If Sam couldn't find someone who didn't consider
Clinton a progressive voice, it's because he
didn't talk to me or a number of other people I
knew at that conference.
I think on the morning panel, there were three
people who would fit in the "critics of Clinton"
niche: Thomas Frank, Heather McGhee, and Katrina
vanden Heuvel. Did they spend their time focusing
on that stuff? No, they focused on the future as
was the point of their meeting.
Nick Penniman of Campaign for America's Future may
not be a radical, but I think we'd be hard-pressed
to characterize him a centrist. And if radical
means people willing to fundamentally disturb the
status quo, it seems hard to characterize anyone
in SEIU leadership as anything but radical.
Did I hear students at the table where I was
eating describe themselves as DLC types? Yeah, I
did. Did I meet others planning on launching
national student networks devoted to political
theater as a means of changing debate? Yeah, that
happened too. Did I also see students who are
reformulating the debate on foreign policy away
from war and toward true anti-genocide policies?
Yeah, I did.
Are we Marxists or their intellectual heirs? I
don't think so. I consider myself more firmly in
the Polanyi camp.
Finally, for "radical" outlets, many opportunities
exist on campus. For maintstream progressives, who
still seek to shift the debate to the left, more
training and networking is clearly necessary.
But this whole article clearly begs the question:
Is Sam describing his own editor as a sell-out?
Following the 1st Campus Progress National Student Conference and a convention in my home state, I'm just starting to recover. DC is something else. And this Conference is something else. I met so many people who have done and are doing work all across this country that is great. And I met even more with plans in the works to do even better work.
I finally met, in person, friends like Asheesh and Ezra. I made new friends. I missed some people that I would like to have met (with 600 people, it would be near-impossible to catch them all). What can you do?
Still, I'm incredibly impressed by how the whole event came off. If you only watch one video of the conference, make sure you check out the opening panel on the battle of ideas. The panelists did a great job. If you watch another, watch the one on economic policy. I'm looking forward to downloading the videos of the panels I couldn't be at.
At this point, though, now that we've had an opportunity to look back, what would you want done differently? The greatest thing about blogs is that they allow for the dialogue, so, please, jump in and tell the folks at the Center what you would want to see done differently next year.
Talking to others, I can say that one of the frequent complaints was that there wasn't enough...time. The day we had was packed, fun, emotional, and exhausting. But we've got hundreds and thousands of young leaders across this country seeking skills and education to go out and do good work. One day was not enough.
One of my other concerns was that the skill trainings were all related to communications. All four were great and loaded with excellent panelists, but where were the basics of campus organizing, the Student Government Elections 101, or the live version of Nico Pitney's guide to quick, dirty, and great research.
These are some of my thoughts and thoughts I heard from others I met with.
What are yours?
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
I think on the morning panel, there were three people who would fit in the "critics of Clinton" niche: Thomas Frank, Heather McGhee, and Katrina vanden Heuvel. Did they spend their time focusing on that stuff? No, they focused on the future as was the point of their meeting.
Nick Penniman of Campaign for America's Future may not be a radical, but I think we'd be hard-pressed to characterize him a centrist. And if radical means people willing to fundamentally disturb the status quo, it seems hard to characterize anyone in SEIU leadership as anything but radical.
Did I hear students at the table where I was eating describe themselves as DLC types? Yeah, I did. Did I meet others planning on launching national student networks devoted to political theater as a means of changing debate? Yeah, that happened too. Did I also see students who are reformulating the debate on foreign policy away from war and toward true anti-genocide policies? Yeah, I did.
Are we Marxists or their intellectual heirs? I don't think so. I consider myself more firmly in the Polanyi camp.
Finally, for "radical" outlets, many opportunities exist on campus. For maintstream progressives, who still seek to shift the debate to the left, more training and networking is clearly necessary.
But this whole article clearly begs the question: Is Sam describing his own editor as a sell-out?