How do we counter right-wing propaganda and lunacy in the states...

[GPDP]

...without coming off as liberal apologists or defenders of Obama and the Democrats?

The thread on the school walkouts got me thinking about this. Obviously, we know Obama's not going to say anything especially insightful about education. But the fact people are walking out because they are convinced he's trying to indoctrinate kids into "socialism" is very troubling.

I could care less about Obama's message, as I am sure most of us do. What concerns me is the reason people refuse to listen to it. For this reason, I believe it is our duty to engage against the people who make these claims, as well as with those who believe them, if only to show how Obama is in no way a socialist. But in doing so, we run the risk of legitimizing Obama, as his liberal supporters tend to do.

So how do we counter those claims without inadvertently defending Obama? How do we combat this resurgence of far-right activity and propaganda without shilling for the liberals?

[Revy]

With left-wing (socialist) propaganda and reason...logically.

[Abc]

With left-wing (socialist) propaganda and reason...logically.
The problem is socialists, anarchists and communists have very little if any media exposure, while people on the right (glenn beck, bill o'reailly, rush limbach etc..) have TV shows, books, radio programs to spread there views

[Jimmie Higgins]

So how do we counter those claims without inadvertently defending Obama? How do we combat this resurgence of far-right activity and propaganda without shilling for the liberals?

This right-wing populism is the craziest I have seen in my lifetime - it's different than the widespread but shallow nationalism in the US after the WTC attack. This thing is very very deep, but it is also only a tiny fraction of the US population.

The last time there was a upsurge of right-wing populism that was defeated was the civil rights movement and I think we can find many useful parallels there.

In the late 40s, the ruling class passed some small reforms in connection to race and gave concessions to the working class in order to have social peace after the war. This emboldened many middle class black people to begin to demand more equality so that racism would not be a barrier to their upward mobility. There was a big right-wing push back and uproar and after some initial civil rights gains, liberals backed off because of right-wing protests and church bombings and all that. But the polarization remained and young black people were not about to go back to the 1930s after the war. After some false starts and with a lot of determination, black (and non-black allies) students were eventually able to come up with new tactics that could begin to tap into the outrage among blacks and others opposed to jim-crow and racism.

So sit-ins at lunch counters and other small actions began to spread quickly and were able to effectively change the atmosphere and debate from white-supremacist fear to a focus on racism and the oppression of blacks and the poor. The right-wing craziness in the 60s continued but became more and more marginal as the ruling class came to fear left-wing anger more than it needed an outmoded form of jim-crow oppression.

Right now, the right-wing populism is on the front page and grabbing all the political attention, but the economic crisis and a more widespread recognition of the persistence of racism after Katrina, means that the left wing and workers are just as angry. The difference is that our side is not as well organized, and is still somewhat underconfident in putting forward demands on liberal politicians.

Rather than focusing on the debates as the right has set them up (though we should always confront racism if and when the townhallers turn to more overt racism) we should focus our attention on the millions of people who want universal healtcare, and end to the war, and an end to racism. If we can have our own, "lunch counter sit-ins" that teach our side how to make independant demands and not back down and actually win, it will be like a dam of class anger breaking that will show how disconnected these right-wingers really are from working class people.

[GPDP]

Rather than focusing on the debates as the right has set them up (though we should always confront racism if and when the townhallers turn to more overt racism) we should focus our attention on the millions of people who want universal healtcare, and end to the war, and an end to racism. If we can have our own, "lunch counter sit-ins" that teach our side how to make independant demands and not back down and actually win, it will be like a dam of class anger breaking that will show how disconnected these right-wingers really are from working class people.

I think you make a compelling point here. The focus should be on presenting alternatives and struggling to push for those alternatives, rather than engaging on the current discourse as framed by the right-wing.

[Revy]

I think in everything we do, we should make it clear that we are against the Democratic Party and that we're socialists.

I will not, absolutely not, campaign for the "public option" and I think socialists should organize against it (but FOR universal healthcare) AGAIN, I say it is an obfuscation, and only leads to a similar or only slightly different version of the status quo, and we already see the Democrats move away from it.

I expect the plan is to still have people fighting over it all the way into 2010....that's how these things go.

Flashback to September 1993. President Clinton, inaugurated that same year, introduces the health care issue. The next year, the issue is declared dead. To re-iterate the situation, the Democrats held the Presidency, a majority in the House and the Senate, exactly the same where they are today. But yet, nothing happened! Why? Whose fault? The Democrats. The Republicans were against it too, but the Democrats failed to change anything.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd rather campaign for scrapping patent rights along with nationalization of the broader health industry.

[RadioRaheem84]

Flashback to September 1993. President Clinton, inaugurated that same year, introduces the health care issue. The next year, the issue is declared dead. To re-iterate the situation, the Democrats held the Presidency, a majority in the House and the Senate, exactly the same where they are today. But yet, nothing happened! Why? Whose fault? The Democrats. The Republicans were against it too, but the Democrats failed to change anything.


Correct. The issue back then was just like it is now; a dead issue. Obama, like Clinton, doesn't care about a real public option, he just wants to appear as though he does. He is scared of a backlash and doesnt want to appear by-partisan, except for when it makes him look like a leader.

All I see is a repeat of the Clinton era. Nothing more. No change. Maybe we'll get some scandals out of this though.

[manic expression]

We should start with saying that revolutionary politics needs to criticize bourgeois society as a whole. The very foundation of capitalist society must be questioned.

The arguments between liberals and conservatives are usually hypocritical: liberals say war is bad, and yet they elect leaders who start more wars than conservatives do; conservatives say big government is bad, but they wet themselves at the thought of giving more power and resources to the repressive sectors of the state. At every turn, expose these two-faced positions for what they are: merely differing plans on how to exploit and oppress the working class.

Basically, just point out the fact that Obama isn't a socialist, and that the walkouts are a stupid right-wing ploy because he agrees with most Republicans on most issues. That's what I would say first and foremost, and then talk about why people should walk out on Obama because he's the #1 enemy of the working class today. Plus, you could talk about the fact that American schools suck because neither conservatives nor liberals care about education for working-class children. Get past the Dem-Repub BS and get to the issues that affect human beings.

[kharacter]

Get past the Dem-Repub BS and get to the issues that affect human beings.
This is key. It's the same problem in Mexico, for people are stricly adhering to the two/three options rationed to them by party politics. The reformer thinks backwards; getting universal healthcare has an effect limited by the fact that it corporations ultimately have control over the state. Like Alexander Berkman said, it's like trying to change your face by getting a new mirror.