Tweet
All of the below are from here ; I encourage all to read the whole article as it may give those who will participate in the Town Hall with Alan Grayson some questions to ask.
“Most people who read news on the internet are aware of the inherent corporate/political elite biases within the mainstream media, but the more insidious biases within some of the more popular online media sites are rarely questioned. I’m not talking about the obvious progressive viewpoints of sites like The Nation, Think Progress, AlterNet, Truth Out, Common Dreams, Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Media Matters, etc., I’m talking about the divisive partisan rhetoric these sites use and the destructive influence their funding sources have upon their reporting. ”
“They frequently run headlines and commentaries that are purposefully aimed at dividing people along partisan lines and limiting thoughts into groupthinking traps, for this they are rewarded with financial support. It is clearly understood within the “independent” media community that if you focus your attack on the symptoms of the system (Republicans, Koch brothers, Fox News, Tea Party, etc.), you will be funded with hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, if you effectively focus your attack on the root underlying system and go against both political parties, you will not be funded. That’s why these sites always default over to the Democratic Party, that’s where the money is. (The same can be said for libertarian/conservative sites who blame Democrats in favor of Republicans.)”
“These progressive leaders have built up an incestuous core cadre of contributors. Many of them have been indoctrinated by think tanks that are not open to any voices that may deviate in the slightest from partisan opinion. Fortunately, there is now an entire movement of bloggers who disdain the two-party divide and conquer approach and seek to unite people across the political spectrum. They are growing in influence, yet most all of them are kept off of popular progressive sites, even when they champion progressive views. I understand that it is obviously up to their discretion as to who to feature on their sites, but it is nonetheless indicative of their closed-off divisive partisan nature and intentions, and demonstrates how they stifle mass movements. If they truly wanted the change they claim to stand for, they would be much more inclusive in their approach. ”
57 Comments
To the point and recommended, not least because of the Nine Inch Nails video. I just point out that these progressive “leaders” are self-proclaimed and often endorsed by the M$M as progressive voices. I’ll take the author over self-proclaimed “progressives” like Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, or Ariana Huffington any day.
good example is how Michael Moore gets so much media versus Danny Schecter who was on the Wall Street Fraud long before Michael.
I do not understand, because I don’t know who Danny Schecter was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Schechter
Despite the ‘warnings’ it’s a good summation of who he is and what he’s done; E.g.In Debt We Trust (2006)
Harry “I was on a boxng team as the punching bag” Reid is blocking Obamas recess appointments
So no, they do not want change
This is exactly why I’ve been pointing to Chris Hedges so much. It is rare indeed to have a Pulitzer Prize winner (let alone a grad from Harvard Divinity School) renounce the corporate media and educational institutions and implicate them in the continued oppression of the working class, poor, perpetual war, environmental degradation, etc.
We can learn a lot from this learned, traveled man who has seen it all, and his message is exactly what we need from our so-called progressive leaders right now – but they don’t have the courage.
“but they don’t have the courage.”; or the ethics. Keep the pointing up as the greater the exposure, the better the chances of an informed public.
Progressive leaders?
Dude, hoss, Ube, WHAT proggy leaders do you speak of?
There are none.
Harumph.
I’ve long liked Chris Hedges, from many forums.
I’m not sure I understand yer use of him, for any purpose you pose.
But you do that, often.
*G*
We’ve lost, and you should try and find a monastic community to go live in?
Splendid stuff.
How high does the rot go though? There are wannabe leaders amongst “us” too. How would/do they react when getting close to real power?
Hedges is a ninja truth warrior, completely untainted by exposure to the big bad mainstream. But he is such a rarity, indeed probably unique (okay, Glenb Greenwald too) in that.
But these folks are everywhere. Bought and paid for. You begin to understand the post-revolutionary quests for ideological purity of history better and better when you think about it.
Oh please, Daily Kos is NOT progressive. They are globalist K-Street shills who suppress any genuine debate. To compare DK to TruthOut, or the others, is an insult to genuine activists.
The Too Partisany argument is similarly ridiculous. We need real Democrats who fight for Democrats with glorious flaming divisive rhetoric. How often does it need to be repeated, the neo-lib, neo-con Grand Bargain has failed and will continue to fail.
This whining about “progressive leaders” misses the point. Be your own progressive leader and fight the Baggers, and the War Profiteers and the Torturers. with LOUD, DIVISIVE PARTISAN RHETORIC!
Point taken, but they believe they are and so do most people.
One of the big problems progressives have is that the term has no meaning. It was part of the Faustian bargain that was made when we decided it was no longer cool to be a liberal.
More sinister is that because the term is so nebulous, anyone can twist it to suit their current needs; that’s how Dylan Ratigan & dKos get put in the same category as Amy Goodman & FDL.
That’s what really scares me.
There are some good, hard-working people from the left in the Democratic party.
The problem is resources. Some (many?) have to toe the party line, or keep their personal views in check in order to get the resources necessary to keep their heads above water.
It’s not just a matter of getting leaders there, they also need to be in a position to make the right decision without retribution. (But that would require *major* campaign finance reform, overturning Citizens United, and a slew of other things)
But yes, I think you raise a good point about how would they react if they got in. For the reasons above, they would probably disappoint, because the system is so screwed up & their hands would be forced…
politics = another get rich quick scam …see SarahP and all other pols
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCWKwRRSV9g
yes be shrill
When I read the posts about how fucked up the Republican field of presidential candidates is, and read the snark in the comments, I wonder what is the point of this exercise? Yes the Republicans suck. So what. Do you have anything better to offer?
I sometimes say things to Democratic partisans that I later regret. But it has become clear to me that Democratic and Republican partisans are working on behalf of the Fascist Oligarchy that is rapidly impoverishing and enslaving us. Ignorance is no excuse.
How many Democrats supported Kucinich in the primaries? That’s how many Progressive Democrats there are. Most people who claim the distinction are merely tribal Democrats. If the swill the veal pen is dishing out were not so eagerly lapped up by so many Democrats the game could finally change.
Old Fat Guy is my hero.
Keep up the good work ubetchaiam. You are a persistent fellow and you are pointing in the right direction.
.
Most people includes De Graw. But actually most people are quite aware that Daily Kos is full of neo-lib baloney and Obama Sycophants.
Perhaps, some of the sycophants are worried that Alan Grayson might run for President. I would vote for a Democrat myself. So far no Democrats are running for President. Only Republicans and TBaggers are running.
Larue, you have to look for them. Hedges, Sheehan, McKinney, Jill Stein, Cornel West, Alan Maki. You’re not going to hear about them on TV, radio, or even here. But they are out there every day, fighting. Hard. Consider this:
http://nativevotemn.org/news/2010-news/062810_Civic-participation-on-the-rise-in-Indian-Country.pdf
“The most essential factor is persistence – the determination never to allow your energy or enthusiasm to be dampened by the discouragement that must inevitably come.”- James Whitcomb Riley
See my last reply to OhioGringo above.
Thanks. I still like big ol’ Michael Moore, though.
Exactly!
“But it has become clear to me that Democratic and Republican partisans are working on behalf of the Fascist Oligarchy that is rapidly impoverishing and enslaving us. Ignorance is no excuse.”
Amen, brother!
Those we would follow will not lead, and those who would lead we will not follow.
Heh! Good one, friend.
United we stand, United States, United Citizens, United Needs!
So sorry I didn’t catch this yesterday, but very happy to see it now.
At least Rachel Maddow ran this video on her show. Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan caught by someone’s cell phone having a very interesting chat. Makes you wonder who’s zooming who?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOrSURZKrcw
Please don’t group together Libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans. If you think they are the same then you are under the same misconceptions you think others are.
“Progressives IE Those that hang with KOS etc. want change that does not inconvenience THEM. Where they can still drive their SUVs and live in their McMansions and send their kids to private schools and still have a large growth 401k etc and a nice tax shelter.
What Free Market Libertarians claim they want to do causes situations Afghanistan and Somalia in the real world.
When there there’s no regulation and no law, the biggest guy with the biggest weapon is able to force everyone else in that area to follow his orders.
Lots guns and no law/regulation is always head toward physical domination of an area by gangs/warlords.
This is a good post, but fails to consider the electoral system in the United States, which, like the Anglo-American capitalist world, only in a more extreme form, insists on a first-past-the-post system.
Third parties require a proportional system or some variant of stacked voting, or at least runoff systems, as is found in the rest of the EU. Instant Runoff Voting, as is found in New Zealand and Australia, at least allows third party power even when not elected, giving the Greens real influence in those systems, as is not the case in the US, Canada, or the UK (except in the Euro Elections, where the UK follows the dominant European proportional model).
There is some chance of introducing electoral reform in Vermont, like single payer health care….but in the absense of such reform, (which can be instituted in virtually every US electoral body with a simple majority), hostility to third parties will, like the death penalty, incarceration rates, vacation length, absense of socialized medicine, and so much else, will remain an ‘exceptional’ aspect of the US political system.
It is too bad dicussion of such issues puts US ‘progressives’ to sleep….
Actually, it doesn’t put “US ‘progressives’ to sleep”; we’ve had several discussions here and I’ve written about in past diaries.
Too bad voters in England shot IRV down. But here in CA,
http://www.calirv.org/
we’ve a whole group of people who have been trying to get it adopted.
“Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro used Ranked-Choice Voting for the first time in 2010, and helped elect candidates with a stronger mandate than the plurality winner from among a broader range of viable choices than before. San Francisco had similar results. CfER members have analyzed the benefits of RCV in Oakland by year and district, with more information to come soon. ”
Hmmm. What you advocate will take more than mere reform in this environment. The only way that will happen is if the entire governmental and economic structure is destroyed.
Sorry, but that’s the truth.
Thank you. That’s why I call myself Socialist.
I agree. Unfortunately, it may come to that. Right here.
SLAM! Well said. You just pilloried the latte’ liberals in once sentence.
Here’s a different view you may not be considering:
Many people especially liberals and progressives perceive big corporations as powerful entities that are out to do the people harm cause they greedy capitalists or subhumans running those corporations.
So they call out to governments to save them from the corporations unbeknown to them that it’s the governments that are in cahoots with these corporations that enabled them to have that power otherwise they would have to compete in the free market with competitors.
You see corporations and businesses are directly accountable to the people while governments are not. Therefore they get governments to limit choices available to people and keep out competition.
You see the example where governments keep put competition in the government itself by limiting your choices in candidiates why do you not see it in the fascistic political economy?
You see the example where governments keep *out* competition in the government itself by limiting your choices in candidates why do you not see it in the fascistic political economy?
“You see corporations and businesses are directly accountable to the people while governments are not. Therefore they get governments to limit choices available to people and keep out competition.
free market libertarian: your above state assumes that the government can never be of the people, for the people and by the people. I have never hear such statements made about corporations. Also, keep in mind that the reason our choices are so limited is the corporate money and the corporate media. I reject the idea that we should live as anarchist in a corporate
state.
Libertarians do have that dream of a stateless society where force is not used. Does it mean it will happen? No. It is just the end goal. The end of the rainbow. Society’s do not work like that but they can be influenced towards that goal to never arrive there. Eventually if things go awry there is push back in the other direction. A “give and take.”
You may not agree with the “end of the rainbow” libertarian ideology but, you probably agree with a lot of “general” libertarian stances like drug policy, empire and civil liberties.
I think the point that free market libertarian tries to make (not very clearly) is that we share common goals. I do not agree with most of “general” progressive economic policies but I am intelligent enough that I know I have to work work with you to get what I want; what we have in common against everyone else. If libertarians ever get to power with progressives we can rip each others policies to shreds then. At that point our common goals will already be full filled and I will be that much happier.
I think this is the point of this post anyway. Rid yourself of the left/right grouping arguments and find solutions. My solution is a Progressive effort to get Ron Paul through the republican primaries. This helps all of us. You can vote Obama if you want in the general.
Just to clear up some things,
I don’t mean corporations as “legal persons”. I don’t believe they should have that status and I think it’s illegal and unconstitutional for corporation to be legal persons.
“free market libertarian: your above state assumes that the government can never be of the people, for the people and by the people.”
That’s right. When you give a handful of people control of hundreds of millions of people it is essentially virtual slavery. In essence you are forcing some individuals to accept your conditions whether they want them or not.
By definition, when you do that you are removing accountability of governments and officials. Think about it. Instead of voting with your money you earn, you have to form consensus of millions of people, very difficult to do, and governments get away with all sorts of crimes.
Main reason is liberals, conservatives, progressives, give governments enormous powers so they screw with millions of people’s lives. If they had limited powers they could only affect people’s lives in a limited way and wouldn’t be able to do so much harm.
That goes for federal, state, and local governments.
I don’t see it’s just an end goal. I think it occasionally occurs at various levels of society and then force is used to break it.
You’re right I agree we have common goals and we should work together to achieve them. Never understood why there is so much distrust between liberals, progressives, and libertarians.
yep…when pigs fly and fish climb trees. With out regulations the biggest one gets all. And even YOU will not be able to stop it. They will make damn sure of that.
If ‘progressive’ ‘leaders’ really wanted change, they would have pushed to war-crimes prosecutions against Bush/Cheney in the last congress, the result of which would’ve disgraced and discredited the republican party for decades to come, and finally allowed the progressive electorate to get some real influence in Washington.
‘Progressive’ ‘leaders’ in Washington are just as much corporate fakes as the rest of them.
All the time shrub was president Bill hung out with Bush senior. Maybe he was just trying to get next to Bar?
Yeah, I know; no need to apologize.
But that’s why it scares me. I’m not quite sure what else to do about it either.
What’s the feeling here on the kabuki monster (Alan Grayson) coming for a “town hall”?
Obvious question to him is, why did he represent a party that is at war with the vast majority of people, and there to serve the mega-rich? It makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing he claimed is consistent with being a member of the Democratic Party.
No it wasn’t. Progressives were insurgent against the Democrat party with the Bull Moose party and FDR. Read that page if you want to understand the difference, and then here Liberalism, Classic Liberalism, Social Liberalism
No matter the variety of Liberals, they are free market capitalists. You can be a progressive with out free market capitalism, but not a liberal.
You fail to understand that the real divide is class based, it is not R/L, between us and the “baggers”, but what you propose certainly works for the elite, banker, politicians favor.
Divisive rhetoric and demagoguery is what they use on us to divide us. We need to come together with the working class, and unemployed, and underemployed republican voters because they also understand they are not being served. Solidarity- not loud divisive partisan rhetoric.
I don’t know if this is real quote or not, but it sounds like something they would say.
‘Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.
These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.’
- Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank Of England, addressing the United States Bankers’ Association, New York, 1924.
do progressive leaders what change?
some maybe, some maybe not.
depends on what you mean by progressive and it depends on what you mean by leaders.
if you mean people who want power over, not power with, i don’t think it’s likely they want fundamental bottom up change. course there’s really no way to know what motivates people. have to look at what they do and not what they say.
here’s what i think is the biggest clue: if progressives (not just leaders, but leaders especially) really want change, then the first place we’ll see it is in how they organize what is actually within their control.
for example, progressive leaders don’t try to control either money or information. this means, at the very least, in something close to real-time, that progressives insist that 1) all the books are open: all the funding sources are known, all funding agreements are public and every contributor knows exactly where every dime goes and 2) decision making is transparent, public and accountable.
my 2 cents.
Yes, this.
hey. Don’t knock anarchy, it’s not synonymous with chaos. You might not understand what it really is.
An actual free market would have to be regulated to protect us from market concentration to remain free, or we’d get what we have now: state enabled and mandated monopolies.
Alan Greyson isn’t coming to FDL for a “town hall” because he’s too chicken shit to answer real questions about Israel. He’s already been here and never came back.
It’s the fetish of undoing hard won civil rights, and putting property rights before people.
Liberals and libertarians used to be the same thing, I believe.
Also Paulites disdain democracy and hold up the republic and the idea of dictatorship of the majority, but if they revered the constitution as much as they claim to, then the rights enshrined in the constitution cant be subjected to change through a democratic vote. I don’t mind libertarians but some of them seem to hold internal contradictory views.
The powers that we the people give to our governments are (ideally) designed to create a “commons”, a construct of ideals, and controls, political and economic, to help foster the betterment of our citizens. The absolute selfishness and psychopathic (look up sociopath) insistence from “libertarians” on “individual” freedoms and success are in total contravention to a liberal stance, it just so happens that they desire unfettered individual freedom, and an anti-war stance (which-somewhat-jibes with the left), but they also promote corporate freedom, the lack of regulation on darn near everything, which would create a cesspool of our “commons”, a sewer of pollution, ignorance due to lack of education, racism, sexism, class warfare, uncontrolled greed and domination of might and money. Sorry, just because one single point of their political stance intersects with mine, does NOT make them my “partner” in my fight for a better US. “Drowning the government in the bathtub” is NOT my idea of a solution to our problems, and in that regard, the “libertarians” share a special place in hell with the RW.
What about the Coffee Party? It appears they are trying to change the system. They don’t represent a particular point of view officially, although it appears that the majority are liberal leaning.
Once change is in place, it will be easier to enact the necessary legislation needed to turn the country around.
I admire their national movement to attempt to tackle the big issues: reversing Supreme Court ruling giving Corporations America the right to select their own representatives. Eliminating financially based lobbying, and the rotating door from government to business. Making laws more stringent and consequences more dire for representatives who are bought.
These are simply examples of a few things I was interested in, and I’m a poor spokes person for what is quite an active nationwide group. It seems, if we assist with the basic changes needed, it will be easier for Progressives to get the real legislation that we want.