A dispute is raging among progressives concerning the candidacies of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. Kucinich is the "idealistic" progressive choice for the Democratic nomination. His positions are solidly progressive, and he has a twenty-five year track record of fealty to those progressive positions. Some say he can't be elected -- because he's too progressive. They like Howard Dean better, not because they like his stands on the isses better, but because they perceive he has a more "electable" position.

Many believe as I do that defeating George W. Bush is the number one priority. A Republican victory next year may well seal a complete "regime change" -- a watershed of the same importance as the election of Roosevelt in 1932. You can expect a continuation of the foreign policy of "pre-emption". You can expect the continued export of jobs to the third world. You can expect continued budget deficits eventually strangling Social Security and Medicare. You can expect the tax burden to continue to shift to the middle class and to labor -- as investors get a free ride. In short, you can expect a consolidation of "corporate feudalism" as the prevailing social and economic system in the US and around the world.

In other words, the cheap-labor conservatives simply have to be stopped -- next year -- or we will be stuck with them for a generation. The question is the best way to stop them. The conventional wisdom on the left is that we simply don't have the luxury of being too idealistic. A progressive "dream candidate," according to this wisdom, just doesn't have the votes. We have to compromise.

If that is the "conventional wisdom" a strong dissenting faction says that electing another "DLC Republican lite" candidate is nothing more that doing in slow motion, what the cheap-labor Republicans are doing in fast forward. These progressives want to do more than fight a rear guard defense of some vestige of a progressive America. They want to turn the tide, roll back the cheap-labor conservative agenda, and move the country left.

That dissenting view is important for two reasons. First of all, the ultimate goal must not be merely to slow down the slide toward corporate feudalism. The dissenters -- the "idealistic" progressives -- are right that we need to be thinking about more than how to endure. We need to be thinking about how to prevail. But even if they weren't right, everything I have seen suggests that they are not about to abandon that view, and that a fight over whether to compromise or not to compromise may open a rift among progressives at a time when unity and motivation are absolutely essential.

Therefore, the two competing views of the proper progressive strategy must be harmonized.

The two views may be boiled down to two competing sets of priorities. One side sees the number one priority as sending George W. Bush back to Texas. Winning back the Congress would be nice, but winning the White House is critical. The other side sees the number one priority not in terms of defeating one candidate in favor or another slighly less objectionable candidate. They see the number one priority as advancing the progressive agenda as a whole.

There is little difference of opinion about the substance of these two views. Both sides of the debate believe both things. They believe that George W. Bush needs to be stopped, and they believe that Progressives need to go over on the offensive and start rolling back the cheap-labor conservatives. They only disagree about means and priorities. What we have is not a dispute over policy, but a dispute over strategy and tactics.

In terms of strategy, one side says that beating George W. Bush -- anyway we can -- buys us time to organize and regain the initiative. The other side says essentially "we've heard that before." They say that a progressive agenda delayed is a progressive agenda denied -- and they point to the incremental losses we have suffered over the past 20 years. Sooner or later, progressives are going to have to stand and be counted -- and next year seems to be as good a year as any.

Even if we assume that a compromise "beat Dubya anyway you can" strategy is the correct approach, they ask a legitimate question. When are we going to stop compromising? When are we going to seize the initiative and how are we going to do it? When are we going to stop hearing "maybe next time" and start hearing "right now?" If the "pragmatic progressive" says "wait a little while longer," it seems to me that he ought to have to answer the question "how much longer?" -- and be held to it.

In other words, the way out of this dispute is for progressives to get together on their long term strategy. Because even if we all come together next year to beat George W. Bush, we will not be finished. We cannot do what we did in 1992. We cannot hold the line against the Republicans, and then go back to sleep. Next year cannot be the end of the game, but the beginning. Because we didn't get to be a near fascist country overnight. And we will not become the progressive America -- committed to democracy, equality and social justice that is the true promise of America -- overnight.

So let's lay aside the immediate need to beat George W. Bush for just a little bit, and take stock of our long term strategy.

IS A PROGRESSIVE "ELECTABLE?"

This question is the heart of the matter. If you are a committed progressive, and you want to see a progressive agenda for America, you are just simply going to have to start winning elections. In a democracy, having the votes is the bottom line. Which means that progressives are going to have to start finding the votes. The answer to the question "when are we going to take a stand" is very simply "as soon as we have the votes."

Do we have the votes now? The conventional wisdom is "no." The reasons offered for this are varied, but it comes down to the effectiveness of right-wing forces to marginalize progressives. Take a look at Dubya's re-election website. I mean this joker makes himself sound like Hubert Fucking Humphrey. Look at his environmental "issue brief" and then take a look at a recent Mother Jones article showing his true colors. These guys working for Dubya are some of the most lying manipulative sons of bitches in the history of American politics.

And they still haven't gotten around to "doing a job" on the Democratic candidate next year. Sure Dubya's re-elect numbers are down. But the game hasn't even started -- and however dishonest and downright deceitful Dubya's PR team is, the fact is that they are stone cold good at what they do. It may be a "black art", but being a good con man is an art, nevertheless.

On the other hand, there is reason for hope that a progressive agenda might be a bit more popular than many believe. After all, Al Gore did win the popular vote. When you add in Ralph Nader's numbers, we had a solid progressive majority last election. If the Democrats lost ground in 2002 -- something incredible in itself -- the reasons for that were largly strategic. The weakening economy was largely abandoned by Democrats who let Dubya seize the agenda by focusing on the war in Iraq. Poll numbers suggest that on every domestic issue, Democrats are perceived as having a better handle on them. As for foreign policy, Dubya's lead is slipping. Consider national health care. This was a winner as an election day issue in 1992 -- only to turn into a loser when the insurance industry "did a job" on it. In short, there is ample evidence that as a matter of sentiment -- if not actual voting practice -- America has a far stronger progressive bent than most "conventional thinkers" would have you believe.

So the question "when will we have the votes," may turn out to be "right now," after all. If not "right now," we clearly have more votes than many believe. And the question of whether a true progressive is "electable" may turn out to be "yes" with a very important caveat. The right is organized, motivated, well funded and strategically very very competent. Furthermore, whatever the average American believes, the American power structure is clearly not ready for strong progressive leadership. They will fight to prevent such an outcome. When it comes to the vast majority of largely uncommitted, unmotivated and ignorant voters -- who may well sympathize with our general agenda -- they will succeed in either turning those people against us, or convincing them to "stay on the sofa." So the answer is that yes, a progressive can win -- if he is very very shrewd about how he does it.

To summarize, the position of both the "pragmatic" and the "idealistic" progressives can be harmonized. George W. Bush has to be beaten. If he secures another term, the progressive cause could be set back -- literally -- to where it was in the 1920's. On the other hand, a true progressive may just be able to beat him -- and not only stop the right wing tide, but actually begin to move the political center back to the left. To do that, a progressive candidate has to attend not only to the "what" but to the "how."

That's what we need to be thinking about.

FORMULATING A PROGRESSIVE STRATEGY

Believe it or not, I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have the be-all and end-all progressive strategy. Every discussion of strategy and tactics at this site is not presented as "here's how you do it," so much as "here's one way you might do it." The real purpose of this site is not to promote one particular strategic vision, but something more fundamental. It is to promote having a "strategic vision" at all.

Too many progressive activists are focused on the what, and appear to me to be unaware that there is even a question of "how." Some appear to believe that it is somehow "dishonest" or "unethical" to display a little savvy about how you go about doing things. They appear to believe that the progressive agenda is "right" -- and therefore should be presented straight-up -- in no particular order, with no particular emphasis on one aspect of it or another. Thus, do some progressives talk themselves into exactly the wrong kind of "uncompromising, principled" position. They talk themselves into a position where every single progressive policy is just as important as every other progressive policy, and where the particular policy initiatives and issues that have come down over the years are written in stone. The progressive agenda becomes a "laundry list" -- where every single item on it is absolutely critical.

That is a recipe for defeat. Why? Because while much of the progressive agenda is popular, some of it is not -- at least, not yet. While many progressive initiatives enjoy much general support, others are divisive and inspire determined resistance. Still other progressive positions could be popular -- if they are pitched the right way. Finally, some progressive positions are frankly not terribly imaginative. There may be policy intitiatives no one has yet conceived that advance progressive principles just as well if not better than our present laundry list. Meanwhile, many progressives are stuck with positions that are strictly "old hat."

With that, we just stumbled across the way to recast the whole question of "compromise." It isn't whether we're going to compromise but what are we going to compromise. If you are a progressive believer in "democracy" how can you possibly reject all compromise? "My way or the highway" is the way authoritarians think, not people committed to democracy. Nevertheless, wholesale unfocused unthinking compromise on absolutely anything doesn't do us much good either. If we shouldn't take an uncompromising stand on everything, we clearly should take an uncompromising stand on a few things.

Here's how you solve the problem. Particular proposals are negotiable. General principles and long range outcomes are not. What distinguishes us from the cheap-labor conservatives? It's simple. Cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy, inequality and plutocracy. We believe in democracy, social justice and environmental sustainability. Everything else is details. "But details are important." Sure they are. On the other hand, "there's more than one way to skin a neocon."

Here's the important thing to understand. "Democracy, social justice and envirnonmental sustainability" are absolutely popular "electable" principles. In fact, it is social hierarchy, gross inequality and plutocracy that are the unpopular principles -- which explains why the right ultimately has to resort to duplicity and "stealth" to achieves it ultimate objectives.

When is it time to take a stand for "democracy, social justice and environmental sustainability?" How about right now. When is it time to start communicating to the willy-nilly middle of the road voter the basic difference between us and them? How about right now. Is every progressive position as important as every other progressive position? No. Some progressive positions are better than other positions at highlighting the basic difference between progressives and cheap-labor conservatives. Those are the positions you emphasize. Some of the rhetoric explaining progressive positions is better at highlighting the difference between progressives and cheap-labor conservatives. Those explanations are the one's you emphasize. Some progressive positions and some progressive rhetoric play into the hands of cheap-labor conservative rhetoric designed to obscure the basic ideology of the right, and tar the left. Those are the positions and rhetoric you avoid.

There are ten thousand different issues on the national agenda right now. Which one's do we want to talk about, and which one's are we going to leave aside for the time being? For every one of those issues, there is a progressive position with respect to the bottom line question, "what are we going to DO?" There are dozens of ways to justify that bottom line position. Does anybody out there have a problem if the issues we choose to talk about right now, are the issues that win us votes rather than lose us votes? Does anybody out there have a problem if the things we say to support what we think should be done -- which is all that matters -- win us votes, rather than lose us votes? Or are you one of those people I occasionally run into who appear to believe that we have some sort of moral obligation to put the worst possible face on our agenda?

Are you starting to see, that the progressive laundry list is not a monolithic "take or leave it" list. We can set some priorities, and there is no "correct" justification for our policies. Find a justification that ordinary, non-activists can understand and appreciate. That's how you win. Having watched a pre-emptive invasion of another country in defiance of the whole world, having listened to right-wingers suggesting that dissent is "treason", having witnessed the gross erosion of our basic civil liberties under Ashcroft, being aware of the corporate rape of California followed by an effort to seize the governor's mansion by the same sons of bitches who engineered that rape, and watching unemployment go up to 6% in yet another Republican administration as American jobs travel to third world cess pools, every progressive in America should appreciate that winning is damned important.

GETTING DOWN TO THE SPECIFICS OF HOW TO WIN

Tactics count. That's why the far right -- with a grossly corrosive political and social agenda for America -- is the hegemonic political force in America right now. They understand something about the electorate, that we progressives either don't understand, or don't want to face up to. People aren't paying as much attention to what's going on as you are. Your average voter gets his news from the local paper or worse local TV news. He never sees the information we see -- because he isn't looking for it. Meanwhile he forms his opinions not based on actual intelligence, but on the basis of a variety of prejudices, myths, shiboleths and outright disinformation. If he is slightly better informed, he watches Chris Matthews where the right-wing talking head is a trained cadre straight out of Gingrich's GOPac training, and the "progressive" talking head is barely a progressive at all.

The average voter is making decisions about who to entrust with the levers of power, and he is making that decision with a well organized, tactically sophisticated, army of trained advocates on the right, and a completely disorganzed group of "don't get your hands dirty" liberals on the left, whose chief good and market of their time is to serve as tackling dummies for right-wing intellectual hoodlums.

 

A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF TACTICS

To illustrate the importance of tactics, let's consider the simple scenario of a criminal prosecution. Consider the case out of the 1930's of the "Scottsboro boys." That case involved four African-Americans pulled off a train passing through Scottsboro, Alabama and accused of raping a local white woman. Or how about the Pitts and Lee case out of Florida in the early 1960's, where a local sheriff ignored evidence about the real killers because "I already got the two niggers that done it." Or perhaps we should look at the very paradigm of what I'm talking about in the case of Clarence Earl Giddeon whose defense of himself was very simply "I didn't do it."

It was true. He didn't do it. Neither did Pitts and Lee -- and they said so. Neither did the Scottsboro boys -- and they said so. "Truth will out," you say? Well, it did in their cases -- the cases we've heard about, at any rate. In the case of Pitts and Lee, it only took twelve years, nine of them on Florida's death row. In the case of Clarence Earl Giddeon it took a decision of the United States Supreme Court to get him a professional advocate -- who won his acquittal handily, because his professional advocate KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

Specifically, he knew that truth doesn't always "out." He knew that a professional prosecutor -- well schooled in the arts of playing on jurors' ignorance, bigotry and fear -- would have no problem at all using a specimen of "poor white trash" who happened to be innocent, as fodder for his neverending quest for re-election. Giddeon's professional advocate also knew a few tricks of his own to counteract those of the prosecutor. He understood that truth isn't enough. Winning a favorable verdict -- or a favorable election result -- is a game of skill. Getting the decision maker to see the truth requires more than just telling him. For one thing, the decision maker has to want to hear it -- and there is an art to finding the way into not only his mind but into his heart as well.

Professional advocates who are worth their salt have come to terms with a very simple truth -- one that some ineffective advocates may not WANT to understand. You take your decision maker as you find him. You do not try a case, or contest an election before the decision maker you want, but before the decision maker you are given. There is no planet Vulcan, and Mr. Spock isn't sitting on your jury. Many of your decision makers are intelligent, well-informed, humane and decent people, who take seriously their responsiblity to make the correct decision. On the other hand, many of your decision makers are stupid, ignorant, fearful, hate-filled bigots. They also take their responsiblity seriouly, only they have a peculiar notion of what is "correct."

Are you ready for the real paradox? The intelligent and humane decision makers, and the ignorant and bigoted decision makers ARE THE SAME PEOPLE -- depending on how you reach them. The art of advocacy is the art of bringing out the best in ordinary people who are -- barring Jesus himself -- universally a "mixed bag" of noble and base qualities. YOU are a "mixed bag" of noble and base qualities -- and you may as well know it. So am I. Some of the greatest stories in our literature concern the "duality of human beings." Do you really think that duality goes away in the voting booth? Do you really think you can overcome what amounts to a fundamental ontological constant of the human condition without hewning and polishing the arts of communication and leadership? Would you try to ski the Matterhorn after a fifteen minute lesson on the "bunny slope?" The art of politics is that hard -- and that dangerous.

We've got plenty of eager, willing, zealous and committed amateurs. What we need are some pro's. We need people who know not only what they want, they know what they're doing. We need people who understand that the better world we want won't just happen. We need people who understand that the political game cannot be played without taking account of the moral ambiguity that in the end is a fundamental of human nature itself.

Ultimately, we need people who understand, what I came to understand sitting next to human beings whose lives depended on what I said to those twelve ordinary -- sometimes noble, sometimes ignoble -- citizens sitting in that box. I came to understand that the outcome of the contest had real permanent consequences, and I didn't have the luxury of moral vanity in doing my job. My job was to win for that citizen, who in more cases than most people care to believe was innocent. The one thing I could never do and live with myself was to tell that citizen -- especially if I had come believe in his innocence -- "well, I could have won for you, but only by using some morally ambiguous less-than-strictly-rational tactics. My personal sense of purity and high-mindedness is more important than the next ten years of your life. So have a nice time in the joint -- oh, and be careful when you bend over to pick up the soap."

The next election is a critical point in American history. The cheap-labor right -- who represent the greedy, short-sighted, stiff necked, ignorant, fearful and bigoted side of all of us -- will turn America into a greedy, short-sighted, stiff necked, ignorant, fearful and bigoted hell hole, if we don't stop them. To stop them, we are going to have reach into the minds and into the hearts of the decision makers, and we have to learn to use the full spectrum of logical, analytical, conceptual, linguistic, cultural and yes, emotional communication tools available to us. We have learn to open minds and open hearts -- and we have to learn that there is an art to doing that.

SO WHAT DO WE DO?

The left has to do more than unite. The left has to match the right in integration, coordination, and sophistication of its organzation. That's a tall order, since the right has been working on this for forty years. On the other hand, they started organizing when the tools of organizing were the typewriter, the Gestetner mimeograph machine, and the telephone. We live in an age when a single individual -- like me for example -- can produce a web page with worldwide distribution. We can talk to each other for a lot less capital investment and with a lot less effort than they could back in the early days of their movement.

Furthermore, we already have on the ground millions of progressives. At the most basic level, they are online, hearing the news the corporate media filters out of mainstream distribution. At the next level, they are organizing lists to make sure those important but overlooked news stories are getting distributed. The "outing" of Valerie Plame, for example, was circulating on the web months before the mainstream media picked it up. That story of course, was also echoed by the thousands of bloggers -- a small sampling of which you can see on the list over on the right side of this page.

In short, we have the people, already working as individuals for a progressive America. Those people have the ability -- working together -- to change the public perception of the political reality of America. We have the ability -- right now -- to go on the offensive against right-wing propaganda and the right wing agenda. With hundred of thousands of committed progressives around the country, we have a huge resevoir of talent, energy, money and of course, hard work that will be necessary not just to endure but to prevail in the political struggle with the forces of corporate feudalism.

We just need one simple ingredient. We need to go from being hundreds of thousands -- and even millions -- of individuals working along side one another, to millions of people working together. What's the difference? Imagine a group the size of the Mormon Tabernacle choir. They're all good singers, but each has his own favorite song -- which he sings at the same time as every other member of the choir. What you get is not music but noise. A choir sings the same song. They don't always sing in unison. They don't always sing the same words at the same time. There are parts from soprano to bass. There are solo's, duets and trios. There is counterpoint, balance and harmony. There is also coordination and integration of the parts into a single whole.

It is the difference between a mob and an organization. Which is to say that it is the difference between being noisy and being effective.

To the end of encouraging organization -- and not merely coincidental effort -- here is what I will be doing at this site, and elsewhere, over the coming months.

Starting with this article, I will posting articles on the one thing I know how to do, namely communicate persuasively. It is not a mere talent -- though having a talent for it is a good start. It is an art and a skill, with defined and teachable techniques and methods -- which techniques and methods I have been practicing and refining for fifteen years as a professional advocate. Soon, I will be launching "Conceptual Guerilla's War College," whose purpose is to distill what I've learned into a short and concise tutorial, whose purpose is to turn you into a "Conceptual Guerilla."

Sound silly? Where do you think the legions of conservative spin doctors, talking heads, and media consultants came from? Every one of them has been trained at places like this

The next project -- it's actually concurrent, I'm working on it as we speak -- is to fill a major gap on the left. We have almost no professional media and communications consultants for progressive candidates and causes. How do I know? I went looking for them. Oh, there are plenty of campaign consultants. They all cater to conservative clients. Very soon, I will be lauching a web page for the company I am in the process of forming known simply as "Guerilla Communications." This represents not a change but a "career adjustment," taking what I do in the legal world and applying to the political world -- not a very big jump.

The third project is a local effort where I live -- that will hopefully catch on elsewhere. Progressives need what the right has built in local organizations across the country. We need grassroots local organizations devoted to spreading our coordinated and integrated message, and electing our people -- instead of theirs -- from the White House right down to your local city council

Oh and I'm going to continue to build my "online underground" whose primary purpose has been to win the debate with the right in the hundreds of online forums where the conversation is happening right now. In fact, if you'd like to participate, just drop me an email, and I'll hook you up.

And stay, tuned. This site is going to start to rock.

DEFEAT THE RIGHT IN THREE MINUTES

---

Have you got three minutes. Because that's all you need to learn how to defeat the Republican Right. Just read through this handy guide and you'll have everything you need to successfully debunk right-wing propaganda.

It's really that simple. First, you have to beat their ideology, which really isn't that difficult. At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots" that I call "corporate feudalism". They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology. That ideology is pure hogwash, and you can prove it.

But you have to do more than defeat the ideology. You have to defeat the "drum beat". You have to defeat the "propaganda machine", that brainwashes people with their slogans and catch-phrases. You've heard those slogans."Less government", "personal responsibility" and lots of flag waving. They are "shorthand" for an entire worldview, and the right has been pounding their slogans out into the public domain for getting on forty years.

So you need a really good slogan – a "counter-slogan" really, to "deprogram" the brainwashed. You need a "magic bullet" that quickly and efficiently destroys the effectiveness of their "drum beat". You need your own "drum beat" that sums up the right's position. Only your "drum beat" exposes the ugly reality of right-wing philosophy – the reality their slogans are meant to hide. Our slogan contains the governing concept that explains the entire right-wing agenda. That's why it works. You can see it in every policy, and virtually all of Republican rhetoric. And it's so easy to remember, and captures the essence of the Republican Right so well, we can pin it on them like a "scarlet letter".

Is there really a catch phrase – a "magic bullet" – that sums up the Republican Right in such a nice easy-to-grasp package. You better believe it, and it's downright elegant in its simplicity.

You want to know what that "magic bullet" is, don't you. Read on. You've still got two minutes.

Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell

---

When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words.

"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".

"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

• Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

• Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

• Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

• Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

The Cheap-Labor Conservatives' "Dirty Secret": They Don't Really Like Prosperity

---

Maybe you don't believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and "cheap labor". Consider these facts.

Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.

That same period – especially from the late forties into the early seventies – was the "golden age" of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good – at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam, as I was.

These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like "liberals are destroying America."In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You can go to "Free Republic" or Hannity's forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to "Stalinism".

• Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.

• Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country's development going right back to the American revolution.

• Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.

• Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools.

• Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.

• Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any "social spending" – which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .

• Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government.[Check out Dubya's financial disclosures. The son of a bitch is a big holder of the T-bills that finance the deficit he is helping to expand.] The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives   while they posture as being "fiscally conservative" – may count as the biggest con job in American history.

• "Free Trade", globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide "corporate playground" where national governments serve the interests of corporations – which means "cheap labor".

The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.

So there you have it, in one easy-to-remember phrase. See how easy it is to understand these cheap-labor conservatives. The more ignorant and destitute people there are – desperate for any job they can get – the cheaper the cheap-labor conservatives can get them to work.

Try it. Every time you respond to a cheap-labor conservative in letters to the editor, or an online discussion forum, look for the "cheap labor" angle. Trust me, you'll find it. I can even show you the "cheap labor" angle in things like the "war on drugs", and the absurd conservative opposition to alternative energy.

Next, make that moniker – cheap-labor conservatives – your "standard reference" to the other side. One of the last revisions I made to this article was to find every reference to "conservatives", "Republicans", "right-wingers", and "righties", and replace it with "cheap-labor conservatives". In fact, if you're a cheap-labor conservative reading this, you should be getting sick of that phrase right about now. Exxxxcellent.

If enough people will "get with the program", it won't be long before you can't look at an editorial page, listen to the radio, turn on the TV, or log onto your favorite message board without seeing the phrase "cheap labor conservatives" – and have plenty of examples to reinforce the message. By election day of 2004, every politically sentient American should understand exactly what a "cheap labor conservative" is, and what he stands for.

Now if you stop right here, you will have enough ammunition to hold your own with a cheap-labor conservative, in any public debate. You have your catch phrase, and you have some of the facts and history to give that phrase meaning.

But if you really want to rip the heart out of cheap-labor conservative ideology, you may want to invest just a little bit more effort. It still isn't all that complicated, though it is a bit more detailed than what we have covered so far.

To explore that detail, just click one of the links below.

"Less Government" and "Cheap Labor".

The Public Sector and Private Fortunes.

"Personal Responsibility" and Wages.

For more detailed theoretical understanding, check out The Mythology of Wealth, or just browse through some of the articles in the sidebar.

Now go find some "cheap labor conservatives", and pin that scarlet moniker on them.

“LESS GOVERNMENT” AND “CHEAP LABOR

---

“Less Government” is the central defining right-wing slogan. And yes, it’s all about “cheap labor”.

Included within the slogan “less government” is the whole conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the “free market” and government’s role in that market.. In fact, the whole “public sector/private sector” distinction is an invention of the cheap-labor conservatives. They say that the “private sector” exists outside and independently of the “public sector”. The public sector, according to cheap-labor ideology, can only “interfere” with the “private sector”, and that such “interference” is “inefficient” and “unprincipled”

Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “big government tyranny”. In fact, the whole idea that the “private sector” is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.

But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What the he wants is the “privatized tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it -- “cheap labor”.

For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes “big government tyranny” and what doesn’t. It turns out that cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.

• Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that “government can’t do anything right” – except apparently, kill people. Indeed, they exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.

• Cheap-labor conservatives complain about the “Warren Court” “handcuffing the police” and giving “rights to criminals”. It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials – you know, the one’s who can’t do anything right.

• Cheap-labor conservatives support the “get tough” and “lock ‘em up” approach to virtually every social problem in the spectrum. In fact, it’s the only approach they support. As for the 2,000,000 people we have in jail today – a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth -- they say our justice system is “too lenient”.

• Cheap-labor conservative – you know, the ones who believe in “freedom” – say our crime problem is because – get this – we’re too “permissive”. How exactly do you set up a “free” society that isn’t “permissive”?

• Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn’t like.

• Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.

• Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other “black bag” operation the CIA can dream up, even against constitutional governments, elected by the people of those countries.

• Cheap-labor conservatives support “domestic surveillance” against “subversives” – where “subversive” means “everybody but them”.

• Cheap-labor believers in “freedom” think it’s the government’s business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.

• Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support these “secret tribunals” with “secret evidence” and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. Then they say that liberals are “Stalinists”.

• And let’s not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-labor conservatives want to “protect our national symbol” from “desecration”. They also support legislation to make the Pledge of Allegiance required by law. Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their cheap-labor agenda. [Ouch! That was one of those “hits” you can hear up in the “nosebleed” seats.]

Sounds to me like the cheap-labor conservatives have a peculiar definition of “freedom”. I mean, just what do these guys consider to be “tyranny”.

That’s easy. Take a look.

• “Social spending” otherwise known as “redistribution”. While they don’t mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is “stealing”.
• Minimum wage laws.
• Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.
• Labor unions, who “extort” employers by collectively bargaining.
• Environmental regulations and the EPA.
• Federal support and federal standards for public education.
• Civil rights legislation. There are still cheap-labor conservatives today, who were staunch defenders of “Jim Crow” – including conspicuously Buckley’s “National Review”. Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were “tyranny”, but segregation itself was not.
• Public broadcasting – which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley’s “Firing Line”. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of “the culture”. The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. “Its tyranny I tell you. Enough’s enough!”

See the pattern? Cheap-labor conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it “tyranny” if government does something for you – using their money, for Chrissake. Even here, cheap-labor conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:

• 150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.
• 300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt – payments that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders, and buy us absolutely nothing.
• Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq – which didn’t need rebuilding three months ago.
• That’s all in addition to the Defense budget – large chunks of which go to corporate defense contractors.

Is the pattern becoming clearer? These cheap-labor Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. It’s “social spending” on people who actually need assistance that they just “can’t tolerate”.

And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.

For a short primer on the importance of a strong public sector, see:

“The Public Sector and Private Fortunes”.

---