By Christine Shearer

What are we to make of Obama’s first term? In Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press, 2012), editors Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank offer their assessment: “The Barack Obama revolution was over before it started, guttered by the politician’s overweening desire to prove himself to the grandees of the establishment. From there on, other promises proved ever easier to break.”

Under this bold thesis, Hopeless brings together different voices from the Left to assess the Obama Administration’s actions on a variety of issues. Writers include journalist Jeremy Scahill on foreign policy, activist Ralph Nader on the nonprofit sector, and economist Michael Hudson on tax cuts and war spending, to name just a few.

Editor and co-writer Joshua Frank talked with Left Eye on Books about the book, Obama’s policies, and why he sees more promise for true hope and change with Occupy Wall Street than Obama or mainstream politics.

Christine Shearer: How did the idea for this book come about?

Joshua Frank: My co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair and myself decided to pursue this book project because we both felt their has been far too little left critique of the Obama years thus far. He was cheered into office by an overwhelming wave of popularity, but it didn’t take him long to leave the rhetoric of “hope” and “change” in the dust of the campaign trail. So we decided to document these failures and betrayals. Hopeless contains a host of voices and is set up in chronological order so that the reader can gaze at Obama’s arch as president. It’s a sobering read to be sure, but hopefully one that gets people thinking outside the voting booth.

CS: I don’t know if the timing of the book’s release – right before the 2012 election – was deliberate, but it’s provocative, because many Democrats and some progressives would say that right now we need to rally behind President Obama to avoid a Mitt Romney presidency. What do you say to that kind of argument?

JF: I would tell these well-meaning progressives that instead of rallying behind a particular presidential candidate, that instead they ought to continue rallying behind the causes they hold dear. Often what happens during an election hoopla is we see movements – say the anti-war movement – put their protest signs in the closet and stick their pro-Democrat sign in the front yard. This is especially dangerous when said Democrat doesn’t support the anti-war positions we support. If we don’t put any demands on these candidates to adopt progressive positions, then there is really no reason for them to ever heed our concerns. Instead, we ought to put a significant amount of pressure on Obama and hold his feet to the fire on the issues that matter the most to us – be it climate change or foreign interventions. That’s what our objective is with this book, to inform and engage. I am hopeful that the evolving Occupy movement will keep on it, mounting pressure on both parties as the election party hits full cylinder. If Occupy decides to end their campaigns to support Obama, that’d be death of one of the important social developments we’ve seen in this country in the last decade.

CS: A lot of Democrat candidates will use populist rhetoric in their campaigns, only to later govern more from the center or even center-right. Do you think there is a degree to which Obama is more guilty of this than say, for example, former President Bill Clinton?

JF: I totally agree that they use particular language in order to sway voters. I think Obama is guilty of this, but I would say he’s not quite as gifted at the art of public relations as Clinton was. He’s just not as smooth or as coy. He also probably doesn’t have as many lies to cover up as Clinton did. No really though, cutting through the jargon is half the battle. I much prefer to look at the actual record and dissect the policy than to analyze a particular speech or interview. Actions speak louder than words as the old cliche goes. And sadly, Obama’s policies, like those of Clinton, just don’t pass the progressive sniff test.

CS: Yes, tell us about some of Obama’s policies and the problems with them discussed in the book.

JF: We cover the whole array of issues, from the environment to the economy to foreign policy. Some of the brightest and most eloquent writers on the left reveal Obama’s ugly warts, such as Tariq Ali, Jeremy Scahill, Kathy Kelly, and Ray McGovern. The host of writers critique Obama’s management of the so-called War on Terror, his energy policy, attack on civil liberties, torture, and his bail out of Wall Street. One of the more interesting essays, in my view, is one by Andrew Levine who argues Obama is actually an economic libertarian. It’s a very damning, if not enlightening, must-read piece.

CS: One of the most interesting things about Obama, to me, is that there are often multiple and conflicting analyses offered for his motivations and actions. For example, in taking on economic liberalists like Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geitner as financial advisers: did he choose them because he admires them, because he thought it was the only way to prevent a depression, to reach out to conservatives and financial institutions, or because he actually agrees with them? In the Introduction you and Jeffrey St. Clair write that at heart Obama is a “calculating pragmatist” that “doesn’t want to be stained with defeat.” Do you think that explains a lot of his actions in the first term?

JF: Absolutely. Obama is really a middle-of-the-road Democrat on most issues. In the end, he actually agrees with the likes of Summers and Geitner. He said as much while campaigning in 2008 and defends his Wall Street bailout to this day. He’s almost too pragmatic at times, which is exactly the opposite of what most progressives had hoped for when they ushered him into office. They thought he’d be bold and unflinching, the antithesis of George W. Bush. But what they got was a guy who is hardly a liberal and actually agreed with Bush on most big issues.

Take the hot news item of today: Obama’s new found support for same-sex marriage. While I certainly applaud him for finally taking a stand, it’s not at all a radical position. He’s made clear that he takes a states rights approach to the issue. Which means, if a state like North Carolina wants to outlaw same-sex marriage, he’ll accept that. Could you imagine if he had the same feeling about, say, segregation? Without the Civil Rights Act we’d still have lawful discrimination in most southern states. It took a federal law to move us forward. Without a similar piece of national legislation regarding same sex marriage, gays in this country will still be discriminated against in most states. Obama’s is not a progressive civil rights position on gay marriage – it’s pragmatic and calculated. Keep in mind, it’s also virtually the exact same position both Dick Cheney and Ron Paul have espoused. What Obama has endorsed is simply marriage equality federalism, to be wonky. He did not, sadly, embrace the notion that marriage for all ought to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

CS: Another area where Obama has had a lot of overlap with former President George W. Bush is national security and foreign policy, including continuing some of the more Constitutionally questionable – some would say illegal – policies of the “War Against Terror,” such as extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, and domestic wiretapping. And he’s even taken it a step further by authorizing drone attacks in a host of countries. Can you tell us a bit about how the book addresses Obama’s national security policy, and do you think the writers were surprised by Obama’s policies in this area?

JF: I do think many of the writers were shocked at how far this administration has gone to extend Bush’s “War on Terror” into Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. The callous nature of drone bombings is perhaps the most frightening aspect of Obama’s evolving wars.  Drones are indiscriminate, and many would argue, absolutely illegal under international law. If Bush were carrying out similar attacks, with nearly weekly reports of civilian deaths, the US antiwar movement would be up in arms, out in the streets and camping out in front of the White House. But since it is Obama carrying out these murders, mums the word. Democrats have essentially co-opted the antiwar movement and it’s been very detrimental.

CS: You, Jeffrey St. Clair, and Darwin Bond-Graham also write about Obama’s nuclear power and nuclear weapons policies. Could you tell us a bit about those policies?

JF: Obama’s support for nuclear power is a pretty frightening thing. One reason he’s been so enthralled with nuke power, even after Fukushima, may have something to do with all the money he’s received from the industry over the years. For the first time in three decades Obama guaranteed loans for new nuke plants in the south. It’s a huge step backwards for our energy policy, and Obama has yet to feel the sting from the environmental movement for his nuke embrace. His policy on nuclear weapons is also more of the same, if not even worse. As Bond-Graham writes, Obama’s first term will go down in history as putting forth the single largest spending increases on nuclear weapons ever. So, even while he calls for a reduction in nuclear weapons globally – if not an all out elimination – he’s simultaneously boosting the industry at home.

CS: I think some people may disagree with many of Obama’s policies but still sympathize with him because – while members of the Right certainly attacked Clinton – it has just taken on a new flavor and intensity with Obama: they can’t decide if he’s an Islamic terrorist sympathizer from Kenya or a godless communist socialist, but it all implies that he’s fundamentally unAmerican. And many Republicans say very openly that they refuse to compromise with Obama or the Democratic party. Do you think what Obama has been up against should factor into critiques of his actions in the first term, or do you think that’s a separate issue? In the book you and Clair seem to suggest that, if anything, the attacks should have made Obama less receptive to Conservatives?

JF: Great question. I do think it should factor in, but not for the reason you imply. The Right is going to call Obama a socialist/Islamic fascist, regardless of the types of policies his administration actually carries out. So, in this cynical climate, why not fight back hard? Why not actually push a real progressive agenda? The Right is already blaming Obama for being a commie, so why doesn’t he stand up to their rhetoric? Instead of trying to convince the Tea Party types that he isn’t as bad as they say – that Obamacare isn’t really that radical, for example – why not stand up on principle and defend social and economic justice? He’s pandered and caved to the Right where Clinton employed the “art” of triangulation. We’re all waiting for the “real” Obama to step forward, but I think we are actually seeing the real Obama in action right now, and he’s timid and politically thin skinned.

CS: What do you make of the argument that Obama would be more receptive to progressive activists in his second term since he won’t have to worry about reelection?

JF: I think that’s a nice thought, but one based on perception rather than reality. What I can say is this: without consistent, uncompromising pressure from progressives, Obama will continue to ignore us. If he is victorious next November, I hope we turn up the heat on his administration and hold Obama’s feet to the fire. He may be receptive, but he’ll never hear us if we aren’t yelling.

CS: A recent Truthout article noted that Obama’s 2008 election campaign helped organize and galvanize a savvy group of activists who, after being neglected by the Obama Administration, used their skills to help create the 99% movement, with its emphasis on truly democratic over republic-an values. And a lot of those activists reported being uncertain about whether they would now help Obama turn out voters in swing states. So, in the spirit of your book, what should self-identified progressives do as we head toward the 2012 election?

JF: I think these activists, people committed to their issues, ought to continue working hard to make change. One of my biggest fears is that Obama will co-opt Occupy to the determine of that movement. We’ve seen it happen time and again. Most recently as I mentioned, in 2008, the Obama campaign successfully absorbed the antiwar movement into his campaign and as a result mass protests ceased to exist, despite Obama’s escalation of drone attacks and a massive troop increase in Afghanistan even after they killed Osama. Could you imagine the same thing happening under a McCain presidency? Occupy, I feel, is not going to just go away though. It sprouted during Obama’s first term and in order to stay relevant, will have to keep the passion and vigor alive and growing. Progressives this time around shouldn’t put too much energy into presidential elections. Instead they ought to continue to organize around their causes and build a movement that can be effective over the long haul, no matter which Twiddle Dee or Tweetle Dum ends up taking the electoral prize.

Joshua Frank is an environmental journalist whose investigative reports and columns appear in CounterPunch, Common Dreams, and AlterNet. Along with Hopeless, he is author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and co-editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland.

Christine Shearer is a postdoctoral scholar in science, technology, and society studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a researcher for CoalSwarm, part of SourceWatch. She is managing editor of Conducive and author of Kivalina: A Climate Change Story (Haymarket Books, 2011).

Left Eye On Books is doing is own crowdsourcing to fund its awards. Indiegogo was an excellent choice for our campaign. It accepts funding requests from banks all over the world. This is important for a book like Tangled Roots, whose global concerns could generate fans beyond North America.

To advise or comment about our jury reading list and win free books visit our Facebook page starting Tuesday, May 8th here.

Details about our campaign and to how to join the jury advisory board  here.

To vote for this book, or our other finalists click here.

Contact natalie (at) conducivemag.com

The impact of intern labor is far reaching. Dunham’s work life isn’t unique. Perlin estimates that American organizations have between 1 and 2 million interns a year. Ben Lear, a reviewer for Left Eye On Books, called Perlin’s book “ultimately, an impassioned argument for reclaiming the lost rights and privileges of workers.” Because of its fresh perspective and its ability to give voice on a social problem Left Eye On Books found it easy to nominate as one of our best book selections.

All who visit Left Eye On Books‘ Facebook page can win “Intern Nation” by just contributing to our jury’s reading list. Visit our page here.

Check out our Independent Book Giveaway. We will giveaway books until the end of June. Our invite is here.

Details about our campaign and to how to join the jury advisory board  here

To vote for this book, or our other finalists, click here.

Contact natalie (at) conducivemag.com

This book was an appealing selection for Left Eye On Books Independent Readers’ Choice Awards because burnout and writer’s block among activists is something so common, but it is rarely discussed. A certain amount of embarrassment comes with the feeling that you did too much, you made yourself sick, or your life is failing apart because of your creative or political ambitions. Rettig challenges the idea that writer’s block and burnout is inevitable. She shows some tried and true strategies that have worked with some of the jury. We chose this book because the inner world of an activist Rettig describes is spot on.

Author

“We consider our self-published category one of the most important,” says Natalie Cherot, the publisher of Left Eye On Books. “Our readers by in large like the idea of self-published books, but the quality of ebooks is all over the map. Readers have a hard time finding these great gems and can get frustrated with the process of weaving through the slush pile.”

Left Eye On Books’ awards are unique because the readers vote on the finalists. To vote for this book, or our other finalists, click here.

To advise or comment about our jury reading list, visit our Facebook page here.

Details about our campaign and to how to join the jury advisory board  here.

Wins some amazing books on our Facebook page by just talking to us about independent books. Our big book giveaway starts Tuesday, May 8th and continues into June.

Contact natalie (at) conducivemag.com

Left Eye On Books is doing its book giveaway on its Facebook page starting on Tuesday, May 8th to mark the launch of our Independent Readers Choice awards. We will give our readers some of the most coveted books published by the independent press. That includes a copy of “Silver Sparrow.”

Tuesday will also be the launch of Left Eye On Book‘s crowdsourcing campaign.

To advise, or comment, about our jury reading list and win free books visit our Facebook page here.

Details about our campaign and to how to join the jury advisory board here

Contact natalie (at) conducivemag.com

Left Eye On Books hopes that giving its Independent Reader Awards will put more independent books on bookstore shelves and produce more online sales.

We are giving away books on our Facebook page starting Tuesday. This includes “Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America.” Anybody who helps us with our jury reading list is eligible to win a book.

A small jury generally decides the winner of a book award.  Left Eye On Books is experimenting with having potentially hundreds of people nominate. After the jury, and our jury advisers, finish the nominations, the readers vote on the winner.

Details about our campaign and to how to join the jury advisory board here

To vote for this book, or our other finalists, click here

Contact natalie (at) conducivemag.com

According to Publisher’s Weekly, Haymarket Books recent 43% increase in sales was due to Occupy and it’s strategy with connecting directly with Occupy members.

Left Eye On Books is doing its book giveaway on its Facebook page starting on Tuesday, May 8th. We will give away some of the most coveted books published by the independent press on it’s Facebook page. That includes a copy of  “Occupying Wall Street: The Inside Story of an Action That Changed America.”

Tuesday will also be the launch of Left Eye On Book‘s crowdsourcing campaign.

To advise or comment about our jury reading list and win free books visit our Facebook page here.

Details about our campaign and to how to join the jury advisory board here

Contact natalie (at) conducivemag.com

by Rani Salas Mclean

Wearing a headscarf is often used as an example of Muslims' supposed illiberalism (photo: TK/Creative Commons).

The authors of  “The Crises of Multiculturalism: Racism in a Neoliberal Age,” Alana Lentin and Gavan Titley, argue that these crises has been framed in three ways: as a failed experiment, a failed philosophy, and an era of liberal elites. In truth they contend, they are neoliberal anxieties manifesting themselves. The authors focus on the power of narratives that surround 9/11, recited truths, the discourse of good and bad diversity, and the culturalization of race. They make a compelling argument as they untangle the complex narratives that have become ‘lived truths’ in the consciousness of the masses.

Alana Lentin, a political sociologist and social theorist at University of Sussex, and a frequent contributor to The Guardian, has previously authored “Racism and Anti-racism in Europe” and “Racism and Ethnic Discrimination.” This is Gavan Titley’s first book, but he has published on a breadth of topics dealing with multiculturalism, media, diversity, globalization and migration in Europe.

The authors focus on the gaps within narratives of blame and the failure of multiculturalism. By using detailed examples they dispel what they call recited truths. They make a clear and concise argument that by focusing on recited truths we are able to fully understand how social facts are produced through the process of narration. Social facts are maintained through the reiteration of those narratives, and ultimately the narratives of recited truths appear not to be constructed by anyone. In particular, a detailed and critical review of how the recited truth of multiculturalism is circulated and produced is the only way to deconstruct these narratives, which is exactly what the authors undertake through this book.

One of the many powerful narratives identified in the book is the “war on terror.” The authors make a compelling argument about how the politics surrounding anti-immigration coupled with other socio-political factors have helped to revitalize cultural racist assumptions and defenses. The 9/11 narrative is used as an “instrument of control” that legitimizes the argument of a “crisis of multiculturalism” thus providing a moment to shift already recognized methods of anti-immigrant racism. The authors argue that political forces used 9/11 as a platform to call for political action in opposition to the supposed overabundance of multicultural people by working to normalize the necessity for “balance.”

Muslims in Europe are seen as the source of the anxiety calling into question multiculturalism. Muslims in Europe embody non-Western migration that is perceived as undesirable and bad for diversity. One notable reaction to this anxiety cited by the authors is in the passing of the Nationality Act in 1982, by the United Kingdom. This act removed the right to citizenship for some and restricted citizenship for commonwealth subjects, essentially creating “aliens” and second-class citizens within the borders of the U.K.

Further, the authors dispel the claims that the Brixton uprising in the U.K. was due to the “weak culture” of African-Caribbeans and contend that it was the passage of the Nationality Act that was to blame. What is the purpose behind this narrative of “weak culture?” The authors state that it is meant to defend or protect “European, Christian and white civilization against Third World Muslim or black populations.” Legal actions against immigrants occurred in Ireland, France and Denmark.  The 2004 Citizenship Referendum passed in Ireland “removed the birthright of citizenship from children of non-nationals in Ireland.” France and Denmark used citizenship reform, migration restrictions, integration initiatives, and forced civic lessons to compel immigrants to respect the “laws and values” of these states in order to control the expression of the “wrong freedom.”

A focus on “cultural norms, values, traditions and the lifestyles of outsiders” as problematic rather than racial characteristics has been occurring in Europe since the 1970s. But as the authors point out, race and culture have always been intertwined. One example used is the earlier case of Germany, “where Jews were for the main part assimilated, they were hated for the very fact of their invisibility, seen to be able to move like an unseen force, all the more damaging for the fact of being able to go unnoticed.” In effect, Germans racialized the cultural attributes of Jews in order to make Jewish people visible.

These multicultural discourses have been used to recode and re-caste racisms today, argue the authors and “the rejection of multiculturalism depends on a repudiation of racism, while being important in the shaping of racism.” The narrative that racism no longer exists in the U.S. or in Europe is one that is repeated frequently on the political level. But as the authors point out, race may have been “semantically conquered, but it remains deeply ingrained in the political imaginaries, structures and practices of the West.” An example of this is the citing by conservatives of the election of Barack Obama and the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as examples that the “end of racism” has occurred. And yet, in the case of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor, the authors argue, she was seen first and foremost as a Latina candidate, instead of as the candidate with the most judicial experience “of anyone confirmed for the court in seventy years.”

The authors conclude that post-racialism must be understood in terms of the threat contained in the promise of a post-race society.

Thus to invoke racelessness or recommend integration is not really to press for a future without racism or with full equality for all. It is rather to say that these differences do not matter long before race has ceased to have lived significance for the great majority of racialized people. Thus by claiming the end of racism when the political system still structurally provides exclusive and differential privilege is the new form of racism today. So even when racial language is erased it does not erase the imbedded structural racism in structures of power. Racism has taken on a new form, it is now the refusal of immigrants to adopt the national lifestyle of their host country.”

This mentality justifies protests against immigration as “natural” for “ordinary people,” i.e. white Europeans, to defend themselves. As a result, the so-called absence of race or supposed racial neutrality can really be interpreted as whiteness, argue the authors. But the very act of identifying one’s whiteness is highlights white privilege, which is problematic for people “who pride themselves on their anti-racism” in Western society.

The authors also give details on how cultural tropes, such as the hijab, veil, and headscarf are now being used in place of skin color to infer the race of Muslim women. The veil in particular is “implicated in a meta-discourse of nationalized liberalism versus Muslim illiberalism across Western Europe.” Specifically the authors use the cases of Norway and France, in particular the French government’s fixation on the burka and their claims that it is a barrier to Muslim integration, and the headscarf controversy in Norway. The national immigration and integration debate is always ongoing and yet never really happening, thus ensuring the creation and maintenance of the narrative that multiculturalism is bad.

The argument put forth by the authors about diversity is central to understanding multiculturalism in the European Union. Europe’s claim that it embraces diversity is hypocritical because only the diversity that is seen by white Europeans as the right kind of diversity is celebrated. This facilitates controlling subjects by “specifying and acting upon forms of “good” and “bad” diversity in (post-) multicultural societies”. Further, this “fantasy of integration is central to the stratification and control of migrants and racialized populations in contemporary Europe.” The push for “integration” is clearly a question of control, and a way of managing flows of “good” and “bad” diversity through neoliberal governmentality and new discourses and policy frameworks.

The authors end with a discussion on how the current debates around the veil, burka and headscarf bans, honor killing, forced marriage, female genital mutilation are associated with “illiberal Muslims in Nordic counties, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and Belgium.” They conclude that “sex, gender and sexuality have emerged as the new frontiers of democracy, citizenship…in the introduction of new social movements.” Anyone interested in understanding racism and the history of multiculturalism in the United States and Europe will find this book insightful, enlightening and will come away with a new approach to analyze the world we live in.

Rallying for Trayvon at the University of Minnesota (photo: Fibonacci Blue/Creative Commons)

The tragic death of Trayvon Martin, stalked and killed while walking home by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch man has generated a stunning response. Numerous protests and vigils have been held all over the country. High school students have walked out of schools and politicians have worn hoodies in a show of solidarity on the floor of the House of Representatives. Social media has exploded with concern. Although foreshadowed by the response to the imminent execution of Troy Davis in September of last year, this wave of protests is basically a new feature of the American landscape. For now, the movement is narrowly focused on justice for Trayvon, and, slightly more expansively, challenging the criminalization of young black men in hoodies. But it holds the potential to turn into a movement to upend what author, Michelle Alexander, has described as the New Jim Crow, a system of racial control with mass incarceration, militarized policing, and the erosion of citizen and economic rights for felons at its heart. Movements often begin with narrow demands and transform into more radical critique.

To succeed, this movement will also need to align itself with the concerns for economic justice and the reining in of the 1% raised by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Before going any further, I want to be absolutely clear that this does not mean that a movement against the New Jim Crow should in any way be subordinated to OWS or related movements. Rather, however the movement defines itself organizationally, the question of economic inequality cannot be disregarded or marginalized. The multi-faceted racism that ended Trayvon Martin’s life both feeds off of extreme economic inequality, and in turn strengthens that inequality.

In fact, there is a significant error in Alexander’s generally brilliant book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” that speaks directly to this concern. Describing the state of Black America as the New Jim Crow was about to be launched in the early eighties, Alexander claims well paying jobs were disappearing from cities because of “technological change” and “globalization.” But these terms disguise the role of policy decisions, including union busting, high interest rates, and deregulation of the financial sector, in turning U.S. business away from manufacturing and towards finance. These decisions accelerated the concentration of wealth at the top of society, and destroyed the livelihood of those at the bottom, and, as the decades have wore on, the middle as well. If wealth and power are not redistributed downward, the only real option is to start expanding policing and incarceration, since poor people will turn to criminal behavior to survive. This is what happened. Already existing racism proved highly useful in both societal and state-based efforts to sort out who is to be considered a criminal in need of expanded surveillance or incarceration. The criminality at the top of American society that OWS and others have denounced is complemented by enhanced policing at the bottom. Indeed, the “enhanced policing” OWS has itself faced is related to the practices developed in the context of the New Jim Crow. If a movement to contest the New Jim Crow does pick up steam, it will undoubtedly face similar repression.

This may sound like an abstract point compared to rhetoric around hoodies, but it is not. It is worth recalling that Trayvon Martin was killed in a gated community,  a privatized, high-security landscape. The killer George Zimmerman saw himself as assisting the police. Rich Benjamin, writing in The New York Times, is practically the only commenter I’ve seen try to capture this dynamic: ” The rise of “secure,” gated communities, private cops, private roads, private parks, private schools, private playgrounds — private, private, private —exacerbates biased treatment against the young, the colored and the presumably poor.” In conditions of extreme inequality, it becomes harder and harder to imagine shared interests of people at different points of the class spectrum. Instead, everyone tries to buy as much security as they can afford, further reducing the demand for public, inclusive solutions. It should, however, be added that under these conditions public agencies also intensify this dynamic. The police failed Trayvon, as did the school system which suspended him for ten days for possessing a bag with traces of marijuana.

Boots Riley, the Oakland-based rapper who has emerged as perhaps the most lucid voice speaking from within the Occupy movement, also made some salient points on Facebook. Challenging the way young black men are demonized not only in white America, but also within the black community, he clarifies the source of much violence:

The source of the violence is this system. Culture is derived from necessity. The truth is that because, in this system, there HAS to be poverty… People have a right to survive. So, people get involved in the Illegal Economy- the most popular being to sell dope. Most business under Capitalism is regulated. There are contracts, courts, and zoning laws to allow these businesses to function. Obviously, not so with dope. You can’t go to court and say “Your honor, sir- he was SUPPOSED to sell me a whole key of coke- but it was really only a quarter!” You can’t go to the zoning commission and object to another dope business jumping up on your same block. However, business must still be regulated. The way to enforce regulations in an illegal economy is through force or threat of force. Violence.

The linkage between violence and the larger economic system has largely been lost in the “stop the violence” protests that some have defensively pointed to when asked why those protesting around Trayvon Martin don’t also protest black-on-black violence. Riley instead advocates for a militant direct action movement focused on meeting material needs, virtually identical to the direction he advocates for Occupy. I would only add that the violence Riley explains helps fuel the demand for more prisons and police. Prisons, in turn, help fuel violence, providing an atmosphere where violence is honed as a survival skill, and transforming people into ex-felons when they are released, more or less permanently expelled from the legal labor market. It is a vicious cycle.

Contesting the New Jim Crow and Occupy should be seen as complementary struggles. Occupy seeks to undo the power of the 1%. Opposition to the New Jim Crow undoes the racial division and incarceration that makes the unity of the 99% such a difficult proposition. Matt Taibbi captures something of the dynamic: “journalists like myself have undersold the white-collar corruption story in recent years by ignoring its flip side. We have two definitely connected phenomena, often treated as separate and unconnected: a growing lawlessness in the financial sector, and an expanding, repressive, increasingly lunatic police apparatus trained at the poor, and especially the nonwhite poor.”" Occupy is shorthand for struggle against the lawlessness described in the first half, while Trayvon indicates the initiation, or, more accurately, the taking to a higher level,  of fighting back against the second part. The key will be to effectively fuse these two struggles.

The book’s website declares “by placing the eradication of poverty in the context of the nation’s greatest moments of social transformation—the abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, and the labor and civil rights movements—ending poverty is sure to emerge as the defining civil rights struggle of America’s 21st century .” Stephen Colbert, predictably, had a critical perspective, which he shared with the authors when they were guess on his show. “”The Rich and the Rest of Us:” that is class warfare… I believe there is one America! One America, sir, that the richest 1% just happens to own 42% of.”