OPINION & EDITORIAL
Revolution deep in the hearts, minds of Americans
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- Obama's corporate crush (March 5, 2008)
- Every human deserves humanity (February 27, 2008)
- Dane's sister could bring benefit (February 20, 2008)
- Reps, Dems snuggle with each other, status quo (February 13, 2008)
- Animal torture: Another shameful UW insitution (February 6, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Obama to learn lesson in losing (March 10, 2008)
- Obama's corporate crush (March 5, 2008)
- Obama message will unite, right nation's future (January 24, 2008)
- Media and Internet: Creating political machines (February 3, 2004)
- Clinton has best plan for your pocketbook (January 24, 2008)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
For some time now I have been droning on about Sen. Barack Obama’s staunchly unprogressive political record. He’s a centrist who appeals to left-wing emotions, a clever poseur of the American political landscape.
Not that his opponent is any better. Both candidates’ appeals to liberal primary voters — which are incredibly agonizing to listen to — are about as calculated as can be. Mr. Obama’s rallies and Sen. Hillary Clinton’s town hall meetings abound with rhetorical flourish and calls for hope and change, but they invariably lack substance. Give either of them a laxative, and I’d hate to see the bathroom afterward.
That’s my read on them, anyway. Other progressives, fatigued in these difficult times, are likely to grab at any sign of hope. But does it matter? How much can we expect from even the most left-wing presidential hopeful?
This political season — like all political seasons — we are asked to choose between one of two pro-imperialist, pro-corporate parties. Regardless of who wins, power will remain in the laps of the few, and inequalities of multiple kinds will endure. “If voting could change anything,” said Emma Goldman, “they’d make it illegal.”
I may not quite have the anarchist’s cynicism for our political system, but it is true that fundamental social change never comes through the ballot box. Bill Clinton, after campaigning on a moderately populist platform in 1992, gave us NAFTA, corporate welfare, a bourgeoning prison-industrial complex, a bloodied welfare system and countless other policies that makes one wonder why the right so detests him. Civil rights groups and labor unions were often left speechless, while the hopeless — from homeless veterans to enfeebled Appalachian miners, to the inner-city unemployed — remained without hope. Is it any wonder why so few of the underclass turn out to vote?
Those who put all their faith in the Clintons and Obamas, or even the Edwardses and Feingolds, will always end up disappointed if their desire is to see a substantial concession to social justice. If a real shift in power is the intended goal, can we really expect it to come about through a system that locks away most property and influence in a safe from which only the top 1 percent have access? I pity he who is so naive.
Fortunately, America has a better tradition of democracy — one that takes its cues not from a trifling ballot, but from outpourings of popular pressure. It’s a tradition which has turned out millions into the streets and, as Howard Zinn so aptly describes, creates a narrative of its own, in which the working majority — not the elite politician — dictates history.
The American centuries have produced countless examples of this type of change (real change, that is) of which the labor movement is particularly noteworthy. American workers did not achieve the eight-hour workday, the abolition of child labor and the minimum wage by voting. They did so through struggle. The bloody battles with police of the Gilded Age, the sit-down strikes of the 1930s and the walkouts of the postwar era amounted to a shutdown of the means of production, forcing politicians to make concessions and improve the quality of life for the hitherto powerless majority.
“OK, you’ve convinced me,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt, speaking to a delegation of activists. “Now go out and put the pressure on me.” Trade unionists and other agitators went out and did just that, feverishly organizing workplaces and making the bosses everywhere queasy with apprehension. The legacy of this struggle — aided, but not directed, by a sympathetic president — is still apparent.
Similarly, it was the activists of the Civil Rights Era, staging sit-ins, marches and other protests, who forced the end of apartheid in the American South, not a liberal White House. It was President Richard Nixon, after all, who oversaw the integration of more schools than either of his two predecessors.
True, times have changed, but people remain dissatisfied. The health care problem has turned into a crisis, the war continues to consume bodies and money, while real wages are seemingly unable to stop plummeting. As long as our society remains one of mass inequities, in which millions are crushed by unnecessary burdens and millions more long for control over their working lives, the well of revolt will never be dry.
“The really critical thing,” according to Mr. Zinn, “isn’t who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. … Those are the things that determine what happens.”
Take it from a historian, and don’t hold your breath if Barack Obama wins in November.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 2:33am):
You aren't a historian Kyle. You are a history student. That would be like me saying that I'm a lawyer although I have yet to graduate from law school or pass the bar. If I passed myself off as one, the state bar could actually prevent me from taking the bar exam since I violated one of the major ethical provisions of the profession. You're two degrees, and several years, away from being a historian, or at least several books and articles that receive some level of critical renown. I graduated from the University of Wisconsin's history department in '04, and I'm not a historian. A BA does not a profession make.
So what are you, Kyle? It's very simple. You're not some sort of new, insightful person who has though of new solutions to old problems, or who knows the answers. You are someone who knows how to spout out the same pre-packaged socialist/communist crap that has been floating around a decent sized portion of the faux-intellegentsia for more than a century. You may actually believe what you say. I'm a cynic, though. I think you say what you say for the same reason I think Lou Dobbs hollers on about illegal immigration. Because you know your asserted goals will never see the light of day, because the people who make the decisions are, very simply, not stupid enough to make such ridiculous decisions. And we have some very stupid people making decisions. But the ultimate futility of it all gives you an eternal soapbox to stand on, and yell: LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I KNOW BIG WORDS ABOUT SOCIALIST REVOLUTION! If you want anyone who doesn't already agree with you prior to reading your articles to take you seriously, make reasoned policy arguments. Some of your views do have very rational and legitimate policy ideals and goals. Universal health care, making sure that our free trade agreements require our partners to live up to reasonable environmental standards, etc. But, instead of discussing the issues, you spew socialist/communist Utopian propaganda.
It reminds me of the old lesson everyone learns in high school history and policy sci classes. The farther on the wings, both left and right people are, the more similar their methods are. I'd put you somewhere between a leftist version of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Don't worry, though, you're not as bad as Ann Coulter.
Congratulations.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 5:02am):
I agree with the first comment Kyle. Enough with the Socialist rhetoric that we hear so often (especially at UW) that seems only to describe and not prescribe. We get it, you've read a few books in your little college classes that, in theory, sound so right. "Equality for everyone," "down with evil corporations." Wait until you hit the real world and see the actual benefits that our system has and the Socialist pitfalls that you so naively call for.
By the way, which class had you reading Zinn for this week?
And in conclusion, I believe you should retract your statement from "take it from a historian." You're an undergraduate college student who writes a weekly piece for a run-of-the-mill university newspaper. You major in the easiest department that most universities offer and receive a biased education from the liberal swamp that is UW-Madison.
You're not a historian. You're a kid.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 6:51am):
2:33 and 5:02 are right on. Once you graduate and get a job, your views on life will most likely change.
But I do have to say that the part about laxatives made me laugh.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 8:51am):
2:33, you're right. Sex is not the worst thing going on in government right now, but it sure is the favorite topic of the news cycle.
However, since soliciting prostitution IS illegal, Spitzer must resign. If this was a free BJ from an intern, I'd take a different stance.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 8:54am):
Yeah, I hate how corporations employ people. Booo! Employment!
Kyle Szarzynski (March 12, 2008 @ 9:54am):
To the first two comments: the last sentence is in reference to Howard Zinn. I would never be so arrogant.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:23am):
I don't think the take it from a historian comment was Kyle calling himself a historian, but was referencing Howard Zinn who he had just finished quoting. You might want to read it in context next time before making such personal hateful comments.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:37am):
Wow, those first two comments really make me question the value of a college degree from UW.
1) The reference to "taking it from a historian" was clearly in reference to Howard Zinn, who is a professor of history, and who has written many books on American history. So while Kyle isn't (yet) a historian, Mr. Zinn inarguably is. Also, I doubt any class had him reading Zinn--why can't college students actually read on their own? I for one read more outside of class than I do for homework, and that's still quite a bit.
2) How was anything Kyle said "socialist" or "communist" rhetoric? He may be socialist, but that doesn't mean every word out of his mouth is Stalin-apologist bullshit (in fact, very little of it is). The point he was making is that real social change comes outside of elections--true, elections may matter. But you can't merely put pasta in a pot and expect it to cook, you have to put it on heat and stir it a bit. Same with politics, you have to elect someone who is capable of bringing that change, then following up and holding him accountable to that. NEITHER party has done so, at least not recently. I don't know what is communist or socialist about that, if anything, the communist would want to take power and leave it at that.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:38am):
I think he was referring to Zinn as the historian, not himself. Also, I think he needs a disclaimer at the top of all of his articles: "WARNING: POINTLESS RANT INCOMING"
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 11:26am):
Wait, since when does the ISO get two columns in the Herald? Are we going to keep things fair and give an extra one to the Dems and Republicans?
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 11:44am):
"And in conclusion, I believe you should retract your statement from "take it from a historian." You're an undergraduate college student who writes a weekly piece for a run-of-the-mill university newspaper. You major in the easiest department that most universities offer and receive a biased education from the liberal swamp that is UW-Madison."
Hey now.
UW's history department can be a joke, or it can be intensely hard, depending on how the professor and student each work.
Don't rip it generally.
Liberal swamp... Cannot agree with that, again. The history department particularly has some spectacular, and relatively unbiased, professors.
And I THINK Kyle is referring to Howard Zinn... not himself.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 12:03pm):
These comments are further proof that most conservatives reading comprehension level is somewhere between seventh and eighth grade. The phrase "take it from a historian" refers to Howard Zinn, who got a Ph D. from Columbia and most certainly is a historian.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 12:07pm):
"You major in the easiest department that most universities offer"
I dont have any particular opinion on Kyle's article or on the two comments attacking him. But I do take an issue with the above remark. Maybe most history departments at other school are easy. However UW's history department does have an excellent reputation. In fact as of 2003 it was ranked in the top 15 in the country, according to the US News and World Report.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 1:55pm):
"OK, you've convinced me," said Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "Now go out and put the pressure on me."
I'd ask you to heed that advice as well Kyle. For months you've been spewing out this far-left rhetoric on how neither of the Democratic candidates is up to par (you chose John Edwards only because he was the lesser of three evils, as you said).
And yes, you make some very great points about revolution. The labor movement and civil rights would not have happened without thousands of people rising up to demand change. You writing these weekly diatribes doesn't do that -- it shows you're all talk and little action.
If you really want to challenge Obama or Hillary on a topic, then start a movement and do it already! Stop whining the the BH to the 10 percent of this country (and that's a liberal estimate) who agree with you.
That is one of the major differences between you and those movements you refer too: The labor movement and the Civil Rights Movement were not a product of the fringe left that want to see the death of Wal-Mart. If you polled the electorate, I'd say at least 30 or 40 percent of people at that time supported those causes. They may not have participated, but they at least supported it.
Your case is different. You're an ultra-left ideologue who comes just short of crying for the dictatorship of the proletariat every five seconds.
We do need a change in this country, and I'd argue someone like Obama (or Hillary even) will take us much closer than anyone else. People like you and Zinn won't ever be elected because too many people disagree with you.
Now get off your ass and create real change. A good place to start is the ballot box, but then I expect to see you on the streets. I'm waiting -- now do something.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 2:11pm):
Wow Kyle "I can't find my own interesting topic " Szarzynski goes to a new low. He steals a topic from himself. Way to just restate your most last column about Obama from a different perspective
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 2:31pm):
Great piece, Kyle. If you're not making the reactionaries angry, you're not doing your job.
Kyle Szarzynski (March 12, 2008 @ 4:51pm):
I sent this comment before to clarify, but it must not have went through. The last sentence is a reference to Howard Zinn, having just quoted him for three lines before it. Not sure why I would refer to myself as a historian, or why people would think that.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 5:54pm):
What do history majors do when they graduate? Seriously, what?
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 7:29pm):
Grad school. Typically in something not involving history.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
