Che Guevara- a history

"Hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."

Che Guevara
Message to the Tricontinental
1967

The Resurrection of Che Guevara,

Samuel Farber

[from New Politics, vol. 7, no. 1 (new series), whole no. 25, Summer 1998]

Samuel Farber was born and raised in Cuba and has written extensively on that country. His book, Revolution and Reaction in Cuba, 1933- 1960, was published by Wesleyan University Press.
THIRTY YEARS AFTER HIS SUMMARY EXECUTION BY THE BOLIVIAN ARMY in which the C.I.A. was complicitous, Che Guevara has once more captured public attention. His image has been reproduced over and over again by a strange combination of people and institutions ranging from Argentina's right-wing President, Carlos Menem, who issued a commemorative stamp through the Cuban government, to advertising agencies selling trendy goods to Yuppies which led a cartoonist for the left-wing Mexican daily La Jornada to draw the image of Che Guevara with a Nike logo on his beret. This resurrection has been accompanied and in part caused by the publication of a number of books widely reviewed in newspapers and political and intellectual journals.*

Mystified and mythified since he was executed, Che has become a source of political inspiration for many who have only a vague notion of his political activities and ideas. With that in mind, this essay aims to reconstruct a political portrait of Che Guevara, drawing on the invaluable materials provided by these three works. I will rely primarily on Castañeda's book, the most politically astute and perhaps most widely reviewed of the three, with occasional references to Anderson's and Taibo's biographies.

Jorge G. Castañeda is a prominent Mexican writer with deep roots in his country's political Establishment (his recently deceased father was a one-time cabinet member). A former Communist of Althusserian persuasion, he has recently become well known for his advocacy of a social democratic political program for Latin America and a concomitant rejection of a revolutionary road for the region. This book, however, cannot be considered generally hostile to Che Guevara. As for the claim made by some reviewers that Castañeda accuses Fidel Castro of having abandoned Che Guevara to die in Bolivia, Castañeda is actually far more tentative. He suggests that as one hypothesis and, even while entertaining such a possibility, he explores in detail the powerful Soviet pressures curtailing Castro's freedom of action at the time.

Castañeda's critical tone is primarily directed to the revolutionary in Che. Thus, in the Prologue he comments on Che's "eternal refusal of ambivalence," and the tendency of the 60s generation to which he belonged to engage in "a wholesale rejection of life's contradictions," and to exclude in themselves the "very principles of contradictory feelings, of conflicting desires, of mutually incompatible political goals," in an era that was "writ in black and white." (pp. xv-xvi) Given these underlying assumptions and tone, it would be very difficult for the general reader to make a distinction between the generally justifiable criticisms that Castañeda makes of guerrilla warfare as a general revolutionary strategy, and such specific applications of it as in the Congo and Bolivia, on the one hand, and Marxist revolutionary politics and strategy in general terms, on the other. The reader is thus left with the implication, at least by default, that reform rather than revolution is the only viable, sensible alternative.

II

ERNESTO GUEVARA DE LA SERNA WAS BORN IN 1928 IN ARGENTINA, then not only the richest nation in Latin America but among the more affluent countries in the world. But his elite family was no stranger to financial difficulties due to Guevara senior's business failures. While no doubt assimilating the general political values of a left-wing household strongly affected by the Spanish Civil War, Guevara was not particularly political during his teenage years and early twenties. He was then more bohemian than leftist, a phenomenon most common at the time in the relatively affluent, European ambiance of Che's Argentina than in most other Latin American countries including Cuba. This early bohemianism was not entirely abandoned when Guevara became thoroughly politicized as he traveled through Latin America in the 50s. Significant traces of it remained that would color his subsequent political development.
By the time he left Guatemala in 1954 in the aftermath of the overthrow of the constitutional government of Jacobo Arbenz orchestrated by U.S. imperialism, Guevara was thoroughly politicized, accepting a Stalinist view of the world. This was true in both the generic sense that he had become a staunch supporter of the political model represented by the USSR of a repressive one-party state owning and controlling the economy without any democratic popular controls, independent unions, workers' or civil liberties, as well as in the narrow literal sense of his great admiration for Joseph Stalin. Thus even before his Guatemalan experience, when Guevara traveled through Costa Rica and witnessed first-hand the awesome and terrible power of the United Fruit company, he wrote to his aunt Beatriz telling her that he had sworn "before a picture of our, old much lamented comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated." Another letter to the same aunt was signed with the words "Stalin II." (p.62 and Anderson, p.167) More important was the fact that when Guevara visited the USSR in his capacity as one of the most important leaders of the victorious Cuban revolution in November of 1960, he insisted on depositing a floral tribute at Stalin's tomb even against the advice of the Cuban ambassador to the USSR.(p. 181) It is important to remember that this was more than four years after Khrushchev's revelations of Stalin's crimes.

While much of the Left associates Stalinism with its Popular Front period, Guevara's Stalinism was of a different kind, much closer to the more aggressive, collectivizing variety of the late 20s and early 30s. It is very revealing that Guevara strongly criticized Lenin for having introduced some capitalist forms of competition into the USSR in the 20s (the New Economic Policy).(Anderson, p.697) In this spirit, Guevara's collectivism was pure, unadulterated Stalinism. In March of 1960, he declared that "one has to constantly think on behalf of masses and not on behalf of individuals...It's criminal to think of individuals because the needs of the individual become completely weakened in the face of the needs of the human conglomeration." In August of 1964, Che postulated that the individual, "becomes happy to feel himself a cog in the wheel, a cog that has its own characteristics and is necessary though not indispensable, to the production process, a conscious cog, a cog that has its own motor, and that consciously tries to push itself harder and harder to carry to a happy conclusion one of the premises of the construction of socialism -- creating a sufficient quantity of consumer goods for the entire population."(Anderson, pp.470, 605)

Guevara's standards for what constituted a "sufficient quantity of consumer goods for the entire population" were plainly ascetic, consistent with his own exacting standards for himself and his family. This in turn was related to his puritanism whose effects could be checked and even reversed before the establishment of Cuba's one party state. Thus during the armed struggle against Batista, Che tried to regulate sexual relations among the men and women within his column, until he was forced to reconsider. Similarly, when his troops occupied the town of Sancti Spiritus in central Cuba in late 1958, he tried to ban alcohol and the lottery, but gave up in the face of the townspeople's resistance.(p.132) His was a Spartan view of the desirable collectivity, an egalitarian society led by the one-party state's dedicated and selfless revolutionaries with no place for democracy, individuality or material abundance which helps explain why the notion of moral incentives played such a key role in Guevara's social and political vision. Collective selflessness, sacrifice and dedication were his alternative to politically conscious, independent-minded, rational individuals who hammer out collective goals and programs through democratic discussion and voting; that is, majority rule with minority rights.

Guevara's personal and political asceticism necessarily led him to indifference, even contempt for the material needs and preoccupations of ordinary people. When he sharply criticized what he saw as the bourgeoisification of the Soviet bloc in the post-Stalin period, he didn't consider the degree to which the political and economic changes implemented by Khrushchev and his East European equivalents improved the daily lives of people precisely because those regimes were compelled to pay significantly more attention to the production and distribution of consumer goods than did his hero Stalin. Paco Ignacio Taibo's biography reveals that Guevara was much influenced by Gandhi's ideas before he adopted the Stalinist version of Marxism. This is highly suggestive and calls our attention to the elective affinity between Guevara's early Gandhiism and bohemianism, contemptuous of the "bourgeois" comforts and advances of modern civilization, and the particular form of ascetic Stalinism that he would later endorse and contribute to in his own right.*

GUEVARA'S STALINISM WAS ALSO MARKED BY A STRONG VOLUNTARISM so that his politics overlapped with the Maoist variety of Stalinism. Classical Marxism contains a virtual state of tension between the role of objective and subjective factors in historical development as in the well-known formulation in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that "men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted by the past." This objective-subjective tension in Marx was abandoned by later tendencies claiming to be Marxist. For example, German Social Democracy elaborated a mechanical objectivism which minimized the subjective active element in history. At the other extreme, Maoism and Guevaraism have been notorious for their even more extreme voluntarism completely ignoring objective reality. Thus Guevara's economic program for Cuba involved highly centralized planning eliminating all market mechanisms and again principally relying on moral incentives, with no thought of workers' control (as distinct from participation controlled from above). None of this took any account of the specific characteristics of a Cuban economy which, although relatively advanced in comparison to the rest of Latin America, was still very far from a fully developed industrial economy. The existence of a considerable degree of petty trade was, in the last analysis, not a matter of a voluntaristic choice of governmental policy. Instead, a certain degree of mercantile activity was a reflection of material reality, i.e., a backward development of the still non-collective, petty commodity means of production, and similarly of the means of distribution. Marx and Engels had assumed that the abolition of the market as a principal regulator of economic activity would take place in the context of an extended factory system where production was already conducted on a social rather than an individual basis.

Guevara's strong voluntarism was also expressed in his emphasis on guerrilla warfare as the sole revolutionary strategy for Latin America. Interestingly, the early formulations of his guerrilla theory cautioned against attempting guerrilla warfare in Latin American countries with elected constitutional governments, no doubt in recognition of the Cuban experience where the guerrillas succeeded, in large measure, because they opposed an illegitimate government that had come to power through a military coup d'état carried out shortly before a general election that Batista was expected to lose. Che later dropped this qualification when he insisted that conditions were equally ripe for guerrilla warfare throughout Latin America. This was remarkably consistent with his inability to recognize specific political textures and historical conjunctures, evident early on in Cuba during the period of armed struggle against the Batista dictatorship. He could not understand, for example, and opposed Castro's very effective tactic of returning prisoners (minus their weapons) to the enemy,(p. 103) a tactic which made a great deal of sense when facing a mercenary and demoralized army with no social or political support in the population at large. Even more striking was Guevara's colossal political error proposing that the rebels rob banks to finance their operations. When that proposal was resisted by the urban leadership of the 26th of July Movement, Guevara took it as a sign of their social conservatism. (Castañeda, p. 129, Anderson, p.347) What he apparently did not realize (nor do any of his biographers) is that in the late 40s, not quite ten years earlier, Cuba had gone through a period of political gangsterism when many of the revolutionaries of another era had degenerated into plain gangsters, carrying out violent activities including bank robberies. Any involvement of the 50s revolutionaries in such activities would have brought back memories of that dark period and would have been extremely politically damaging, particularly since Fidel Castro himself had been associated with those groups in his student days thereby making it easy for the Batista-controlled press to argue that the revolutionaries were just bringing back the bad old days of political gangsterism.

III

DURING THE 50S GUEVARA SHARED THE GENERAL WORLDVIEW OF THE TRADITIONAL, pro-Moscow Latin American Communist parties but he never became a party member. Guevara was not partial to the Popular Front strategy and the devious political maneuvering it entailed and given his independent personality, he was not the type to be reduced to a cog in a bureaucratic party apparatus. However, as we shall see, Guevara did grow very close to the old Cuban Communists (Popular Socialist Party) once it changed its political line and decided to support the guerrillas in the Sierra Maestra in 1957. This closeness to the old Cuban Communists (and indirectly to Moscow) lasted through the early fateful years of the Cuban Revolution.
No topic has been subject to greater obfuscation and distortion than Guevara's break with the USSR in the mid-60s. The first inkling of his dissatisfaction with the USSR appeared during his previously cited visit to that country in November 1960. While that visit did not affect his overall admiration for the Soviet system, he was disturbed by the inequalities he witnessed in Moscow between the living standards of the leadership of the country and the rest of the population. Despite that, he rejected the critical remarks of some Cuban leaders who had also visited the USSR and Eastern Europe at the time.(pp, 180-181) It was between 1963 and 1965 that Che distanced himself from the USSR. Even in late 1962, he shared the Cuban leadership's disapproval of the way Khrushchev settled the October 1962 missile crisis without consulting Fidel Castro and his associates. A year later, on October 12, 1963, Che spoke at a meeting at his Ministry of Industries that went unreported in the Cuban press, possibly because of the harsh nature of his remarks. There, he analyzed the agricultural crisis in the USSR and squarely blamed it on the existence of private plots, decentralization, material incentives, and financial self-management.(p. 255) It is not known whether Guevara was then aware of the fairly well known fact that private plots had much greater productivity than collective or state farms. (Why people working in collective and state farms in an authoritarian Party/State were at best apathetic, and how democracy and workers' control could have resolved the problem of low productivity was a question Che could not address given his Stalinist ideology.)

During the next 18 months, as Che was increasingly involved in assisting revolutionary movements throughout the world, he became more critical of the USSR's subordination of those movements to other foreign policy concerns, including is détente with the U.S. By 1964, it had also become clear that the USSR was, with some success, pressuring the Cuban government to reduce its support of revolutionary movements, particularly in Latin America, and to concentrate on the production of sugar, thereby fulfilling its contemplated role in the "socialist" bloc's division of labor. After prolonged negotiations, Cuba and the USSR signed a long-term economic agreement on February 17, 1965. The Cubans were particularly unhappy with the high prices the Russians charged them for Soviet machinery and equipment. A week later, Che made a speech in Algiers that marked a definitive break with the USSR. As he then put it:

The development of those countries now entering the path of liberation must be paid for by the Socialist countries....We must not talk any more of a mutually advantageous trade based on prices which the law of value...imposes on backward countries. What is the meaning of "mutual advantage" when [some countries] sell at world prices the raw materials that cost backward countries infinite sweat and suffering, while they buy at world market prices the machines produced in large, mechanized factories...? If we establish this sort of relations between the two groups of nations, we must agree that the Socialist countries are, to a certain extent, accomplices of imperial exploitation...and of the immoral nature of this exchange. The Socialist countries have a moral duty to cease their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the West.(p. 291)
With this speech, Guevara not only burned his bridges with the USSR, but also called into question his leadership role in Cuba. It was now inevitable that Che would resign from the Cuban government and would dedicate himself to fomenting guerrilla warfare abroad, albeit with Fidel's material support. His future political course would further distance him from the USSR and the pro-Moscow Communist parties in Latin America.

While Guevara's critique represented a sharp break with the USSR and its supporting parties, there is absolutely nothing here that suggests a break with his ideologically well-entrenched Stalinism. Nothing in Che's writings, actions or speeches suggests that he ever questioned or criticized the one-party state and the complete absence of democracy in any Communist country; nor can one find anything reflective of regret or self-doubt about his own role in stamping out even early residual forms of democracy within the Cuban revolutionary process. In light of this, it is perverse to argue that one should applaud Guevara's more vigorous and militant politics, when his efforts were directed to the establishment of a system completely opposed to democracy and consequently to popular rule.

IV

THE RECENT CHE GUEVARA HISTORIOGRAPHY HAS GREATLY ILLUMINATED HIS ROLE in the Cuban revolutionary process, including his record in power. As noted earlier, Che Guevara was a close ally of the old Cuban Communists (Popular Socialist Party) during the crucial years of the development and consolidation of Cuba's Communist system. As Castañeda aptly points out in describing Che's relations with the PSP, "he shared their views completely for almost four years."(p. 154) This relationship went back to the Sierra Maestra days. Soon after the PSP decided to support the guerrilla insurgency in 1957, it established a close relationship with Che so that when he founded his first school for the political instruction of cadres in the Sierra Maestra, Che asked the PSP to send him its first instructor. The PSP complied and sent him Pablo Ribalta, a young but experienced black Cuban party militant who would, years later, become Cuba's Ambassador to Tanzania and thus Che's principal conduit to Havana when Guevara was engaged in guerrilla warfare in the Congo.(pp. 116-117, Anderson, pp. 296-297)
Che's connection with Ribalta was an early instance of what would soon become a pro-PSP and pro-Soviet camp within the 26th of July Movement. This wing was led by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro's younger brother Raul, a former member of the PSP's youth wing in the 50s. Beginning in 1957, this pro-Communist wing would repeatedly clash with other political tendencies within the 26th of July Movement and with other revolutionary groups. Paco Ignacio Taibo's book is the only one that faithfully and accurately conveys the nature of the contending forces within the revolutionary camp. Influenced by his own political past, Castañeda fails to take proper note of the role played by non-Communist revolutionaries. Anderson's treatment is nothing short of disgraceful. He depicts all revolutionaries unsympathetic to the Communists as right-wingers, leading to the absurdity of describing radio commentator Jose Pardo Llada as a rightist at the time he accompanied Che on a world tour in the summer of 1959.(Anderson, p.426) Pardo Llada was then an unconditional supporter of the Castro government and had been a left-wing, Peronista-type nationalist for a long time.

Taibo describes three tendencies within the camp of the Revolution a hundred days after the overthrow of Batista's government. A right wing reinforced by the moderate sectors of the government, in some cases connected with sectors of the agrarian oligarchy; a self-proclaimed socialist wing led by Raul Castro and Che Guevara sympathetic to the PSP; and a third left-wing sector represented by the mostly urban leading cadres such as Carlos Franqui, Faustino Perez, Marcelo Fernandez and Enrique Oltuski, who were relatively independent of Fidel Castro and combined their anti-imperialism with a strong critique of the Communists, who they considered conservative and sectarian.(Taibo, p.275) An earlier representative of this leftist, non-Communist revolutionary wing was René Ramos Latour ("Daniel"), the National Coordinator of the 26th of July Movement, who was killed in action and did not survive to witness the triumph of the revolution. In a letter to "Daniel" dated December 14, 1957, which Che himself would later describe as "rather idiotic," without explaining what was idiotic about it, Che proclaimed "that because of my ideological training I am one of those who believe that the solution to this world's problems is to be found behind the so-called Iron Curtain." In the same letter, Che revealingly notes that he "always viewed Fidel as a genuine leader of the bourgeois Left, though his character is enriched by personal qualities of extraordinary brilliance which raise him far above his class. It is in that spirit that I joined the struggle; honestly without any hope of going beyond the country's liberation, ready to leave when the conditions of the struggle would shift toward the right (toward what you represent)..."(p.109) Ramos Latour responded by refuting Che's accusation of rightism, adding that salvation was not to be found behind the Iron Curtain and criticized Guevara for believing that "the solution to our ills lies in liberating ourselves from a noxious Yankee domination, by means of a no less noxious Soviet domination."(p.111)

Fidel Castro himself played an ambiguous role in this struggle of tendencies until he ended these debates when he, along with Che and Raul, fatefully supported the old Communists at the critically important trade union congress in the fall of 1959. That Congress signified the beginning of the end of trade union freedom and independence in Cuba. The Castro brothers and Guevara gave the old Communists the power and influence they had failed to win at the ballot box earlier that year. The exact role played by Castro before the fall of 1959 remains unclear to this day. For example, it has recently been revealed that the first organizational steps to establish the Cuban state security organs were taken just two weeks after the revolutionary victory on January 1, 1959. These initial efforts were carried out during the early months of 1959 with the participation of Raul Castro, Che Guevara, the head of the PSP's Party Military Committee and a number of Spanish Communist agents of the Soviet KGB.1 Fidel Castro, however, does not appear to have been present at any of these early intelligence gatherings. Was this a deliberate tactical move to insure his plausible deniability while he fully supported what was going on? Or was Fidel refraining from direct participation in order to retain his freedom of action vis-à-vis both the Americans and the Russians? Is it conceivable that this early collaboration with the KGB was carried out behind his back?

Since, for several years, Che was a prominent member of a group holding state power, he shares responsibility for the repressive record of that regime, particularly when he was allied with those who energetically pressed the Cuban revolutionary government to adopt the Soviet model. Guevara was personally responsible for supervising many of these repressive activities. He was the head of La Cabaña military fortress where several hundred executions were carried out in the early months of 1959. While Castañeda is correct in pointing out that innocent people were not executed there in any large or significant numbers, (pp.143-144) it cannot be ruled out that there were innocent people whose execution could have been avoided had Che been a revolutionary with different politics. It is also possible that some Batistianos may have suffered punishments quite disproportionate to the offenses with which they were properly charged. This is an area which requires additional investigation, particularly in the light of recurring charges by those who claim to have witnessed Guevara's cruelty at La Cabaña.2

Perhaps arguments could be made to justify, or at least to provide extenuating circumstances, for his behavior at La Cabaña. No legitimate arguments can be made to defend Che's principal role in setting up Cuba's first labor camp in the Guanahacabibes region in western Cuba in 1960-1961, to confine people who had committed no crime punishable by law, revolutionary or otherwise. Che defended that initiative with his usual frankness:

[We] only send to Guanahacabibes those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail. I believe that people who should go to jail should go to jail anyway. Whether long-standing militants or whatever, they should go to jail. We send to Guanahacabibes those people who should not go to jail, people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals, to a greater or lesser degree, along with simultaneous sanctions like being deprived of their posts, and in other cases not those sanctions, but rather to be reeducated through labor. It is hard labor, not brute labor, rather the working conditions are harsh but they are not brutal...(p.178)
Clearly, Che Guevara played a key role in inaugurating a tradition of arbitrary administrative, non-judicial detentions, later used in the UMAP camps for the confinement of dissidents and social "deviants": homosexuals, Jehovahs Witnesses, practitioners of secret Afro-Cuban religions such as Abakua, and non-political rebels. In the 80s and 90s this non-judicial, forced confinement was also applied to AIDS victims.

V

FOR MANY, CHE GUEVARA IS AN APPEALING FIGURE. Some know full well what Guevaraism implies and are attracted to it for that very reason, as has been the case with diverse groups and individuals historically attracted to various forms of Stalinist politics. I am, however, much more concerned with those, particularly among the young, who realize that capitalist society is manifestly exploitive and unjust and want to do something to change it. Very few of them know much about Che Guevara's ideology and less about his history. Their illusions are reinforced by U.S. foreign policy and its criminal blockade against Cuba.
There are attractive aspects of Che Guevara. He was a man who gave up the perquisites of political power to engage in guerrilla warfare campaigns whose success was far from assured or even likely. In those highly inhospitable surroundings, his behavior was indeed courageous if not heroic. His personal integrity was unquestionable, especially as compared to Fidel Castro. Moreover, Che was a principled egalitarian who would even take his wife to task for using his official car for personal errands. (Castañeda pp. 235-236) But he was also arrogant and frequently humiliated those who were his intellectual inferiors. (p.120, Anderson, p.567) As I suggested earlier, his "bohemian" disdain for ordinary material comforts made him insensitive to the material concerns of ordinary people.

In the last analysis, however, the political question remains: was Che Guevara a friend or foe of emancipatory, liberatory politics? The historical record is clear; Guevaraism is incompatible with the struggle to build an egalitarian and democratic society, a society in which working people decide their own fate without reliance on "well-intentioned saviors."

Notes

* Jorge G. Castañeda, Companero. The Life and Death of Che Guevara, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997, Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara. A Revolutionary Life, New York: Grove Press, 1997, Paco Ignacio Taibo II, Guevara. Also Known as Che, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. return


* Paco Ignacio Taibo II, p. 11. For a discussion of the social and political implications of Gandhi's ideas see Samuel Farber, "Violence and Material Class Interests: Fanon and Gandhi," Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. xvi, nos. 3-4 (1981). return



Castañeda, p. 146. See also the more extensive documentation of this issue presented by Alexsandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali on the basis of previously secret soviet archives in One Hell Of A Gamble. Khruschev, Castro and Kennedy. 1958-1964, New York: W. W. Norton and Company, p. 12. return

See, for example, the letter to the Editor of Pierre San Martin in El Nuevo Herald (Miami), December 28, 1997. return

Contents of No. 25

New Politics home page

Arizona Ice Raid

Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary

Calif. Congresswoman Solis Tapped to Head Labor
Updated 3:01 p.m.
By Alec MacGillis
Barack Obama has selected Los Angeles congresswoman Hilda Solis to run his Labor Department, a labor source confirmed today.


Elected to Congress in 2000, she previously served two years in the California Assembly and six in the State Senate, where she was the first female Hispanic state senator. She attended California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and earned a Master of Public Administration from the University of Southern California, beginning her career in the Carter White House Office of Hispanic Affairs. She later worked as a management analyst with the Office of Management and Budget.

Solis has pushed in Congress for more training for so-called green-collar jobs -- jobs that advance industries toward greater energy officials. In the California state Senate, she successfully advocated in 1996 to increase the state's minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.75 an hour. She the only member of Congress on the board of American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group helmed by David Bonior.

In Congress, Solis sits on the House Energy and Commerce committee, the Natural Resources committee, the select committee on energy independence and global warming and the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. She has also been outspoken against domestic violence.

Solis, who was born in Los Angeles in 1957, will be the third Hispanic in the Cabinet (in addition to Bill Richardson and Ken Salazar), and the fifth woman (in addition to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Susan Rice, Janet Napolitano and Lisa Jackson), should she win Senate confirmation. She is also yet another Obama pick who originally supported Clinton in the primaries. Solis was an avid supporter of Clinton but was then aggressively courted by Obama as the primaries ended as part of his push to win over Hispanic voters.

Other individuals who had been mentioned for the Labor post include: Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Berkeley professor Harley Shaiken, and labor activist Mary Beth Maxwell, who is the executive director of American Rights at Work.

In all likelihood, the next secretary will spend much of her time contending with the looming battle over the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation supported by Obama that would make it much easier for unions to organize workers but which is opposed by business interests.

Labor unions hailed the choice. "We're thrilled at the prospect of having Rep. Hilda Solis as our nation's next labor secretary," said AFL-CIO president John Sweeney in a statement that also noted that Solis has overwhelmingly pro-labor voting record. "We're confident that she will return to the labor department one of its core missions - - to defend workers' basic rights in our nation's workplaces."

Latin American Presidents call for end of U.S. economic blockade of Cuba.

Presidentes de 33 países rechazaron la aplicación de medidas contrarias al derecho internacional, como la ley Helms-Burton, y exhortaron al gobierno de EU a detener su aplicación.

Publicado: 17/12/2008 15:56

Costa do Sauipe. Los mandatarios y representantes de los 33 países de América Latina y el Caribe demandaron este miércoles el fin inmediato del "inaceptable" bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto desde 1962 por Estados Unidos a Cuba, "incluida la aplicación de la llamada Ley Helms-Burton".

En una Declaración Especial difundida al final de la I Conferencia América Latina y el Caribe (CALC), realizada en el balneario brasileño de Costa do Sauipe, los gobernantes de la región pidieron a Washington "que cumpla con lo dispuesto en 17 resoluciones sucesivas aprobadas en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas y ponga fin al bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero que mantiene contra Cuba".

"Rechazamos de la forma más enérgica la aplicación de leyes y medidas contrarias al Derecho Internacional como la Ley Helms-Burton y exhortamos al gobierno de Estados Unidos de América a que ponga fin a su aplicación", agrega el documento.

En este sentido, solicitan que Estados Unidos "detenga la aplicación de las medidas adoptadas en el curso de los cinco últimos años con el objetivo de fortalecer y profundizar el impacto de su política de bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero a Cuba.

Cuba joins Grupo de Rio

Cuba entró al Grupo de Río
Es el miembro número 23

EFE
BRASIL - El Grupo de Río incorporó el martes a Cuba como miembro pleno en una reunión celebrada por este mecanismo de consultas políticas en el marco de la Cumbre de América Latina y el Caribea la que asistió el presidente de la isla caribeña, Raúl Castro.

Bienvenida

"Es un privilegio dar la bienvenida a Cuba como miembro del Grupo de Río en esta reunión", dijo el mandatario mexicano, Felipe Calderón, que ejerce como presidente pro témpore del Grupo y cuyo anuncio fue seguido de un prolongado aplauso.

Calderón aseguró que "la presencia de este país hermano será muy valiosa para la construcción de un destino común con valores compartidos".

De esta forma, Cuba se convierte en el miembro número 23 del Grupo de Río constituido en diciembre de 1986 en Río de Janeiro como mecanismo de consulta y concertación política.

Sus fundadores fueron Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, México, Panamá, Perú, Uruguay y Venezuela.

A ellos se sumaron en diferentes fechas Belice, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guayana, Haití, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay y República Dominicana, más la Comunidad del Caribe (Caricom), representada actualmente por Jamaica.

Integración regional

Al dar la bienvenida a Cuba, Calderón expresó su deseo de "aprovechar la capacidad de convocatoria del Grupo de Río para contribuir a los esfuerzos de cooperación e intercambio de experiencias" dentro de los distintos mecanismos de cooperación regional.

"En 20 años se ha consolidado como interlocutor representativo de la región ante otros países y grupos de países", afirmó Calderón, al recordar que el próximo jueves se cumplirán dos décadas de la creación del Grupo de Río.

Raúl Castro agradeció a quienes aprobaron el ingreso de su país, decisión que se tomó el pasado 13 de noviembre en una reunión ministerial celebrada en Zacatecas (México) y resaltó que la misma es un "reflejo del momento singular que viven América Latina y el Caribe".

Momento histórico
"No sé qué pensarán ustedes, pero para nosotros es un momento trascendental de nuestra historia", manifestó el presidente cubano.

Castro, que hizo un recuento de los momentos cruciales vividos por la revolución cubana, principalmente de los combates de todo tipo que ha tenido que librar contra Estados Unidos y sus aliados, evocó a su hermano Fidel, a quien reemplazó de manera interina en la jefatura del Estado en agosto de 2006 y definitivamente en febrero pasado.

"Es un momento trascendental", repitió, y a renglón seguido contó que le había comentado momentos antes a su canciller, Felipe Pérez Roque, "cuánto lamento que no sea Fidel el que esté sentado aquí, aunque nos debe estar viendo por televisión".

Según Castro, Cuba "ingresa con el propósito de fomentar la comprensión y solidaridad" entre las naciones de la región.

"Lo hace con el deseo de trabajar a favor de la justicia, la paz, el desarrollo y el entendimiento entre todos nuestros pueblos", sostuvo.

El mandatario cubano agregó que al ingresar al Grupo de Río, Cuba lo hace "compartiendo el apego mutuo al derecho internacional, a la carta de las Naciones Unidas y a los principios fundamentales que rigen la relaciones entre las naciones".

Entre ellas citó la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de los Estados, el rechazo a la agresión, a la amenaza, al uso de la fuerza y al empleo de medidas coercitivas unilaterales, con el fin de impedir a cualquier Estado el ejercicio del derecho a escoger su propio sistema político, económico y social.

Por su parte, el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, consideró que el de hoy es "un acto de justicia" con la isla caribeña.

al-Zaidi award

Muntadar al-Zaidi
. Iraqi television journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi stood up and shouted "this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog," before hurling a shoe at Mr Bush which narrowly missed him.
With his second shoe, which the president also dodged, Mr Zaidi said: "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq."
See it here.



President Bush ducks as the shoes are thrown

Mr Zaidi, a correspondent for Cairo-based al-Baghdadiya TV, was then wrestled to the ground by security personnel and hauled away.
"If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw," Mr Bush joked afterwards.
Correspondents say showing the soles of shoes is a sign of contempt in Arab culture. Iraqis threw shoes and used them to beat Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad after he was overthrown in 2003.
Mr Bush's unannounced visit to Baghdad came a day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates told US troops that the Iraq mission was in its "endgame".

Multicultural Education conference: Free: Sacramento

“Youth Rising – Radical Healing and Activism
in the Post Civil Rights Era”

Saturday, February 21, 2009
8:30am – 2:00pm at
CSUS, University Union
FREE
Admission, Refreshments and Parking


Keynote Speaker: Dr. Shawn Ginwright.


Conference Schedule
Refreshments: 8:30-9:00am
Keynote: 9:00-10:15am
DSA Workshop. Organizing in the Spirit of Barack Obama and Cesar Chavez. With Dr. Duane Campbell.
How to organize for social change. Dr. Duane Campbell

Film: Che

Not to romanticize Che, but to understand the history.

Obama and Immigration

Stanford professor leads Obama immigration team
Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, November 22, 2008

Stanford law Professor Tino Cuéllar was named this week to lead President-elect Barack Obama's transition working group on immigration, putting him among the many scholars from the Bay Area who are helping shape the next administration.

The team is one of seven policy groups Obama has convened to develop priorities for the first months of his presidency on topics ranging from education to the economy to national security.

The task of overhauling the nation's immigration system stymied President Bush, who favored an approach combining tougher enforcement with legalization for the country's estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants and a guest worker program to allow low-skilled foreign workers to enter legally in the future. Congress twice hammered out "comprehensive" bills on the issue, but Bush lacked the political capital to get the measures passed.

Obama must not only navigate the choppy political waters surrounding an immigration reform bill, but also address many related issues - whether to back an electronic workplace verification system up for reauthorization, how to tackle the unwieldy bureaucracy at the citizenship agency and whether to continue the current immigration enforcement raids.

Through a law school spokeswoman, Cuéllar declined to be interviewed, but lawyers and immigration experts across the country praised him Friday for his intellect and his grasp of both regulatory minutiae and the big picture of American immigration policy.

"He's brilliant beyond his years," said John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who met Cuéllar when he was a law student at Yale and encouraged him to go to work in Washington.

At 36, Cuéllar already has an impressive resume. Raised on the U.S.-Mexico border in Calexico (Imperial County), he earned his bachelor's degree at Harvard University before going to Yale Law School and finishing up with a doctorate in political science from Stanford, where he's now a full professor specializing in administrative law.

Along the way, he spent two years at the U.S. Treasury Department under President Bill Clinton, where he worked on fighting money-laundering operations.

Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

"He has considerable experience in the federal government, and his academic work has focused on analysis of complex organizations and the way they administer and devise public policy," said Yale Law School Professor Peter H. Schuck, who was one of Cuéllar's teachers and counts him as a friend. "He'll bring a very keen eye for organizational performance and a very innovative mind."

Cuéllar will co-lead the immigration policy group with Georgetown University Law Center Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff, who was second in command at the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton years.

While Aleinikoff's background in immigration law is deep, Cuéllar brings a broader perspective, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior staff member at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington.

The fact that Cuéllar grew up on the border may mean he has strong views about the border fence currently being expanded by the Department of Homeland Security, said Chishti.

"He also has ideas on how issues of trade and economic development (in other countries) implicate immigration movements," he said. "I think he will be very responsive to the concerns of American workers in the immigration debate."

E-mail Tyche Hendricks at thendricks@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/22/BA2I149R42.DTL

U.S. House Progressive Caucus

House Progressives Choose Grijalva, Woolsey

posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 11/19/2008 @ 10:10pm


Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, the son of a migrant laborer from Mexico who has in recent years been one of the U.S. House's most ardent defenders of the rights of immigrants and workers, will serve as the new co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Grijalva, a border-state congressman who has boldly challenged the anti-immigrant and anti-labor excesses of congressional Republicans since his election to the House in 2002, promised "to move (the CPC) to the next level and continue to advance our progressive agenda in an effective and pragmatic manner."

The Arizona representative will serve with California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a returning co-chair, as the head of a caucus that currently numbers 73 members but could grow to more than 80 with the intake of two dozen new House Democrats when the next Congress is seated in January.

Woolsey's CPC co-chair in the current Congress, California Congresswoman Barbara Lee is stepping down from her CPC position to take over as the new chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Grijalva and Woolsey were elected to the co-chair positions at a caucus where Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison also competed for the leadership position. (The vote was reportedly Woolsey 30, Grijalva 26, Ellison 23, with the top two finishers taking the co-chair slots.)

Other leaders of the CPC in the 111 Congress will be:

• Whip Diane Watson, D-California

• Vice-Chair Liaison to Black Caucus Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas

• Vice-Chair Liaison to Women's Caucus Hilda L. Solis, D-California

• Vice-Chair Liaison to Asian Pacific American Caucus Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii

• Vice-Chair Liaison to LGBT Equality Caucus, Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio

Woolsey, a stalwart critic of the war in Iraq, declared after Wednesday's caucus meeting that, "From rebuilding our economy and expanding access to health care, to finally bringing our troops home from Iraq, our nation is at a unique time in it's history. Perhaps not since the Great Depression has there been a moment when the decisions and actions taken by those in Washington will have such a profound and lasting impact on generations to come. Today, we ensured that progressives continue to have a seat at the table, and a hand in crafting the legislation to come."

Bill Lucey

Atlanta DSA Dinner. See Bill Lucey

The Road Ahead: Obama

The Bumpy Road Ahead:
New Tasks of the
Left Following
Obama's Victory


By Carl Davidson
Progressives for Obama

American progressives have won a major victory in helping to defeat
John McCain and placing Barack Obama in the White House. The far right
has been broadly rebuffed, the neoconservative war hawks displaced,
and the diehard advocates of neoliberal political economy are in
thorough disarray. Of great importance, one long-standing crown jewel
of white supremacy, the whites-only sign on the Oval Office, has been
tossed into the dustbin of history.

The depth of the historical victory was revealed in the jubilation of
millions who spontaneously gathered in downtowns and public spaces
across the country, as the media networks called Obama the winner.
When President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama took the platform in Chicago
to deliver his powerful but sobering victory speech, hundreds of
millions-Black, Latino, Asian, Native-American and white, men and
women, young and old, literally danced in the streets and wept with
joy, celebrating an achievement of a dramatic milestone in a 400-year
struggle, and anticipating a new period of hope and possibility.

Now a new period of struggle begins, but on a higher plane. An
emerging progressive majority will be confronted with many challenges
and obstacles not seen for decades. Left and progressive organizers
face difficult, uncharted terrain, a bumpy road. But much more
interesting problems are before us, with solutions, should they be
achieved, promising much greater gains and rewards. for the America of
popular democracy.

To consciously build on the gains of this electoral victory, it's
important to seek clarity. We need an accurate assessment of strengths
and weaknesses--our own, as well as those of our allies and our
adversaries.

The Obama campaign, formal and informal, was a wide undertaking. It
united progressive forces, won over middle forces, then isolated and
divided the right. It massed the votes and resources required the win
a clear majority of the popular vote and a decisive majority of
Electoral College votes.

At the base, beginning with the antiwar youth and peace activists,
Obama awakened, organized, mobilized and deployed an incredible and
innovative force of what grew into an army of more than three million
volunteers. At the top, he realigned a powerful sector of the ruling
class into an anti-NeoCon, anti-ultraright bloc. In between, he
expanded the electorate and won clear majorities in every major
demographic bloc of voters, save for whites generally; but even there,
he reduced McCain's spread to single digits, and among younger white
voters and women voters, he won large majorities.

Understanding the New Alliance

It is important to understand the self-interests and expectations of
this new multiclass alliance. If we get it wrong, we will run into the
ditch and get bogged down, whether on the right or 'left' side of that
bumpy road, full of potholes and twists and turns.

The Obama alliance is not 'Clintonism in blackface' or 'JFK in Sepia',
as some have chauvinistically tagged it. Nor is it 'imperialism with a
human face,' as if imperialism hasn't always had human faces. All
these make the mistake of looking backward, Hillary Clinton's mistake
of trying to frame the present and future in the terms of the past.

The Obama team at the top is comprised of global capital's
representatives in the U.S as well as U.S. multinational capitalists,
and these two overlap but are not the same. It is a faction of
imperialism, and there is no need for us to prettify it, deny it or
cover it up in any way. The important thing to see is that it is
neither neoliberalism nor the old corporate liberalism. Obama is
carving out a new niche for himself, a work in progress still within
the bounds of capitalism, but a 'high road' industrial policy
capitalism that is less state-centric and more market-based in its
approach, more Green, more high tech, more third wave and
participatory, less politics-as-consumerism and more 'public citizen'
and education focused. In short, it's capitalism for a multipolar
world and the 21st century.

The unreconstructed neoliberalism and old corporate liberalism,
however, are still very much in play. The former is in disarray,
largely due to the financial crisis, but the latter is working
overtime to join the Obama team and secure its institutional positions
of power, from White House staff positions to the behind-the-scenes
efforts on Wall Street to direct the huge cash flows of the Bail-Out
in their favor.

How the Obama Alliance won:
Values, Technology and Social Movements

The Obama alliance is an emerging, historic counter-hegemonic bloc,
still contending both with its pre-election adversaries and within
itself. It has taken the White House and strengthened its majority in
Congress, but the fight is not over. To define the victorious
coalition simply by the class forces at the top is the error of
reductionism that fails to shine a light on the path ahead.

What is a hegemonic bloc? Most power elites maintain their rule using
more than armed force. They use a range of tools to maintain hegemony,
or dominance, which are 'softer,' meaning they are political and
cultural instruments as well as economic and military. They seek a
social base in the population, and draw them into partnership and
coalitions through intermediate civil institutions. Keeping this bloc
together requires a degree of compromise and concession, even if it
ultimately relies on force. The blocs are historic; they develop over
time, are shaped by the times, and also have limited duration. When
external and internal crises disrupt and lead them to stagnation, a
new 'counter-hegemonic' bloc takes shape, with a different alignment
of economic interests and social forces, to challenge it and take its
place. These ideas were first developed by the Italian communist and
labor leader, Antonio Gramsci, and taken up again in the 1960s by the
German New Left leader, Rudi Dutschke. They are helpful, especially in
nonrevolutionary conditions, in understanding both how our adversaries
maintain their power, as well as the strategy and tactics needed to
replace them, eventually by winning a new socialist and popular
democratic order.

As a new historic bloc, the Obama alliance contains several major and
minor poles. It is composed of several class forces, a complex social
base and many social movements which have emerged and engaged in the
electoral struggle. There is both class struggle and other forms of
struggle within it. There are sharp differences on military policy, on
Israel-Palestine, on healthcare and the bailout. From the outside,
there are also serious and sustained struggles against it. And some
forces will move both inside and outside the bloc, as circumstances
warrant or change. It is important to be clear on what the main forces
and components are, and their path to unity. It's also important to
understand the relation and balance of forces, and how one is not
likely to win at the top what one has not consolidated and won at the
base, nor is failure in one or another battle always cause for a
strategic break.

Obama obviously started with his local coalition in Chicago-the Black
community, 'Lakefront liberals' from the corporate world, and a sector
of labor, mainly service workers. The initial new force in the winning
nationwide alliance was called out by Obama's early opposition to the
Iraq war, and his participation in two mass rallies against it, one
before it began and other after the war was underway. This both
awakened and inspired a large layer of young antiwar activists, some
active for the first time, to join his effort to win the Iowa primary.
The fact that he had publicly opposed the war before it had begun
distinguished him from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, his chief
opponents. These young people also contributed to the innovative
nature of his organization, combining grassroots community organizing
with the many-to-many mass communication tools of internet-based
social networking and fundraising. Many had some earlier experience
organizing and participating in the World Social Forum in Atlanta
2007, which energized nearly 10,000 young activists. Those who came
forward put their energy and innovation to good use. Had Obama not won
Iowa, it is not likely we would be talking about him today.


The Iowa victory quickly produced another major advance. Up until
then, most African-American voters favored Hillary Clinton, and were
dubious of a Black candidate's chances. But Iowa is one of the
'whitest' states in the country, and Obama's win there changed their
minds. In short order, Obama gained wide unity in Black communities
across the country, inspiring even more young people, more
multinational and more 'Hip-Hop,' to emerge as a force. Black women in
their churches and Black workers in their unions joined with the
already-engaged younger Black professionals who were seeking a new
voice for their generation. The internet-based fundraising was
bringing in unheard-of amounts of money in small donations. A wing of
trade unions most responsive to Black members came over, setting the
stage for Obama's next challenge, winning the Democratic primaries
overall against Hillary Clinton.

Defeating Clinton and the corporate liberals backing her was not easy.
Hillary's main weakness was her inability to win the antiwar movement.
Obama had mainly won the youth and Blacks, and through them, many
young women and many Black women, but he had tough challenges. Clinton
still rallied much of the liberal base and the traditional women's
movement. But it was not enough, nor was she able to deal with all the
new grassroots money flowing his way. Her last reserve was the labor
movement, most of which was still supporting her. She tried to keep it
with a fatal error: playing the 'white worker' card in a racist way
against Obama. It only moved more progressives to Obama, plus won him
wider support in other communities of color, who saw the move for what
it was. Even with her remaining base in a sector of the women's
movement and a large chunk of organized labor, after a fierce fight,
he narrowly but clearly defeated her.

Now it was Obama versus McCain, and the Republicans were in the weaker
position. Some think McCain made a mistake picking Sarah Palin as his
VP choice, but actually it was his smarter and stronger card. To
defeat Obama, he had to both energize the GOP core rightwing base,
plus win a large majority of the 'white working class.' Palin's
proto-fascist rightwing populism was actually his best shot,
especially with its unofficial allies in rightwing media. The
Fox-Hannity-Limbaugh machine, and its allies in the right blogosphere,
escalated their overtly racist, chauvinist, illegal immigrant-baiting,
red-baiting, terror-baiting, anti-Black and anti-Muslim bigotry to a
ceaseless fever pitch. The aim was to manipulate the significant
social base of less-educated, more fundamentalist, lower-income white
workers who often seek economic relief through being tied to the
military or the prison-industrial complex. They threw everything, from
the kitchen sink to the outhouse, at Obama, his family and his
movement. They whipped their crowds into violent frenzies. The Secret
Service even had to ask them to tone it down, since assassination
threats were coming out of the woodwork with each rally like this.

This now put organized labor in the critical position. Even though
they represented only a minority of workers generally, they had wider
influence, including into the ranks of the white working-class
families who were for Clinton, and leaning to McCain. But both
national coalitions, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, did the right
thing, and in a big way. They knew McCain was their 'clear and
present' danger. So they mobilized their resources and members into
the streets, especially in the 'white working class' battleground
areas in critical electoral states, and among Latino voters in the
West. They won a wide majority of union households. They won among
women and younger workers, as well as Latinos and other voters of
color. Although they still did not get a majority of white working
class voters for Obama, they brought the spread down to single digits.
In many areas, they did better with Obama than Kerry had done four
years earlier. It was enough to put Obama over the top.

There are books to be written about many other aspects and components
of the Obama alliance. But these five: insurgent antiwar youth, a
united African-American community, Latinos and other communities of
color, women with a grasp of the importance of reproductive rights and
health care, and organized labor-these form the major elements of the
social base of Obama's historic bloc against neoliberalism and the
right. Add these to the disgruntled progressive-to-liberal regular
Democratic voters in the suburbs and elsewhere, and it brought the era
of the conservative right's dominance in the White House and Congress
to an end.

The Obama Alliance From Below and Within

The alliance was also diverse in terms of political organization. At
the very bottom grassroots, in the final months, there were often four
campaigns, overlapping to one degree or another, united to one degree
or another, but not the same by a long shot.

First, the local Obama offices were mainly run by the Obama youth,
twenty-somethings, many of them young women, who worked their hearts
out, 16-hours-a-day, seven days a week, months on end. They were
deployed in a vast array of 'neighborhood teams,' with old teams often
generating new ones, connected via the social networking of their own
blogs, email, cell phones and text messaging. Each team knocked on
hundreds, if not thousands of doors, and tracked it all on computers.
The full-time leaders were often 'parachuted in' from distant states,
skilled mainly in mobilizing others like themselves. But add up
dozens, even hundreds of teams in a given county, and you're making a
serious difference.

Second, the Black community's campaign was more indigenous, more
traditional, more rooted, more deeply proletarian-it made use of the
Black church's social committees, tenant groups and civic
organizations, who widely united. Many day-to-day efforts were in the
hands of older Black women who knew everything about everybody, and
had decades of experience in registering and getting out the vote. In
some parts of the country, there were other nationalities working this
way-Latino, Asian, Native American-and they found the way to make
common cause with the African American community, rebuffing GOP
efforts to appeal to anti-Black racism or narrow nationalism as a
wedge. Some of the older people in these communities learned how to
use computers, too, and sent regular contributions to Obama via PayPal
in small amounts. But multiply one of these experienced
community-based women organizers by 50,000 or 100,000 more just like
her in another neighborhood or town, and something new and serious is
going on. They always faced scarce resources, and there was friction
at times with the Obama youth, who were often mostly white or more of
a younger 'Rainbow.' They worked it through, most of the time.

Third, organized labor carried out its campaign in its own way. They
had substantial resources for meeting halls, phone banks and the
traditional 'swag' of campaigns-window signs, yard signs, buttons,
T-shirts, stickers, banners, professionally done multi-colored flyers
directly targeted to the top issues of union members and the wider
working class. They put it together as an almost industrial operation,
well planned with a division of labor. Top leaders of the union came
in, called mass meetings, and in many cases, gave fierce no-nonsense
speeches about 'getting over' fear of Black candidates and asserting
the need to vote their members' interests. The central offices
produced walking maps of union member households and registered voter
households, political district by political district, broken down
right to how many people were needed for each door-knocking team to
cover each district or neighborhood. They printed maps with driving
directions. They had tally sheets for interviewing each voter, boxes
to check, to be scanned and read by machines when turned in. Hundreds
of member-volunteers from that ranks came to each hall, raffles were
held for free gas cards, and when you got back and turned in your
tallies, free hot dogs and pizza. Sometimes busloads and car caravans
went to other nearby states, to more 'battleground' areas. They often
shared their halls with the Obama kids, and tried not to duplicate
efforts. It was powerful to see, and it worked. There's nothing to
replace a pair of union members standing on the porches of other
working-class families, talking things over.

Fourth, the actual ongoing structures of the local Democratic Party
did things their way. In many cases, the local regular Democratic
leaders were very good, and took part personally in all three of
elements of the campaign described above. But frequently, there was no
'mass' to the local Democratic organization. The mass member groups of
the old Democratic Party were just history. (It was a problem, but
also an opening for new independent mass progressive groups, like
Progressive Democrats of America, to grow). Each incumbent, moreover,
had their own staff and core of donors and loyalists, lawyers and
media consultants, and guarded their own turf. Some were Obama
enthusiasts, some more low-key, but more than a few avoided any
responsibility to win Hillary voters to Obama. They capitulated to
'Democrats for McCain' elements in their base, elements who worked
informally with the GOP right. This latter group was called 'the top
of the ticket problem.' They worked their campaigns as independent
operations, but avoided identification with the 'top of the ticket' or
those working locally for it.

The Core Message of Change

While all four of these sub-campaigns were united by the central
message and 'change' theme from the top, each also carried out the
'change' message in its own way. One issue linking at least three of
them, save for a few 'Blue Dog' incumbents, was the need for a rapid
end to the war. From Obama's personal appearances on down, whenever a
speaker forcefully made this point to a crowd, it got the loudest
applause, if not a standing ovation.

The people in these crowds constitute a new component of the antiwar
movement. It needs to be understood, however, that they have a
different character than the traditional left-led antiwar rallies.
Demands to end the war here are deeply connected with supporting our
troops, getting them home and out of harm's way, supporting veterans
across the board, expressions of patriotism, and a view of the war as
an offense to patriotism. They hate the waste of lives of people from
families they know; and they hate the waste of resources and huge
amounts of money. Ending the war is stressed as the way to lower taxes
and revive the economy by spending for projects at home, People will
denounce oil barons, but you'll hear very little put in terms of
anti-imperialism or solidarity with various other liberations
struggles around the world. 'We were lied to getting us into this',
and 'we have our problems to solve here'-that's the underlying themes
and watchwords. There are a few incumbents who will take positions to
the right of Obama on the war, trying to stake out various nuanced and
longer 'exit strategy' processes, or who just don't mention the war at
all. But at the base, most just want to troops rapidly and safely out,
while a few cling to the right's calls for 'victory.' But there's not
much in the middle.

The other components of 'change' at the base are, first and foremost,
new jobs and new industries. People are especially motivated by
practical plans for Green Jobs in alternative energies and major
infrastructural repair, health care for everyone, schools and support
for students, and debt relief and other protections of their economic
security in the face of the Wall Street crash. In fact, the Wall
Street crash was the major factor in many older voters rejecting
McCain and going for Obama. Regarding health care, many unions and
local government bodies are signing on to HR 676, Single-Payer health
care, but some will accept many other things, wisely or not, as a step
in that direction or an improvement over the current setup.

The Nature of Rising Hegemonic Blocs

Within the Obama historic bloc, there are at least four contending
trends regarding 'change' and political economy-two major and two
minor. The two major ones come mainly from the top, while the two
minor ones come from below.

At the top, the Obama White House will be pulled in two directions.
The first is the 'tinkering at the top' approach of traditional
corporate liberal capitalism, mostly concerned with securing the major
banks by covering their debts and reducing the deficit through 'shared
austerity' cutbacks. The emphasis will be on greater
government-imposed efficiencies in entitlement programs, tax reform
and adjustments in global trade agreements. Some of their favored
programs, like pressing businesses to provide more 401K plans for
employees, may be set aside because of the stock market' volatility.

The second direction is Obama's own often-asserted 'High Road' green
industrial policy capitalism, which wants to restrict and punish pure
speculation in the 'Casino Economy' in favor of targeted government
investment in massive infrastructure and research, encouraging the
growth of new industries with 'Green Jobs' in alternative energy
sectors. Since resources are not infinite, there will be a major
tension and competition for funds between two rival sectors--a new
green industrial-education policy sector and an old
hydrocarbon-military-industrial sector. It's a key task of the left
and progressive movements to add their forces to uniting with and
building up the former, while opposing and weakening the grip of the
latter. This is the 'High Road' vs. 'Low Road' strategy widely
discussed in progressive think tanks and policy circles.

From below, Obama is being presented with a plethora of
redistributionist 'New New Deal' plans, including Rep Dennis
Kucinich's 16 Points, to Sen. Bernie Sanders 4 Points, to the
Institute for Policy Studies 'Progressive Majority' plan. One outlier
'Buy Out, Not Bail Out' proposal, David Schweickart's Economic
Democracy option, goes beyond redistributionism, and proposes deep
structural reforms of public ownership in the equity of financial
firms in exchange for the bailout, in turn directing capital into
community investment banks to build worker-controlled options within
the new wealth creation firms of green industries.

From the other side, the unreconstructed rightwing neoliberals will be
out of positions of executive power but not without positions of
influence. Centered among the House GOP and allied with the rightwing
media populists and anti-global nationalists, with Lou Dobbs as a
spokesman, they will remain a powerful opposition force. They are
likely to try to sabotage Obama, as best as they can without their own
mass base, suffering from the crisis, turning against them. This was
the role they played in the rightist opposition to the corporate
liberal bailout plans stirred up by the far right Human Events
journalists.

The key point here is shaping the exact nature of what Obama unfolds
as 'change.' What will bring about any progressive reform and protect
'Main Street' and the 'Middle Class' against 'Wall Street' is still
open and not fully formed. In fact, it will be a focus of intense
struggle both internally at the top and on the part of mass social
movements defending and advancing their interests from below. Class
struggle will unfold within the bloc, to be sure.

The Bankruptcy of the Ultraleft

This is where the questions facing the left and an account of its
tasks become critical. What is our role? Who are our friends and
allies? Who are our adversaries, of various sorts? What is our left
platform within broader proposals for growing and uniting a
progressive majority? What is our strategy, tactics and orientation
for moving forward? All these need to be re-examined in this dynamic
and new situation.

We have to start by acknowledging the real crisis across the entire
socialist left for some time. While some progress and innovation has
been made by some in recent years, no one is surging ahead with major
growth and breakthroughs. What this election, its outcome, its battles
and ebb and flow, and the engagement of the masses, has especially
done is reveal the utter bankruptcy of almost the entire anti-Obama
Trotskyist, anarchist and Maoist left, save for a few groupings and
some individuals. The crisis was not nearly as deep among the wider
left-those hundreds of thousands working among trade union activists,
community organizers and our country's intellectual community, but
often not identified with a given socialist group or anarchist
project. Whatever their problems, most of them understood this
election and what to do, even if their efforts were limited. They 'got
it right', even if they lacked the organizational means to advance the
socialist project.

But among those belonging to organized socialist and anarchist groups
with enough resources to put out their views, most got it dead wrong.
On the election, only the CCDS (Committees of Correspondence for
Democracy and Socialism, cc-ds.org, ) the Communist Party USA,
cpusa.org, and Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO,
freedomroad.org) got it mostly right, mainly because they have some
grasp on the importance of racism, elections and mass democracy. But
we know these three groups, even if well situated, are rather small
and not growing in any major way. Next was DSA which at least saw the
importance of defeating McCain and backing Obama, even though they
only managed to put out a rather wimpy pro-forma statement without
once mentioning race. The other 10-to-15 groups, with the larger
majority of organized US socialists, communists and Marxists in them,
failed miserably, whatever the subjective feelings and views of their
individual members. Besides broadsides against Obama and those backing
him, they had nothing new or relevant to say, and some of them didn't
bother to say anything, especially among the anarchists. Go to the
sixty or more Indymedia sites, and you hardly see anything useful said
besides macho bluster and shit-talk against the few
pro-voting-for-Obama postings put up.

This is the face of this crisis: While there was an upsurge of
millions of Obama volunteers in one of the most critical elections in
our history, a true milestone, which was combined with direct
engagement from a united Black community and the best elements of
labor, from precisely the sectors all of them have been claiming to
try to reach for decades, and almost all they could was bark at them:
'You're deluded!' You're Obamaniacs! 'You're wrong!' 'Obama is a
capitalist!' 'Don't Drink the Kool-Aid! Obama is the more dangerous
warmonger because he's the new 'Uncle Tom' Black face of imperialism!'

If the question of the day was immediate working-class mass action on
seizing power from the capitalist class, for reform vs. revolution,
socialism or capitalism NOW, they might have had a point. But it's
not. Even with the financial crisis, it's not even close. Besides
getting troops out of this or that country, they don't even have a
package of demands or structural reforms worthy of the name being put
forward. Worse of all, they don't think any distinction between
revolutionary and non-revolutionary conditions is all that important.
What that means, in turn, is that it's almost impossible for them, as
groups and as a trend, to correct their course.

It's not a matter of being critical of Obama. Everyone engaged in his
movement had criticisms and alternate positions of all sorts. Some
made them public, some did not-but all these did so in a way designed
to help him win, not to take him down, to add votes to his totals, not
to subtract them.

As mentioned, the wider left, the left that defines itself as more
than liberal but not necessarily socialist, did relatively well. These
are the union-based organizers, community organizers, campus
organizers, and the readers of Portside, The Nation, Black
Commentator, Huffington Post and DailyKOS. For the most part, they
were fully engaged for Obama in this election. Comparing the online
commentary in these media voices and outlets with that of the
Indymedia anarchists and the socialist papers of the far left was as
revealing as the difference between noon and midnight.

We have to break decisively with this ultra-left, semi-anarchist
perspective. While the hard core of this trend is small, it reach is
wider than some might think. It's not a matter of purges; it's a
matter of emancipating the minds of many on the radical left from old
dogma. There's no way forward under these new conditions if we don't.
We have to break with it not only in our own ranks, the groups working
with 'Progressives for Obama', where it's not that influential, but
across all the mass democratic organizations of the wider social
movements as well. We have to spotlight it, stand up to it, isolate it
and defeat it. It's not that we are demanding a split. The split has
already taken place over the past two years, in real life and in
actual battles. Many of us, for instance, stood up to the rightwing
media's racist attacks on Obama, his family and his movement; others
from this corner of the left added fuel to the fascists' fires and
fanned the flames. We are sharply divided. We are as far apart in
practice as we can be. What we have to do is acknowledge it, sum up
its lessons, and warn others of its dangers, and try to unite all who
can be united on a new path forward.

Charting Our Path Forward

So what is our path? Again, we start by getting clarity on where we
are. We were in an alliance with Obama and the forces and movements
that brought him to power against the NeoCon neoliberals and the far
right. If we assess things accurately, we'll see that we are still in
this alliance, although its nature is changing. We are part of a new
emerging counter-hegemonic bloc in our country, an historic multiclass
alliance. The Obama forces at the top are in turn linked to the
multipolar, multilateralist sector of global capital. A new bloc on
this higher, global level is both trying to consolidate its power
against its rivals and maintain a degree of both unity and struggle
among the contenting poles and centers of power within it. Our task is
to grow the strength of the left, the working class, and broader
communities allies within it, to secure strong points, and to win,
step by step, the 'long march through the institutions' until we
emerge with a new counter-hegemonic bloc of our own, in an entirely
different period.

From the beginning, the Obama alliance brought together
left-progressive forces, along with moderate center and center-right
forces, from the grass roots level through middle-layer institutions
to the top. No one or even two of these voting blocs was enough to win
alone. It took the entire coalition to win-and driving out any one
part of it may have made defeat far more likely and risky. We were
part of a left-progressive pole in a broader sub-bloc comprised of
social movements, primarily antiwar youth, minority nationality
communities and organized labor. While we were the most numerous of
the blocs, we were not necessarily the most powerful.

A political pole or sub-bloc's power in electoral campaigns is a
combination of three things-first, an organized platform of ideas
appropriate to solving the problems of the day that, second, is in
turn embodied in organized grassroots voters and, third, those
organizations have readily available amounts of organized money. We
can take part in an alliance without some or even all of these things,
but we shouldn't then expect much clout.

Let's look at each of these three elements from the perspective of
left-progressive activists.

What was our platform? First, we stressed an end to the war in Iraq
and a prevention of wider wars, even if Obama talked of going into
Afghanistan in a bigger way. Second, we were demanding 'Healthcare Not
Warfare,' and in many cases, pressing HR 676 Single-Payer even if
Obama opposed it. Third, we stressed Green Jobs and New Schools, and
Obama eventually pushed these in a big way. Fourth, we stressed
Alternative Energies over dirty coal, offshore oil and unsafe nuke
plants, even if Obama waffled. Fifth, we wanted Expanded Democracy and
Fair Elections, and Obama pressed voter registration and early voting
in a big way.

The Obama volunteers in the official campaign often couldn't put
things out exactly like this. Their messaging was more controlled from
the center. But nothing stopped either organized labor or independent
forces like PDA, MDS or other local groups connected to 'Progressives
for Obama' from exercising our 'independence and initiative within the
broader front.' We simply did what we thought best, but in a way that
still maintained solid unity among local allies.

The Importance of Independent Mass Democracy

How did we organize voters? Many progressives simply worked through
the local Obama campaign, registering and identifying voters with the
neighbor teams. This was fine, especially if you spent some time in a
mutual education process with the young staffers. But some of us were
looking for something more independent and lasting. So we joined with
groups like PDA, or set up 'voters for peace' groupings based on local
coalitions, or worked through union locals. The idea was for the
information gained--voter lists, donor lists, volunteers lists,
contacts and such-to remain in the hands of the new grassroots
formations, to grow them in size and scope, so as to help further
struggles down the road.

To be sure, our influence, compared to the incredibly sophisticated,
well-funded and innovative Obama campaign, was relatively minor. That
didn't matter so much; what was important was that we weren't simply a
tail on the Democratic machinery, but that we were building our own
independent strength for the future. In nearly every major city,
independent blogs or clusters of blogs went up to serve as a public
face and organizing hubs of these grassroots forces. Case in point:
The local Obama offices are now all closed, but our local groups or
coalitions have doubled or tripled in size, we now have news blogs
getting thousands of hits, and our efforts are ongoing and more
connected with labor and community allies.

How did we raise money? To be frank, we didn't raise that much
independently. This is a fault, not a virtue. Some groups in the
African-American community went into the T-shirt and button business,
making a range of campaign items, selling them to raise stipends, gas
money and donations to Obama, then turning some over to make more
T-shirts and buttons, and so on. In some places, we relied a good deal
on the resources supplied at local union halls-meeting space, phones,
and printed materials. 'Progressives for Obama' kept itself alive from
a few initial startup donations from individuals, then from its two
blogs and listservs on the Internet via PayPal in small amounts.

But to return to our platform of issues and demands, the key
underlying principle was segmenting the business community into
productive versus speculative capital, rather than asserting an
all-round anti-capitalist or anti-corporate perspective. We want to
see mills reopened with new companies we can support that would make
wind turbines via Green Jobs, while we oppose the Casino gamblers on
Wall Street or insurance company parasites blocking universal health
care. People can and will denounce every sort of corporate crime or
outrage to make a point. But when it came to the platform of reforms
for uses of our taxes dollars, we were much more focused on what kind
of businesses we wanted to see grow, and how we wanted them to relate
to their workers and surrounding communities. This approach did very
well in getting many rank-and-file workers to take us seriously,
especially in areas where many people suffer more from the lack of
business than its presence.

The main point is that we now have mass democratic organization
anchored in many communities, workplaces and schools, and that they
have a basis to expand. PDA is a good example. Starting with only a
few dozen people in 2004 with an 'inside-outside' independent view of
dealing and working with Democrats, they have grown to some 150,000
people scattered across the country in every major city, with most of
that growth taking place in the context of the last campaign to defeat
the GOP and McCain. At the Democratic convention, together with The
Nation magazine, PDA delivered a week-long series of panels and
workshops that drew thousands of activists and hundreds of delegates,
establishing itself as the 'Progressive Central' mobilizing and
organizing pole for the week in Denver. Many PDA local chapters
mobilized members that became the backbone of the Obama campaign
offices, as well as boosting local labor mobilizations. The PDA
chapters built their credibility by advocating Healthcare Not Warfare
and backing local progressive candidates down the ticket. They helped
unite progressives within the various trends of the Obama campaign
with local unity events.

On a smaller scale, Movement for a Democratic Society groups did well,
too Austin, Texas is a great example, where they combined with 'The
Rag' blog, which is now getting over 25,000 hits a month. On campuses,
where the New SDS was able to make a break with anarchism and relate
to the Obama youth, they also report successes and growth.

The Critical Priority of Organization
and the Relative Importance of Socialist Tasks

What the heart of this says is that for left-to-progressive activists,
organization-building trumps movement-building in this period. The
movements are very wide and diverse, and in front of our noses. But
the current wave has just peaked, and will now ebb a bit. In
situations like this, it's more important than ever to consolidate the
gains of mass struggle, including electoral struggle, into lasting
organizations, either expanding earlier ones or building new ones. The
same goes for coalition-building of local clusters of organizations,
then networking them across the country, horizontally and vertically,
via the internet. We need organizers now, more so than activists and
agitators.

What about the 'socialism' part of the socialist left? Up to this
point, I've mainly addressed the mass democratic tasks we share in
common with the non-socialist left and progressive activists
generally. Fortunately or unfortunately the Wall Street financial
crisis combined with the right wing's red baiting of Obama as a
'Marxist' and 'socialist' has given the 'S' word far wider circulation
and interest than it's had in decades. Unfortunately, in the mass
media, it's mainly discussed in a one-dimensional, cartoonish way as
'socialism for the rich' or 'sharing the wealth.'

No matter. This expanded media buzz serves to underscore the main
aspect of our socialist tasks in today's conditions. Our work here is
mainly that of education, theoretical work, and the development of
program and policy options. We need our own think tanks and networks
of study groups developing our policies and platforms for deep
structural reforms that serve as transitional levers to a new
socialism. Before we can fight for it, we better have a fairly clear
idea of what it is in this country in today's world-both among
ourselves and the wider circles of the best left and progressive
organizers with whom we want to share this learning process and
socialist project.

It is a good time, however, to expand this work in a serious way. One
small example: in the context of the initial wave of reaction to the
Wall Street crash, and the first round of progressive proposals to
deal with it, 'Progressives for Obama' asked David Schweickart, one of
our country's foremost proponents of socialist theory, to write up his
take on it. He wrote not only his account of why the crisis happened,
but also briefly contrasted today's capitalism and its downturn and
crash with the socialist alternative. His own 'successor system
theory' of Economic Democracy, however, is designed to be a bridge to
socialist options. If we, the public, are to buy up the bad debt of
failed banks and firms, why not demand equity in the stock and public
seats on the board, or buy them out entirely. Instead of simply paying
off debt and providing the wherewithal for big bonuses and Golden
Parachutes, why not do more than simply restrict or forbid this? Why
not use these now-public resources to launch local community-owned
investment banks to partner with labor and local government and
entrepreneurs to build the new worker-owned factories of green
industries and alternative energies?

These are excellent take-off points. Schweickart's article was widely
circulated as an authoritative piece, commented on across the
political spectrum. In several cities, leftists in and around the
Obama campaign even set up study groups to go over it. This shouldn't
be exaggerated, but it does show the possibilities and frames our
socialist tasks more accurately.

Both Immediate and Transitional Programs

But the more pressing task for us as part of the left is sharply and
concretely outlining our immediate and transitional programs and their
platforms. The immediate program of demands, like Kucinich's 16
Points, are basically redistributionist programs aimed at taking
wealth from above and spreading it around below. Given the vast
inequalities of our society, that is both pressing and desirable. As a
stimulus, it also spurs the generation of new wealth. The transitional
program of deep structural reform, like Schweickart's Economic
Democracy, takes public resources to generate new wealth, but in a way
that alters power relations in favor of the working class and broader
public.

Some of the best proposals and projects on the table combine both of
these. The Apollo Alliance, where steelworkers and environmentalists
come together, put forward a range of recession-busting programs. Van
Jones' Green Jobs programs for inner city youth do the same, as does
HR 676 Single-Payer health care. The Blue-Green Alliance is still another.

Our task is to put flesh on these in a way that melds with our local
conditions. We start by uniting antiwar Obama youth, community and
labor locally, then build outwards and upwards from there. We start
with an understanding of the critical role of a united
African-American community, the most consistent defenders and fighters
for a progressive agenda in the country, especially when it works in
alliance with Latinos and other minority nationalities. We also grasp
the significance of women and labor, and the overall intersection of
race, gender and class in defining our policies, seeking out allies,
and setting priorities. We design a package of critical local reforms,
whether in rebuilding Ohio River locks and dams, constructing
high-speed rail in California, or delivering single-payer healthcare
everywhere. Then we make the fights for these a centerpiece to unite
the entire area, win over all the public officials that we can, and
then, in turn, take it to an Obama administration, demanding an end to
the war and war making, in order to fund it and make it happen. It's
really the only way out of this mess.

Our great victory in this election, finally, is that efforts and
programs like this won't fall on deaf ears. The challenge to Obama is
that to get it done, he has to end the war, avoid wider wars and cut
the military budget in a major way. If he does, he can be a great
president. If he doesn't, he'll have hell to pay.

Summary

Here are the key points, once again:

1. We have won a major victory, now consolidate its gains.

2. Start where you are, and build mass democratic grassroots groups
bringing together the best local activists from the Obama campaign and
others like it.

3. Build a coalition with local partners in labor, campus and
community groups that did the same.

4. Start local left-progressive blogs to have a public face, and link
it to others.

5. Develop a program of deep structural reform and immediate needs for
your area, and take it upward and outward through the elected
officials and government bodies, all the way to the top.

6. Break decisively with the ultraleft mindset, in order to deepen and
broaden left-progressive unity.

7. Prepare the ground for mass mobilization to end the war this
spring, and to prevent wider war. Link this battle to the economy.
Green Jobs over War Jobs, New Schools, Not More Prisons, HealthCare
Not Warfare, Peace and Prosperity, Not War, Greed and Crisis. You get
the idea.

8. Study socialism seriously, the version for today, and bring it to
bear in developing policy and uniting the most advanced fighters for
the whole, not just the part, and for the future, not just the present.


[If you liked this article, go to http://progressivesforobama.net, and
offer some support by using the PayPal button. Other writings by Carl
Davidson are available at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com and contact
him for speaking engagements at carld717@gmail.com ]



-----------------

Somos mas Americanos

Somos Más Americanos
por: Los Tigres del Norte

Ya me gritaron mil veces que me regrese a mi tierra porque aquí no quepo yo.
Quiero recordarle al gringo: “Yo no cruce la frontera, la frontera me cruzo.”
América nació libre, el hombre la dividió.
Ellos pintaron la raya para que yo la brincara y me llaman invasor.
Es un error bien marcado.
Nos quitaron ocho estados.
¿Quién es aquí el invasor?
Soy extranjero en mi tierra, y no vengo a darles guerra.
¡Soy hombre trabajador!

Y si no miente la historia, aquí se asentó en la gloria la poderosa nación.
Entre guerreros valientes, indios de dos continentes, mezclados con español.
Y si a los siglos nos vamos:
Somos más americanos,
Somos más americanos que el hijo del anglo-saxon.

Nos compraron sin dinero las aguas del Rio Bravo.
Y nos quitaron a Texas, Nuevo México, Arizona y Colorado.
También voló California y Nevada.
Con Utah no se llenaron.
El estado de Wyoming, también nos lo arrebataron.
Yo soy la sangre del indio.
Soy latino.
Soy mestizo.
Somos de todos colores y de todos los oficios.
Y si contamos los siglos, aunque le duela al vecino,
¡Somos más americanos que todititos los gringos!

Obama with open eyes

BANKING ON OBAMA WITH OPEN EYES
I'M VOTING FOR THE BLACK MAN
Nativo Vigil Lopez
National President, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)

The American people can now rejoice in one of the greatest blows against racism in its history - the election of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama. This is the culmination of a two-year campaign for the son of an immigrant African father and a white Irish- American mother born and raised in middle America Kansas. Obama qualified the election success as "a defining moment" for America in his victory speech.

No matter your take on his politics - either from the left or right - president-elect Obama will be considered an American epic figure. He has smashed the race barrier and the glass ceiling, and he did it not just with the black vote, but a quilt of votes from all races, national origins, ages, party affiliations, ethnic groups, and ideological inclinations. The vote count bears this out. But the story is also about white America that favored the Democratic candidate by 43%, a higher margin than that received by Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid. While blacks and Latinos can claim him as "our" president, the reality is that the combined votes of blacks and Latinos would not have been sufficient to sweep him into office. This speaks volumes for white voters who did not allow race to be a factor in their determination to select the new father of our country.

What mattered more to the voters, according to exit polls, was the economy - by a margin of 68%. Interestingly, the issue of immigration did not even rate as an interest of concern to the voters, notwithstanding the hardboiled anti-immigrant campaigning during the primary elections by the Republican Party.

The "Yes We Can" (Si Se Puede) slogan encapsulated the spirit of Americans across the board who wanted change, and fought for it with expressions of hope and reconciliation. It is a slogan taken straight out of the playbook of Cesar Chavez in mounting the movement to organize farmworkers in California during the 1960s. It is a slogan now chanted by Americans across the country to reflect their optimism about creating a different country, about creating change. It is an adamant and defiant chant, repeated by Obama before half-a-million celebrants in Chicago last night, which poses a positive determination of what will come. This is how Cesar presented his case at a different historic juncture.

We have overcome, the words uttered by an African American woman celebrating in Chicago after the announcement of the results, and overheard by a television commentator. This is the past tense of those words declared in a televised speech by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 when he introduced the Voting Rights Act to the U.S. Congress - we shall overcome - words that he appropriately appropriated from the civil rights movement that demanded and struggled to obtain this legislation. It is said that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. openly wept when he saw and heard President Johnson on television repeat those words. He said that he never thought he would live to see a white man embrace this slogan. But King, like Obama 44 years later, was responsible for bringing together the political and social forces to create the opportunity and the moment.

This election reveals who we are as a people, and reveals this to the world. Does anyone ever remember when people throughout the world celebrated the victory of a U.S. presidential candidate as they did for the Obama victory as if to embrace him as their own president and their own victory? This is what the major media networks have reported.

Spike Lee characterized the moment as historic for the country, and that now we will reference U.S. history as BBO and ABO - Before Barack Obama and After Barack Obama. Doug Wilder, the former first black governor of Virginia, said he was "proud of America, and especially proud of Virginia." Pat Buchanan, an extremely conservative author and television pundit declared, "the Republican Party lost the Reagan Democrats in this election." Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D- Illinois), observed, "The genius of the Obama campaign was that he ran as an American who happened to be an African American."

The American electorate has grown as a result of this election cycle - an estimated 133 million people voted, eleven million more than in 2004, 64% of the eligible voters. Blacks increased their share of the electorate to 13%, two percent above their role in 2004. Some other figures help to understand the moment. Blacks voted for Obama by a margin of 95%, Latinos by 66%, and young voters also by 66% - in political parlance this is a super-majority. Latinos brought home the winning of the West by voting more than 2-1 for Obama in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Latino support in Nevada - an important swing state - for the first black president of the nation was 74%. And, the united black and Latino vote in Florida was responsible for carrying this state. This Latino electorate performance smashes forever the racist myth rolled out by many media pundits after the Super Tuesday primaries in February that Latinos would never vote for a black man for president. Latinos proved them wrong - big time.

I'M VOTING FOR THE BLACK MAN

In December 2007, I attended an immigration conference in Houston, Texas. I took a taxicab to return to the airport, and struck up a conversation with the driver, an African American, and it eventually got to the elections. I asked him whom he was supporting for president. Without missing a beat, he responded, "I'm voting for the black man." He added that "the first 43 presidents have been white men, so why not give the black man a chance, he couldn't do any worst." The logic was compelling. One month later the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), for which I serve as national president, celebrated its endorsement convention and the hundreds of delegates unanimously voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president. The organization formed MAPA FOR OBAMA chapters and joined the campaign. The members resolved to cast their lot with our black brothers and sisters and look forward to the "change we need" - the Obama campaign slogan.

Many tears were shred, including my own, at the sheer delight of hearing president-elect Obama pronounce his speech at Grant Park in Chicago. I am proud of my president-elect, proud of white America, proud of the black community who demonstrated leadership, patience, and discipline moving towards this election, and proud of Latinos who showed the world that it is willing to support a candidate for the content of his character and not the color of his skin. The latter was a confirmation of what I have always experienced in life.

Obama's victory speech was somber in my interpretation and he took great pains to lower expectations within the context of expressing optimism, accomplishment, gratitude, and reflecting on the historic moment in reference to Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He staked out a laudatory posture of reconciliation and reaching across the isle in a big way. This is how he intends on governing in a too-fractured America.

Like many other Americans, I too am banking on Obama just as Obama banked on Latinos to win the West. There is probably no issue of great import to the country that could not be considered a Latino issue. Everything in his platform speaks to our needs - the economy, financial markets, a more progressive tax policy, homeownership, ending the war in Iraq, re-building the infrastructure, global warming, the development of alternative energy sources and ending our dependence on fossil fuels, universal healthcare, and certainly, comprehensive immigration reform. We have everything to benefit from this presidency, but it will more likely occur by continued organizing, mobilizing, and being present, and being counted.

We should have no illusions about the speed of change we need and want, or about the ability of president-elect Barack Obama to deliver. There will be great difficulties. President Bush will hand over a basket-case of a country, two wars, a half-a-trillion dollar budget deficit, a doubled national debt of $11 trillion, millions of home foreclosures, one million jobs lost during the last twelve months alone, and a economic recession that will only deepen. These are overarching challenges for any new president. But, these too are our challenges. And, from crisis comes opportunity.

Join us in this prolonged campaign for driver's licenses and visas for our families. The first step in making change is to join an organization that pursues the change we desire. We welcome you to our ranks.
Other organizations leading this movement include: Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), MAPA Youth Leadership, Liberty and Justice for Immigrants Movement, National Alliance for Immigrant's Rights, and immigrant's rights coalitions throughout the U.S..

Barack Obama: Where do we go from here?

Latinos for Obama

Latinos have been stepping up across the nation to help bring the change we need.

They know Barack Obama wants to make sure Washington is working for every community, and making the long-overdue changes in education, health care, immigration, and economic opportunity that will help our Latino communities.

With only days until Election Day, your support is more important than ever.

We've put together a video about Latinos getting involved to help Barack.

Watch the video, then sign up to help in the final push:



Everything will come down to these last few days. No matter what anyone says, this election will be decided on the ground by dedicated people helping to get out the vote.

We're almost there -- and we need you to take us over the finish line.

Watch the video and take action to make sure we bring the change we need:

http://my.barackobama.com/LVgetinvolved

With your help, we can make history and change our country.

Thank you for all that you're doing,

Temo

Cuauhtémoc "Temo" Figueroa
Latino Vote Director
Obama for America