[NLA] but wait, there's more--USDE web site

[George E. Demetrion]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:27:56 -0500 "Debbie Yoho" <dwyoho at earthlink.net>
writes:

But my point was that in American politics the system is designed for one
point of view to prevail--for a time--and for better or worse. The trick
is to insure the system protects the rights of those who have points of 
view that are "on the outs" at the moment. But I don't look to the
reigning party for that protection. I may differ from some on the list
who, 
like me, would call themselves liberal, but at age 51 I still have some
cockeyed
>faith in both my fellow citizens and the political system we live  with.
 Another day will come. In the meantime, I have to consider myself  among
the loyal opposition--unhappily opposed, but nonetheless loyal, at least 
to the
>process. 

Debbie and others:

I see your point here, though I'm troubled by a politics that is far from
as usual these days.  As I recall the Clinton administration, that
represented anything but the domination of democratic liberalism.  One
thinks in the early days of Clinton's backing off of the issue of gays in
the military and the nominee of Lanie Gaunier for Atty General, where
Clinton pulled both of these in response to Republican pressure.  One
also thinks of the failure of his early domestic reform--the emphasis to
be placed on job training as the quid pro quo for globalization and
welfare reform.  And then the incompetent fiasco of his health care plan
which did more than anything else to usher in the 104th Contract  With
America Congress, which threatened to eliminate adult literacy education
as we have known it.  Then, Clinton's rightward turn in 1996 on what is
euphemistically referred to as "welfare reform," which also gave us the
Workforce Investment Act.  Then, finally, all that impeachment furor over
that Monica stuff.  Let's say that throughout the Clinton administration,
conservative forces more or less effectively checked any liberal agenda
that might have issued forth from the "New Democrat," William Jefferson
Clinton."  From a more detached point of view, one might interpret such
stalemate as the typical checks and balance operative through much of the
relationship between the Presidency and Congress.

I think we're in a fundamentally different mode at this time, and that
any analysis of what might be perceived as politics as useful needs to be
carefully sifted through the ideological forces that are currently
operative in the political culture.  The most fundamentals factor as I
see it is a very intentional and methodical right wing agenda which
dominates the White House and has sufficient power (now) in Congress to
freely impose its will on the nation.  This will soon be followed by a
federal court system that will be heavily weighed toward the conservative
agenda and its impact will be felt for years. 

The Hartford Courant reported today that major corporate financial
support in the industries of the pharmaceuticals and insurance (and
others) are shifting their contributions much more decidedly to the
Republican Party, where up now it had been more equitably distributed
between the two parties.  Then there is the nightly rantings of
conservative television news programs (and not just Fox TV), drawing
millions of viewers and playing a major role in shaping the agenda of
what gets perceived as news and right thinking.  Night after night, the
drumbeat of the conservative agenda, combined with bashings of the "far
left" and claims of liberal bias in the media, and by this they mean
Peter Jenning!!, gets aired, with nary a centrist, never mind a "far
left" counter voice of any substantial proportion.

Thus,with such a potent source of political power in place, the political
fundamentalism of the Bush administration has attained a powerful
hegemony which spans the gamut of right thinking (double entendre
intended) from phonics to geopolitics.  Given this power, the Hartford
Courant has also reported that the GOP conservatives intend to push their
conservative social agenda very far, which will include some major
restrictions on abortion and, as I gather,. some major public funding for
faith based initiatives.  If I have this right, some time ago, the Pat
Robertson foundation was awarded a major grant.

So the question becomes where are the checks and balances either within
the government itself, within the fourth estate (the press), or in
citizenry grass roots activism from below?  In 1964 Barry Goldwater said
extremism in the cause of virtue is no vice.  Now we have such extremism
in the White House, in the dominant forces in Congress, in the federal
courts, and on cable television news.  Rather than politics as usual, I
see this as politics in a new, virulent key, where the Administration's
capacity to effectively stifle, marginalize, and repress public dissent
over the President's Iraqi policy is symptomatic of a broader political
intention to destroy any  vestiges of progressivism (or apparently even
centriism) as a contemporary political force and to impose right thinking
on the nation in the areas of education, culture, religion, social
issues, civic responsibility,  and foreign policy. While they're not
likely to attain their full agenda, there's very little on the horizon by
way of check to blunt the full impact of a very powerful effort to
reshape culture and politics as we have known it in the United States. 
And this will be done in the name of patriotism and imposing leadership
and bringing back respectability to the President.  

May I hear an a-men!

 And to top it off, such ideology is buttressed by the allegedly
anti-ideological stance of scientific based research in the areas of
health, education, and God knows what else as a tool to impose the Bush
agenda on the American people, many of whom seem quite willing to embrace
it--as they can really hear no other message.  

An essential part of the process of US democratic politics is vigorous
dissent when it is warranted.  The times they are before us.  Even if the
logic of my thinking leads me to exaggerate at time or even if at times I
get it wrong, better to speak up, I say and self correct on the fly
rather than to keep silence in the face of this hegemonic onslaught of
conservative ideology.  A stout defense of the First Amendment and the
vitality of US democracy itself demands such a stance.

>In terms of advocacy for the AELS, there's nothing like an ogre on the
horizon to unify the troops. Perhaps in the next few years the NLA
will>truly develop into a force to be reckoned with. We've made a start. 

That's certainly my hope too.  After reading the Action Alert on the AERA
web site, one wonders to what extent NIFL will allow unfettered free
speech on the listservs it hosts.  That's something to keep an eye on.

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com
>Debbie
>  
>Deborah W. Yoho
>Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
>President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
>Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
>2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205
>803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho at earthlink.net
> 
> 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
>http://literacytent.org
>


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org