Morality, Monogamy, and Newt Gingrich

The latest news from Republicanland is that Newt Gingrich has stormed to the front of the dog race. He brings with him the bombast, fury, and total disregard for the facts of the Republican electorate seems to be searching for this election cycle. If you listen to the mainstream media, it seems like the biggest problem in his past is not his disgraced fall from his position as Speaker of the House nor his subsequent career as a lobbyist/overpaid historian/con-man, but his personal life.

It is a well-documented, scandal-filled personal life, crowned by having an affair with a member of his staff at the same time as he was crusading to have then-President Clinton impeached for having an affair with a member of staff. What most members of the news media, with the exception of Rachel Maddow, fail to point out is that what  makes Gingrich’s story despicable and, more importantly, a valid point for electoral politics is the hypocrisy of his policies, not the specific details of his personal life. It would be one thing if this was simply a problem in the theocratic realms of right wing TV and radio, but, across the board, this distinction simply has not been made enough. Should we distrust Gingrich because he is a divorcee or because, even with that past, he campaigns with a platform that includes fidelity pledges. For having an affair with a woman he said now seems to be in a very loving relationship with, or for arguing the existence of a much less serious affair was grounds to dismiss the democratically elected president? Or the newest attack, for asking his second wife for an open marriage or because his economic policies could actually be categorized as class warfare? Unfortunately, all these factors seem to be lumped together with even progressives  participating in shaming any type of suggested sexual deviance.

Let’s start with the divorce. Sure, nobody likes divorces. They’re sad. It means that some of the big things you hoped for didn’t work out... But it is hardly proof of some kind of grievous moral failing. Around half of all American marriages end in divorce. And that’s okay. In fact, I’m sure almost everybody knows somebody would be better off if they got a divorce. And is the alternative really better? Would it be better if our politicians and public figures stayed in miserable, unhealthy, unfulfilling relationships? Surely it’s better to learn from your past mistakes and act accordingly rather than refusing to make a change. Isn’t that the quality we want in a leader rather than just stubbornness? Indeed, the argument can be made that the only proof that Gingrich has changed since a disgraced exit from the house is his seemingly very healthy marriage to Calista Gingrich. Perhaps, like my father, Newt just got it right the 3rd time around (other similarities include being white, being male... and that’s about it). Besides, it is important to recognize that divorce is a basic human right to liberalize society. Would it be better if we had laws impeding us from ending consensual relationships? It should be the circumstances around a divorce that can potential it may come political problems, not the divorce itself. 

What about Newt? He was cheating on both of his former wives before their divorces. Isn’t that more than enough grounds to question his character and make the divorces political fodder for Gingrich’s enemies? The short answer is, of course, yes. Nobody likes a cheater. While it certainly does not reflect well upon your character I think it ranks pretty low on the list of skeletons in our politicians closets. We have sitting representatives who are, arguably guilty of crimes ranging from embezzlement to insider-trading to crimes against humanity. Cheating on your significant other does not make you a criminal. Even if it does make you an asshole, so do things like disenfranchising voters, trying to undermine our rights to bargain collectively, being more concerned with the rights of zygotes than the rights of women, or being a libertarian. And yet while cheating (even over Twitter) can be a career-ending disgrace, the rest of these blemishes seems to be par for the course.

It would also be different if the American public was leading stable, happy, completely monogamous lives. but with over fifty percent of marriages ending in divorce and an estimated forty to sixty percent of married Americans cheating at some point in their lives that is clearly not the case. For the most part, progressives and leftists have done little to combat the idea Americans have lost their ‘moral compass.’ However, while conservatives have a solution (the teachings of Jesus Christ), liberals have basically just thrown up their hands, condescendingly hoping that people just start to behave ‘better’.

That is almost the worst reaction we could have. Rather than sticking with the old, failing  system of morality, we must begin to seriously endorse the idea of alternatives to the Judeo-Christian bonds of monogamy. The Abrahamic religions, aided by even supposedly secular governments, have created a system of morality surrounding marriage is fixed, standardized, and singular, where monogamy is presented as the only possible choice. However, among a great many types of people there is a basic understanding of that, based on the facts of human history what we view as moral is not fixed permanently but is rather a semi-fluid creation of society. 

There are two different ways people reacted to this information. The first oversimplifies this vital historiographical lesson into the specter of Moral Relativism. According to this ideology, because it is impossible to find one specific definition of moral behavior identically codified throughout human history, it is impossible to codify what is moral for anyone besides yourself. This is clearly a standard of Ayn Randian libertarianism, but it has seeped its way into the much more mainstream gospel of tolerance. While shrouded in the guise of individualism and personal  responsibility, Moral Relativism has caused more damage than rap music, short skirts, contraception, or any other of the factors traditionally ‘blamed’ for the state of our society. Moral Relativism’s general acceptance on the right and left has castrated every group beyond the most extreme religious conservatives on the issue of morality. The maximum of live and let live has been taken to an extreme where few people are willing to stand behind any kind of moral structure, let alone one that goes against the traditional norms of society.

Progressives must not allow ourselves to do this. We need to make it clear that is possible to be moral and not share the same precise definitions of morality as our forefathers. Norms change when society changes, and, historically, only then can what is considered to be moral change. We are clearly a culture stock before that final step. Even if we publicly pay homage to the norms of our past, our societal norms are clearly changed. Central to the ideals of Progressivism is that our society’s norms must not simply be based on antiquated traditions or created to serve the interest of a specific subset of the population. They must serve everyone, a general rather than a specific good. That simply cannot be done if we continue to base what we consider moral off of words written thousands of years ago. Progressives hesitancy to support alternatives to strict monogamous relationships is hindered, not helped the American public.  It is clear from our actions that many Americans, no matter what they say, simply do not feel like a traditional marriage, with all of its bells, whistles, and restrictions, is right for them.

I want to make it very clear that I’m not arguing that everyone would be happier if we had a different little cookie-cutter to shape what we think of as moral. Suggesting that everyone should try the same nontraditional relationship structure, even if the effort was wholeheartedly endorsed by Americans across the legal and social spectrum, would simply result in the same problem that we have today. Instead what needs to be preached is the importance of choice and personal consent. As long as there is consent I see no problem if you choose to pursue relationships that are  heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, monoamorous, polygamist, polyamorous, or anything that works for you and your consenting partner(s). And, to reinforce the most important aspect being consent and desire, there should be no shame in declaring that you made the wrong choice and ending the relationship, regardless of how sad it might be. 


One of the central tenets of a modernized, economically and socially liberalized (the old-school definition) society is choice. If we decide we want a different job, or that we want to enter into a different field entirely, we may. If we decide we would prefer to live somewhere else in the country, or even, with the proper documentation, somewhere else in the world, we may. If we want to change our diet, our wardrobe, our source of news, or our favorite sports team, we may. Though some might question some of those decisions, they’re hardly viewed as grounds to dismiss  someone’s moral character. Why should we not have the right to choose how we wish to carry on personal relationships with in the same manner?  I seriously doubt that this, as some fear-mongers on the right have suggested, would create a system with a critical mass of the (particularly female) population choosing to engage in purely homosexual relationships or where children grow up without proper role models because their parents are too busy having gigantic hedonistic orgies. Odds are the majority of Americans would still end up choosing to be in a heterosexual monogamous, or least monoamorous, relationships. Helping to support alternatives to strict monogamy will not rip down today society. Rather, it will help provide anybody who wants something else with more than just shame and derision.

And that brings back Newt Gingrich’s supposed request for an open marriage. When I first heard the “story”  I have to say it made perfect sense. Gingrich’s claim to fame is politician is being a big, bold ideas guy. When traditional wisdom dictates and arguments between choices A and B, Gingrich usually seems to get behind choice J. Sometimes his ideas are just plain stupid, like his plan to put mirrors on the moon. Some are offensive and pig-headed, like his plan to hire poor children to take the place of unionized janitors in their schools. But some, like his insistence on protecting America from a cyber attack (certainly more plausible than an electromagnetic pulse) have plenty of merit. 

And, to me, asking his second wife for open marriage seems like one of those. At least in his prime, strict monogamy did not seem to agree with Newt. His first marriage ended partially because of his affair with his second wife. Barely a few years into his second marriage, Newt and Ginther took a multi-year break when they lived separately. Then, his second marriage ended because of an affair with the woman that would become his third wife. Perhaps this is going a bit far, but it seems quite clear that Gingrich, has, or least had, a particularly voracious sexual appetite. And, with his wife hospitalized, Gingrich either had to deal with it, or look elsewhere. This is a perfect example of situation where most Americans would say they would do one thing while probably doing another. But few would do what Newt is reported to have done. Facing two choices: remaining in a sexually, and, reportedly, emotionally unfulfilling relationship, or cheating, Gingrich pursued choice J, an open marriage.  The funniest thing to me about his ex-wife’s recent interview is that the big secret she revealed was not that he was cheating on her, but that he was honest about it. The problem was not asking for an open marriage,  It was, after that request had been denied, carrying on as though it had accepted. 

There are so many reasons to vote against Gingrich. There are few powerful figures in modern American politics with policies that have the power to reshape American society into some sort of Dickensian Oligarchy as Newt. Lambast his punitive (on the poor) tax code, criticize his plans to totally destroy the social safety net, castigate him for his fiery rhetoric about arresting liberal justices, even chastise him for being a serial cheater, but please, leave the open marriage business well alone. And, liberals, the next time you participate in shaming some kind of sexual or moral ‘deviant,’ really ask yourselves why you’re doing it. If you can come up with a reason beyond those found in Abrahamic writ, please tell me, I’d love to know. 

Privacy, Transparency, and Technology.

For seemingly time immemorial, one of the chief rights prized amongst the ‘people’ whether they be subjects of a dictatorship or citizens of a democracy has been privacy. It is a “right” that is valued so highly because it  it is one that has, historically, been very rare. Especially in dictatorships, governments begin with the idea that all aspects of your life are under their purview. That, as a dutiful subject, you should do nothing against the wishes of that dictator and, if commanded, it is your duty-by tradition and law-to do as you’re told. Dictators often try to curry favor by granting aspects of privacy to their citizens, but each one is viewed as a gift rather than right. This can be seen as one of the differences between the British Democratic tradition, which usually sets its beginning with the rights granted in the Magna Carta and the American Democratic tradition with the idea that “all men are created equal.”

However, for all the highfalutin talk, Democratic governments historically follow basically the same pattern.  Though our privacies are valued very strongly, we are expected to give up the right to them as soon as it becomes a measure of national interest, like in a wartime. The battle of democracy versus autocracy that dominated the 20th century can be seen as being being played out in the way governments approach the issue of privacy: Democracies; giving their citizens much more privacy in their home life work life etc.; and big brother style autocracies curtailing those privacies. Now-where is the supposed right to privacy more enthroned than in America, at least rhetorically. This is partially because our founders created this country as a buffer against intrusion into their lives. Their sometimes-paranoiac fear was directed almost totally towards government, and with good reason. Really until the first half of the twentieth century the only organization big enough and powerful enough to invade individual privacy on a large scale were governments.

That is no longer the world we live in. The technologies of the 20th century, particularly the computer chip, make it ludicrously easy to  “invade” each other’s privacy. By and large we trust the massive private corporations that have created service industries around this technology more than we trust our government. Apple knows where many of us are all times, Facebook knows about all those drunken parties we threw before we were 21, Google boasts that soon it will be able to know us well enough to generate our shopping lists, Visa knows what you bought yourself for your birthday, EZ pass knows how late you were out last night, etc. This makes people nervous but enough to stop using these very useful services. But can you imagine how people will react if all these private enterprises were controlled by some ‘evil overreaching’ government? They would be heralded as the end of democracy, that our society was descending into the realm of repressive dictatorship.

But why is this? Perhaps it is because when we naïvely hold onto the belief that the Internet is a beautiful free open source Wonderland, to the old maxim that corporations would never do anything that could risk losing or hurting us, their clients, and to trust in rainbow world of the ‘Free Market’. Of course, all of these dreams are lies

And lie begins very basically.  Ask yourself, Facebook, Google, EZ Pass, Visa: are we really their clients? Partially, but, as far as I know, I’ve never paid anything directly to a corporation like Google or Facebook. We, the users, are not their clients. We are the product. It is much the same for the companies that we do pay, after all, our dues are  minuscule compared to the amount they receive from the ultra rich and corporations. This is not corporations behaving badly... its under-regulated corporations behaving as they are designed to. In the end, a corporation exists not to promote the greater good of society but to make its shareholders as much money as possible. The closest a Corporatists gets supporting some sort of “greater good” is through their sacrosanct ‘cost benefit analysis’. This is, of course, not used to find out the costs and benefits to the general public but only the cost and benefit of its shareholders. This means using all of their resources to make as much money as possible, including selling the information we freely give to these corporations to the highest bidder. That is what capitalism is. Corporations are not founded to support some sort of moral good, they’re designed to be entirely amoral entities, concerned with morality only so much as it affects their bottom line. 

On the other hand, democratic governments exist to serve the will and interests of the people. The “shareholders” are not a subset of the population but the entire population at large. The cost-benefit analysis performed by a democratic government is meant to be directly proportional to the costs and benefits to all of the citizens of that nation. Of course, all too often political decisions are based purely by a cost-benefit analysis for a particular politician’s next election. But the existence of craven self interest and corruption does not mean that the idea behind the democratic governance is wrong. If our representatives passed legislation only for personal or political gain it is in the authority of the citizens to elect new and better representatives. Just look at what citizens of the state of Wisconsin are doing to their governor, trying to recall him barely a year into office. Yes, that is proof that they have a very poor governor, but also proof that the will of the people cannot be ignored in a Democracy. The same is simply not the case with corporations. Unless you hold a gigantic steak the company, it is nearly impossible to force change upon it, -particularly a specific (policy) rather than general (personality) change. Besides, even if all the old fears come true and we are taken over by some kind of repressive dictatorship, don’t you think they would seize all of this  “private” information that we have shuttled into the arms of corporations? And what makes you think those corporations are not already selling the information, without proper democratic oversight, to factions within or currently involved in directly influencing our government? Whatever is making you think that... stop thinking it, because its already happening. 

The supposed trump card played by those who fear government is that while participation in private enterprises is purely voluntary, government programs would in some way be mandatory. If they did include some kind of  opt out clause, it would work in a way that made taking that option incredibly difficult.  Well, how many people think that choosing not to engage in privately controlled enterprises like being part of a social  networking site,  have your cell phone, using GPS, having an e-mail account, having a credit card, or using a search engine would not negatively affect our lives? It may be possible to get away with not engaging in all of those behaviors, but, for many of us, it would be impossible to succeed in society without using some of them. 

So, we, as a society, have three choices. The first and, unfortunately, most probable is stasis. The products and services provided by these corporations are now integral to our lives. If Facebook loses clients, it will probably signaled the rise of Google+, not a broad rejection of social networking sites in general. We all may have our problems with society today but that does not mean we are eager or even willing to just broadly reject it. Perhaps attitudes will change, but people seem to like the services provided by these corporations. I certainly do, and as long as they remain the only option, I will probably go on using them. 

The second option is to truly put our money where our mouth is in terms of wanting privacy. If we wouldn’t want a government to see or learn something piece of information, make it illegal for any organization to do so. Ban Facebook! Shut down all the search engines! Only use tender for financial transactions! Really, try rolling back technology to a point where privacy in the absolute was still even possible. Of course this is a horrific idea for two major reasons.  The first is that such a policy would destroy the world as we know it. All across the globe we, as a species, rely heavily on our technologies. It might be theoretically possible to create a totally private Internet or cell phone service etc. but it would be fundamentally different and almost infinitely less useful than what exists today. The second reason is that rolling back or limiting the usefulness of our technological advances is a practice almost exclusively used by the most  repressive authoritarian states. North Korea, China, Iran etc. They have done this not as a means of increasing privacy but as a means of increasing control. Even of our intentions were good such an action would carry untold consequences. Chief among them the dissolution of the positive social changes brought about by democratic society. The point isn’t these corporations are, by nature, evil.  In fact, the services they provide, particularly those based on the internet, are phenomenal Progressive tools. The challenges confronting an authoritarian government grow exponentially when the populous has access to sites like Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. However, we cannot ignore that all of these corporations operate without the public’s control and, when protected by government privacy laws, often without oversight. 

And the point would not be the rid ourselves of these corporations. Clearly private enterprises stalwart against autocracy. Without the internet all of dictators under attack in the Arab Spring and worldwide would be sitting much more easily. Without Google it would have been much harder for me to set up this blog. I am not arguing for some Soviet/Chinese pseudo-communist state that controls everything. What I am arguing for is to look seriously at the world around us and say... Has our almost unbounded fear of the possibility of an autocratic big brother state led us to embrace something worse. 

The third option is that we realize that we are living in a world where privacy as our ancestors knew or dreamed of it is a thing of the past, and confront that knowledge  head on. Simply because of the technological advances our society now relies upon what was private is  now public. Do we want that information bought and sold in the semi-regulated ‘free market,’ controlled by private organizations listening to the  edicts of a tiny percentage of the population. Or would be preferred under the control of the government, of the people, by the people, for the people? Rather than going all the way, starting to check Govbook, search Govoole, and swipe our Mastergov, what progressives can do about this issue is to promote greater governmental oversight and transparency. Corporations should not be allowed to sell our information without our knowledge. They should not be able to gather our information without our knowledge (and sorry, those 100+ page contracts that people always just skip through isn’t enough). People and corporations should not be able to buy that information without us knowing who they are, how much they paid for it, and what they’re going to do with it. However, it seems like our government has had more interest in protecting the privacy of those transactions than in the privacy of its citizens. Transparency is not just for governments. In a Progressive society, we should be able to see exactly what the corporations we rely upon are really doing. After all, its just bringing those transactions into the twenty first century. The back-room deals of corporatists, the tax returns of the millionaires running for president, just what all of the CEOS who have received bonuses since their companies were bailed out, these should not be the final privacies protected by our government. Transparency, not privacy, is the means to a Progressive future. 

A take on Racial Profiling: Essay from a Reader

     Today, as part of my odious daily commute through midtown, I passed by the ABC News recording studio. A group of approximately 20 men were protesting outside. Each held a sign reading “I am Puerto Rican. I am not a drug dealer.” Similarly, they were chanting “We’re Puerto Rican. We don’t sell drugs.” I overheard other pedestrians talking about how ABC had recently been racially profiling Puerto Ricans in some of their news pieces and that this was likely what the group of men were protesting. Without even knowing the specifics of their protest, I felt offended and irritated. I am half Puerto Rican and bristle at the notion that I may therefore be half-felon. 

     This event led me to think more seriously about the issue of racial profiling on my way home from work. It’s something I’ve always had mixed feelings about largely because the almost too-logical argument behind it runs up against our country’s rather awful history of treating people of color as subhuman. For those who are unclear, the general argument I refer to is as follows: If the person who committed a crime is known to be [insert ethnicity here], the police should question/detain/look out for people who are [insert ethnicity] and who match the rest of the profile. The same principles are used in airports, for example, to help police identify possible terror suspects. The idea is that this will somehow narrow down the pool of suspects or streamline a screening process. 

     My instinct has always been to say that racial profiling is fine. Generally. It is here, however, that I feel it necessary to point out that although I am half-Puerto Rican, I present as white. Very white, to be precise. This has made it rather difficult to claim my heritage in the eyes of other people, but it also means that I have not been, and never will be, subject to any form of racial profiling. I will continue to go through life having never been stopped at an airport, detained in a subway or questioned on my way home from work. In essence, I am ethnic without the burden of my ethnicity. I realized with a certain clarity today that my unease with taking the position of “I-guess-it-makes-sense” stems from the fact that it is a position of complacency and that at the end of the day, ‘racial profiling’ doesn’t actually mean ‘racial profiling’. If it did, I would be detained and questioned along with all the other Puerto Ricans. I am not. I never have been.

     The question we should be asking ourselves here is not “is racial profiling ok?”. If we consider the above anecdote, we should be asking ourselves a very different sort of question - what does a Puerto Rican man look like? If someone came up to you and informed you that a tall Puerto Rican man in his mid twenties had just robbed them, who would you look for? This description can be easily applied to up to half of New York City’s men, and so what it really means is “someone who wasn’t white robbed me.” If you disagree with that assertion, I would encourage you to consider how you would distinguish a Puerto Rican man from a man who is Dominican, South American, Armenian, Lebanese or any of the other ethnicities that are so easily lumped together. 

     The ultimate problem with racial profiling is that it reduces individuals to little more than their skin color. We have no way of knowing if the individual in a news report is actually Puerto Rican. While such specificity may seem like a kind of progress (at least they’re not just calling him “black”, right??), it is the opposite. This kind of language implicates all people of color because “Puerto Rican” is a meaningless descriptor when we speak of a person’s physical attributes. You may know what type of music your perpetrator might like, what foods he might prefer or even which languages he speaks with his mom, but you still have no idea what he looks like. The only thing you know is that he is not white, and therefore any man of color might be that same guy waiting to jump out and snatch your wallet.

The implications of this are obvious. If any man of color is potentially a criminal, the resulting sense of fear and impulse towards ‘othering’ creates an even wider rift between racial communities throughout the country. When you combine this with the statistics that show that minority communities tend to be more heavily concentrated in impoverished areas, it should not come as a surprise that these areas are some of the hardest to change. When everyone on the street lives in mutual fear of one another, there can be no form of social contract. There can be no progress.
     While the protest was comprised entirely of men, and while it is true that men commit an overwhelming majority of reported crimes, it is worth mentioning that this is a women’s issue as well. As I looked at the men protesting today, it occurred to me that they are all men who, as my mother often puts it, ‘set off my spidey senses’. They are men who you might see in a public service announcement, men who I might avoid when walking home alone at night and men who I would expect to harass me on the street if my clothes are in any way provocative. I studied their faces intently to remind myself that the way we are taught to perceive men of color is unjust and largely incorrect. These were all well-meaning people who clearly came from a variety of backgrounds and professions. Had I encountered any of these men under different circumstances however, I am certain I would not have been wondering about their families or what kind of job they had.

     This blog has a rather obvious progressive slant, and so I’ll end by saying that this isn’t the kind of issue with an immediate answer - the solution is a little more vague and gradual than that. We could end the practice of racial profiling today and the problematic assumptions made about people of color would continue to exist. It is thus the responsibility of progressives (or really anyone who doesn’t want to be a terrible person, however accidentally) to be self-aware enough to recognize when our assumptions, or the assumptions of other people, are unwarranted. We cannot feel secure if everyone around us is a potential threat and we cannot achieve any measure of social equality when some people are ‘safer’ than others.

New York, and why I love it

The most important physical battlegrounds in the war for our country are our cities. Of course, cities are supposedly bastions of liberalism. All over the country, even the reddest of states show circles of blue surrounded by seas of red. And yet, over the past  decades the political culture in cities has been channeled away from progressivism and towards corporatism. The genetic makeup of the country is increasingly split between cultural country-conservatism/economic liberalism and the  pop-culture conservatism/economic corporatism of the cities. Nowhere has the shift been seeing more of them in my home, New York City. It is still one of the more artistically and socially progressive places in the country, at least on the East Coast. And the rise of the Corporation has seen New York become one of the economic capitals of the world. Yet even in this world of artisinial cocktails, hedge fund offices, and the police force with more firepower than many countries standing armies, the promise of progressivism still holds great sway. Without New York City you can be sure the recent progress concerning gay marriage would not of been introduced, let alone passed, by the New York State Senate. The big playhouses may put out the same  bland corporate system drivel night after night, there is still progressive art of all sorts all over the city-at least as progressive as art in America gets. The pursestrings may be held by the corporatists, but the city still bleeds progressivism. This is a city unlike any other in America: A city of dreams, a city of immigrants, and, especially in the recession, a city where you can make something out of seemingly nothing.

New York City is still one of the few cities that still really matter. With the rise of the Internet, with corporate headquarters moving from big cities to low tax rural zones, with increased normalcy of suburban sprawl, and of course with the increased loss of industrial economic backbone of the country (replaced by the much more mobile corporate backbone), cities are losing their pride of place in America. But not New York, at least not yet. 

 The response to the corporatization of our cities from the left is varied of course, the general response has been at least a desire to flee. The American left in particular often  gives a very Therovian response to this kind of situation, throwing up their arms and self determining themselves out of whatever den of vipers they currently see themselves in.  That response is a selfish and self-defeating as it was 150 years ago. Running away from the problem, “preferring not” may sound very appealing. After all, what liberal doesn’t  have some sort of desire to run off into the woods and live in  commune with nature? But it is an incredibly selfish and cowardly choice. The underwritten rule of democracy is that the most active citizens will have the greatest  chance to shape the future direction of the country. Yes, that has been polluted by the increased corporate control over society in general and our politics specifically. But running off into the forest isn't going to help anyone except yourself. You may not be able to live your idyllic pastoral fantasies in the rat-race, but you’re never going to change anything with your head in the sand. 

Progressive democracy’s central tenet is the importance of collective action.  I remember a month or so ago on the Rachel Maddow show, Congressman Barney Frank  defined democratic government as what happens when people come together to do something we cannot do on our own. I would expand on that to say that the definition of democratic society not just government. And the important word there is “we.”  We, as a peoples, come together. We are not subjects, obligated to do something. We are not slaves, ordered to do something. We are citizens, each individually choosing to behave collectively. That is the purpose of democracy. And there is no greater place where collective action can be actualized than in a modern democratic city. Fleeing our cities is nothing short of handing over the natural centers of progressivism to the corporatists.

We’ve seen, in 2011, citizens from cities all over the world rise in collective, progressive action. The global economic meltdown has created a crack in the corporatist’s armor. Their “new normal” has been deemed unacceptable, and about time too. This seemingly pacified masses declared that enough is enough. This movement began to be nationalized-or should that be internationalized-in New York. That is no coincidence. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, it is on the streets of New York that we, as Americans and citizens of a global world, fight for our freedom. This is the front line. If New York’s progressive spirit is stamped out by corporatism then the malaise of plutocratic capitalism will have this nation in a stranglehold.

The next few years will be incredibly shaping for our country, and even more so for the city of New York. This recession could easily be a death knell for local control, collective action, and progressivism. The corporatist would like nothing more than to use the economic downturn push government “austerity”, to crush any attempt at collective action, to replace locally owned businesses with their cookie-cutter Pottervilles.

But it does not have to be that way. We have a chance to reinvigorate our democracy. To preach the gospel of personal responsibility and collective action. We must stand with our brothers and sisters in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan. We must stand with our brothers and sisters in Cairo, Moscow, and London. In the words of Slavoj Zizek  “we may not identify with the specifics of their individual lives,  But we identify with their struggle.” This is our world, and we, the citizens of that world, must be ready to claim it. 

And we make our stand in the cities, most of all here in New York. The old “if you can make it here you can make it anywhere” may not be true in general politically. But it is certainly true that without New York, is extremely unlikely that progressivism will spread in America. Once again, sorry Therovian liberals, nobody cares if you can make a “fully functioning” collective action commune out in the hinterlands if all the population centers have gone in an entirely different direction. Progressivism is not a philosophy for the few who have the time, money, and inclination to opt out, it is for us all. It must be here in New York, in the cities, that we make our stand. And it must begin now. We do not decide the time we live in and we have the same choice that all creatures must face, to fight or to flee. If your progressivism goes beyond the confines of your personal day-to-day choices there’s nothing else you can do but fight. And that’s why I love New York, because it’s all happening right here. And there’s some delicious food