It’s very clear that the Republicans and Tea Party folks criticize Obama for ridiculous reasons that have very little substance, but we on the left, particularly those of us who describe ourselves as “progressive,” criticize him too, but for entirely different reasons. There are a number of strong supporters of the President who believe that if we don’t continue to support Obama, we are simply handing the reins over to the right. But this is not necessarily so. The left needs representation in office, and we simply aren’t getting it. Obama can be beat in the primaries, and he rightfully should be.
Obama promised a lot when he went into office. He said that he would close Guantanamo and he hasn’t. While he uses the power of the presidency to go to war against Libya, prostituting the powers of the UN at the expense of its noble cause, which he promised he would not, and said that the president does not have such powers, he is unwilling to use the power of the presidency to close that terrible prison. He has sustained a policy of torture. He said that he would end the war in Iraq and has not. He has taken the war in Afghanistan illegally into Pakistan, violating their sovereignty, severely destabilizing that country by dividing its people between corrupt politicians who take money from us and deposit it in Swiss bank accounts and those whose families suffer the consequences of drone attacks upon schools, homes, wives and children. He does nothing to stop the illegal sale of arms to Israel, which uses them to assault Gaza. He advocated single payer when he was a candidate, but then instructed his commission to keep it off the table when it came time for legislation. He opposed the Patriot Act, but has pushed for further extension of it. He said that the U.S. needed to mediate in, and bring some change to, the status of the Kashmiri people, and that the will of the people of Kashmir, not the will of India or Pakistan, was most important. Now he refuses to support the Kashmiri and says it’s a problem strictly between India and Pakistan. It’s my opinion, and the opinion of many others on the left that he is just a shill for corporate interests.
I have spoken before about our interest in participating in the New Progressive Alliance, a steering committee seeking a candidate who would oppose Obama in the coming election of 2012, and did so yesterday for the first time. More about that later. The effort at this stage of the game is certainly much too preliminary to gauge the strength of this effort, but we certainly encourage open debate on the merits of what an alternative candidate might have to offer. Obama has stood by silently while the labor movement across the country has screamed bloody murder in the face of an all-out effort by Republicans and their ilk to undermine the strength of unions to bargain collectively, and this is an outrage. Where is there any sign of leadership, given the mandate Obama shouldered? Where is a commander in chief leading a defense of the people’s voice? Obama needs to know as never before that he is doing a damn lousy job, and he needs to know that we can do something about that. We can alter his chances of re-election, if he has not already closed the coffin door on himself and pulled the dirt in on top along with it. And I certainly hope that we do. I’ve had enough.
Cross-posted at United Progressives http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1121:ive-had-enough-obama-youre-out&catid=44:paul-barrow&Itemid=86



84 Comments

How about breaking out of the partisan paradigm completely? When I was a kid protesting in the 60′s, we were fighting the system, the government, the establishment, whether we called it capitalism or imperialism or whatever. Lyndon Johnson wasn’t seen as particularly a Democrat, he was seen as the head of the system.
Those of us who supported Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy did so not to revitalize the Democratic Party (well, some did), but because they were challenging the powers-that-be. Critical analysis might say that their proferred solutions were shockingly mild, compared to the radical critiques of many of us. But the important thing wasn’t their program, but rather that they were FIGHTING for us, broadly defined.
When Nixon was elected, he became the head of the system, and we went after him without missing a beat. Nixon, Johnson, what the hell.
So today, Obama is the head of the system. We oppose him. It should be that simple. But now everything has to be framed through partisan glasses, and it saps our strength. Wrong is wrong, but now we pause as we contemplate whether we should oppose it if it hurts the Democrats.
We evaluate based on two factors, would we be better off under the Democrats or the Republicans? But a third factor has to enter the equation, not what’s best — the Republicans or Democrats? But what’s best for the movement?
As for what would be the best candidate to oppose Obama in the primaries, I simply think that he or she has to be mainstream enough to split the Democratic base from its leadership. Has to be able to do significant ballot access, has to get a minimum of media coverage.
There is talk of requiring the primary candidate to vow to support the NPA-endorsed independent candidate in the general elections. I think that vow implies that the candidate plans to lose, and will marginalize the candidate, making her or him fail on the basis of ballot access and media.
Yes, there are problems with moving from the primaries to the general elections and going independent. I just don’t think it’s up to the candidate to solve that problem for us. If the goal is to drive that wedge between the party hack leadership and the progressive base, a completely marginal candidate will simply fail to drive that wedge, and their vow to go independent will pull no one.
What will pull the Dem base independent is the merit of the independent candidate, for better or worse.
Tell me something I don’t know.
Who or what is the New Prog Alliance?
Who’s doing the vetting of candidates and what’s the standard employed in doing so? Where’s the leadership detail of who’s in charge and leading this effort?
Heck, who are YOU and what is your org all about?
Do you have a large following or base you can use as leverage to further proggy ideals and needs for we the people?
This ‘call to arms’ syndrome I keep seeing continues unabated and well, frankly, quite lacking in actionable reality.
Show me different, tell me something I don’t know.
Ok, to answer my own questions here’s an FDL diary link that helps to recall NPA and such.
I wish them luck . . . but in terms of this linked diary asking teachers to pamphlet on the sidewalks outside where they work after they are ‘off shift’? That’s asking for them to risk their jobs and income . . . for they WILL be targeted and harassed.
To organize at night and weekends in OTHER public places, oh yes by all means . . . it’s calling on them teachers to commit employment suicide (not to mention the personal harassment they would face as the right wing drums up opposition to them) to do so on the sidewalks outside the schools they work in.
In the 60′s n 70′s one could do so without TOO much fear of reprisal and blowback, but these are quite the suppressive and oppressive times . . . I firmly oppose asking teachers to do so.
The Link.
To the diary author above sorry if I wandered off topic a bit, but IMHO these things are all tied together in terms of your diary and what NPA or the linked diary author advocate.
> I firmly oppose asking teachers to do so.
That’s fine, and for everyone opposing it, there may be 5 – or .5 – who favor doing so. It’s in idea each individual teacher can (and will) decide what they will or won’t do about, just as they would on ANY issue. So I’m not sure I get your point: Are you saying it’s wrong to put the idea out there?
I also need some help understanding your “all these things are tied together” conclusion, and the point of it. Countless people out there are trying a host of different things to wake people up. People will support or oppose them to varying degrees, based on how effective each of us believes it might be. Are you suggesting people should stop floating ideas, simply because some might seem too “out there”? If not, what are you suggesting?
To me, our greatest fear should be the coming of the day when people stop voicing their ideas for countering the fascism that is overtaking this country like kudzu. That’s the day the fascists can declare victory.
To repeat part of my comment on metamars’ thread:
There may be teachers willing to take the risks you cite. If so, that is their option. There are places, after all (NYC, for instance), where teachers are already slated for layoffs. In those situations, there may be little to lose. And, in fact, by going down fighting, they may be able to gain public support that they would not have had if they had gone quietly.
Good recognizing the futility of continuing to support Obama.
heya Anthony,
I mistakenly thought Larue was asking who Paul Barrow was, and I went to go answer that question for myself. Found:
http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=28
So does NPA have contact or coordination with U.P.? Based on the diary here, it sure seems like the two groups have common cause …
Thanks Larue.
The timing suggests Paul wants to distract media attention from the April 5 elections in Wisconsin.
Everyone at FDL pretty much knew Obama was a Republican before the 2008 election.
I guess the Koch brothers have started a new strategy.
We do, vers. As Paul mentions in his diary, and as I detailed here, UP has taken a step toward joining the NPA, and is currently an observing member of the steering committee, which also includes Cindy Sheehan, Cornel West, Jill Stein, Richard Winger, Alan Maki, David Swanson, and Norman Bie.
The committee held its second meeting early this week. Another NPA Update will appear at MyFDL in a few days.
I’d suggest you – and Larue – do some research, Boo. Start here.
AN: Merci. I found the answer to my own q:
http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1090:united-progressives-joins-committee-seeking-candidates-to-oppose-obama&catid=25:policy&Itemid=44
…but I appreciate your prompt reply. This is heartening news.
So L, you sorta have an answer now, and I do too. NPA is not UP, but they’re clearly allied, and UP is:
“A policy group … formed following the end of the 2008 Presidential bid of Dennis Kucinich by seven people from his campaign who sought ways to advance the objectives of progressives through alternative avenues.”
That’s pretty decent cred, IMHO. More than my jaded ass was expecting, anyway.
Lots of people are done with Obama. You are not the first and you will not be the last.
Anthony, I kick in $240/year to FDL.
How much do you contribute?
The battle is “on” here in Wisconsin and we have an April 5 election. The whole nation is watching turnout and results. Please provide a link where you and Paul have done anything concrete to support workers in Wisconsin.
Did you send any money?
Did you sign a petition?
Anything?
Show me something that shows you’re not funded by the Koch brothers.
The really late timing of the “Obama and Hillary were Republicans,” is a very serious concern. What took you so long?
Jane, Marcy, and others at FDL have earned our trust over the years in tough fights where Daily Kos and Moveon just caved.
Do you think labor is going to back you over a sitting President because of civil liberties?
Without the support of labor, how are you going to beat Barry in a primary?
From April 2010, his Dudeness using FDL real estate to help elect wingnut John Kasich Governor of Ohio
Not that it’s any of your business, Boo, but yes, I do give to FDL, sign petitions, etc. In point of fact, I gave more than you did last year. (I mean no offense- we all do what we can, and doing anything is admirable.)
FDL gave the NPA a place to grow, which you’ve apparently forgotten, or were unaware of. But you can look at the links above and perhaps you’ll remember or become aware. (Back then I was posting as themalcontent, which I still do on occasion.) In case you need it, here’s another one.
The notion that I or the NPA or the Greens or Cindy Sheehan are funded by the Koch Brothers is as ludicrous as clinging to the lesser-of-two-evil, two-party paradigm in hopes that continuing to do the same thing for the next 40 years will somehow produce different results than hve been produced by doing for the last 40. Psychologists have a word for that, Boo, and it’s not a pretty one.
Do a little reading – and thinking. It just might wake you up.
Boo -
Your comment is irrelevant, and uncalled for.
This blog is about ideas. If you want to have a dick-measuring contest, find yourself a schoolyard.
Uh…no.
I don’t get the hate. I don’t get the guilty until proven innocent attitude.
Unless … it’s all coming from some Nader-killed-Gore theory.
Unless … it’s all coming from a place that says: If you don’t support the Dem, no matter how bad the Dem, the Imperial Walker is all your fault, and you must be some kind of Koch astroturfer.
If that’s what’s motivating the vitriol, well–that’s damn sad.
Obama/Microsoft Illegal Campaign Contributions 2008
http://my.firedoglake.com/expotera/2011/03/24/obamamicrosoft-illegal-campaign-contributions-2008/
Yet another diary about working within the wholly owned and corrupted electoral system as an avenue for change. It is so disheartening. Is no one into reality anymore? Are we really going to stick our heads in the sand like this? Is it ignorance or fear or stupidity or what? Whatever the reason, it manifests as Einstein’s definition of insanity actually and it scares the shit out of me. The group of average left leaning people who should be truly pragmatic and realistic it appears are going to continue down the same losing path because they simply are unwilling to admit where we are – what situation we are truly facing.
I just don’t know what to do anymore. If relatively intelligent, socially and politically aware, left-leaning citizen activists are going to continue engaging in the electoral system as the primary action to bring about change, well, then we are well and truly screwed. Do people not realize that? Will there ever be a point where the electoral warriors take responsibility for not at least attempting to take sufficient action?
Every new diary like this just makes me sick inside. I thought we were smarter than this. Willing to face reality… I just don’t get it.
This isn’t serious argumentation. Exercising your rhetorical excess may be of some comfort, but it’s not an argument. If you want to make a point, you might go into some detail about what non-electoral activity might be more effective.
But then we might be in a position to evaluate YOU.
It isn’t serious argumentation because I don’t even need to make an argument for electoral warriors to be wrong. They just are wrong. It should be self-evident. It’s called opening ones eyes and looking around. And YOU might want to read my previous submissions if YOU actually give a crap. Somehow I doubt that. I have made making THE argument for years. I am frickin worn out. Not every one of my posts here is going to be yet another explanation for the less intellectually sound.
Sez you.
That’s exactly where it comes from, vers, with an unfortunate dash, I believe, of real faith on the part of some that Dems at the national level have NOT lost their way; have NOT forsaken their core beliefs; have not decided that the very best they can do is slow – rather than reverse – this country’s march toward fascism. (Although the steps of this administration point not so much toward slowing as expediting.)
Many lifelong Dems are not so much complicit in the Party’s sellout as they are in denial – refusing to believe that the deal has already gone down. On a certain level I get that; any lifelong Dems are “local” Dems who work hard on what are considered, within their local area, to be highly Progressive initiatives. And they have success – because at the local level, the sort of name-calling and accusatory bullshit demonstrated in some of the comments here just don’t happen. When you’re sitting across the City Council dias from people whose vote you need to get your initiative passed, that kind of crap is beyond the pale, and its absence is a big part of the reason that Progressive initiatives are not only be heard but often enacted at the local level.
Some think change will only come by “bubbling up” from city-, county-, and state-level Progressive work. And I agree that these need to be pushed. But the fact is that, beyond the county level, the Democratic Party heirarchy sits up and takes notice of “threats” to its organization. Try running as a Democrat at the state level ona strongly Progressive platform. No problem. But then try LEGISLATING on that platform. The first people in the legislative leadership to lasso you will NOT be from the other party. They’ll be Democrats.
This is exactly what happens with the primary process, and that’s why the NPA is focused on changing the “accepted” practice of “throwing support” to the incumbent after losing a challenge. Countless movements – on both the Left and Right – have been co-opted into oblivion by this big-party “tradition,” and we need to recognize it for the co-option tool it is – and stop acceding to it.
Obama can be beat in the primaries, and he rightfully should be.
How? the last primary challenge to a Democratic President was Teddy Kennedy’s challenge to Jimmy Carter. Carter won the nomination. There is no reason to suppose that Obama, who does not have hostages or 21% interest rates, has anything like Carter’s political problems.
Who could challenge him? It would be political suicide.
We should be working on supporting solidarity movement in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan and let the Presidential take care of itself.
We need to oppose the Uniparty. That means taking the fight to Obama in the general election, NOT in the primaries.
Ah yes, compartmentalization, the key tactic of all ‘pragmatists’.
I agree with you about Obama, Paul Barrow. However, some people claim it’s our whole system, which there’s an element of truth to, but, if that really be the case, Obama is just as much a product of this whole broken system as any of his predecessors.
Despite the appearance of contradicting myself, I like blink’s comments and agree with him in certain respects. In essence it is the foundation of United Progressives. The need to challenge the “uniparty” system is everywhere apparent, but it is also defined by a need to abandon electoral politics all together. We need direct democracy, which will get rid of political parties, lobbying, and all the corruption associated with this system. United Progressives is in this as an observer, however, because we don’t endorse candidates unless we have an endorsement from them for the principled stand that we take in our platform. Also, there isn’t a sufficient movement to do what you would like, blink, which, in fact, isn’t clear at all. I don’t know what you would have us do. We believe in attacking all fronts in this war against corporate feudalism. Third parties are simply going to fail, and if and when they might win, they will go down the same road because there is nothing in place to stop them. Money talks, bullshit walks. United Progressives does not endorse candidates, and our sole mission is to unite people just like you who believe that it’s time for some real change. But we cannot do it without persuading all these Obamabots to give up, just as you have, and begin seeing that we need something far greater in terms of change. We need negotiating power, a power that comes through unity. We need the ability to walk away from government, just as unions can walk away from their employers and shut them down. We need a revolution not only in government but in the minds of the American people. That’s not going to come until there’s been convincing evidence apparent to everyone on the most superficial level that we have no hope in salvaging anything from electoral politics and need an entirely new structure. We do have some hope in the labor movement, because a general strike, which I’m very deeply involved in developing in the long term, would be key to shutting this country down. Again, it’s not going to happen any time soon. I leave you with that. I’m over my head in other obligations, but it’s worth contemplating and discussing.
Yeah…
Perfectly put, Paul. Would-be change agents must recognize that, corrupt and broken as it may be, the electoral process is still where the vast majority of Americans enter – and just as quickly exit – the political process. They “do their duty” once every four years and then forget about it – a fact which is easily loston political activists, who are “dialed in” constantly.
Until activists are willing to capitalize on the attention which most Americans pay to the electoral process – essentially to leverage it in waking people up – getting the numbers needed to affect real change will continue to be a generational process.
A general strike holds the same possibility, and I applaud the work you are doing in this regard. I’m sure many readers here would like to know more.
This is a great video to share on Obama: http://metanoia-films.org/compilations.php
I don’t know what the cheerleaders (fools) over at the DailyKos think that they’re getting. It certaintly isn’t progressive policies, and it certainly is not a new direction in Foreign policy.
It is quite clear, that there is absolutely no difference between hideous tyranny and treachery of Barack Obama and the hideous tyranny and treachery of Dick Cheney’s Foreign Policy. Obama has aggressively enlarged upon, or happily continued and embraced every illegal and barbaric thing that Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld-Gates did. If fact, they are his role models.
We live in a World that is a house of mirrors where this Warmonger and War Criminal protecter is awarded the “Nobel Peace Prize” (even as he defends the corrupt and insane concept of aggressive, preemptive mass-violence), and Whistleblowers are criminalized. Barack Obama.
I recommended this Diary, because it is long past the the time when The Left and The Middle needs to stand up and reject this Neocon Warmongering WallStreet imposter, and urge all Democrats, and the Democratic Base to give up on this fraudulent man, and embrace a Primary challenge 100%.
Until we actually do this, progressives will continue to have no voice in politics.
Some of us may recall the Wobblies (IWW — Industrial Workers of the World), which came into existence in 1905. They fought many a heroic fight, won a good many. But they believed that while they would achieve gains, signing a contract was an endorsement of the wage system. As the movement advanced, they were moderately successful. But in hard times, the bosses were able to take away their gains, and in the absence of a contract, that was rather easy.
The sellout unions of the AFL and others, by signing contracts, were better able to defend their gains in hard times.
The relevance of this, you may ask? We are in an ass-backwards situation regarding electoral politics. In Europe, the political parties were an extension of the union movement. In the U.S., no such relationship exists. We are trying — and I see no alternative to biting this bullet — to build movement through the electoral process, and off of that, build a broader movement.
The way it should work is that the movement should be fighting directly for justice on all fronts, against cutbacks, for BDS, for peace, etc., with elections as a way to seal the deal. To eschew elections would be to make the same mistake the IWW made in eschewing contracts.
But what has to be re-established is that correct relationship between movement and elections. Starting from a position where it is backwards. Awkward. But that’s where things are at.
Paul, here is a very quick and basic idea (that I posted on another thread) that is the type of thinking we, as a “community,” need to be considering. We don’t live in a functioning democracy and, as such, cannot afford to act as if we do. Our first thought should be significant systemic changes to the electoral system. Given the current state of the system, there is really only one way to achieve those changes.
1. Readers of the major influential left-leaning netroots blogs and organizations abandon the one war party electoral process altogether. Ignore the politicians and their media lapdogs. Stop talking about them. Stop writing diaries about them. Stop getting caught up in the vicious outrage-of-the-day cycle. If an election happens to come along during the following process and individuals want to vote, use that vote to send a message by voting for anti-establishment third party candidates ONLY.
2. Commit to challenging the site owners/operators of these left-leaning blog sites and organizations to use their sites for the sole purpose of coordinating discussions about needed changes to our electoral system.
3. Begin that process of deliberating on and hashing out precisely what changes need to be made. Encourage diarists to tackle and write about a change they think needs to be included and why. What the change will accomplish etc. Have the rest of the community review, weigh the worth of, debate, revise, come to a consensus on or vote on, etc.
———————————————-
Beginning with step 2, actively work to build up the movement. Go to Libertarian blogs and invite them to participate. Get the Ron Paul folks involved if possible. Contact the Unions. Contact any non fascist organization you can think of. Remember this is not about wedge issues. This is about changes to the electoral system in order to put the power in the hands of the people. The American citizenry. And anyone should be welcome to participate. Presented correctly, all but the most hardcore idiotic wingnuts should WANT to participate.
———————————————-
4. Do this over the course of what? Six months? A year? And come up with a solid, working list of necessary changes to the electoral system that we believe will ultimately marginalize the big money influence of the corporatist oligarchy.
5. Take that list and use the abilities of the many lawyers and political law junkies we have within the community to fashion those demands into potential legislation. Set up donation funds if need be to support the bill writing experts while they work.
6. During step 4 and throughout the process of step 5, also begin the process of discussing and coordinating what forms of direct action and civil disobedience that will be engaged in for the upcoming battle to have the list of changes committed to law.
7. Once the legislation writing process is complete and the potential law has been vetted and we have come up with a solid plan of coordinated acts of civil disobedience and direct action ready to go, send copies to every major news outlet we can think of along with a letter stating our case, the need for these changes, etc. Send copies to the prospective law to every member of congress. In short, let the nation and the world know we are coming. Let congress know that we expect the bill(s) to be implemented without changes and we are willing to be significantly disruptive until they are.
From there it is just a question of drumming up and maintaining enough support – and real action tends to have that effect, people will buy in and join the cause once they see that it is truly about taking the power away from the corporatist oligarchs.- and having the fortitude to sustain massive acts of direct action and civil disobedience.
Allow me to pose this question broadly, rather than getting into minutiae.
I fear that the way the NPA is approaching 2012 is too much of a one-shot. We may pull some Democrats independent, and that is all to the good. But given the state of Dump Obama forces and the diminishing timeframe, I think we are most likely only laying the foundations for an inside/outside tactic, not concluding it.
In other words, our pulling power is limited. So what happens with the millions of progressives who are not persuaded to go independent? Are they then relegated to the realm of sellouts? If not, what structure will be permanently ensconced within the Democratic Party to continue to drive the wedge between the Dem leadership and the progressive base?
I fear that requiring the NPA primary candidate to pledge not to endorse the ultimate Dem winner will chop off at best a very narrow slice before this has really played out.
I have fundamental disagreements with you. That said, your willingness to outline a plan of action makes you a standout regarding method.
And developing our method is more important, at this point, than our conclusions. In other words, to critique your comment, we would have to come up with a counter-plan.
You’ve made your fears clear enough, Jeff. I don’t assign to them same importance you do, no offense intended.
I think what matters is building the movement to which you refer in another comment on this same thread:
It echoes my belief that the hoopla around elections, for better or worse, remains the best opportunity to siphon the greatest number of people to a UNIFIED Progressive cause. Your question about “what happens to the millions of progressives [withing the Dem Party] who are not persuaded to go independent” is, to my mind at least, self-answering. Progressives who are not persuaded to go independent are not Progressives. They are Democrats, and it’s high time to draw clear distinctions between the two.
The point of the NPA is straightforward: To unify Progressives of every stripe – Socialists, Greens, Independents, Libertarians, erstwhile Democrats – around issues all can support. Like Richard Winger, many Libertarians (for example) can’t get behind a Progressive economic model; but they can support Peace, Pot, and Personal Freedom (to quote Norman Bie, who posts here as normanb).
So if the goal – IF the goal – is to get more choices on the ballot, building an alliance of those who support that makes sense.
I also hear blair’s frustration over the electoral process. Similar frustration led me to be a staunch non-voter for much of my life. And while I don’t disagree with any of his ideas per se, there are realities within them that I don’t think he has fully considered. For example, his call to challenge the owners of Lefty blogs. Rusty – and now, apparently, Mike Kwiatkowski – found out but quick what happens to people who do that. The same for blair’s entreaty to “actively work to build up the movement” and his suggestions for doing so. It sounds so simple, but it’s far easier said than done. Union leadership is solidly Democratic and there is little chance that will change anytime soon. Labor leaders like Alan Maki, on the other hand, are wired into the rank and file and can have an impact, and that’s where it matters. Libertarians who follow either of the Pauls are not Libertarians, they are Republicans in Libertarian clothing (read: UniPartiers).
One reason I’ve focused on the NPA Steering Committee these last few months is that people take notice when people of note throw their weight behind an effort. Dichotomous though it sounds, the way to get beyond identity politics is by pulling together people identified with – and committed to – that objective, because, for better or worse, humans follow a herd mentality: I’ll do it when I see others are doing it.
So personally, I really don’t care about permanently ensconscing a structure within the Dem Party to drive the wedge you speak of, and a big reason is that the Party’s “progressive” base – and by that I mean people committed enough to truly Progressive initiatives that they will not accept compromises which render those initiatives impotent, people who will stick to their guns and buck the Party establishment – at this point, in the Democratic Party, that “progressive base” is mostly imaginary. It exists in far smaller numbers than most want to believe. If it existed in the numbers they imagie, ask yourself: Would we be where we are now? If it existed in large numbers, would Rahm Emanuel have gotten away with – let alone even thought about making – his infamous comments about it? That he did, without impunity, speaks volumes about The Democratic Party Leadership at the national level and how well it understands its membership.
In short, we need to siphon off the people who Barack Obama fooled into thinking he was a Progressive, the people who gave him his margi of victory. They were mostly independents in terms of party registration. The rest we’re better off without. For the few registered Dems who actually do support a doggedly Progressive agenda, the NPA will be a place where they can find a new home, with one of a host of orgs.
You’ve articulated my own opinions better than I ever could, and thanks for that.
The “Republicans versus Democrat” camouflage for what is really an immediately necessary showdown between the people versus “the system” must be accepted for what it is. A sideshow. A distraction.
Primarying Obama is irrelevant because the DNC isn’t fighting for progressive issues or candidates any more than Obama. And Obama has got to go. We don’t have time to risk another term on such a proven empty suit. An electable, viable, independent candidate is the only possible way to get, and keep, some progressive agenda on the table for the 2012 election and act as a very real “wedge” (as you call it). But the leader of this independant movement has to emerge him or herself and volunteer VERY PUBLICLY to take on the formidable task of re-branding the words “liberal” and “progressive” according to their respective dictionary definitions. He or she MUST show undeniable cajones, regardless of gender, because who’d have thought two and a half years ago that Obama was such a eunich?
I think the issues are becoming clear. The fundamental point we disagree on is here:
I identify progressives as those who are anti-war, pro-civil liberties, pro-safety net, etc., in other words, those who would agree with the NPA’s 5 topics. I do not consider party affiliation or non-affiliation as a litmus at this point.
Since we have some leeway in choosing our definitions, I don’t think this gap will be bridged. You state:
People move in different ways. Organizations operate in different ways. So to your final question, would we be where we are now, I’d say yes. A minority of people, such as the two of us, are ideologically driven. Being in the minority doesn’t faze us. But most people are not.
As you put it, “I’ll do it when I see others are doing it.” In the absence of coherent organization, most people will not be able to move in the absence of the perception that their action will have tangible effect. Thus, to my perception, the NPA is growing in 1′s and 2′s, but is not any kind of mass organization. Small ideologically driven organizations can have important roles to play, especially if they can operate in the context of independent mass organizations.
At this point, I don’t believe those independent mass organizations exist. The Democratic Party umbrella has smothered the existing organizations, and the new ones are only at the very earliest stages of being born. I would try to have the NPA build links — if not create — those seminal mass organizations.
A common left error is to try to be both a tight leadership organization and a mass organization. The result is a sectarianism that prevents becoming a mass organization, and a strategic fuzziness (in the name of mass appeal) that precludes providing effective leadership.
Thus I remain true to my original vision, the creation of an alliance between progressive independents and progressive independents.
One of my fears regarding the NPA is that — while professing a 2-track tactic of opposing Obama in the primaries and then running independent in the generals — it would end up short-changing the primary track.
That seems to be what is happening.
Anthony/aka malcontent,
Yeah, after my comment I saw the positive comments DDay had for Progressive United. Was that planned to be the inverse of Feingold’s group? What a cluster.
This is what I told you last year.
In Wisconsin, you start in Madison/Dane County. You start with Tammy Baldwin.
That is the most liberal voting block in Wisconsin. Google Baldwin’s orientation, because it’s extremely relevant to that base.
You primary Baldwin with (iirc) her votes on funding the wars and destroying the public option. That won’t be easy as the Progressive Caucus is very careful to take turns caving in.
Despite that, Madison is a college town with a very educated electorate. It’s a primary that will get some serious juice in Madison/Dane County. You can get media attention.
You need to check on re-districting in Wisconsin. I’m not sure how that will impact the 2nd District (Baldwin’s).
I know of no reason why you would want to start nationally. Except for the pro-union sentences at the bottom, you’re almost indistinguishable from the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers/Dick Armey are not above funding a pretend to be mildly pro-union group.
Learn from what Bart Stupak did on Obama Care. At a critical moment in the health care negotiations a concentrated force of 10 anti-choice reps in the House got Barry to strike the Hyde Amendment. Huge win for Roman Catholic Church and the wingnuts.
That should be your goal. Get ten really heave Dem leaning districts to demand accountability from their rep in the House.
As much as I agree with the criticism of Barry, all it does on a national in such an un-nuanced and broad brush is further isolate African-Americans. Suppressing the African-American vote is a wet-dream of the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. Don’t help them. The President has a cabinet. You can criticize them too. Eric Holder is AG. You can criticize him.
I’m not saying you can’t ever rip Barry, you can. Many in the AA community rip him. You, however, need to understand who you need to win elections. That starts with unions and people who aren’t 100% European-American.
The first person I heard mention this strategy was selise and it was years ago. She wanted to start with the heavy D districts in the north east. That’s another target-rich environment for the Dems who have done the most damage. I’m unfamiliar with the localities and you need people on the ground who understand voting trends down to the level of the PRECINCT. Google on “Precint captain.” That’s where you need to start.
I think there’s actually significant overlap between tea-baggers and libs. A lot of teabaggers are just too effing dumb, but some are just poor and uneducated.
You do the Koch brothers and Dick Armey a huge favor when you criticize Barry without mentioning that he’s bought and paid for by the top 2%.
I don’t know sh*t about messaging, but I appear to know more than you. These are the kinds of points you want hit, really hard.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, who endorsed Scott Walker for Governor, agrees with Michael Moore: The wealthiest 400 Americans own more than 50% of Americans combined
Corporate Welfare
I think the socializing risk onto the taxpayers is huge.
Nuclear risk socialized; profit privatized, report says
It happens any many, many areas (start with Wall Street), but the article above does a nice job.
Apple reveals Chinese child-labor at Suppliers
The top 2% have gotten rich by exploiting the absence of unions in foreign countries and then they launder those profits back into the US electoral system through among other entitites the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Rewrite:
“As much as I agree with the criticism of Barry, all it does on a national [STAGE] in such an un-nuanced and broad brush is further isolate African-Americans.”
Anthony,
If you want to beat the Koch brothers, Dick Armey, and the top 2%, you have to figure out ways to unify the bottom 98%. The African-American community is a critical (and very undereducated) voting block.
Again, I’m not saying you can’t ever rip Barry. He’s earned it, not question.
But if you want to run a NATIONAL campaign a significant segment of African-Americans will lump you in with all the other white-supremacists.
I understand that’s not fair, but that’s the reality.
Again, I’m the furthest thing from an expert, but I have heard good things about Van Jones. He’s green and he’s not 100% European American. And Barry fired him.
He might be a great place to start if you could get him as a candidate in a House race.
OT, another nice populist talking point is tax breaks for everyone making less than $250,000/year.
Why did Paul not mention in his post that in the Eisenhower administration, the top federal tax bracket was north of 90%?
That illustrates the problem with the top federal tax bracket being at 35% since 2002.
Why did Paul not mention that capital gains are taxed at 15%
Why did Paul not mention the tax revenues that could be gained from legalizing mariujana? It’s a better use of the law enforcement dollar and it defunds the drug cartels.
Another important talking point to hit:
“Republicans block ending offshore jobs tax breaks”
If you go after Tammy Baldwin, and I really hope you do, you’re in Big Ag country. You can go after corporate welfare, but in Wisconsin, in 2011, afaik, you can’t go after Big Ag.
Edit:
“That should be your goal. Get ten really heave Dem leaning districts to demand accountability from their rep in the House.”
Should’ve been
That could be your 2012 goal. Get ten really heavy Dem leaning districts to enforce accountability from their rep in the House. Then, expand from that base. That requires tough primaries FROM THE LEFT in those districts. Against Baldwin, it will hurt you if you cannot get an openly glbt opponent to run against her.
Exactly! The SYSTEM is the problem. Until the left recognizes this and congeals around some kind of alternative SYSTEM we won’t have a fighting chance, because we won’t have something to fight for with enough ideological strength, conviction and mobilizing power as the right-wingers can muster. We need people on the left to start thinking “big picture” again. That doesn’t necessarily mean we all need to become communists, or black panthers, or socialists or whatnot. But it does mean that we have some real theoretical work to do to decide how we would organize the system if we were in charge, and then fight to replace the current system with a new one.
Yipes, I think you mean “an alliance between progressive independents and progressive Democrats”.
Rather than arguing the pros and cons of whether or not one can be a progressive Democrat or not, why not query members of the Progressive Democrats of America as to their openess to throwing some Democrats under the bus (in favor of an NPA candidate), and what reasons those PDA members who would never do that, give for their convictions. I don’t think making judgements about large numbers of people is generally a good idea, much less without doing any homework.
IMO, the PDA is not aggressive enough. Meaning, they’re not eager enough to throw non-Progressive Dems under the bus, regardless of what the Dem party thinks, and whether or not it makes their inside-outside approach more difficult. OTOH, I don’t see any loyalty test to the Democratic Party required, and the local chapters are basically autonomous. Implying, I believe, that a local chapter might well decide to throw a Democrat under the bus.
Here a link to their chapters.
Obama is not a eunuch, he was and is the Trojan Horse. He and both parties have become con artists. I keep wondering why Madoff is in jail?
I don’t have a link to the taxbreaks during the Eisenhower administration. You should have one.
Dean Baker, Ph.D. has written frequently about a financial transactions tax. When you bomb Barry without mentioning Wall Street, what the hell good are you doing?
A lot of the wingnuts hate Wall Street more than they hate the unions.
If you know what you’re doing, with certain demographics, you can use the rhetoric of the “deficit hawks,” against them. Deficit means RAISE taxes on the top 2%, not me, not my physician, not my lawyer.
My comment about about “under-educated” African Americans was wrong and incomplete. Large segments of African-Americans are “under-educated,” because of the legacy of legalized white supremacy.
Based on everything I’ve heard, the machinery of finding a QUALIFIED candidate and filing the paperwork to run in a Dem primary in a heavy Dem district is infinitely easier than running as an independent. In swing districts, both parties will throw up legal impediments to your candidate and starve your access to media. In districts that lean heavily in one direction, the dominant party will do the same.
How can one find information on NPA? I know about UP and I’m not impressed. Someone mention the Perot Reform Party in another thread.
But if you want to run a NATIONAL campaign a significant segment of “African-Americans will lump you in with all the other white-supremacists.
I understand that’s not fair, but that’s the reality.
Again, I’m the furthest thing from an expert, but I have heard good things about Van Jones. He’s green and he’s not 100% European American. And Barry fired him.”
yes, it sounds bad to say it, but if you’re going to primary Obama it is absolutely imperative that the candidate you are running against him is NOT WHITE. Running a white candidate would exascerbate tensions on the left and possibly rip the left apart for a generation.
However, I don’t think the candidate necessarily needs to be black. A latino/a candidate could mobilize large groups of voters in key southwestern primary states and could still avoid the pitfalls of running a white leftist candidate against our first black president…
Q: Who would challenge him?
A: We’re waiting for someone to step up: Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, someone!!!
I’d vote for Ron Paul long before I’d vote for Barack Obama. At least Ron Paul wants to end NAFTA, end the Wars, cut the Military & CIA, not get us involved in new Wars, audit the crooked Central Bank Monopoly (looters), bring the troops home, stop wasting Trillions of dollars overseas, end the “drug war”, restore human rights and civil liberties. That alone is far better than Obama will ever do.
But forget the Jimmy Carter – Ted Kennedy analogy. Carter would have won the Election anyway had: 1) Ted Koppel not created a new daily TV program spotlighting this small hostage “crisis” and blaming Carter for it. During Carter’s Presidency there were no Wars, no mass-violence, no illegal “regime change”, and we respected by other Nations (unlike today), 2) Dirty Tricks by George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and the CIA to arrange to hold up the release of the hostages until after the Election also played a major factor, 3) Finally, Carter really won his debate with Reagan on the substance, but it was the political theater of Reagan looking sunny and charming, and Carter looking dour and scowling that made people instinctly move towards Reagan at the 11th hour. Carter knew enough to smile a whole lot in 1976, but he forgot about how much appearances matter in 1980.
None this should ever prevent a Primary challenge from happening. Thanks to the challenge by Eugene McCarthy, Lyndon Johnson decided he didn’t even want a second term, and Robert Kennedy finally became emboldened enough to enter the race. Robert Kennedy would have won the Presidency in 1968, and this whole screwed-up Country would be much, much different had he not been led by people who were not his security team into that kitchen pantry.
Had it not been for murder (CIA), 1968 would have demonstrated the power of the grassroots challenging the incumbant Democrat. So yes we need to keep on doing this until we win.
Staying silent will only make them ingore us all the more, lie to us all the more, and screw the middle-class all the more.
Oppose all status-quo politicians, in each and every election cycle.
A left-right fusion ticket running on a limited “structural reform only” platform is the only way.
But that would require 33%+1 of American voters to be actual grown-ups.
We have maybe what, 20%?
Correction – I know about Progressives United and I’m not impressed. I just started looking at the United Progressive site. So I don’t need a response to my comment above.
Your NPA needs to take into account the down-ballot, particularly at the Gubernatorial level… right now we have a situation in New York with a Governor who is about as corporate, anti-union a “democrat” as you can get. His second in command is the former mayor of my city. We just had a special election here, and his successor (a man who made millions selling the local utility company)won election as mayor for one reason: the Working Families Party and the Green Party ran seperate candidates. Had they united, and run one candidate, we would have a progressive as mayor instead of a sleazeball. New York has a variety of active left wing parties, and if the NPA could work to unite them all, we could do some real damage in local and state elections here. I’m sure the situation is similar in many states. Build this party as a way to consolidate the real progressives in this country and unite them in common cause, and you will have a force to be reckoned with. Focus narrowly on Obama and others at the very top, and you may make headlines in one election cycle, but you won’t damage the oppressive system one bit.
Oy vey! Thank you metamars, quite correct.
Though thinking on it, what I wrote might also be a step forward. :>)
You’re welcome.
I took my own advice, in the interim, and just called one of the PDA contacts for Monmouth County, in NJ.
The impression that I got was that this contact always votes Dem, but didn’t seem dead set against voting against a Dem, ever. I also got the impression that he had not given the proposition any thought, previous to my call. I persevered and asked him about other PDA members, in general. He said that they were “all over the place”, with some who would never vote against a Democrat, but others who would.
As somebody with a degree in mathematics, I can’t see leaving potential allies on the table….
It just doesn’t add up.
People regularly conflate Democratic Party leadership with the DP base, but isn’t it also a logical error and strategic mistake to consider the base – or even the self-avowedly progressive portion of the DP base – as not progressive enough to work with?
“But that would require 33%+1 of American voters to be actual grown-ups.”
You’re making the same mistake as people who are too down on progressives for not voting the ‘correct’ way, perhaps ascribing this to their “lack of morality”. People make decisions based on dealing with what’s available to them, semi-rational cost-benefit analyses, etc. They’re actually trying to do the best that they think they can, within the limits of how much effort they’re willing to give as public citizen. (Which typically is not that much, to be sure.)
If there was already a well developed, trustworthy “left-right fusion ticket” infrastructure in place, you might easily get significantly more than 33% voting for it. Right now, I hear almost nothing in the vein.
Gary Null, of the progressiveradionetwork.com, did make some noise, recently, about creating a “Green Tea Party”. Not sure if he’ll seriously push it, though.
Hi bobthecat. Info on the NPA is here.
The 2012 election – specifically, the primary – is just one step in a multi=step process, and I recognize it as such: An opportunity to reach Americans when they are paying attention to politics. Down-ballot is not even on my radar screen at this point because I’m interested in getting the NPA a foothold as a grouping of national progressive orgs that will survive and influence elections long after 2012.
That said, the NPA is seeking State Founders to help with building awareness on the ground in each state – and with ballot access, since the requirements are different in each state.
Volunteers are always welcome; write admin@themalcontent.com.
I think you have to figure you won’t win the first election. The challenge is to build a movement that can survive a loss and build momentum for the second election and the third election. This isn’t a battle. It’s a war. It’s going to require both short term tactics and long term strategy. That’s how the the right took over and it’s going to take that kind of sustained effort from the left. It needs to be broad based. It needs to focus on middle class issues like jobs, labor whatever you want to call that and bring in other constituencies to reinforce the core.
I’d say a new labor movement is the way to go. We’ve got a lot of labor folks energized. They know it’s a long game. They’ve been neglected by the establishment for decades. Build around them.
The Steering Committee is one component in getting there.
As to the whole “who’s a progressive” thing, I’m stating the reality, not trying to judge people’s POV. My statement regarding who supplied Obama’s margin of victory is supported by numerous post-election analyses. It was Independents, who responded to his Progressive rhetoric.
The simple fact is that, at crunch time – election day – most longtime Dems are not going to abandon the Party, b/c they have bought into the Party propaganda that overflows their mailbox in the weeks leading up to the election. Certainly, there are those who will bolt – great, God bless ‘em, welcome aboard.
But in-depth analysis of the 2008 election has shown that Independent Progressives are the ones who put Barry over the top, and their numbers were substantial enough to suggest that there are many more who saw through him, stayed home, and would come out to support a true Progressive in a heartbeat.
Obama short-circuited the impending protest of perhaps the only remaining true prog the Dems had – Kucinich – during the health care vote. It’s what the Party does, and they’ve become very good at it. If they can do it to Kucinich, who is paying attention day in and day out, doing it to rank and file voters in sufficient numbers when it matters – election day – is like falling off a long. Before Dems frustrated with the difference between what they think they are voting for and what they actually get will consider bolting, they need something to bolt to, because they are joiners by nature – otherwise they’d have never joined the Democratic – or any other – party.
That’s why I’m focused on making the NPA a grouping of progressive orgs, a “place.” The propensity of the Left to convene the circular shooting squad is legend, and uniting Progressive orgs will go a long way in overcoming it. Creating an umbrella that welcomes true, homeless Progs and members of established Prog orgs alike is what the NPA must be about at this stage, IMO.
A longer-term goal of mine is for the NPA to have a vetting arm which looks critically at each would-be Progressive candidate and rates them against a set of metrics, not unlike the way Consumer Reports magazine operates. No money from campaigns; a member-supported clearinghouse of who’s for real and who’s a poseur.
I agree with the national focus. The NPA concept is somewhat new. Going local from the git-go would leave it buried. There is not local critical mass to sustain local efforts. Create a visible presence first.
My question regarding your steering committee members, however, is to what extent do they represent their respective organizations, let alone have the capacity to mobilize them?
This does seem to confirm that the NPA is skewing heavily to the independent side of inside/outside. Doesn’t mean that it’s not worthwhile, but the inside work remains to be done.
Agree greenbell, labor is huge and I see zero chance that they will turn on Obama. They have too much to lose.
Their capacity to mobilize members is beyond question, but getting to that stage doesn’t happen overnight. All, however, see the value in unifying the various progressive groups, so getting them (and others) on the committee was a critical first step.
Like what, Boo? EFCA? Oh, right, they didn’t get that. Collective bargaining? Oh, never mind, they’re losing that, too…
Joking aside, I agree that labor leaders won’t abandon the Dems. Rank and file union members are another story, however.
Do you have link to DDay’s piece? Progressives United IS Feingold’s org. United Progressives is Paul Barrow’s (the author of this diary).
The inside work is under way. The first letter to the top potential challenger voted here at MyFDL last fall – Elizabeth Warren – is going out in a few days.
Remains to be seen.
I didn’t say the inside part is non-existent. Just short-changed.
I’ve had enough since the Summer of 2009. However, we need not only to beat Obama, but the whole raft of corrupt politicians in the House and the Senate, since if we don’t do that even a President who sides with the people will be frustrated at every term. We (people who want a second New Deal in America) have a long road ahead of us.
“who’d have thought two and a half years ago that Obama was such a eunich?”
Ahem: me! Not to brag or anything, but it was clear to me in 2008 that Obama wanted to ingratiate himself with the military industrial complex and Wall Street. But he’s not a eunich. He’s fighting for what he truly believes in – big business and the military. He’s got brass balls in his fight for the interests of the top 5% of income earners.
I’ve noticed that *real* anti-Obama entries on this web site get removed. What gives? Does Obama have operatives putting pressure on Firedoglake to remove real and truthful anti-Obama entries? I would not be surprised. (Just as high-profile commentators sometimes seem to suddenly become totally compromised and silent on real issues.) And this is not the first time. I saw two entries on Thursday–one regarding Obama’s directing his administration not to mention the negative consequences of a government shut down, and the other regarding Obama’s cowardice and silence on the Wisconsin fight to deny union collective bargaining rights. When I returned tonight to those entries, they were nowhere to be found, while other less interesting entries were still listed. This is not the first time anti-Obama entries have been removed. Can someone from the site explain??…?…?
“A longer-term goal of mine is for the NPA to have a vetting arm which looks critically at each would-be Progressive candidate and rates them against a set of metrics, not unlike the way Consumer Reports magazine operates. No money from campaigns; a member-supported clearinghouse of who’s for real and who’s a poseur.”
This could prove a very valuable way to get progressive Democrats to vote for NPA candidates, at least in selected races where there’s a strong difference in how the NPA and Democratic candidate ranked. Since incumbency is such a strong predictor of success, the rankings for Dem incumbents should be that much more solid, as they will have a track record.
The way this could work is that, instead of looking for full formal collaboration (which is what I think would be more effective, at least in the end), NPA could simply ask progressive Dems (e.g., via PDA chapter contacts across the country) for their opinions about the accuracy of the ratings for the Dems, as well as the ratings of the NPA candidates.
Hopefully, after a “getting to know you” period, PDA members would independently ask themselves the question as to whether or not it makes more sense to vote, in a given election, for the Dem candidate or the NPA candidate.
Eventually, after friendly interchanges are established, and there’s an election or two where it’s obvious to progressive Dems and progressive NPA’ers that they all lost out by splitting their votes, things could evolve to the point where they do as Tea Party factions decided to do. In one of the northern states, in 2010, there were (IIRC) 3 Tea Party factions, who each had a separate candidate. They split the Tea Party vote, and the mainstream GOP’er won. They’ve pledged to settle on a compromise candidate in 2012.
While I’d prefer it if progressives evolved as quickly as Tea Partiers, lacking that, it’d be desirable to establish conditions making positive evolution more likely.
With respect Jeff, if you are in the “bring about change via the electoral system” camp then it is impossible for you to offer a viable, workable, legitimate counter-plan. If the counter-plan has to do with working to change things by investing our time, effort and money in the wholly corrupted electoral system, it can’t possibly be worth doing, by definition.
Again, the thing that you all are going to have to accept is that, right now, we do not live in a functioning democracy and instead live under the inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy. Understanding that is actually a prerequisite to ever coming up with a workable plan for long term, positive change. Because, until “you” do – you who are currently in the majority and hold the belief that in engaging in the electoral system is somehow worthwhile – we can never get on the same page and “we” – those of us who are in the minority but also see things for what they are – will be yet again, by default, dragged along with you and your losing plan.
I am counting on you Jeff. I am counting on intelligent, socially and politically aware, left-leaning citizen activists to see and acknowledge the truth of the thing. We cannot count on any other group. Everyone else is going to have to be convinced and you can’t convince them by telling them to engage in something that does not work for them. That they already know, deep down, is fundamentally broken.
It won’t happen overnight, Jeff, but folks are working hard to involve their members.
This simply is not the case. A large and still growing number in the AA community are seeing Obama for what he is, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts. Check out the video Paul links to, in another comment on this thread.
“Inside work remains to be done,” is identical to saying it isn’t being done – not that it’s being “short changed.” That said, both assertions are incorrect. Both tracks are being pursued vigorously.
Allow me to concede you this, Tony. One can have unrealistic goals and expectations in many ways, one can make many tactical errors, and still be doing useful work in pursuit of them.
Sometimes you may think me a pain in the ass. But what you are attempting is conceptually head and shoulders above most of what is out there. What I perceive to be the flaws are thus more consequential, and that could be taken as a compliment.
Resolving a dispute “by definition” only works if you own the dictionary factory.
I argue that the path to change is not linear. Your arguments, by your logic, would have held as well for tsarist Russia. Yet the Bolsheviks advanced their cause by participation the the tsarist Duma. Left enough for you?
Revolutions have been advanced by all sorts of activities that were not directly and explicitly revolutionary. There are activities that disrupt bourgeois institutions. There are activities that build a power base that can be used in ways that were not written into the original program. Depends on how it’s done.
Personally, I would consider a key task to build mass organizations of the poor and unemployed and homeless. However, the left is neither bright enough or (more importantly) coherently organized enough to do that. So what’s a poor radical to do except to play in a rock and roll band?
We have to work with what we’ve got.
Just what do you mean by “real”? Is it the substance, or the vitriol? Please clarify.