[Marxism] Quoting Winston Churchill and not looking like a "nut"

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I put the NUT word in quotes, because I was quoting Camejo, who, in
discussing his national TV debate for governor of California said that
it was important for progressives not to appear like a nut.

And as many of us know, some commentators said that Camejo did the best
job. There were, however, many supporters who were disappointed.

Before coming back to that, a short comment on TV appearances. In 1969
I was the campaign manager for the Boutelle for Mayor campaign in New
York City. At one point we had a well-attended press conference at the
headquarters on Union Square. Boutelle was a young (mid-30s), slim
African-American who had been Fred Halstead's running mate in the 1968
Presidential campaign. He made a short, sharply-worded but moderate in
tone, presentation. It was beautiful and one of the cameramen knew it.
He acknowledged that he had missed it, but wanted to get it again. He
asked Paul to repeat it, which Paul did. However, this time, although
the content was the same, the decibel level was magnified, the
gesticulations were broader and Paul's demeanor reflected anger instead
of sincerity and severity. You could see the consternation on the
cameraman's face. He had hoped for a home-run. He got a strike out.

Lesson: the intimacy of TV presentation is different from a street
corner rally or taking over a building. Howard Dean would tell you the
same thing.

Back to the Camejo TV presentation. Except for a rapid-fire laundry
list at the end that was completely unconnected to anything that he had
said before, Camejo's points were well behind the curve of many
capitalist politicians.

He was so interested in damning Gray Davis that he ignored the fleecing
of California's consumers by Enron and other utilities. Apparently, he
wanted to lay California's financial mess entirely on Davis, only
arguing that Davis was incompetent.* But Enron's activities were
well-known, even before the recent tapes showing Enron traders laughing
about California grandmothers getting screwed.

Advocating a "flat tax" for California, Camejo said nothing about the
national tax cuts, apparently under the assumption that California was
a sovereign state. His tax proposals were completely within the context
of being a better executive for California. His proposals had nothing
to do with the capitalist system, let alone naming it.

This kind of argumentation opened the door for Scharzenegger,
McClintock and Bustamonte to say that they also could do better than
Gray Davis.

Finally, he did not connect the cost of the war in Iraq with its impact
on taxpayers in California and throughout the U.S. In passing, he could
have made a strong argument for the Green Party throughout the country.
He could have presented progressive proposals linking California to the
U.S. and to the world in a very straightforward manner, particularly at
the beginning, where he had an opportunity to lay out his fundamental
line, instead of cramming some of it in at the end.

This is the chief reason why Camejo got so much praise. It was not just
his demeanor. It was also his sweet reasonableness with proposals that
stayed entirely within the state-federal Procrustean bed.

from Brian Shannon
_______

* I also agree with those who were against the referendum itself and
criticized Camejo for jumping on the Dump Davis bandwagon. It is
political ABC for socialists to DEFEND the political process against
the Right. Of course there was anger against Davis--otherwise it
wouldn't have worked at all. Afterwards, once the referendum was in
place, running for governorship was entirely legitimate.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism