Keith Olbermann Leaves MSNBC and Progressives Lose a Voice

I am not entirely shocked by Olbermann's departure from MSNBC this week. The timing is perplexing, but not so much the thought that Olbermann would be leaving. The writing, so to speak, was on the wall.

Another reason that it was not a shock is because it backs up my belief that establishing Progressive voices and a Progressive media infrastructure in this Country seems almost impossible. This has been the case for the past few decades. It is difficult for Progressive media to really take root.

I suspect that part of the reason for Olbermann's difficulty...and the problem with MSNBC as a whole has to do with the fact that it is hard to embark on a truth-telling enterprise using a purely corporate for-profit model. There are too many divergent and conflicting viewpoints & interests among stakeholders, which guarantees the butting of heads.

The Olbermann fiasco also exposes what most who have been paying attention already knew.... but exposes it for more to see - that there is a clear double standard in news/political media in this Country. Progressives and even Centrists (like most at CNN) are held to one standard, while Fox News, and Conservative talk radio (collectively the Republican media) is held to a completely different standard. In an organization like MSNBC/NBC (and now Comcast)... There is no loyalty to truth... all loyalty is reserved for shareholders. At NBC, there are so many different people to answer to. The ideology of board members, the company President, VP's, Department managers, executive producers etc, may not match up with the world view of the host. In fact, I would venture to guess that many of those higher ups are Republicans. So it is hard to create the conditions for good synergy. The experiment was doomed from the start. This is the fundamental cause of the double standard. This is why everything that a Keith Olbermann, a Rick Sanchez , a Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz...or any other Progressive host says is examined down to the atom level. Company execs are overly sensitive about everything and are in a constant state of paranoia, because they don't want to get in trouble with shareholders or with the bullies of the media - the Right wing Republican media- which dominates the airwaves.

Progressives like Keith Olbermann are sent packing (often fired immediately) for minor - even trivial - issues, while Fox and Conservative talk radio hosts are allowed to make the most outlandish, ugly, racist & offensive comments as a matter of routine...and are allowed to stick around. Why? Because at Fox and with AM radio, the synergy is impressive. Everyone from Rupert Murdoch to Roger Ailes, and the executive producers down to the hosts are, more often than not, generally on the same page ideologically. Everyone has bought into the belief system of the organization. All of the stakeholders support the mission.

This double standard puts Progressive media at a distinct disadvantage. This is why there should be an effort to build Progressive media from the ground up. Progressives need their own media infrastructure that does not leave those like Keith Olbermann (and his supporters) beholden to the interests of a corporation.

Countdown was one of the few political news programs that I really enjoyed watching on a regular basis. Although I would prefer to see something more along the lines of a 60 minutes... (call me old school). We need more serious, trusted, investigative reporting. But I enjoyed Keith Olbermann's contribution.

I have a funny feeling that he won't be the only host leaving. When you get rid of the Captain of the ship.... the man who had the top political program in the line-up... well that to me is an indication that the execs at NBC may be looking at other changes. Part of it may be a reaction to the results of the November elections. MSNBC is one of those networks that reshapes itself based on the changing winds. Again... it goes back to the corporate business model... there is nothing that drives any ideological belief system..no mission based on values like honor, truth, etc... the only belief system driving these cable networks is the belief system of making money.

Here are his final remarks on Countdown. According to whispers on the twittersphere.... he may be interested in going back into sports broadcasting..... wow. Interesting. But I can't say I would blame him if he did decide to go back into sports. The American voting public is a source of disappointment & hopelessness for me... not to mention the politicians who are supposed to serve in the public interests. I can definitely see why people would want to get out of politics.

Chomsky: I Have Never Seen Anything Like This

Interesting commentary about Noam Chomsky by Truthdig's Chris Hedges.

Democrats in 2010

Here is an interesting article from the Huffington Post regarding the Democrats' chances in the 2010 elections.

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

[T]he Democratic agenda needs to become more "moderate" or "centrist" and that this would somehow be more attractive to Independent voters.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Moderating" our goals is not a recipe for victory. It is a recipe for failure. Last fall, voters overwhelming voted for change, and they knew then -- and still know now -- the kind of change they wanted.

They wanted to end the stranglehold of the private insurance companies that continues to put every American a single illness -- or one layoff -- away from financial catastrophe. They want to take bold, clear action to assure that America is in the forefront of creating the clean energy jobs of the future -- and leave a thriving healthy planet to our children. They wanted to fundamentally change the bull-in-the-china shop foreign policy of the Bush years and re-establish American leadership in the world. Most importantly, they rejected the failed economic policies that allowed the recklessness of huge Wall Street banks to plunge the economy into free fall -- and cost millions their livelihoods. They desperately want leadership that will lay the foundation for long term, bottom-up, widely shared prosperity.

In other words they wanted... and still want... fundamental change.

The author then outlines four steps Democrats need to take to make victory possible:

1). Democrats need to demonstrate to the voters that we are fighting tooth and nail for the goals they support
2). Democrats need to deliver.
3). Not only do we need to forcefully rein in the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks -- we need to frame the political dialogue in decidedly populist terms.
4). We must continue to forcefully and proudly stand up for progressive values.

My reaction:

I think the author is spot-on correct in his advice to the Democratic Party on what they need to do to be victorious in the upcoming elections and how watering down a populist and progressive approach in favor of appearing more "moderate" and "centrist" is a recipe for disaster. But I just can't get fired up about this article although I basically agree with much of what the author had to say.

(1) Appearing to be progressive and populist and sounding like one on the campaign trail is very different from actually being progressive and populist once you are in office and in a position to influence the creation of and vote for legislation. Much of the national Democratic Party is heavily influenced and beholden to corporate and Wall Street interests. Progressives like Dennis Kucinich play at best a marginal role in national Democratic politics. I don't see any of that changing anytime soon with the election of more Democrats into office in 2010.

(2) Democrats had a historic opportunity -- by being the majority in Congress and holding the Executive branch -- to make fundamental changes that would rein in the power of Wall Street, deliver real and comprehensive healthcare reform, draw down the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and make fundamental changes in the way the US conducts foreign policy, etc. Today we are still on the same boat as when we started in regards to the issues above. When push comes to shove the Democrats have shown themselves to be unwilling, uninterested, or unable to deliver actual, fundamental change or to represent a progressive and populist perspective. Why should electing more Democrats into office change that?

(3) People will say if you don't support the Democrats despite the misgivings above this creates an opportunity for the Republican Party to take back power. I say I am tired of being politically held hostage by the Democratic Party. They rely on my and the vote of Progressives to win elections but don't deliver on any of the issues I care about once in power. That's no reason for someone to vote and retain their loyalty. That's just politically blackmailing progressive and independent voters.


I applaud the author for his ideas. As an independent I see myself supporting Democrats in elections if they run campaigns and govern the way the author is describing. But I just don't see the Democratic Party taking on any of his sensible advice except on the symbolic level to use in speeches and in campaign advertising. Beyond the rhetorical level I don't see the national Democratic party willingly representing a more progressive and populist direction.

Which begs the question -- if you care about progressive values and see issues from a populist perspective, what do you do politically? Where do you turn to if neither major party is interested in representing your interests?

There is a Progressive Infrastructure (We Just Don’t Know About It)

Most people are not aware that the powerful infrastructure of conservative media, think tanks and advocacy organizations, which dominate the American political and policy-making landscape in 2009, did not always exist. In the 1960s, for example, it was the Left in its varying shades in the political spectrum that had the upper hand in capturing the imagination of the public at large. Enter the Powell Memo in 1971.

In 1971, Lewis F. Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell's nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell's legal objectivity. Anderson cautioned that Powell "might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice...in behalf of business interests."

Though Powell's memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration's "hands-off business" philosophy.

Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building.

Most people who are aware of the Powell Memo, however, may not know that there is a Progressive counterpart – Democratic operative Rob Stein’s Powerpoint Presentation (from the New York Times) (from Alternet) called the “Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix” which lays out the inter-connections between this network of right wing institutions and calls for the creation of a Progressive counterpart.

All good right? One thing that baffles me about Rob Stein’s Powerpoint is that I’ve never seen it. It exists and has an almost mythical quality about it in Democratic circles. But the last time I heard Stein was only showing it around the country in 2004 to a select circle of liberal venture philanthropists like George Soros. Apparently this effort has led to the creation of the Democracy Alliance and New Progressive Coalition organizations which fund various Progressive organizations such as Progressive Majority, Center for American Progress, the Air America Radio Network among others.

But the Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding (this is from SourceWatch). So as much as I’d like to comment on the creation of a Progressive Infrastructure, the only existing attempt to make it happen seems to be a secretive one where you have to be a member of a select inner circle of people to view the Powerpoint.

I’m a Progressive and I am all for the creation of something on our end that will serve as an effective counterpoint to the massive and highly effective conservative infrastructure. But all this secrecy isn’t really helping to rally people like me to the cause. I mean, how on earth am I going to support something that I’ve never even seen?

C’mon Rob Stein, make the infamous Powerpoint available in the Internet and let us—the Progressive rank and file—see it and chew on it. Perhaps, even get our feedback on making it better and adapting it to our day-to-day work as activists, bloggers and engaged citizens. We’re supposed to be a network of people who share common political goals, right?

Why the Angry Right Can’t Be Dismissed So Easily

Check out this insightful blog post by Jeff Blodgett from the Wellstone Action website which details the rise of the conservative, populist Right. He makes several points which I will quote here:

The resurgence of organized conservative activity was written about in a recent New York Times piece about Dick Armey and his influential movement organization, FreedomWorks. There are three points that strike me about about the conservative movement now:

ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES ARE IN ASCENDANCE -- growing in influence and setting strategy for the right. The social religious wing, dominant in the Bush administration, has become less effective and relevant. Their message is angry, populist, and economic: FreedomWorks' slogan is: Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom. Government takeover is their bogeyman. In 2010, they will focus on exploiting the economic pain in the country, railing against spending and taxes, and blaming all government and certain incumbents.

CONSERVATIVES ARE BORROWING FROM THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT -- The NYT article quotes FreedomWorks staff saying that they are making close study of Saul Alinsky and other community organizers. Like progressives, the other side is increasing conservative candidate development (NY-23 and in GOP primaries all over the country), and improving their grassroots advocacy skills (like the impression made at August town halls).

THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT CONTINUES TO BE BETTER FUNDED -- FreedomWorks, just one of many groups, easily raised $7 million from donors in 2008, including single gifts of $1 million and $750,000. The Leadership Institute, the premier training center for the right, sustains an $8 million dollar annual budget--at least twice the budget of any of comparable groups (like Wellstone Action) on the progressive side. Americans for Prosperity, another key conservative economic group has 73 staff people nationally and in 20 states.

These People Are Not Joking

One thing in which conservatives have been successful -- and which I am still in a bit of a disbelief —- is to take on the mantle of economic populism and use that as a rallying cry against the Democratic administration. Who would have thought a few short years ago that the economic populists who would have the most political impact in hard economic times in the U.S. would be conservatives railing against Democrats?

I have always thought that in tough economic times, old-school Marxists, Socialists and Progressive populists would find a ready audience for their message and we’d have a working and middle class radicalized and mobilized en masse to fight for working peoples’ interests like in the 1930s. I have always thought that the Progressive Left had superior arguments in advocating for working peoples’ interests against free-market conservatives and that Progressive Populism will explode in popularity in times of economic crisis. After all, didn’t the economic policies which have caused this mess we are in based on radical, free-market ideology as espoused by economists like Milton Friedman and implemented as policy by his followers in government? And in finding someone to blame, that most people would naturally gravitate to its opposing viewpoint?

Boy was I wrong! Instead of resulting in an army of modern-day Eugene Debses, exploding into popular culture are the current heroes of conservative populism like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who have massive followings among ordinary, working people. Sarah Palin’s book just came out today and is a huge bestseller drawing crowds of hundreds of people at her book signings.

Something is going on in American culture in this time of economic crisis and for some reason, the Right is tapping into the psyche of ordinary working Americans in a big way that I have never seen Progressives do in recent memory. Those who oppose these conservative populists and who laugh at, ridicule and dismiss them as irrelevant do so at their own peril. It is very easy to dismiss Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and laugh them off as bad jokes. But these people and the movement they represent is no joke. They are organized, well-funded and, whether we like it or not, wildly popular and with a large constituency.

A New Approach for Progressives?

I have yet to see from Progressives wide discussion of innovative approaches in engaging this conservative populist movement. Jeff Blodgett frames the fight to be had along the lines of the 2010 Congressional Elections and that engagement would be defined as stopping the election of Republicans into Congressional seats—with the implication being electing Democrats into these seats or preventing Republican takeover of these Democratic seats will be the definition of victory.

For me that is not good enough. We’ve all seen this year how getting both a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President in the White House doesn’t necessarily translate into getting Progressive agenda enacted into public policy. Helping make Congress a solidly Democratic turf in 2010, therefore, doesn’t necessarily translate into a victory for Progressives.

The discussion among Progressives should be centered on how to harness this society-wide anger and frustration with the tough economic times and channel them towards ends that are unmistakably Progressive—but without resorting to electing Democrats as the default position. Can it be done? I don’t know. But I can’t see any other way.

Sirota on the Washington Power Dynamic in the Healthcare Fight

Writer and political pundit David Sirota wrote an extremely important piece of political analysis over at the Open Left blog which deserves to be read far and wide by people interested in the healthcare battle and how it can potentially tilt the power dynamics in Washington. The recent outpouring of outrage and organizing on the Left in support of a public option in healthcare reform is having an effect where Progressives are finally flexing their political muscle and is on the verge of success.

Sirota writes:

Polls show local Democratic dissatisfaction with easily primary-able Democrats, putting huge pressure on those Democrats to get in line; the Paul Krugmans of the liberal punditocracy, often offering up "on the one hand, on the other hand" dithering at the end of legislative fights, have now come out pretty strong for a public option; mainstream Republican editorial boards like the Denver Post are saying the public option is necessary; the decline in Obama's poll numbers are being fueled by progressive - not conservative - dissatisfaction on health care; fundraising for the public option campaign is intensifying; and the organizing work to support the public option is in full gear.

Taken all together, the aimed at A) forcing House Democrats to pledge to vote against a public-option-free health care bill and B) getting Senate Democrats to state their support of a public option may be making the easier legislative path the one that squeezes the Blue Dog Democrats...

He adds:

We must focus laser-like efforts on constructing a group of House members who delivers on a promise to vote against a public-option-free health care bill. If we do that, we will change the power dynamic in the health care debate by forcing the administration to use its power to make the public option a reality in the final bill that is reported out of the conference committee. And even more broadly, it may change the power dynamic on every other issue by finally establishing the progressive majority in the Democratic caucus - and not the corporate whores - as the final "deciders" on other major bill... While they aren't going to get us all the way to single payer (which I've long said was a huge missed opportunity), they may deliver us a public option that represents genuine progress.

Read the original article at the Open Left blog.

The Political Outsiders Part II: Progressive Democrats

I recommend reading a couple of books and a blog post to get a good background on the insurgency within the Democratic Party by Progressive grassroots activists.

- Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

- Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era

- MRZine: Guide to Democratic Party and the Democrats

Both books make the point that Internet and advances in social media technology have the capacity to empower ordinary people who have felt powerless and shut out of the political process to effective political participation. More than that, they have a potential to and in many cases, have had real impact in challenging and toppling entrenched interests in the Democratic Party and in traditional two-party politics. The blog post provides context on where this Progressive insurgency fits within the various groupings of the Democratic Party.

Just who are these Progressive insurgents? These are regular readers and contributors to blogs such as Open Left, Daily Kos, MyDD and Firedoglake. They attend conferences such as the Netroots Nation and America’s Future Now (formerly Take Back America). They are members of political organizations such as Progressive Majority, MoveOn and Democracy for America. They have trained or taken part in seminars offered by the New Organizing Institute (NOI) in Washington, DC or Wellstone Action in Minnesota. For political jobs they peruse listings and professional development opportunities for activists and organizers in the NOI and Democratic GAIN job boards. While not an exhaustive list the examples I cited give a scope of participation by grassroots Progressives in various capacities.

I find myself extremely impressed by the breadth of activities and membership associations that I described above. They seem to suggest—dare I say it?—an actual, attempt to form a bona fide political opposition movement to challenge not only the influence of the powerful right wing but the right wing from within the Democratic Party as well. In lurking at Progressive blogs and mingling with people from within this movement in person in Washington, DC, the phrase “movement-building” is a phrase that I have overheard being used. More than just cocktail party chatter, the breadth of existing organizations and activists suggest people are actually doing it and taking organizing seriously.

Are there critical things to say about this movement? My review of the book Taking on the System sums up what I have to say that is critical:

My questions for Zuniga — and I am still speaking as a Progressive here — what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

Conclusion

From the perspective of this Progressive Independent, there is a lot of positive to say about this Progressive insurgency. Not only do they represent a revitalized Progressive movement, they also represent the first, wide-ranging organizing effort among Progressives to actually organize ordinary folks into becoming effective activists and participants in small “d” democracy. I’m a believer in grassroots, populist, power to the people, up from the bottom philosophies. The Progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party is an example of such a movement. Hence, these grassroots activists deserve kudos and respect in my book.

If there are critical things to say in my perspective, it would have to be the movement’s narrow focus on the Democratic Party and electoral politics as the primary strategy to realize Progressive goals. I am a believer of what political scientist Adolph Reed has to say regarding Progressives hitching their hopes solely on the Democratic Party. I also believe that a Progressive political movement has to be larger than any political party and would have to be inclusive of people who are outside of the two major parties—independents, third and minor parties, the Left, etc.

But this Democratic Party insurgency is a great start and I can’t wait to see how American politics will be re-shaped in the future as a direct result of their efforts.

• Part I of the series

Precarious Progressives

A couple of news items that caught my eye today:

The good: as reported in the Open Left blog

An exciting new piece of progressive infrastructure is emerging to help progressive candidates in federal campaigns: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Rather than focusing on large, independent expenditures, ala the Club for Growth, it seeks to help progressive federal candidates, such as Tom Geoghegan, by providing them with expert staff, advice, strategy and connection to the netroots. The focus will be on open seat primaries, and progressives who face competitive general elections, but primaries against conservative Democrats might also come into play.

The bad: as reported in Personal Democracy Forum

Some of the most popular state, local, and general-interest blogs in the progressive blogosphere were brought low this morning, when the lone developer behind the hosted community-blogging service SoapBlox threw in the towel. Well-regarded sites like Pam's House Blend, Blue Jersey, Michigan Liberal, Swing State Project, and MN Progressive Project found earlier today that they couldn't access either the public-facing front ends of the site or their sites' content-management backend. As of this afternoon, the sites are (mostly) back up, but that hasn't eased fears that a core part of the left's online infrastructure isn't all that sustainable.

SoapBlox became a building block of the progressive blogosphere, especially amongst state-level group blogs, by offering all the same powerful tools that blogging platforms like Scoop offer but at a fraction of the price or effort. Scoop, which powers the blog giant Daily Kos, can be difficult to deploy and maintain, and can cost in the thousands of dollars. A hosted alternative to Scoop, SoapBlox replicates all the weaponry of big-name blogs at a bargain price that runs in the neighborhood of $10 or $15 a month. But that low price and ease of use comes at a cost. SoapBlox has been the part-time project of one man, and he's burnt out. Earlier today, Paul Preston, a.k.a., "pacified," posted a note on SoapBlox.net calling an end to the service.

There is momentum in creating a Progressive infrastructure. But as the example of Soapblox points out, much of this infrastructure is put together pretty much with duct tape and wire. The operator of Soapblox has since turned back from his retirement of the platform and an effort is underway to save the system from total breakdown but it really is a wake-up call to Progressives and other outsider political movements to see how precarious their positions really are in relation to the Establishment they seek to reform.

Democrats Divided: NOW in PBS

I watched a fascinating segment in NOW on PBS that detailed the struggle within the Democratic Party between Progressives represented by bloggers such as Matt Stoller of OpenLeft who believe establishment Democrats have sold out traditional Democratic values and Centrists which are represented by politicians such as Bill Clinton who in the 90s sought to position the party to attract conservative voters. The struggle was framed along the lines of the contest in Maryland between incumbent Congressman Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards.

From the NOW web site:

In Maryland, six-term incumbent Al Wynn is facing a tough challenge from newcomer Donna Edwards. According to Edwards, Wynn has sold out to big business and the Bush agenda, including a vote for the war in Iraq and the 2005 energy bill. Wynn says his challenger is naive and doesn't understand that there are choices in politics between compromise and doing nothing. Fueling candidates like Edwards are the foot soldiers of the progressive battle—bloggers and other political outsiders like Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com who are drumming up national support on the Internet. Maria Hinojosa speaks with the candidates and Matt Bai, author of The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle To Remake Democratic Politics.

Although NOW is usually spot-on in its analysis, I couldn't help but be bothered by how the show framed the struggle as between Progressives who seek to move the party Leftwards and Centrists who seek to move it to the Center. The language being used--"left," "center," etc. are meaningless to me except as a shorthand way to describe the ideological character of the opposing sides. But this has an effect of pigeonholing both sides and reducing the struggle to one that is mainly about ideology.

Progressives who are frustrated with the Democratic Party usually do so not because of ideological disagreement but because the Democratic party has disappointed them on concrete issues such as: the Iraq war, NAFTA and other free-trade agreements, welfare reform, and that many Congressional Democrats routinely vote with the Republicans on key pieces of legislation. It's partly about ideology but it is moreso about does the Democratic Party truly represent their interests anymore?

Given such a situation, a Progressive Democrat has a choice to make: try to change the Democratic Party from within or go outside the party and become an Independent or a third-party advocate. The struggle presented in NOW illustrated the efforts of folks who chose to go the first route. Personally I have chosen to go the second route. However, I fully realize that the outcome of the internal struggle within the Democratic Party has implications for politics that will be wide-ranging.

The NOW web site has a few excellent links to several resources including a video of the segment, a guide to Progressive and Centrist Democrats, and a thoughtful response to Matt Bai's book.