About Glenn W. Smith
Glenn W. Smith has spent the past 30 years in journalism and politics, where he’s made a name for himself as a writer, campaign manager, activist, think tank analyst and, as Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas says, a “legendary political consultant and all-around good guy.” “There’s no one like him,” says author George Lakoff. CNN commentator Paul Begala says, “He has unmatched experience, a graceful pen (or pixel nowadays) and deep insight into the best and worst of us.” Novelist Sarah Bird speaks of his “lucid and lyrical” prose. And, she says, he’s fun. Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington says Glenn writes with “grace and abundant humor” and “uses his colorful experiences in Texas to enlighten us all.”
Smith led Ann Richards’ successful 1990 campaign for Governor of Texas. He worked for former Texas Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby and U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen. Earlier, Smith was a political reporter for the Houston Chronicle and the Houston Post. He’s coordinated national campaigns for groups such as MoveOn.org. In 2004, he authored the highly acclaimed book, The Politics of Deceit: Saving Freedom and Democracy from Extinction. He also wrote Unfit Commander, a book that detailed George W. Bush’s mysterious disappearance from military service.
In 2004, Smith was featured in the film, Bush’s Brain, a documentary about Karl Rove. Smith provided commentary on Rove’s role as then-President Bush’s senior advisor. He has made numerous media appearances with Chris Mathews on Hardball, Joe Scarborough, Brit Hume, and many others. He writes a regularly for top national web sites, including FireDogLake and Huffington Post.
As a senior fellow at George Lakoff’s prestigious Rockridge Institute in Berkeley he studied, wrote and taught on the power of metaphor and narrative in political communications. He also lectured on religion and politics at the Starr King School for Ministry in Berkeley. As a sponsor and organizer, he has pulled together numerous national events with progressive religious leaders. He also organized a celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King at Riverside Church in New York City as well as “Freedom and Faith” bus tours, which was a nationwide campaign for social justice and progressive values.
Smith’s play, Double Play, which explored American Western myths and legends, was held over to sold-out audiences. He’s even written and performed songs in the Americana tradition, such as his best-known song, “Helping Marty Robbins,” a tribute to his hometown, Houston.
Most recently, Smith is the creator of DogCanyon, a political and cultural web site covering state, national and global issues from a Texas perspective. DogCanyon is an exhilarating and unique site that gets the connections between politics and culture and explores both the personal side of politics and the ups, down, craziness and beauty of “life its ownself,” as humorist Dan Jenkins would say. DogCanyon offers heartfelt personal essays, hard-hitting political analysis, and, most importantly, laughs.
As Paul Begala said, Smith writes in “the finest, firmest, fearless tradition of Texas essayists like Molly Ivins.”
The irony, of course, is that the people that are running the Democratic Party keep telling us that we must embrace corporatist measures in order to reach out to conservatives and independents.
I think you are right about the appeal of arguments in favor of challenging corporate power – Lakoff’s piece on a Democracy Movement is quite relevant here. I doubt we’ll convince the political establishment or the chattering class (although I hold out hope that we’ll convince activists and the rank and file) – but if we build a people powered movement, they’ll be forced to listen (or pushed out of the way.)
You mention an important Democratic miscalculation. In the wake of Civil Rights, Nixon/McGovern etc., as Democrats — especially Southern Democrats — tried to hang on to a majority, they reasserted their alliance with business. They constructed a political spectrum in their minds that ran from pro-business to anti-business. Centrist meant being in the middle of these two poles. This allowed them to avoid such cultural issues as racism, and they hoped they could keep white racists in their ranks by changing the rhetorical dynamics. It didn’t work.
There is so much wrong with it, even as a temporary tactical planning tool, that it’s a wonder it remains a powerful mythology. In any case, it has nothing to do with either 21st political ideology or the concerns of real citizens. Yet, it is still the Rahm Emmanuel way. Some suggest it is fear of money — and in the wake of the Citizens United decision, they oughta be worried about money. But pandering to business won’t get them the votes of independents. It never did.
Very true. What’s more disturbing to me is that there seems to be so many people who did not live through those times, who don’t realize the connection between this stance and the problem it was meant to address, who accept it without question. How I wish more people remembered (or knew) this history that you reference!
When one criticizes corporatist Democrats, the response is often “you can’t move left – you’ll lose independents.” I’m not asking for much here – just the realization that not all politics can be reduced to a single left-right spectrum. (It would be even better if people realized that voters prefer someone who seems as though they stand for something, and how difficult it is for Democrats to convey that while triangulating.)
Part of me feels that all these events – the Coakley loss, the dustup over Bernanke and Geithner, the Citizens United decision – can’t help but cause a progressive populist mobilization. Part of me can’t figure out who is ready to step up and lead to make something happen. Sure there are pieces – the UC protests, Lakoff and the Democracy Movement, Grayson, UNITE-HERE and NUHW, etc. But I’m still not sure how we get there from here.
I think you’re right. The recent unpleasant has served to focus the attention, so to speak. I also think a new consensus if forming, though it’s vague, and delayed somewhat by the emergency circumstances we’ve had to deal with, from the economy to the climate crisis to health care to Bush’s havoc in the Middle East. The Left has to let go of its own baggage, I think. That baggage includes the habit of talking in rationalist, management, technocratic ways. That’s just one of the problems.
Our country was formed, and our Constitution was written, for one main purpose: to protect us from the “landed aristocracies” which our corporations have become. The hereditary wealth of old Europe lives on in our immortal corporations and our endangered inheritance taxes.
If you think about it, we revolted, in 1776, not against a country or a king so much as against a corporation, the British East India Corporation. It was their tea we threw in the harbor, not the tea of a king or country. The real tea party was not a protest against undue government power, but against undue corporate influence in the government.
Patrick, your point is very well taken.
The Framers didn’t go far enough in protecting against the rise of plutocracy, as they tried to balance, pragmatically, complex, diverse interests — regional, economic, religious and factional. We’ve been struggling against the consequences of those failures throughout our history.
“Part of me feels that all these events … can’t help but cause a progressive populist mobilization. Part of me can’t figure out who is ready to step up and lead to make something happen.” — David.
That, to me, is the key question at this point — who will play a leadership role? Various efforts are being made, but thus far, no “organizing,” not at a critical mass kind of level, is obvious. Lots of conversation, which is good, but if actions don’t come ….
An AP story today quotes Gibbs: “We need to stop pretending every day in Washington is election day.” The only thing I question about that comment is his use of “pretending.”
Joyce, the victory in Oregon on progressive taxation is a great example where progressives were organizing successfully against corporatism. We need to direct more energy towards the question of what we should do (as opposed to what Obama should do).
As for who the leaders will be, I’m reminded of the Wobbly answer to that question: “We are all leaders!”
I suspect that we need more attention at the local and state level, where organizing and popular mobilization will have the most impact. That doesn’t mean abandoning national politics, but it probably does mean a significant shift in priorities and attention. Or at least, looking for possibilities at the local and state level to address national problems – clean elections being a good example.