Monday morning, I took a bit of a break from my plan for the day. I decided my class preparation and work on some overdue papers would wait. After I replied to Corey Robin’s response to a critical passing comment I made about his book, The Reactionary Mind, on Facebook, I put off until later in the week my search for interesting conservative intellectuals. I decided to ignore the Republican madness, and not worry about the ups and downs in the upcoming Presidential race, and didn’t read the reports on the Super Bowl (the annual sports media event that I usually ignore but did tweak my interest this year, New Yorker that I am). Instead, I opened my computer and watched the video of the Flying Seminar meeting with Bill Zimmerman (which I missed because I was at that time at a conference in Sofia). It was a particularly interesting meeting, very nicely captured in the video (thank you Lisa Lipscomb). I entered a different world, beyond the mundane, considering the connection between radical hopes and practical projects.

This is what the Flying Seminar is. Recall, Elzbieta Matynia and I developed the Flying Seminar in response to Occupy Wall Street. OWS reminded us of our days observing and participating in the Solidarity (Solidarność) movement in Poland, and the great independent academic project of Solidarity times, the Flying University of the Polish underground. We started with a meeting with activists in Shiroto no Ran (Amateur Revolt), a counter-cultural anti- nuclear movement which came to take part in the occupation of Zuccotti Park. We then arranged a meeting with Adam Michnik, the outstanding Polish critical intellectual and political activist, who also visited the Park. Our third meeting was with Zimmerman, an old New Leftist (it takes one to know one), author of the recent book, Troublemaker: A Memoir From the Front Lines of the Sixties. Last month, after a technical delay, we posted the video recording of that meeting.

The seminar discussion got me thinking about a crucial problem: the relationship between challenging social movements and the broader public. This issue is most apparent in the Arab uprisings, in Moscow, Bucharest and in Warsaw in democratic movements, and in New York and beyond in OWS and related occupations. We have been reflecting upon these developments in each of these locations at Deliberately Considered, but there is a general problem common to all of them, which was discussed at the Flying Seminar. The starting point in the discussion with Zimmerman was the anti-war movement in the sixties.

Zimmerman and the seminar participants covered many areas. He reflected on the problem of a radical anti-war movement, too distant from the judgments of the general population to lead a popular movement against the war. They discussed election initiatives, legalizing marijuana, prison reform, the racist quality of the war on drugs, the need to treat drug abusers rather than arrest them, and the protests against U.S. intervention in Latin America. Zimmerman explained a variety of different innovative strategies he has used to reach the public, to make his radical commitments consequential. The use of the ballot initiative and the production of anti-war and anti-Bush and Company T.V. ads, made for moveon.org, were particularly interesting.

Zimmerman discussed a series of innovative victories in his long political struggle. “I have been struggling against capitalism for fifty years.” He celebrated the Internet, the only limit to reaching the public now is our imagination, he asserted. He was thinking particularly about the costs of emailing versus the cost of postage. He recalled throwing $100 bills on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange back in the day. Wall Street was then and is now both the symbol of the problem and site of the problem itself. His was an earlier innovative dramaturgic act in the belly of the beast, meant to show radical criticism to a mass audience. Zimmerman applauded OWS for its major discursive success. “It has stimulated a broad public to fundamentally question capitalism.”

There were differences of judgment at the meeting. All knew that connecting with the public is important, but there were different opinions about how this could be achieved. Some saw a global capitalist order on the verge of collapse, confidently sensing that people are waking up and a significant victory is on the horizon. Others were less optimistic, more concerned, believing that the forces of the old order are still alive and very able to defend their interests. Some were less sure of popular support.

The discussion sometimes lingered on generalities that make me impatient and uncomfortable (specifically broad criticisms of capitalism and celebrations of socialism), but they moved beyond empty rhetoric, impressed as the participants were both by Zimmerman’s long history of bringing major issues to the public’s attention, leading to political action, and by the recent successes of OWS in doing the same thing. The discussion was among colleagues. The OWS people say comrades, a term that makes me feel uncomfortable given my experiences around the former Soviet bloc.

The relationship with more conventional politics was an issue, as was the intersection of race and class in and out of the movement. One seminar participant, Jan Gross, strongly argued for a position that I find attractive. Prevailing political institutions, in the close connection between the government and the corporate powers, enforce inequality, but the system is open to cooptation (unlike the situation in authoritarian dictatorships). The liberal order’s democratic qualities can be utilized for progressive change. Lawrence Weschler passionately argued for a specific course of direct action, a mass boycott of under water loans mortgages and student loans, and extensive discussion about the boycott. Radical pragmatic action would both engage the public and address some severe problems, which affect many people. This led to the discussion about the relationship between the social movement, and class and race. An African American OWS activist forcefully argued that the problem of the poor is not about student loans and mortgages but community schools and drug arrests. Class and race divides society and social movements, but he suggested also the people around the Flying Seminar table. The problems of the middle class and the poor are related, but they are also different.

A constitutional amendment was discussed (money does not equal speech), as was a national student strike. One person declared that capitalism had to be saved from itself, while others reflected on the “S” word, socialism. (This reminded me of discussions on the left in the 1930s.) The broad strategy of building alternatives “on our own” was measured against active engagement with more conventional political institutions and the possibility of a third party.

Different tactics reveal different commitments, Zimmerman observed in his closing reflections. But, acting together is the key imperative. The path to power and radical change is paved by organizing, to which he has dedicated his life.

I regret missing this interesting discussion. As I was watching the video, I imagined how I might have spoken up. I may have expressed my conviction that all the talk about socialism, as some kind of systemic alternative to capitalism, is silly. I might have asked people to explain how it is they imagine a modern economy can be organized. But that probably would not have improved the discussion. But there are issues I would have liked to discussed: how a protest movement can move from saying no to injustice to figuring out how to do something about the injustice, what role do political leaders play, and what social activists can accomplish and how that relates to more conventional political agents in parties and states?

There is a proposal before the OWS General Assembly in New York today concerning a statement of solidarity with Occupy Oakland. In it, there is the declaration:

“We affirm Occupy Oakland’s freedom to use whatever means necessary to further
your [and our] struggle. A diversity of tactics is necessary, and it
means that there is no correct method to resistance. We trust our
comrades to make your own choices for your own community.”

Really by any means necessary? Aside from the questionable ethics of such a statement, I wonder how the people who consider it think it relates to the broad American public. How does the movement, which speaks in the name of the 99%, relate to the 99%? I think that the statement will be rejected. But it highlights the importance of the issues and experiences discussed at the last meeting of the Flying Seminar, and it suggests what we should examine in our next meeting.

It seems to me that it is crucial to think about the relationship between the movement and more conventional politics. I think that the relationship between OWS and Obama and the Democrats is similar to the relationship between the Civil Rights movement and Kennedy and Johnson and the Democrats, and some Republicans. It would be interesting to reflect upon how that worked. I am hoping that we will discuss this at the next meeting of the Flying Seminar, perhaps on the legacies of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movement as it might inform the future actions of OWS.

Kevin Kallaugher, the world famous political cartoonist, KAL, recently spoke at a meeting of the New Canaan Senior Men’s Club. He discussed his career, the creative processes involved in his approach to expression, shared his works, and he highlighted recent developments in editorial and political cartoons, highlighting the hazards of being a political and editorial cartoonist. KAL is known for his innovative work in print, animation and interactive animation. He noted that in two thirds of the world his talk would not be possible. He and his audience could either be harassed or prosecuted by authorities or other groups seeking to suppress speech. KAL is a past president of the Cartoonist Rights Network (CRNI), an organization that is dedicated to supporting cartoonists who are at risk. He is a great storyteller — even people not particularly interested in his work, were very interested in his comments. He didn’t spend a lot of time lamenting about the plight of editorial and political cartoonists, just enough to get me interested in trying to find out about the problem.

Political and editorial cartoonists use satire to identify issues and to try to change beliefs and behaviors. They raise issues, but rarely offer solutions. Reactions to their representations are almost always mixed. While cartoonists only occasionally hear from those who approve of their works, people who object to their images, ideas and sentiments often let cartoonists know what they think in no uncertain terms.  Negative reactions range from harsh comments to threats, beatings and worse. Many governments ban satirical political and editorial cartoons. Satire is perceived to be disrespectful, and a threat to power and authority. Some groups view the expressions as blasphemous. Cartoonists and organizations that publish and distribute their works have been threatened even with death threats. Success for cartoonists is illusive, but the dangers to them are all too real. In one sense, political and editorial cartoons are no laughing matter.

According to the CRNI, “Editorial cartoonists are frequently the first individuals to be silenced by extremists, thugs and tyrants.” CRNI’s efforts are to protect a basic human right as defined in Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948),

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

CRNI conducts campaigns to help editorial and social cartoonists and their families that are under siege.  CRNI uses awareness raising and public pressure to fight back. One of their recent efforts involves the plight of Syrian cartoonist Ali Ferzat who was maimed by supporters of the Assad regime. Ferzat is one of the region’s most widely read and respected editorial cartoonists. He has risked his life by depicting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hitchhiking in an absurd manner. During the early morning hours on August 25, 2011, Ferzat was dragged from his car by four armed men, and assaulted. During the beating, his body, both hands were badly injured. His drawing hand was broken, and his ability to express himself through his representations has been endangered. Ferzat was told by the gunmen that the assault was just a warning.

Another recent CRNI campaign involves a different form of harassment directed against American cartoonist Susie Cagle while she was covering the Occupy Oakland Movement as a journalist for AlterNet. On November 3^rd, 2011, Cagle was arrested and detained for about fifteen hours. She was considered by the police to be a demonstrator who failed to leave the scene of a riot. She was handcuffed, detained and cited for an infraction. Cagle had her organization’s press pass and credentials which the arresting officers ridiculed. She did not have an Oakland Police Department (OPD) Press badge. Before the protests, she repeatedly had contacted the OPD Public Information Office seeking an OPD press badge. While huddled in a doorway, trying to stay out of the melee, she was arrested with a number of other people, including legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild. The charges against Cagle have not been dropped, even though the OPD more recently granted Cagle an OPD press badge, recognizing her as a journalist. Covering the movement has been a challenge for journalists, especially those representing the new media.

Some of the most violent and deadly attacks on political and editorial cartoonists involve cartoons that deal with religious subject matter. An international furor occurred when Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, went ahead with plans to publish a September 2005 article featuring twelve Danish cartoonists’ depictions of the Prophet Mohammad. Many people considered this blasphemy and apostasy, and violent demonstrations took place in a number of countries, resulting in what has been estimated to be over 100 deaths. Al Qeida issued death threats against the cartoonists who had to go into protective hiding. Kurt Westergaard was the target of such a murder plot. Startlingly, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution in which they called for the criminalization of cartoons similar to the one created by Westergaard.

These are not isolated cases. Threats against political and editorial cartoonists continue. The CRNI has a network of over 600 social and editorial cartoonists throughout the world. They try to make others aware of threats and use the power of the public to help counter them. Practically, they hope to help the cartoonists at risk; and more generally protect human rights, including personal and creative freedoms.

Each year, CRNI gives its Award for Courage in Editorial Cartooning to a cartoonist who has shown exceptional courage in practicing free speech rights, or is in great danger. The CRNI writes, “We do not award a cartoon. We make no comment on the quality of, or intent of, a specific cartoon. We award a cartoonist in danger.” The 2011 winner is Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque (aka Zunar). He has faced extensive harassment and censorship by Malaysian authorities because of his representations about governmental officials. Zunar has been threatened with sedition, his works have been seized, printing plants have been raided, and distributors have been told not to sell publications containing his cartoons. More details about Zunar’s case and previous award winners are published on CRNI’s website in its Courage Award Section.

With suggestive images and phrases, political and editorial cartoonists may stimulate our emotions or provoke us to think about issues. They are loved and hated.

“Bitter the jest when satire comes too near truth and leaves a sharp sting behind it.” Publicus Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117).