FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Reframing the Issues and Taking Direction of the Nation

In El Paso, Texas, twenty-two persons were killed in a Walmart store, allegedly by a white supremacist gunman who had posted online a manifesto that railed against immigrants and an “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” The attack has been described by Richard Parker, in an editorial in The New York Times, as the worst massacre of Latinos in the history of the nation. It has given rise, and correctly so, to denunciations of the inflammatory discourse of Donald Trump with respect to immigration.

The issue of immigration, however, needs to be reframed by defenders of the rights of immigrants, if they are to attain a majority consensus in support of their proposals. It is a question, in part, of recognizing the right of governments, by international law and custom, to regulate and control migration. And it ought to be acknowledged that the U.S. government, supporting the interest of employers in cheap labor, had been lax in the enforcement of immigration laws for decades, indifferent to the negative consequences for the nation of unregulated immigrant labor. The defenders of the rights of immigrants have to be careful to not imply that immigration should not be regulated or that immigration laws should not be enforced; rather, our focus should be on the obligation of the government to fully respect the human and legal rights of all persons, regardless of their migratory status. At the same time, in reframing the issue, the defenders of immigrants have to expand the frame of reference, making clear that the migration of masses of people to the nations with stronger economies is a symptom of, and not a solution to, the problem of global inequality. We must educate our people on this theme, explaining that the source of uncontrollable migration is underdevelopment, poverty, and violence in vast regions of the planet, a consequence of centuries of conquest, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, and neoliberalism. We must demonstrate that the necessary road for our nation is participation in a global project that seeks economic and social development of the poor nations of the world. By reframing the issue, we would be able to take a politically balanced position, acknowledging that immigration has not been sufficiently controlled, yet affirming the obligation of all to fully respect the rights of immigrants, and at the same time, taking a radical position that fundamentally reorients U.S. foreign policy toward North-South cooperation.

The nation is profoundly divided. On the one side are the defenders of the rights of blacks, women, gays, immigrants, nature, and science. On the other side stand the people of mainstream America, who believe that the post-1968 public discourse had been taken over by those who have disdain for them. The profound division emerged in the 1960s, provoked by demands for civil rights, black power, peace in Vietnam, and an end to poverty in the nation and the world. Important changes in the nation’s laws and customs emerged from that period of conflict, but a consensus with respect to a reformulated national narrative did not emerge. The nation remained divided, with certain limited but important changes for the most part accepted, but with resentment and anger festering in mainstream America. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II were able to attain a level of popular support by exploiting these lingering resentments through discourses that revitalized traditional American narratives, in spite of their historically and scientifically outdated character. Such an approach could win national elections, but the majorities were not great, and the national polarization continued. Trump continues and escalates this tendency, bringing the nation to a deeper division.

The defenders of the rights of blacks, women, gays, immigrants, nature, and science are right in essence; we stand on the side of progress in the historic human quest for the true and the right. But we are politically limited, incapable of formulating our vision in a form that could attain a majority consensus. We must reformulate the American narrative; we must retell the American story in a new form that takes into account and overcomes its historic contradictions between, on the one hand, the proclamation of liberty and equality for all, and on the other hand, the practices of territorial conquest, genocide, slavery, racial and gender discrimination, imperialism, and neocolonial world domination. We must seek a popular consensus in support of a necessary national project that affirms the historic and contemporary virtues of the nation as it overcomes its vices.

In retelling the American story, progressive voices must seek a politically intelligent discourse that defends the rights of some without alienating many. The key here would be proposals for the protection of the social and economic rights of all, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or class. Dr. King moved in this direction, in the aftermath of the gains of 1964 and 1965 with respect to civil and political rights, with the Poor People’s Campaign of 1968. Jesse Jackson further developed the idea through a proposal for a Rainbow Coalition in his presidential candidacies of 1984 and 1988. But the significant implications of these steps were abandoned by a turn to a form of identity politics that undermines the politically necessary task of building an inclusive popular coalition that seeks political power in order to defend the rights of all to education, health, housing, and security.

The new progressive national project, in addition, ought to acknowledge the valid base of Trump’s economic nationalism and trade wars, even though he pursues the nationalist economic agenda inconsistently, and in a form that is unnecessarily conflictive and disruptive. Trump’s nationalism reacts to the abandonment of the nation by the power elite, which responded to the structural crisis of the world-system with the global implementation of neoliberalism, a project that ensured the expanding profits of the elite as it ignored the needs of the people. Condemnation of the globalization policies from 1980 to 2016 as a betrayal of the nation and as callousness toward humanity, laying the economic and social foundation for the various global problems today, must be an integral part of the new progressive narrative.

At the same time, the new progressive narrative has to reject the militarization of U.S. economy and society, explaining to the people that overspending on the military and making the economy dependent on the arms industry does not make our nation stronger, but weaker. In this regard, Trump merely continues what has been a major tendency since the launching of the Cold War by President Harry Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson, only partially and temporarily interrupted by the peace initiative of JFK in 1963 and the human rights policy of Jimmy Carter. Explanation of the negative consequences for the nation of the militarization of the economy and society must be integral to a new progressive narrative.

The New York Times columnist David Leonhardt maintains that the lesson of the elections of 2018 is that the Democratic Party can defeat Trump in 2020, if the Democrats avoid attacking him and focus instead on pocketbook issues like affordable health care and good jobs. However, they must avoid “progressive dreams like single-payer health care,” and focus on the daily problems that the people confront. He agrees with Theda Skocpol that democratic candidates should avoid “ultra-left issue stands — like calls to abolish private insurance and give free health care to migrants.” For this reason, Leonhardt favors the approach taken by the more moderate candidates.

I would submit, however, that the problem is not radical proposals per se, but radical proposals that are offered in a form that is isolated from a larger vision of a new direction for the nation, and thus they appear to the people to be unrealistic. A comprehensive package of proposals, integral to an alternative national project and a retelling of the nation’s story, is the necessary road to the taking of power by the people. To all who believe that this is not possible, I would note that it is the approach that generally has been taken by the leadership of popular movements in various nations who were successful in leading the people to the taking of political power, and they did so in the context of conditions that made their political triumph appear to be impossible at the time that the march to power was initiated.

Leonhardt is probably correct that a more moderate nuts and bolts approach to issues that concern the people is the best way to unseat Trump in 2020. However, the newly elected president would win by a relatively narrow majority, and she or he would face governing with a divided Congress and a divided people. The polarizing rhetoric of Trump would be avoided, but the new president, aware of deep ideological and social divisions, would have to tread carefully.

For the long term, the goal must be the attainment of a governing consensus through a progressive reformulation of the national narrative, in which our nation’s history and heroes are treated with respect, even as contradictions are recognized, analyzed, and explained. A national narrative that is comprehensive, historical, and global; and that combines theoretical and historical explanation with concrete practical solutions. A national narrative that seeks to guide our people to the taking of political power, based on a premise of belief in the essential goodness of the great majority of our people. That great majority only lacks leadership that is historically and scientifically informed and politically intelligent.

More articles by:

Charles McKelvey is a journalist/columnist at Radio Havana Cuba.  He has a thrice weekly column, “Notes on the Revolution;” a weekly educational program, “Imperialism and Revolution,” and a Sunday weekly news review program, “This week in Cuba” which are broadcast from Havana and available at the Website of Radio Havana Cuba  (www.radiohc.cu/en).  He is the author of The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The Light in the Darkness (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).  

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
January 17, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: No Woman, No Cry
Kathleen Wallace
Hijacking the Struggles of Others, Elizabeth Warren Style
Robert Hunziker
The Rumbling Methane Enigma
Frank Joyce
Will the Constitution Fail Again?
Pete Dolack
Claims that the ‘NAFTA 2’ Agreement is Better are a Macabre Joke
Andrew Levine
Biden Daze
Vijay Prashad
Not an Inch: Indian Students Stand Against the Far Right
Ramzy Baroud
Sealed Off and Forgotten: What You Should Know about Israel’s ‘Firing Zones’ in the West Bank
Norman Solomon
Not Bernie, Us. Not Warren, Us. Their Clash Underscores the Need for Grassroots Wisdom
Ted Rall
America’s Long History of Meddling in Russia
David Rosen
The Irregulators vs. FCC: the Trial Begins
Jennifer Matsui
The Krown
Joseph Natoli
Resolutions and Obstacles/2020
Sarah Anderson
War Profiteering is Real
James McFadden
The Business Party Syndicate
Ajamu Baraka
Trump Prosecutors Make Move to Ensure that Embassy Protectors are Convicted
David Swanson
CNN is Trash
Rev. William Alberts
Finally a Christian Call for Trump’s Removal
Dave Lindorff
The ERA Just Got Ratified by Virginia, the Needed 38th State!
W. T. Whitney
Mexico Takes Action on Coup in Bolivia and on CELAC
Steve Early
How General Strike Rhetoric Became a Reality in Seattle 
Jessicah Pierre
Learning From King’s Last Campaign
Mark Dickman
Saint Greta and the Dragon
Jared Bernstein - Dean Baker
Reducing the Health Care Tax
Clark T. Scott
Uniting “Progressives” Instead of Democrats
Nilofar Suhrawardy
Trump & Johnson: What a Contrast, Image-wise!
Ron Jacobs
Abusing America’s Children—Free Market Policy
George Wuerthner
Mills Are Being Closed by National Economic Trends, Not Environmental Regulations
Basav Sen
Nearly All Americans Want Off of Fossil Fuels
Mark Ashwill
Playing Geopolitical Whack-a-Mole: The Viet Nam Flag Issue Revisited
Jesse Jackson
New Hope for One of America’s Poorest Communities
Binoy Kampmark
Harry and Meghan Exit: The Royal Family Propaganda Machine
Ralph Nader
Trump: Making America Dread Again!
Rob Okun
A Call to Men to join Women’s March
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
We All Need to Be Tree Huggers Now
Tom Stephens
The New York Times’ Delusions of Empire
Julian Rose
Fake-Green Zero Carbon Fraud
Louis Proyect
The Best Films of 2019
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: Into Kosovo
Colin Todhunter
Gone Fishing? No Fish but Plenty of Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis
Julian Vigo
Can New Tech Replace In-Class Learning?
Gaither Stewart
The Bench: the Life of Things
Nicky Reid
Trannies with Guns: Because Enough is Enough!
James Haught
Baby Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark
David Yearsley
Brecht in Berlin
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail