Jack-booted democratic hypocritical thugs...
Over at Betsy's Page: Shutting Down Opposition Voices
This is who Barack Obama is. This is who the Democrat Party is. The Party of New McCarthyism.
That's right, McCarthyism. Intimidation. The Democrat Party is the party of intimidation. Barack has given his brood new marching orders...
I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they're independent or whether they are Republican, I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
'Get in their face'? Sounds like intimidation to me. Sounds like the tactics Chicago politics is famous for. Sounds like Barack is just another democratic thug. Worse than a thug-- a hustler.
[Obama] is nothing more than a Chicago thug street organizer in the mode of Saul Alinsky, and, by the way, Saul Alinsky's kid works for public television in Boston and wrote an op-ed congratulating Obama on executing Alinsky tactics to the T, said it was a great honor to his father.
--Rush, Sept. 18
The OpEd in Question? Son Sees Father's Handiwork in Convention
It's very short so here it is in full:
All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.
Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.
--L. David Alinsky
This is the change Barack want to bring America. He doesn't want to heal racial divides, he wants to widen them. He doesn't want the middle class to become prosperous, he wants to enslave them. He doesn't want to see America strong and independent, he wants to see her humbled before the rest of the world.
I don't know what Barack Obama believes in, but it's not America. Nor, I believe, is it God.
107 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding Non-violent Direct Action. Your take on it is all wrong.
Have you ever been part of a NVDA meeting? Do you know anything about it beyond what you read on right wing blogs?
Alinsky and others have noted that Power yields nothing without a struggle. This is certainly true.
Further, the philosophy notes that there are a few ways to wield power. There is, of course, violent and non-violent approaches. NVDA, by its nature, rejects violent approaches out of hand.
So, certainly "jack-booted" and "thugs" are wholly inappropriate descriptors of NVDA.
In a democratic society where change does not usually involve violence, there are two ways of wielding power: Money and numbers. The corporations, politicians, "principalities and powers" of the day are quite adept at using money to effect change. Buy off a few politicians, make donations to the right candidates, buy commercial time to promote your causes... these are the methods the Big Powers use to effect change.
And we must be honest, using money to effect change works pretty well. That's why they do it, that's why they research public opinion and invest in commercials and politicians to get what they want.
But for the majority of us, we don't have that kind of money to influence that kind of change.
And so, the other way to influence change is numbers - the power of vast numbers of people. The only thing politicians fear worse than losing their money is to face the outrage of large numbers of their constituents.
NVDA operates on the notion that if there is a matter of justice that you think is going unattended and you are among the regular folk without the ability to "pay" for change, then you can use the principles of NVDA and large numbers of people to effect change.
And so, what that looks like is this (here's a true story I've read and heard about, I'm pretty sure the details are basically right):
In Chicago, the banks appeared to be engaging in the illegal action of redlining - refusing loans to people in poor neighborhoods, predominantly to black folk in this case. A local NVDA group researched this and found the numbers sufficiently suspicious to take an action.
They pulled together the churches of these poor neighborhoods and the members of those churches and their friends and families to amass a fairly large group of people agreed that action was needed. They set up a meeting with one of the local bankers - one where the president's secretary happened to be a member in one of the NVDA churches.
They went to his office and had the meeting and the banker assured the pastors and representatives of the group that no redlining was happening. He stepped out to take a call and while he was away, the secretary said she had to step out for a minute, too. She said something like, "And HERE'S one of our folders that you all aren't supposed to see, so, DON'T look at it while I'm gone..."
Of course, they checked it out while she was out of the office and there was proof in that folder that redlining was, in fact, happening.
So, the NVDA group met again, made a plan and scheduled another meeting with the president of the bank.
In that meeting, they said, "We know you've been redlining and we want you to stop it. To that end, here is a list of the churches in our groups (and they unrolled a scroll with the name of some 30-40 churches) - churches that have bank accounts at your bank. We want our requests met or they'll withdraw their business with your bank."
The president assured them there was a mistake and, much as he would hate to lose their business, there was nothing he could do.
They responded, "We rather expected that," and they unrolled the scroll a little further. "HERE is a list of the dozens of members of our churches who have bank accounts with your bank." They unrolled the scroll a little further. "And HERE are the names of our hundreds of families and friends and supportive businesses who ALL have accounts at your bank. And here is our list of demands."
The president gulped and agreed to meet their demands.
An injustice/crime was happening. It was negatively effecting the "least of these." These churches had an obligation to side with and work alongside the least of these to see injustices ended. And they did so, using not violence, nor Mammon, but the power of people united together in a common cause.
Impolite behavior? Perhaps. A bit demanding? Yes, certainly. Effective? Absolutely. Thuggish? No, not really. Being prophetically strong in the work for justice is not thuggish, not unless you consider the prophets of the Old Testament thuggish. Or Jesus or Paul.
NVDA is a non-violent way of dealing with injustice. Many churches and folk from faith communities use it to live out their faith traditions. Nothing wrong with that, seems to me.
Churches getting involved in these business problems is not what God intended for churches in my opinion. That's why we have these political rebel rowsers like yourself and Wright. mom2
Personally, I think the euphamism of "direct action" can be rightly compared to the thuggish behavior of early twentieth-century fascists. It is not an attempt to persuade and rally the electorate to champion a particular policy and elect politicians who would implement that policy: it is an attempt to bypass the electorate, by having a couple dozen people disrupt government meetings to get precisely what they want, to hell with the will of the majority, to hell with the slow and deliberate process that the founding fathers purposively created.
By implicitly threatening violence with their "impolite" behavior, they can get many of the benefits of physical intimidation while hiding behind the fig leaf of not having actually used knives, guns, or fists.
But the purpose of "direct action" is to use mob rule to short circuit the mechanisms of a representative republic. It is "democratic" in the worst sense of the word but it undermines the best traditions of self-rule. It is profoundly un-conservative, and Dan's praise for it is one of many reasons why I don't think Dan should ever invoke conservatism in his rhetoric.
And, about Dan's praise, it's disgusting that he would try to justify "direct action" by invoking the Prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself. The comparison cannot be made: Nathan didn't convince David of his guilt by gathering together a group of people to interrupt a royal meeting; neither Peter nor Paul stormed the Sanhedrin to seize the right to worship; and Jesus preached from the authority given to Him by the Father, never appealing to the power of the people -- either in terms of votes that could be counted from the entire populace or in the much smaller but "impolite" and "demanding" mobs.
If there is any one thing that infuriates me about Dan Trabue more than anything else, it is this, his invoking his ostensible Christian faith to justify his Jacobin political philosophy.
To the extent that it defines him and even informs his approach to the Bible -- allowing him to hail ancient Israel's small army as directly applicable to today, while dismissing as "atrocity" the wars of annihilation that that army waged in obedience to God's will -- Dan's faith is far more fundamentally Jacobin than it is Christian. Where the two conflict, he will side with his radical political beliefs; and those teachings of the Bible that can't be perverted to his political agenda, he ignores.
This is why you will never see Dan Trabue write so eloquently and at such length about evangelism, as he does here about the "prophetically strong" work for so-called justice.
Suggesting otherwise reflects a general ignorance about these groups. Being impolite does not equal being violent (and, anytime that I've been part of a NVDA group, they have not been impolite, even. It's just that demands that people obey the laws and live up to what they're supposed to do sometimes SEEMS impolite to those who object to being held accountable.)
2. Regarding your comments to my example about the redlining banks: Those banks were breaking laws that specifically harmed the working poor. It was and is rightly illegal.
We're not talking about giving bad loans to people who can't afford it. We're talking about using the same rules in poor neighborhoods that they use for folk in a middle class or upper middle class neighborhood. THAT's what redlining means. We're talking about discrimination. Class warfare against the poor, if you prefer.
So, what is your opinion about the prophet Isaiah making demands of Israel's power and wealth structures? Was he wrong for doing so? How about Amos? Micah? Were they thugs, too?
God has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?
[God says] “…Is there yet a man in the wicked house,
Along with treasures of wickedness
And a short measure that is cursed?
“Can I justify wicked scales
And a bag of deceptive weights?
“For the rich men of the city are full of violence,
Her residents speak lies,
And their tongue is deceitful in their mouth…”
The Prophet Micah
Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
The Prophet Isaiah
Dan, if you are right about money being effective, then what effect did it have on BHO getting the 2nd largest amount of $$ from the mae/mac folks. But of course BHO wouldn't have allowed $$$ to sway him, McC of course, BHO never.
Don't be absurd. In my example, the People demanded that the Corporation observe the law and, if they didn't, they threatened to remove their bank accounts.
WHERE in that is anything un-democratic? We have a right to bank where we want. We have a right to ask banks to obey the law. We have a right to boycott groups that we think are doing wrong.
It is the BEST of democracy in action, or at least can be. Certainly, one could probably find examples of NVDA gone bad, but that would usually be because someone didn't properly implement best NVDA practices.
Again, it sounds as if you're speaking from a place of ignorance. Where do you get your info about NVDA? Limbaugh? WND?
This is the change Barack want to bring America. He doesn't want to heal racial divides, he wants to widen them. He doesn't want the middle class to become prosperous, he wants to enslave them. He doesn't want to see America strong and independent, he wants to see her humbled before the rest of the world.
I just don't get where you get this. What makes you think he wants to widen racial divides, enslave the middle class and see America humbled? He certainly has not said any of that. He does not have it in his policies to accomplish the enslavement of the middle class.
It's things like this that widen the divide between we fellow Americans. Obama may have a different opinion on how to do things than you do, but there's nothing to suggest any of this negative motive on his part.
That's just one example. Obama's been trying to discredit legitimate criticisms of his lack of experience with the notion that he "looks different," and his first speech about Wright's hate-mongering attempted to excuse his problem about his race-baiting pastor by making it our problem about race.
Since you occasionally engage in your own bit of race-baiting -- accusing Jeremiah Wright's critics of a "digital lynching" -- I'm not sure you would be a good judge of when liberal politicians play the race card.
About the evils of so-called "redlining," banks aren't interested in discrimination -- or "Class warfare against the poor, if you prefer," a quite perfectly Marxist formulation if I've ever seen one. The only color they're interested in is green, not black or white, and if banks could have made money with loans to high-risk borrowers, they would have without the coercive force of law.
The idea that "direct action" doesn't imply violence is just crap. You write, correctly, that "Being impolite does not equal being violent."
But it does, increasingly, imply the capacity of violence. "Direct action" makes use of disruptive, intimidating behavior by groups of people that are too large to be restrained by the mimimal security typically required for town councils and committeemeetings. The claim that all this doesn't imply the threat of force is, at best, naive.
Now, about your continued attempt to invoke the Bible to justify "direct action," you write:
So, what is your opinion about the prophet Isaiah making demands of Israel's power and wealth structures? Was he wrong for doing so? How about Amos? Micah? Were they thugs, too?
Actually, what you cited doesn't justify the interpretation that they were making demands about "power and wealth structures" (again, more Marxism). The OT prophets weren't criticizing political and economic structures, they were criticizing people who, for their own gain, committed a variety of sins, including (arguably) abuse of those structures.
But even if I were to grant that you and your radical friends share the same goals as the OT prophets (which I don't), it's simply not the case that the prophets employed the same means. As I said before, Nathan didn't convince David of his guilt by gathering together a group of people to interrupt a royal meeting.
He didn't have to: as a prophet, he was speaking with an authority given to him by God, so he didn't need to pretend to speak with the authority of "the People" or call on a group of thugs to help him demand change.
"Direct action" is a set of means, not an end in itself, so it cannot be justified by arguing that the Old Testament prophets agreed with the ends for which the means are used.
"Direct action" makes use of disruptive, intimidating behavior by groups of people that are too large to be restrained by the mimimal security typically required for town councils
You are basing this on... what exactly? Have you ever attended a Direct Action meeting? Have you read first hand accounts of what Direct Action is about?
What is your source for your misinformation? As for myself, my church is a member of a DART network faith-based Direct Action agency. I am intimately aware of our practices and of those of DART organizations. First hand.
What is your source?
As I said, it is entirely possible there are groups out there that call themselves NVDA groups that don't hold to NVDA ideals, but then, that would not make them NVDA group, would it? Just the same, I am unaware of any NVDA groups behaving in a way you've suggested. Do you have any actual data or is that just a wild guess as to how they work base on heresay?
2. RE:
even if I were to grant that you and your radical friends share the same goals as the OT prophets (which I don't), it's simply not the case that the prophets employed the same means.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting they implemented the same means. Like waging war, the means of waging peace have changed. That does not mean that they're wrong because they're different what was employed in a different time in a different setting.
It would be rather foolish to always try the exact same methods as found in the Bible, wouldn't you think? Or do you think wars should still be waged with spears and swords?
There's the modern Democratic party for you... there's Alinsky-style "Community Organizing" for you.
And there's Obama's "get in their faces" mentality. Change we can believe in.
His tactics reek of corruption and desperation, and reflects a decidedly UNChristian attitude.
Your earlier comment is therefore inappropriate:
Impolite behavior? Perhaps. A bit demanding? Yes, certainly. Effective? Absolutely. Thuggish? No, not really. Being prophetically strong in the work for justice is not thuggish, not unless you consider the prophets of the Old Testament thuggish. Or Jesus or Paul.
Since -- by your own admission -- modern activists aren't engaged in the same activities as the ancient prophets, one can, reasonably and without hypocrisy, criticize the former without criticizing the latter.
As for your claim that "direct action" doesn't involve even implicit physical intimidation, I can dismantle that assertion with a simple observation.
Only fringe groups with relatively small member rolls engage in "direct action."
The NRA doesn't, the AARP doesn't, the NEA doesn't, and the NRLC doesn't. Only relatively tiny groups like ACORN and Code Pink engage in "direct action," and the reason that large organizations don't while small groups do is directly attributable to the size difference.
The large groups don't, because they don't have to. Because they truly represent a large enough number of people to raise funds for advertising and gather by the tens and hundreds of thousands in the Washington Mall, they don't have to storm tiny city council meetings and raise hell.
(Imagine if they did, and it would become obvious while this sort of behavior is thuggish.)
But "direct action" groups simply don't have those kinds of numbers.
And yet you argue that they make use of numbers.
...And so, the other way to influence change is numbers - the power of vast numbers of people. The only thing politicians fear worse than losing their money is to face the outrage of large numbers of their constituents.
NVDA operates on the notion that if there is a matter of justice that you think is going unattended and you are among the regular folk without the ability to "pay" for change, then you can use the principles of NVDA and large numbers of people to effect change.
But these ARE NOT "large numbers." These are small numbers pretending to be large.
If a group of pissed-off radicals barge into a tiny committee meeting, the couple dozen people who fill the room and are "impolitely" demanding immediate redress to their problems is, by NO reasonable measure, a statistically significant group.
So, what accounts for their effectiveness? The answer is obvious: physical intimidation.
Go through the process of elimination, and you'll see that there is no other possibility. Their effectiveness can't be attributed to actual numbers of people they represent, because it's tiny compared to major political organizations. And it can't be because of the rationale for their arguments, because a persuasive argument doesn't need an impolite crowd.
The truth is, "direct action" is effective precisely because there's the implicit absence of a calm, measured intellectual discussion. It's effective because it's not an expression of reason, it's the threat of rage.
But do you have some specific examples in the real world of the supposed intimidation you all so fear and demonize?
Dag, y'all. MLK, Gandhi and my own church seem to be Christ-killers to you. People who are working peacefully for positive change. Shame on you for this fear-mongering.
And so I reiterate my call for some SPECIFIC real world examples. If you come up with some real NVDA people behaving badly, I can agree with you and say, "yes, they are behaving badly."
IF you can produce some examples. Even one?
* ACORN is working to make affordable housing available so people in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods can be homeowners.
[Affordable housing? Radical stuff, that. I wonder how many people they have threatened or beaten up to help with that?]
* The better their education is the more likely they will be able to enjoy a great quality of life. Parents' hard earned tax dollars are used to finance the public school system so their offspring should reap the benefits.
[The monsters!]
* ACORN Fair Housing is a federally funded program through the Office of Housing and Urban Development’s(HUD) Fair Housing Initiatives Program ( FHIP) grant. It is our mission to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing practices.
[Not Fair Housing!! Does their depravity know no end!??]
* ACORN won reforms of utilities service practices nationwide in 2006, which helped low-income customers pay their bills and avoid service disruptions.
=====
I could go on. yeah, it sounds like these are folk who'd kill Jesus if they had the chance. Bloody do-gooders trying to work with the least of these. Jesus would have hated that...
For what it's worth, I don't know much about ACORN, but in the NVDA circles I am in, I get the idea that they're looked down upon somewhat for having somewhat sloppy practices in their overzealousness. That's an impression I have, not a specific charge, so I could be wrong.
Still, worse case scenario, it sounds like they're working for good causes and maybe have some instances of poor organizing skills. Maybe. I have yet to see anything specific that would back that up, though.
Dan, your earlier explanation for why "direct action" is effective -- "the power of vast numbers of people" -- makes no sense in light of the fact that groups that are far larger than ACORN, such as the National Rifle Association, don't resort to such tactics.
The groups who use "direct action" don't have vast numbers, and so the only logical explanation for their effectiveness isn't an appeal to their popularity, but sheer physical intimidation through the small numbers that they do have.
We take on local projects. Local concerns, looking for local solutions.
In our group, where we had a slumlord who refused to take care of his property, thereby leading them to become crack houses and devalue the housing prices in the neighborhood, the NVDA group researched who owned the building, who and held a meeting outside one of his businesses, asking him to take care of his property, applying community pressure (who wants to shop at the local store whose owner is the slumlord owner of a crack house?) for positive change. (This was after seeking to get the city to do something about it and getting no response from them - bureaucratic hands tied).
That is a good use of community pressure.
When some of our urban schools had horrible results on their reading tests, we investigated what programs have worked in other similar neighborhoods and found that Direct Instruction (DI)had produced positive results. We presented to the board our research and asked that they consider changing how they do things - at least at some test schools.
Initially reluctant, by applying community pressure we eventually got three schools started in a DI curriculum and their test scores skyrocketed.
This is not thuggery. This is community involvement. This is applying appropriate nonviolent pressure to leaders and those in power to produce positive change.
I have yet to see the first example of a NVDA using "thuggish" methods. Again, I ask if you have any experience at all whatsoever in the real world with actual NVDA groups or do you get your information and "data" from your gut feeling or from Rightwing groups who are telling you what to think?
If you're just pulling this "threatening behavior" out of your rectum, well, you're welcome to do so, but you can't hardly expect people to buy into that sorta crap.
That's another of the strengths of NVDA groups - they research their target topic and become informed as to what works and what hasn't worked in other places.
Real information and community support for positive good is a good thing, y'all.
You're choosing the wrong side.
And your saying that this is being done for the sake of "positive change" tells us precisely nothing about what's actually being advocated. That phrase is empty of meaning, and all that can be implied from your use of the phrase is that you personally approve of the cause.
Then, it often means asking politely (no booing encouraged) the elected representative to say publicly, Yes, I do support this initiative, or No, I don't support it. If they don't support it, we may ask for follow up meetings or we may fall back and find other political pressure points.
On each point, we ask the representative to give us Yes or No answers and in writing if they are willing (no guns to their heads) because we want to be able to hold them accountable to what they've promised.
From the elected representatives point of view, it is a chance to meet with hundreds of his/her constituents. If they don't attend, it's a chance to offend hundreds (thousands?) of their constituents.
So, there is pressure, but I'm saying this is a positive, democratic pressure from the community to (often/usually) elected representatives. That is the way a democracy works, ideally. We elect representatives to represent us. We let them know what we think on given issues. The word I get from politicians is that this is a desirable thing, they want the public to be involved, that's the way the game works.
If we just stay at home and not worry about, say, a local school that is failing terribly, then that leaves it up to the school board and teachers alone to "solve it." They want input. Now, any given representative may NOT want our specific input, but that's okay. We're not there to get them to like us because we're nice. We're there to ask them to represent us, because it's their job.
As to you're not understanding what I mean by "positive change," I'm sorry I was not clear. I gave some pretty specific examples. In the education case, we specifically wanted them to implement a Direct Instruction program which had the result of reading scores going from the worst in the county (at one school) to one of the best.
In another example, we specifically wanted a slum lord to clean up his decrepit building which had become a crackhouse. That was a positive change. Get it now? I could go on and list other examples, if you'd like.
So, no, generally speaking with the NVDA groups I've dealt with, there is not trespassing nor civil disobedience.
That is not to say that there is not a time for that, though...
Now, I suppose one could make a case that the Civil Rights movement were "undemocratic" in that they were asking - demanding! - that minorities have basic civil rights. It may well have been the case in some communities that the majority didn't want to change the status quo. I'd suggest that this was often the case.
And sometimes, the Civil Rights folk went beyond mere demands for justice, sometimes they nonviolently broke laws to "intimidate" those who'd deny folk basic civil rights.
Sometimes, the cause is so just and the demand so obvious that civil disobedience is called for and can be effective. For the most part, from what I hear, most what I'll call "serious" NVDA groups don't engage in CD as much anymore, mainly because the circumstances where it can be effective are not as common.
But those who'd suggest that the civil rights movement was wrong or undemocratic for their tactics are wrong, I'd suggest and on the wrong side of history.
Germany could have used more pissed off radicals ready to fight the powers that be. The Civil Rights movement could have used many more pissed off radicals much sooner.
I will note that other than vague references to people breaking into buildings, you still haven't offered any supporting evidence for your suggestion that NVDA activists are thugs.
But supposing you can find some legitimate instances, that would only show that some people can use NVDA for bad actions, as well as good. It's not to say that the Civil Rights radicals, the Women's suffragette radicals, the anti-war radicals were wrong in their cause or methods.
You haven't offered any supporting evidence that Obama was directing his marching orders NVDA activists.
The abolition of Jim Crow laws was almost certainly a proper time and place for civil disobedience, but it's worth remembering that the civil rights movement was its most radical after its greater political successes. Kennedy's Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, but the Black Panthers didn't even appear until a year later.
And segregation was an extreme case of injustice. If outright revolution is comparable to an amputation, civil disobedience is chemotherapy, and one of the most dangerous aspects of radicalism is its belief that the nation should be subjected to the constant upheaval that results when people choose to break the law so flippantly.
This comment is particularly disconcerting.
Sometimes, the cause is so just and the demand so obvious that civil disobedience is called for and can be effective. For the most part, from what I hear, most what I'll call "serious" NVDA groups don't engage in CD as much anymore, mainly because the circumstances where it can be effective are not as common. [emphasis mine]
The clear implication is that efficacy is what drives the occurrence of civil disobedience. If you're saying that civil disobedience is only effective when the cause is just, that's an honorable position, but not remotely plausible. If you're saying that effective civil disobedience retroactively makes the cause just -- putting the losers of the struggle "on the wrong of history" only because they lost the power struggle, to hell with the logical merits of their case -- that's another thing entirely, a will-to-power assertion that has no real relationship with morality.
Now, about your example of questioning elected officials in front of the press, there are a few problems.
1) You write that you want answers to be yes-or-no and in writing "because we want to be able to hold them accountable to what they've promised," but you don't make clear how direct-action groups hold politicians accountable.
2) This particular case doesn't address the earlier example you gave, which involved a slumlord rather than a politician. I'm curious as to what specifically your group did to effect "positive change" in that case.
3) Ultimately, what you list as "direct action" is the sort of things that most political organizations do.
The American Conservative Union asked the presidential candidates from both parties to answer a questionnaire and invited the GOP candidates to speak at CPAC, so is the ACU a "direct action" organization? Is the difference really whether the questionnaire is in yes/no format?
I believe the term "direct action" was used for far less mundane activity. It was contrasted to "indirect action" that involved the usual means of organizing movements around a particular cause, such as advertising, petitions, and lobbying. It was intended to produce more immediate results without having to persuade truly large numbers of people to agree with you.
There seems to be a disconnect between how you're using the term and what the term has meant historically, which suggests to me either that you're trying to make the radical sound more moderate -- which wouldn't be the first time -- or the radical has actually become more moderate while clinging to a veneer of the glorious revolution, either to appease aging hippies or attract Rage Against the Machine fans.
If it's the latter, you shouldn't be surprised that conservatives suspect that the labeling matches the contents of the box, and you might want to consider letting us see behind the curtain just this once, to reassure us that Extreeeme Political Activism [TM] with 40% more Democracy In Action is really just good marketing.
Frankly, I think I'll just write this off as an instance of someone being worried about nothing.
(And Eric, I don't know what your response means.)
2. If you're saying that effective civil disobedience retroactively makes the cause just
I'm not saying that. That would be a ridiculous claim and I certainly don't believe it. So we are in agreement there.
I'm saying that one of the tenets of NVDA is we ought to strive to be effective. There is some legitimacy to protesting an injustice knowing that nothing may change, sometimes. But NVDA folk are interested in effecting change, not just making noise.
3. If you're saying that civil disobedience is only effective when the cause is just
I'm not saying that, either. See above.
4. I believe the term "direct action" was used for far less mundane activity.
Again, I'm speaking from first hand experience. I'm part of a group that is part of the DART network.
I think you may be confusing NVDA groups with general DA groups, which may include anarchists and those who embrace vandalism and destruction of property. Those groups, by their nature, would not be NVDA, at least as most NVDA groups I'm aware of would describe it.
And again, this is from someone on the "inside" with personal first hand experience.
Getting back to my original point: I think perhaps you are misunderstanding Non-violent Direct Action. Your take on it is all wrong.
When asked to clarify what you meant by "community pressure" you went into detail about what "typically" takes place with an elected representative, which doesn't even approach addressing what your group actually did in pressuring the supposed slumlord.
What did your group do in that situation, specifically?
About my not having provided concrete examples of thuggish behavior on the part of NVDA groups, it's not like you've answered all my questions, either:
The American Conservative Union asked the presidential candidates from both parties to answer a questionnaire and invited the GOP candidates to speak at CPAC, so is the ACU a "direct action" organization? Is the difference really whether the questionnaire is in yes/no format?
If what you say is a comprehensive activity set of NVDA activity, then pretty much every political group in the nation is an NVDA group. And that's the problem with your presenting such activity as mundane and moderate: it's not the least bit credible in the context of the historical rhetoric about NVDA groups, about how "direct action" is novel and uniquely effective.
I've asked one question repeatedly that is central to the accusation and it has gone unanswered.
In response to the one example of the slumlord, that was before my time so I don't know all the details. I believe they perhaps met in front of a store the fella owned with signs indicating that he was a slumlord, owner of multiple properties that weren't being taken care of, which resulted in at least one of them becoming a crackhouse.
If that's not the specific details on that particular action, it would still be a fairly decent example of what might happen.
Very democratic. People are free to organize and protest. The fella did own multiple properties and he could have, in theory, sold one or more of the properties in order to take care of others. This fella was free to ignore them. The store patrons were free to ignore them or, if the charges concerned them, they were free to support the cause.
What would you advocate in a situation like that? Individual neighbors had protested to the owner to no avail. They had appealed to the police and to the city who took the minor steps they could within their power (citation for dirty yard or some such, patrol the neighborhood more frequently watching for drug dealers), to no avail.
The NVDA (after researching and getting their facts in order) tried talking to the guy, to no avail.
The guy was in it for the money and peer pressure from neighbors and civic pressure from the city did not sway him. But since it was the case that he WAS in it for the money, the organization took it to that level.
As Jesus had the "bad guy" say in his story about the persistent widow, "I fear neither God nor man, but I will give you what you want because you are a pest!"
It seems like a very democratic, reasonable and workable solution.
As far as your question about the ACU, I don't know anything about that group so it would not make much sense for me to say whether or not they are a NVDA. Asking someone to fill out a questionnaire alone is not a NVDA method.
The idea behind NVDA is to apply pressure at places where one could expect the pressure to have the desired results. What pressure did the ACU apply?
I have no idea whether or not they are NVDA, sorry.
* Before the action, there are preliminary plans and meetings so that people understand what the issue is, what it is we're asking, why we're asking it and who the players are.
* At the action, we meet early to remind everyone of the above. We point out that it's not a shouting match, it's not a Q&A time, it's not a chance for the "target" (mayor, slumlord, board of education) to give a speech. It's time to explain what we are asking, why and to get their promises/response.
* We open with prayer and perhaps a song or two ("Come and go with me to that land, come and go with me to that land, come and go with me to that land, where I'm bound...", "Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on...", etc) in a crowd made up of elderly and youth and all ages in between, black and white and all shades in between, well-dressed and less well-dressed, middle class, poor and wealthy.
* Again, there is no shouting, no threats, it's a very peaceful crowd thoughout, with laughs, jokes, smiles and joy, along with concern about the problem at hand.
* A preacher or layperson may get up and explain why we're concerned, what research we did, what we discovered, who we contacted and what we're asking and why.
* We introduce our guests warmly and they are welcomed with polite applause.
* We ask if they understand what we're asking and if they can agree with us - yes or no.
* Because we have done our research, met with these people (generally) ahead of time and already explained what we're wanting, we're not catching people by surprise usually - although sometimes that tactic might be called for - and quite often, they will mostly agree with us and agree to work with us on the issue.
* We close with prayers and more singing and laughter.
Our little grandmothers there with their grandchildren, meeting, praying and singing and asking leaders to meet our reasoned, reasonable demands would find it amusing, I think, to be called "thugs." And they may send you to your room without dinner for doing so, young man.
It's a pretty effective model and quite democratic. We're getting out there, studying an issue, informing ourselves and our politicians and making suggestions. Other people are free to do the same if they think our conclusion is wrong. Or they can choose not to participate.
But democracy is not like a clockmaker, where we elect the officials, wind them up and then let the process alone. We ought to be involved and NVDA groups are. Of course, some could use it negatively, but used correctly, it is the height of good democracy in action.
Dan's "Church" also hosts Moveon.org events.
Just sayin'!
In terms of the actions that are taken to advance their agenda, what specifically makes DART different from the National Rifle Association? If you don't know that group well enough, just tell me what differentiates DART from non-NVDA groups.
The closest you get to explaining the difference is this incredibly vague assertion.
The idea behind NVDA is to apply pressure at places where one could expect the pressure to have the desired results.
Is that pressure limited to what is legal, civil, and polite? You don't say, but you earlier admitted earlier that "direct action" can be impolite and is "certainly" "a bit demanding," and now you note that it's not always the case that the elected officials you invite to your meetings know what's going to be discussed.
Is that pressure based on a respect for the mechanisms of government, particularly the idea that the people have made their positions known at the ballot box? That is made implausible by the historical rhetoric regarding "direct action" compared to the alternative of "indirect action" -- that is, informing and attempting to persuade the electorate to vote for candidates who would advance the agenda you support.
You present the mildest possible example of "direct action" -- old ladies, just a-singin' and a-prayin' -- without ever explaining the range of actions that still qualifies as "properly implemented" NVDA practices, or drawing the line between what qualifies as using those practices "correctly" and what doesn't.
In short, you're being evasive.
First, if we're going to insist on first-hand experience, I'm going to demand that Dan Trabue tell us precisely how many years he's spent with the US Marine Corps and the National Security Council, since he seems so eminently qualified to attack Oliver North as a terrorist supporter and even as a terrorist himself.
Second and more germane to this discussion, I would ask Dan to explain what makes NVDA groups different from other political groups. If it ain't clear whether the American Conservative Union and other conservative political ogranizations qualify, I can't possibly know whether or not I've actually had experience with "direct action" groups.
I disagree. I have told you pretty explicitly what we do in our particular group. To elaborate a bit more:
1. We caucus amongst our hundreds of citizen members amongst our dozens of church groups to see what people are concerned about (Reading scores at a local school? A crack house in our neighborhood? Crime in general? Affordable housing?)
2. We narrow down our possible issues to one or two that arise most in our conversations.
3. Of those issues, we research and find out what other communities are having success with on similar problems.
4. We research further to find out how appropriate such an policy/program might be for our community and our problem/concern.
5. Once we isolate a specific issue (not "What can we do about EDUCATION" but "Is there something we can do to help Lincoln Elementary's reading scores?) with a specific solution that seems workable and reasonable, we find out who can make that decision and have talks with them.
5. If after all that research and discussion, we try to implement that solution.
6. If the person(s)/group(s) in a position to make that decision are amenable (and they oftentimes are), then the solution is implemented and monitored to check for success. Problem addressed!
7. If the entity responsible is not inclined to do what we ask, we research to discover how we might influence that decision. Our actions have always been within the bounds of law. As I said earlier, Civil disobedience is not always or even generally the best route to getting what you want. Some groups may choose to employ CD, but we have not.
8. In finding out how to influence the responsible party, we check to see who our allies might be (Teacher's Union? Parents? School board members?) who the "target's" allies might be (the bank, the school board, etc) and find an approach to make a reasonable demand with a reasonable chance of success.
a. In the case of a slumlord who owned a store, having a peaceful demonstration outside the store with a good number of people may solve the problem. Or, more preferably, a talk with the police or city hall to enforce building codes. We always try to find the simplest approach. No need for a large demonstration if a small discussion will suffice.
b. In the case of getting the school system's administrator who was unwilling to give our DI program a chance, holding a meeting where the school's principal, the parents of failing children, community leaders and the teachers union are present and supportive of our idea - with the media there to record it all - might work.
That's a pretty specific answer to the question. If you want more information on tactics and how NVDA works, read Saul Alinsky or Robert Linthicum or review the DART website. But one should not make a decision and defame a group merely on a hunch that those who take part are a bunch of anti-democratic hoodlums. You are free to do so, of course, but it just makes you look uninformed.
And that's all good, nothing at all wrong with advocacy, in my mind.
And when they do letter writing campaigns ("write your congressperson and ask him to support gun rights," or "ask her to oppose House Bill XXXX") or boycotts, that may be embracing NVDA tactics generally.
But I'd suggest that the NRA, Sierra Club, ACU, etc, etc, are primarily advocacy groups that sometimes choose to use NVDA tactics, they are not a NVDA organization. Not that there's anything wrong with that, either.
But groups like DART and its associate members, ACORN, etc, are more directly NVDA groups. They research specific topics, look for specific solutions and ways to make those solutions reality. They're a bit more solution-oriented and, at least in my experience with these particular groups, a bit more local-solution-oriented.
And that's about all the time I have today for that.
Peace, y'all.
You present the mildest possible example of "direct action" -- old ladies, just a-singin' and a-prayin' -- without ever explaining the range of actions that still qualifies as "properly implemented" NVDA practices, or drawing the line between what qualifies as using those practices "correctly" and what doesn't.
In order to elicit some answers, I will present a few yes-or-now answers, numbered and in bold so that they cannot be missed.
You write that your group doesn't engage in civil disobedience, but you haven't explained whether civil disobedience still qualifies as non-violent direct action.
1. Does civil disobedience qualify as non-violent direct action?
(Note that I'm not asking whether your group engages in civil disobedience, nor am I asking whether you personally do likewise. I'm not asking you to weigh in on its efficacy or whether you think its an example of "properly implement[ed] best NVDA practices." I'm just asking, does it qualify?)
A City Journal article from a couple years ago documented some of ACORN's acts.
ACORN has perfected an in-your-face strategy that works effectively at capturing public attention and winning adherents in cities. ACORN’s revival of its Baltimore chapter is a textbook example of this style. Several years ago, a top ACORN organizer, Mitch Klein, injected a new aggressiveness into the Baltimore chapter. Underlings piled garbage in front of City Hall to protest lack of services in poor neighborhoods, wielded huge inflated rubber sharks to disrupt a bankers’ dinner, and—most controversially—staged a profanity-laced protest in front of Mayor Martin O’Malley’s home....
In cities where ACORN has been entrenched for years, its relentless campaigns have forced local policies to the left. In Chicago, for instance, ACORN took on the administration of Mayor Richard Daley over a law to raise the pay of employees in firms doing business with the city. Although the advocacy group initially failed to win approval for its wage bill, which Daley strongly opposed, ACORN pursued the mayor tenaciously, picketing him as he welcomed delegates to the 1996 Democratic national convention and bursting into a closed city council meeting to garner publicity for itself. After three years, it won the bill it sought.
2. Does piling garbage in front of city hall qualify as non-violent direct action?
3. Does disrupting a private dinner -- of bankers or anyone else -- qualify as non-violent direct action?
4. Does staging a profanity-laced protest in front of a public official's private residence qualify as non-violent direct action?
5. Does disrupting a closed city council meeting qualify as non-violent direct action?
Finally, you write this clarification.
I think you may be confusing NVDA groups with general DA groups, which may include anarchists and those who embrace vandalism and destruction of property. Those groups, by their nature, would not be NVDA, at least as most NVDA groups I'm aware of would describe it.
6. Does any "direct action" that stops short of literal vandalism and other destruction of property still qualify as non-violent direct action?
If the answer to this last question is no, I would love to see you elaborate on what other limitations you place on NDVA groups. You make clear that violence is ruled out, and you now make clear that the destruction of property is ruled out, but you positively do not answer whether you also exclude civil disobedience and such aggressive behavior as interrupting private meetings, protesting in front of private residences, and even disrupting closed-door government meetings.
If you don't have time today to provide the answers to six yes-or-no questions, I would appreciate your providing those answers as soon as possible.
1. Absolutely, CD can be NVDA. I gave the example of the Civil Rights Movement, I thought that was a clear example of a NVDA group using CD.
2. Does piling garbage in front of city hall qualify as non-violent direct action?
Yes, it can. I'd suggest it may be questionably effective, but it could. I'd suggest, if I were part of such an action, that our group ought to clean up afterwards - NVDA would be anti-littering in my mind, although that's just my answer.
3. Does disrupting a private dinner -- of bankers or anyone else -- qualify as non-violent direct action?
It could. Again, questionably effective, but it could.
4. Does staging a profanity-laced protest in front of a public official's private residence qualify as non-violent direct action?
I'd suggest that most NVDA type folk that I hang with would disapprove and say that this is moving over into violence. Some language is violent in nature.
Beyond that, I'd REALLY question the efficacy of such a tactic.
5. Does disrupting a closed city council meeting qualify as non-violent direct action?
It could, with my standard caveat: I'd question the efficacy of that tactic.
6. Does any "direct action" that stops short of literal vandalism and other destruction of property still qualify as non-violent direct action?
I would suggest that any action that has a reasoned intent to affect change that is not violent COULD qualify as a NVDA tactic. When it crosses over into violence, it is no longer a NVDA, by nature.
What constitutes as violence? I'm just winging it here, but I'd suggest "Actions that could result in the harm of others."
Throwing things. Swinging things. Hitting things or people. Igniting fires (I'm not speaking of candles). Bombs. And, I'd suggest, although there may be some who'd disagree, abusive language designed to incite hatred.
Suggesting that groups you disapprove of are equivalent to Christ-killers would probably not equal an NVDA tactic.
Now there are some groups out there that intend to be nonviolent but who aren't especially informed about NVDA and they may just meet to protest some action or policy. Marching the streets, saying, "WE DON'T LIKE POLICY A! CHANGE POLICY A!!" That may be marginally NVDA, but, at least in my circles, NVDA means reasoned, researched attempts to change policy by applying appropriate nonviolent pressure to those with the ability to make the policy change. Not merely protesting.
That may have its place, but it's not what NVDA means, at least to groups like DART.
A lot depends upon the circumstances. Is the "target" avoiding your efforts to have dialog? Could such an action be considered threatening?
Since you admit that "non-violent direct action" can include piling garbage on the steps of city hall, protesting in front of a private residence, disrupting closed-door government meetings, and other aggressive and even illegal behavior, I don't think you should act as if NVDA always involves nothing more than singing and prayer.
Our little grandmothers there with their grandchildren, meeting, praying and singing and asking leaders to meet our reasoned, reasonable demands would find it amusing, I think, to be called "thugs."
I wonder how amusing they would find your invoking their civil assembling to cover for the unruly behavior that you now admit is not excluded from even the non-violent permutations of "direct action."
That behavior is accurately described as thuggish. By design or not, it undermines the traditions and institutions that allow for both a free society and a representative government.
It's troubling that your biggest concern is the efficacy of these tactics and not their morality nor their long-term effect on civil society. The City Journal article I linked to above certainly suggests that ACORN finds these high-profile tactics effective in achieving their immediate political ends, in attracting new members, and even in shaking down banks and other businesses for money to fund future political action.
But the important question isn't efficacy. It's morality.
It's immoral to apply extreme political measures in circumstances that do not call for them, regardless of whether those measures would be effective.
To use an analogy, it might be morally permissible to break traffic laws in the most serious of medical emergencies: if, for instance, a friend's having a heart attack (or cut into his leg with a chainsaw, or whatever) and you're driving him to the emergency room.
One reason it's permissible is -- let's be honest -- it isn't that dangerous if just one driver, with horn blaring and emergency signals flashing, was driving over the speed limit, running stop signs and driving on the shoulder. It wouldn't be that dangerous because everyone else would be respecting the rules of the road and presume that the one reckless driver has a damn good excuse for doing otherwise.
But what if that driver -- and a few other drivers -- start taking advantage of the care and the understanding of the law-abiding? What if they start breaking the rules, not for emergencies, but for expediency?
You'd soon have chaos, where more and more people would start driving recklessly -- thinking, "if the other guy's being a jerk, why can't I?" -- and where the roads would become dramatically more dangerous.
Self-government is a lot like the road system: it only works if most people obey the rules -- both the explicit laws of the state and the rules of tradition and civility that are implicit in our system.
Civil disobedience might be appropriate and even necessary in extreme circumstances, such as the increasing tyranny the American colonists experienced or the legally entrenched racial segregation of Jim Crow.
But the more these extreme measures are employed in mundane circumstances just because they're effective -- and they're effective because the vast majority of people are decent enough not to barge in on closed-door meetings or harass even government officials at their own homes -- the more they erode confidence in our country's institutions and encourage escalation from everyone else.
The more extreme measures of what you admit falls under the heading of even non-violent direct action is belligerent, aggressive agitation with no respect for the rule of law, the slow deliberative processes that the founding fathers instituted, and true consent of the governed.
It is not "the BEST of democracy in action." It is, instead, the beginnings of fascism.
1. I wonder how amusing they would find your invoking their civil assembling to cover for the unruly behavior that you now admit is not excluded from even the non-violent permutations of "direct action."
Many of these grandmothers lived through the civil rights movement and they're well aware that NVDA sometimes involves CD. Moreover, they would agree with me that, while NVDA could involve the actions you asked me about, they wouldn't likely, at least not often.
2. It's troubling that your biggest concern is the efficacy of these tactics and not their morality nor their long-term effect on civil society.
It certainly would be troubling if that is what I had said. I didn't.
You asked if those specific actions COULD be used in NVDA and I answered they could but it wouldn't likely be effective and therefore (and this I didn't say because you weren't asking) wouldn't likely be used, generally.
You are absolutely correct that more extreme measures would be more appropriate in more extreme circumstances. If a NVDA group were asking for an extra garbage pickup day a month because of littered neighborhoods, well, that's a noble request, but it's hardly life and death so dumping garbage on the mayor's lawn would not be called for.
IF, on the other hand, a company owned by the mayor was dumping toxic waste in a poor neighborhood, then dumping garbage symbolically in the mayor's front yard might be called for (although, again, I'd probably advocate for cleaning up afterwards).
NVDA can and ought to be creative and effective, but it also should be proportionate and moral. Since we are a church group (and NVDA groups often are) I thought that would go without saying, but apparently not.
The point is EXACTLY about morality, Bubba. In the case of the crackhouse, we were asking for a moral and just response. In the case of reading scores, we were asking for a just and moral response for our poorer children. In the case of affordable housing, we were asking for just and moral circumstances to benefit the least of these.
It IS about morality. So, as much fun as it may be to suggest, "WHY, why, why DAN's more concerned about efficacy than morality," that simply is not the case. Or perhaps you can tell me which of my real examples was supporting immorality?
NVDA IS the best of democracy in action. It could be abused, of course, and that would not be good democracy, but I'm not talking about the abuses. I'm talking about the normal uses of NVDA.
I mean, I could argue that we ought to totally get rid of armies because sometimes the military commits atrocities. But that would be faulting the majority for the abnormal behavior of the few and it would be a poor argument. Much like your strawman here.
And that gets back to why I was asking about what you even knew about NVDA. Not because if you weren't familiar you didn't have the right to criticize, but because you are arguing from a place of ignorance, apparently, since you don't seem to know much about how NVDA generally works or why.
which is why it is always important to ask for someone's source of information.
You practically admit as much when you write, "The idea behind NVDA is to apply pressure at places where one could expect the pressure to have the desired results."
It's not about persuading the electorate, which can easily provide the real political pressure that comes with genuinely "large numbers of [a politician's] constituents." It's about directly applying a much smaller amount of pressure -- from a much smaller segment of the electorate -- to bypass the need for persuasion.
Hence the word, "direct."
You can insist all you want that the goals are moral...
The point is EXACTLY about morality, Bubba. In the case of the crackhouse, we were asking for a moral and just response. In the case of reading scores, we were asking for a just and moral response for our poorer children. In the case of affordable housing, we were asking for just and moral circumstances to benefit the least of these.
...but until you justify the methods by which your group advances those goals, your missing the point entirely about my criticism of the immorality of the routine use of "direct action."
Bubba, like it or not, WE ARE THE ELECTORATE. We, the members of DART organizations and other NVDA groups ARE the people. Now, not everyone may agree with us and they are free to go and lobby their representatives to. That is how democracy works.
If you want to stay home and let us more active, vocal types be the ones that get our officials to work on education (with specific ideas and specific programs and positive results), fair housing, affordable housing, crackhouses, etc, then, Bubba, you are free in this great country to sit on your butt and do nothing.
If we want to get involved and make specific demands that gov't actually represent us, then good for us and those who don't get involved can't sit at home on their lardbutts and say, "but, but, but I don't WANT them to close that crack house, I don't WANT them to teach Direct Instruction," and expect anyone to care very much.
If you want to take part in Democracy, please do. If not, get the hell out of our way.
* We ought to be active citizens concerned about our community
* That it is a good thing to try to address problems like failing reading scores in schools, crackhouses, toxic waste, affordable housing, etc
* That, if we are going to try to address these sorts of problems, it behooves us to research the causes and possible solutions to those problems
* That it is a good thing to contact our representatives and ask for changes in policy (or approach, if a decent policy is in place) to deal with these problems
* That sometimes Civil disobedience is called for
* That CD should probably be reserved for serious situations - life and death or human rights violations type of problems
* That, if there is a problem going unaddressed or insufficiently addressed, and if individual citizens have been unsuccessful in getting change, that it is a good thing to band together as segments of a community and ask for change in numbers
* That, if the problem has not been addressed and individual citizens have not been able to change it, if they give up and say, "oh well, I'll just put up with this crack house," is poor citizenship and lacking in personal responsibility
* That this banding together is absolutely NOT harmful to democracy; that, in fact, that is how democracy works in its ideal state - This IS what democracy looks like
* That NVDA, if it is used for a just and good cause, can be a force for good and it certainly is preferable to violent DA, other violent responses, or responses of giving up and saying, "oh, well, that's the way it is."
* That NVDA (or police or the military or churches or democracy itself), if used for an unjust or immoral cause, would be wrong - this is an obvious statement and one would think that it should be self-evident, but I'll state it here just to be clear
* That because there MIGHT be some claiming NVDA (I've still seen no examples, but I'd suggest they're probably out there) who would be thuggish in their actions, that does not mean that all NVDA activists are thuggish. It's a ridiculous statement.
These are all reasonable statements and I'd think that we could agree, at least in general.
This is not a dichotomy between activity on one side and lethargy on the other: it's between those activities that work within the legal and traditional institutions that make possible a free and civil society, and those activities that erode and undermine those institutions.
To suggest that those who oppose "direct action" are uninterested in all political activism, per se, is ridiculous, particularly when I have no problem with the normal political activities of persuasion and lobbying conducted by mainstream political organization, even those organizations, like the AARP, with whom I largely disagree.
To suggest that those who oppose the common use of "direct action" are not interested in taking part in self-rule, is as thoroughly dishonest as, well, this:
Bubba, like it or not, WE ARE THE ELECTORATE. We, the members of DART organizations and other NVDA groups ARE the people.
You and your "direct action" groups are not the people. You are a subset of the people, attempting to run roughshod over the will of everyone else, by short-circuiting the political process.
And your claim to be the people is not only dishonest, it's blatantly fascist.
You -- quite rightly -- compare non-violent direct action favorably to violent direct action. Good for you, but that misses the comparison that I find much more germane: the comparison between direct action and INDIRECT action.
The phrase "direct action" was coined to contrast the behavior of DART and other groups against the more mundane behavior of mainstream political groups: the use of advertising to persuade the electorate at-large -- to persuade them to vote for candidates that advance a particular agenda and to lobby for change by signing petitions and calling their representatives.
You write that we should be able to agree...
That this banding together [of people] is absolutely NOT harmful to democracy; that, in fact, that is how democracy works in its ideal state - This IS what democracy looks like
But that raises the question, what are they banding together TO DO?
If it's indirect action by attempting to persuade the electorate to support particular candidates or legislation, I have no problem with it.
If it's direct action of harrassing government officials in an attempt to bypass the electorate... well, there's nothing truly democratic about that, and it's a perversion of the principle of self-rule.
Perhaps you should try addressing the difference between "direct action" and the "indirect action" against which it was originally contrasted.
You've addressed everything else. It's action and not lethargy! It's non-violent and not destructive!
What you seem not to grasp is that my problem with NVDA isn't the "NV" or the "A", both of which are perfectly fine.
It's the "D".
So, tell me this: Were the Freedom Riders wrong for their NVDA actions?
In case you're forgetting their story:
Civil Rights activists called Freedom Riders rode in interstate buses into the segregated southern United States to test the United States Supreme Court decision Boynton v. Virginia, (1960) 364 U.S. The first Freedom Ride left Washington D.C. on May 4, 1961, and was scheduled to arrive in New Orleans on May 17. Riders were arrested for trespassing, unlawful assembly, violating state and local Jim Crow laws, etc. Most of the subsequent rides were sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) while others belonged to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The Freedom Rides followed on the heels of dramatic "sit-ins" against segregated lunch counters conducted by students and youth throughout the South, and boycotts beginning in 1960.
The Freedom Riders rode integrated buses into the segregated South. They upset the local customs and laws. Undermined the way they wanted things done. These towns in the South HAD their own ways of doing things and those ways were popularly accepted.
Were the perverting the principle of self rule? Were they attempting to bypass the electorate?
OR, were they, as I claim, making a DIRECT action to present the people in the South and around the world with a picture: Do we in these Southern towns want to continue doing things the way we have been doing them, the way that is democratically accepted here, OR is this peaceful but strong demonstration pointing out a problem with the status quo?
I say that they were acting in the grandest tradition of democracy.
I think you agree.
It's not the DIRECT action that you have a problem with, it appears, but the cause... something.
To be honest, I can't tell why you're having a problem with us using NVDA to close down a crackhouse.
Is that really the side you want to be on?
NVDA is not undemocratic in itself. CD is not undemocratic in itself. And you can only say that if you want to call the Civil Rights Movement undemocratic and a perversion of self-rule. And again, you are welcome to do so but you will be on the wrong side of history in so doing.
It's not. Words mean things, and just because direct action was successful doesn't make it automatically democratic.
And the existence of a single poorly managed building that you describe as a crackhouse isn't remotely comparable to the systemic racism of Jim Crow.
It's not that I'm "on the side" of crackhouses, it's just that I don't think dealing with a crackhouse is worth undermining the institutions that ensure self-government.
ONCE AGAIN, you ignore "indirect" action to create a false dichotomy. Earlier you implied that all there is, is direct action or complete lethargy; now you suggest that all there is, is direct action or actual support for the ills that direct action is intended to address.
This is nonsense. There are perfectly viable alternatives that don't involve the harassing and sometimes illegal behavior that comes with direct action. I've discussed some of them already: people can seek to educate and persuade the electorate to support political candidates and proposed legislation that would advance their cause. They can do all this while abiding by the law, while remaining perfectly civil, and while not making a general nuisance of themselves.
These alternatives require more time and public support BUT THAT'S THE POINT. Our government is structured so that change is slow, deliberate, difficult, and incremental.
In brief, direct action is always fascistic and never democratic.
Yes, sometimes it is nevertheless appropriate, as in fighting Jim Crow, but that's a recognition that the cause DOES matter -- not in determining whether direct action is democratic, because it never is, but in determining whether it's appropriate.
Using direct action undermines the institutions that make self-rule possible. If the problem is severe enough, the benefits outweight that cost, but the cost still exists. Why I oppose is the COMMON tactic of direct action is that the costs soon outweigh the benefits.
uh-huh. Sure. You can believe that if you wish.
I choose to disagree, since I don't think the facts support such a God-awful stupid claim. But go for it, Bubba. Try to convince people of that if you'd like.
Good luck.
it's just that I don't think dealing with a crackhouse is worth undermining the institutions that ensure self-government.
What exactly about (in this case) peacefully holding signs outside a store which is owned by a fella who owns multiple rundown homes is "undemocratic" and "fascist"?
What exactly about inviting the director of the school board to a meeting attended by hundreds of his constituents and parents and children from his schools and asking for a pilot program is "undemocratic" and "fascist"?
What exactly about a civic group made up of thousands of local church members - including many residents in public housing - asking the director of housing to sign a contract ensuring fair treatment of public housing residents is "undemocratic" and "fascist"?
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
Emphasis is mine.
----------
Today’s liberals still worship the New Deal. But they look to another era for inspiration as well: the 1960s. Here too the parallels with classic fascism are too obvious to ignore. What are fascism’s hallmarks? Among other things, the cult of action, the glorification of violence, the exaltation of youth, the perceived need to create “new men,” the hatred of conventional morality and traditional authority, the adoration of “the street” and “people power,” the justification of crime as political rebellion, and the denigration of the rule of law as a form of oppression. All recognizable features of the “youth movement” of the ’60s.
“Their goal,” historian John Toland writes of the German youth movement that became the feedstock of the Nazi party, “was to establish a youth culture for fighting the bourgeois trinity of school, home and church.” Studies found that students generally outpaced any other group in their support for National Socialism because they wanted to belong to die Bewegung, the “Movement.” The Nazis may have been striving for a utopian, thousand-year Reich, but their first instincts were radical: Destroy what exists. Tear it down. Eradicate das System — another term shared by the New Left and the fascists. Burn, baby, burn.
“The future of our struggle is the future of crime in the streets,” declared Tom Hayden, a co-founder of Students for a Democratic Society. In June 1969 he declared the “need to expand our struggle to include a total attack on the courts.” He dubbed the Black Panthers “our Viet Cong.” Here was a street-based paramilitary group that sought the violent overthrow of the government in the name of racial separatism. Nothing fascistic here, folks.
During the guns-on-campus crisis at Cornell, then-professor Walter Berns fooled his students by reading them excerpts from Mussolini’s speeches. The students cheered — until they learned the identity of the author. Peter Berger, a Jewish refugee from Austria and, at the time, a respected peace activist and left-wing sociologist, identified a long list of themes common to 1960s radicalism and European fascism. Irving Louis Horowitz, a revered leftist intellectual specializing in revolutionary thought, saw this fanaticism for what it was: “Fascism returns to the United States not as a right-wing ideology, but almost as a quasi-leftist ideology.”
----------
Left-wing intellectuals saw the fascist tendencies in 60's radicalism, and this radicialism hasn't been purged from direct action, as your own words reveal.
Bubba, like it or not, WE ARE THE ELECTORATE. We, the members of DART organizations and other NVDA groups ARE the people.
When you write garbage like this, you don't disprove the fascistic tendencies of direct action. You reinforce them.
1. Do you have ANY actual instances that you can point to of "thuggish" NVDA? Stuff that has happened in the real world?
2. What in my examples of ACTUAL NVDA is undemocratic of fascist? You have a problem with marching around a store owned by a crack house owner? You have a problem with constituents having a meeting with their representatives and asking them to support their issues?
For that matter, I raised this question nearly three hours before you raised yours:
Perhaps you should try addressing the difference between "direct action" and the "indirect action" against which it was originally contrasted.
About real-world examples of thuggish NVDA behavior, I linked to and quote the description of several, including the fowl-mouthed protesting in front of the private residence of Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley and Acorn's disrupting a closed city council meeting in Chicago.
You confirmed that these instances largely did qualify as NVDA, so I would appreciate that you not ask me to repeat myself as an attempt to stall this discussion.
What? He had a duck bill?
Anyway, fair enough. Then answer my other question: What in my examples of what we've done is undemocratic or fascist?
It's my belief that peaceful protesting with signs and placards doesn't qualify as direct action -- or at least doesn't always qualify -- because pro-life groups protest abortion clinics frequently, and I doubt that that would be called direct action.
We come back to my point in bringing up CPAC: Ultimately, what you list as "direct action" is the sort of things that most political organizations do.
If you could clearly differentiate between direct action and indirect action, it would become clear whether the activities you list truly qualify as direct action.
Direct Action:
The strategic use of immediately effective acts, such as strikes, demonstrations, or sabotage, to achieve a political or social end. - Free Online Dictionary
action aimed directly at achieving an objective; esp., the use of strikes, demonstrations, civil disobedience, etc. in disputes or struggles for rights - Your Dictionary.com
Political action which happens outside normal political channels via indirect actions such as electing representatives. - Wikipedia
My group's actions were NVDA. What is undemocratic about people banding together to affect change?
The answer? Nothing. In fact, it is a good, noble, grand and glorious democratic tradition to protest beyond the voting booth and anyone who suggests otherwise is just not informed.
(and the answer to your question is, as I said earlier, those groups ARE using NVDA when they try to affect change by actions such as picketing - I made a distinction between advocacy groups that use NVDA sometimes and specifically NVDA groups, but that may be a difference without a distinction.)
Are those kids with low reading scores unable to learn, unwilling to learn or are the schools incapable of teaching? The distinction makes a difference. When my kids struggle to achieve good grades (a true rarity), our first thought is to sit down with them and work it until they don't. We've wondered about a teacher or two, but the thought of disrupting a school board meeting never entered our minds. Attending one to voice our concerns when the time comes is always an option and well within the bounds of good citizenship.
How about direct action against the crackheads? Assemble the good men of the neighborhood and intimidate them to leave the area as good men should, if pointing out the location of free clinics doesn't result in a good outcome.
What do you mean by affordable housing? Would that be tiny two-room shanties with an outhouse in the back yard, or a home that would normally sell for market value being discounted for the poor to afford? This call for affordable housing is the main reason we're dealing with the current financial crisis. Seems to me that if one is unable to afford owning, then they can't own. That ain't a "social injustice", it's the way it's supposed to be. Hey Dan. Did you tell those folks about the glory of living simply?
There's a long response and a short response to your comment, and I'll provide both.
First, the long response.
Let's take a real-world example that preceded even William Mellor's 1920 book, Direct Action:
The May, 1912 suffrage march in New York City.
Pictures are available here, where there is also a link to arguably better pictures from a march a year later.
Was this march direct action? I could see arguments for and against.
The primary argument that it is direct action is that the march was a demonstration, and the two definitions you give include demonstrations.
But I would say that there is a very good argument that it isn't direct action.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government, and -- unlike, say, disrupting a closed-door committee meeting -- it is almost certainly the case that the amendment's authors intended assemblies precisely like the 1912 New York march for suffrage.
This would mean that the march (and any particular demonstration) doesn't necessarily fit the definition you give which describes direct action as "Political action which happens outside normal political channels." If the purpose of the demonstration is to rally support for a particular position within the confines of the normal political process -- rather than, say, induce a riot -- then the demonstration is arguable a part of the "normal political channels" that the Founding Fathers intended, and that they therefore enshrined with Constitutional protections.
The definitions you include emphasize immediacy: "The strategic use of immediately effective acts," and "action aimed directly at achieving an objective." [emphasis mine]
Unless I sorely mistake my understanding of the history of the suffragettes, they weren't agitating for an immediate and direct solution. They were advocating a Constitutional amendment, which requires -- by design -- a particularly lengthy and difficult process.
Congress proposed what would become the Nineteenth Amendment seven years after this particular march, and it wasn't ratified until a year after that.
If the demonstrators were indeed marching for a Constitutional amendment, they weren't just excercising their Constitutional right to assemble, they were advocating change through the slow and arduous means that the Founding Fathers explicitly defined, which is the very definition of "normal political channels."
If direct action includes even those peaceful demonstrations that advocate the slow, deliberate change that takes place within normal political processes, then it includes pretty much every political organization on the planet. It's a term that means anything, so it ceases to mean anything in particular.
But you certainly seemed to think that the term was much more narrow, at least in your first comment in this thread:
Have you ever been part of a NVDA meeting? Do you know anything about it beyond what you read on right wing blogs?
If you have any desire to be consistent, you can't simultaneously imply that direct action is ubiquitous AND that we right-wingers are ignorant about it.
But if direct action does not include every instance of political demonstrations, we need to find the dividing line between what counts and what doesn't, and then we can see whether what remains is either A) wholly democratic, B) potentially undemocratic, or C) inherently undemocratic.
Myself, I conceive of direct action as necessarily including only those "immediately effective acts" which are "outside normal political channels" and "aimed directly at achieving an objective."
Because these acts intend to be "immediately" effective, they seek to avoid the slow, and deliberate process that is inherent to a representative republic.
Becuase these acts intend to avoid those "normal political channels" by which the will of the people is expressed, they often -- and perhaps always -- intend to short-circut the popular will.
(If there really was broad popular support for a particular cause, there would be no reason to avoid "normal political channels.")
And because they are aimed at "directly" achieving an objective, they seek to bypass the process by which the people are represented by their government.
The definitions you provide validate my concerns about the possibility that direct action is undemocratic by nature.
It's a good, if off-topic, question.
Generally speaking, in schools where 75% of the kids are below reading level, you would tend to question the school's methods. But it certainly is worth looking at other factors.
For instance, if a majority of the children come from single parent homes, where the mother is the sole provider and has to work two jobs to make ends meet, and she is making minimum wage or less because she didn't receive a good education herself, and she has a hard time being there for her children due to working two jobs, that is a good indication of a possible problem and one that might be worth trying to find some solutions for.
But, being a volunteer group of concerned church members (Many of whom volunteer to help kids in their church, through tutoring, food assistance or other programs), a NVDA can only tackle so many issues. We can't solve every problem, given limited time and resources, but we can address some.
By researching, finding a good solution, helping implement it in three test schools, we WERE able to assist those schools and parents in getting their test scores to rise from amongst the worst in the city to much better - one of the schools I believe had amongst the best either in the city or (I'm thinking) the state. So, yes, a good, well-supported change in programs CAN make a significant difference.
So, yes, Marshall, if you are a part of a whole family with a good deal of support and you yourself are well-educated and have many resources at your disposal, you absolutely can help your own child, even if the school's program may be lacking. But we're not talking about helping ONE child ("Mine"). We're talking about trying to help all the children in this school to become successful readers. Including those coming from homes with more limited resources and support.
Does that sound reasonable to you? It does to us and we're pretty danged pleased with the results. That direct action paid off well in terms of justice to the least of these.
Micah says:
God has showed you, people, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
1. To act justly
2. and to love mercy
3. and to walk humbly with your God.
We recognize that we church folk tend to try to do the last one pretty regularly, "Walk humbly with God" - that's probabaly a major focus of most church ministries. Our own personal walk with God. And that's a good thing.
We also tend to recognize the second requirement: "To love mercy." We get the idea that we are to care for the least of these, that this is a very central part of what we've been taught by God. We don't focus on this as much as our own personal walk with God, but most churches do get it and at least devote some time and resources to "mercy," charity, "giving to the poor."
However, we DART-type groups think that churches tend to ignore the first requirement of God altogether. What does God REQUIRE of you? To act justly. To work on matters of justice. This is where DART and SNCC-type groups come in to play.
Yes, it's a good thing to have our worship services, to pray, to sing, that's all good.
And yes, it's a good thing to have our "charity" work - where we help those in need, we help single parents stay housed and with food and perhaps give some time to tutor children or to get them school supplies or to be a Big Brother or Big Sister to them. That's all good, too.
BUT, what are we doing in our work for Justice? Very little, typically.
That is where, we'd suggest, we ought to be concerned about systems of distress and oppression. IF there is a school that is failing in reading for some reason, it may be a good thing to do a fund-raiser to help with supplies, or to help tutor children. But Justice would have us look at the larger problems of WHY are the children failing and what can we do about that? Are there some demands that we need to make of our school systems, of our elected officials, of our community in order to secure justice for and with them?
And that is a good and vital part of our ministry as well. Or so groups like ours would suggest. And that may be getting involved in our democracy and making our voices heard as to what we would like to see done (just as others have that same opportunity to take part in democracy if they so choose). Or it may not be making demands of the gov't, but rather making demands of our community or our church.
And that is a good, democratic and blessed thing, seems to me.
Bubba is free to disagree if he so chooses.
What is undemocratic about people banding together to affect change?
The Beer Hall Putsch was profoundly undemocratic.
If direct action involves avoiding "normal political channels" in an attempt to short-circuit the political process and bypass the will of the people -- and if it involves these means during times that cannot be considered crises that would justify such behavior -- then the methods are unjust, regardless of the goals.
What does the Lord require?
It isn't simply to support just goals, BUT TO ACT JUSTLY.
To employ unjust means to advance an agenda is direct defiance of the command to actually act justly.
What, praytell, is unjust about picketing outside a slumlord's business or outside an abortion clinic?
I think, in fairness, we all agree that CD and NVDA CAN BE good things. We may disagree on its uses, but there are times when its use is profoundly good.
That's what I'm not getting about your continued complaints. What about the bus boycott in Montgomery was unjust? What about an abortion clinic protest is unjust?
You seem to be saying, "Those are right, it's just DA that's wrong!!!" and missing that those ARE NVDA. There is NO "short-circuiting" of the Democratic process in one group asking that their representatives represent them.
I would not begin to suggest that abortion clinic protesters are acting against democracy by their requests to end legalized abortion. I disagree with them, but they are absolutely free in our Republic to express their opinion and it is a great thing.
You're not really making any sense.
What about what I've described is unjust?
You have no answer except to say, "The Beer Hall Putsch was BAD!"
Okay. So what? The bombing of Pearl Harbor was bad, too. Does that mean that all military force is bad?
In the cold evening dark, 600 stormtroopers surrounded the beer hall and a machine gun was set up pointing at the auditorium doors. Hitler, surrounded by his associates Hermann Göring, Alfred Rosenberg, Rudolf Hess, Ernst Hanfstaengl, Ulrich Graf, Johann Aigner, Adolf Lenk, Max Amann, Scheubner-Richter, Wilhelm Adam, etc. (some twenty in all) burst through the doors at 8:30 pm, pushed their way laboriously through the crowd, fired a shot into the ceiling and jumped on a chair yelling, "The national revolution has broken out! The hall is filled with six hundred men. Nobody is allowed to leave. The Bavarian government and the government at Berlin are deposed. A new government will be formed at once. The barracks of the Reichswehr and those of the police are occupied. Both have rallied to the swastika."
At gunpoint, Hitler, accompanied by Rudolf Hess, Adolf Lenk and Ulrich Graf forced the triumvirate of von Kahr, von Seisser, and von Lossow into a side room (previously rented by Rudolf Hess) and demanded that they support his putsch, or they would be shot.
Yes, Bubba, I agree with you that it is wrong to try to violently overthrow a gov't, at least generally. What I don't get is how this relates to NVDA? One, it obviously was not nonviolent. Was it a direct action? Well, I guess one could call it that, but then, I'm not advocating DA, I'm advocating NVDA.
So what exactly is your point? That DA can be a bad means to a bad end? Absolutely. Who would suggest otherwise?
All I've objected to here is the lumping of ALL NVDA adherents into the category of "thugs" and democracy haters. It's just a dumb comment to make and no one here even really thinks it, as far as I can tell and, if they do, well, they're just being ignorant.
If direct action includes even those peaceful demonstrations that advocate the slow, deliberate change that takes place within normal political processes, then it includes pretty much every political organization on the planet. It's a term that means anything, so it ceases to mean anything in particular.
The definitions THAT YOU GAVE all imply that direct action involves immediate acts that are aimed at directly achieving results by avoiding normal political channels:
"The strategic use of immediately effective acts..."
"action aimed directly at achieving an objective..."
"Political action which happens outside normal political channels via indirect actions such as electing representatives."
You chose those definitions, not me, and I'm repeating my request that you elaborate whether, for instance, all demonstrations -- including marches for constitutional amendments, ratified through the lengthy and difficult process outlined in Article V -- are to be counted as "direct action."
If they are, then almost every polticial organization performs direct action.
If they aren't, you need to be more clear what the distinction is, because I suspect that the examples you're giving do not match up with a clear definition of the term.
What is undemocratic about people banding together to affect change?
The answer is, it depends on what they're trying to change, and how. In other words, it depends on their ends and means, on their goals and methods.
Imagine a political group is "banding together" a hundred years ago in some Southern capital -- say, Richmond, Virginia, in 1908. Consider these four scenarios:
1) They're meeting in order to reinstitute slavery, by planning to mount a coup against the federal government and restoring the Confederacy.
2) They're meeting in order to reinstitute slavery, by proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Thirteenth Amendment and rallying support for its ratification through the process described in Article V.
3) They're meeting in order to achieve women's suffrage, by planning to sabotage ports and railroads to force the President to declare a state of emergency and proclaim full suffrage with a declaration similar to the Emancipation Proclamation.
4) They're meeting in order to achieve women's suffrage, by proposing a constitutional amendment and rallying support for its ratification through the process described in Article V.
Meeting #1 is undemocratic in both its ends and its means.
Meeting #2 has undemocratic means but at least wants to advance them through democratic methods.
Meeting #3 is reversed, wanting to use undemocratic methods to advance democratic means.
Meeting #4 has a democratic agenda which it wants to advance through democratic mechanisms.
You asked, what is undemocratic about people banding together to affect change?
The answer depends on the specifics of their goals and methods, and asking such a rhetorical question in order to suggest that "people banding together to affect change" is always and inherently democratic, displays a great deal of muddled thinking on your part.
You almost seem to use the word "democratic" as a term of approval, rather than as an actual description of behavior and intent.
Now, if you could clarify whether political demonstrations always qualify as direct action -- and justify your answer -- I'd appreciate it.
Meeting #2 has undemocratic goals but at least wants to advance them through democratic methods.
Meeting #3 is reversed, wanting to use undemocratic methods to advance democratic goals.
It seems as though your direct action is primarily designed to get other people (specifically government) to do things you want done. Why not just bypass others and do things yourselves. I know you do stuff personally, but instead of protesting, work to fix the problem.
Marshall,
Not sure what your point was about affordable housing, care to elaborate. (if this is too off topic we can go elsewhere)
It's a good question and I think that gets to the heart of the Do Justice/Love Mercy difference.
We believe that charity is a good thing to do in case of emergency - a family in need due to a death, a state that has experienced a devastating flood, a nation that is starving due to a drought - these are times where it's good for folk to step up and lend a hand, give a buck to ease the pain. Charity in cases of emergencies and immediate need.
But what about cases of ongoing problems? Discrimination due to Jim Crow laws in the south WERE dealt with at the individual level for those individuals so inclined. But that left many folk STILL oppressed due to the significant number who WEREN'T inclined to deal with the oppression of Jim Crow rules.
So, in the case of a family whose breadwinner has been lynched and hung due to racism, you may want to provide charity to help in feeding the family in their time of grief and days following until they're back to sufficiency on their own.
That's Loving Mercy, in our thinking.
BUT, there's the larger, more institutional and societal problem of racism and Jim Crow oppression that needs to be dealt with systematically.
For those who think abortion is a crime, there is the CHARITY side of things in providing assistance to women who are struggling financially and who might consider abortion due to a lack of means to support.
BUT (for those who think abortion is a crime), there is the JUSTICE side of things that says, "We need to find a way to change laws so this is not even an option, since justice demands that it shouldn't be an option!" [NOTE: That's not my position, I'm just using that as an example of the difference between our Charity work and our Justice work]
Some problems are systemic in nature and we need to rise up as the prophets did at times and demand changes of kings and the powerful -
Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Loosing chains of injustice, setting the oppressed free, these are probably more systemic problems that need to be dealt with systemically. Feeding the hungry, providing shelter, these are acts of charity that we can do individually.
Individual acts of charity can ease the suffering of the one person you personally help. Changing systems so that people don't get trapped in poverty, this might call for united acts of justice to change oppressive systems.
Or at least that's what makes sense to us.
It is the case that the widow in the parable of the unmerciful judge got results by pestering the judge, but the point of the parable was not to teach effective political tactics. Luke 18 clearly records the parable's intent, in both Luke's description in verse 1...
And he told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart.
...and in Christ's own summary in verses 7 and 8:
"And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will indicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?"
To suggest that this parable's about getting political results is like saying the parable of the talents (in Matt 25) is about how a person should treat his financial advisors: he should fire the ones who don't make money and transfer the funds to those who do. That kinda misses the point.
It's doubly contentious to argue that we should act like the widow in light of Matthew 5, and our rather plain command of non-resistance -- not merely non-violent resistance, where we don't hit back, but non-resistance, where we readily give to those who would sue us for our assets.
You invoke Micah 6, which teaches that God requires us to love mercy and act justly, but that doesn't imply that we are actually capable of meeting God's requirements on our own. Instead, Micah concludes his book, not by praising his own righteousness, but by praising God's forgiveness:
But as for me, I will look to the LORD, I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me...
Who is a God like thee, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger for ever because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot. Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt show faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham, as thou hast sworn to our fathers from the days of old. - Micah 7:7, 18-20
And, like Micah, Isaiah doesn't imply that we can live justly and mercifully as God requires. You quote Isaiah 58's promises for those who obey God's law, but that's in context of chapter 59's lament that we can't obey -- and its promise of God's solution.
Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. No one enters suit justly, no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity. They hatch adders' eggs, they weave the spider's web; he who eats their eggs dies, and from one which is crushed a viper is hatched. Their webs will not serve as clothing; men will not cover themselves with what they make. Their works are works of iniquity, and deeds of violence are in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity, desolation and destruction are in their highways. The way of peace they know not, and there is no justice in their paths; they have made their roads crooked, no one who goes in them knows peace.
Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we look for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. We grope for the wall like the blind, we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men. We all growl like bears, we moan and moan like doves; we look for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far from us. For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities: transgressing, and denying the LORD, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart lying words. Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth has fallen in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter. Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.
The LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice. He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intervene; then his own arm brought him victory, and his righteousness upheld him. He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation upon his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in fury as a mantle. According to their deeds, so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies; to the coastlands he will render requital. So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives.
"And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," says the LORD. "And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children's children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for evermore." - Isaiah 59
The point of Isaiah -- and indeed, the entirety of both Testaments, old and new -- is NOT that we live in a world of "oppressive systems" (though that's true, to a point), but that we're sinners.
The church's role is not primarily to agitate for political and economic reform, but to preach salvation from sin.
Christ isn't a political reformer. (Like some of the first-century Jews, you seem to mistake Him for a political messiah.) Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer.
He didn't teach us to go into the world and enact reforms, but to make disciples. Paul wasn't sent or persecuted because of a political agenda, but because of a message of salvation from sin.
It seems to me that you're invoking Christ and His Word, to justify using His church to advance your own personal political agenda.
You may say that political reform is more important than personal acts of charity, but while Christ taught us to feed the poor, He didn't actually teach us to change political systems.
There is, frankly, a hint of arrogance in the idea that you not only realize that the world needs political reform, but that you know exactly the sort of reform it needs, to the degree that you appropriate the specific role of Biblical prophet to praise those political writers that you like by saying they speak "prophetically."
(The Bible's quite clear that false prophecy is a capital offense, so I wonder if you would be quite so willing to use that particular adverb if you conceded that we should hang 'em high the first time they foul up.)
But beyond that, you do seem like you're appropriating the church for a mission it was never given.
I wonder the degree your congregation reinforces this overemphasis on political reform. You relay that your church is a member of a DART network faith-based Direct Action agency.
I wonder if it spends a comparable amount of time and energy on missions as it does direct action.
Regardless, I think it's spiritually unhealthy for a church to focus on the political. There are LOTS of organizations for that, and the benefits that accrue to a particular cause by getting churches on board isn't worth the cost of what those churches are supposed to be doing.
There's only one Body of Christ, and we are called to preach and disciple.
Regarding affordable housing, I sought to determine the objective of Dan's desire to see it provided. That is, a small, cheaply built structure that provides both a home for a person of small means as well as profit for the builder, or a standard home sold for less than market value to accomodate the modest means of a poorer person. A third way is to work the mortgage lending situation, which has been the cause of our current problems in the banking and credit industry. As Dan speaks of social justice, only the first scenario provides any justice at all. It is not justice to force either of the other two scenarios. Justice is a person of modest means either buying whatever small and humble dwelling might fit his meager price range, or not buying at all. Before I was able to buy a home, I rented. There was nothing unjust about that in any way.
Dan,
Your description of the reading scores situation sounds like volunteerism with a little citizen input into school board meetings. No need for high-falootin' terms like NVDA. It's what everyone should do. There is a caveat, however. If your intervention doesn't include teaching the kids to avoid their parents' way of living life, reading War and Peace won't make a damn bit of difference in their lives. It wasn't their parents' reading level that put those kids in that position.
Bubba,
While I agree that a TOO-heavy focus on politics is not job 1 of the church, I do believe that it must do what it can to influence that sphere of earthly existence as well. What I mean is, that there is a "Christian way" to act in every situation and politics is not exempt. In fact, I would say it needs a lot more influence, Lyndon Johnson be damned (so to speak). I would like to see the IRS restrictions on political speech lifted for good. We need more disciples in government and that takes disciples voting the right way. A good preacher of the Word can show how Christ's teachings are or are not furthered by the policy proposals of a given candidate or politician, just as they seek to relate other areas of human existence to Biblical teaching. That's change I can believe in.
There's only one Body of Christ, and we are called to preach and disciple.
We are called to do many things. We are called to work with and for the least of these. We are called to love mercy and to do justice. We are called to follow in Christ's steps. We are called to preach the good news and to disciple.
I say it's all good.
It's just that it's quite apparent that political reform isn't the primary subject of the Bible nor the primary mission of the church. Christians have more important -- more permanent -- work to do. It's truly doubtful that a single political reform will persist when Christ returns; on that day, what matters is whether souls have been saved.
I'm not calling for abstaining from political reform, just perspective.
Do I know for certain that Dan lacks proper perspective? No, I don't, but I do think his apparent abuse of the contents of Scripture indicates a problem of priorities.
I don't find it remotely plausible that the Old Testament prophets were attempting to reform "Israel's power and wealth structures." Instead, they were preaching against the more fundamental and more permanent problem of sin. They weren't calling for reform from within, they were promising salvation from above. When Dan tries to advance the ridiculous argument that any opposition to "direct action" implies criticism of Isaiah, he leads me to wonder whether his priorities are right.
Marshall said:
No need for high-falootin' terms like NVDA. It's what everyone should do.
I agree, it's what we all should be doing. Participating in our communities, in our schools, with our children, with the poor. And I don't know that we hardly ever refer to what we're doing when we're doing it as NVDA. And if you don't want to call it that, that's fine, I don't care.
But we are a group made up of Christians who learn our priorities partly from what the Bible says and our tactics partly from what Alinsky, King and Gandhi taught (who, in turn) based their NVDA partly on biblical principles.
Our DIRECT actions ARE nonviolent (as opposed to "Assemble the good men of the neighborhood and intimidate them to leave the area") and they are in the tradition of NVDA, as developed and adapted by Gandhi, King and Alinsky.
But feel free to call it whatever you want. My only original point was that NVDA groups are NOT thuggery nor antidemocratic, in general.
mom2 said:
It's nice that you live in that little corner of Utopia and all your fellow church members are the sole of humanity with compassion, that you have all the answers and the rest of the world is just too stubborn to come to you and do things the way you say it ought to be done.
? You're criticizing us doing good works? Really?
I clearly have not said that everyone is too stubborn to "come to us" and do things the way we want. I've just stated - repeatedly and in many variations - what we're doing (and what the Civil Rights Movement did and what pro-life protesters are doing) and why it's NOT thuggish, nor undemocratic but how it's a good and positive thing in general.
What specifically in that are you criticizing?
All of you seem to be stretching REALLY hard to find something to criticize your fellow citizens for, even when we're doing basic good works using basic democratic and peaceful methods. I hope you don't mind if I find that incredulous and, to be honest, a bit tiresome.
Peace, y'all.
Thanks, that is what I thought you were saying. Since I'm in that world, I get a little sensitive because I've seen some indiscriminate shots at affordable housing. I completely agree with your point.
Dan,
I see where you're coming from but I still think too many people confuse waving signs with actually doing something.
I'd wonder, too, Bubba, if I had actually made any of those points that you apparently heard me make.
If I misunderstood you, perhaps you could explain what you meant with comments like this:
Impolite behavior? Perhaps. A bit demanding? Yes, certainly. Effective? Absolutely. Thuggish? No, not really. Being prophetically strong in the work for justice is not thuggish, not unless you consider the prophets of the Old Testament thuggish. Or Jesus or Paul.
Or this:
So, what is your opinion about the prophet Isaiah making demands of Israel's power and wealth structures? Was he wrong for doing so? How about Amos? Micah? Were they thugs, too?
You seem determined to equate non-violent direct action with the work of the Prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself; you seem determined to suggest that the Bible's focus is on reforming "power and wealth structures" rather than saving sinners from their sin.
If that ain't what you're doing, don't simply imply that I misunderstood you with the comments that I quote above.
EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ACTUALLY MEANT.
And, while you're at it, you could actually differentiate between "direct" political action and indirect action. You raised other questions, and I've addressed them, and I'm tired of you alternating between putting up new preconditions for answering questions and ignoring those questions altogether.
I think there's a place for the abortion clinic (if that's your issue) or war picketers/protesters, but those actions are just not especially effective if you're concerned about prompt action. Of course, on larger issues - like war/peace, like pro-life/pro-choice - there are no immediate quick answers, generally speaking.
So, these actions might have their place - to keep a larger problem in the forefront of attention or just for speaking out against corruption, without expectation of change, for instance - but DART and other groups who are more serious about NVDA don't tend to go that route.
Direct Action:
The strategic use of immediately effective acts, such as strikes, demonstrations, or sabotage, to achieve a political or social end. - Free Online Dictionary
action aimed directly at achieving an objective; esp., the use of strikes, demonstrations, civil disobedience, etc. in disputes or struggles for rights - Your Dictionary.com
Political action which happens outside normal political channels via indirect actions such as electing representatives. - Wikipedia
And, as wikipedia noted, that differentiates from indirect actions such as voting and letting the representatives do as they wish. Or simply choosing to stop purchasing products from a company you don't like.
And, I guess, there are other actions that might be somewhere in between, like individual letter writing, editorials, individual calls to representatives or power brokers. I reckon it's a bit vague, but I don't know of any definition other than these commonly accepted ones.
Now, what about our actions are undemocratic or thuggish?
So, what is your opinion about the prophet Isaiah making demands of Israel's power and wealth structures? Was he wrong for doing so? How about Amos? Micah? Were they thugs, too?
Bubba questioned:
You seem determined to equate non-violent direct action with the work of the Prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself; you seem determined to suggest that the Bible's focus is on reforming "power and wealth structures" rather than saving sinners from their sin.
What I meant is that the prophets sometimes confronted the powers that be and called for right action. I meant that doing so is a good thing and modeled in the Bible. I meant that since it is a good thing and modeled in the Bible, it can also be a good thing for us to do so.
I did not say, nor do I mean that "the Bible's focus is on reforming 'power and wealth structures.'" I mean that is ONE of the things that we ought to do. Opposing injustice at the palace and market is ONE biblical focus, a repeated one.
Wouldn't you agree that, since this happens in the bible, that it might also be good for us to do similar actions? Would that not be part of "doing justice" and "doing unto the least of these" and opposing oppression and injustice that gets mentioned so often in the Bible?
I mean, Jesus thought that doing good unto the least of these that he felt compelled to say to those who DID NOT do kindness and justice unto the least of these:
"Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!"
That is a pretty serious charge, it would seem to me, and it would seem to me wise, therefore that we remember that this, too, is an important teaching from the Bible.
Doing for the "least of these" makes sense if you're referring to the case of the reading scores, particularly if you're talking about volunteering to tutor or giving input at school board meetings.
But in the cases of affordable housing or the crack house, it's more a case of a group going outside the bounds of true democratic action. With the crack house, calls to the police, then the top police officials, the mayor, the DEA or the feds would be the proper course of action. Even if the house was not for drug dealers, but merely blighted, going through your municipality is the proper course. The house next door to me is vacant and we believe the owners are out of state heirs of the guy who used to live there. Nothing was done to maintain the property until a few calls to the village. Now the grass is cut more regularly.
But even worse is the affordable housing issue. It is indeed thugish to insist that a private company bend to your demands to provide said housing. Better than your NVDA would be for your group to dig deeply and provide housing yourselves. But then, it is typical of leftists to cajole others into doing what they themselves are not willing to do. There's nothing Christian about forcing others to do your charity work for you. If you providing the housing, you could then be justified in thinking you were doing the Lord's work. Don't dare to take that attitude after forcing others to put themselves out.
? I didn't say what should be done about housing, just raised it as a concern. I have not "demanded" that a private company do anything. In our case, here's what we've done about affordable housing:
a. When the city was getting ready to demolish a housing projects, we got the Housing Authority of Louisville to commit to replace one-for-one the 728 public housing units that are being demolished for the redevelopment of the Clarksdale Housing Development, meaning that our city will not lose any badly needed affordable housing units.
b. We got a commitment from the Mayor to support the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund for Louisville Metro. We worked with the city, state and private enterprise to secure funding for this Trust Fund.
c. This is righteous to us, because we're acting on behalf of the poor who need housing. It is reasonable to ask for money for this fund because the city and state and citizens already have to pay money when families go homeless, when they get evicted, when homeless children fail school because their families are busy trying to survive and have a hard time concentrating on school, etc, etc. A lack of affordable housing COSTS us as a community and individuals in many ways and so, for fiscally responsibility reasons, it makes sense to pay money upfront rather than down the road.
It's the same thinking as to why the state ought to pay for road/infrastructure repairs earlier rather than later - after the bridge collapses, it costs a helluva lot more to "fix" than when it's merely in need of repair. It's the same basic logic.
So, again, there is nothing "thuggish" whatsoever in a group of citizens asking to be represented and asking for some problems to be solved. Those citizens who are opposed to an affordable housing fund are free to lobby against it. They could even organize and use NVDA to try to stop it if they want to. That is how democracy works.
2.But in the cases of affordable housing or the crack house, it's more a case of a group going outside the bounds of true democratic action. With the crack house, calls to the police, then the top police officials, the mayor, the DEA or the feds would be the proper course of action.
Perhaps you missed it but I stated specifically that all those channels had been tried and there was still a problem. And so, some citizens pulled together and asked for a proper response.
I find it interesting that you apparently find nothing thuggish at all about a bunch of men threatening supposed drug dealers with violence to solve a problem, but peaceful picketing of a slumlord you object to. I suppose you recognize that the violent approach is going beyond peaceful democratic action and is incredibly thuggish (if, at least, somewhat justified, if you believe in violence-as-solution)?
Regardless, there was nothing thuggish or undemocratic about such an action. It did not violate this man's rights or threaten him. We were merely informing his customers of his behavior and asking them to make a decision about whether or not to shop there.
Are you opposed to all boycotts or only those whose target is a slumlord?
Do you ever answer simple questions, or do you only aim to snipe and belittle brothers and sisters?
Dan,
If you are interested in someone who is actually diong things within the context of Christian community check out Kirbyjohn Caldwell in Houston.
If you're talking about how they're involved in propping up community action, that's fairly typical in most urban churches of any size, including our own little church. And it's a good thing, certainly.
Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
And here I thought I asked questions to gain information. Thanks for clearing that up....
Aaannnnd, of course, you answered nothing, only slandered your fellow brother in Christ and fellow citizen. I'll say it again, mom2, shame on you.
Yes, mom2, at MY church, we teach even our children not to lie, nor to spread slander or false rumors about other people.
We teach even our children to talk with others specifically about any problems we have with them, rather than make false statements and then refuse to support those statements.
We hear the love our enemies of the gospel message and, Lord knows, I fail sometimes. Forgive me for that. But yes, these are the teachings we have at our church.
Are you saying that your church doesn't teach that lying and spreading slander is wrong? Does your church say it's a good thing to malign those you disagree with, and to do so in a public forum and anonymously?
Well, then, there's your problem, isn't it? Get thee to a church that teaches a better gospel, sister. Yours is all full of blasphemous holes.
If you weren't anonymous, I'd write you a letter personally pointing out what you're doing wrongly so as to follow the biblical prescription to take any problems directly to the person. However, since you hide who you are and I have no way of contacting you...
You came on this thread and disagreed with me about the redlining problem. Fair enough, no problems. You did not demonstrate that you understood the nature of the problem (discrimination against poor sections of town thru the illegal practice of redlining - discriminating against the poor, which is strictly forbidden in the Bible) but that I could write off to you not fully understanding what I was talking about. No problem. I ignored that. Even when you made the little slur:
Churches getting involved in these business problems is not what God intended for churches in my opinion. That's why we have these political rebel rowsers like yourself and Wright.
I don't mind at all being called a rebel rowsers (although you probably meant "rabble rowsers"), as many of the prophets and Jesus himself were called that and worse.
You then proceeded to make an unsupported jab, saying:
It's nice that you live in that little corner of Utopia and all your fellow church members are the sole of humanity with compassion, that you have all the answers and the rest of the world is just too stubborn to come to you and do things the way you say it ought to be done.
If you thought I was being proud and condemning of others, you could have written me and said so. And when you do that kind of thing, you say, "Dan, when you say X, Y and Z [giving specific examples], it sounds like you're implying that others don't care for the poor, or that others don't try to follow Jesus and it comes across as proud and condescending."
IF you had done that, either in a letter or even here, I could respond saying, "Oh, I am sorry. I did not SAY X, Y and Z in an effort to put anyone down but in an effort to make my point..." or otherwise have dealt with the accusation.
The purpose of rebuking someone is to restore fellowship and to get them and you back on the path of right living together. To do that, you have to provide the details and why it was problematic.
You did not do this.
Since you only made an unsupported attack without saying what it was about, I responded by saying:
You're criticizing us doing good works? Really?
I clearly have not said that everyone is too stubborn to "come to us" and do things the way we want. I've just stated - repeatedly and in many variations - what we're doing (and what the Civil Rights Movement did and what pro-life protesters are doing) and why it's NOT thuggish, nor undemocratic but how it's a good and positive thing in general.
What specifically in that are you criticizing?
Asking you to support what you were criticizing. I am a human being and Lord knows and I know that I am arrogant and foolish at times - way too often - and I can be taught IF someone shows me where I have sinned. And so I asked you specifically "WHAT are you criticizing?"
Your response?
do you ever ask anything but loaded questions?
As you nearly always do, mom2, you make accusations and spread slander and lies without supporting your comments. Now, IF you support it, I can stop calling it slander and lies, because I will know what you're talking about and apologize for the misunderstanding. But, IF you don't support your statements and I know of nothing that even remotely fits what you are talking about, then I have little recourse but to think that you are maliciously spreading lies and slander. And we both know that the Bible condemns such actions as not being worthy of heaven or God's kingdom.
Now, I have gone into great detail to point out what you've done wrong. Given your history, I have little hope that you will humbly consider any of this and repent if you're wrong or correct me (with support) if I'm wrong. I write this only partially for you. I write this to point out how negatively charged discussions can be when we take the wrong tact in communication.
We're adults. You're our elder, mom2 (if we can believe an anonymous person online who repeatedly makes false statements is telling us the truth about his or her age). We ought to be able to communicate better than this.
Why is this so hard for us?
Yeah, I was talking about the fact that when they had problems in their neighborhood with drug traffic in a hotel they bought the hotel and turned it into housing. That they have become active in financing (micro loan type of stuff) buisness. In short that church has made a significant impact by doing things. Maybe you should look a little deeper, it's a pretty amazing story they've going going on.
I'm not sure why you ask questions but since, getting answers can be difficult I can see why people are confused.
I never said, or meant to imply, that good men intimidating evil men to leave an area wasn't thuggish. But since you made the implication yourself, let me correct your misconception. It is not thuggish when good men act forcefully, even violently, to chase off drug dealers (which you now call "supposed" drug dealers, as if a crackhouse is merely a house with cracks in it).
I wonder at the methods used to go through regular channels to solve the crackhouse problem. If you've got fifty fellow congregants constantly flooding the switchboards of local officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the local media, action will be taken. If you can get more than that, all the better. In this manner, you can address both problems, that is, the crackheads and the dude who owns the place, with all the hub-bub. It's another form of direct action that works almost every time. Just a tip for future reference.
In any case, now that you've fleshed out that particular situation, we can move on.
As to affordable housing, what I've learned is what I suspected, which is that you have persuaded local government to use other people's money to house the poor. It's how it is usually done. The new place will likely resemble the former place in a relatively short span of time. In other words, you've made yourselves feel good about making others pay to house these people, yet what has changed? How will it be different than the old housing units, aside from cosmetics and a few updated appliances? You've treated the poverty as a "root cause", as the left likes to say, when it is a symptom. Your direct action is a band-aid that perpetuates the cycle. Affordable housing won't change their behavior, better reading scores won't change their behavior. How do you use your NVDA to affect real change that will put an end to the cycle in your area? As it stands, it all seems so incomplete. Your giving is not enough if down the road you have to do it again. As you've fleshed out these few examples, they've become a less offensive than how you initially presented them. At least to me. But it's just giving so the help is only temporary. So we're left with two problems with your approach: No expectations, and giving of other people's money. The former means the cycle continues, the latter means YOU'RE not giving. In other words, aside from volunteering to tutor or be a Big Brother/Sister, you've really done nothing. You're just giving the hungry a fish.
Yes, just as you have persuaded the gov't to use other people's money to build roads for drivers. It's how many things are usually done in the gov't. We use other people's money to fund programs that we deem prudent for the commonwealth.
It's called taxation and none of us agree with every dollar spent, but that's the way the ball bounces in a Republic like ours.
Again, if you don't like it, YOU can take part in democracy and voice your concerns. That's the way a democracy works.
You're right and it would be really shortsighted for someone to merely suggest assisting with housing and failing to address other concerns.
But I don't know anyone who's advocating that, well, except for some "conservative" types who don't want to invest in programs to help end other root causes of poverty.
Yes, Dan I am old enough to be your mother and the reason I don't identify myself is none of your business, but it would not matter anyway because I am no celebrity. I grew up poor in a large family, went to work right out of high school and married at 22 so it makes no difference who I am. One thing I was taught as a child was respect and I have only treated you like a child because you act like one and a bully, spoiled one at that. Rant on! mom2
Now I'd like to hear from you what you believe are those "other" root causes of poverty. I doubt you even know what the root cause is.
As much as I don't want to help Dan out, I do want to point out that there is some pretty compelling evidence that access to decent affordable housing affects a number of other social factors. Those include, work attendence, health, better results in school etc. So there is a case to be made for affordable housing. The issue, it seems, is what role government should play in providing/subsidising said housing. Obviously government (the more local the better) has a role to play. But the more important thing is to empower (I'm not fond of that word) those to use the housing to improve their situation. Sorry for the lecture, but this is my territory, and it's not as cut and dried as some would like to make it. I've heard stories(and talked to some folks) that illustrate what it means to a family to access home ownership. While there are a number of ways to do it wrong, there are also a lot of people doing it right.
I don't dispute the notion that a decent home helps with the attitude. But as you noted, how that home is provided is the issue. The whole idea of "affordable housing" has it all backwards. The idea should be, "able to afford" housing. It's another case of lowering the bar rather than keeping it high. In this case, giving people homes, and that is basically what is happening, does not instill a prideful feeling that results in the benefits you list. Mom2 illustrates that concept as it has played out in her area. When one thinks of the term "the projects", one can view another example of my point. "The projects" are apartment buildings that were built to be affordable and they almost always end up as cesspools.
It's true that some people take advantage of the largesse of the general public and I applaud them for it. They are working to break the cycle in which they've found themselves, although it's likely that upon closer examination, these same people find themselves in a situation they helped to create. But still, they're working to turn it around and that's a good thing.
The lion's share, however, do not appreciate the fact that the general public has provided them this opportunity and in fact, feel that they are entitled. And more money doesn't change that. So Dan and his merry band can carry on with their NVDA and all they've really done is give themselves a reason to believe they've done good. Yeah, they've helped to provide these homes, but they've done nothing to break the cycle because money and reading skills won't do it alone. If you can't change their hearts and attitudes, you won't break the cycle, because therein lies the root cause of poverty. That's a change we can believe in because that's a change that will matter most.
I think we're pretty much on the same page with this. I just wanted to clarify. I would add a couple of things. First we really should be talking about decent affordable housing. Second, while there is a place for rental, the benefits of being able to own are significant. Whatever form it takes it is vital that the recipients come into it with the right attitude. If it is done well it can ba a significant benefit, if not it can be a disaster.
(Sorry for the digression, Eric.)
The problem is in the notion of "affordable" housing. You've seen my two options. Should it be a cracker box or a standard home priced below it's true market value? Who's going to build it, why should anyone be forced to build a house and sell it at little or no profit for their efforts, and what's wrong with people increasing their means first before they consider either buying or renting?
I'm not trying to rag on the truly needy. But even the truly needy are likely responsible in some way for their plight. (I'm speaking of this country only, BTW.) I don't believe there is any reason for poverty in this country. The whine that people are jacked around by others of higher status is a lame excuse and a lie. There's far too many rags to riches stories in this nation for anyone to have any excuse.
I would say that I would not suggest mandating that for profit builders be forced to sell homes at a loss.
The best way to provide decent affordable housing is probably through some kind of non-profit orginization. (I'm probably biased here since that's what I do, for 2 different orginizations)
As far as what it looks like, there is a range of what constitutes decent affordable. Ours are cover a number of different categories, the common denominator is "simple and decent". I think you would be suprised at the number of developers who are willing to partner in affordable housing.
As far as the need portion goes, obviously there needs to be some sort of "means test" so that you are setting people up for success not continuing failure. It also really helps to have a longer term relationship, rather than just sticking someone in a home.
I really don't mean to go off here, but this is pretty important to me. I really do think we're mostly in agreement here and I don't want to seem otherwise.
If you'r interested www.craigsbuild.blogspot.com for a peek at what we are doing.
The pictures and the home in them look nice. I have no problem with anyone who wants to take it upon themselves to provide anything at all for those in need. In fact, it's the way it's supposed to be done and it is a far truer reflection of Christ's teaching than is those who seek to force others to pony up for the costs of such endeavors. Organizing and soliciting donations, even if one "guilts" another into making them, is a far cry from what the typical lefty has in mind when speaking of providing affordable housing. And by the way, Habitat for Humanity is the only thing for which I give Jimma Carter props. (I just wish he'd shut up, stay the hell away from public life and politics, and keep hammerin' nails.) God bless you for the work you're doing.
I would second your Carter comments. I also would totally agree that putting people in homes they can't afford is a significant cause of the current "crisis". It doesn't help that our congressfolks seem to have both encouraged and ignored the crap that led to this. I've been listening to some stuff from hearings that makes me wonder how Dan or anyone can escape the culpability of Dodd, Frank, Obama et al. I also find it interesting that earlier in this thread there was talk of money being effective in promoting change, but no response from Dan as to how much chance BHO promoted for the $$$ he got from FF.