Conference report: Vanishing Democracy
Over one hundred local activists attended a one-day conference organized by sixteen local progressive groups, focusing on the anti-democratic nature of corporations in contemporary American society and the actions citizens can take to improve the situation. Speakers provided a background structure for understanding the history and status of corporate rule. Discussion and action groups worked to understand specific areas of corporate influence and strategize corrective action.

The conference happened at the First Universalist Church in Minneapolis. Keith Ellison, DFL representative from North Minneapolis, MC'd the event in concert with local activist Betsy Barnum. The event also featured spoken word performances by Omaur Bliss and Cedric Bolton, and music by David Rovics and Rachel Nelson.

Barnum began the conference by summarizing the history of corporations in the US. Communities are currently limited to the use of regulatory tactics such as boycotts, lawsuits, and new legislation to limit the damage done by corporations. However, in the beginning of the US and until a little over one hundred years ago, corporations were limited entities created in the public interest. The founding fathers of our country were well acquainted with the problems caused by the powerful British corporations that had been active in the colonies. Corporate charters were issued for limited time periods and specific purposes. Misbehavior by corporations often resulted in the 'corporate death penalty': dissolution.

Then came the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company decision, which was later understood to grant corporations protection under the 14th amendment, written to help the recently-freed slaves. The resulting power and protections lead to today's situation, in which corporations have acquired de facto governing powers. Harms they cause are very difficult to address unless those harms break specific laws, making it all but impossible to prevent much of the damage they cause.

Following Barnum's introduction, John Nichols delivered the keynote address. Nichols opened by noting that Jane's Defense Weekly, the Wall Street Journal of the military, has written that the planning for the invasion of Iraq suffered from 'excessive amplification'. This means that one perspective got all the airtime, leaving our forces unprepared for unexpected difficulty. This one-sidedness of the discussion about Iraq, argued Nichols, was a product of our ruling class' acceptance of the theory of neoliberalism and its companion, neoconservativism. These theories work like so:

Neoliberalism says that we're at the 'End of History' and have all the answers for how to run the world: just like we run America. If there are problems here or abroad, it's because the neoliberal program hasn't been followed firmly enough. Free trade, privatization of common resources, and the reliance on 'the wisdom of markets' is the one true way to run a country.

Neoconservativism agrees with neoliberalism but adds that resistance to the privatization of the world must be met by a strong police force. The US, as the sole superpower of the world, must fill that role.

Before the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, George Bush showed little interest in neoconservative arguments. Once we were attacked, though, he suddenly accepted their platform and started pursuing the suggested program: overthrowing regimes in 'rogue nations'.

The results of neoliberalism and neoconservativism identified by Nichols:

• worsening farm crisis
• millions of jobs moving overseas
• concentration of wealth
• consolidation of media
• lowered voting numbers
• eroded civil liberties
• weakened international cooperation

Following Nichols' address, conference attendees broke into discussion groups, focusing on specific issues including labor, environment, healthcare, militarism and globalization, race and reparations, media, and immigration. After the group discussions, a panel shared some promising developments:

John Karvel of Code for Corporate Responsibility talked about their campaign to insert wording into the MN Statutes to require corporations to consider the environment, human rights, and public health in addition to shareholder profits.
Northern Minnesota Representative Bill Hilty covered bills he'll be introducing. One was a state version of Paul Wellstone's federal bill that prevents government contracts with businesses incorporated in tax-exempt zones. Hilty also discussed an amendment to clarify that each instance of "person" in the Minnesota constitution refers to a natural person, as opposed to a corporation.
Nick Palumbo of Fair and Clean Elections talked about their campaign to provide political candidates with public funding when they demonstrate grassroots support and agree to strict funding guidelines. This has been successful in both Maine and Arizona, who have seen the diversity of candidates significantly improved. Half of the MN Senate and one-third of the House are in support.
Korla Masters, a freshman at South high school, talked about the YO anti-sweatshop campaign. They convinced the Minneapolis School Board to adopt a sweatshop-free policy for all garment and athletic equipment purchases, and are working with students in Saint Paul, Stillwater, and area Catholic schools to adopt similar measures.
Joel Albers of the Task Force for Single Payer Healthcare talked about the growing recognition of the need for universal healthcare. His group plans to build local networks to address the issue and raise awareness through the media.

Finally, groups corresponding to the earlier discussion issues met to plan followup action. Many of the groups defined tasks they wished to pursue and resolved to continue meeting after the conference. All groups recognized existing local efforts in their areas, and discussed ways to join or complement those efforts.
[/day_in_the_life]

the Rolling Thunder down-home Democracy Tour

Spent yesterday at the Rolling Thunder "down-home democracy" tour, which in Saint Paul happened to coincide with the local unions' regular Labor Day plans.

It was interesting to see how the organizers approached the Blue Collar / Progressive mix. Although the mainstream media likes to divide the population into the smallest possible groups, there are clearly large areas of overlap between the unions, the environmentalist groups, the political reformers, etc. Most speakers didn't go into much depth, but I think that makes sense given the event's billing: a celebration of just-plain regular folks who are working together to make their neighborhood, city, state, country, and / or world a better place.

Between volunteering and being a bit late to the paddle boat / conference room, I missed most of the workshops. I did manage to make the Alternative / Indy media workshop, MCd by Leif Utne of the rag with the same name. The room was packed, and the panelists had a wealth of collective experience communicating outside the mainstream.

My favorite bit came from the editor of Minneapolis' Skyway News, in response to a question about the value of having progressive people put all this work into communicating with one another. Shouldn't we focus on converting the masses, whose worldview depends only on the mainstream media? The answer - Well, no, because progressives have plenty to teach each other, and the lines between alternative and mainstream media aren't always as hard and fast as people tend to think. Some mainstream reporters do look to progressive media for story ideas and information, and some progressive media people do end up working in the mainstream.

Addendum, 1/21/03 - it was on this day that I saw Paul Wellstone for the last time. He looked a little rough - his walk was a little stiff, and he seemed tired from the campaigning - but he was as fired up as ever when he took the microphone, and he still got out in the crowds and talked to anyone who wanted a word with him. One hell of a guy, sorely missed.

[/day_in_the_life]

Wasted afternoon

After a wasted afternoon, I must sadly report that the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF)'s Experienced Rider Course (ERC) is misleadingly billed and poorly executed. Experienced riders will be frusturated more than they are helped.

The first half of the ERC consists of four hours of watching videos and listening to lectures in a classroom. The material was sound, based as it was on the Hurt studies of motorcycle accidents. However, the experience was marred by the grade-school level and pace of discussion.

The Hurt report findings have been well documented and disseminated by the motorcycle media. Briefly, they show that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents involve major failings on the part of the rider such as use of alcohol, failure to use helmets and protective gear, overuse of the rear brake, or ignorance of countersteering.

You'd hope that the experienced motorcyclist would know enough to avoid these traps, so dedicating four hours to the exposition of their evils seems a bit much. 30-60 minutes would have been fine; none of these traps should be news to anyone who has been riding for any amount of time.

The second half of the ERC consisted of a four-hour traffic jam, set in a parking lot. Drills went like this: wait in line for 5 minutes, often behind a poorly-running Harley; ride at speeds of up to 20 mph for 5-10 seconds; receive a rebuke for failing to use four fingers on the brake lever; repeat.

While some or all of this experience might be useful to someone who has been off their bike a number of years, or to someone unfamiliar with the major findings of the Hurt report, I found it tedious at best, and wrongheaded at other times. Particularly annoying was the instructors' rigid insistence on a few specific techniques, such as four-fingered braking and manatory use of the rear brake in quick stops on good pavement. Neither makes sense for an experienced rider on reasonably functional machinery, yet the MSF instructors insist that riders with years of experience using other valid techniques somehow forget what they know for the afternoon.

While I did note these concerns on the class' feedback form, I don't expect the MSF to change this class much. The least they could do would be to market it more honestly; make it clear that the occasional or returning rider will have all basic skills of motorcycling reviewed, and it will be much clearer who should and should not take the course. If this course is indeed well recieved by many of its students, the only lesson can be that stricter standards need to be in place before granting motorcycle licenses in the first place.

[/day_in_the_life]