Adoph Reed, Jr. on Democracy Now

Adolph Reed, Jr. is great. I've only met him a couple of times, but I admire him completely and always learn from him (about politics, for sure, and also some refreshingly choice profanity). What is particularly striking: while all sorts of other academics pose as leftists and activists, as radicals (even as they act and write as if a presidential election were radical politics), he is completely genuine.

Link: Democracy Now! | The Politics of the Rev. Wright Controversy: A Debate with Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Adolph Reed, Jr. (read the whole thing).

JUAN GONZALEZ: Adolph Reed, you’ve been critical of the progressive credentials of Senator Obama and of everything from his community organizing experience to some of his political views. Could you explain your views on that?

ADOLPH REED, JR.: Well, yeah. I mean, I want to say a couple things. I mean, one is, yeah, I don’t think that what Obama—well, I tend much more to Doug Henwood’s view, that what Obama has put together is not so much a coalition as a fan club, right? I mean, you don’t build a movement around a political campaign. I know I’ve heard people say that, well—you know, Kool-Aid drinkers have said that, well, you know, this could be—he could set in motion forces like those that moved FDR in a progressive direction, those that moved JFK in a progressive direction. But as Will Jones, the historian at the University of Wisconsin, has pointed out, you know, that comparison fails, because in each of those cases there were dynamic, rooted social movements that had been pushing for progressive agendas with popular bases on the ground prior to the election of the president. You know, you can’t compare—frankly, I think the comparison of the Obama coalition to either, you know, the Montgomery Bus Boycott or the Greensboro sit-ins or the Gastonia textile strike, you know, just fall completely flat, because this is a candidate- centered politics.

I think it’s also the case that—well, I mean, the connection of race and religion, I think, also very much disturbs me. I mean, there’s no intrinsic black American religious experience. I think there are a lot of us who don’t have any religion whatsoever and don’t really care about it and don’t especially want to see it in public life. And I think that’s a—you know, that’s a stance and a mood and a disposition that’s as culturally authentic among black people as anything else, if there were such a thing as cultural authenticity, which I don’t believe.

Finally, you know, the premise that our politics is—at the national level somehow has been characterized by partisan division just flies in the face of everything that we’ve seen over the last twenty-five years. I mean, what have progressives been complaining about, right? That we have basically two wings of a single party, right? It was the Clinton administration and the Democrats who have led—who have polished off the destruction of the federal government’s sixty-year commitment to direct provision of income support for the poor, to direct provision of low-income housing, that led to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, that opened up the dotcom boom, and so—and so on, that’s been as committed to a regime of public advocation and service provision as Republicans have.

And if anything, the contention that the candidate can bring us all together despite our partisan differences is the same thing that the Democrats have been claiming consistently since at least, you know, Dukakis, to be post-partisan, to be post-political. And frankly, I think it appeals—it’s an appeal that gets greatest traction among people who want to take politics out of politics, ultimately.

Comments

[Alain]

Hi Jodi

While I agree with most everything Reed is saying here I do not agree with his conclusion. Whether Obama is an authentic progressive is debatable - but it assumes an outcome that is not known. He clearly is not a leftist, nor a radical, but that is precisely why he has a chance to get elected and do something. The problems the US face are enormous - perhaps greater than they have been in a generation. What Obama wants to do, or can do, is not confined to the limits of the democratic leadership council - much of it will depend on what the situation is when he steps into the white house and the mood of the country.

And I know we have had these discussions before, so I understand if you are bored with my more pragmatic tone lately. It just seems to me that scaling back our imperial ambition (even if it is not ending it) and raising taxes on the wealthy, are important initial steps. Clearly it would be better if there was a grass roots movement to push Obama to the left - but I do not think the "net-roots" is sufficiently popular to get the job done. So we are left with what is possible - which still may be quite significant.

Thanks for listening.

[patrick j. mullins]

Jodi-thanks for linking to this excellent article, which I wouldn't have seen. I see why you respect Reed. But even without the article, it is previous momentum that is keeping Obama going while he is most obviously on the defensive. Politics is not anything moral or even ideological most of the time, and this race especially is all about slugging. He's doing it, she's doing it, they're all doing it. There are two categories, then: 1) who 'might' be better (that could include 3rd parties, etc.) 2) who will win it. Whether all the reasons Reed gives mean that Obama won't win the general election I wouldn't know, but I agree that he won't and doesn't even really stand a chance any more. When on the defensive, he is decidedly unimpressive and not really tough at all, much more 'now it's time for me to look tough.' Hillary is shameless in an overt way, but they're all shameless, why isn't overt shamelessness possibly at least something you can identify--as long as it is not the smug sort of the Bush administration, which Krugman probably has done more to show that it cannot be that (McCain wouldn't probably even be that extreme, but he'd be the closest, and even seems half-senile) force into people's minds.

There's not any 'beauty' to be found. In fact, Obama has proved that, by being very attractive (which is fine) while not being able to 'keep it up' in terms of this 'pop-song sensation' sort of 'message' he has been spewing out and making people break out into sweats by promising profoundly everything, without saying that of course.

Alain, I wasn't bored with your 'more pragmatic tone' when I thought it was. I don't think you are at all pragmatic. And frankly don't even seem to have been reading the recent week's trends all that carefully. You speak as if it were obvious not only that Obama will 'step into the White House' but that he is not even losing ground in the campaign. It is not obvious at all. He is not doing a good job, because his 'good job' would have been to make his original 'inspirational message thing' continue to work. He has not done this since Ohio, and has only the hope that there was already enough bolstering prior to Ohio to drive people nuts with the tension and hand him an unearned nomination. His appeal is to those who don't accept that politics is graceless in the extreme, and think it is somehow connected to other things more than it is, when it actually has quite a life of its own even though we still have to live with it. He is a covert panderer just like Hillary is overt, but she definitely knows more about what is THERE in the world of politics than he does, and than most commentators. They both are capable of real work, unlike Bush and Reagan types, who want the job to be a vacation.

It's actually all right to be impractical and purely theoretical about such things to a degree, but it doesn't seem that Reed is interested in that. I'm not either, and I think Obama seems weak. He has not proved he is strong either by defending Wright (at first) or by shunning him later. People are responding to his charm, which would go along with the current pop culture that needs quick gratification at all costs (except that political quick gratification doesn't really substitute for quick gratification less available now by decreased spending.)

[Alain]

Thanks for the quick response Patrick. I guess we will disagree in terms of Obama seeming weak. While all politicians pander (including Obama) it is a question of degree. And I do not see his handling of Wright as weakness - but I know that is consensus view.

Regarding the "there" of politics - surley it is removed from the rest of the world we live in. But it still matters how politicians conduct themselves, what they say, how they say it, and what they actually do once in office. I am not assuming Obama will be the President but merely responding to the view stated by the author that he thought Clinton the better choice.

As always Patrick I appreciate your willingness to engage.

[patrick j. mullins]

But it still matters how politicians conduct themselves, what they say, how they say it, and what they actually do once in office.

Except that the Bushies demonstrated how for long periods of time that it didn't mater. That's what some are hoping to recover from, and maybe in a sense we already have begun, because even with McCain one is not seeing someone as one-dimensional as Bush. I do not agree with those who say that 'Bush is not really stupid.' Bush IS stupid. Getting into the White House can mean just somehow knowing how to do THAT, as result of birth and upbringing, etc. The fact that he got into the White House does not prove that Bush is not stupid.