Can Rev. Jesse Jackson's credibility be rescued?

In the United States, a lot of commentators, pundits and seasoned political observers have already written Rev. Jesse Jackson's political obituary. Rev. Jackson has apologized repeatedly for remarks he made when he was off the air in a Fox News interview earlier this month about Senator Barack Obama. Jackson, as most of us know by now, said he wanted to "cut off his nuts." It is now known that Jackson remarked, "Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling niggers how to behave."

A short time later came Rev. Jackson's apologies:

I am deeply saddened and distressed by the pain and sorrow that I have caused as a result of my hurtful words. I apologise again to Senator Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, their children as well as to the American public. There really is no justification for my comments and I hope that the Obama family and the American public will forgive me.

Well, that's a start. But Jackson has already used up some of his 9 lives in the political world. In January 1984, he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown." His critics have also pointed to other, lesser known flubs, strategic mistakes and errors in judgment on his part (too numerous to list here). Which begs the question: Is there any way he can rescue his credibility?

But it is important to remember that, in addition to his notorious blunders, Rev. Jackson has also been at the helm of many great progressive triumphs. His brilliantly organized Rainbow Coalition in the 1980s brought together a number of marginalized groups -- gays and lesbians, veterans, disabled people, working-class families, Native Americans, etc. -- into a massive united front that, if nothing else, showed that progressives were still a force to be reckoned with, even in the Age of Reagan. Jackson rallied this support in his two runs for the presidency, first in 1984, then again, even more impressively, in 1988. His speech at the Democratic National Convention that year was absolutely electrifying -- maybe one of the finest American speeches ever delivered in the final quarter of the Twentieth Century.

Rev. Jackson has said -- and done -- some regrettable things in his political career. It is difficult to forgive or forget his flagrant anti-Semitism from 1984.

And then there was his use of the so-called "N-Bomb" in his rant earlier this month (this is the same Jesse Jackson who condemned comedian Michael Richards for using the N-word two years ago his incendiary, self-destructive stage routine). Equally unsettling was his crass, gangster-like reference to cutting off Obama's testicles. Rapper/actor/director Ice Cube (right) offered some especially insightful comments about Jackson's outburst: “It’s kinda sad, for one thing for a black man to even consider cutting off another black man’s nuts. Especially in a country like America, where that’s happened to us over the years countless and countless times, being sanctioned by the government. It’s kinda sad that he would even think about that. Even though it’s not literal, it’s just as painful.”

It isn't enough to say that Jackson should be careful about these sorts of outbursts in the future. For every one of these crass comments Jackson makes in public -- whether it's about "Hymies" or cutting off someone else's gonads -- you have to wonder how many equally vulgar statements he makes in private, beyond the reach of the microphone. The damage has been done and it can't be undone.

But it would be a shame to allow those comments to take away from the legitimacy of the progressive work that Jackson has done and the noble things he has accomplished. Down the road, historians will likely pass a verdict on Jackson that he was an incredibly complicated man, fraught with contradictions. Compassionate yet judgmental, visionary yet reactionary, bold yet self-destructive, perceptive yet narrow minded. Sadly, many conservative commentators are pointing to Jackson's remarks as proof that old-school Civil Rights leaders who still play the "race card" are merely delusional fools who do not understand that racism is a relic of the past. On the contrary, racism still permeates and plagues so much of American society, despite Obama's grand achievements. That is why Jesse Jackson's ideas -- rooted in the age of Martin Luther King, Jr., yet tempered by the realities of post-Civil Rights America -- are so important in today's dialogue on race relations. Sadly, the more he stumbles like he did earlier this month (and like he did in 1984), the less credibility and weight his vision of social justice carries in the eyes of the American public.

Re-creating 68? The Democratic Convention Then and Now

Protesters are gearing up for the Democratic National Convention in Denver next month. Email lists are busier than ever. Activist bloggers are weighing in. Indymedia outlets regularly issue updates about upcoming plans. A number of protest groups have formed a coalition called "Re-create 68" to protest at the Convention (the name refers to the upheavals at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago 40 years ago). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is objecting that the protesters will be confined to an area 700 feet from the Pepsi Center (where the convention will be held). As ACLU attorneys noted, "No human voice, or any other sound . . . can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance." Adding to the drama is a split within Re-create 68, which has led to the birth of yet another protest organization, this one called the Alliance for Real Democracy, a coalition of some 12 groups of mostly 20 and 30something activists. This splinter group, according to the Rocky Mountain News, "promises free concerts, art displays, classes for activists and a "massive" anti-war march during this summer's Democratic National Convention." All over, activists are girding for the protests.

In more ways than one, the upcoming protests are starting to resemble the upheavals of '68. Like the demonstrations four decades ago, today's militant activists are already confronting naysayers and critics. Commenting on Re-create 68, conservative Denver columnist and radio host Mike Rosen noted, "Glen Spagnuolo, Marxist revolutionary-in-chief, describes his group as representing minorities, anarchists, communists, socialists and radicals. He expects 25,000 people from across the country to join his Denver protest. So what? Whom do they represent? And why should anyone else care? Do the math: Twenty-five thousand people out of a population of more than 300 million is eight one-thousandths of 1 percent. That's less than one person out of 10,000 in the country. Even if it were a hundred times that number, what would it matter?"

Meantime, the Denver police are gearing up for action. Last month, you may recall, the Denver PD ordered 88 Mark IV launchers, "a less-lethal" weapon that fires a pepper spray-type substance. There are even rumors among activists that the powers-that-be will unleash a weapon -- according to Fox News reports (so you know it's trustworthy) -- that relies on "infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily."

Activists who insist on "Re-creating 68" ought to study the events of 1968 carefully. Times have changed. A lot. For one thing, the Vietnam War -- while supported by hawkish Republicans -- was really the creation of Cold War Liberals in the Democratic Party. So in 1968, militant street protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago made a great deal of sense.

Above: Chicago 1968.

Forty years later, in our post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, the chief architects of the dismal Iraq War are Republicans -- especially neocons. To be certain, there will be protests at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul on September 1-4. But the more ambitious and militant protests are being planned for the Democratic convention. This is definitely a repeat of '68, when demonstrations were much larger and more dramatic at the Democratic National Convention than its Republican counterpart (who even remembers the '68 Republican Convention protests? -- they were pretty minuscule). Forty years ago, activists believed it was more important to target Democrats because Republicans were more set in their ways politically, less willing to change.

You see some of that same line of thinking at work today. Some of the protest organizations demonstrating in the streets of Denver next month will be pro-Barack Obama groups. But there are also some hardcore shit disturbers who are working to trigger dramatic clashes with authorities. The folks in this uber-militant wing are the ones who should be studying the events of 1968 more carefully. Violent street clashes between police and demonstrators during the Chicago convention (which, in fairness, were mostly the fault of the police -- although they were sometimes exacerbated by over-the-top protesters) only served to alienate the American public from protest.

Times have changed since 1968. Police brutality -- while still a problem -- has decreased significantly over the decades. More importantly, in today's America, dissent is not necessarily seen as a bad thing (as much as it was in 1968). According to a USA Today poll taken earlier this month, "Protesting U.S. policies you oppose is also patriotic, according to two-thirds of those polled."

Above: Chicago 1968 (again).

There is still the same sense of urgency today as there was in '68. The Iraq War has been horrifying in its sheer destructiveness and Washington shows no signs of ending the occupation anytime soon. So we need voices of protest. But the upheavals of '68 teach us that street violence is not only abhorrent, it's impractical. It slows down the pace of change. It turns public opinion against protest. That's why undercover FBI agents who infiltrated the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War encouraged activists to embrace extremist violent tactics. They knew bloodshed in the streets would only hinder -- not advance -- the cause of change.

Before activists attempt to "Re-create 68," they first need to find out what about that period is worth preserving and what ought to be discarded.

Above: My sentiments exactly! A protester in 2007.

Did Obama Gravitate to the Center?

Less controversial than Retired Army General Wesley Clark's comments about Senator John McCain's military service -- but every bit as important -- is the current debate about whether Senator Barack Obama has moved to the political "center" in the aftermath of the highly contentious primaries. And you guessed it, Blog Pals. Yours truly is prepared to weigh in.

"I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center," observed Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. In his June 30 New York Times column titled "The Obama Agenda," liberal economist Paul Krugman wrote, "It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton?" Meantime, Michael Gerson's Washington Post column on Obama's move to the center featured the headline, "The Audacity of Cynicism." "Obama Turns Centrist," said the headline of Ruth Conniff's column in the Progressive magazine. In her commentary titled "Memo to Obama: The Center is for Losers," Arianna Huffington wrote:

As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don’t let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December. Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn’t work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn’t work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn’t work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his “microtrends” and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

I could go on with countless other examples of commentaries about Obama moving to the comfy middle of the road. Many -- but not all -- of them come from progressives and lefties who worry that Obama is jettisoning his progressive views to win support from centrists. The strategy, they say, backfired for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. By contrast, Obama triumphed in the primaries, they insist, because he was decidedly progressive in his positions.

Movement is all relative, I suppose. For the longest time, I was a John Edwards (right) supporter. Now there is a genuine progressive -- in the fighting, populist Robert La Follette/Paul Wellstone tradition. I admit, I was a Johnny-come-lately to the Obama cause. In fact, after Edwards dropped out of the race, I was depressed for two weeks. My loved ones and friends were starting to wonder what the hell was wrong with me.

It took me a while to throw my support behind Obama. You may recall that during the primaries, an awful lot of folks -- including many who are now lamenting Obama's post-primaries drift to the center -- expressed concerns about his vague positions. They agreed that Obama could deliver a hell of a speech, but he was short on specifics. Author, film professor and screenwriter Trey Ellis commented about his reluctance to support Obama during the primaries: "I didn't find his positions, especially on universal health care, as progressive as I would have wished. Both he and Hillary seemed very much of the DLC centrist mold despite calling themselves progressives." Ellis suggests that Obama was always a centrist candidate on a host of issues, but the candidate also took some bold and humane stands, especially on the Iraq War. Ellis concludes with this parting shot: "Obama's strength isn't his slavish adherence to party line but his ability, issue by issue, to decide the right medicine at the right moment. If that makes you call him a centrist then so be it. Get over it already. He's nobody's man but his own."

I agree with Ellis. I think Obama is walking a tightrope, carefully juggling progressive ideas and centrist pragmatism. It's a difficult balancing act, but so far, he has pulled it off and maintained his freshness and credibility. In fact, he's so good at it, he makes it look downright easy. I'm not saying for a minute that progressives/liberals/lefties/dissenters/nonconformists (or whatever your chosen label might be) should refrain from criticizing Obama. Throughout the campaign, he has taken serious missteps and embraced dubious positions. And from time to time, he needs to feel pressure from principled people to put him back on the right track.

But I also think commentators on the left side of the spectrum have a responsibility to circle the wagons around Obama and keep their criticisms constructive. Too many folks on the Left have, for too long, viewed even reasonable compromise as a sin and they've aimed for a level of moral purity that simply does not exist in the charged and brutal world of American politics. As a third party supporter in my youth, I used to be one of those purists -- always attacking the notion that voters should support Democrats simply because they were the "lesser of two evils." Back in those days, I agreed with Michael Moore that American politics was a contest between the "evil of two lessers."

I have left my dogmatic moral purity behind with my youth, though, especially after I've seen what two terms of George W. Bush has done to America. Whatever you may think of Bill Clinton (and a quick perusal of my earlier Blog entires will show that I can be a pretty hard on Old Bubba), he was light years better than Dubya. Light years. My bottom line is: Goal No. 1: Get Obama in the White House. Goal No. 2: At that point, turn up the heat and keep the pressure on from the progressive side of the fence.