Thom,
I always find you brilliant- able to put together ideas and concepts and explain them magnificently. I agree with you whole-heartedly on the need for the left to keep an active voice rather than apologize for Democratic administrations when they are not promoting a progressive agenda. I do, however, disagree with you on your characterization of Barack Obama as being too influenced by Clintonites/DNC people. This takes the responsibility away from him. He actually had no history of ambitious progressive legislation in the state senate or the national senate. He was always looking ahead for what votes would mean politically, as most pols do, but never really pushed a progressive agenda. He did not make policy proposals during the election that were truly progressive- rather issuing the same old Dem party stuff that the other candidates did with a little more verbal flare.
The truth is that given the mandate/opportunity he had to drive a progressive agenda, he is considerably to the right of the Clintons. Bill started his first term right out of the gate with gays in the military (which Sam Nunn hijacked) and an assault weapons ban (Barack won't even touch the gun issue even as we destabilize Mexico with our policy). He has been more open to "free trade" than the Clintons and the Clinton Health Care plan was a lot less of a boon for healthcare insurance companies, had it gone through, as it regulated them to a much greater extent. Even his Stimulus plan included a far higher percent of tax cuts than the much smaller Clinton Stimulus (17B)- which actually had some tax increases- and also was hijacked from within the party. His continuation of GW. Bush's TARP program, bailing out rich companies, is far different from the proposed policy that HRC had in 9/07 (year before crash) whereby the banks would freeze and renegotiate mortgages- money going to the people at the bottom rather than the top.
I consider myself left of the Dem party- but pragmatically vote for their candidates on other ballot lines to hope for a third party eventually rising. But fellow Dems and many on the left have a strange codependent relationship with this president- apologizing for him even as he betrays our ideals. Yes, he is better than W. That is not a high bar to set. In W we are talking about the worst and most inept president in US history and among the history's great failures as a leader. Any Dem could have done what Barack has done- we needed someone special. I worked for him once he was the nominee and will do so again so as to avoid president Romney- but I am thoroughly disgusted with our system and his exploitation of the left's affections and I will continue to be a loud voice for left policies. And I will continue to hear from many that this somehow makes me part of the problem. No guilt here.
Comments
"Make Me Do What You Want",people have very short memories.What do we want? What do we replace Capitalism with? We get rid of all the corrupt politicians,where a list of people to replace them? Why aren`t we focusing our anger on Obama "masters"? I`m like Cindy Sheehan,i have a lot of problems with progressives,we need to get our act together!
Kucinich was a viable beginning for progressives...with a voting record to prove it. . Progressives abandoned him in droves for flowery rhetoric.
Had he received the nomination, he'd be the first Dem I'd have voted for in 30 years..
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
I was going to open a similar topic called "Republicans ant tactics = build a mountain one grain at a time"
Republicans are good at pushing the right wing agenda one small step at a time, and Thom has talked a lot about this (Texas education board).
WE NEED TO IDENTIFY small progressive changes that would tilt the political balance our way.
(1) Change election day from Tuesday to Sunday (2) Do something about the right wing radio monopoly in the United States, they can keep their 1 billion stations, but some law has to be passed to allow "common people" to start their own radio stations.
There's many others, but I can't remember right now.
What do we want?
Actually, on the global side of things Eleanor Roosevelt put together a nice list for the international bill of human rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
All human beings should have the right to housing, food, clean water, technology (such as electric, telephone, etc>), decent and appropriate free education, healthcare, free speech, justice, access to government, freedom from fear of violence or actions against one's person, family or property, right to ownership, freedom to organize, etc.
Noone is trying to tear down capitalism. The version of capitalism that has come about however, is not one that facilitates the above ideas, rather it is one where corporate monopolies make decisions in the interest of companies rather than people. This is not a free market- of anything- there is simply too much influence and control among a few organizations. The Democratic Party- realizing that Reagan had effectively crushed unions in the 1980s, turned increasingly to corporate money and influence also in the post-Reagan era. We now have the choice of the center-right or the right-right between the two parties, with a few exceptions. Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are among the exceptions.
What specifically would I want Barack to do differently? Freeze the banks, like FDR and renegotiate rather than give money to big corps, spend more money on infrastructure and less on tax cuts (40%) in the stimulus package, start healthcare negotiations with single-payer so that the negotiated settlement could be government option/universal medicare rather than feeding money to insurance companies, stop off shore drilling, don't increase troops in Afghanistan, stop encouraging the destruction of public schools and unions by shifting to charter schools that don't work any better according to all statistics. Marriage equality. Military equality. Real gun control laws that work- assault weapon ban renewel. more equity in the legal system with more rehabilitation and less incarceration. Better public housing, safer food and water. Equitable trade policies that do not favor countries that allow labor violations. Etc. Some attempt at an immigration policy. None of these takes down capitalism- they all improve it.
If a third party rises from the left-wing, the Republicans will rule America in perpetuity. You are obviously a boilerroom conservative pretending to be a Liberal.
United we stand -- Split-ticket we fall.
Well that is true, you do run the risk of splitting the party. I mean look at what the Tea Party is doing to the Republican party.
Of course, I think in the long run it would be good if the US had a few parties. But I think its going to take a long time, and the nation is going down, before this happens.
Lefty,remember the 60`s & 70`s,we wanted a lot of things then,but top on the list was "stopping the war & civil-rights".Lesson learn,we need to focus on a "safety-net & jobs & climate-change".That should be at the top of the list,everything else can wait. Remember "United We Stand"? We stop spreading ourselfs so thin and focus on the major issues,we can make some real progress.We know the most effective protests,"petitions,boycotts,bad P.R.,marching at the officies & homes of the bad-guys".Safety-Net>Jobs,> Climate-Change,we need to come together and make happen.(for whole world) Peace in the Middle-East & Stopping war on Terrorism should be next on llst,but one thing at a time. A safety-net can solve a lot of problems,war being one of them.
It is unproductive to call anyone who differs in opinion with you- particularly someone far to the left of you, names or claim that it is a "closet conservative"- stop making excuses for Barack and the Dems and make them do what you want them to do. The tea party is not splitting the Repugs- it is moving them to the right- and rather than turning off voters- voters are attracted to people who believe in something- in this case they believe in all of the wrong things- but they do have a core belief- less government, do for yourself, "free trade" etc. Even if it worked- which it usually doesn't- not believing in anything but winning doesn't get you anything because you win nothing, no mandate to do anything. Rather than screaming "Change"- give some specific real changes- not a mild floating to the center but a real movement to the left. W and Reagan both forced the agenda to the right. We haven't had an effective president push for the left since LBJ. That is what the "contract for America" was- a list of specific promises- why can't we put together a bunch of ideas- if you (re)elect a Democratic majority, here is what you will get. Instead we get nebulous half-promises and policies that kick the problem down the road rather than solving it.
So I would say to those who fear challenging the Dems to get it together- you are the false progressives- you stand for nothing.
I am pragmatic, in the end I will hold my nose and vote for Barack on the Working Families line- but lets not pretend he has done anything for the progressives- the record shows differently.
Lefty,we keep holding our nose,we lose our sense of smell.Any ideas on how to put pressure on democrats? In communists countries,people learn how to go-around government.(underground economy)
I think there are several routes to go-
Long term strategies mean that immediate successes are less apparent but due to their slow nature they are more insidious.
Long term -we need to support grassroots progressive movements locally so that a network of small local groups can be formed for progressives to come out of- the small local issues. We can get to national changes in energy, local trade, unionization, healthcare, etc. by going community by community. History demonstrates this to be effective but slow. After Goldwater went down, the right wing put all of it's efforts toward grass roots movements that really were less responsible for Nixon 4 years later than they were for Reagan 12 years later. They took over local media slowly. They started actively defining terms such as "liberal" and "welfare", "big government". They ran local campaigns and candidates until they had built up such a large network that they were able to hijack the Repulbican Party. The challenged local issues regarding a myriad of issues and even used existing social structures such as the church- by convincing the loudest elements of the church that it was in their interest to follow the Republican agenda, which had been taken over by conservatives. They undermined the public's confidence and support of community services, of unions, civil servants, to undermine the powerbase and funding of the liberals. They started "think tanks" to drive policy and spread it effectively through media channels. It took many years to come to fruition but has lasted 30 years since- so it serves as a decent overall inspiration for a model to shift the other way.
I also advocate for making the Dems feel the threat that they will lose the left's support. I vote for the Dem candidates on 3rd party lines- here in NY we have the Working Families party that runs some very local candidates that differ, but city, state and national candidates from the Dem party. If they get a certain percentage of the vote they get an automatic ballot line, and don't have to do the cost-prohibitive petition signing that is designed to prevent 3rd parties here. They need to feel the threat- we can send smaller donations with a communication stating that they will get more when they propose specific progressive policies. We need to help the labor movement rebuild- possibly by changing major format and structural ways that things are done.
More immediately we need to put real progressive candidates in to win primaries. People with actual progressive records, not just "talking the talk"- the truth is that in Arkansas- Lincoln was the stronger candidated and Halter had no particular progressive credentials except talking a good game. Real progressives can win. We need to put forth an agenda and state that this is what we believe in- like the contract for america, we can say this is who we are and what we will do rather than being nebulous, running away from who we are/what we want because someone might not like it and letting the other side define us. To use Thom's metaphor, we can make the parade go- then find a great leader. Guiding the parade requires real leadership skills. Hopefully someone will find it in themselves to provide that.
Leon
I'd suggest that a closet conservative is a Dem who supports the conservative policies of a Dem president.
"My country, right or wrong...when wrong make it right" applies to Obama and the Dem Party as well.
Sticking to the first part of the quote...while ignoring the second half of the quote isn't the wise thing to do..
Retired Monk - "ideology is a disease"
Lefty,i support everything you say.I have a new tactic,"call-out all conservative talking points".They have no "solutions",we need to nail them. Our solution is "economic democracy" with a public/grassroot -own bank and workers-own businesses as its foundation.Another tactic,"call out media words of mass distraction"(WMD) Protest FOX TV,New York Time,Wall St Journal,Wastington Post,Etc.... Controlling the message is the most important thing we need to do.We cannot do the right thing with the wrong info. Poly,Obama is using GWB science "Wrong + Wrong = Right"
I would like to reiterate NYC Lefty's point that the Democratic Party needs to be forced to acknowledge its progressive members. The Obama/DNC types threaten progressives with Republican rule if we do not support the Democratic party's moderate Republican agenda. They have demonstrated time and again that they view the success of any progressive agenda item as categorically out of the question. They continue to assume that fear will keep progressives and leftists in line. We need to demonstrate that we will vote our principles and accept a negative outcome in the interests of forcing a recognition of leftist/progressive ideas, criticisms, and agenda items over the long run. Even if that means working for the ascendancy of a third party over the long run in the event that the Democratic Party cannot be dealt with. The press manipulates people in the short term but in the long term the voters are more accepting of a progressive/leftist agenda that can be pursued through grassroots/netroots movements.
Progessive ideas should always be pushed. AND unless the reality of wnat's morphed into a Corporate State is addressed,.... will probably fail.
Can't build a new house on the same spot where one is ablaze. You have to first put out the fire and haul away the wreckage.
"We've experienced a slow-moving coup..It's accomplished. They [corporations/financiers] won. We lost." - Chris Hedges..Video:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9217110#utm_campaigne=synclickback&source=http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_on_moral_courage_20100901/&medium=9217110
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
The changes needed are bigger than any political program can offer. The vision to which we might be proceeding is obscured by the fog of empire and the mists of decay. There are fantasies and delusions as well as lessons learned from history. It will take time and experience to learn from discovery what is true and false, or well imagined instead of fantasized.
The certainty of those panicked about the end of their world as to what must be real provides ironic contrast with our uncertainty and lack of conviction as empire crashes according to our predictions. Being right about the failure of America does not bring emotional relief or calm in the midst of the crash, but it is better than experiencing the crash of identity and narrative. The cult always flexes its muscles when its myths are falling apart.
Rather than dance on the graves of our opponents, it is time to help them welcome the loss of the culture of death. Our conviction in life as a good gift and love as a mighty power upon which to build a humane and green human culture is not about mocking the fallen. The grace of love and justice does not need revenge. The realism of organizing human life around caring and sharing includes the nurture of individual creativity and calling. It is about choosing life over death and the confidence of hope over the anxieties of fear.
I agree with all,but DRC i agree with 200%) Obama & Co.need to "communicate better" why isn`t he pushing a more progressive ideas.One reason he might be using for going slow,the Civil War.Lesson learn,slavery was wrong but taking away slave-owners livelihood without some kind of back-up or replacement livelihood,created problems we still have today.Most sane people know capitalism is in the same shape as the slave owners.DRC i know you see this,do you see a safety-net for the capitalists? A safety-net that the 'have-nots' can accept for them is important.I can understand going slow on progress for this reason,but not for people who are hurting.We need a "Safety-Net" yesterday/year!
slavery was wrong but taking away slave-owners livelihood without some kind of back-up or replacement livelihood,created problems we still have today.
Oh brother. I've heard it all now. While you're at it, why don't you call for reparations to the Nazis whose country we helped annihilate. Poor little slave-owners.
Regarding the slavery comments- you're point got lost in an inflamatory subject- getting the "stake holders" to cooperate in the dismantling of a system is important- it is why South Africa's change worked so well, when it finally happened. South Africa now has among the most liberal constitution in the world and although many problems exist there- it is better than almost any country in Africa currently. Similarly, the IRA was involved in decisions made in Ireland. Israel can only work if the Israeli's and Palistineans are engaged. Shutting out the Baath party in Iraq was a mistake that led to tremendous problems. Still, there are moral points, such as ending slavery that are undebatebly worth fighting and dying to do the right thing.
Historically, it is also important to remember that the Emancipation Proclomation, which freed the slaves was more or less a tactical decision made towards the end of the Civil War. The war was started at the THREAT of ending slavery, not the actual ending of slavery. Similarly, people whose lifestyles were dependent on the previous status quo are threatened, even as the policies coming out are actually to the right of NIXON. Nixon's value added tax ideas, health care proposals and even energy policy were more progressive than Obama's- so the fight right now is between right-wing and further right wing- with accusations of socialism just laughable. The left is barely even engaged in the fight.
Can the Devil be forgiven,i think not.Do God have mercy,i think so.Lefty,i think you see my point.If you`re going to kill a system(capitalism) it would be genocide on the people who live by it,in not having a replacement.Until we have a replacement for capitalism,we kill it,we will be committing "suicide & genocide".Remember how the communists sent office-workers to the farms, have we learn any lessons?
Hey- I did not advocate taking down capitalism entirely- it needs massive reform and regulation- but not actually eliminating the system- it would be hard to find a direct reference where I said it should be taken down- I don't have an answer for how to start over (I would be curious about replacing corporations with collectives as the main form of fund raising endeavors for production- but realize this is not an immediate possibility- I rather advocate reform and regulation currently.
I do advocate the rise of a third and maybe more parties. Parliamentary systems better represent people. If people who share my views make up 1% of the voting population, we get 1% of the parliament- we are represented rather than having to fit in some party that just takes advantage that we have no other choices. Then everyone compromises and negotiates with their smaller pieces of the pie. Changing our electoral system would be difficult, so at least adding legitimate parties would be closer and doable. This would require federal funding of elections with shorter election cycles and a more democratic press (small d).
Leon
Capitalism has proving it cannot be fix.It`s time for something else.When democracy started,we were to stupid to vote,but we learn.Now people thing we are to stupid to run a business and invest,we will learn! We create a economic constitution base on science & morality,we will have the foundation for "Economic Democracy".I wish anybody that think capitalism & communism can be fix with all the evidence,'good luck'.
Can someone help me? I found a Rachel Maddow show entitled : "Idefinite Detention? Sahme on you, president Obama..." I posted it on Facebook and Twitter.
The next day the vodeo was removed from Youtube due to "Terms of Service Violations"!! I can no longer find the video, and I believe it is an important message to get out. CAn anyone help me? Thanks.
Christopher
surfan2001@gmail.com
Thom,
I always find you brilliant- able to put together ideas and concepts and explain them magnificently. I agree with you whole-heartedly on the need for the left to keep an active voice rather than apologize for Democratic administrations when they are not promoting a progressive agenda. I do, however, disagree with you on your characterization of Barack Obama as being too influenced by Clintonites/DNC people. This takes the responsibility away from him. He actually had no history of ambitious progressive legislation in the state senate or the national senate. He was always looking ahead for what votes would mean politically, as most pols do, but never really pushed a progressive agenda. He did not make policy proposals during the election that were truly progressive- rather issuing the same old Dem party stuff that the other candidates did with a little more verbal flare.
The truth is that given the mandate/opportunity he had to drive a progressive agenda, he is considerably to the right of the Clintons. Bill started his first term right out of the gate with gays in the military (which Sam Nunn hijacked) and an assault weapons ban (Barack won't even touch the gun issue even as we destabilize Mexico with our policy). He has been more open to "free trade" than the Clintons and the Clinton Health Care plan was a lot less of a boon for healthcare insurance companies, had it gone through, as it regulated them to a much greater extent. Even his Stimulus plan included a far higher percent of tax cuts than the much smaller Clinton Stimulus (17B)- which actually had some tax increases- and also was hijacked from within the party. His continuation of GW. Bush's TARP program, bailing out rich companies, is far different from the proposed policy that HRC had in 9/07 (year before crash) whereby the banks would freeze and renegotiate mortgages- money going to the people at the bottom rather than the top.
I consider myself left of the Dem party- but pragmatically vote for their candidates on other ballot lines to hope for a third party eventually rising. But fellow Dems and many on the left have a strange codependent relationship with this president- apologizing for him even as he betrays our ideals. Yes, he is better than W. That is not a high bar to set. In W we are talking about the worst and most inept president in US history and among the history's great failures as a leader. Any Dem could have done what Barack has done- we needed someone special. I worked for him once he was the nominee and will do so again so as to avoid president Romney- but I am thoroughly disgusted with our system and his exploitation of the left's affections and I will continue to be a loud voice for left policies. And I will continue to hear from many that this somehow makes me part of the problem. No guilt here.
[/quote]