Tweet
Now that Romney has lost whatever hopes he had of carrying Florida and Ohio and having a ghost of a chance of actually winning the election by his selection of Ayn Rand disciple Paul Ryan as his running mate, I thought I’d expound upon an idea I stumbled across last week and have thought about since.
What I read was a reply by Blindpig on a thread in the Bell Forum, where he in essence said that only an Obama win in November followed by four more years of him and the Democrats showing their true corporatist colors will convince those who still believe that Obama is a true progressive just waiting for the chance to show it that the Democratic Party cares nothing about their interests and therefore must be abandoned.
There has been much good discussion here on FDL of what a second Obama Administration will actually do. For example, earlier today David Swanson described in eloquent detail just what Obama will actually do to Social Security and Medicare after no doubt beating Romney and Ryan over the head for being foolish enough to come out say the exact same thing before the election:
http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2012/08/11/what-paul-ryan-has-and-obama-wants/
In addition to turning Medicare over to the same health insurance corporations we are now mandated to purchase health insurance(NOT health care) from, Obama will undoubtedly accelerate the dismantling of the public school system in favor of for-profit schools and the inflation of the student loan bubble, do nothing to rein in the crimes of Wall Street, do everything he can to increase the power of the national security state, as well as everything he can to make the working and middle classes more susceptible to wage serfdom.
In short, he and the Democrats, amid much hand-wringing about the necessity of the demolition of what is left of the New Deal/Great Society/Nixonian safety nets in the face of “tough choices,” will use government power to advance corporate interests.
Benito Mussolini had a word for that: Fascism.
And then, to fan the patriotic flames and distract the public’s attention away from its increasingly declining standard of living, he’s going to find another war to fight somewhere in order to defend freedom.
As for all of those people, white, black, hispanic, gay, whoever( unless they’re members of no more than the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans), who still support the Democratic Party now but protest in a year or two, they will at best be ignored or at worst prosecuted for being terrorists. Well, they’ll be ignored at first, then ridiculed, then told to shut up or else.
Maybe then they’ll finally get it. If Romney somehow wins, all they’ll do is whine and make excuses for four more years. Like Blindpig said, I don’t think I could stand that. Better for Obama to win and the Democrats prove with clear and convincing evidence that they no longer have any place for the likes of FDR, LBJ, or for that matter Ike and Tricky Dick, in their party.
Hat tip once again to my Commie friend from the Bell. And to everyone here for helping to keep me informed.
All that said, Obama will win the election, and I’m STILL voting for Stewart Alexander.
59 Comments
Oops. Least I can do is have the original quote from Blind Pig that got me thinking:
“… But as has been said, ain’t gonna be no traction to be gotten until the illusion of the Democratic Party is broken, and only they can do that. Which they most certainly will, given time. A Romney win this Fall will really piss me off, four more years of whining and excuses will be unbearable. The Dems really need more time to show their stuff, to reveal their utter indifference towards the working class. As it is they are a placebo with fatal side effects.”
And, to be fair, a link to his forum:
http://www.thebellforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2
Sorry about that, BP.
No, what the Obama cheerleaders will do if O is re-elected is jettison even more of their principles so that they can be good conformist Democrats.
All Obama cheerleaders are Democratic voters. That does not mean that all Democratic voters are necessarily Obama cheerleaders. You are no doubt right about the O-bots. That doesn’t mean you are right about the rest of the Democratic base.
Great diary entry, OB.
Highly rec’d!
Ohio Barbarian–
I believe that the selection of Ryan will solidify the Republican Party base. And, a lot of independent voters are fiscal conservatives, if you read the poll “internals.”
Compare the fact that the Repub Party base now has a reason to be excited, to the fact that many of the Democratic Party faithful are either to demoralized to vote at all, or are going to vote third party–why do you think that O is a “shoe-in” to win?
Paul Ryan will have some appeal among culturally and fiscally conservative dems, in the rustbelt and in the south. And, he appears to be making a play for the vote of the so-called “young people,” whom corporatist dems and repubs complain “will not receive their social security benefits,” unless they (the politicians)
killreform the program, to save it (so-to-speak). His manner is not near as “scary” as some conservatives, for sure. Remember, he’s the dude that President Obama said that he could see himself working with, on fiscal matters.I don’t presume to know who will win, of course. But, I do wonder, why you are so convinced (at this point), that O will win. Just curious.
Thanks.
Blue
I am almost done reading SIGTARP Neil Barofsky’s book on the Bailout. It is much much worse than what we know about the Obama admin’s malfeasance in aiding and abetting Wall Street. I think the Dem party is becoming like the Too Big To Fail banks. We bail them out at our own peril. If Obama wins a 2nd term, here is hoping he will perform the last rites of the party. Barring a big miracle where he goes commie he is being accused of. Among others, one of the litmus test was to see how main stream Dems react to the People’s Budget which balances in 2021 if they are honest about balancing the budget. We know the result of that.(I know,I know , we shouldn’t even be talking about balancing the budget)
OB–
Oh, one more thing. I’m in a purple state (turned red). We share a back property line with one of the biggest Protestant churches in the state. The political organization in this church is phenomenal. I was not in the least bit surprised, when Repubs rode a tidal wave to victory in 2010. They have not let up, in the least.
The Republican Party HQ remained opened in the college town that I live in, since the last election. They’re open 8-5 pm, M-F. Even painted a mural of Ronald Reagan on their HQ building, facing the County Courthouse.
Dems opened their campaign office, about 6 months ago. It’s open 3-5 hours, daily (last time I checked, about a month ago).
Blue
I agree. The Democratic Party must be destroyed.
There is only one progressive reason I have heard for re-electing President Obama that makes sense.
If Romney wins, progressives will be spending all of their time and energy trying to get the Democratic Party back into the game. Think 1972, 1984, 1988, 2004.
If Obama wins, progressives will be spending time being critical of Democratic policies and building a movement to change the political culture.
If Stein wins, progressives will be spending time pressuring sore Democrats and obstructive Republicans to pass any legislation at all.
There is no possibility of “punished” Democrats moving in a more progressive direction as a result of the withholding of votes.
But…an Obama win sets up a situation for progressive primarying to purge the Democratic Party (only if you follow the counterpart of what conservatives did starting in the Nixon administration).
NB: This is analysis, not advocacy. We survived W; we can survive Romney if need be.
Once the Dem party crashes and burns, we will have opening for a genuine populist left party ready to take on the Repubs.
I can’t buy this. I remember 1968, 1980, 2000, 2010. Where are the numbers in that genuine populist left party? Where are the local candidates, state candidates,…? Where are the public officials who have defected from the Democratic Party? OK, Rocky Anderson, but what is he going to do after November—go back to being a Democrat or drop out of politics altogether?
It will take 40 years of a Republican one-party state to build sufficient party strength to challenge Republicans. It took 40 years and a crooked Supreme Court to seize power in 2000.
That’s a fair question deserving a fair answer. Many moons ago, I graduated with a double major in history and political science. While the political science I studied focused mainly on international politics, I did manage to learn a thing or two about polls and American national elections from professors who were clearly frustrated by my idealistic belief that my home state of Texas just couldn’t possibly vote for a right wing idiot like Reagan in a couple of years.
Whoops. Lesson learned.
You have to look at the statewide polls, not the national ones, and to actually go inside of the polling sampling techniques of the myriad of polling outfits that dot our landscape. Most polling companies have pretty consistent sampling and questioning techniques. Most voters can be loosely classified into various, often overlapping, groups, with their own priorities and motivations. Most of the time the polls, if read correctly, can fairly accurately predict electoral outcomes.
Obama’s political advisers, who are by no means stupid, want to win. And Romney, whose chances were already slim, just handed them a sledgehammer with which they will gleefully beat him over the head. Retirees don’t want anybody to touch their Social Security or Medicare, and tend not to trust anyone who says they just want to cut benefits for younger folks and leave them alone, for good reason. It’s a hot-button issue for them.
Romney needs both Florida and Ohio to have a chance of winning. There are a LOT of retired people in Florida who nearly always vote, and quite a few in Ohio as well. A lot of those people actually depend on Social Security and Medicare to live. From now until election day, the airwaves in those states will be flooded with ads telling them that Romney wants to gut those two programs, ads which will in fact be true. The same ads will say Obama wants to preserve those programs, which is a lie, but that doesn’t matter.
It will work. Obama will win. Game over.
I understand you. However, this is 2012, not 1968, 1980, or even 2000. Times have fundamentally changed. The inequality of wealth is growing astronomically. This corporatist system we have cannot last more than a decade or so because it doesn’t freaking WORK.
I hope funkygal is right, for if she’s not it won’t take another 40 years to change things. There will be tanks on Pennsylvania Avenue long before that, and then the Odd Gods of the Galaxy only know what we’ll get.
TD–
But…an Obama win sets up a situation for progressive primarying to purge the Democratic Party (only if you follow the counterpart of what conservatives did starting in the Nixon administration).
Can’t imagine that would ever happen, in my lifetime.
The Democratic Party (since the approx 1985 “takeover” by the DLC/Third Way/business/corporatist Dems) is a “top-down” organization. AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.
Mentioned earlier, the fact that so-called “liberal” media, back in the day of Air America Radio, actually had hosts who pushed the likes of McCaskill and Klobuchar, as “liberal” candidates, if you can imagine that. The so-called “left” talking heads are either sold out, or clueless. Take your pick. I don’t presume to know which it is. But looking back, I cannot imagine anything more ludicrous, than what I just described. But, it actually happened.
No, unless there is a medium that is truly liberal, not some watered down BS version of liberal, there will be no “progressive” candidates to primary.
The corporatist Dems will see to that. BTW, I suppose you know that Schultz was recruited by conservative Dems (Conrad, Dorgan, Stabenow, Daschle, etc.)
Grassroots Republicans were able to take over their party in several decades because they had the backing of “big money” (business) interests, to finance their endeavors, and push their conservative low tax, etc., agenda. What billionaire(s) will help progressives? Last time I checked, Soros et al, wasn’t exactly beating down the bushes to come forward with financing for any “fiscally” progressive candidates, or causes. And that won’t change.
Blue
Yes it is 2012. Where are the hoards of progressives? I know of several dozen Occupy movements who would like the beefing up of their protests. Which states do you think one of third party candidates will take that will signal a reversal, like Wallace’s signaled a reversal to conseravatism after thirty-six years of the New Deal. Things don’t reverse from collapse unless there is something there for folks to grab onto quickly (beside their guns and survival gear). The fact that objectively something needs to happen does not mean that it will happen even with a lot of effort.
Until Barry Goldwater, conservatives couldn’t imagine that the New Deal would end.
See – the Dems don’t even support themselves. So why should I even suspect that Obama and Mike Thompson (my house rep) will suddenly decide to support me over the next 4 and a half years?
There may even be truth in the rumor that if it should look like the O Man will win by a landslide, he’ll concede before the election is held. He sure doesn’t like to have the Republicans dislike him, and he sure does like to appear bipartisan.
I don’t see primarying as an option either, even though what I said about that option being open. I don’t see enough concentration of progressives in any one place (outside maybe Bernie Sanders’ Vermont) to be able to win both a primary and general election.
OB–
OK, you may be right. But,I wonder how Obama, after spending a year trying his best to eviscerate the social safety net (and that was on the heels of the $800 billion dollars that he slashed from the Medicare Advantage programs, and other services, the previous year), can run as the champion of Medicare, Soc Security and Medicaid.
It seems to me that the Republican Party could run ads of Ryan and Ron Wyden introducing their Medicare/Medicaid voucher plan. Or, Repubs could run more ads about all the money the ACA slashed from Medicare. It worked in 2010. Polls showed that. Seniors were the main reason for the shellacking that Dems got. Obama is more directly identified with the ACA, than any Dem rep or Senator. Then there’s the Rivlin-Ryan Medicare/Medicaid Reform Plan that Repubs could rightly counter any Democratic Party charges with.
It’s just hard for me to see how a party that lost so many seats because of cuts to Medicare (and the bill remains intact), can now beat the opposition party, using that bill.
Time will tell, I guess.
BTW, great diary. Recommended.
Blue
They don’t know they’re progressives yet. When they come around, and they will because they will have to, they probably will call themselves something else.
And a lot of them don’t even bother to vote. I just know a mass popular movement in the next decade, if not the next few years, is inevitable. I do not know what form it will take. I only know that the current system cannot survive for another generation.
Thanks for the rec. BTW, there was a poll on the Teabagger seats that were picked up in 2010. Sorry, I can’t find it at the moment, but the Teabaggers might be in trouble. Too fanatical, too uncompromising. The D’s actually have a chance of taking back the House.
I’m not predicting that, just saying it’s possible. Of course, it’s hard for people to get enthusiastic about Democrats, for good reason.
My logic already applies to foreign policy:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/
Much as I may sympathize with your argument, I rather suspect that if they don’t get that Obama is a corporate conservative already, they won’t get it by 2016.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079054/-What-if-Barack-Obama-weren-t-a-leftist
There will be plenty of disaster to change things in the next forty years. It only looks gloomy now because the people have no answer as of yet to the repression of Occupy, and because the real disasters haven’t yet hit. Wait ’til food riots hit the US. Something will change then.
There is a mass popular movement going on right now sufficient to draw repression from the powers that be. And some of those formerly apolitical people have shown up in it.
My caution is that disasters do not always bring change in a progressive direction. Contrast the response to the Great Depression in the US, Europe, and Japan. Or take the example of 9/11. Shock doctrine as a strategy works only when you have the resources to hedge surviving it. The local economy/local agriculture movement seeks to build those resources and it mostly is progressive in orientation. The survivalist movement, now some thirty years old, is anything but progressive, but it also seeks to have the resources to survive a coming disaster. Guess who might be coming for that local food if worst comes to worst.
Johnnie get your gun, get you gun, get your gun, Take it on the run, on the run, on the run,
elise–
Haven’t heard that one–that Obama would bow out, if he thought he’d might win by a landslide. But, I’ve wondered from time to time, if the past several elections weren’t fixed. (Nothing would surprise me anymore.) We (the US) constantly meddle in international elections, from what I read, to the point that many countries say that the US has a hand in “swinging” elections, one way or the other.
Thought that was an interesting comment you made in the diary about the Fuskishima Daiichi nuclear disaster. When you said that you wondered if some of the contamination had reached northern California. That’s scary. Sure hope you’re wrong. I’m going to check that book out on Amazon, soon. I figured at the time, that our “crack MSM” probably either got the story wrong, out of incompetence, or lied about the incident, outright.
Good to see you again.
Blue
this is good; i was very impressed with the way people were civil to people with whom they disagreed– need more of that at FDL
Beerfart Liberal–
x2
Blue
Yep. That would do it.
“No government is ever more than three days away from a revolution.”
–Voltaire
If people can’t feed themselves or their kids, and they know who to blame and think they can get at them, things happen fast.
Your caution has merit. I studied way too much history to WANT to live through a sudden, violent revolution, or just as likely NOT live through it or its aftermath. I just don’t think America has 40 years available to wait for peaceful, electoral change followed by a lot of criminal prosecutions, which would be absolutely necessary if that happened.
If the current system fails, and it has been failing for at least a generation now, it will collapse. That part’s simple. How it collapses or what replaces it is educated guesswork at best.
For a hilarious take on how marketing types fix our elections, go here:
http://my.firedoglake.com/daveparts/2012/08/11/cody-the-cardboard-cowboy/
Well worth the read.
What is missing from this wishful thinking masquerading as analysis (with the partial exception of the always perceptive Tarheel Dem) personifies why I have long termed the progressive blogosphere: the whiteysphere.
The future for the aging Republican Tea Party base does not include political activities such as organising, demonstrating or voting.
These are difficult, nay impossible to achieve when you inhabit the spirit realm. And with all due respect, a large number of white progressives are also not representative of the, uhhh, future, myself most unfortunately included.
OTOH, the increasing colourfulness of the emerging youthful cohort should be factored into these discussions. And let’s face it: this youthful, striving, group aren’t that interested in you.
What do aging white hippies know of them, much less appeal to their identities and problems?
Are they more likely to relate to Obama, Corey Booker, Deval Patrick or Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson?
Are struggling, striving young people concerned that much with political idealism as much as pragmatic, practical issues?
Thought-provoking thread, OB. Highly rec’d.
I must say I’m a bit skeptical, however, that “four more years” is going to lead to a widespread alienation of Democrats. The script I see relative to the next four years is one of a desperate nation looking a global depression squarely in the eyes. In this type of climate, the Democrats’ sales pitch, as austerity measures are imposed, is that they are resisting the even more Draconian spending cuts the Republicans are proposing. They’ll be selling “yeah, we’ve had to make some tough choices but can you imagine the disaster we would be facing if the Republicans got in?” I’m afraid that will sell then as it is now.
I also don’t think that a “safety net driven movement” will have legs. Occupy had (has?) the right idea. The issue isn’t just the size of government subsidies; it’s the outrageous inequities. Put in a much more abstract way, I don’t think we can build a sustainable movement based on being anti-something; I think we have to offer a much more positive vision. And who, even in the face of alienation from the Democratic Party, will do all this “offering”? It’s hard to see a strong, organized, viable political force emerging in such a short period of time.
Worse, in the kind of collapsing economic climate I envision, it’s not at all clear to me whether a desperate America will be willing to abandon the Mommy Party for something newer but riskier. Change is a scary business when you have no job and could lose your house or your retirement security.
So, color me a bit on the skeptical side. My guess is that after four years of broken campaign promises, i.e. in the current election year, those Obama has alienated since his tidal wave of 2008 will either still vote for him or will just stay home this year. Neither Jill Stein, nor Rocky Anderson, nor Stewart Alexander will be reaping the benefits of his dismal record. Perhaps that could change by 2016… I just can’t see the molecules moving that way at this time.
To lead people away from the Democratic Party is going to require both a genuinely new vision and genuinely visionary leadership. If all that’s offered is more safety net and rebuilding the unions, I think the Democrats are safe. An alternative party has to be able to tear down the whole damned infrastructure of government and replace it with something radically different. Otherwise, the rich get richer parade will be left intact. If that’s the case, people will stick with the Democrats.
BTW, I appreciate your support for Stewart Alexander. I have to tell you I’m taking a very serious look at Jill Stein. I’ve been extremely impressed by her. No decisions have been made yet.
I’ve been away for a couple of years, and it amazes me at this juncture that most of you still believe, apparently (if this thread is representative), that both of these “parties” aren’t controlled lock, stock, and barrel by outside interests (Wall St., CFR, City of London, Trilateral Commission, military industrial complex, Rothschilds, et. al.)
Never heard of Stewart Alexander, but frankly, I think we all need to give up on this rather quaint notion of “voting”. Drones are getting very cheap, and as such, (as we saw with computers and other formerly high-priced tech) they WILL proliferate and be used to kill (or at least intimidate) you, as well as the nifty new urban assault vehicles DHS has been buying up (along with hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition).
Oh, well. Good luck (you’ll need it).
Using the word “progressive” is confusing. Most who use it think it is a synonym for “liberal,” but not everyone uses that way, certainly not DLCers, New Democrats and the like.
Obama is definitely no liberal. However, he is a “progressive,” as the DLC uses that term. Hence, he can truthfully say on one occasion “I am a progressive” and, on another occasion, “I am a New Democrat.”
However, oddly, running for re-election may force him somewhat to the left, at least in his campaign promises. Then again, we know about his campaign promises.
Me,I’m voting for Jill Stein.
Seems to me that “Progressive” and “liberal” have become empty tribal markers. Historically speaking these terms would have connotations and affiliations with the working class, but who can honestly say that anymore?
In general, both terms refer to reform movements that hoped to paint a pretty face on capitalism, so I guess they still carry some meaning in that regard. Seems to me the current crop of Liberals and Progressives see themselves as a “better” class of managers, who will trumpet Gay Rights on one hand while slitting the throat of grandma with the other.
Thanks for this post, recommended.
I’d never thought of an Obama reelection this way, but it makes a lot of sense.
I’m still voting for Jill Stein, but this actually puts me in a better mood about the whole thing.
When Obama wins and if the Dems retain the Senate and make gains in the House I am sure they will continue to show themselves as the corpratist shills that they are, perhaps even more so……and I hope that fence sitting Dems and liberals that are afraid to vote 3rd party will finally realize it this time around.
No one realizes how many people who voted for Obama, will not vote this time; not even if Republicans run “Jack the Ripper”.
So if Obama wins and dismantles Social Security and Medicare, privatizes public schools, and starts another war, then people will finally wake up and see the light? That’s a pretty big price to pay on the off-chance that the Democratic Party will implode.
In a way, that’s really giving the green light to an Obama win, just for reasons other than LOTE. And it’s takes the wind out of everyone’s anger at Obama: “Oh, just let him win, and then the people will vote for someone other than a Democrat in future years.” I don’t buy it. for one thing, I don’t think we have the luxury of four years. For another, who’s to say that in 2016, they’ll just offer a choice between Ryan and Rahm if Obama wins this election, and the voters will choose Rahm because he is a Democrats, and therefore, “less evil?”
I’d rather see people vote their consciences for the best third-party candidate, even if the race is close, and be up-in-arms at a bumbling Republican president. Remember Wisconsin. There’s a potential for a thousand Wisconsins if Romney wins. The media can’t put lipstick on his pig policies as easily as they can with Obama.
I can’t buy into the idea of just letting Obama win. I don’t like the logic behind it. It seems to me that, if the race is really, really close, then people will follow this advice and vote for Obama. Maybe I’m missing something in this argument, but it seems flawed to me.
I would agree that progressive change is Ill-suited to an electoral vehicle. Ours is the road of Revolution not Evolution.
Read Walter Karp’s “Liberty Under Siege” for a sad account of what happened progressivism had a crack at power under Carter. Democrat? Republican? Nyet. Oligarchy.
What good does it do to choose who your jailer is? Does oppression have political flavors of personal preference? Is taking education away, preferred to housing or food?
The political beatings we’re taking to our human dignity continue. We elect only the temperature with which to be pissed upon.
Right. As someone else pointed out, Charlie Pierce over at Esquire, in a sentient country, it would be embarrasing and transparently hypocritical for this administration to oppose Paul Ryan, whose stated position about deficit hysteria is exactly the position Obama has insistently argued, taken to its logical extreme.
Can we print food stamps faster than dollars? lol
Read the last sentence in the original post.
I really don’t think a true leftist populist third party can emerge by 2016 and actually be able to prevent the Democrats from winning if they were going to win in the uniparty system anyway. I’d love to be wrong, and I’m not going to go out of my way to dash the hopes of those who would love to prove me wrong. The only people that benefits are those in the ruling class.
No, I don’t think things will change much, except for the worse, by 2016. Barring some true catastrophe, this broken system of ours may well limp along for another 10 or 15 years. I just don’t think it can last 20. I also don’t think it can end peacefully. Again, I’d love to be wrong.
You’re right. “Progressive” is a confusing term. I just thought that there was a general consensus on FDL of what most people here mean by it. In European terms, I think it means Social Democratic and further left. American presidents from FDR to Nixon would fall in as “progressive” using that broad definition.
Ah, there is the entity known as donkeytale, much sound and grammatically correct snark, signifying nothing.
Right, OB, you ignore my point about the changing demographics of the US at your own peril. That’s called “willful ignorance” based on pseudo-intellectual bias. Sophistry, iow.
Besides, you have it exactly wrong here with your prediction that the Dems are set to implode. The Democrats maintain a coalition of blue dogs, progressives, unions, college educated professionals, blacks, latinos, asians, gays, muslims, youths.
The GOP has narrowed itself into a corner of paleo and neo conservatives, aging white people, wealthy shareholders, anti-immigrant racists, southerners and rural residents.
Its the GOP that is much closer to disintegration than the Democrats, and that is why the Ryan selection: not so much to win the election, although I believe Ryan improves those chances from a charisma standpoint, but not enough.
The GOP is in the process of being relegated to a regional party. They have already lost California already and are losing the mountain and desert states like Colo, Nevada and even Arizona. These state’s skyrocketing Latino and Asian younger populations assure this trend will continue. They are even seeing some of their solid southern base beginning to crack-up, NC and Va in 2008, and possibly again in 2012.
Pa. and Ohio seem lost unless their minourity voter suppression tactics work. Ohio seems lost
If you are truly serious about forming a third party, and I don’t believe that you really are, that requires hard work and sacrifice after all, not normally traits associated with aging white people, the framers of the third party should be making serious inroads into the emerging minourity community. How?
Start by fielding some candidates and issues not so elitist and so, uhhhm, caucasian in nature and appearance.
I agree with the guy up thread who believes that the best chance for leftists lies in rebellion, civil disobedience, class warfare.
Politicians are never going to be the change we seek. Politicians reflect, they dont create change. Never have, never will.
Oh, I know you’re voting for Stewart Alexander; I think he’s a great choice. I like Jerry White. I just don’t buy Blindpig’s argument.
As far as this country limping along for another decade or so, I agree. Ian Welsh said pretty much the same thing a while back:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/will-a-man-on-horseback-come-to-rule-america/
The Democrat Party is right centrist. It always has been. It’s never been leftist. Progressive is a term with no meaning. It can mean rightists like La Follett the Democrat Rockefeller or left centrists like Henry Wallace or Ralph Nader.
During the terms of FDR and Truman it was compelled to pass some very minor reforms like the recognition of the right to organize, Social Security and aid for small farmers and very modest welfare measures for workers and their families.
As I said, they did this because of the explosive, and in their minds, revolutionary potential of the workers that began in 1934 after the initial shock of the depression wore off. 1934 saw three major, well led and extremely combative general strikes led by dock workers in the Bay Area, teamsters in Minneapolis and autoworkers in Toledo, who also organized unemployed workers to back their strike. That was followed by crippling sit-ins in auto which defied property rights and by massive organizing drives in every industry. Among miners, the fight went on even in the depths of the mass murder of civilian workers by both sides during WWII and then exploded in a massive and very militant strike wave in 1946 among civilians and hundreds of thousands of GI’s, who, in effect, mutinied and made it perfectly clear that they were not going to fight in the Balkans or China. http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/09/12/when-soldiers-mutiny-only-those-fighting-the-war-can-end-it/
Democrats made concessions because they were terrified of the growth of generation of workers for whom revolution was not something to be feared.
Democrats, as much as Republicans, are the enemy.
You must know much I respect you and like your posts, Barbarian. But this one, and maybe because of so many post-Romney-Veep-choice threads here…simply saddens me. It’s not just your post, but the majority of the comments.
I’d considered writing a counter-argument, counter opinion, really; but Sundays are big chore-days here, and time wouldn’t allow it.
It may be very unfair to leave it hanging, but for two things: I’d rather spin in into a diary, and as we’re fighting for not just our lives, but for the next generations to come…those are the fairnesses (is that even a word?) that matter most to me.
But at the core of my opinion is that I’m dashed to see how many here seem to believe that electoral politics can bring anything other than more of the same for the foreseeable future.
Please don’t take my brevity for anything than…what it is, dear Barbarian.
“Both political parties feign concern about the “unsustainability” of the debt, though no one seems to know what “unsustainable” means. The hundreds of editors of all major newspapers pretend we are in a debt crisis, though no one seems to know what that crisis is. The Federal Reserve publishes articles indicating none of their executives understands that the U.S. owns the money-creation machine.
Meanwhile, adherents to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty (MS), write books, articles and blog posts, trying to simplify the concept enough for all these college-educated people. It’s a fools mission.
We cannot force someone to “understand” something they do not want to understand. So the real question becomes, “Why do these people pretend ignorance, when even the least intelligent among them, understands perfectly?” The answer is money and power.” from
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/how-you-can-help-close-the-gap/
Obama is for plutocracy as are other republicans and most democrats. There is almost none with liberal leanings.
Me,I’m voting for Jill Stein.
Food stamps will not buy food that isn’t there. I am talking about crop failures due to global warming.
lefttown–
x2
Blue
Bill Perdue–
Spot on.
Blue
donkeytale–
You say: “why I have long termed the progressive blogosphere: the whiteysphere.” and
“And with all due respect, a large number of white progressives are also not representative of the, uhhh, future, myself most unfortunately included.” and
“What do aging white hippies know of them, much less appeal to their identities and problems?” and
“The GOP has narrowed itself into a corner of paleo and neo conservatives, aging white people, wealthy shareholders, anti-immigrant racists, southerners and rural residents.”
“If you are truly serious about forming a third party, and I don’t believe that you really are, that requires hard work and sacrifice after all, not normally traits associated with aging white people, the framers of the third party should be making serious inroads into the emerging minourity community.” and
“Start by fielding some candidates and issues not so elitist and so, uhhhm, caucasian in nature and appearance.” and
May I ask, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Blue
I agree, letsbegin.
But apparently, no one in this administration is capable of embarrassment or shame.
Blue
Gotcha, I was thinking more in the ‘lead up to then’ timeframe.