The most dramatic moment at the lately-concluded Netroots convention was when a young mop-haired guy organizing some kind of national progressive rally in a form of direct action rushed a panel of left-celeb advocates and urged them to come, and handed them each a placard, and Lt. Dan Choi, who has chained himself to the White House fence in support of marriage equality, asked the youth where he was on the issue. The kid said something about trying to build broad coalitions and Choi tore the placard in four pieces and threw it at him. The kid said, “Civil union,” and Choi picked up the pieces and tore them again and threw them and stood up and glowered at the kid. Physical violence seemed next. The kid slunk back to his seat amid wild applause for Lt. Choi.
I offer this great moment because it shows what Netroots is capable of, getting behind someone who is taking a strong left position and brooking no wishy-washiness. If the president fails them, Choi won’t vote for him, while others will support the president but be on him on this issue, glowering.
The same affirmation of a left position could be seen on the last night of the convention when the hall stood behind undocumented immigrants’ right to citizenship, and the undocumented came up to the stage to take awards. One of the honorees cited Malcolm X. Singer Jill Sobule sang, and we chorused: “When they say they want our America back/What the fuck do they mean–“
Netroots is closely aligned with the Democratic Party but it is capable of taking grass roots stands on important freedom issues, and this is why I must repeat the lesson of day 2 of the conference, It made no room on the main stage for an antiwar position or a criticism-of-Israel position. In listing the components of Netroots, Van Jones said, Labor unions, LGBT, racial justice, enviros, immigrants rights….
Were I ever in Dan Choi’s position I would issue my own litmus test, supporting Palestinian freedom and statehood. But of course I’m not in his position–he was sitting next to Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, who also finesses the issue, and so I had to have my conversations about Israel and Palestine out in the hall or in side rooms. I had some great conversations, and I will soon relate one with a brave young Palestinian, but I noted in my movements in the hall that there were several strong supporters of Zionism there, including J Street. And the official Netroots policy seems to be a belief that a two-state solution is right around the corner if we can only whistle and hop up and down on one foot for a minute; and by maintaining some vagueness about this issue, it is trying to keep everyone happy.
I don’t think it will keep everyone happy. As somebody once said on a related moral issue, a House divided against itself cannot stand. But if that house is ever going to fall, if vaguely blind support for Israel is going to be challenged at Netroots, it is going to take a lot of folks who are as brave and out as Lieutenant Choi. And that hasn’t come to pass. The Zionists and the non-Zionists look at one another warily, and the Satan at every microphone at Netroots was the Koch Brothers. I didn’t hear one person denounce Netanyahu. Netanyahu, a rightwing religious leader who has got my president in a half-nelson– Netroots has nothing to say on the question. It’s a complete abdication. The top line of the Nation’s cover the same week was “Can Obama Beat the Israel Lobby?” by Henry Siegman; I didn’t hear one reference to the Israel lobby in Minneapolis.
Now let me proffer two rejoinders to this post. The first was my observation that there were many Muslims at Netroots, and many women wearing the hijab. Give it up for Netroots: There was a great inclusive feeling to the gathering. Not many of these women showed up on panels, but they were there; and I have to believe that these Muslims are close to my position on Israel/Palestine, and in years to come this house will no longer be divided, and the liberal Zionists will become non-Zionists…
And here is a second rejoinder, from Lizzy Ratner, who has more of a panoramic view than I do, on the general issue of the left and foreign policy:
My impression is that there was a time just a few years ago when progressives were somewhat foreign policy obsessed — to the exclusion of domestic concerns. The problem is that obsession went nowhere, we lost almost every damn foreign policy battle we tried to fight. Afghanistan? The Iraq War? Guantanamo? Rendition? The Bushies just laughed and kept on going. And I think that killed a lot of people’s spirit. It became pretty clear pretty quickly that no one really knew how to organize against war any more, how to make protest work in the modern age or at least how to create an alternative to protest. So I think people gave up, turned toward battles they could fight and were right in front of them. That said, we — people — could have persevered, could have kept on fighting despite the losses, without any likely victories. Which points to the biggest problem of all: there just isn’t that deep a progressive movement in this country. It’s not even clear there’s even a movement, with coherent values and a unifying vision or set of visions.
