Author: Alan Bean

How NOT to build a progressive coalition in Texas

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

Scott Henson thinks direct action is rarely a strategic tactic, but every once in a while it works.  Scott acknowledges that the tactic was highly successful during the civil rights movement but argues that the authorities quickly learned to avoid brutal and public acts of oppression.   Demonstrations may be therapeutic for those involved, he says, but they rarely accomplish strategic ends.

Occupy Wall Street is offered as Exhibit A.

I am temperamentally inclined to endorse Scott’s position.  Demonstrations have always made me uncomfortable.  When I participate it is usually because, as in Jena, the folks on the receiving end of injustice sometimes take strength from public displays of shared resolve.  The Occupy Wall Street folks brought needed attention to the growing wealth disparity in our country and its baleful influence on the political process, but when I talked to them I got the uneasy feeling that they were engaged in a form of therapeutic ritual with little strategic content.

Liberals must understand that, in states like Texas, we hold a minority position on almost every issue.  I don’t feel good about the fact that, if the GOP abortion law is passed, only women in the Golden Triangle between Dallas, Austin and Houston would have access to safe abortions.  But most folks in Texas are solidly pro-life and a lot of progressives, myself included, aren’t going to the wall for abortion rights.  I accept the logic of Roe v. Wade, but am too morally conflicted by the issue to get fired up about it.

I was proud of Wendy Davis’s bold filibuster.  But I wish we could get African Americans, Latinos and progressive whites in states like Texas to join hands on issues like hunger, mass incarceration, public education and immigration reform.  Abortion may be a defining issue for white liberal women, but you can’t build a broad-based coalition on pro-choice politics–not in the great state of Texas.  I would drive to Austin to protest mass incarceration, border militarization, and cuts to poverty programs and public education; but if abortion is the issue, I’m staying home and so will the vast majority of African Americans and Latinos.

The gerrymandering of electoral issues in Texas has been used to defeat outspoken progressives like Wendy Davis, but the redrawing of political maps is really about making white political hegemony endure as long as possible before it is washed away by the shifting demographic tides.  (See Wade Goodwyn’s excellent analysis of Texas politics.) Democrats will start winning elections in Texas long before the party is popular with the white electorate.  Smart progressives will understand this and start building a coalition that engages the passions of black and brown Texans.

Southern Republicans will adjust their position on immigration and public education when they need a respectable harvest of minority votes to win.  That day will come, but its a long way off.  It may be hard to win the presidency without minority support, but Southern elections at the national and state levels can still be won with white votes.  Leading with abortion is a bad way to win moderate white support and a sure-fire recipe for alienating Latinos and African Americans.

Journalists who fear journalism

· 1 Comment ·

Alan Bean

David Sirota thinks its odd that the Washington Post would publish Edward Snowden’s leaked information and then insist that the man be stopped from leaking any more information.  He isn’t exactly endorsing the leaks, but he asks if journalists shouldn’t be on the side of more information, not less.

I find myself wishing the best for Edward Snowden.  Partly it’s because his actions, wise or otherwise, show real conviction.  Moreover, I am concerned that critical decisions, from drones to espionage, are being made by a tiny cabal of the illuminati (small “I”) who don’t answer to anyone.  When European leaders learned that the United States had been spying on them they were outraged.  My guess is that all of us would have our hair on fire if we knew what goes on behind closed doors.  I am not impressed by secrets.  They trouble me.

Sirota laments the demise of real journalism.  I share this concern.  Just try to get the mainstream media interested in a case like Curtis Flowers, Ramsey Muniz or the IRP-6.  So many stories are not being told.  Partly, this is because investigative journalism isn’t cost effective.  But, as Sirota suggests, the problem goes deeper than that.

Meet the “Journalists Against Journalism” club!

The clique of media figures outraged when news outlets challenge power has a new member: Washington Post higher-ups

BY 

From David Gregory to Andrew Ross Sorkin to David Brooks, the ranks of Washington’s hottest new club continues to swell. Call it Journalists Against Journalism — a group of reporters and pundits who are outraged that whistle-blowers and news organizations are colluding to expose illegal government surveillance. To this club, the best journalism is not the kind that challenges power or even merely sheds light on the inner workings of government; it is about protecting power and keeping the lights off.

Before today, this club could be seen as a collection of individuals. But not anymore, thanks to the hard-to-believe house editorial of the Washington Post titled “Plugging the Leaks in the Edward Snowden Case.” Inveighing against the disclosures of NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the paper wrote that “the first U.S. priority should be to prevent Mr. Snowden from leaking information” and then fretted that Snowden “is reported to have stolen many more documents, encrypted copies of which may have been given to allies such as the WikiLeaks organization.”

What’s so utterly revealing about this editorial is not merely that it reads like hard-boiled talking points given to politicians by their surveillance-industry campaign donors. No, what sets this Washington Post editorial apart — what vaults it into the annals of history — is how it is essentially railing on the Washington Post’s own source and own journalism.

Yes, that’s right, the Post was one of two news organizations that Snowden originally contacted and that subsequently began breaking the NSA stories. That means the Washington Post editorial represents the paper’s higher-ups issuing a jeremiad against their own news-generating source and, by extension, the reporters who helped bring his leak into the public sphere.

Such an unprecedented move exposes the intensity of the paper’s — and the larger establishment media’s — ideological antipathy to journalism. Simply put, the Post’s higher-ups are apparently so ideologically committed to subservience and to the national security state that they felt the need to take the extraordinary step of publiclyreprimanding their own source and their own newsroom for the alleged crime of committing journalism. Indeed, their concern is not that Snowden and journalists might be muzzled, but that they might not be before they break any more news.

As overused as Watergate analogies are, one is particularly apt in this case because of the paper in question. And that analogy should be obvious: Today’s editorial is the equivalent of the paper issuing an editorial in 1972 not demanding more information from President Nixon, but instead insisting the Nixon administration’s first “priority should be to prevent Deep Throat from leaking information” and worrying that Deep Throat “is reported to have more information” that could soon be broken by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

At one level, this is all downright hilarious. But at another level, it isn’t because it potentially intensifies a larger chilling effect on investigative journalism that is happening throughout the media. After all, even though there is theoretically a divide between editorial boards and newsrooms, the former is known to speak for the decision makers at a newspaper. And here we have one of the biggest set of media decision-makers saying to reporters at the Post — and all those reporters elsewhere, who hope one day to work at the Post — that cultivating sources and working with whistle-blowers is not something that will necessarily be rewarded.

In fact, it says quite the opposite: that it won’t be rewarded, and it will more likely be frowned upon. You can bet every reporter who reads that editorial will understand that message, and many will unfortunately take it to heart.

David SirotaDavid Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

Great Daily Beast article on Curtis Flowers

·
Paul Alexander’s concise article in the Daily Beast provides the best summary of this complicated case published to date.  If you want to know more about DA Doug Evan’s ties to an unapologetically racist organization, or the reasons many (myself included) find the witnesses in this case less than credible, you can read Alexander’s eBook Mistried or check out my blogging on the subject.  But if you have never heard of Curtis Flowers and are wondering why Alexander calls him “Mississippi’s Marked Man” this is a great place to start.  Bottom line, this case has never been investigated, and that needs to change.  AGB

Curtis Flowers: Mississippi’s Marked Man

by  Jun 29, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

In a shocking case of injustice, an African-American has been tried for the same murder six times, pursued by a crusading prosecutor. Paul Alexander on Mississippi’s marked man

As the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida continues to grab national headlines, a case, now playing out in Mississippi, also raises questions about race and justice in America. (more…)

United Methodists refuse to endorse Senate’s immigration bill

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

Reaction to the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate has been mixed.  The Evangelical Immigration Table has heralded the legislation for striking an appropriate balance between national security and compassion.

But the bill’s provisions calling for a massive buildup of immigration forces at the border caused the Detention Watch Network to conclude that “The private-prison industry and other enforcement industry contractors stand to gain the most from the legislation while families and communities will suffer.”

The Centrist National Immigration Forum focused on the defeat of a series of “poison pill” amendments that would have rendered the bill unacceptable to progressive senators.  Since this bill was the best outcome we could get from this Congress, they argue, it is a good bill.

Bill Mefford, speaking for the United Methodists’ General Board of Church and Society, has refused to either endorse of oppose the legislation.  Noting that none of the progressive provisions of the bill will go into effect until immigration officials can document a secure border, Mefford lays out a depressing scenario: (more…)

Another conservative decries mass incarceration

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

When I first became aware of the horrors of mass incarceration fifteen years ago, hardly anyone in Middle America was discussing the problem.  Things have changed.

Just last week, Michelle Alexander addressed the Biennial Convention of the American Baptist Churches in Kansas City.  American Baptists are far more progressive than Southern Baptists, to be sure, but it took some guts for denominational leaders to invite an outspoken advocate of radical reform to address a predominantly white audience.  I congratulate them.  Part of me hopes Michelle didn’t ruffle too many feathers; the other part hopes she did. (more…)

If it’s all about winning elections, it ain’t moral

· 1 Comment ·

Davis filibuster took place in an near empty Senate floor. The bill she was fighting would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers.By Alan Bean

Regardless of your political persuasion, these are the best of times and the worst of times.  The Supreme Court cuts the heart out of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and then nixes the oddly-styled Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.   Meanwhile, in Texas, Senator Wendy Davis and a gallery crammed with abortion-rights activists kept the Republican majority from passing a law that would have shut down the majority of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State.

Liberals are celebrating in Texas, but Rick Perry has already announced that he call another special legislative session with the specific purpose of undoing what was done last night.

Although the majority decision in the DOMA case turned on arcane legal arguments, the Supreme Court is yielding to a massive shift in public opinion on the gay marriage issue.  Upholding DOMA is a nonstarter in today’s America, so the justices were forced to cobble together a legal justification for a pragmatic decision.

The same cannot be said for the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.  Gay rights has recently gained in popularity in virtually every demographic group–including white evangelicals.   Opposition to the Voting Rights Act is limited to the conservative white voters who control political reality in much of the American South and a fairly large slice of the Midwest.  Support for the Voting Rights Act is rock solid among African American and Latino voters.

Southern states may be insulted by the suggestion that their legislatures continue to discriminate against minority voters, but there can be little doubt that they do.  It is ironic, for instance, that Wendy Davis would have been unable to filibuster the Republicans’ abortion bill in the Texas Senate if proposed electoral maps that deleted thousands of minority voters from her district had not been declared unconstitutional.  Moments after the Supreme Court demolished the significant parts of the Voting Rights Act, Texas Republicans moved to revive a voter ID bill that was patently intended to eliminate as many minority voters as possible.  Election laws that create long lines in minority precincts but not in conservative white precincts can now move forward without opposition.

If reaction to the Voting Rights Act decision split along largely racial lines; the abortion debate breaks across the no-mans-land created by the culture war.  Personally, I am too conflicted on the abortion issue to support Texas Republicans or to hoot and holler for choice in the Senate gallery.  I am reluctantly pro-choice.  There are profound moral issues involved in the abortion debate.  When a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy it is almost always with a heavy heart.  This is appropriate.   Pro-life politics work really well precisely because many progressive people of faith are morally conflicted on the issue.  We understand and feel the arguments on both sides of the debate.

But conservatives cannot protect the unborn without creating major health problems for poor women who, denied access to safe abortions will turn to back alley butchers.  It should also be noted that conservative states like Texas refuse to adequately fund public education and have far more uninsured poor families than the balance of the country.  If Texas Republicans were genuinely concerned about the unborn they would give more thought to the post-birth plight of poor children.

Abortion has become a prized political issue because it allows politicians who oppose gay rights and voting rights to regain the high moral ground.  “We may be doing everything in our power to neutralize minority voters and discriminate against gay Americans,” the logic goes, “but at least we’re fighting to save the unborn.”

But it’s a lie.  They aren’t trying to save the unborn; they’re trying to win elections.  Banging the pro-life drum and minimizing the impact of minority voters are two equally effective strategies for maintaining political control.   If the abortion issue became a political detriment, most conservative politicians would abandon it in a heart beat.  I’m not saying the stalwarts on the front lines of the prolife fight aren’t sincere (they are) but the same cannot be said for their political supporters.

You’re invited!

·

Nancy and Alan Bean will be hosting the third meeting of the Common Peace Community at our new home, 2706 Meadow Hill Lane, Arlington 76006, this Saturday at 4pm.  (Please RSVP by replying to this email).   If you have any questions or need help with directions, call me at 817-688-6765.

As usual, there will be singing, fascinating speakers, and plenty of time for sharing and plotting.

We will hear from Pierre Berastain, a Harvard Divinity School student and native of Peru who recently announced that he is a “dreamer”, an undocumented resident of the United States brought to this country as a child by his parents.

We will also be hearing from our own Julie Griffin, a member of Broadway Baptist Church who has long been active in ministries of compassion.  Julie worked as an attorney for fourteen years before becoming a school teacher, and both careers inform her passionate commitment to ministry.  (more…)

Terror vs. Surveillance

· 1 Comment ·

 

Edward Snowden is a hero or heal depending on your political orientation.  Centrists, both liberal and conservative, see him as either a traitor or a misguided idealist who is putting American lives in danger.  Civil Libertarians, liberal and conservative, are sufficiently afraid of a Big Brother government to appreciate Snowden’s bold gesture.  Journalism professor Robert Jensen takes the second view, but reframes the issue in a helpful way.  Avoiding the false alternatives of transparency or death-by-terrorism, Jensen looks for a way to preserve American liberties while saving American lives.  Here’s his take.

Terror vs. Surveillance

By Robert Jensen

In the frenzy over Edward Snowden’s leak of classified information about government data-mining surveillance, public officials and pundits have tried to lock us into a narrowly defined and diversionary discussion that ignores the most important question we face about terrorism.

Their argument goes something like this: No one wants to die in a terrorist attack. This kind of spying is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. So, stop whining about how information is being collected, used, and potentially misused—it’s better than dying.

Let me be clear: I do not want to die in a terrorist attack. But before I am bullied into accepting intrusive government surveillance that is open to politicized abuse, I have another question: Are there other ways we could reduce the risk of U.S. citizens, at home or abroad, being targeted by terrorists? Two possibilities come to mind.

First, stop creating new terrorists. Critics of the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have long argued that those destructive conflicts have deepened resentment against the United States. People in those countries who previously had no reason to attack U.S. military personnel or civilians are understandably unhappy with aggressive wars that destroy their homes and kill their people.

For example, in the new book and film “Dirty Wars,” reporter Jeremy Scahill and director Rick Rowley have documented how the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command—our so-called secret warriors—have indeed been killing terrorists, along with pregnant women, children, and lots of other non-combatants, deepening many people’s resentment of the United States. Much of the criticism has focused on the use of drones, not only in Afghanistan but also “secretly” in Pakistan, but Scahill and Rowley show how the whole strategy is misguided.

Second, let’s recognize that it is unlikely that the terrorism of Al Qaeda and others would have happened if not for nearly seven decades of a failed U.S. policy in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Muslim world more generally. Since the United States filled the imperial void left by the weakening of Great Britain and France after World War II, our Middle East policy has been primarily aimed at maintaining a flow of oil and—just as important—a flow of oil profits that is advantageous to U.S. economic interests, especially as defined by elites.

That doesn’t mean that every single U.S. action in those regions has been evil, or that there has been a single clear policy in every moment. But we have routinely ignored the aspirations of the people of the Middle East in favor of “stability,” which doesn’t translate into stability for people but instead for the interests of those elites. Saddam Hussein was an ally or a monster depending not on the crimes he committed against his own people or threats he posed to other states, but on whether he was in line with U.S. policy. When he killed Iraqi Kurds (about whom U.S. policymakers don’t care much) and Iranians (an official U.S. enemy), that was okay. When he threatened Saudi Arabia (an official U.S. ally, despite that country’s history of human right abuses), we had to destroy him.

People in the Arab and Muslim world pay attention. I may disagree with the politics and theology of many of those who critique U.S. policy, but I can’t argue when they point out U.S. mendacity and hypocrisy.

Imagine that the United States had pursued a different policy in the last half of the 20th century, aiding the struggling movements in the Arab and Muslim world that wanted to expand the scope and freedom and democracy. If we had chosen that path, would we be the targets of terrorists today?

More than a decade after 9/11, the United States political culture still is asking the wrong question (“why do they hate us,” as if our opponents are fueled only by irrational anger) and coming up with the wrong answer (“because we stand for freedom,” as if that has actually been our policy). It’s time for us to grow up, buck up, and face reality. If we want to be safe in the world, we should end the economic, diplomatic, and military policies that give people around the world ample reasons to resent our misuse of power.

When we have done that—when we have narrowed the gap between our self-righteous proclamations of inherent benevolence and the self-serving policies that ignore the aspirations of others—I’ll be happy to talk about how much of my privacy and political freedom I am willing to sacrifice to be safe. But if we were to face our mistakes and change our policies, I’m not sure that conversation will be necessary.

Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. His latest books are Arguing for Our Lives: A User’s Guide to Constructive Dialogue and We Are All Apocalyptic Now: On the Responsibilities of Teaching, Preaching, Reporting, Writing, and Speaking Out.

– See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/terror-vs-surveillance-keeping-americans-safe-two-simple-steps#sthash.mPdTEJbC.dpuf

The Serpent-and-dove thing

· 2 Comments ·

This post originally appeared on the Associated Baptist Press blog.  AGB

By Alan Bean

There is such a thing as principled moderation, but real-world moderates are more prone to fudge, ignore and obfuscate when there appears to be no constituency for the truth.

Here’s an uncomfortable reality. Moderates will ignore an issue, no matter how pressing, if a clear majority stands in opposition, or there is considerable support on both sides. If a proposal can’t generate at least an 85 percent approval rating, the thinking goes, it’s a bad idea.

Real-world moderates occupy an uncomfortable patch of social ground inhabited by a sizable conservative minority, a small but influential contingent of liberals, and a whole lot of people who are too concerned about paying the mortgage and negotiating domestic minefields to give much attention to social issues.

Real-world moderates try to keep conservatives and liberals in separate rooms whenever possible while directing the bulk of their attention to helping a harried majority cope with the trauma of middle-class existence.

Moderate pastors are big on Matthew 10:16, a comforting passage where Jesus admonishes his disciples to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” The trick, we say, is to stand for the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God without doing irreparable damage to your career or inflicting unnecessary harm on your congregation.

But that isn’t what Jesus was getting at. We must be wise as serpents, Jesus tells us, because we are surrounded by wolves. The truth Jesus gives us has no natural constituency in a wolf-infested world. That’s why there is always work for prophets.

Most leaders, be they conservative, liberal or moderate, are pragmatists. In unambiguously conservative or liberal circles there are certain ideas and issues that must either be celebrated or deplored — there is no middle ground.

Conservative preachers have no choice but to oppose abortion, while their liberal counterparts must defend “a woman’s right to choose.” It doesn’t matter what the preacher believes deep down, the issue can’t be dodged and there is only one acceptable position.

The same relentless logic applies to the issue of gay marriage. Conservatives must oppose it as unbiblical while liberals must teach that all forms of human love flow from the heart of God.

Moderates rarely enjoy this luxury. Our preachers have precisely nothing to say about abortion or homosexuality for the simple reason that neither of the conventional positions have sufficient support within our tribe to prevail if push should come to shove. Moderate pastors manifest serpentine wisdom by falling silent or changing the subject.

Some issues are ignored because they almost never impinge upon middle-class white Protestants like us. Immigration may be an important issue, but since we are all native-born citizens it doesn’t touch us.

The criminal-justice system may be largely designed to control poor people in minority neighborhoods, but since we all live in pleasant neighborhoods, it isn’t our concern.

There may be a host of factors that drive poor people to the streets and it may be frightfully difficult for these folks to make their way back home. But since no one we know is in danger of becoming homeless, we have more pressing matters to contend with.

In the unlikely event that issues like immigration, criminal justice or homelessness are broached in affluent, predominantly white churches, the preacher will be met with blank stares. “Why are we talking about that?” the congregation asks. “Christians are all about the gospel and the kingdom; secular issues like immigration, homelessness, and prisons are literally none of our business.”

Moderate preachers, like their white conservative and liberal counterparts, rarely broach these issues. Being wise as serpents, we say, means restricting yourself to an agenda that people will support while avoiding issues that will sew division or confusion.

That’s not what Jesus had in mind, either. There is a proper sequence to this serpent-dove thing. The gospel of the kingdom belongs to dove-like innocents. Serpentine wisdom is out of place when we’re discussing the contours of the Christian mission. When sons and daughters of God suffer, we must care because God cares.

Every section of the Bible drives us to the same simple conclusion. The undocumented, the homeless and the incarcerated live at the heart of gospel concern. Only when we have that straight are we free to be as wise as serpents. Prophets must speak even when the truth has no constituency; but we should select our words with great care.

First, we must speak the truth. There is no justification for self-serving nonsense.

Second, we must speak the truth with all the grace we can muster. We must approach the bias, ignorance and fear of our audience with compassion.

Third, we must speak the truth strategically. We aren’t trying to start a riot or win a vote; we’re tilling soil so kingdom seeds can take root in the world.

True moderates are willing to enter into broad alliances that move us far beyond our comfort zone while encompassing only a single issue. While moderates nurture a pious silence, prophetic voices on the religious right are embracing causes like immigration reform, homelessness and what they call “over-criminalization.”

There is a time for all Christians of all ideological persuasions to be wise as serpents. But first, God must bring us to that painful place where, broken and humbled by the perplexities of life, we find ourselves praying with the innocence of doves.

Larry James: “Man Down”

· 1 Comment ·

This post on Larry James’ Urban Daily blog caught my attention and stirred my blood.  Larry is an extremely busy man, but he hangs out on a corner on the poor side of Dallas every week talking to the residents of the community.  If he hadn’t made that commitment he wouldn’t have been able to intercede in the situation described below.  Makes you wonder how many horror stories like this unfold everyday in our cities.  AGB

Man Down

I’m boiling.

Yesterday out at “the Corner” I witnessed another example of the daily plight of the powerless who live on our very unforgiving streets.

As I sat in my car taking a phone call that lasted several minutes, an ambulance pulled up at the service station next door.  I noticed the ambulance, but could see no one to whom the crew was attending. By the time I finished my phone call, the ambulance was gone, but I noticed that the patient remained.

A very ill Hispanic gentleman sat leaned up against the outside wall of the service station building next door to the old house where I sit on Thursday afternoons.  He appeared to be semi-conscious and unresponsive.  His friend and protector, Joe, informed me that he had just been discharged from the hospital, but was clearly in trouble.  The ambulance had refused to transport him back to the hospital for reasons I couldn’t understand.

I called 911 and requested that an ambulance return.

In a few moments, the ambulance with the same crew returned.

I insisted that they pick him up and take him back to the hospital.  The man was diabetic and now lying down flat on his back on the concrete pavement.

The crew went to work, placed the man on a stretcher and loaded him into the ambulance and drove away.

As they left, my homeless friends were relieved and hurt.

Why hadn’t the ambulance crew responded to their pleas on behalf of their friend?

Why did I get the needed action and not them?

Why had the man been discharged from the hospital?

Was his fate all about money?

Was he “uninsured,” not even receiving Medicaid?

Was he undocumented and thus, fair game for being left to die on our streets?

The situation left us with so many unanswered questions.

God help us!

Are we to conclude that there actually are expendable people today in our community?

Is power concentrated in almost exclusively in the hands and voices of people like me, but not my friends who are simply poor even though experts on the subject of poverty?

I need answers.

I’m steamed.