At the the 2008 SDS National Convention last weekend in College Park, MA, I co-facilitated a vision session with the entire convention. The goal of the discussion was to build consensus around our vision documents. We presented an outline of the “who we are, what we are building” document passed at least year’s convention, and then split into breakaway groups to discussion the following questions:

1. What is one dominant myth of powerlessness or hopelessness in your campus or community that has gotten in the way of your organizing?
2. Where are youth and students at today? What issues are youth already progressive on – what issues are the most relevant and captivating to our generation?
3. What will it take to meet people where they are at now? How does our organizing relate to where people are at right now? What specifically can we do in the next year to activate and mobilize masses of students?
4. So we want to end the war, and the majority of people in the U.S. agree that the war has to end. So, how can we engage with folks so that they will take action?
5. We want a revolution in our lifetime. What does that require of us?

We asked participants to think about the “who we are” document when answering these questions. The questions themselves were intentionally chosen to spark conversation around more big-picture, long haul ideas, while still being grounded in the reality of here and now.

Some common themes I quickly identified while going between the five or so breakaway groups where the need to address the elections, organizing around war and climate change, and issues directly affecting students (such as student debt). The conversations focused around what it would take to organizing masses of youth, and there was a general agreement that we need to meet our generation where they’re at.

Although the conversation was very good and interesting, they were far too short. Overall, the 2008 SDS Convention had very little political dialogue, and was dominated by  process. The failure of the Social Priorities and 100 Days Campaign  proposal (which addresses the very things we were discussion at the vision discussion) is very telling of this lack of politics.

This upcoming Fall and subsequent Spring may very well determine the future of SDS, and perhaps the entire Left. Will we miss the boat, and sink into irrelevancy? Or will we organize and build a mass base of revolutionary youth and students, and rise up to build a better world?

We say “revolution in our lifetime” because we mean it. We want revolution in our lifetime. We are all affected by oppressive institutions. We are all raped of our fullest potential, and our fullest humanity. In a way, we are all fighting for our lives. Some more than others, but we are all enslaved. We say “revolution in our lifetimes” because we know we can win it.

p.s. I’ll post more blurbs from the convention, and about the vision discussion soon.

Znet is a great resource, and I highly recommend it to all my readers. One thing they have available on their site is a full copy of Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty-First Century, by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Their book was a compliment The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, which was geared more toward economists. These two books, and Albert and Hahnels other books on Participatory Society have been on the most significant contributions to the left in at least forty years. Their work with Liberating Theory alone is a monumental contribution, challenging monistic and pluralistic understanding of society, which elevate some spheres of society over others. Albert and Hahnel disagree, and helped formulate a new conceptual framework, called “complementary holism.” Albert and Hahnel describe four spheres of society: economy, polity, kinship, culture, all of which are interconnected, but none are more ‘important’ than the other. The movement is listening, and the new Students for a Democratic Society have recently clarified their commitment to this concept by adopting the “Statement on Totalist Politics.” The work coming out of Liberating Theory led to more detailed work, and eventually a vision for each of the four social spheres of life. Participatory Economics is the vision for an economy in a good society.

The theory was conceived by first evaluating what values a good society should uphold. Solidarity, Equity, Diversity and Self-Management were chosen. But values are not enough for an economy. We want solidarity, but solidarity how? Participatory economics seeks to answer the long unanswered question of what do we want? Four core institutions are described which will further our values, as well as efficiently produce, allocate and consume goods and services, and they are Democratic worker’s and consumer’s councils, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice alone, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning. Looking Forward goes into much detail on both the values and institutions of the economy, and answers many common concerns and criticisms. It is important, though, to remember this Participatory Economics is not a “blue-print,” but rather a vision of the defining features of an economy, to guide our movements for economic justice.

Read on

This is an article by Robert Creamer of the Huffington Post, entitled “Last Night Clinton Won the Pennsylvania Primary, but Lost the War for the Nomination.” The original post is here

==

The Pennsylvania Primary was Hillary Clinton’s last chance to deliver a game changing blow to Obama’s campaign for the nomination. She failed to deliver.

Pennsylvania provided her with her final real opportunity to knock the wheels off the Obama campaign. She needed a crushing victory of 18% to 25% to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology. Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for Hillary: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural — Hillary’s voter profile. She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin — which the Pennsylvania Secretary of State says was only 9.2% — fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama’s nomination. Here’s why:

1). Pledged Delegates. By CNN’s count, Clinton netted about 14 pledged delegates in Pennsylvania. That still leaves Obama up by 151 pledged delegates. It is likely that after Guam, Indiana and North Carolina, there will be no net change in pledged delegates, even if Clinton wins Indiana, since Obama will certainly pick up delegates in North Carolina. But at that point only 251 pledged delegates will remain to be chosen.

Even if she got 80% of all of the pledged delegates that remain after Indiana, she would still trail Obama at the end of the day.

The battle for the pledged delegate advantage is over.

2). Popular Vote. Pennsylvania was her best opportunity to really close in on Obama’s popular vote lead. She picked up about 216,000 net votes. But that still leaves her over 600,000 votes behind, and Obama will likely increase his popular vote margin further after the contests on May 6th. Her failure to blow Obama out in Pennsylvania makes it almost impossible for her to close the popular vote gap.

3). Electability. Clinton’s entire strategy rests on the premise that she can convince Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable. Only a massive win in Pennsylvania would have credibly made that case. Clinton’s victory did little to enhance her argument.

Regardless of the passions of the moment, history shows us that just because voters prefer one candidate in the primary, it doesn’t mean they won’t vote for her Democratic opponent in a general election when the choice is a Republican. When all is said and done, primary voters almost always vote for the candidate of their party in a general election – regardless of what they might say (on either side) in the middle of a primary fight.

In fact, the people who decide general elections rarely set foot in primary voting booths. They are the independent voters who vote only in general elections and unengaged voters who are would vote Democratic, but have to be mobilized to go to the polls.

The fact is that to whatever degree Hillary might have more appeal among independent rural and blue collar voters, Obama more than makes up in additional appeal to independent suburban voters. Obama’s ability to mobilize new young and African American voters in the general election is indisputably greater than Clinton’s.

And of course, Obama will not go into the General Election burdened by the towering Clinton negatives that her own negative campaign strategy increases daily.

The polls, and even Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton supporter Ed Rendell, make it clear that Obama can win Pennsylvania in the general election. But Obama can also broaden the playing field with a shot at winning states like Colorado and Virginia.

4). Super Delegates. Finally is a fact that is generally overlooked by pundits. At the close of the primaries, Obama will not need a stampede of Super Delegates to clinch the nomination. In fact he will only need about 40% of those that remain today.

Let’s make the most conservative assumptions about the outcome of the remaining races: Guam, even; North Carolina, 58%-42% Obama; Indiana, 54%-46% Clinton; Kentucky, 60%-40% Clinton; West Virginia, 60%-40% Clinton; Oregon, 56%-44% Obama, Montana 56%-44% Obama; Puerto Rico, 60%-40% Clinton. That would leave Obama at 1,846 delegates at the close of the Primaries.

He would need only 41% of the Super Delegates remaining today to clinch the nomination with 2,025. And let’s remember, he has picked up almost one Super Delegate a day for the last month. There is no reason to believe he won’t keep picking up Super Delegates as the contest continues. So by the end of the primaries he will need an even lower percentage of the Super Delegates that remain.

All that remains for Clinton are more opportunities have her own campaign to be shut down. If she loses Indiana and North Carolina it will be extremely hard for her to continue. But there is no longer any opportunity for her to defeat Obama.

Clinton’s may have won last night, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama’s march to the nomination. In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton’s Waterloo.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

Just something that’s been frustrating me…

Thursday night’s democratic debate on ABC was an unfortunate representation of the swift-boat style smearing of candidates. Over 45 minutes was spent asking the candidates irrelevant questions, and focused on Obama’s failure to wear a flag pin, his calling the people of Pennsylvania “bitter,” and his relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Right and former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers.

Bill, and his wife (another high-profile leader of the Weather Underground) Bernadine Dorhn are wonderful people, with deep sympathy and concern for the injustices our national has committed. Their actions during the Vietnam War reflect this, however unstrategic or destructive they were. BUT, I can completely understand why Obama would not want to be associated with them — being friendly with a so-called “terrorist” would spell political suicide.

It is important to remember, though, that Obama is NOT best friends with Ayers. They are acquaintances because of being in similar political circles in their shared hometown, Chicago. This relationship says nothing about Obama’s politics. Obama has his own ideas and own politics, as does Ayers. As do Obama’s other acquaintances, such as those in the U.S. senate.

This swift-boating is hurting the Obama campaign, but will it have the same effect as the swift-boating during the Kerry campaign? My theory is that Kerry lost the campaign largely as a result of the actions of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Only time will tell if Obama wins the nomination, and eventually the presidency. But everyone on the left should agree that it is extremely important that he does. The alternatives are, well… I won’t go there.

On a final note in regards to the election, I recommend reading Keith Joseph’s post on Pirate Caucus, entitled “Obama 2008: By Any Means Necessary” for a very good analysis of why this election is important even for revolutionaries.

The past few days have been beautiful here in Detroit. A few days ago I walked a four mile trek from a friend’s house back to my place. It was warm when I left, but the thing about April in Michigan is that it’s warm in the day, but cold at night. I began to rush. My heart sped up, I began to sweat. Two miles into my journey I was already tired, two to go I began to take it easy. It was dark, and I was tired, and walking was hard. When I started thinking to myself, is organizing for the long haul like taking a walk? We can expend all our energy and get burnt out fast in the here and now. Or we can think about the future, and take rests, and have the energy tomorrow that we’ll need. And getting to were we want to be, a just and humane world, means winning the hearts and minds of more and more people. We, as individuals, have a limited capacity, but when we combine our energy into something focused, something with a goal, and a purpose, we can move mountains. We, as activist may be ready to go there. But we are also organizers, and we must go there together.

Youth and student organizing are extremely important. Many youth are at a point in their lives alienated from “the system,” frustrated at its seemingly monolithic and static nature. Generation X was often labeled angst ridden and apathetic. My generation, as well, is often is labeled with similar adjectives. New York Times columnist Thomas Freedman proclaims my generation to be “Generation Q” for quiet. He is frustrated with the millennial’s failure to take action, and believes a continuing apathy to be the predominate paradigm of my generation.

It is easy to feel powerless. We are taught a shallow assumption about how change is made –that change is made my noble individuals, acting alone. We are never taught about the power of people organizing together, or about the true history of our people and our nation –a history filled with grassroots social movements making real and fundamental change.

Like Generation X, my generation feels increasing alienated from society. My generation, though, is positioned in time and space for massive social upheaval and change. It is becoming increasingly apparent that my generation’s expectations will not be met. Expectations of a better lifestyle than our parents; expectations that the Presidential candidate will solve all our problems. This opportunity presents itself at the convergence of an occupation in Iraq, the climate crisis, an unstable economy, and failing schools with skyrocketing tuition.

This reality can either reinforce the story of the powerless people, or give birth to a new story of people reclaiming power over their lives, and futures. It is the role of organizer to facilitate the participation of millions of people seeking to alter the trajectory of change. These change agents should spread the virus of hope and of a vision for a better future, infecting millions. If my generation is up to the challenge, I truly believe massive and positive changes will come.

Introduction: A Generation of Hope, a Generation of Change

I’ve been writing this paper for a few days. It sort of jumps around, and has different objectives… to argue that voter registration is an effective tactic, and that to win we need to move millions, and therefore a strategy and tactics should reflect that need, and also to provide a few strategic and tactical ideas. This isn’t suppose to be an organizers manual, and it doesn’t represent all my ideas on these topics, rather its just what I’ve been thinking about lately, and would like to share with you.

We are a Generation of Hope, and of Change. These words are verbs, and require there bearer to take action. My generation has begun its long journey to a better world, and we are here to win.

The 2008 election is brining my generation to the spotlight, as youth and student voters are becoming more important. Although grassroots organizing has not yet reached a tipping point, or critical mass, it is spreading and growing fast. A movement is building.

This essay is about building a movement in the here and now, while always looking forward to the future. My generation is changing the trajectory of change, and refuses to have someone else determine our future. Together, my generation will take back control over our destiny, and forge the road to a better world.

The trajectory of change

Looking through history, we can see that the primary vehicle for furthering social justice have been social movements. Change does not come from the top from politicians nor from mystical leaders who give powerful oratories.

We can also see that most injustice is not isolated. Most incidences are not mere bad apples, for most injustice is a result of an unjust system. This “system” is an interdependent combination of political, economic, cultural, and kinship institutions.

This “system” is not an impenetrable brick wall. Just as human beings have the ability to adapt to their environment, they can also adapt their environment to them. The same is true with social institutions. There is a relationship between the degrees in which an institution influences our behavior, and there degree in which we can change it.

Alone, individuals are rather powerless in this process of change. Together with others, the individual’s capacity for change expands. We are more powerful together then we are apart. Throughout history, mass strategic and coordinated action by everyday people has altered the trajectory of change.

The change that radicals seek to implement is that which gets to the root of problems –the root of poverty, the root of racism, the root of sexism, the root of environmental destruction, etc. Radicals seek to replace old, oppressive institutions with ones based on more humane values.

This is a process of creation, not of destruction. This is a process of love and compassion. To win, we must raise the consciousness of millions to the realization that their values are being obliterated by the current social institutions. We must mobilize these millions to take action, and together, take control of our destiny and alter our trajectory of change.

Electoral politics: dead end or viable strategy?

Although radical change comes from the grassroots, change does occur through the current political system. Movements can force politicians to pass legislation, or they can put them out of office by voting for a more progressive candidate.

As progressives and radicals, we know that the political system is not sufficiently democratic, transparent or accountable. It is not adequately representative, and does not respect the self-management of people, individually or collectively; meaning people do not have decision making power to degree in which they are affected by the outcomes.

The reality of the political system does not mean movements should ignore working within it. Grassroots movements can push for non-reformists reforms in the short term, meaning reforms that help people and move us closer to our vision in the long term.

Movements could organize for universal health care, universal higher education; or for laws that elevate the position of the worker. Reforms to the political process could be made to make it easier for the grassroots to initiate legislation. Many other options exist, and what reforms should take priority should be based on a wider strategy.

If the current political parties or politicians do not meet the demands of their constituencies, grassroots movements should seriously consider the option of directly engaging in the electoral process. This option should fall in line with a wider strategy. The party/parties should be participatory, directly democratic, transparent and accountable.

Working the political system does not inherently legitimize that system. Working within it should be viewed both as a risk and an opportunity. While concrete gains can be won through the political system, it can also free up massive pressures put on movements, and open many doors for radical change.

The times, they are a-changin’

We are working to create a new future, and a vision of this future should inform our strategy. The current context, and our analysis of it, will also shape our strategy. Opportunities and threats will come and go. History is not static, nor do events occur in a vacuum. With this understanding, we consider some present day realities when shaping our strategy.

The risks my generation faces are enormous. The occupation of Iraq is draining funds from education, health care, and human services, while our economy walks on shaky ground. The price of education continues to rise, and more students then ever find themselves in debt. Recourses keep getting funneled to Iraq as the largest government subsidy in the history of civilization. Not a subsidy for freedom, nor democracy, but rather for oil. This black gold is driving the climate crisis deeper, as every single human being, plant or animal life is in danger. The delicate equilibrium of nature has been shaken.

My generation also faces enormous opportunities. Money from Iraq could be reinvested in building an oil-free, fossil fuel-free future; a green future, with green jobs and green pathways out of poverty. Universally accessible education for the new economy will be necessary, as with universal health-care. My generation has the opportunity win these important gains, as well as to expand the realm of democracy to include not only government, but also the economy. The possibilities are endless. We have the opportunity, and the ability. The only question is if we have the audacity to take up this challenge.

Moreover, this election cycle presents a possible political realignment. Since the election of Reagan in 1980, the right-wing republicans and democrats have held dominant. We can now see a new political force taking hold, a new progressive majority. The Republican Party is in shambles, as the Democrats scramble to take advantage of a rare opportunity. The rise of Barack Obama, and a new generation of leaders is telling of the changes to come.

We need to move millions

To win the changes we want to see, we will need to move millions. The transformation of our society will happen neither as a result of politicians nor a righteous few. The change will only happen when the consciousnesses of millions of people are heightened, and those millions take strategic, coordinated action.

This presidential election cycle presents an opportunity not only to stay relevant to the millions we need to reach, but also to organizing and expand and grow this movement. Huge numbers of young people have already taken the first step into political action by supporting one of the candidates. Barack Obama has inspired thousands if not millions of young people, and given them hope that we can shape our own destiny. How can we funnel this positive energy from this election into sustainable participation in between elections?

The issue a group or organization should work on should be based on what is relevant to their constituency. This issue (or issues) should also be framed in a holistic manner. For instance, education is obviously relevant to many youth and students, but how is the war relevant? Or climate change, for that matter? How do the war and climate change effect education, and vice versa?

Framing and messaging should speak to people’s already established values, such as democracy, freedom, independence, justice, family, community, etc. For example, many evangelicals care about the environment, and about ending poverty and war –all progressive issues. We don’t have to change their values, but we do need move them on those issues they are progressive on.

My friend Brian Kelly posted a wonderful article on his blog, walkingbutterfly.com, where he says “if we want to change the world, we have to move lots of people in lots of little ways. The ways that we move different people are, well, different.” I couldn’t agree more.

He then goes on to declare “If we work hard enough, if we are strategic, if we are visionary, and if we are effective communicators, all of these efforts – both qualitative and quantitative – will eventually add up and snowball into dramatic and wide-spread institutional changes.”

Taking action: from grassroots organizing to direct action

Our analysis of and vision for society should inform our strategy, which will in turn influence our tactics. There is no magic bullet, and no tactic will be effective in every situation. Although our theory of change may offer guidance, we will make mistakes along the way, which should always be viewed as lesson. We learn by experience, but do not have to reinvent the wheel. The role of the leader is not only to lead or direct, but also to share leadership, knowledge, and resources.

If there were such things as “wings” of a movement, I could identify three. One, the folks who engage the system – lobbying, elections, etc; two, the folks who take direct action – boycotts, sit-ins, banner drops, etc; and three, the folks who do the grassroots organizing – canvassing, tabling, voter registration, educational events, etc. All three are important, and we shouldn’t rely on one alone.

In my experience with the new Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), I found there to be a heavy focus on direct action. Although direct action is good, tactics should be in line with a strategy, and should be complimented by grassroots organizing.

One major failure 1960’s New Left (old SDS included) was its action oriented, militant strategy, which resulted in alienating much of people they were trying to reach. Tactics were used out of place, and at the wrong time. Violence plagued the movement with negative public opinion and police repression.

We don’t have to be the most militant, or the most radical. Movement building isn’t a competition. We cannot look at ourselves more important than those who are not yet radicalized or have not yet taken action. Our focus should be on those who we still have yet to reach. We must be careful of our language and rhetoric, and remember that it’s not what we say, it’s what they hear. We need millions to win, and we will never reach millions if we alienate others, or isolate ourselves.

Voter Registration

One opportunity the election provides is that of Voter Registration. Many young people are interested in elections, and concerned about issues such as education, the economy, climate change and the war. Young people have voted in record numbers in the 2004 presidential election, the 2006 mid-terms, and this year’s presidential primary. The youth climate movement has exploded onto campuses across the country, winning substantial victories. Students and youth want to see significant change. It is our role, as youth and student organizers, to facilitate the mass participation of our fellow students and youth.

Voter registration drives offers an opportunity to reach large amounts of people relevantly and accessibly. This election is becoming quite relevant to increasing numbers of students and youth, and voter registration has the potential to attract many new people to our organizing.

Our message should not attack voting, bur rather compliment it. Democracy is not exclusively voting, and although we should encourage voting, we should also encourage participation outside the ballot box. We should co-opt voting, and transform it from a spectacle to a participatory and democratic process.

We should frame our message in context of the American social justice tradition, and reclaim our often forgotten history. We should never denigrate our country and only highlighting the negative, but rather offer a critique of its policies and institutions, and offer a potent and rational alternative. The language and rhetoric we use should speak to the positive values of America. It should tell the story of how negative social institutions are obliterating those values, and of what institutions should replace them. Our vision of a democratic society should offer hope and inspiration for the future.

Voter registration drives provide an opportunity to tell our vision of a participatory and democratic society to many new people. It provides an opportunity to plug folks into a growing and ever changing movement, one with diverse ways to get involved. Organizers should provide room for stepped levels of involvement, as not everyone will have the capacity to dedicate the same amount of time and energy as the most dedicated activists.

Detroit SDS is currently organizing voter registration drives, but we have yet to have our first one. I will be reporting back, and writing about our experiences and voter registration strategy on this blog often.

Educational and Cultural Events

Voter registration is only one tactic, and should never be used alone. Organizers should be ready to plug in folks bought in through voter registration to diverse events and actions. Educational and cultural events are an almost must have. From parties to forums, and from panels to art shows, the possibilities are endless.

How about having a panel of forum on the war, and how it relates to the election? Or how about having an art show with political art? Whatever cultural or educational event a group chooses, it should be relevant, and framed within a broader strategy.

Every event or action we have should always have a “what’s next?” and give information to folks on how to continue their involvement. Brining folks to a march is one thing, but having them sustain their involvement and become lifelong organizers is another.

Nonviolent Direct Action

Just as voter registration is one tactic, so are educational and cultural events, and they, too, should not be used alone. Nonviolent Direct Action (NVDA) can be an extremely effective tactic. Movements have used NVDA effectively for hundreds of years. The power of nonviolent action is enormous.

Much of our actions will be symbolic. They should tell a story, with clear “good guys” and “bad guys,” conflict and resolution. It is important to remember that it’s not about what we say rather what they hear. Therefore, we need to be careful the story we are telling places us as the protagonists –this includes what story the media tells about us.

NVDA can be an affective tactic, and can demonstrate our power. It can tell a story, but it can also be extremely rewarding, refreshing and fun. To first timers, NVDA could be a life-changing experience, and challenge their assumptions about power and how change is made. It is truly powerful.

Conclusion

So we’ve gone over some basic ideas and concepts I’ve been thinking about lately. We have an understanding of how the relationship between institutions and individuals. We have an understanding of how change happens, and that we’ll need to move millions to win. We know that although elections and the electoral process can make SOME positive changes in our society, the primary avenue of institutional change is people and grassroots movements. We’ve talked about the present context, and opportunities for movement building. We’ve talked about staying relevant, and the need to move lots of people in lots of different ways. Finally, we’ve gone over some tactical ideas such as voter registration, educational and cultural events, and nonviolent direct action.

Bibliography / Recommended reading

1. The Trajectory of Change, by Michael Albert
2. “Decolonizing the Revolutionary Imagination,” by Patrick Reinsborough
3. The Long Haul, by Myles Horton
4. Liberating Theory, Various Authors
5. The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference, by Malcolm Gladwell

This is old, but I think its relevant today. It says a lot, and does not attack but rather speaks directly to already established values. We need to be able to give speeches like this!!!

Imagine this: a black man and a white woman going head to head for the Democratic nomination for president. Assuming John McCain looses to a Democrat, we may very well have the first black president, or the first female president. That itself is a historic moment, that should be declared a victory by the left.

Imagine this: climate change is accelerating faster than expected. All the Academy of Sciences from all the industrialized nations have declared human caused global warming to not only be fact, but is happening as we speak, and to avoid unimaginable consequences we must act immediately.

Imagine this: a war is raging in two fronts. Thousands of Americans have died. Iraq and Afghanistan lie in rubble. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, total, have died. The war on Iraq was unquestionably not for liberation nor to disarm Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but rather to secure the dominance of the United States in the middle east.

Imagine this: while a war is raging in Iraq, which sits on the largest proven oil reserve in the entire world, our economy is declining. Detroit was first to feel the hard times that are spreading to the whole country. Detroit continues to build gas-guzzling cars, further contributing to our addiction to oil, while further fueling a warming planet.

Imagine this: our educational system is failing our students. Just to have the opportunity of a comfortable lifestyle, and entry into the middle class, prospective students often take out outrageous loans. Many young adults are starting out life with 30+ thousand dollars worth of debt. Money that could be spent to guarantee universal access to higher education is instead funneled to Iraq.

Imagine this: the trillions that are spent on Iraq could be spent on education, health care, and the “greening” of our economy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created by pushing our economy into the future with new, clean and green infrastructure.

The politicians and pundits are talking about these issues. Are we going to let them frame the debate? Or are we going to stand up and shift the debate in our direction?

The environmental justice movement as done a outstanding job of shifting the debate on climate change. Global warming is becoming more mainstream. Real, significant progress is being made. But what the environmental justice movement has not done, is frame the climate crisis around war, education, health care, Katrina, and a multitude of other issues.

War and climate change are not two separate issues that coincidentally are happen at the same time. The two are fundamentally connected. The same is true with other issues as well. How and when will the people’s movements frame this connection in a truly revolutionary way?

So… imagine this: a next left movement rises to the opportunity that this election season provides to frame relevant issues in ways that lead to radical conclusions. The logic of its messaging challenges dominate narratives, while it simultaneously provides a new people-powered narrative for a better future.

Together, we can win.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!