July 6, 2009
Like all homepage.mac.com websites, this site will no longer receive new material or changes after July 7, 2009. It will remain accessible for viewing. I am working on some new material, which can be viewed and commented upon when it's ready at:
I can be contacted at: lwofsy@berkeley.edu.
May 1, 2009
(I started writing this before Roz's last illness. Today I labored to finish it, however inadequately, for a moment's release from the overwhelming sadness of the week since her death. Normally Roz would be my first reader and critic.)TRANSITION WITH OBAMA
As President Obama points out, we are in a time of transition. He likens the ship of state to a huge tanker that can only be turned slowly, but will eventually be headed in a very different and favorable direction.
It's not simple, but very important, to examine what's in transition, where it may or may not be headed, and how to measure progress or shortfalls along the way. For some, this is not a complicated matter and it all boils down to judging Obama. Many, including progressives and leftists, have faith in Obama; a few on the left see him as essentially like past presidents loyal to the interests of a wealthy ruling elite. One commentator on a left blog goes so far as to tie Obama to Reagan and a revival of Reaganism (David Sirota on AlterNet, 4/1/09). Naomi Klein writes that "hope" for Obama is a sickness that we should get over (upcoming May 4th edition of The Nation). In my 87 years, I can't remember a time of greater complexity, such a multiplex of historic challenges and uncertain prospects. So it's surprising that quick and certain judgments abound.
Evaluating Obama's presidency without trying to understand this period of transition is to put things upside down. Important as he is, Obama didn't begin the process of transition either for the United States or for the world. What's going on are major adjustments to new realities that cannot be ignored. Reality for the United States is that, while still the strongest world power, its dominance is sharply curtailed; it is engulfed in a severe worldwide economic crisis; the political limits of its military power are starkly exposed; economic rivals have surged to prominence especially in Asia; left populist movements have gained ascendancy in what used to be the anointed US sphere of influence in Central and South America. For the world as a whole, the economic crisis severely aggravates chronic problems of inequality, poverty and disease. That and the looming consequences of global warming cry out for new priorities, transition from a period in which aggressive militarism, wars, occupations, and torture— under the flag of Bush's "global war on terror"—trumped everything. Underlying Obama's election was stark evidence that old "free market" economic policies and doctrines of bluster and war were driving the ship of state to hell. Obama picked up the challenge of the times and brilliantly inspired a nation to join in the cry for change.
There is no telling at this point how profound a change this transition will generate. No one can know the extent to which it might open up possibilities for fundamental restructuring of society and the global system. What we can be sure of is that transition will be meaningful and measurable if it really shifts priorities to focus on the historic economic and environmental crises, to the real needs and demands of aroused populations. That may seem too modest a hope, but all progress depends absolutely on achieving this initial turnaround. That will be the most important measure of the first stage of the Obama presidency.
Turning the United States around means coming into conflict with entrenched institutions and policies that favor a privileged wealthy oligarchy and its imperialist global outreach. That's a lot of resistance to overcome, especially since the American people— as badly as the majority wants progressive change— do not yet challenge the basics of the established order and generally adhere to an exceptionalist faith in US supremacy. Still, the perfect storm of crises that profoundly imperils the future of our people, and of all people, expands consciousness and makes for unprecedentedly broad participation in the processes of change. That is why Obama's support is so remarkably deep and inclusive.
So far Obama's presidency has advanced significant, even dramatic movement toward new humanist priorities. It also has steered a calculated course aimed at avoiding what he views as diversionary conflicts with established institutions and constituencies that have vested interests in the status quo. My intention here is not to play the media game of a report card on the first 100 days, not to go issue by issue through the long list that Obama has weighed in on in an incredibly active few months. Obama is certainly pressing for a new agenda, emphasizing the economy, health care, the environment, and energy. Forward steps are often bold, sometimes hesitant, sometimes followed by a step backward. Thus, Obama commits to closing Guantanamo and releases the horrible record of torture practices, but he avoids confronting the CIA. He pushes for the stimulus package, but compromises to seek (unsuccessfully) bipartisan support. He condemns greedy CEOs and unregulated Wall Street, but tempers corrective measures applied to banks and other financial institutions. There appears to be a new tone and more pacific outreach in foreign policy, but changes in military policy are incremental, minimizing the potential for conflict with the generals. By far the most backward step is the beefed up war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The media rather gleefully makes much of the left's supposed disappointment with Obama, but I would guess that most of the left, however that's defined, is an unwavering part of the almost 70% of Americans who favor Obama. There is a big difference between vigorous opposition to bad policies and joining the dwindling chorus of rage against Obama. Nothing dictates that protest against Wall Street, or opposition to more war in Afghanistan or to the coddling of a militaristic Israeli government should be low-balled because Obama is President. The more vigorous the protests and demands, the more that becomes part of the reality that drives a serious transition forward. If Larry Somers had to bow out, or if the military escalation in Afghanistan had to be reversed, the Obama presidency and its possibilities would be strengthened. Nevertheless, it would be blind to dismiss this presidency as "same old, same old", to imply as some do that he shouldn't be treated differently than his predecessors "just because he's black." This is a highly important time in history. The door to progressive change has been cracked open and not a moment too soon. If the left wants a clearer way forward, it won't find it in debates or speculation about Obama. The real answer may be in helping to highten the understanding and action of the broad swath of Americans who rightly see the Obama presidency as something new and better. Their hopes, our hopes, are not a sickness.
April 25, 2009
Rosalind Wofsy, a pioneer community organizer in support of people with developmental disabilities, died on April 23, 2009. She was 88.
From 1964 through 1984, Rosalind Wofsy was Executive Director of the Developmental Disabilities Council of Contra Costa County. When she retired, she wrote of those years in a memoir, "The Best Years of My Working Life", published by the DD Council of Contra Costa in 1992. This was described by the late Henrik Blum, Professor of Public Health, UC Berkeley, as "superb and human-scale history … an important piece about the genesis of relevant and humane services for the developmentally disabled". Dr. Blum, who was the chief health officer of Contra Costa County, 1950-1966, wrote of Rosalind Wofsy's key role: "It was by being a perceptive, fair, and conscientious person who believed in the democratic process and the opportunities it offers to citizens to create what they sorely need that she accomplished what she did." For her leadership, she received a California State Citation in 1983.
Diana Jorgensen, who succeeded Rosalind as Executive Director of the DD Council, remembered her: "Roz was revered by all those who knew and worked with her for both her unusually gifted skills and her steadfast commitment to people with developmental disabilities and their families. She was able to accomplish incredible changes in the field of service to this population because of the strength of beliefs combined with her dynamic personality."
Rosalind was born in Bronx, New York City on September 5, 1920; her parents were Mollie and Chaim Taub. She graduated from Hunter College, NY in 1941. She married Leon Wofsy in 1942 and they have been together until her death. They had two children, Carla Wofsy, who became a Professor of Mathematics at the University of New Mexico and who died of breast cancer in 2003; and David Wofsy, now Professor of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. Roz, as she was called, also leaves four grand children, Danielle, Kevin, Susan and Grace; and her brother, Leon Taub.
Roz came to the East Bay in 1964 when husband Leon joined the faculty at UC Berkeley, where he is now Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology. Before her position as Executive Director of the DD Council of Contra Costa County, she directed youth and children's programs at Jewish Community Centers in New Haven, Connecticut and San Diego, California. In the 1950s, when Leon was Chair of the left-wing Labor Youth League, the young family faced difficult times of harassment during the McCarthy period. During those years, Roz was the main provider and mainstay of the family and was herself actively engaged in the civil rights movement.
Since her retirement, Roz had serious health problems that resulted in gradually increasing physical disability. These difficulties she faced bravely while maintaining the sweetness and hopeful outlook on life for which she is so loved. The great joy of her last year of life was the election of America's first president of color.
A public memorial is scheduled for Sunday, May 10, 2pm, at Bayside Pavilion, 2203 Mariner Square Loop in Alameda. Donations in her memory may be made to the Developmental Disabilities Council of Contra Costa County, Partners in Health, or the Middle East Children's Alliance.
February 15, 2009
The GOP's Wager
Why has the GOP congressional bloc voted so solidly against the stimulus bill? Why has it turned its back on Obama's overtures, confronting him so directly despite his high popularity?
The underlying ideology, favor the rich and damn the rest, is no surprise. But ideology alone doesn't explain tactics, as in the stubborn rejection of all compromise. Are they stupid, oblivious to their declining political fortunes? Maybe, but that answer might be too comfortable— and wrong.
I think they have decided on a very calculated bet. They read the predictions of almost every economist: the crisis is deepening and is likely to persist, perhaps for years, whatever the government can do to ease the pain. They are counting on economic failure and the perception down the road in 2010 that the failure is Obama's, not the system itself that they have helped steer to disaster. That's a risky wager because the cynicism is transparent and popular anger against the GOP is rising well beyond the 53% who voted for Obama.
It isn't some rapid and miraculous economic turnaround that will doom the GOP's calculation. As in the 1930s, what counts will be the unity and action of millions to defend and expand their right to a decent life. That means energetic mass support for progressive and innovative programs to ease the hurt and open up new opportunity. It means rallying around Obama's efforts in that direction and pushing them further.
The passage of the stimulus bill is a victory, but it isn't as bold as it should be, largely because of the GOP's ability to hamstring the Senate majority. The need is to create a new reality across the country, so that GOP diehards in Congress are no longer strong enough to limit what has to be done. If the gamblers can't advance their self-fulfilling prophecy of failure, their bet will be lost.
February 7, 2009
SECOND THOUGHTS
Several responses to my February 1 blog felt it was too optimistic about the Obama presidency. A couple were angry that I didn't express more outrage at continued catering to Republicans and big business at the expense of millions losing their jobs, homes, education and health care; also more outrage over Obama's stepped-up military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his failure to condemn Israel's war that killed thousands of civilians, women and children in Gaza.
One wrote: ".... What we're looking for are realistic alternatives, not just going along with the Democrats.... I want the left to act as if they still hope for a more just distribution of power and wealth, not to scorn people who hope to build alternative parties.... Where are the people who will speak, write, proselytize for socialism, try to make it something beside a scare word?"
I guess my comments didn't reflect how much people are hurting and how justified is the growing anger. I agree that the developing depression and continuing atrocities of war should give rise to militant popular actions and the spread of ideas that challenge the system and values of capitalism.
I'm not persuaded to change my opinion that Obama's election and the circumstances around it provide an historic opportunity for advance toward justice and peace. It's far from simply a question of "can you trust the Democrats". It would be too bad if a small socialist-minded left separated itself from the left-leaning majority supporting Obama by nay-saying the possibilities for major change as a result of his presidency. Right now, those of us on "the left" should be second to none in supporting Obama's efforts to overcome rightist GOP obstruction of stimulus measures and necessary social legislation. That support isn't diminished by the necessity to criticize sharply and oppose administration policies that run counter to the change Obama has promised.
There is a rush to figure out who Obama really is and what he intends. I don't see the need to make conclusive judgments at this early stage. This is a new and very complicated period. The pressure of unprecedented crises and events, and of political action here and around the world, will influence crucially how the Obama presidency evolves. Surely there are much better opportunities for progressive change (both on domestic and international issues) than we've seen for a long and bitter time— and for that Obama deserves great credit and strong support going forward
February 1, 2009
OBAMA AND THE CROSS WINDS OF CHANGE
My web page has been sitting silent, unchanged since July 2008. Now, a little update, asking and answering a few questions about how things look to me as Obama begins his historic presidency:
1. Is Obama committed to far-reaching progressive change?
All things considered, including the flurry of activity in the first ten days following inauguration, President Obama's commitment to changing America for the better comes through loud and clear. That we have a President who recognizes that drastic changes are imperative, and who is open to the challenge, is cause indeed for the unprecedented massive celebration that has welcomed his election. The first African-American, the first person of color, to rise to the presidency is itself testimony to the possibilities of historic progressive change.
2.Does his emphasis on bipartisanship and national unity square with a commitment to a new and different direction for America?
Obama's vigorous outreach to Republicans, religious conservatives and business chiefs is a matter of considerable complexity and uncertainty. He wants maximum support for his initiatives to deal with multiple unprecedented crises, domestic and global. He wants to show the public that he is doing his best to overcome gridlock and make government work. He wants to unify Americans around his change agenda in numbers significantly beyond the majority who voted for him in November.
The fact that no Republicans voted for the stimulus bill in the House shows that a reactionary hardcore will fight progress today just as stubbornly as their forbears fought the New Deal, social security, Medicare, trade unionism and civil rights. Hopefully their public base will continue to shrink. Obama will no doubt continue to reach out, but too many compromises on issues may prove futile and too costly for the American people. So far, while Obama courts the Republicans, he's not holding back on his agenda in order to wait for them.
Obama has been more successful in gaining support for his election and his administration from major sectors of the political establishment and the financial world. That bonding is reflected in his cabinet appointments, particularly the many carryovers from the Clinton years. Can Clintonites change with the times, or is Obama reinviting past neoliberal disappointments? That, too, isn't easy to answer. Obama aims to rescue and revive the capitalist economy, not to undermine or alter its essential character. Likewise he wants to improve the weakened global influence of the United States and check significant erosion of far-flung imperial interests. No one who reneges on those basic commitments could hope to become President of the United States at this time in history. Yet the present extremely deep crises absolutely demand a bold progressive agenda, at least somewhat in the spirit of the New Deal. Obama believes that. He hopes that his powerful electoral mandate and soaring post-election support, his powers of persuasion and leadership, and, above all, the shared recognition of monumental crisis will make his administration truly new, not a collection of retreads with high IQs. Going forward, however, depends more than anything on an aroused and actively demanding public.
3.Can US foreign policy change for the better and adjust to a new multipolar world?
Changing US policies and posture relative to the rest of the world is no less critical than the great changes needed at home. While Obama is already changing the tone away from Bush's arrogance and bullying, substantive change won't come easily. The prevailing mindset of "American exceptionalism" and the far-flung interests of the military-industrial-financial complex are huge and entrenched obstacles. The problems of terrorism, both non-state and state inflicted, have been made intractable by Bush's "war on terror" and the relentless epidemic of religious and nationalist fundamentalism. The hapless notion that overwhelming military force can prevail in Afghanistan lingers even with Obama, while the neocons and most Israeli politicians still conspire to bomb Iran. Nevertheless change is possible because the consequences of avoidance or delay are so bad. Moreover historic methods of brute force and thinly disguised interventionism cannot control major shifts in power and influence on the world stage, nor counter the sweep of independence and progress in Latin America. The end of the incredible Bush years inspires new hope for a turn toward peace at last. War as a solution to problems in the Middle East or elsewhere is a failed and bloody concept that most people find intolerable. Even some elites of the Cold War now see that non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is unrealistic as long as nuclear powers, especially the US and Russia, fail to renew a framework for mutual nuclear disarmament.
There are mixed signals in Obama's pronouncement that America is ready to lead again. The world has changed and no country or alliance has the capacity to dictate the course of events. Nor will world opinion accept any country's claim to national superiority. Certainly the United States with Obama can do much to foster cooperation for peace, targeting global warming, poverty and disease as the main priorities for international attention. That would be a great advance. No country has more to contribute to the mutual good than the USA.
4. What are the prospects that Obama's call for "changing America and the world" will make real headway?
Obama knows that the levers of change are in the very crises we confront in all their enormity. They are so urgent that only idiots or diehard obstructionists can deny the need for bold leadership and action. Immediate steps to cope with the deepening economic crisis merge with the need to invest in the future, to tackle chronic problems in infrastructure, health care, education, economic and social inequality. While the economic crisis evokes the most immediate anguish, each of the multiple global crises of climate change, war and violence, disease, poverty and inequality can make the demand for effective action irresistible before it is too late.
Of course, as Obama has shown so well, all hope rests ultimately on popular mobilization, organization and action. Community organization and twenty-first century grass roots communication changed the election and may change the future of American politics. Obama has moved to establish a permanent framework for community organization based on some thirteen million people who became activists during the 2008 campaign. That will give him unprecedented support for pressing Washington and the states forward. But that energy can push Obama on as well, can criticize and inform his actions and vision. It's too early to tell, but the new wave of community organization could lead to new alignments that weaken the hold of political elites within the traditional two party framework. It should evoke new experiences and new ideas that redefine the forms and perspectives of an American "left" that is integral to a rising progressive tide.
July 4, 2008
Thinking about Change
Change is the keynote of this election year. The vast majority of Americans want it after two terms of George W. Bush. Most of the world, too, wishes eagerly for a changed America.
This sweeping embrace of "change" is not a Barack Obama phenomenon, although he has called it forth as no other living political figure has. His election to the presidency would be a powerful mandate for turning the page on a ruinous course that extends hardship for millions of Americans and puts the US in confrontation with the world as a flailing warrior superpower.
But what change can we hope for or believe in? That's much more than a matter of what any candidate may say or intend.
Change is not mainly something we can choose or reject by ballot. We are already in a period of great, even monumental change. The real choice is how our politics will change to react to a changed and changing reality. There is a huge disconnect between prevailing governmental and establishment politics and the real world of changes in culture, economics and the natural environment.
Reality already departs drastically from how things seemed to be at the start of this new century. Evidence of global warming has overwhelmed any reasonable doubt and complacency about our endangered environment. Illusions about globalization, "free" markets, and immunity to economic crisis are collapsing in a world food crisis, rising poverty and severe shocks in the US economy.
Establishment politics has lagged behind profound cultural change. For decades the political trajectory of government, particularly during the Bush years, has generally been in a right-wing reactionary direction, but the realities of life (and struggle) have favored important advances in popular support for civil rights and diversity, against discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. The history-making Obama and Clinton primary candidacies became possible despite deeply rooted problems of racism and sexism in our society.
Perhaps the biggest departure from prevailing expectations at the beginning of the century has been the change in America's status astride the post-cold war world. A new "American Century" was proclaimed by the neoconservatives associated with the Bush-Cheney Administration. It was preordained by our standing as the world's only superpower, overwhelmingly superior militarily and economically to all other nations separately or combined. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Administration moved rapidly from retaliation against Al Qaeda and the Taliban to its grander design to be advanced by war and occupation of Iraq. Military "shock and awe" would quickly dispatch the universally hated regime of Saddam Hussein, establishing American power in the Middle East and a controlling interest in Iraq's oil. "Mission accomplished" would be a message to the world of US resolve, of Washington's unilateral and unchallengeable dominance unrestrained by the United Nations or international protest.
Of course Iraq has proved the very opposite of what the neocons intended: the limitations of military power and empire in this new century. In less than a decade, the "American Century" as conceived by Bush and the neocons is expiring.
Beyond the Iraq fiasco, the bubble of unchallenged supremacy as the world's only superpower is being pierced by the rapid development of major economic powers in other parts of the world, most notably in Asia. It has been a disaster, and will be even more so, to view the world as subservient to and manageable by US superpower. That failed outlook has to give way to recognition of inevitable competition and expanding participation in shaping human destiny. Authority is not exclusive to any present or future world power; leadership will demand active championing of the sheer necessity for cooperation to cope with universal issues and crises.
Our next presidential administration will not be able to escape the reality of ongoing change within the USA and in our place in the world. McCain and the GOP would resist and delay changing course from Bush's reactionary domestic policies and aggressive military pursuits abroad— and that would be a tragedy. But there's no way to salvage the Bush-Cheney vision of world control or the Karl Rove strategy for autocracy under permanent GOP rule.
What would be the prospects for affecting change if Obama wins and the GOP suffers a big defeat in the Senate and House? What are the possibilities? What do they depend upon? What may limit expectations for change?
The opportunities arising from a decisive election victory would be major, but delivering on them is far from a given despite Obama's remarkable successes in inspiring the hopes of millions. Obama clearly is a strong leader, but what he says and does is always conditioned by how he assesses the political waters. It is a valuable quality in a leader to have a good sense of what the traffic will bear, to know what it takes to win. But there is a real downside as well to riding the winds of political calculation. That can increase vulnerability to pressure from major interests that wield power in the corporate world and its largely controlled media. It can also reinforce an assumed common denominator of public attitudes that makes it inexpedient to challenge prevailing prejudices and orthodoxies. Given the vitriol aimed at Obama as the first person of color who may become President, it is no surprise that he feels he must pull out the stops to prove his "trustworthiness" on patriotism, religious faith, national security and all the rest of the media's hallmarks of conformity. It is disappointing but not surprising to see him slide backward on the campaign trail on forthright opposition to key elements of Bush's investment in war and aggression in the Middle East and drastic curtailment of domestic civil liberties. It's good to see that the extraordinary grassroots movement that propelled him to the nomination is the source of sharp criticism of his retreat on Bush's wire tapping dragnet: the participatory website that drives Obama's campaign now also fuels the popular demand that he honor his promise to oppose immunity for the telecom corporations. This may be a rehearsal for the interactive mass pressure that surely must be projected into the battle to realize progressive change after the election is over.
Important as Obama is and may prove to be, the answer to what the future may bring is not programmed in his personality and agenda. Rather than engaging in speculation to discover the "real" Obama, it may be worth considering what change of course might be possible. A clear election mandate for changing direction would first of all set a new tone and begin the process of shifting national priorities. That's not just an abstraction, because nothing is more important than making the real needs of people and the developing crises of human survival the center of attention nationally and internationally— as opposed to priorities dictated by fear mongering, imperial greed and a delusionary quest to impose "solutions" by military and interventionist means.
As for advances on particular issues, many doors that Bush and the GOP congressional bloc slammed shut would now be open. But if an unprecedented groundswell of organized popular support was what the Obama campaign needed to win in the primaries and still needs to beat McCain, then organized popular pressure is the formula for getting through the door on any significant issue. No one can really expect that vacillation in a new Democratic administration and pressure from a wounded Right will fade away on January 20, 2009. That goes for ending the war in Iraq, universal health care, economic and energy relief, immigrant rights, securing the Supreme Court from reactionary control, and any other issue that produced such a cavalcade of interest and involvement in the Democratic primaries.
The Bush Administration, ignoring its "lame duck" status, has done everything possible to lock the next administration into its failures. It uses its "war on terror" to dominate every aspect of foreign and domestic policy. With the help of too many cooperating and cowed Democratic leaders, Bush's latest war budgets and "national security" legislation aim at a fait accompli of continued war and occupation as well as dismemberment of essential constitutional liberties. One can hope that a President Obama will not be trapped into adapting to any part of the Bush legacy. One can hope that he will evolve into the transformational leader the times call for. But that depends on how strongly the times press him forward, how strongly the tides of change rise from the bottom up.
To put the problem of change in a broader global context: history has reached a stage of unmistakable peril to the future of humanity; consciousness of that ultimate challenge is too limited and collective human effort is obstructed by competing drives of capitalist society. Endeavors in various countries to change society in fundamental ways are thwarted and often distorted by the realities of the global marketplace and dominant imperial power. Although the dream of "American Century" has turned quickly into a nightmare, the facts of American empire remain. The vast military and corporate holdings all over the world inevitably present conflicts of interest not only with particular nations but also within the United Nations, starkly evident during the Bush years. Empire will continue to be a serious drag on aspirations for change and on a new type of shared leadership in the world community.
Whatever the future may hold in the way of fundamental social change, something of great urgency has to happen today and tomorrow: people everywhere have to force a change in the agenda, in the priorities that move public policy. There is more than enough experience past and present, more than enough political sentiment and people power, to end the dominance of war and militarism over our own Congressional agenda, and to force primary attention to economic and environmental crises.
In contemplations of the future, the usual question is: optimist or pessimist? The answer may depend on one's view of the possibilities. No one can now foretell how, and even whether, humanity will make it to survival in reasonably good times for all. But one can have the optimism and the will to climb the mountain before us. We have to believe passionately that priorities of realism and hope can replace selfishness and fear. If in the next several years, the main business on the agenda becomes vital human needs— dealing with poverty, disease, global warming— a huge change will be underway.
That can happen.