Using the coronavirus public health restrictions as a way to renew a Tea Party-like conservative anti-government movement

1.  Republicans constantly fighting community organizing of the poor.  A few days ago, the World Channel (which shows documentaries among other programming, and is broadcast on HDTV subchannels of PBS stations, although not in the DC area) rebroadcast an episode of the documentary series Independent Lens about the fall of ACORN, the community organizing group with affiliates in many states focused on a poor people's agenda, including voter registration, fighting foreclosures, etc.

-- "ACORN and the Firestorm," Independent Lens, PBS
-- "Filmmaker Q&A"

Republicans had been aiming at ACORN for years because they didn't like their voter registration efforts.  Going after ACORN was a form of "voter suppression."

The organization dissolved after a somewhat faked set of videos were released by alt right journalist James O'Keefe, alleging the group was willing to help a pimp get a housing loan to set up a brothel.

But at the same time, ACORN had  management issues because of the "distributed" nature of its organization, and was already in internal turmoil because of embezzlement by one of the organization's founders, which had been covered up by another of the organization's founders and they were brothers.

The organization collapsed.  Although many of the affiliates reorganized and incorporated under other names, with the loss of a nationally-focused infrastructure.

Years ago, I got into an argument with John Atlas, author of a book about the organization--he's featured in the film--and father of one of the producers.

I said "ACORN knew they had a target on their back.  So they needed to be squeaky clean.  And the embezzlement, which was covered up by the founder, would have probably sealed their doom anyway."

He scoffed, blaming that on constant Republican/conservative opposition, but I thought that was too facile.

2.  The Tea Party as an organized response of conservatives to the Democratic Party.  Plenty has been written about this, including many books.  A article by Harvard researchers published in the political science journal Perspective on Politics, "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism," was the kernel of one of those books.

In short, business interests backed up by conservative media interests fomented the Tea Party as an attack on President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Tea-party protesters in Denver, April 15, 2009.
PHOTO: ANDY CROSS/THE DENVER POST VIA GETTY IMAGES.

I always thought it was ironic that Tea Party activists stated they acted because "the government is taking over the economy through the Federal bailout/stimulus" in response to the Great Financial Crisis.  The government being equal to "socialism."

Ironically, from the standpoint of Marxist theory, it wasn't socialism and government takeover at all, but yet another example of the response to a "Capitalist Crisis" where business is bailed out by government ("THE GLOBAL CAPITALIST CRISIS: Whose Crisis, Who Profits?," International Review of Modern Sociology 38:2 Autumn 2012).

What's happening is business takes over government.  Not the other way around.

(During the GFC, many corporations walked away from commercial mortgages, with little real consequence, while individual homeowners were told that to renege on their commitments was a moral failure.)

As a result, the bailout was shaped to favor business interests--most, not all, of the corporations benefiting didn't have that many restrictions on what they did.  Bailing out of the banks did not require a whole lot of help to individual house owners who lost out to foreclosure.

And the Tea Party has been a force for fierce anti-government policy and rhetoric ("The Tea Party Succeeded, but Not at Policy," Wall Street Journal; "5 years later, here's how the tea party changed politics," CNN; "The Tea Party Didn’t Get What It Wanted, but It Did Unleash the Politics of Anger," New York Times).

Of course it didn't change "politics" in terms of policies favoring business, because business interests organized the creation of the Tea Party, to serve business interests.

Editorial cartoon by Dave Granlund featuring Fox News personalities who have advocated against stay at home orders.

3.  Protests against coronavirus restrictions in Maryland, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, California, etc. as the next iteration of the Tea Party anti-government backlash.  A few days ago, fomented in part by President Trump ("Trump Encourages Protest Against Governors Who Have Imposed Virus Restrictions," NYT), other re-election campaign interests, Fox News ("Protests against stay-at-home orders during coronavirus") and other conservative media organizations, there have been protests in various state capitals over the impact on the economy from business shutdowns ("Michigan's protests are a bellwether of an increasingly dangerous partisan divide," CNN; "Coronavirus Outbreak Eases in New York as U.S. Protesters Push Against Restrictions," WSJ; "What's Driving The Right-Wing Protesters Fighting The Quarantine," NYT).

Protestors in Huntington Beach, Calif. protest state closures on April 17. Photo: Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images

It's not like these protests are big.  Nothing like the Women's Marches after the election of Trump and since, which brought tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people out to protests.

At least judging by this Axios roundup of photos of demonstrators at these protests.

Most of the protesters in Annapolis, Maryland didn't even get out of their cars ("Streets of Annapolis filled with cars in protest against Maryland coronavirus restrictions," Annapolis Capital-Gazette).

A message from a ReOpen Maryland supporter is seen on the back of a truck around Church Circle in Annapolis on Saturday, April 18. ReOpen Maryland is protesting the mandated closure of businesses due the coronavirus pandemic. (Brian Krista/Baltimore Sun Media Group)

Still, as the energy of the Tea Party opposition has faded--look at the success of the election of a Democratic Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin despite all the roadblocks put in the way of this by the Republican-controlled legislature (itself in power because of extreme gerrymandering).

I can't help but believe these protests are merely the next generation iteration of anti-government pro-conservative party identity building as a way to build momentum for the November election, in the face of the disastrous "management" of the coronavirus response by the Trump Administration.

In short, this isn't an "ad hoc" grassroots response by "concerned citizens."

It's fomented by  media and business interests that in general, don't care too much about the interests of "the people."

Some of the conservative calls for "opening the economy" have been couched in concern for the unemployed and the likelihood of "deaths of despair."

I read a comment on a Washington Post article making the point that it wasn't like these interests cared about such deaths before ("Farmer suicide deaths alarm rural communities in the Midwest," South Bend Tribune).

Conclusion: "The politics of anger" need to be constantly stoked in order to maintain rabid opposition to Democratic policies that in normal circumstances, help the protesters.

By making it out that recipients of help are both "the other" and "undeserving" the politics of anger are heightened.

From the New Yorker article "Arlie Russell Hochschild’s View of Small-Town Decay and Support for Trump":

Hochschild noticed that Tea Party enthusiasts and traditional conservatives gave her accounts of American society that boiled down to a single “deep story.” This story was that America, which was once characterized by hard work, was now characterized by cheating; the image that Hochschild chose was that of people cutting in line. For Hochschild’s subjects, the line-cutters were African-Americans, promoted by affirmative action, she writes, but also “women, immigrants, refugees, public-sector workers—where will it end? Your money is running through a liberal sympathy sieve you don’t control or agree with.” President Obama, in this vision, was the man controlling the line, waving the line-cutters ahead—“their president, not your president.” Hochschild shared this analogy in e-mails to the plumbers and insurance brokers she had met. “I live your analogy,” one wrote back. “It’s my story,” another said. A third wrote, “You’ve read my mind.”

A Trump Unity sign on a trailer is shown parked at the [coronavirus restrictions] protest in front of the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing. Paul Sancya/AP

Some interesting articles on national politics

1. Work continues to disappear, with devastating impact on people and communities.  Earlier in the week, charlie shared this New Republic article, "Educated Fools: Democrats Misunderstand Politics and Social Class," Thomas Geoghegan, who has been writing about the impact of culture based appeals to "traditional voters" for more than 20 years in very provocative ways.

I don't fully buy the thesis. He says that Democrats argue that everyone needs advanced degrees, that this is demeaning to the working class. But the jobs, especially "mass production," that people could do without advanced education are increasingly being replaced by capital and the jobs that remain, even if "industrial" are increasingly knowledge intensive.

Last week, we watched a documentary on the "America Reframed" series on the PBS World Channel called "Detroit 48202," about the changes in a particular area of Detroit, seen through the eyes of the mailman on the route. It featured interviews with a radical union organizer, and he made the point that when they were organizing in the late 1960s, the Dodge Main plant had 10,000 workers. Over time, with automation, the number of workers dropped by 75%.

2. Hope... I mentioned about two weeks ago, the new book by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDan, on how "work is disappearing everywhere" and belief that we can change the trajectory of failure.

-- "New York Times article on community decline associated with loss of work"

3. ... and aspiration.  This is on British politics, a Guardian article, "Yes, ‘aspiration’ can be a socialist idea – if the left can rid it of its baggage," which discusses "aspirational socialism." I include it, because even though there is no consensus within Labour politics about grassroots influence on policy, politics, and governance, it gets at why I believe there is an opportunity to build bridges, as incendiary as today's politics are. From the article:

It is a striving – in the face of ferocious opposition, and despite countless defeats and disappointments – to give working people greater control over their lives and surroundings, instead of casting them adrift to fend for themselves, and to create the conditions that allow them to reach their full personal, intellectual and creative potential. ...

Long-Bailey hopes that in aspirational socialism she’s found a way to communicate radical ideas in a media environment largely unreceptive to them, and of signalling to Labour’s lost voters that she heeds their concerns. But building a genuinely empowering and aspirational socialism would necessitate a distinct break from the party’s established traditions of administering palliatives from above. What remains to be seen is whether the ideological baggage attached to “aspiration” as a term will allow it to be redefined convincingly by the left, and whether this socialist reappropriation of distinctly Blair-era language can be made to cut through. Long-Bailey’s underlying message is nonetheless correct. Socialism is about transforming society in order to put people in charge of their own lives – and what could be more aspirational than that?

The fact is that many more of us are in the "precariat" and the solutions are in community and support, not Social Darwinism.

4. Community organizing is key.  Eitan Hersh has authored a book, Politics Is for Power, excerpted in The Atlantic, "College-Educated Voters Are Ruining American Politics: Political hobbyism is to public affairs what watching SportsCenter is to playing football." He distinguishes between talking and thinking about politics versus community organizing. (I guess I am part of the problem. I am less personally involved in issues these days, and more about analysis and prognostication. But there's a need for that too.)

5. A December article ("How to Turn Anger and Fear Into Political Power: Latinos in Arizona can show how it’s done") in the New York Times about Latino organizing in Arizona, aptly illustrates Hersh's point.

6. Lessons from Vietnam era politics.  John Judis has a piece in the Washington Post Magazine, "I was a '60s socialist. Today's progressives are in danger of repeating my generation's mistakes," arguing the flip side of Geohagen in terms of mistakes the left is making now in terms of building a coalition and narrative and approach that can win national elections.

7. Opportunities at the scale of the city.  The Guardian has an article ("The case for ... truly taking back control – by reversing the privatisation of our cities") on "remunicipalization," as a response to privatization of government services.

8.  The middle class isn't always liberal.  An op-ed in the New York Times, "The Myth of Middle-Class Liberalism," makes the point that historical interpretation arguing that the middle class always sparks progressivism and "enlightenment" isn't accurate, that when times are tough, liberals can "do the wrong thing.  I agree somewhat.

When society and the economy was growing, it was forward looking and the middle class, involved in doing, was open to change.  Now that things are more of a zero sum game--it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but it is when certain groups aim to game the system to maintain their position and privileges, the middle class is worried about the future, and no longer confident it can withstand change or has enough resources so that it is inclined to share.

Moving the pieces on the Growth Machine chess board or an anti-art move by DC's mayor?

Franklin School, DC.

There is a bunch of remonstration about how DC's new Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has blocked a number of previous development deals inked by the previous administration ("Bowser team puts hold on five projects awarded by Gray," Washington Business Journal),  the latest cancellation  ("Franklin School competition reopened as D.C. formally cancels museum bid," WBJ) being of a project to end the multi-decades languishing of the Franklin School.

That proposal was to reopen the building as the Institute of Contemporary Expression, to showcase the work of contemporary artists in a city that has limited venues to display such work because of how the national museums (National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, National Portrait Gallery, and the Hirshorn Museum) and the smaller local museums (Phillips Gallery, etc.) are set up to work.

Washington Post cultural critic Philip Kennicott argues in "Mayor Muriel E. Bowser's killing of DC cultural project shows only money matters," that the decision to start over is out of a desire for the city to make more money from the project.

At first I was a little skeptical of the ICE concept, but I think it's worth considering, and an even stronger case could be made for such an institution and city support if the city had a comprehensive cultural programming and facilities plan.

(An interesting take on the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao suggests that contemporary arts museums tend to have the best return on investment in terms of tourism, compared to other cultural institutions.  See "Art for Whose Sake? Modern Art Museums and their Role in Transforming Societies: The Case of the Guggenheim Bilbao," Journal of Museum and Conservation Studies.)

I don't think that wanting to make more money from the site is the real issue, although that might be a consequence of the decision (probably not, because the building's monetary value is constrained in many ways).

I believe that what is going on with the decisions to review or restart the bid process for these properties has to do not with trying to get more money from the developers, but has to do more with a changing of the guard, and the opportunity the new administration has to favor a different set of developers than those that had been the favorites of previous administrations--Eastbanc got a bunch of hot sites during the Fenty and Gray Administrations.

Eastbanc, the Georgetown-based firm shepherding this project, also is the lead on the Hine redevelopment project in Capitol Hill which has many neighbors up in arms but as Mayor Bowser said in a recent community meeting is too far along to stop according to the Capitol Hill Corner blog. This is a way for the city to slap Eastbanc, which may be slightly satisfying to Capitol Hill residents.

I argue that these actions are merely an example of the newly even more empowered members of the Growth Machine flexing their muscles and favoring their supporters.  Or as The Who sang in the song "Won't get fooled again," "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."  The end results, the actions are the same, but the actors and maybe the terms have changed a little bit.

Regarding the Growth Machine see:

-- A superb lesson in DC "growth machine" politics
-- That damn Growth Machine: developers, incentives, givebacks, accountability

A lesson from the Franklin School about community benefits agreements and proffers

Ironically, the Franklin School is a great example of a previous failure to adequately leverage DC government owned properties when development opportunities come along.  Many years ago, the adjacent office building (shown to the left in the photo above) was built with zoning bonuses and as part of the agreement, the developers paid to fix the facade of the Franklin School.

The exterior was fixed, but not the interior, which continued to moulder, and was further abused when it served as a homeless shelter.

An event in Hurlbutt Memorial Hall, Sumner Museum and Archives.

By contrast, leasing the old playground of the Sumner School for a new for profit office building not only generated money for the school system, but as part of the deal, the developer agreed to renovate the Sumner School building, which is now home of the DCPS archives and museum, and also to maintain this building for the 99-year life of the lease (given how DC Government tends to minimally maintain buildings, this is a huge win for the city).

So the school system got money from the lease, gets money from the ground lease year after year, and got a renewed cultural facility serving the school system and the city, and free maintenance of that building for 99 years.

Which type of deal, for Franklin School or for Sumner School, was better for the city?

Granted, the city didn't have the same amount of leverage concerning Franklin School.  But as I've argued about the community benefits agreement negotiation process, if we had consensus priorities set in advance for the various areas of the city, we could better direct proffers in ways that have significant long term and structural change value for the various districts and neighborhoods of the city.

Focusing proffers towards fixing Franklin School and rehabilitating downtown parks (albeit owned by the National Park Service which creates other problems) would have had significant long term value Downtown, instead of the patchwork of benefits that have been received.