiness. I'll bet we could fund all of those things with the taxes that too many big corporations are dodging.
  
  But we're not going to get there overnight. We're going to have to get there one step at a time, because that's how you climb a ladder -- one step at a time. You have to be pragmatic. You have to test and adjust and fine-tune, you have to adapt and evolve.
  
  But first, before you can do any of that, you have to seize the narrative, you have to own it and drive it and make it so ubiquitous that it becomes the reality we all live in.
  
  So, no, I don't disagree with the goals of the left. I'm probably farther out in my goals than most of them. But I'm also pragmatic enough to recognize that being right isn't enough -- you also have to create allies, you have to create teamwork, you have to create partnership, and most of all, you have to enroll a majority of people into sharing the vision. Because until the majority is onboard, what you will get is resistance.
  
  That's why we get impatient. We can see the goal from here -- we can't understand why others can't see it, won't see it, and even worse, will stand in the way.
  
  Impatience comes from focusing on the goal to the extent that you forget about the actual process of the journey. But the journey isn't just an inconvenience -- it's the most necessary part of the process, because that's where the goal evolves into reality, it gets shaped and fine-tuned.
  
  Impatience is one of the ways the left keeps shooting itself int he foot. You can't demand a giant leap. Mao Zedong proved one thing about giant leaps -- too often, a great leap forward often ends with a faceplant into the cement. China is a thriving nation today, but it didn't leap into that reality. First it had to recover from its own great leap, a cultural disaster.
  
  Sometimes only smaller steps are possible. Because a nation doesn't leap -- it oozes like a blob. You don't unify a blob, you create a path of least resistance and let it flow.
  
  Yeah, I know -- that's not the image you want to have of America. We all grew up with the idea that we can be this great unified melting pot. But we're not. We're not even a tossed salad. We're some kind of slumgullion, a stew of dubious ingredients and flavors.
  
  What this election is proving is that a great majority of Americans do not understand our own Constitution, and fewer even understand the nature of the democratic process. This election is about impatience and anger. It isn't about rational choices. And that's the risk we're facing -- letting our anger choose for us.
  
  The funny thing is -- sometimes the left loses, but even in losing, the national conversation is shifted dramatically, the nation's awareness is transformed. Sometimes what looks like a loss is simply part of winning the longer struggle.

Yes, it was a police riot -- but there were opportunities to avoid it, opportunities which were ignored for the luxury of being self-righteous.

(After he'd just said it didn't matter if it was a police riot or the protestors at fault).

What opportunity did the Democrat party have to avoid Chicago '68? It was anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-HH yooots who confronted Daley's thugs. What was "the left" supposed to do about it?

What does he mean by "the left" anyway in this case? It's odd how much he sounds like he's on the right - Most of us just want to have a good dinner on the table at the end of the day. And based on the evidence, most of us want a return to the kind of economic health where a living wage meant you could afford a house and a car, and still be able to put something aside for a vacation, for retirement, and for the kids' college education.

Apparently, although this is what "most of us" want, we're all ignorant bastards: "a great majority of Americans do not understand our own Constitution, and fewer even understand the nature of the democratic process".

Why does he want to save for the kids' college education when it's just part of the "free' package the left has discovered: A guaranteed minimum income. Free health care for everyone. Free education at all levels -- including art, music, and communication/relationship skills. Free meals for all children. Housing for the homeless. Fairies at the bottom of the garden and Priuses all round (BMW optional).

Maybe we should check in with Obama when he moves his family of four into that $22,000 a month mansion that his pension won't quite cover. He's probably all for redistribution of someone's income.

A guaranteed minimum income. Free health care for everyone. Free education at all levels -- including art, music, and communication/relationship skills. Free meals for all children. Housing for the homeless.

To find the real cost of something, make it "free".
He is all over the map, First he advocates for free stuff, then goes into how to "pay" for this stuff. If you have to pay for it, it is not "free".

As Meade said: (although I fixed it for him)

redistribution of someone's elses income.

This is the correction you intended to make:

"redistribution of someone else's income"

However, it is a redundant correction. The words "redistribution of someone's income" are sufficient. The "someone" suggested in the original is not Obama because the contextual meaning is that he is not redistributing his own income. Therefore, we know from the original sentence that it is someone else's income that is to be redistributed.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Nothing is 'free' Safely breathable air has its own costs today. Some things are a 'public' good which carry such high benefits that all must share in the costs, even if the sharing is not equitable. For example: paved streets or K-12 education (when I left the eighth grade, there were some in my class who were the first in their family to complete the eighth grade). So neither have been around as 'free' for a particularly long time. Bicycle Bill, would you care to post a summary of the 'good roads movement' and the part played by the rich man's toy (bicycle) in partnership with the main national industry (farming)?

I see a K-16 public education system as an investment in the labor pool for America as an important idea worthy of discussion. There is enough objective data to not automatically reject a higher minimum wage. The anecdotal stories of the family business that will not be able to hire neighborhood teenagers for part time work if the minimum wage goes up just does not fly. Look at the actual results after the minimum wage goes up, not scare stories about what might happen if it does.

The real road block for a K-16 education system is that there is no consensus as to what even the K-12 system should be.

snailgate

In context, "free" means without tuition being charged. It does not mean without cost.

But "free" public education through college should be available in this country to anyone that wants it and I'm more than willing to pay for it. It is a far better investment in ourselves than useless wars.

"Apparently, although this is what "most of us" want, we're all ignorant bastards: "a great majority of Americans do not understand our own Constitution, and fewer even understand the nature of the democratic process". "

The designated leader of the GOP clearly does not understand the Constitution and the nature of the democratic process. I guess, that makes Trump an ignorant bastard. [or perhaps he understands the process too well, and he is an extremely skilled and dangerous demagogue]

But Gen'l please, 'a great majority' is not 'all'. Trotsky, the real tactician and strategist of the communist revolutions, said he could rule any country if he had 5% of the population as dedicated supporters.

snailgate

This is the correction you intended to make:

blah blah blah,,,,,,

The real road block for a K-16 education system is that there is no consensus as to what even the K-12 system should be.

I would hope that the 13-16 years also include some type of trade/apprentice programs rather than college/university. I think too many people are pushed into college when they really would be better off going the trade-school route.

As for having it "paid for" by the gov. I am not for that, and I think college costs have gone way beyond what is affordable for most.
Rather than concentrating on how people can find ways to pay for college (laons, grants, etc) I think the thrust should be on containing college costs.
How? I don't know.

Interesting how some people are still looking for any excuse to slam the President. Even though he is staying in DC so as not to totally disrupt the life of his teenaged daughter, and let her finish high school in the place she has been a student the last 8 years, by all means, lets make fun of his choices.

To rent a large home in a good neighborhood, in the city, with space for Secret Service, that rent is par for the course. Since he isn't the scion of the wealthy, like GW Bush, there is no ranch to go home to. His Chicago home is in a decent neighborhood on the south side, near U Chicago, and his house is not terribly large. I imagine it would not longer accommodate the required security.

Guin--does he actually get a housing allowance as a retired president? My recollection is that he has to pay for his home on his own, although security modifications are provided for by the government.

Burning Petard wrote:But Gen'l please, 'a great majority' is not 'all'. Trotsky, the real tactician and strategist of the communist revolutions, said he could rule any country if he had 5% of the population as dedicated supporters.

He must have had less than 5% in Russia then, because er... he had to skip town a step ahead of the bailiffs.

Apparently, although this is what "most of us" want, we're all ignorant bastards: "a great majority of Americans do not understand our own Constitution, and fewer even understand the nature of the democratic process".

Point of order. "All" in that sentence refers directly to "most of us". All of most of us are ignorant bastards; which must be so because the "great majority" do not understand etc. Unavoidably, "most of us" must be "the great majority". There are of course the self-designated elite (perhaps 5%) who are as far from ignorant as they are from "most of us".

Guin wrote:

But "free" public education through college should be available in this country to anyone that wants it and I'm more than willing to pay for it. It is a far better investment in ourselves than useless wars.

While agreeing about useless wars, I think far fewer people should go to college. As it is, so many take useless courses of no value in the "real" world - sociology, women's studies, English to name a trio - we'd be better off restricting college access and encouraging technical school training. And compulsory military service just in case a useless war breaks out. (I may not be totally serious about that).

Meade--you actually think that study of subjects not directly related to a job or profession is of no value to the "real world"? Why?

I have nothing against technical or trade schools, or even courses of study directly related to a profession. But I also do not see education/learning for its own sake as being of no value.

Guinevere wrote:In context, "free" means without tuition being charged. It does not mean without cost.

But "free" public education through college should be available in this country to anyone that wants it and I'm more than willing to pay for it. It is a far better investment in ourselves than useless wars.

I agree that education from K-12 and perhaps a bit more (Community Colleges for example) should be without cost but not for University. While some benefit of a University education goes to society as a whole most of the benefit of a University degree goes to the individual and I don't think it is right that everyone else should pay for a benefit which is private. I think it should be 'mostly' subsidized but that people who attend Univ. should have to pay an additional tax on that fraction of their income which is over the median.

yrs,
rubato

Burning Petard wrote:"...

The real road block for a K-16 education system is that there is no consensus as to what even the K-12 system should be.

snailgate

Deciding how to educate people, what is better and what is worse, which is of greatest value and what is of lesser, how do you measure success, are such complicated questions that it's no surprise that are still trying to figure it all out. I expect that we will still be doing so generations from now.

Some people respond well to structure, discipline, and rote repetition. Some people don't. Korean school children score higher on standardized tests than US children but rich Korean, Chinese, &c families pay to have their children attend elite private schools in the US because they believe a US education teaches creativity and independent thought.

I think we are learning what a K-12 system should be like but the fact we are not there is no barrier to improvement, it just says we have work to do.

yrs,
rubato

Big RR wrote:Meade--you actually think that study of subjects not directly related to a job or profession is of no value to the "real world"? Why?

I have nothing against technical or trade schools, or even courses of study directly related to a profession. But I also do not see education/learning for its own sake as being of no value.

I believe the import was that the people studying those subjects are of no value to the real world

Hmmm... I see the comments here have validated one of David Gerrold's key points:

If we were a community of just a few hundred, or even a few thousand, we would have no problem on agreeing that those things are important -- but we're not a small community. We're a community of 320 million, and we've fallen into the trap of saying, "We can't afford it, and I don't want to pay for it, and I don't want to pay for other people to have it if I don't have it." And the result is that we have impoverished our national community.

We need to start thinking of America as a shared vision, a community that includes all of us, with no one and nothing left out. When we can do that, then we can start thinking again about taking care of the children, feeding the poor, housing the homeless, healing the sick. But first, we have to give up the narrative of selfishness.

As long as we are "WE" and they are "OTHER" this is not going to happen. You can fault David for being unrealistic and overoptimistic, but then, you're talking about someone who invented tribbles (and wrote for Star Trek, Land of the Lost, Babylon 5, Sliders, and The Twilight Zone, and (most unrealistic of all) has a continuing, successful career as a science fiction author. "Unrealistic" comes with the territory, I guess.

(BTW, why no criticism of those who want to spend "other people's money" on, say, aircraft carriers, or missiles, or football stadiums, or prisons, or...?)




P.S. I agree with you, Meade, re his comments on the 1968 Democratic convention/riot. WTF? I was here in Chicago in 1968; David was living in California by then.