REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST YEAR AND
THE ONE COMING UP 
by Russell Branca
The recent spending bill in Congress once again included funding for the war in Iraq without insisting on any benchmarks for the Iraqi government or any timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. Once again tough talk about “no blank checks” fades away when confronted with administration opposition. And there’s always an excuse. “we can’t override a veto” or “We don’t want to be accused of not supporting the troops” etc. On and on it goes.
Like many progressives I feel completely exasperated with the Democratic Party. What haven’t they caved in on? The war in Iraq? Bombing Iran? Fisa violations? Torture? Unanswered subpoenas? Outing a CIA agent? War profiteering? Impeachment? Benchmarks? Election fraud? None of the things that matter so much to us seems to matter as much to them. There is something fundamentally wrong with this political party. It has become dysfunctional. It has no identity anymore. But this pathetic condition is not the fault of the Bush administration or of Rush Limbaugh and the tedious parade of idiots that worship and imitate him. It is a condition that has been some 30 years in the making and comes from deterioration from within.
* * * * * *
Human talent comes in a huge variety of forms. We’re all born with something. Some of us are gifted with a wide array of talents that allows us to excel in whatever we choose to do. For others it seems they were born to know one or two things very well. I believe that Malcolm X was born into the latter category. In that area that he understood so well he may have been one of the most remarkable geniuses of his time. Not as brilliant as Thurgood Marshall, as magnanimous as Martin Luther King Jr., as eloquent as James Baldwin, nor as erudite as E. Franklin Frazier, Malcolm X was arguably the indispensable man of his generation. But not just the generation of African Americans. I think the case can be made that as with so many profound insights born in the turmoil of a particular struggle, his insight reached deeper into a universal truth.
With the simple rejection of the last name given him at birth and its substitution with the letter that symbolizes the unknown, the letter X, Malcolm affirmed with bold clarity what others had theorized for decades. Black people were not free in America and could never be free until their identity was a positive, self-affirming one of their own choosing and not a reactive shadow of the identity created for them by whites. Going back at least as far as Marcus Garvey and the Pan-African movement and then of course in the pioneering psychological studies of Dr. Kenneth Clark or the sociology of E. Franklin Frazier, a foundation was under construction that could challenge the assumption of integration as automatically beneficent for blacks. But none of them could bring these ideas into the public dialogue on race with the force, courage, and uncompromising integrity of Malcolm X. He had an intuitive genius for the power of language and symbols both as he spoke to black people and perhaps more importantly when he spoke to whites. To get at the heart of the matter he had to attack normalcy, stir up accepted patterns of thought and penetrate the protective coats of language designed to conceal the true nature and depth of the problem.
* * * * * *
Over the past 25 years or so the Democratic party has essentially been in retreat on issue after issue. I’m certainly not the first to point out that before retreating on each one of those issues there has been first a corresponding loss of the control of language and the terms of discourse. The right wing seems to control the meaning of “family values” “morals” “strength” “security” “accountability” “patriotism” “freedom” “activist judges” etc. Perhaps what is more important to note is that behind the usurpation of language and meaning there has been a much broader unifying ideology that connects issues that otherwise could be viewed separately. It is an attack on the role of the state as an instrument to effect positive social change and as a legitimate defender of the public interest or what Thom Hartmann so effectively refers to as the “commons”.
The ideology and culture of neo-conservatism particularly as reflected in the Supreme Court justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas, is not just reactionary. Not just a reaction to the so-called “turbulent” “permissive” sixties, it is really a reaction against the modern world since the Renaissance. Just as in the medieval period, they embrace an essentially static view of the world with a rigid hierarchical social order governed by authority believed to be guided by divine wisdom. While many people like to draw analogies between the Bush administration and fascism, culturally, they are really monarchists. In the medieval monarchy the people are the children and the King is the father figure. The highest value is social stability and acceptance of these roles is essential and compulsory.
* * * * * * *
If one theme was omnipresent in Malcolm X’s speeches and writings it is that of Black people’s loss of an authentic identity as a consequence both of slavery and the ensuing 100 years of segregation and discrimination. So important was this idea that he did not advocate for integration as the rest of the Civil Rights leaders of the time were doing but for a separation for as long as it was necessary for Blacks to regain their own self affirming identity. Until then he saw integration as an illusion because it was exclusively on White terms and could never be a melding of equals. There had to be a space in Black people’s lives that was off limits to Whites.
There is a wonderful video clip of an interview with Malcolm X on a TV program from Chicago in 1963. The white interviewer, O’Connor, asks Malcolm what his “real” last name is. Malcolm refuses to acknowledge it and explains why but O’Connor persists by rephrasing the question. Malcolm continues to refuse to answer it. O’Connor tries rephrasing it again and again Malcolm refuses to give in. It was a fascinating tug of war. But what was really going on had nothing to do with wanting to know Malcolm’s name. It was publicly known and O’Connor could have easily found out what it was with some rudimentary research but in all probability he already knew. No, this was a “turf war”. By trying to get Malcolm to pronounce his “slave” name the interviewer was trying to reclaim turf that the letter “X” was denying him. A Black man’s last name and thus his primary identity is not on turf that belongs to anyone else but him. It’s an extraordinary exchange and Malcolm responds so fast and with answers so concise and to the point that if you didn’t know better you would think it was rehearsed. Click below and see for yourself.
In another video clip we hear Malcolm in a speech that he was to repeat often and is quite well known. It’s called “The House Negro and The Field Negro”. Malcolm’s gift as an orator comes directly from his deep conviction and commitment rather than any training in public speaking. In two minutes he accomplishes what it takes volumes of books on the social/psychological pathology of victims to explain. In a narration that goes back to slavery he describes the first example of a destroyed Black identity. The “house negro”, who did mostly domestic chores and lived in the large plantation house as opposed to the “field negro” who toiled in the fields, comes to a point where he actually takes on the identity of his oppressor and feels his pain as his own, sees his own well being as identical to the slavemaster’s. It is impossible for the “house negro” to conceive of his own identity without the slaveowner. The “field negro” was just the opposite. He hated the master and knew he was a slave. The price for authenticity was the whip and the hot sun.
* * * * * * * * * *
The Iraq war has precipitated a crisis in the Democratic Party. It has become painfully obvious that starting with lying to get us into war the Bush administration has been guilty of one impeachable offense after another and yet just days after regaining control of both houses of Congress Nancy Pelosi declared that impeachment was “off the table”. It is astonishing. The one thing Bush and co. would be afraid of because they would not be able to control it was eliminated even as a bargaining chip to achieve other objectives. What was she thinking of? I’ve heard people say that the Democrats think the tide is beginning to turn in their favor and they don’t want take any risks in losing the presidency in 2008.
The problem is that because the Democrats didn’t want to take any risks in 2004 they lost the presidency. It doesn’t matter how much election fraud will be proved for that election. The plain fact is that George Bush was so incredibly beatable in that election. He should have lost by a landslide. It was so dramatically evident and provable that he had lied to get us into war and that the war on terrorism was a fundamentally flawed concept that leads nowhere.
To this day neither John Kerry in 2004 nor any of the current presidential frontrunners nor anyone in the Democratic leadership has the courage to make that case against the war. No one wants to say that America is the aggressor and that like it or not that means that the war is both immoral and illegal. Moreover, the insurgency, which certainly does contain many confusing and disparate components including terrorists with various political agendas, can claim the legitimacy of a patriotic resistance movement against a foreign occupier. The Republicans bank everything on the idea that in America we are always “the good guy” and they are always “the bad guy”. The Democrats have neither the courage nor the will to challenge that fantasy. Instead they prefer to make the case that the war has been mismanaged. They have failed to defend the people’s right to know the truth. And Bush keeps beating them over and over.
In January of 2004 Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary during the Clinton administration, wrote a very insightful article reprinted on Common Dreams. In it he laments the state of affairs in the Democratic Party. What he essentially says is that unlike the Republican party, there is no real grassroots movement behind the leadership in the Democratic Party. They have done nothing to cultivate it. He is writing almost four years ago and his analysis still holds interest. Read here.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0129-06.htm
What has changed is that today there is in fact a grassroots movement that wants to speak truth to power, hold its government morally accountable and demand its right to criticize the war openly and freely without fear and without the absurd accusations that it lacks patriotism. But the Democratic party is frightened of it and does everything possible to minimize it.
Just a few weeks ago Harry Reid was being interviewed by Jim Lehr and he was so sad. His anti-war argument is that it is costing a lot of money. He was mimicking Republicans when they rant against “tax & spend” Democrats. Then he goes on about how he has no objection to having dinner with the president or going to a ballgame with him, it’s just his policies that he opposes. He admitted that the surge had done some good and then out of nowhere he tells us that he and Joe Leiberman are good friends and that Joe votes with the Democrats 95% of the time, the only difference is the war. Just three days earlier Leiberman had publicly endorsed John McCain! And of course he had to assure us that Democrats do support the troops. He is so intimidated by right wing spin, and well he should, they control the language and terminology in which every public issue is framed and discussed. There is a schism in the Democratic Party and it may not be reparable.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Malcolm X was assassinated on February 21, 1965 while giving a speech in the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. His legacy as a great spokesman is already secure with the generations of African Americans that have followed him. In his most eloquent eulogy Ossie Davis called him a “black shining prince”, “our living black manhood” and said “Nobody knew better than he the power words have over the minds of men”. But I think a deeper reading of him discovers what I referred to at the beginning of this essay. The path to a universal truth starts in a particular, temporal, historical situation. Malcolm X transcends race and speaks to the universal human striving for freedom, self-determination and dignity. Where is his relevance for us today? And I do mean for all of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZN1_t6d2BM
* * * * * * * * * * *
American elections have become a contest between two advertising agencies. In fact over the last half century the merging of the science of psychology with the art of public relations that produced our mass advertising culture has been transported and now dominates our political culture. Every assiduously studied technique to sell us everything from vacuum cleaners to ipods is now used to sell us wars and political leaders. Watching any typical TV ad we see the time and effort that went into studying and reproducing our every mannerism and spontaneous expression in such fine detail that we blur the distinction between what is real and what has been merely artificially manufactured. On one level we claim to know the difference but on another we really don’t. It’s effective, it works, or else it would not be used. We see the happy smiling faces of people emerging from a theater to tell us how much they loved the show and we want to be those happy people who are really just actors getting a paycheck. And at one point the actors are no longer just masterfully reproducing a spontaneity they have studied and observed but are actually creating a new pseudo spontaneity that is much easier to mass produce and control. They can manufacture our personalities, our reactions, our laughter, and our aspirations. The goal is simple and clear. Our sense of identity and self fulfillment must come from the products they want to sell us.
This is the process that has been introduced into our political life slowly over the years. Yes, it has been publicly discussed and this can’t be the first time you are reading about it but think about this; In the entire field of presidential candidates not one has abandoned the techniques of mass manipulation as an organizing principle of their campaign. It works. We’re all on the plantation. We’re all niggers now. Whether you’re a house nigger or a field nigger, it doesn’t make much difference.
The conscious articulated goal of slavery was to destroy any autonomous identity of the slave and replace it with an identity that served the interest of the slaveowner. No black history could be even imagineable. No assertiveness on the part of the slave was permissible. No slave could think that he could have an interest that conflicted with that of the slaveowner.
Today the corporate state is replacing the plantation. And just as the slaveowners had to control the identity of the slave, today’s modern slaveowners try to control the public identity. In the mad rush towards the privatization of everything from schools, parks, prisons, roads, social security, even larger and larger sections of the military, the public is losing any sense of a common identity and interest that can override a powerful private interest. We have even arrived at the point where certain living hybrid micro-organisms can be patented for private profit. The public is expected to identify with the power and goals of the corporate state as if it were themselves.
Where is our Malcolm X? We need him now more than ever. We have no champions. Since FDR the Democratic Party has been cast in the role of the people’s party. It’s never been perfect but for the last thirty years it has consistently allowed the country to drift further and further to the right because they lack the courage to fight, to set the agenda, to establish the terms of the debate, and at least insist that certain issues get publicly discussed. They say that they believe that the war on terror is a misnomer but they do nothing to campaign and build public support for that. Technically they may vote the right way on certain issues but they let the Republicans dominate the public interpretation. How many Americans actually believe that the Democrats don’t want to put wiretaps on terrorists? How many Americans believe that the war in Iraq is about winning or losing? How many Americans know that the United States helped overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah, a despised autocrat? How many Americans know that Israel has been illegally occupying Arab lands for over 40 years? How many Americans think that Hugo Chavez is a dictator? The list goes on and on, you know them all. The ignorance of the American people is not an accident. It is the product of deliberate media misinformation and Democratic silence. The Democrats may have gone through all the right motions technically in the Iran/Contra affair but they lost the battle of public relations and Oliver North, became a public hero!
And yet the DLC is still working tirelessly to suffocate the grassroots progressive movement that is its only hope. They didn’t hesitate to distance themselves from MoveOn.org with an official censure over a minor indiscretion that the right had succeeded in blowing up all out of proportion.
Let’s not even get started on election fraud, voter suppression, and computer voting machines. It’s just too depressing.
We need a third party. It's that simple. Which one? I don’t know. But just as in slavery when the slave owner tried to wipe the slave's memory of self clean, so today the corporate state wants us to forget the memory of when government meant "We The People".
We need Malcolm X. He’s gone, but if we prepare, maybe his spirit can ignite us again, ALL of us.
Russell Branca
New York City
December 2007