"A REGULAR THING FOR ME"

“Not an intentional attempt to change the nation.”

That’s Bill Frist’s ahistorical description of Rosa Parks’ December 1, 1955 civil disobedience. I take on this and a few other peculiar gems of punditry on her life in an article for Campus Progress on-line here:

Unfortunately, much of what’s been said by politicians or journalists has been deeply misleading or flat-out false. It’s reinforced the 50-year-old myth that Parks was an apolitical woman who one day ambled into history out of simple physical exhaustion and then promptly ambled back out of it again. Such a myth only encourages needless knee-jerk skepticism of contemporary activists who are public about strong political convictions, work through political organizations, and formulate careful media strategies – all of which describe the real Rosa Parks, not the Rosa Parks most Americans remember.

More on this here and here.

FIGHTING WORDS

Matt Yglesias: “The difference is that throughout 2002 and 2003 the conventional wisdom in pro-war circles was that the war would turn out well, so the dissembling used to sell it wouldn’t be such a big deal and it was a bit naive of liberals to be obsessed with the lying point.”

David Cole: “It would actually make existing law worse by providing Congressional authorization for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in certain circumstances. Right now the authority for such action is a highly dubious executive interpretation; the proposed exemptions would give this questionable interpretation legislative approval.”

Jo-Ann Mort: “It says a lot about the state of the Dems and the state of the Republicans that on the same day President Bush bowed to his right wing by nominating a conservative candidate to the Supreme Court, the story broke that Democratic operatives were working out of a ‘war room’ in Arkansas, making Wal-mart and their slash and burn economic strategy palatable to the American people.”

Mark Weisbrot: “The past 25 years have been the worst growth performance in modern Latin American history.”

"EIDELTHOUGHTS" RESURGENT

By some bizarre turn of events, the YDN has given me a regular column to cause trouble with on alternate Tuesdays. The idea is to engage some of the divisions within the self-identified left and explore how left-identified institutions fall short of left ideals. The title – provided by my Mom, who also gave us “Eidelthoughts” as the name of my high school column – is “What’s Left.” Read into that what you will…

The first column appeared in today’s paper:

Willful historical blindness underlies the all-too frequent arguments that civil rights activists were distinguished from activists before or since by not needing organizers to push people to take risks, or long meetings to plan their actions, or media strategies and spokespeople to make their case as effectively as possible. The 60s civil rights movement had all of these components — and none made its claims any less urgent or its vision any less honest.

The night Parks was arrested, the local Women’s Political Council met to debate the merits and plan the logistics of a city-wide bus boycott. The WPC’s Jo Ann Robinson composed a leaflet to build support for the action. Local NAACP President E.D. Nixon used a slide rule to start mapping walking routes around the city and holding meetings with clergy to press them for support. Nixon and others founded the Montgomery Improvement Association to oversee the boycott and, seeking a minister as a public spokesman, set about recruiting Martin Luther King.

Building a movement is hard work. Most of that work doesn’t make great television. But stories in which such work was never necessary make terrible history.

I first explored Parks’ death on this site here (got a really nice response here, as well as an unexpected offer to appear on a right-wing talk radio show that got revoked at the last minute once it was clear I wasn’t going to attack Parks).

My YDN columns will be conveniently archived (all the better to rule out any future political career) here.

NOT DOING US ANY FAVORS

Howard Dean was doing a decent job on Hardball reminding Chris Matthews that it was the White House, and not the Democratic Party, that first declared Samuel Alito’s record as a prosecutor to be relevant to the merits of his nomination. But then Matthews brought up Alito’s far-right position on spousal notification and instead of hitting out of the park the question of whether a woman should need a permission slip from her husband to decide what happens to her body, Dean got dragged into a losing fight over whether it was accurate to describe the Democrats as a “pro-choice party.” Dean shied away from the characterization, even though it describes a plurality of Americans, on the grounds that calling the party pro-choice suggests that people with the party’s position are not “pro-life.”

That would be the problem with the term “pro-life,” not the term “pro-choice.”

Dean fumbled back and forth between describing his position as one supporting a woman’s right to choose and one supporting a family’s right to choose, and insisted that the Democratic party’s position was not an “abortion rights” one. If the idea was to communicate that the party was open to abortion opponents, it’s not clear what Dean accomplished towards that end. But for those looking to the Democratic party in hopes of figuring out what it stands for, it clear what the costs are of bristling and hedging over whether you should be called “pro-choice.”

WAL-MART: CAST OUT THE SICK

Wal-Mart’s Vice President sends the Board a memo suggesting the company cut down on the costs of providing health insurance when employees get sick by driving away any employees who could use health insurance:

Redesign benefits and other aspects of the Associate experience, such as job design, to attract a healthier, more productive workforce…Decrease cross-subsidization of spouses through higher premiums or other charges…[life insurance] is also a high-satisfaction, low-importance benefit, which suggests an opportunity to trim the offering without substantial impact on Associate satisfaction…reducing the number of labor hours per store, increasing the percentage of part-time Associates in the stores, and increasing the number of hours per Associate…Wal-Mart should seek to attract a healthier workforce. The first recommendation in this section, moving all Associates to consumer-driven health plans, will help achieve this goal because these plans are more attractive to healthier Associates. The team is also considering additional initiatives to support this objective, including: Design all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart gathering…It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier workforce than it will be to change behavior in an existing one. These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to Wal-Mart.

Put simply, Wal-Mart’s strategy is one of cost-cutting through squeezing workers out of full-time work and discrimination against qualified applicants. As Jacob Hacker writes:

what this memo makes clear is that Wal-Mart’s recently touted effort to “upgrade” its health plan ultimately amounts to a gutting of the very concept of health insurance…how to deal with these exploding costs? In a nutshell, get rid of “cross-subsidization” (yes, the memo actually uses the word) — of spouses, of the old, of the sick. Newman points out that this may be grounds for an ADA suit. But equally important, it is a view totally at odds with the concept of insurance. Insurance, after all, is all about cross-subsidies

This comes after a weekend Wal-Mart devoted to pitching itself as a progressive employer. Tough sell there.

ROSA PARKS, MISREMEMBERED

Rosa Parks died yesterday at age 92. Over the days to come, we’ll hear a lot of very-much deserved prasie for Parks’ refusal to abide bigotry and her courage in the service of a cause. Unfortunately, we’ll also hear a new round of recitations of the stubborn myth that Parks was an anonymous, apolitical woman who spontaneously refused to yield to authority and in so doing inspired a movement. The truth, as Aldon Morris wrote in his book The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement, is that a decade earlier

in the 1940s Mrs. Parks had refused several times to comply with segregation rules on the buses. In the early 1940s Mrs. Parks was ejected from a bus for failing to comply. The very same bus driver who ejected her that time was the one who had her arrested on December 1, 1955…She began serving as secretary for the local NAACP in 1943 and still held that post when arrested in 1955…In the early 1940s Mrs. Parks organized the local NAACP Youth Council…During the 1950s the youth in this organization attempted to borrow books from a white library. They also took rides and sat in the front seats of segregated buses, then returned to the Youth Council to discuss their acts of defiance with Mrs. Parks.

This history is not hidden. But the Times’ obituary describes Parks’ arrest nonetheless as an event which “turned a very private woman into a reluctant symbol and torchbearer…” Parks was certainly reluctant to see too personal valoration of her as heroine distract from the broader movement. But she was not private about her politics. And her refusal to give up her bus seat was nothing new for her. As she would later tell an interviewer, “My resistance to being mistreated on the buses and anywhere else was just a regular thing with me and not just that day.”

The myth of Parks as a pre-political seamstress who was too physically worn out to move has such staying power not because there’s any factual basis but because it appeals to an all-too popular narrative about how social change happens in America: When things get bad enough, an individual steps up alone, unsupported and unmediated, and spontaneously resists. And then an equally spontaneous movement follows. Such a myth makes good TV, but it’s poor history.

Movement-building takes hard work, no matter how righteous the cause or how desperate the circumstances.

The pivotal moments of the 60’s civil rights movement, as Morris recounts in his book, were not random stirrings or automatic responses. Most of them were carefully planned events which followed months of organizing and were conceived with an eye to political tactics and media imagery. There were even some long meetings involved.

That shouldn’t be seen as a dirty little secret, because strategic organizing and planned imagery shouldn’t be seen as signs of moral impurity. Organizations, like the people in them, each have their faults (Ella Baker was frequently and justifiably furious with the sexism and condescension of much of CORE’s leadership). But the choice of individuals to work together and find common cause in common challenges doesn’t become less pure or less honest or less noble when they choose to do it through political organizations. And there’s nothing particularly progressive about a historical perspective in which Rosa Parks’ defiance of racism is made less genuine by the knowledge that she was secretary of the NAACP.

The myth of Rosa Parks as a private apolitical seamstress, like the myth of Martin Luther King as a race-blind moderate, has real consequences as we face the urgent civil rights struggles of today. Seeing acts of civil disobedience like Parks’ as spontaneous responses to the enormity of the injustice justifies the all-too common impulses to refuse our support for organized acts of resistance and regard organized groups as inherently corrupt. Those are impulses people like Rosa Parks had to confront and overcome amongst members of her community long before she ever made national headlines for refusing to give up her seat on the bus.

YOU’VE BEEN A VERY NAUGHTY COASTLINE

Look, I understand that the people tasked with writing them want to make their headlines sharp and vivid. And it’s old news that personification is an easy short-cut to do that. But who at the AP really thought is was appropriate – and clever, apparently – to write “Hurricane Wilma Punishes Mexico Coastline”?

I mean, besides reifying certain assumptions about the relationship between suffering and wrongdoing (you won’t see a headline reading “Major Heart Attack Punishes Dick Cheney”), it’s a ridiculous image. Like, highly ridiculous.

FIGHTING WORDS

Nathan Newman: “If progressives want a killer political response to Bush’s calls for making the Estate Tax permanent, it’s to keep the estate tax and devote the proceeds to long-term health care. The purpose is the same — preserving assets for the next generation — but ending the “sickness tax” would have far broader appeal than conservative wailing about a “death tax” that applies only to a a tiny percentage of the population.”

Sam Smith: “It was on this show that I got conservative journalist Marc Morano to admit he was a ‘a la carte’ socialist since he used Washington’s subway system. ‘You’re a subway socialist,’ I had told him. ‘You’re just not a healthcare socialist.'”

David Sirota: “This blunting of the left’s ideological edge is a result of three unfortunate circumstances. First, conservatives spent the better part of three decades vilifying the major tenets of the left’s core ideology, succeeding to the point where “liberal” is now considered a slur. Second, the media seized on these stereotypes and amplified them – both because there was little being done to refute them, and because they fit so cleanly into the increasingly primitive and binary political narrative being told on television. And third is Partisan War Syndrome – the misconception even in supposedly “progressive” circles that substance is irrelevant when it comes to both electoral success and, far more damaging, to actually building a serious, long-lasting political movement.”

MIERS’ CANDOR

Anyone wondering what passes for candor in the Bush White House could get a good sense from the documents released today about his relationship with then-Governor’s-Counsel Harriet Miers by the Texas State Library:

“You are the best governor ever – deserving of great respect,” Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997…Mr. Bush returned the admiration, the files show. After Ms. Miers’s birthday wishes, he wrote thanks and a “happy 52nd to you.” He added, “I appreciate your friendship and candor – never hold back your sage advice.”

Bush’s defense against charges from the right and the left that he’s out to fill a vacancy on the highest court in the land with a crony? Referencing the magazines that listed her as an uber-influential lawyer…based on her status as Bush crony. As Salon notes, this is just a circular argument:

…why did the National Law Journal consider Miers to be so “influential”? If the [National Law Journal] items posted at the pro-Miers site JusticeMiers.com are any indication, it wasn’t because she had a keen legal mind or some other qualification for the Supreme Court. It was, in large part, because she was so well connected, even then, to somebody named George W. Bush. Naming her to its 50 most influential women lawyers list in 1998, the NLJ said that Miers “is a big wheel in the big state of Texas, where she is chair of the Texas Lottery Commission and the personal attorney of Gov. George W. Bush.”…the NLJ named Miers to its 100 most influential lawyers list in 2000, it began by saying she was Bush’s personal attorney, that she had served as general counsel for Bush’s gubernatorial transition team, that she “handled background research, looking for possible red flags, during [the] early days of [Bush’s] 2000 presidential campaign,” and that Texas newspapers have suggested that she might be named attorney general or get some other “key administration post” if Bush were elected president.

That’s the fun thing about being President of the United States: You get to make whomever you want into someone influential, and then you get to give them wide-ranging power over the future of the country. That, and that chef who cooks whatever you want.

IN WHICH I PRAISE YALE ADMINISTRATORS, AND THEN EVERYONE’S HEADS EXPLODE

My YDN piece on the ways in which Yale’s alcohol policy isn’t broken and (with some exceptions) shouldn’t be fixed is on-line here:

So the likely impact of the most popular “tough on drinking” policies, then, is to encourage drinking hard alcohol rather than beer, in private rather than in public, without anyone sober around, without going to RAs for help, and without getting medical attention when someone gets sick. And judging from the conversations I had with other American college students in an immersion program this summer, too often that’s exactly what happens. That such policies are implemented in the name of protecting students is that much more absurd. To their credit, Yale’s leaders have chosen policies that prioritize keeping students safe over posturing for parents.

OVERHEARD TODAY AT THE PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT

“The problem is, if you do something for one of these [union] locals, the others start to expect it. If you were union-free you wouldn’t have this problem, but that’s a hard situation to create…3.5% raise sounds a little rich to me. Look, if we’re out here trying to show these guys that there’s not a benefit to their collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters, 3.5% is not the way to do that…We could put together a benefits package and show that ours [were] superior – I don’t even know if that would help us. We need something.”

LET’S HAVE A VOTE

Should we impose word verification on the comments so people (that is, automated programs) stop using the comment threads to hawk their wares?

Responses from automated programs will not be counted.

Thoughts about the fairness and representativeness of this particular decision-making process are also welcome…as long as they don’t come from automated programs.