Tweet
I am a tea baggin’ right wing, generally anti war, ok with common sense government, Ron Paul supporter, who can hopefully contribute to FDL.
Though I’m sure most of the members and on this site and myself won’t agree on many specific issues, I caught Jane getting verbally creamed by the nutcases on Kos and some other places in the media, and I admire her guts and backbone.
Comments on my following thoughts, good or bad, are appreciated.
I believe in a limited government, and in the power of free market capitalism to let people prosper, however, I also recognize and despise these giant corporations who are so interwoven in our political system, that even someone who specifically campaigned on "Change" (Obama) becomes bedfellows with this insidious culture of corruption. Examples are the tobacco bill and this whole disaster of a Healthcare bill, that FKS ALL of us over and gives a windfall to the Insurance companies via this dictatorial idea of mandates.
I firmly believe that the combining of a few good Conservative (the word Republican leaves a bad taste in my mouth) ideas and a common sense public option for the poor and non-insured would not be that hard to accomplish and would have 80% public support. Only a handful of stalinists on the left and a handful of neocons (people who still think Bush was a good president)on the right would find fault with this.
As much as I disagree with Obama on many issues, he would be an instant national hero should be come out and say he will veto this hideous bill that comes out of Congress, and wants a new, simple 100 page Public Option bill. It would be paid for by billions from the Slush fun-, I mean, Stimulus package, combined with regulating the insurance industry to prevent them from dropping people, companies being able to compete over state lines, tort reform, and ripping Big Pharma’s profits out of the process. I AS A CONSERVATIVE, WOULD SUPPORT IT!
Someone on this site please tell me this why this can or can’t be done simply, without huge govn’t intrusion/expansion, and solving many problems while taking care of REAL PEOPLE who need it!!
While I am a conservative and most of you are liberals, our forces must come together in a massive way to defeat this fascist mandated crap they are trying to force onto us!
I will take a solid liberal in office, who supports REAL CHANGE for REAL PEOPLE, any day, rather than a Republican neocon who is on the corporate "payroll". The 2010 elections should be about changing our Congress to one for the People, left or right, and crushing those, Dem or Repub, who support the Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about nearly 50 years ago.
104 Comments
Hey ggunhold, there’s a lot of common ground here, for sure. Welcome.
Yep.
The sincere differences between conservatives like you and liberals like me (I am very liberal) are irrelevant until we get our democratic republic back from the corporate/career-elected-officeholders axis.
Thanks for writing.
Now could you talk to your teabagger friends? They’re so hung up on the socialism and the gay that they can’t see the forest for the trees. I would suggest following the simple maxim, “Follow the money.” Nobody did that for the last decade, and the right was the prime culprit in this.
Looks like we practically cross-posted, ggunhold. If you can agree with the example in this diary, maybe there’s hope.
Frankly, I’m a lot closer to what some of your teabagging brethern call “socialist” than you may be comfortable with. I’d like to believe you’re as interested as I am in getting corporations out of public policy, but – and call me a skeptic (or malcontent :) – until I see real proof of that from the right side (as of yet, I haven’t) calling that belief “difficult” is the severest of understatements.
If, however, you can agree (1) that there are certain things our founding documents guarantee (or sufficiently allude to guaranteeing) which should never be subject to the profit demands – and therefore the corruptive influence – of what you call “free market capitalism,” and (2) that current law remains the law unless and until such laws are changed, then I’m all ears.
For me, such foundational guarantees apply to journalism (i.e., a truly free press, unencumbered by the shareholder expectations that have produced “newspapers” such as USA Today and the other Gannett-owned garbage now passing for local papers in too many communities); guaranteed health care (the Declaration, after all, says LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… note which comes FIRST!); and national defense (i.e., there is no place in our defense strategy for profiteers such as Blackwater – or whatever it’s calling itself this week).
An example of the sort of law to which I refer is – you guessed it – Roe v. Wade. ABORTION IS LEGAL in the United States, and no matter who does or doesn’t like that, any health policy should reflect that reality, not turn it into a political football.
So, ggunhold – what say you?
I’ll repeat something I said over at the discussion of Michael Berube’s book today:
I think it’s a mistake to try and pin responsibility for every objectionable episode at the tea parties on those who might simply be pissed off about what’s happening with the banks.
And welcome, ggunhold. Thanks for posting.
Jane, there are tea partiers and tea partiers. Ron Paulites were holding tea parties in 2007 etc. We were against the bailouts, and blacks never were mentioned. (How did the bailouts help blacks, may I ask? because I think they just helped Goldman Sachs, foreign central banks, citigroup, etc. I don’t even get the connection.)
And to the socialist above, socialist is a word, not a boogeyman to shake at children. And no, we aren’t going to agree health care is a right, since that would make doctors and nurses slaves, amongst other things. But I would agree that Nader or Kucinich would write a better health plan than Wellpoint has. So can we focus on representative representatives, transparency, not looting the people to fund corporate welfare, etc? We really do have a lot in common. I see no reason we can’t work together in all those issues.
Great diary, gguns. I left a response to your comment over at my post.
OK. All the grand rhetoric from both sides is great and a fine start. Now how do we organize this thing? What are the common defining issues? They need to be stated. I like Cocktailhag’s directive to 1st “follow the money.”
Are we prepared to shelve negative labels such as Teabaggers and Naderites in order to work for the common good? How do we get around the established Party structures (who will have an inside track with the media) to get our message out clearly and not be made fuzzy by professional political consulting firms. Do we know of any professional consulting firms that might heed the cause of REAL patriotism and step to the forefront of this cause for cost-or less? Every angle, every avenue must be explored. Again welcome to FDL.
I swear this could almost be the anthem of this movement. Anybody handy at songwriting? How about an FDL sponsored contest for who could write the catchy-est, most bitchin’ song with the working title “Follow the money.”?
Google “Ron Paul” and “corporate influence.” The libertarians are very much against the influence of corporations in government, and have been accused of being “traitors” for opposing the war and big profits made from defense contracts, etc.
It cuts a bit more finely than that. It’s like trying hang Ben Nelson around Glenn Greenwald’s neck because they’re both Democrats.
There we go, getting distracted by side issues such as abortion and Blackwater when the central and great enemy is Wall Street and their bought off pimping Congressmen. Keep bringing up abortion and this supposed alliance will be “stillborn” so to speak.
Don’t fall into that trap. Remember who the greater enemy is at this critical point in our nation’s history. Holster those guns.
Due respect Jane, that doesn’t negate my questions. I’m all for coalition building, but I’m not ready to assume that just because the teabag movment has evolved (and you’re right, it has) that enough of it now embraces foundational ideas which many progressives consider obvious and hold dear.
Yes, the context for the conversation was that the tea parties were held by Ron Paul activists long before Fox hijacked them this year. And I was arguing that a lot of baggage got added to them at that time and the messaging was diluted with themes that weren’t inherently there when they began.
I agree with you that the looting is the problem, it’s quite dangerous and it helps no one but the looters if people stay siloed over the issues they disagree on rather than work together on those where they recognize a common purpose.
So, welcome!
I’m bringing up abortion as an example of THE LAW, that’s all. Part of coalition building is finding common ground, and if knowing what we’re all accepting as the law isn’t basic to that quest, I’m not sure what is. So it’s neither a distraction nor an unreasonable question.
I don’t know what “embraces foundational ideas” means. They don’t want the banks bailed out, and they want to know where the money went. They always have.
If you want everyone to agree with you on abortion before you’ll let them work with you, that’s fine, but by that measure we should be chucking every Democrat in Congress out as well as Obama. Because I sure a shit don’t agree with what they just put in the Senate and House health care bills.
In case anybody missed it, it’s the biggest blow to a woman’s right to choose in a generation, and Obama has endorsed the Senate version.
Jane, thanks. I think we need action items. Can we change lobbying rules? Get rid of corporate personhood? Can we identify specifics we agree on and can push in candidates and as reforms?
So by that logic I don’t agree with Obama and the Democrats in the Senate and the House because we don’t agree on THE LAW. Of course, they get to change THE LAW so it won’t be THE LAW any more, but I don’t think that’s your point.
It appears I wouldn’t be allowed to have a coalition with them. So would you be able to form a coalition with them, or would you be able to form a coalition with me?
I guess you crossposted as I was posting that it’s not about abortion, it’s about knowing what teabaggers accept as the law, and abortoin was merely what came most immediately to mind.
That said…
…I’m right there with you. I’ve always believed that, as a male, it is impossible for me to be a feminist. But I’d like to think I’m invited to the meetings, and you are absolutely right about the impact of these measures on women’s rights.
You can coalesce with anybody you choose, as can I – your choices are not for me to judge. But I’m still not sure you’re getting my point.
For me it’s just a matter of two truths: (1) legislation is being written, and (2) certain laws are on the books. I want to know that extant law is being written into legislation. When a stand contrary to current law can be injected into a legislative debate and the majority party cannot uphold its legislative intent, yeah, I have a problem with that, and I want to replace the weak links who let it happen.
Let’s talk about the wars then. I think they’re immoral and illegal. So do the libertarians. The Democrats, who passed the supplemental this summer with no help (5 votes after the Dems had the votes to pass it) from the Republicans, now own those wars.
I disagree with the Democratic party on many of the major issues of the day, and the legality of the actions they take with regard to them. They’re not cosmetic, they’re deep, fundamental, substantive disagreements. Yet I work with Democrats on issues where we agree. I just don’t see that much difference.
also to Jane – I think we can’t work together on everything but I think we can be aboveboard about those places and just work on those issues separately. We don’t have to be joined at the hip to be effective, we can be effective on multiple issues where we do agree.
Malcontent, you might or might not be interested in this, since a lot of the right wingers you will see here will be Paulites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHRBi8vBjIc
Where were these people the last 8 yrs. of the BV$H nightmare? I don’t trust any of them. If we need this group as allies were losing it.
I agree. This is a video done by a libertarian on health care reform. I think you’ll see quite a few areas of agreement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeQD4gD-CcE&feature=sdig&et=1261872465.23
Again, our biggest victory this year (perhaps ever) was getting “audit the Fed” passed working with Alan Grayson and Ron Paul.
It doesn’t mean we share ultimate goals and it doesn’t mean we agree on everything (or even on most things). It just means we won. Against the banks.
Someone’s going to have to present me with a compelling reason that I haven’t heard for not doing that.
Watch this
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249057/september-15-2009/citizens-united-v–federal-election-commission—jeffrey-toobin
and google
Citizens United v. F.E.C.
Okay, one more time. They WERE working against Bush. And being called “traitors” for it.
Here’s Bruce Fein on FISA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xq0viDOccw
On the need to impeach George W. Bush: http://www.slate.com/id/2173106/pagenum/all/
Against the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, state secrets and torture: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28bd9612-39ff-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Against signing statements: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/fein-bush-signing-statement-takes-constitution-backwards/
Here he is on Moyers talking about Bush’s various crimes: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html
Google, people. Google.
Re the video, yeah, I saw that. And noting the break the matrix source, that was started by a guy who did RP’s money bomb coordination. Were you already aware of the ‘strange bedfellows’ coalition they had for a while with ActBlue? It worked, at least to get power behind the joint message, and a constituency.
Anyhow, a lot of people would be pleased to get involved.
So, first, we are telling our reps no health bill with a mandate and big pharma deal, right? But I really think corporate personhood and lobbying changes should be on our list….
Corporate Personhood is THE LAW. Healthcare cartels holding an anti-trust exemption is THE LAW. The Patriot Act and certain forms of torture are now THE LAW.
We are fighting these laws and attempting to change them according to our values and the right is attempting to change laws in accordance with their values. You can’t say that you are willing to form an alliance but only if your potential allies suddenly convert to all of your beliefs. We’ll just be shooting each other in the face while the Economic Royalists laugh. Again.
Yep, that was Rick Williams. He blogged here earlier this year, it was an interesting conversation.
John, hadn’t seen that Colbert but I know the case. Campaign finance isn’t the only issue, lobbying generally could be massively impacted (in a good way)by doing away with corporate personhood.
Appreciate your thoughtful replies, Jane. To reiterate (and streamline) my original point:
I take your point that we must begin with listening. As my intervening posts have made clear, I don’t require agreement on the example issues I cite (or the war).
I do however think that, as with any negotiation, some ground rules are necessary, if only to insure nobody’s wasting their time – and frankly, I think it’s pretty hard to deny that our constitution contains certain guarantees or to pretend that current law is weightless. I would therefore be hard pressed to sit down with those who can’t embrace these most basic tenets of our system.
Exactly – corporate money is not free speech.
Hear, hear and right on, rp12. You get it. We need to define the enemy and craft our positions accordingly. And not get mucked up in a bunch of distracting side issues. I explore some thoughts on how to do this at my diary. How good are you at organizing on the ground? check it out
We have a bunch of organization in place. I’ll take a look at your diary.
Exactly, GDC07. That’s why I require acceptance of the rule of law before I sit down with someone. Without it, I know not only that enforcing current law but also changing it is right out the window. I merely ask for a recognition that the law is what it is at whatever moment legislation inclusive of it is being considered. The gridlock we’ve seen for the past generation, while largely rooted in corporate ownership of the government, is nonetheless exacerbated by the inclusion of unlawful amendments when viewed against on-the-books laws (i.e., Stupak and Nelson).
We can tell them that but I suspect the current health care monstrosity bill is a done deal. BUT we can use the mandates and Pharma as BIG issues and rallying cries in the upcoming campaign of 2010.
Did’nt know that. Lay some links on us and post a diary.
OK. I’m not sure who but an anarchist or total Revolutionary is at this point ready to jettison the rule of law for the sake of their pet cause, but I can certainly get behind the idea that the rule of law is paramount and that if we don’t like the law we just have to live with it until we can change it. In an extreme case such as someone killing an abortion provider, well sure – no coalition with that crowd.
just about everybody here is also one of “the nutcases on Kos”
most of the people you meet here are long time members of dailykos, including Jane an Marcy
I got a user ID in the 4000 range
so ya might wanna rethink that whole “nutcases” thingy
if ya want any respect, you first have to admit that those whose disagree with you are not necessarily “nutcases”
if you can’t do that, you’re just another worthless repuglitarded puss bag
you gotta give respect to get respect
so, am I still a “nutcase” ???
cuz I’m trying to determine if you are as much of an asshole as I suspect you are
I ain’t a pacifist
if ya don’t want to retract yer insult, I ain’t gonna play nice
mkay ???
Since it would be rather pointless to try and write laws (even indirectly) in cooperation with someone who does not respect law, I don’t see that as much of a problem.
Anyone here unwilling to meet the precondition of “acceptance of the rule of law”?
I confess I have no idea what you’re talking about, or who you’re referring to. I’m pretty sure libertarians accept the constitution.
Your comment in (4) above seems to demand that they accept your reading of it. Since the Democrats in Congress don’t accept your reading of it and just turned Roe v. Wade into a “political football,” I’m still unclear what the fundamental distinction is.
That’s all I’m sayin’, 707. It behooves both sides to ensure the exclusion of such nuts, because it only takes a few to torpedo a movement. The think is – they’re out there. (Some of them have TV shows.)
Also, as distasteful as the Stupak and Nelson amendments are, I’m not sure they contravene existing law in that they don’t say you can’t have an abortion, They just say you can’t pay for it through the insurance exchanges. In other words: Abortion? CASH ONLY.
I posted on your diary.
I guess I might come up with a diary. Have you ever seen these 4 principles Ron Paul, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin and Barr agreed to when RP ended his presidential campaign? I am really sorry for the room I am going to take up. Hm.. here’s just a link:
http://highboldtage.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/ron-paul-ralph-nader-mckinney-barr-baldwin-unite-under-4-principles/
I think some on the right think some laws violate the Constitution and would stick with the Constitution. Which, after all, is the supreme law of the land…
“these people” — we — have been pissing into the wind and railing against Bush for two terms. Now we’re doing it against Obama et. al. Really, when it all comes down to it, war is the signal issue that should unite all Americans concerned with a moral and just government.
We can’t talk about the drug war until we end these illegal, immoral wars. We can’t talk about health insurance reform until we stop killing Afghani and Iraqi children. We can’t address anything until we stop our government from killing in our name. The war power is the most solemn power a state has. It’s kind of the Alpha and Omega of government – waging war is the basic insoluble artefact of the state, going all the way back to the first tribal governments in the Fertile Crescent.
War, war, war. Let’s stop these goddamn evil wars.
I think by nutcases, the writer is referring to those who will defend Obama to the death no matter how much he sells out to the Giant Corporate Financialists and the Healthcartel. The Obamapologists. Heck, even the founder and namesake of Kos, Marcos Moulitsas, has given up on Obama as anything but a corporate shill. Where do you stand on that?
Jane, the distinction is that I’m not talking about the Dems (or GOP) in Congress. See my last couple of posts.
I’m talking about ground rules for how we choose our allies. The examples I cited are not the point; and acceptance of the rule of law and of the existence of certain constitutional guarantees is.
My comment in 4 says what some of these are for me, for need of giving an example.
Right On. But I don’t think you can stop these wars until you clamp a leash and muzzle on the mad dogs of Wall Street (and Oil Co’s) who profit from these wars.The good news is, the people who we are trying to form a coalition with are getting sick and tired of these wars as well.
Me, actually. Legality isn’t a precondition for right or moral acts. It’s pretty much incidental to it.
About those “basic tenets” malcontent mentions – many libertarians and anarchists use the non-aggression principle as the basic tenet of civil intercourse. Not the Constitution, or the laws (which are simply the vector by which the regime exerts its power over individuals); but: do no harm.
If heroic and brave Americans such as Rosa Parks simply objeyed the law where would we be today? Laws that are immoral should be ignored and, ideally, nullified by a jury (here’s to hoping on that..)
Agreed barredrock, many do. It’s those who don’t I want to screen out.
Indeed. War profiteers are a special kind of evil. The house of Rothschild is the most famous example, which lent to both sides of the Napoleonic Wars! Nice work if you can get it.
Our “capitalist” economic system has been hijacked by war profiteers and rent-seekers. I sometimes wonder if the only pure capitalist enterprises still in existence in America are inside our (overflowing) prisons. Kind of fitting, isn’t it?
Even my dad the defense contractor (systems engineering) thinks the privatization of soldiering ala Blackwater is a HUGE mistake. He’s not against private corporations, but he doesn’t like these guys out there where no one knows what they’re up to and they claim their civilians or military depending on which argument gets them no accountability at any particular moment. I am afraid we are going to have some major problems over the DOJ messing up the Blackwater case and getting it dismissed. And we deserve it. I just wish we could announce to the world that we are as disgusted by what our government and its corporate monster heads do as they are.
” …many libertarians and anarchists use the non-aggression principle as the basic tenet of civil intercourse.
Agreed barredrock, many do. It’s those who don’t I want to screen out. ”
Then you might want to use those words. I don’t see many problems with the nonaggression principle.
First rp12 – and take this in the spirit it is intended – I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I chose them as I did specifically to prompt this conversation. Sometimes it is better to work through an idea than to simply state it. Screening people properly relies on getting their acceptance to the broadest possible statement, then winnowing it down to the specifics.
Second… you don’t see “many” problems with the nonagression principle – or do you mean “any”?
Well, those who are prepared to throw their bodies on the gears of the Machine wil be revered as heroes or reviled as traitors depending on who wins in the end.
Hello all. I read FDL daily and have great respect for Jane’s courage and wisdom.
The epicenter for all the current crisis can be traced back to the corporate system. It is a huge beast, a dragon in need of slaying. They have been at this game a very long time. The greatest weapon they possess is keeping we the people fighting each other. The only chance we have is for the right, left, and center to put all eyes on this beast and remove it. After we get rid of it we can at least work amongst ourselves on other issues where we disagree. It would be what a democracy of the people is supposed to be.
The terms conservative, liberal, and progressive have become distorted and are used more often than not to continue an Us vs. Them mentality. They end up with people taking sides and acting out of loyalty while abandoning all reason and common sense.
If the senate health bill (written by lobbyists) stays in its current form and passes that will be only the beginning. What the corporate world wants is to fully implement the shock doctrine on the US. This bill provides them with a foundation to dismantle the remainder of our social safety net including social security and public education. They want it all and unless we unite they will get it all.
End corporate personhood, establish public finance reform, and above all else find people with an ethical desire to be a true “public servant”. There are 300 million of us. Surely we can do much better than those currently in power who claim to represent us.
” you don’t see “many” problems with the nonagression principle – or do you mean “any”? ”
I personally don’t have ‘any’ problems with it and don’t think ‘many’ libertarians will have ‘any’ problems with it.
But I think some libertarians will have a problem with people trying to bind them down too finely to their own individual preferences with unnecessary ground rules. We can just choose to work together on issues where it is clear we see entirely eye to eye. We aren’t duplicitous, we strongly believe what we believe and, believe me, you will know what that is.
I agree, and once more I’ll reiterate; my comments tonight have never been about the specific issues I cited, but about basic ground rules. “Unnecessary” is a subjective (albeit appropriate) term; that said, I think the two I’ve put forth are (a) basic to any realistic discussion of moving forward within a democratic framework, and (b) broad enough to escape charaterization as “too fine.”
Libertarians are an unruly lot. Most are almost genetically predisposed to Question Authority. They tend to side with the losers, misfits and underdogs, almost on principle.
To quote David Friedman (check out his anarchist book ‘The Machinery of Freedom’), son of Milton, and an anarchocapitalist: “there may be two libertarians somewhere who agree but I am not one of them”. We are a lot of fun at parties though.
You’ll find that the NAP animates the basis of most libertarian thought, whether it’s explicity stated or not. There are religious libertarians and atheist libertarians (and ethical culturists, and so forth). Interestingly, the Non Aggression Principle has no liturgical prequisite. You don’t need to be religious, or atheist so follow it. In fact, you find NAP in most religions, and in humanist ethics as well.
The exception are Objectivists, who for the record are neither libertarian or individualist anarchist. Truth be told, we (Austrians, libertarians, minarchists, anarchists and so forth) doesn’t get on very well with Objectivists, and the feeling is mutual. The animus goes back several decades, and is largely the “responsiblity” of Rand herself.
Jane, I would hold off on the victory lap about auditing the fed. The Senate has not spoken yet and they are bought and paid for in full by Wall Street.
While I agree that the Iraq war was immoral. I am not convince that Afghanistan is. Unless you are simply against war (which is naive given the realities of the world in which we live) I am not sure how Afghanistan is immoral a war.
ggunhold, welcome to fdl. i’m a former lifelong republican who found a welcoming home here — even for socially liberal fiscally conservative people like myself.
That is true. But it wasn’t supposed to get out of committee, let alone pass the House, so we’re ahead of where we thought we would be.
Hi, ggunhold.
NRA and revolutionary here. (Obama converted me from a pissed-off citizen to one waiting for the revolution to begin.)
Look forward to your posts.
And in a discussion about the possibilities of shared goals and cooperation, how much respect is due to anyone slinging terms like, “worthless repuglitarded puss bag”?
Anyone up for trying something specific? Like, repeal corporate personhood: Is that a shared goal we can cooperate on, while tabling the issue of abortion for a later date?
How? Why? Who? Always analyze successes for tips on winning strategies.
LOL at the teabaggers hanging with the leftwingers. Obama was actually attacked by Hillary Clinton in the primaries for not including mandates in health care reform. Mandates are the road to full coverage for all. You all are slow.
I’d love to see the temper tantrum Ron Paul Libertarians show me one successful Libertarian society in the world. Does Ron Paul still hang out with Neo Nazis from Stormfront.
The Senate Health Care bill is more progressive than Howard Deans plan in 2004! Funny how you all leave that FACT out.
the wingers should just get together and tea bag each other with a giant temper tantrum.
i humbly acknowledge that i am surprised and gratified to hear a libertarian on this site agree with Leftist positions on healthcare – at least some of them – perhaps there is common ground there to bring concerted pressure? Sad the Left would have to discuss such things during what is supposed to be a reforming presidential administration, but there is a certain freedom people experience when they realize they’ve been co-opted by their own representatives.
Labels such as Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, become meaningless in the face of strongly held, and mutually agreed upon, central issues, at least for a while and that is an improvement on knee-jerk idolatry of whoever the Party happens to be pushing at the moment.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12042009.html
Gary Null, the uber-activist and originator of ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com, is adding a bunch of new shows to the network. I believe they’re being announced, tomorrow. In any event, he was soliciting ideas and individuals to create new shows, and will doubtless be open to new programs, indefinitely.
One of the new shows is to get Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents, talking together. He is hoping that it will lead to a new, middle-class friendly party, as theoretically such a third party can be larger than either the Democratic or Republican parties.
I had suggested to him that he also have shows for disaffected Democrats who have not totally given up on their party, and similar for disaffected Republicans. I’m embarrassed to say that I can’t remember clearly whether I had suggested these two groups share a platform, or not.
In any event, I’m suggesting it now, and perhaps you would be interested in helping form such a radio program? It could be done under the auspices of FDL, I would think, or perhaps some new entity that creates syndicated programs, to appear on ProgressiveRadioNetwork, of which FDL is a partner.
ProggressiveRadioNetwork is already friendly to transpartisan voices, hosting a regular PBS program by James Turner, who is a founder of the transpartisan movement in the US. Turner, a former Nader’s raider, teamed up with conservative A. Lawrence Chickering, to write Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life. (references from that book are here). The transpartisan movement looks to discover good policy positions by examining the best ideas, no matter where they fit into a political spectrum.
AFAIK, there does not yet exist any efforts to forge electoral cooperation between Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning rank-and-file. That’s probably very hard to do, at present, but I believe that it’s possible, in the form of vote trading. E.g., see my post in the RonPaulForums, called Rand Paul for Joe Sestak? Anti-corporatist electoral cooperation, anybody?
Electoral cooperation, which will tend to make parties irrelevant and voting blocs paramount, is on the horizon. (Keep your eye on Nancy Bordier’s Interactive Voter Choice System). So, it makes even more sense to start talking seriously, now, about what responsible, compromise policies will look like. Further, even broaching the subject of electoral cooperation is likely to elicit nasty, tap-dancing pushback from Dem and Repub keepers of the ‘divided and conquered’ status quo. Can you imagine the response if a radio show, as I described above, which went into electoral cooperation, and how the rank and file of both mainstream parties have been continually shafted by they people they helped elect, was widely advertised?
The entertainment value, alone, of the response to such an effort would make it more than worthwhile. :-)
Hopefully, such a show would go into the corruption which enters into both parties via the behind-the-scenes ‘pros’. This has been described by John Emerson in some of his eloquent, front-paged diaries at OpenLeft. See here, though he didn’t go into enough detail to satisfy my curiosity. I think you could sum up this sad situation, as follows: “K-Street is to already elected politicians as behind the scenes party ‘pros’ are to reform candidates running for office.”
for a FULL COURT PRESS
I wouldn’t bother responding to you on a Ron Paul website where everyone knows the truth, and we aren’t collectivist enough to draw your conclusions to begin with. However, I would like to note that ‘hanging with stormfront’ consists of a $6 million dollar in one day money bomb, $500 of which turned out to have been donated by a stormfront supporter. No one with credibility thought it would buy any ‘influence’ with a ten term Consgressman who holds probably the most consistent record of any Congressman there. Ron Paul made it clear stormfront did not reflect his views. What he didn’t do was pander to the PC and make a fuss about returning it, instead saying he’d use the money better than stormfront would, and he assumed the person had to be supporting some point of view RP already held.
That is not ‘hanging with stormfront’ but does give an example of how people like you can be divisive in a constructive effort.
The insurance corporate welfare bill is a disaster. Obama, as you point out, promised no mandates, yet there it is. Forget that, because the underpinnings of a health care bill aren’t something we’ll agree on here. But that the damned thing should not have been written by Wellpoint for big pharma cuts across our ideologies.
metamars, I’ll look into progressiveradio. We have Revolutionradio which also has progressive stuff, and so forth, but I’m not familiar with that one.
” Anyone up for trying something specific? Like, repeal corporate personhood: Is that a shared goal we can cooperate on, while tabling the issue of abortion for a later date? ”
Please, PLEASE let’s be up for something specific….!!! and that sounds like one good front. How about lobbying rules, too? We don’t need only one thing. Did you see the four principles Ron Paul, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin and Barr agreed to at the end of the GOP primaries? It is in one of my links above.
Please do. The ProgressiveRadioNetwork is undergoing explosive growth – I can’t remember clearly, but I think it was about 20K new listeners per week or per month.
They recently reached almost 1 million podcast downloads per month.
ggunhold… I really have a problem with people saying it is OK to help the poor. I do not want a handout and then be made to feel “less than”. I want what 60% of the rest of the country has. insurance paid for with my tax dollars. federal employees, state employees, county,city. Every time I buy a stamp I am paying for health care for Postal employees, everytime I buy a car, I am paying for auto industry insurance. everytime I make a payment on credit cards or morgages, I am paying for insurance for all those people and their families. This is insane that we are paying so much money to the insurance industries when all that money could pay for care for everyone.
And therein, barredrock, lies the problem with much (please note, I said much – by no means all) Libertarian doctrine. Siding with losers, misfits and underdogs is fine; admirable, if you ask me. Merely being a lot of fun at parties, however, does not bring about change.
Consensus does.
I’m not referring to consensus on a particular issue, but on the grounds by which we move forward.
Say we all agree – as it appears we do – that corporate influence on public policy is a bad thing. Ignoring for a moment that we all just agreed on something :) the next question – some have already raised it here – is “Okay… now what? How do we organize?”
Part and parcel with organizing is formulating a clear statement of how -procedurally – we plan to operate.
I understand that we need a big tent and that if we define ourselves too strictly, we risk shrinking our numbers to the point of inconsequence. Truly, I get that. But just as threatening is carelessness in choosing our allies. Nothing sinks a movement more surely nor quickly as the perception – just the perception – that it is too radical. The corporate media are expert at over-radicalizing those they perceive as treatening the status quo.
So I submit it is here, at the beginning, where we must establish guiding principles in order to screen out those who see Libertarianism and/or Anarchy as license to also reject democratic (small d) principles.
Purely as an example, I, for one, want no association whatever with anybody awaiting justification to shoot somebody. The NRA guy at #63 above is a case in point. If Obama converted him from merely pissed off to violent radicalism, I think we do ourselves and our fledgling movement a disservice if we simply pretend he didn’t say so and invite him along without first asking some harder questions. The last thing we need is to be marginalized – and the ensconsced powers’ skill at doing so bears repeating – before we’ve even started.
What would the Strange Bedfellows/Progressives/Libertarians presidential candidate look like?
How would the polarizing issues like abortion or the value of social security be handled?
Millions of potential supporters are out there, but the barriers of longstanding party loyalties and fear of the other are big roadblocks that require a simple/simplistic statement of purpose with certain guarantees about the polarizing issues.
Right/Left populist coalition principles of unity:
1. Remove Wall Street from control of government. Restore Glass-Steagall, or figure out how to erect similar firewalls to keep the FIRE economy from consuming the productive economy, strip corporations and unions of political rights attendant to personhood.
2. Reverse the giant sucking sound of good middle class jobs being outsourced and exported.
3. Jobs.
4. Jobs.
5. Jobs.
There shall be no talk of any issues that do not enjoy the support of 2/3 of Americans. I think that the first five items on this list will take a session or two of Congress to resolve.
The first step is to determine which Representatives are Wall Street hacks and which are not, can’t determine based on party label who is who, and to establish a broad umbrella under which folks can work to oust the hacks and elect candidates who want to put Americans before corporations within our government.
We’re not going to be able to solve the issues of “limited government” versus “activist government” right now. Nor are we going to be able to solve abortion now, nor LGBT rights.
As a gay man, I’d feel much freer if my government were not run by Wall Street with Americans treated as if we were some sort of vermin infestation to be contained in our own country than if I were able to marry my partner.
I mean, seriously, folks, we’ve got to put our hobby horses aside for the time being and unite to deliver democracy based on popular not financial sovereignty, as promised in the constitution.
That looks about right, marcos.
Speculating about a presidential candidate seems premature to me, a distraction that might be fun but should not delay action.
It’s important to move forward, with fellow citizens who agree, and not worry too much about trying to persuade those who do not.
Right now two pressure points have been identified: Rahm Emmanuel and HCR. Unrelenting demands for an investigation into Rahm’s corrupt practices and pressure to reject HC legislation that has an individual mandate without real cost controls on insurance companies might be the mechanisms for demonstrating to Obama that he must listen to and act primarily on behalf of the struggling middle class, not the US oligarchy (and the Hope of discredited trickle-down).
“I mean, seriously, folks, we’ve got to put our hobby horses aside for the time being and unite to deliver democracy based on popular not financial sovereignty, as promised in the constitution.”
I agree, but most people simply can’t wrap their heads around that. Look at the kos reaction to Jane teaming up with an “other” on one particular issue.
It’s just human nature to be tribal, and most people are still stuck in the left/right paradigm, as constantly re-enforced by the television.
There needs to be a “Strange Bedfellows for Dummies” layout that addresses the fears and differences in philosophy, if only because most people will care more about specific differences than the much more important similarities.
The differences cannot be ignored, and need to be addressed.
Since this is blogging territory, can anyone suggest Rightist sites that seem rational enough to listen to the Left for a bit of constructive dialogue?
Responses 76-80 are a step in the direction to which I’ve been referring, most recently in #75.
That said, to quote GDC707 (at #10):
We’re getting ahead of ourselves. I think we all agree on the need to reverse corporate ownership of government and involvement in the formulation of public policy. But if we accept that (it’s the the first of marcos’s proposed five principles of unity at #77) don’t we have to accept also that principles number 2 through 5 are going to require corporate buy-in? And if so, how do we reconcile those four principles against principle number 1?
I think it more productive at this point to agree on the big issue – corporate ownership of government – as our single unifying principle, and focus the rest of our efforts on defining our approach to building our numbers.
I’m pro-life and pro-choice. In that, I believe in the sanctity of life, and recognize that the most effective method for protecting that life, based on empirical evidence, is not a material prohibition policy.
The politics of success are those of addition and multiplication, not division and subtraction.
But politics is also so much about the ratification of political kinship networks, of the ritualized assertion of cooties onto members of other kinship networks.
Our political discourse is mediated by those who would direct our attention to the divisive. Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann do this from mirror poles, congressional “extremists” from each party direct our attention to the picayune, properly neutralizing our energies through the displacement of cooties onto “The Other.”
But when actual folks from either side of the so-called chasm get together, in our families and at work, even in local politics, we learn that The Other are human just like us, and that we have more in common than apart.
Our challenge is to figure out, from both “left” and “right,” how to retool language to overcome the intentional divisions put forth to divide us and to keep finance in power.
We’d be lucky to throw a handful of congressional races, but that would really be all that it would take, to find a few swing districts where a Wall Street today was running against someone who wasn’t to put the fear of imminent political death in their eyes.
Obama likes to talk about personal responsibility when he gets into his moralizing professorial mode. But no politician likes to be held accountable, to be made to take personal responsibility for his choices and actions. Let the reconciliation of that discrepancy begin!
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
I am a left-wing progressive and new to this site as well. One of my early comments dealt with the fact that we have A LOT in common with our conservative friends, especially Ron Paul’s followers (I still don’t know a lot about teabaggers demographics and how they fit with Ron Paul). I remember watching a Ron Paul interview with the Ed Show on MSNBC and feeling that Ed was a bit too pushy with Ron Paul, and actually siding with Dr. Paul during the interview. He mentioned that he is opposed to the wars and foreign spending on the military and IF we didn’t spend so much on these we may actually have some money to spare for social services. So in essence he said he was a fiscal conservative opposed to overspending. As a left-wing family man who still pays his bills and balances a checkbook, I agree. Deficit spending can only go so far and we need to prioritize, which means starving the MIC…both the Right and the Left agree here. Thanks for posting.
I think Jane and Ron Paul and others could get 20,000,000 people on a mailing list, e-mail their representatives en masse, and still nothing much would change.
I think we’ll only see change when Strange Bedfellows type candidates start winning Congressional seats.
During the Republican primaries, Ron Paul saw his numbers jump considerably as Fox News Republicans became aware of his message.
Having some 3rd party Congressmen in power would help to elevate the Strange Bedfellows message, and main line voters of both parties might pressure their representatives to join forces with them on some issues.
The “Audit the Fed” subcommittee victory is the kind of thing we could see much more of some day.
I think the key will be for Strange Bedfellows candidates to pledge to not ruffle feathers on certain hot button issues for the benefit of the more important issues.
The coalition getting behind any S.B. Congressional candidate would be a fragile one, and likely to rupture when the victorious candidate faces his/her first vote on hot button issues. This fragility would certainly be exploited by our establishment and our media, and polarizing votes would be put forward just to divide and conquer.
Just more to consider while we develop and explore this fascinating and potentially powerful coalition.
Another obstacle would be certain CIA/FBI/establishment infiltration and possible co-opting of the coalition.
Bob Barr, the successor to Ron Paul(who I admire and would have ultimately voted for over Obama because of his “shut down the wars/CIA/Fed” message) is a “former” CIA operative.
Once CIA, always CIA?
Even Kos has major question marks about past/current CIA employment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcyirdM1UI0
The influence of CIA/FBI/establishment infiltration would be subtle, likely brilliant, and extremely well funded.
How selfish.
Not to mention that the powers-that-be are ruthless and would commit any violence necessary to maintain their ever-tightening grip on power.
Food for thought:
JFK II
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187&ei=QfZAS_rkFo6-rAKkycGmBQ&q=jfk+2&hl=en#
The Assasination of MLK
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3793111576487038398&ei=iPZAS6PDJ57cqAKY07gE&q=who+killed+martin+luther+king&hl=en&view=3&dur=3#
Any and all future political threats would be/are being wiretapped for future possible blackmail.
The FBI told MLK to kill himself or they would release audio recordings of his extra-marital affairs in hotel rooms.
Disruption worked to take down the Green Party pretty well.
That said, the numbers of people who have been forcibly alienated by politics over the past year of broken promises and unsustainable policies is enormous. Those sheer numbers of people whose hopes were raised and then stomped within a short time is simply unprecedented as is the degree of economic and political instability.
All things being equal, the CIA and FBI win, but not all things are equal, far from it.
Welcome.
I think you will find you have many points of agreement with moderate progressives. This coalition between libertarians and progressives seems to be closer to the real US center than either of the two major parties.
May it prosper.
Education will be key. Most of the rest of the world is pretty savvy to the methods of the CIA. Hopefully we can catch up.
yep
when it comes to defending my nation from these cretins, I’m a selfish mutherfucker
it’s MY country
that’s all I care about
rp asked for action now. I’ve consistantly posted to kill the health care bill as a first step, with the end goal of taking back the government from corporatists. Use killing the bill to force rahmbama to start listening to the American people or face a one term presidency. Acknowledge the whores in the Senate (especially lieberman, nelson, lincoln, etc.) and House and adapt a strategy to neuter them.
Does having this view make me a ‘stalanist’? Comparing ‘stalanists’ on the left to the right wing including many if not most of rp fans who want to obstruct Obama is idiotic, in my view. Talking to the left as defined by FDL is not an effective way to approach change, we are the ones who in our anti-authoritarian way are going against rahmbama. rp, you might find a way to start convincing rp followers as a start, they’re the ones not listening or understanding. Good luck with that.
No, it is OUR country. We, the people have to figure out where WE agree, and that means that left or right cannot hold the country hostage to its agenda when there is not political support for that.
Not moved or impressed.
The reason for the war was clear and still exist, until evidence shows that the reason the war was authorized was immoral then the war is not immoral.
The most logical/easiest sort of electoral cooperation between lefties and righties is, IMO, “somewhat separate, but equal”. What do I mean, by this? Follow the bouncing ball, gentle reader. (Also, please bear in mind that electoral cooperation will get MUCH easier when it can be semi-automated via an Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS). But I will focus on our situation right now, not – hopefully – a year from now when things will get much easier.)
jeffroby has a plan, called the Full Court Press, which some of us look upon as a first step for Democratic rank-and-file to take over the Democratic Party. FireDogLake has something similar, called Blue America. Both efforts are similar in that they insist that their candidates embrace a limited number of core positions. (Currently 4 in the case of the Full Court Press, and 1 – healthcare – in the case of Blue America)
IMO, there should be a Full Court Press for Republicans, also. I’d prefer it if the Republican version of the Full Court Press for Republicans embraced multiple positions (3 or 4), like jeffroby’s plan, but that it be explicitly stated, from the get-go, that electoral victory is the goal (Blue America is clearly looking for electoral wins).
So, basically, let the voters who lean Republican decide what their own Full Court Press required agenda is, and let the voter who lean Democratic decide what their own Full Court Press agenda is. Don’t try to forge a consensus opinion, except perhaps on a very limited number of issues. We can guess from Chris Bowers’ post at OpenLeft, Talk Me Down from Contributing to Rand Paul’s Campaign that forging a comprehensive consensus, on short notice, no less (say, in time to make a difference in the 2010 elections) will be near impossible. (By 2012, perhaps, with the aid of an IVCS, we might be able to achieve consensus positions on, say, 50% of large agendas that covers a dozen major areas. But again, I am looking at 2010 elections.)
However, a transpartisan electoral alliance could still aim for a “somewhat separate, but equal” cooperation, in the short run. And that is, by recruiting your conservative or Republican-leaning friends and family into the Republican Full Court Press, whether or not you yourself are Republican-leaning. Likewise, the Republican-leaners need to reciprocate by recruiting their liberal or Democratic-leaning friends into the Democratic Full Court Press.
This cooperation can and should be taken a step further, in that the ideal way for citizens (who lack the mega-$$ of corporations to pay for expensive advertising) to recruit strangers into Full Court Press (FCP) voting blocs is to approach them on the street. There’s no reason why you can’t carry two sets of flyers, one for the Democratic Full Court Press, and one for the Republican Full Court Press. If somebody says to you “I don’t like them stii-i-iinking Liberals!”, you can say “No problem! Here, take a flyer for the Republican Full Court Press!”. Likewise, if they say to you “I don’t like them stii-i-iinking Conservative!”, you just hand them your Democratic FCP flyer.
If you really buy in to the notion of electoral cooperation, knowing that if your representative was either a Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich clone, then the country would be better off, you could simply print up one set of flyers, which mentions both organizations (with a brief note about why they’re cooperating.) Not only would you favorably impress your neighbors, who might have taken you to be an partisan Dem-bot or Repub-bot, otherwise, but you’ll also save some trees.
Clever, eh? :-)
Also, in order to get people to pay attention to you, that will be much easier in a group of two or three than just by your lonesome. The reason for that, gentle reader, I hope to make clear to Jeff Roby within a week, or so.
Stay tuned….
Absolutely agree.
I very much agree. As much as I want to see a more progressive country, I want even more to see true democracy in my country. If the majority is truly more conservative on various issues than I think best, I can live with that as long as it is the will of the people. What I can’t live with is the substitution of the will of the corporations for the will of the people. So I’m okay with making alliances with people who don’t agree with me on every issue as long as they are willing to work together on getting the government back in the control of the people. From there, let democracy do it’s thing and win or lose on the issues, I’ll count it a win for the country. I’ll also keep trying to educate people and persuade them to my view on the issues for the next round of legislative activity, but that’s also what a vibrant democracy is all about.
ggunhold, you give me hope that the two sides can come together to solve our problems. Welcome.
after 8 years of george bush, and one year of hissy fits about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, we can agree that the people at DailyKOS ain’t the nut cases
that is a baseline agreement in my book
no teabagger is gonna tell me that my people are the problem
that’s fer fuckin sure
this [edited by moderator] can spout whatever shit he wants
my relationship with Jane, Chrissy an Marcy predates this site
where was this jerkwad when we were fighting the good fight for the past 6 years ???
on the other side, throwing bombs at US, that’s where
[Mod Note: Name calling does not fit within the guidelines for commenting at the Seminal, regardless of the status of one's relationship with the bloggers.]
I’ve seen this question several times and it always inspires the same thought: if you haven’t been listening to the rational right then where have you gotten all your ideas about who they are and what they think?
I’ve asked this question several times and the silence always inspires the same thought: that the answer must be too embarrassing to cop to.