I am still jet-lagged, or is it a cold? I can’t tell. Whatever it is, I have not been up to par for the past few weeks. The trip to Europe, including visits with my daughter and her family in Paris and the seminar in Wroclaw, was more challenging than expected. Naomi, my wife and Deliberately Considered’s Art and Design Editor, and I slowed down in our posting. But now, we are back. I expect to regain my strength, and you, dear Deliberately Considered readers, can expect in the coming weeks more posts on Wroclaw and on American and global politics and culture. Here, today and tomorrow, my thoughts on OWS responding to the discussions at the Wroclaw seminar. -Jeff

The starting point of the Wroclaw Seminar was Occupy Wall Street. It then served as our primary case for comparative investigation throughout and informed our final conclusions. Seminar participants Pamela Brown and Sidney Rose suggested additional readings for the seminar when we focused on OWS — Rose on the link between Anonymous and OWS. She was particularly interested in the online pre-history of OWS. Brown, an Occupy activist, was focused on the present challenges and recent accomplishments of the movement.

Rose suggested a piece describing an embrace between Cornell West, the philosopher, social critic and activist, and Gregg Housh, a leading figure in the shadowy group, Anonymous, at an occupy demonstration in Boston. This informed our discussion about the virtual infrastructure that supported the embodied occupations. As we tried to understand what is special about the new “new social movements,” the interaction between virtual and the embodied was a topic we knew we needed to explore.

We discussed how events in the Middle East and North Africa, combined with virtual actions, led to Occupy Wall Street, and sparked a global social movement wildfire. Following the Arab Spring, OWS developed with an Adbusters initial proposal to occupy wall street on September 17, 2011 , supported by politicized hackers such as those associated with Anonymous. Suddenly, with a minimum of organizational planning, things changed. Thousands quickly made global connections. Governments fell. The economic order was challenged. A new power seemed to have emerged. Through the new and old media solid authority melted. The inevitable seemed vulnerable (Al Jazeera was crucial in the Middle East). Traditional autocrats were no longer secure. Economic plutocrats were fat targets for social outrage. Clearly the new media order contributed to this. Something very new had been brought into the world (i.e. Hannah Arendt’s idea of what politics can do).

While I think it is a mistake to consider these movements as having been created by the new media (“the Facebook revolutions”), it is hard to imagine their rapidly formed links and the coordination and organization of the movements without new media. Hierarchical organization, a command structure, a disciplined party organization and the like were no longer necessary. The “iron law of oligarchy” which Robert Michels analyzed in his classic study of social democratic parties , was made obsolete. Coordination could be and was more horizontally achieved. And many of the movements, OWS in particular, made this capacity a matter of principle. Decision through consensus promised to be not only an ideal: it was becoming also an operating reality.

Yet, this promise is not without peril, apparent in OWS and in many of the new “new social movements.” Without clear leadership, it is hard to know who actually speaks for the new “new social movements” and what their goals are. Those who live by the sword of new media may die by it. This is a primary challenge for the movements as they have attempted to go beyond their initial successes. Brown led us in our discussion of this issue.

It is one thing to observe that OWS changed the conversation. It is quite another to know what its enduring impact might be and to work for this.  For activists such as Brown, the challenge is to figure out what is to be done once major media attention is no longer there. She has been very engaged on the issue of student debt, a major American problem, and she is part of a group of OWS activists who believe that the debt issue is the one that will bring the movement forward, to make sure that OWS activists address the concerns of the 99% as  they speak in its name. She suggested that the group read a piece on a recent demonstration in N.Y. on this theme.  The article includes a link to an important article by Brown explaining the dimensions of the crisis: no less than the end of the American dream of upward social mobility.

I think this direction is quite promising. Deep debt is the tie that holds much of the 99% together, from usurious payday advances, to credit card debt, to mortgage foreclosures, to impossible student loans. I think this is a theme that can carry OWS forward. Our seminar participants were quite intrigued by the details, especially concerning the prohibitive costs of American higher education and the consequences of this. They found it particularly surprising when I revealed that I, as a full professor, was not at all confident that my children would be able to attend the universities of their own choosing because of the threat of deep debt. Somehow, we managed, but that was because of some good luck, including the good fortune of timing. It was ten years ago when things were bad, but not quite as bad as they are now.

Yet, there has been sharp criticism within OWS of the recent moves to focus on debt as the central issue of OWS. Tomorrow I will report on this and its implications for the public in the movement and for the broader public, and how both work on the broader task of reinventing American political culture. The challenge is that the mediated capacity that first led to the formation of the movement may be an obstacle to future concerted action.

It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day and I am thinking about the Obama Presidency. I reject the simpleminded criticisms of Obama in the name of King, such as those presented by Cornell West. I think we have to look closely at the political challenges the President has faced. In an earlier post, I assessed Obama’s political performance on the political economy working with a Democratic Congress. Today I consider his work with Republicans. I think it is noteworthy that he kept focus on long-term goals, even as he experienced ups and downs in the day-to-day partisan struggles. I believe he kept his “eyes on the prize.” Although King’s project is incomplete, Obama is, albeit imperfectly, working to keep hope alive. This is more apparent as Obama is now working against the Republicans, pushed by the winds of Occupy Wall Street, the topic for another day. It is noteworthy, though, that it was even the case during the less than inspiring events of the past year.

Responding to the Republican victories in the 2010 elections, the President had to face a fundamental fact: elections do indeed have consequences. While his election provided the necessary mandate for his economic policies and for healthcare reform, the Republican subsequent gains in the House and Senate, leading to a smaller majority for the Democrats in the Senate and the loss of the House, empowered the Republican calls for change in policies. And, even though divided government became a reality and gridlock was the basic condition, action was imperative. The sluggish economy, long-term budget deficits and the debt ceiling defined the agenda after the bi-election. The approaches of the Republicans and the Democrats could not have been more different.

Obama had a choice, to fight the Republicans head on, or to try to accommodate the new political situation and seek compromise. He chose compromise. It wasn’t pretty, nor was it particularly successful as a political tactic.

The Republicans made clear that their first priority was to turn Obama into a one-term president, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell infamously put it. With this opposition, Obama faced a dilemma between the demands of an ethics of responsibility and the demands of the ethics of ultimate ends, as Max Weber would have put it. Trying to be responsible, led to mixed results. The Bush tax cuts were extended, as were unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. And while there was no government default, as Tea Party Republicans seemed to seek, as they held the government hostage to an increase in the debt ceiling, they did successfully veto a grand compromise on the deficit that Speaker Boehner and Obama negotiated.

The President appeared ineffective and weak. He seemed to negotiate poorly, giving more to his opposition than they gave to him. He seemed to lack core principles: accepting Republican and Tea Party deficit and debt priorities. The substance and theatrics of his performance disappointed his supporters, left and center, confirmed the convictions of his opponents on the right.

Most of my academic friends, and, I imagine, most of the readers of Deliberately Considered, have been disappointed, convinced that on one issue after another Obama followed rather than led. The Republicans pushed him around. As he pursued, in the eyes of many on the left, Bush-lite policies in foreign affairs in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, and on human rights and national security (I promise more on that in a future post), he seemed to be at best a moderate Republican on the political economy.

Centrists also saw a problem. For them, form was more important than content.  He seemed weak, as he was trying to move to the center and appeal to moderates. I remember a brief conversation I had with a neighbor. He proudly explained to me that he was a person who voted for the man, not the Party. He had voted for Obama in 2008, for Kerry in 2004, Bush in 2000, and now he was against Obama. Obama is ineffective, doesn’t lead, and doesn’t deserve another term, in my neighbor’s opinion. We need someone who gets things done during these hard times, a leader, not an amateur who is in over his head.

My neighbor knew where I stood. We were chatting across from my car, which already had a re-election sticker on it. He, on that summer day, didn’t know who he was for, but knew who he was against. This meeting was before the primary season. I assume that my neighbor is now a less than enthusiastic supporter of Governor Romney, hoping that the Governor doesn’t mean some of the things that he is now saying, mirroring die-hard conservative distrust of the Massachusetts moderate.

As I have already indicated here, I think my friends on the left don’t understand the nature of Obama’s political stance, a principled centrist trying to move the center left, in terms of today’s holiday, mainstreaming King’s dream of social justice. I also think that they, along with centrist skeptics, don’t appreciate the President’s continued commitment to civility in public life.

There is an unrecognized tactical dilemma. The moderates want him to reach out to left, right and center and address pressing problems, but when he does, they think he is weak, following, not leading. He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

Although this was, to a large extent, a no win situation, presenting impossible tactical difficulties, I do recognize that Obama didn’t handle the situation very well. As a supporter, I often want him to be more cunning in his negotiations with the Republicans. I feel that he should be tougher in negotiations, clearer in expressing his core convictions. Nonetheless, I think it is also important to understand what the long-term challenges were and recognize how tactical performance ultimately was less important than the pursuit of long-term strategy and goals. It is notable that Obama’s commitment to his ultimate ends, King’s dream of justice, in the political economy has been quite steady. And as far as tactics, I am not sure that a tougher stance toward the Republicans would have a achieved better results, though I know it would have felt better for many, including me.

The President’s long-term view and commitments were on clear view, appropriately in his last State of the Union Address, as I pointed out at the time.

The President offered a balanced approach. He recognized that Republican concerns about deficits were serious and accepted the proposition that cutting spending had to be a part of the long-term goal of reducing deficits, but he underscored that in doing so “…let’s make sure that we’re not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.”

He engaged a political debate with Republicans on their terms, accepting the problem of the deficit as a priority, but he emphasized the continued need for public investments in education, alternative energy sources and public infrastructure, in transportation and communications. He supported tax reform, including the lowering of corporate taxes, and he spoke about free trade, but he emphasized what he asserted were the accomplishments of his first two years in office, specifically health care reform. He proposed cutting dramatically discretionary spending, but he also called for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The speech included calls for investment and reduced deficits, intelligently focused, clear moves to recognize the interests of his opposition, but without giving up on his fundamental commitments.

I think it is striking how last year’s State of the Union address summarizes the course Obama has followed through the year. This includes both the attempt to find common ground with Republicans, which led to great tension and minimal accomplishment, avoiding the worse, but not much more, and also his move to a more confrontational approach, specifically as it has to do with jobs and caring for the least fortunate. He has held a steady position, and now has the initiative – I think importantly with the help of Occupy Wall Street.

The economy improved a bit this year, but many still suffer. Obama presented a balanced approach, strikingly different from what the Republicans offer and he has been able to pursue this approach despite sustained opposition empowered by a major social movement, The Tea Party. But as that movement seems to be weakening and with the presence of another social movement, OWS, pushing the issues of social justice and inequality onto the public agenda, Obama is moving forward.

When I look at his tactical moves, in the day to day attempt to govern with the Republicans, I worry, sharing concern with his critics on the left that he has not been the real deal and his moderate critics that he has not been an effective leader, but over all in the long run, it seems to me that people have rushed to their negative judgments. Obama achieved a great deal in his first two years and has managed to minimize the damage of the last year, and is now poised to move forward. More on that in my next post.

As Will Milberg anticipated, President Obama gave a speech last night that did not just involve political positioning. It was a serious Address to a Joint Session of Congress about our economic problems, proposing significant solutions. The address was also politically astute, and will be consequential. Obama was on his game again, revealing the method to his madness.

His game is not properly appreciated, as I have argued already here. He has a long term strategy, and doesn’t allow short term tactics to get in the way. He additionally understands that politics is not only about ends, but also means.

Many of his supporters and critics from the left, including me, have been seriously concerned about how he handled himself in the debt ceiling crisis. He apparently compromised too readily, negotiated weakly, another instance of a recurring pattern. In the first stimulus, healthcare reform, and the lame duck budget agreement, it seemed that he settled for less, could have got more, was too soft. But, of course, this is not for sure. I find that my friends who supported Hillary Clinton look at me, as an early and committed Obama supporter, differently now and express more open skepticism about Obama these days. But I think, as was revealed last night, that Obama’s failures have been greatly exaggerated. (Today only about political economic issues)

A worldwide depression was averted. The principle of universal health care for all Americans is now part of our law, the most significant extension of what T. H. Marshall called social citizenship since the New Deal. And, a completely unnecessary American induced global crisis did not occur. None of this was pretty. The President had to gain the support of conservative Democrats (so called moderates) and Republicans for these achievements. But it was consequential. In my judgment, despite complete, and not really loyal, Republican opposition to every move he has made, he has governed effectively, steering the ship of state in the right direction, despite extremely difficult challenges.

And during his political battles, he has maintained a civil respect for his opponents, never treating them as enemies, his soft touch, which is greatly criticized by the base. From serious economic critics, such as Paul Krugman, to his African-American celebrity critics, such as Tavis Smiley and Cornell West, there is a sense that he has not fought hard enough.  But hard is not always the most effective. This was revealed last night.

His speech was part of his overall strategy to address the primary economic challenge of our day and to do so without abandoning a commitment to social justice. There is a broad consensus among economists and serious policy analysts that the American economy requires two things: short term stimulus and long term deficit control, and that a key to this long term goal is controlling the costs of health care in America. Sober, politically wise analysts also recognize that pursuit of perfect solutions should not get in the way of politically possible solutions. It’s better to move in the right direction than to not move at all, or to move in the wrong direction. This requires that people who don’t agree on everything to manage to act together on some things. It requires compromise, persistent effort. Obama is on to this. He does it as a matter of principle, not simply as a tactic. He clearly wants to find a common ground. Every move he makes he tries to include Republicans and their ideas, conservative as well as liberal Democrats. He is a principled centrist.

But last night he revealed that he is not pursuing a center just because he likes to be in the middle. As I have maintained before, he is a centrist working to move the center left. He understands the conservative criticism of statism, but still thinks the state has an important role to play. He is centrally focused on social justice, as he works to make a concern for social justice a matter of centrist concern.

The speech presented his American Jobs Act, a bill that utilizes the two primary means to address the great danger of a double-dip recession that Milberg highlighted in his post: payroll tax cuts for employees and employers, and an increase in infrastructure investment. There was also special focus in the speech and in the proposed legislation on those who are suffering most directly from the recession: the unemployed, the poor and the young.

And he managed to do this by proposing actions that have all had bipartisan support in the past. He is identifying a center, which will enable common action.

“Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.  Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for.  And every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities.”

But he is still committed to central principles:

“But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.  (Applause.)  I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety.  I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients.  I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. “

Things are adding up. Stimulus, health care, deficit control, more stimulus. He is building on his past, even if flawed achievements. He is pushing hard for a big stimulus package. It is a package that the Republicans can refuse, but at their peril. He has taken the initiative.

As a rule, we do not post on weekends. But because of the rapidly approaching hurricane and the likelihood of a power outage, I offer today these thoughts inspired by Michael Corey’s last Deliberately Considered post, celebrating the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the Washington Mall, and by Cornel West’s op.ed. piece criticizing the Memorial and Barack Obama in yesterday’s New York Times. -Jeff

I am not a big fan of Cornel West. I liked and learned from his book The American Evasion of Philosophy, but most of his other books and articles involve, in my judgment, little more then posturing and preaching to the converted (I in the main am one of them). He does not take seriously the challenges political life presents. As he shouts slogans, cheers and denounces, I am not sure that he persuades. His and Travis Smiley’s ongoing criticism of President Obama seem to me to be first personal, then political, more the work of celebrity critics than critical intellectuals. That said, I think West’s op.ed. piece has a point, though not as it is directed against Obama and against the importance of symbolism.

“The age of Obama has fallen tragically short of fulfilling King’s prophetic legacy…

As the talk show host Tavis Smiley and I have said in our national tour against poverty, the recent budget deal is only the latest phase of a 30-year, top-down, one-sided war against the poor and working people in the name of a morally bankrupt policy of deregulating markets, lowering taxes and cutting spending for those already socially neglected and economically abandoned. Our two main political parties, each beholden to big money, offer merely alternative versions of oligarchic rule.”

This is unserious. The two parties are very different, and Obama has clearly been trying to address the needs of the socially and economically abandoned in his battle against the Republicans and so called moderate Democrats in Congress: on healthcare policy, financial regulation and jobs. A debt default would not only have hurt Wall Street and Main Street businesses. It would have profoundly affected the poor and working people for whom West and Smiley claim to be speaking. Perhaps, Obama doesn’t negotiate in the most effective way. Perhaps, he has given in more than was required. But to assert that the two parties “offer merely alternative versions of oligarchic rule,” is to ignore crucial realistic differences.

Certainly Obama is not a revolutionary, as West imagines he should be, following his particular vision of the King legacy. But, the office of the President is not where social revolutionaries are likely to be found. Revolutions and their revolutionaries, as West, Obama, King and I would agree, are usually elsewhere, particularly in the sustained actions of social movements. They push Presidents, as Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement pushed Lyndon Baines Johnson, and President Kennedy before him.

West blames Obama for one important social movement, The Tea Party. The most eloquent of politicians, in West’s judgment, has failed in his primary story telling responsibility.

“The absence of a King-worthy narrative to reinvigorate poor and working people has enabled right-wing populists to seize the moment with credible claims about government corruption and ridiculous claims about tax cuts’ stimulating growth. This right-wing threat is a catastrophic response to King’s four catastrophes; its agenda would lead to hellish conditions for most Americans.”

Yet, the Tea Party is a radical response to the narrative of inclusion and opportunity that Obama forcefully has presented in his campaign and during his Presidency. The consequential fight against the Tea Party narrative cannot come primarily from the President, as I have analyzed in an earlier post. The fight has had to come from a social movement. Strong opponents of the Tea Party, like West, need to take the movement seriously and need to go beyond the leftist sentiment that whines about Obama’s failings. A movement has to directly oppose the Tea Party and push for different social values, a movement such as the one that seems to be developing since the pro worker confrontations in Madison, Wisconsin and beyond.

Here I agree with West that “extensive community and media organizing; civil disobedience; and life and death confrontations with the powers that be” are necessary. I just don’t understand why he imagines this as being something directed against Obama. It should, rather, push him on specific issues, and work against his significant opponents. Clearly, he is likely to bend in favorable ways, while the Republican alternative political leaders will likely continue to resist social change with all the power of the Tea Party behind them.

I also don’t get West’s concern about the symbolism of the new King memorial in DC. He seems to think that there is a choice between symbolism and substance and thinks that King was on substance’s side.

“King weeps from his grave. He never confused substance with symbolism. He never conflated a flesh and blood sacrifice with a stone and mortar edifice. We rightly celebrate his substance and sacrifice because he loved us all so deeply. Let us not remain satisfied with symbolism because we too often fear the challenge he embraced.”

Yet, King used symbols brilliantly, especially in his speeches, to achieve substantial goals. The monument doesn’t stand against substance, but contributes to the vocabulary of the alternative narrative that West calls for.

Words etched in stone, on the Washington Mall, at the symbolic center of the American Republic, as Michael Corey describes in his last post, provide the opportunity and inspiration for critical discussion such as West’s. He uses the symbolism of the inauguration of the monument to present his criticisms, but denies the importance of the symbol, revealing a limited self-awareness.

In the future, I am rather certain, there will be demonstrations, moving from the Lincoln Memorial, to the King Memorial, perhaps with activity as well at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Indeed, a walk around these places and discussion about the walk will enact and describe the alterative narrative to the Tea Party, as it most certainly will be inspired by King’s vision. And when President Obama takes part in the hurricane postponed official dedication of the monument in a few weeks, I won’t be surprised if he presents a compelling version of this narrative.