Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Take Back America: 'This Is Our Time'
These are opening remarks at the fifth annual Take Back America Conference in Washington, a meeting of 3,000 leaders and activists from across the country and across the tribes of the progressive movement:
Five years ago, when we started this venture, Washington was occupied territory.
Tom DeLay in the House. Bill Frist in the Senate. Bush in the White House. Karl Rove in the cat-bird seat. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby at command central. Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location
We warned then that they would weaken America. And they did.
We pledged then that we would build an independent progressive movement to take back our country. And we did.
And now DeLay is gone. Frist is gone. Rove's lost his genius. Libby lost his case. He won't apologize, except to say, "Pardon me." Bush is still here, but so lame a duck that Republican presidential candidates avoid mentioning his name. And Cheney is so clearly divorced from reality that it may turn out that undisclosed location is simply the proverbial attic where they lock up the crazy relatives.
They are done. This is our time.
We meet at what I believe historians will mark as an historic turn. The conservative era that defined our politics for the last quarter century is at its end. The struggle for what comes next has now begun. That will be a fierce contest. This is our time—but only if we make it so.
Let me restate this. The right has failed. Their policies are bankrupt. Their political project has collapsed. They still dominate the Republican Party, but are well on their way to turning it into a minority, regional party of white exclusion.
Americans are looking for a new way forward. Progressives now must step up and champion a bold agenda for reform that meets the challenges that we face. Build an independent movement of increasing sophistication and capacity. Consolidate a new and enduring majority for change.
Let's look at each of these propositions in turn.
The right got it wrong. Over the past six years, conservatives have largely had their way—with catastrophic effect.
Iraq, Katrina, Enron, Terri Schaivo and stem cells, the assault on Social Security, growing inequality — each of the signature failures and follies of the Bush administration can be traced back directly to conservative ideas, and the ideologues and think tanks that championed them.
This is what educators call a teachable moment. But you have to teach it because you won't hear this from the right. They are too busy cutting and running from the Bush debacle. "Conservatives didn't lose in 2006," Newt Gringrich argues, "Republicans did." And they lost because they weren't conservative enough.
Ducking responsibility, Gingrich, in a sort of Winn Dixie takeoff of chairman Mao, offers the four "c"'s of conservative failure. A dearth of competence and candor. A surplus of corruption and consultants.
He's got a point. But characteristically, he has left out the biggest "c" of all: conception—or, rather, misconception.
Conservatives failed not simply because they are corrupt and incompetent — although they surely are. They failed because they get the world wrong.
With the wrong diagnosis, the medicine they prescribe is dangerous to our health. What we have here is a problem of false labeling — which is probably why they starve the FDA.
Here is a decent summary of the dial-tested, focus-grouped, message-massaged mantra of conservatives. Small government, lower taxes, strong military—you know the drill.
Sounds good in theory. But in actually existing conservatism — from Reagan through Bush — these attractive labels turn into a poisonous brew. Crippled government. Trickle-down economics. Growing individual risk and insecurity. Crony capitalism. A politics of division. Military adventure under an imperial president. And the results can be catastrophic.
Take Katrina. Conservatives famously scorn government. Here's Grover Marquis, the right-wing activist, hoping to drown it in the bathtub.
Before Bush even came into office, Heritage and other think tanks were railing at the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a bloated entitlement program. People who live in areas at risk should self-insure, they said. So they cut the budget, booted it out of the Cabinet, stocked it with cronies — you remember "great job, Brownie" — and stood by as the pros departed in dismay.
And when Katrina hit, the saints didn't come marching in. Only it wasn't government that drowned in the bathtub.
The right has failed not simply because they are corrupt and incompetent. They have failed because they get the world wrong.
Americans have had enough. Here are Bush's approval ratings. About where Nixon was when he resigned his office to avoid impeachment.
More than half the country says they've simply given up on the Bush presidency. Even more probably wish that Bush would give up on his presidency.
People get it. They know the wheels are coming off the trolley, as Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan put it, and the trolley is careening off the track. A stunning and record three out of four people say we are headed in the wrong direction. The right-direction people just won the lottery.
Americans are looking for a way forward — but they aren't simply neutral. They are moving our way.
On issue after issue, from the war in Iraq, to the need to address catastrophic climate change, to support for health care and education, to fair taxes — a majority of Americans stand with us.
This week, Media Matters for America joined with the Campaign for America's Future to publish a study — entitled "The Real America" — that challenges the convention wisdom that this a conservative country, using the most respected nonpartisan surveys to detail how progressive the views of most Americans really are.
And in 2006, these attitudes took political expression. The elections were a stunning repudiation of the right.
Democrats won up and down the ticket. They won majorities in the House and Senate, with a mandate to end the war, to clean out the corruption and challenge the failed economic policies.
And the new Congress has heard the message and started to repair the damage.
They passed the first legislation calling for withdrawing the troops on a date certain — which the president promptly vetoed. They passed the first raise of the minimum wage in a decade. They've added money for children's health care. They've made the first halting steps for lobby reform.
They're headed into battle over priorities, with Bush threatening to veto any increased investment in homeland security, children's health, education, affordable college, or renewable energy.
But repair is not enough. We need a broader lens, a larger vision and a greater willingness to fight. And to do that, we will need to break the conservative shackles on our imagination—and gird ourselves for far more fierce battles to come.
We have to put forth a bold agenda—a governing agenda—for America's future. This has many parts, but let me focus on just three.
We need a real security strategy that will defend our people, reflect our values and fit our pocketbook.
A first step must be to end the catastrophic occupation of Iraq. That won't be easy. America is only beginning to come to grips with a failed occupation. This next election will feature a fierce argument about Iraq.
But ending Iraq is not enough. The U.S. now polices the world, spending 45 percent of the world's military budget, with nearly 800 bases in over 100 countries.
As the new policy document released by the Institute for Policy Studies today argues, none of our emerging real security challenges—al-Qaida and stateless terror, catastrophic climate change, nuclear proliferation, global pandemics, failed states and mass desperation — has a military answer. Yet every major candidate in both parties for the presidency is committed to increasing spending on the military and expanding its ability to be places and do things. We must challenge the limits of this debate.
Second, we need a new agenda to insure that the global economy works for the many and not just the few.
We've passed the minimum wage. We're gearing up fights on paid sick days. Tomorrow we go to rally for the Employee Free Choice Act—essential if workers are to regain the right to organize and bargain collectively. This is the only mechanism that we've developed to insure that workers gain a fair share of the profits and productivity that they help to create. It is a critical reform if we are to sustain the broad middle class that is America's triumph.
But even this is not enough. We need a new strategy for this nation in the global economy. We're running up the largest trade deficits in the annals of time. We have an economy that is dependent on the kindness of strangers — primarily Chinese and Japanese central bankers. We've got a high-tech trade deficit with China, while our leading export to them is trash paper. This cannot be sustained.
Over the next months we must push for a central part of any new strategy — a concerted drive for energy independence, like that called for by the Apollo Alliance.
The transition to clean energy can be the largest jobs and growth program since the move to the suburbs after World War II.
Invest in conservation and alternative clean energy. Mobilize our science and technology, revitalize our industry, capture the growing green industries of the future, and unleash the imagination of the young. We will end our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, address catastrophic climate change, cut over 100 billion a year from our trade deficit, create some 3 million new jobs over 10 years and clean our air to boot.
Apollo will lay out its agenda at lunch today, and don't miss Van Jones on the potential for urban jobs on Wednesday. This is a future that we must capture.
Third, we must revive the American dream.
Corporations are now shredding the social contract that was the linchpin of the American dream—secure jobs that provided a family wage, health care, paid vacations, and pensions.
Soon one-quarter of all jobs will be contingent. Right now, fewer than 30 percent of young workers get any help for retirement from their employers. Older workers are stunned by broken promises on pensions; younger ones don't even get the promise.
Conservatives have a response. Education for your children? Here's a voucher to pay part of it. Health care? Here's an individual savings plan. Retirement? Another individual savings plan. You take the risk. You're on your own. Lots of luck.
We must sustain the American dream. We will begin with what will be a Titanic struggle to fix our broken health care system.
Already in this election, we have pushed candidates to lay out plans for affordable health care for all. But even that is not enough. In education, in pensions, in paid vacations, we must create a common-good agenda to supplant the broken private promises.
There is much more. A revitalized democracy. A transformed justice system. Revitalizing our cities. Investing in children. Revitalizing science. Strengthening worker, consumer and environmental protections.
None of this will be easy. The entrenched interests of the status quo are powerful and they know how to operate. Already, the price of Democratic lobbyists is on the rise.
You can't get to affordable health care without taking on the insurance and drug companies. You can't get to clean energy without facing off against big oil. You can't transform our economic strategy for Main Street without confronting Wall Street.
So we must build a movement that can transform the country.
What is exciting about this moment is that we are moving on up. Labor is here — with an expanded and aggressive education program that reaches into the households that constitute nearly 25 percent of all voters
MoveOn is here — with over 3 million members, with increasing sophistication and resources.
Americans United is here, anchored in USAction, ACORN, AFSME, SEIU and the Campaign for America's Future—and driving issues across the country.
Progressive bloggers are here—helping progressives capture the lead in the new media and confronting the right.
Progressive majority is here, electing progressive candidates from state and local offices across the country — the next generation of Paul Wellstones.
We're building a progressive infrastructure—still not as well funded as the right—but increasingly able to compete in the battle of ideas. The Center for American Progress is here, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Economic Policy Institute. Drinking Liberally is here, with more than 100 chapters across the country, a modern-day version of the tavern politics of our Founding Fathers.
And a new, enduring majority for progressive reform is within reach.
We can find economic common aground across racial battlegrounds. We can build a progressive coalition for change.
Labor households represent 25 of the electorate and vote 64-34 Democratic. Hispanics are the fastest rising part of the electorate and voted 69-20 Democratic. African Americans voted 89-10 Democratic. The young, 18 to 29, voted 60-38 Democratic and hope for the future. Single women — when they vote — are 66-32 Democratic. Independents in the last election voted 57-39 Democratic.
Now you and I know that voting for a Democrat is not necessarily the same as voting for a progressive. Joe Lieberman proved that. But increasingly progressives are driving the Democratic debate. We are setting the agenda. We are recruiting and identifying new candidates. We, to quote the Yankee philosopher Reggie Jackson, are "the stick that stirs the drink."
We can build a new majority coalition for progressive change. But we are not there yet. And we won't get there unless we stay on the move.
This is the time to unfurl our sails and ride with the current which is headed our way. This is not the time for timidity, for tacking to the elusive center, for trimming our sails or lowering our heads. This is a time to claim the future, to challenge the failures of the right, to chart a new direction.
Americans are ready. We have the opportunity. You have the power. We must feel, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, the fierce urgency of now.
We have done this against great odds before. Our forefathers built a new nation in revolt against the British crown. We fought a civil war to rid ourselves of slavery.
At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, populist and progressive movements challenged the great corporations and the barons of wealth — and passed antitrust, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, workplace safety, national parks, the income tax and more — to guarantee that prosperity would be broadly shared.
And our own generation fought to let others sit at that table — civil rights, women's rights environmental movements — the civilizing movements of our time that transformed this nation.
Now we must act again. To reclaim our country. To shape our future. To make the new global economy work for the many and not the few. Together we have the power. It is our time—time to take back America.
Robert L. Borosage is the president of the Institute for America's Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America's Future.
© 2007 TomPaine.com



45 Comments so far
Show AllIt may be our time but it's still their ball and game. You'll need more than an independent party to solve the problems America faces. America needs Statesmen, not another politician or political party. The American people have made it very clear about how they feel about the war and the president. But our elected officials have made it very clear about how they feel about rocking the boat. The wishes of the American people will continued to be ignored in favor of the demands of corporate America. You have to change the whole political system in America. Our current political system is run by money and influence. That's the system that produced Bush and the war on terror. You have got to take the money out of politics and replace it with the voice of the people. It's how we started off 230 years ago.
Hoa binh
These are the right issues which need to be addressed. Respected polls consistenly show that a majority of Americans support such a progressive agenda. Yet the gap between public policy and public preference continues to widen.
Yes, it's critical to mobilize the apparent progressive majority. However, substituting a Democrat for a Republican does nothing to even marginally affect the situation. The money interests simply adapt their approach to buy whoever wins whatever seat in Congress.
The real answer may lie in reducing Federal power and increasing States' power via an Article V Constitutional Convention. People can then vote with their feet and live in a progressive state. Others can continue to live a faith-based, fear-driven life in a state which is pretty much what we have today.
Right on, RichM. Dems are just the other side of the same coin. They represent the same interests, despite the spin. They aren't an alternative, and when one thinks about that, it's a very disturbing fact.
Means you have no choices.
Might want to think about that every time someone describes the US as 'a democracy'. It's really just a plutocracy, and plutocrats back up eachother's interests. They're on the same team, after all. And it's all about fleecing the flock. The only point of contention they might have is how to go about it.
The difference between democrats and republicans? Why, that magic number is found in corporate contributions: about 20%, depending on the election cycle.
Setting the bar too high again?
Excuse the cynicism but the platitudes are offensive when we know the history, intent and actions of those trying to butter us up for the votes.
Nope. Not buying.
This is stupid. I get the impression reading this that the Democrats are leading the "progressive" charge. They slipped a few times, but are otherwise "good", according to this. Nonsense I say! They are as thoroughly corporatized as the Republicans.
We are long overdue for a 3rd party. I'm an independent, but I am thinking of getting involved with the Greens. I am sick and tired of the Democrats and their apologists. That said, I wish the only good dems, Kucinich and Gravel, would leave the party already.
Grover Marquis?...
The "stick" that stirs the drink?
Get the details right if you want credibility.
Gore/Gravel/Greens/2008
I don't get it. (actually, I do)
Robert Borosage doesn't waste any time in his article patting himself on the back by stating, "We pledged then that we would build an independent progressive movement to take back our country. And we did."
WHAT?????
Wow...what spin, what nerve, what deception! It's quite obvious that this party is afloat without a captain, a map or a rudder. Pass the word to the crew...it's time to go Green.
The responses to this article show what's really great about progressives and also why progressives will never have enough influence in the current system to change anything in the foreseeable future.
We show that there is no "progressive agenda" - we all have our own pet peeves and personal preferences, and we argue tooth and nail over shades (nuances) of opinion. You will never catch the reactionary right doing that - they sign on to the party agenda and adopt it as their personal policy, no matter have far it takes them from their own beliefs or interests.
We can't agree on a candidate, except that none are good enough for us. The right is all but monolithic in its support for their annoited candidate. They can be slimed personally and professionally by a Rovian campaign and then turn around and support the slimer, like McCain did in 2000.
We will jump all over an apparent supporter for getting the details wrong in an article trying to unite us, like this. Unity is anathema to progressives - non-conformity drives us, so how do we organize? Conservatives wouldn't even notice the misquotes and would care less if you pointed them out.
Yes, we are usually smarter, more compassionate, and desiring to extend real human values for all, not just children of privilege. Our ideas more often support true democracy and equality. If Americans support progressive ideals why do they keep electing conservative ideologues? One reason is they don't really support progressive ideals - they are too scared of change. Another is we don't know how to fight politically. We don't know how to be monolithic in support of an idea or a candidate - we wouldn't be progressives if we were. As such, progressive ideas will always be fringe opinions, they will never become American policy and we will always be losers.
How are some of their speakers progressive? Hillary Clinton is one of thier speakers and she isn't progressive and neither is Pelosi who is also listed.
wcdevins:
Fair assessment. But we can unite around the party that shares ALL our progressive values, the Green Party:
Ten Key Values:
Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice
Ecological Wisdom
Non-violence
Decentralization
Community-based Economics
Feminism
Diversity
Responsibility
Future Focus
ezeflyer:
I second that.
What more do progressives want? I mean just look at that platform list! Incredible.
I'm thinking that progressive Dems just can't believe they've been used all this time by their party and can't bring themselves to say good bye. It's almost like listening to an abused housewife rambling on about why she stays with her 'man' claiming things will get better if she just learns to serve and obey. Progressive Dems keep rambling on about how things will get better if they just stay, do what's asked of them and somehow it will all work out.
Yeow.
Thanks for the pep talk, folks, As you can see, I am a pessimist about our situation. I have never voted third party. It might have made me feel good (a la "Don't blame me - I'm from Massachusetts"), but I'd know I was shafting my fellow Americans by enabling easier conservative victories.
While I still think progressives will never have enough (any) influence with the current system and parties in place, I reached the breaking point with the passage of the supplementary Iraq spending bill. After the Dems showed their true colors with that sellout, I'm leaning towards not giving a damn any more. Maybe we haven't hit rock bottom yet, and the only way we will get a major party (Dems) to put a Kuchinich or his ideas up front will be to have them realize progressives are a force to be reckoned with. It won't take too many of us disillusioned progressives, spraying our votes around at unelectable third and fourth party and one-trick candidates, to put the Republican death machine back in power. Maybe then our ideas will move to the front of Dem party politics. But it's going to make for a long, miserable Republican "nucular" winter, and the country may be too far gone by then to pull it back from the grip of corporate fascism. Are we willing to take that risk?
Aye, there's the rub.
Third party or hold your nose and vote Democrat?
But let's try to make sure that we even get to hold elections.
Next summer is gonna be hot! hot! HOT! as impeachment races against martial law.
"People get it. They know the wheels are coming off the trolley, as Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan put it..."
Oh dear! Does that mean that the 'Axles of Evil' have at last rusted away?! ~ :)
_______________
"We must feel, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, the fierce urgency of now..."
Question: 'How soon is now?'
Answer: 'We are already engaged in stellar action!'
___________
"Third, we must revive the American dream..."
- I agree! ~ "A people without vision perish".
_____________
Thanks to the author here (Robert Borosage) for a very upbeat article, written in the true spirit of Tom Paine.
________________
"Everything under the sun is in tune,
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon"
-[wrote Pink Floyd in one of their songs].
Okay, so lets move the eclipsing lunar-tics out the way and let the Light shine again.
Less depressive drinkin' and smokin' ~ and more creative thinkin' and joking' camaraderie and postive action will help, even as we ardently drive our vision into the ascendant, -out over the dust and bones of that dying breed, -called neocon dinosaurs...
Well, this is going to be one of those 'depressing' diatribes. Reason being that there's nothing at all bright and jolly about the situation.
There seems to be a disconnect among the population concerning the real state of American politics. No surprise, since it's been fed and encouraged by the corporate media machine, but it goes something like this:
"Democrats are liberal or progressive (except when they aren't) and Republicans are conservatives"
That small seed contains the big lie that has prevented any kind of meaningful shift in American politics for the last 60 years.
No, the Democrat party isn't liberal, leftist, or progressive. No, the Republican party is not conservative.
Just ask yourself this question: are the neocons 'conservatives'?
Obvious answer would be a resounding 'no'. Marrying one's party to religious nuts who fancy themselves to be conservatives just because they're backwards in their worldviews isn't conservatism.
And on the flipside, are the Democrats 'liberals'?
Again, nope.
Fact is, both parties are neo-liberal in their approach to most everything, especially foreign and fiscal policy. And social policy? Well, the democrats are whatever the republicans want to do to ya, except they're more inclined to let gays get married. As if that should be an issue, at all.
Oh, ya. If you aren't sure what a neo-liberal is, think Trotskyist (sans communism, plus perpetual revolution...kinda like what Trotsky woulda preached had he been born in the Yoo Ess of Eh) soft-imperialist with just enough fascism to do what they have to do to make money.
That's the problem here: sure, electing some third party to an overwhelming majority might be a 'bubblegum' fix (until said third party gets sucked into the same vortex of corruption that the US system encourages due to the very nature of corporate power as 'personhood' and cash contributions as 'free speech') but it wouldn't even arrive at that because the majority of the American people are either ignorant, indifferent, only willing to vote for a major 'brand', or are still hiding under their beds from Osama Bin Laden or the ghostie of 'terrorism' that has been sold to them.
Anyway, that's my take on the problem. I apologise for not having any solutions, but from where I'm sitting, the current paradigm doesn't offer any.
My solution: change the paradigm.
Easier said than done, though, isn't it?
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
Hey all you progressive writers and thinkers....
Here's a thought to chew on. We're at a critical crossroads in the direction our country needs to move in order for us to remain a true democracy (whatever that has morphed into) and too many progressive-thinking voters are literally scared out of their wits to move to a third party or independent to see their dreams come true. That's a given, at least on this board.
So, what if the Republican Party were to split and self mutate before the upcoming election? What if a liberal northeast Republican who is fed up with the neo-con control of his party were to break away and run for office? What if that person were so filthy rich he didn't have to beg for campaign funding from special interests? Wouldn't this pave the way for a true progressive other-than-Democrat run at the White House and Congress?
WAIT! What's that I heard? Billionaire Mayor Bloomburg of New York City has just announced his departure from the Republican Party, declaring himself an Independent (and available for a run at the Presidency) No! It can't be! The gateway of opportunity we have been waiting for.
Now there is NO reason NOT to vote for real progressive values this election. Now there is HOPE that a third progressive party and its candidates will actually have an even playing field!
All we need is a Leftist Billionaire! Know anyone?
THREAD TEST
RE: IS THE CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE A "COMMERCIAL" FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY? (RichM)
RichM June 19th, 2007 2:37 pm
"This "article'...[is] just a shallow commercial for the Dem Party, like a bumpersticker that says, "Had enough? Vote Democratic.""
"What Borosage means by "taking our country back" is just putting Democrats back in power."
No. That is not what Borosage means. Obviously, he endorses working through the Democrat Party. But what Borosage - obviously - "means" by "taking our country back" is building a progressive movement to pressure Democrats to move left.
Borosage states this strategy when he writes, "increasingly progressives are driving the Democratic debate. We are setting the agenda. We are recruiting and identifying new candidates."
That strategy is - obviously - not the same as a strategy whose goal is merely ("just") getting people to vote Democrat.
If RichM thinks otherwise, he should provide evidence for his assertions - assuming his purpose is to be credible and persuade others.
What sort of drugs is Robert Borosage taking? Or maybe he is a wannabe coach for a little league team?
Voting Democrat is a vote for "status quo", and very little will change from the Repug mess we live in now. Actually, it may be worse, because it may turn generations of Dem voters away from Dem roots.
RE: POSTERS WHO USE BLANK ASSERTION VS. ARGUMENT: THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO PROGRESSIVE DISCOURSE, CAMARADE.
Shane June 20th, 2007 10:03 am
"Voting Democrat is a vote for "status quo", and very little will change from the Repug mess we live in now."
Blank assertion will persuade no one who does not agree with you, and very little will change from the Repug mess we live in now.
"Actually, it may be worse, because it may turn generations of Dem voters away from Dem roots."
Actually, it may be worse, because it may turn left-leaning Democratics away from progressives.
funny thing is for election 2008, how the media is brainwashing the public to vote for Hillary, Rudy, Barack, Romney etc etc. The best canidates are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, yet the media is too busy cheerleading for the aforementioned canidates. I don't even know how John Edwards is a canidate.
Don't forget how important appearences are in elections. And im talking physical appearences here. the only reason Romney is even considered a canidate is because of his tall height and his looks. If he were 5'5, he'd be a marginal canidate like Kucinich. The same applies to Obama, but to a lesser degree. Kucinich btw, is 5'5 and that exemplifies the point...he's in fact a better liberal and democrat, yet the media ignores him and instead pimps out hillary obama and edwards. Height is very important in presidential elections, and in any political office in general. That's one of the indicators that we live in a fake democracy, we're pre-judging and voting for canidates based on their height and looks. How fickle is that?
Nothing's changed. The mob is as fickle as it was during the greeks, romans, and the politicians are as greedy, power hungry, war mongering, and corrupt as back then. It's the same old story. People like to think we live in a special modern time we're information is out there, we know everything, this "democracy" serves the people etc. We don't know squat, we're so jaded. The worst part is corruption is appearent at the surface level, so it must be 10 times worse than what we actually uncover (since the media doesn't do it's job, we'll never know).
As someone was elluding to in this thread, capitalism is the excuse to concentrate the vast ammount of wealth and power into the hands of a few in order to dictate the rules to everyone else. The media is not used as a check, but rather as a tool of propoganda for these power greedy people. This "Democracy" is what these 'greedy few' trump and romanticize in order to give YOU (99.5% of everyone else) THE ILLUSION AND IMPRESSION that you have choice, that you have influence, that you have control. The fact is you have none. They control everything, and we do what they tell us to do, we think what they tell us to think.
A Democracy is supposed to be a government ruled by the people, not a government ruled by .5% of the population. The political system is a plutocracy, and the government of the united states is a concentrated and very well refined Oligarchy for the benefit of those .5%, while largely ignoring the 99.5% of us.
"All we need is a Leftist Billionaire! Know anyone?"
Everybody knows him – "Red Rupert" Murdock, a fellow who once upon a time had kept a bust of Lenin on his desk. At that time he was not a billionaire as he is now.
That is what "progressives" preach now? Pray to Almighty to send us Deliverer instead of petty bickering between petty advocates of petty 'ideas'. Google Internationale and find out what that immortal song is saying un the subject.
Yes, we live in the intellectual desert left by 60 years of vicious bulldozing of each and every thought even remotely imperiling an existing order of 'creative destruction', which run its course to the end by eliminating 'creative' from its very definition.
This country was founded on the grand ideas, stemming from the Galileo-Newtonian scientific Revolution, and Founding Fathers widely use scientific paradigms to architect new System of Government. Then even more profound scientific and technological Revolution was unleashed in the wake of collapse of the old order. And who has come into political realm at the most crucial point in human history? Political luddites, scared to death by perspective of losing fruits of millennia of violence.
Now, we are advised by many a wishful agitator that 'progressive democrats' will give us a ticket to eternal bliss. This is at the time when the only choice before us is that between co-operation and nuclear catastrophe.
That is a hell of an alternative and to deal with that we, American people included, need a hell of grand idea.
Are American people up to the task? That is a hell of a question with not a clear answer.
Where Robert Borosage is absolutely right is when he postulates that "With the wrong diagnosis, the medicine … is dangerous to our health." This dictum should be applied recursively to its author and many a quick policy fixer.
We need extraordinary profound change in the world order. Alas, the extraordinary change requires the extraordinary events on the much greater scale than collapse of the world order in 1917.
You people are so delusional, there is nothing to take back. Wake up!
RichM and fellow travelers:
Please read Roger Morris essay, a small step to revitalizing the lost common sense. You will love it.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174812/roger_morris_the_gates_inheritance
RE: RICHM's RESPONSE TO BOROSAGE OF CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE:
First RichM said Borosage is only telling people to vote Dem; now he says, 'Well, Borosage is trying to get a progressive movement to move Democrats left' - i.e., RichM is changing his tune - 'but Borosage is being unrealistic.'
1) RichM should make up his mind about what he wants to say. Well...maybe he shouldn't - maybe he's still working out what he thinks. Which, of course, is OK.
2) RichM makes a nod to "history" and "social forces" to support his (revised) charge that Borosage is unrealistic - but doesn't make good on it.
Instead of history, we get hypotheticals (if progressives took over, this is what would happen, as proved by...the fact that RichM asserts it to be so); instead of evidence supporting his view, we get more blanket assertions - "the Democratic Party is ultimately subordinate to capitalism, and when push comes to shove, it sides with the interests of the wealthy few over the interests of the rest of the population." (As proved by his hypothetical - if progressives took over the Democrats, this is what would happen, as is clearly obvious due to the fact that...RichM says it would happen.)
I'll devote more time to this later, but let's take a few additional points now -
3)"for the sake of argument, let's assume that by some miracle a bunch of antiwar/pro-environmental/pro-BillOfRights activists managed nonetheless to "take over" the Democratic Party. In that case, the very first thing that would happen is that all the big donors would quit-"
a) The issue is not an outright "take over" of the Democratic Party; the issue is shifting it to the left. Not a coup, but a gradual, effective pressure - i.e., the only type of movement conceivable in the U.S.
b) In support of the idea of a gradual shift and the response of the business community, compare such a hypothetical scenario with the Depression of the 1930s - did all of the business community reject Roosevelt? Answer - no. What historical circumstances make you think there would not be an 'accomodationist' business community, even as progressives shifted electoral politics left?
4)"As the hypothetical "takeover" of the Dem Party progressed, the media would be shrieking hysterically that the party is being captured by "wild-eyed radicals and communists."
Here's a hypothetical counter-scenario: the U.S. press is not the Venezuela press; being passive and accomodationist to whoever's in power, it would perceive that the electorate had shifted and - being concerned with profits and readership - shift with it.
RE:
RichM June 20th, 2007 5:52 pm
1) Business community then vs. now.
"the main historical circumstance that's different today, which makes me certain that business would not go along with comparably sweeping concessions, is that in the 1930's, there was a serious risk of popular uprising. There were labor wars, organized labor militancy, millions unemployed, & it was widely evident that US capitalism had failed to provide for the needs of the bulk of the population."
a) Yes, on the circumstances that caused some sections of the business community to support Roosevelt, we agree. However, business response to a hypothetical progressive groundswell today must not be envisaged in a vacuum: it is necessary to capitalism on the rocks, insurgency - or the threat of it - and groups to the left of mainstream progressives;
b) re "comparably sweeping concessions" today - Borosage's CAF program does not envision comprehensive sweeping reforms. Rather, it envisions gradual, mounting pressure. Such pressures - and the absence of progressive and greater electoral resistance - have been responsible for the shift right in this country; what prevents its working in reverse?
c) Consider for example the Iraq war. This exists mainly because the military-industrial establishment finds it immensely profitable to seize control of Iraq's oil...The Democrats are not going to start assailing the "military industrial complex," because many of their big donors are part of that complex."
Democrats turned in fits and starts against the Vietnam War, following the electorate. A minority of progressive Democrat legislators have and will continue to oppose the Iraq invasion. Yes, Democrats are indeed craven, spineless, and more conservative than their electors. But I think it can be shown that - however belatedly - U.S. legislators have been moved (both to the left and right) by constituencies).
d) "The US corporate oligarchy understands perfectly that what's best for them is to continue controlling 100% of political power...They far prefer..."
That may be their intention, they may "prefer" it, they may have more power now than they did 30 years ago; but it exaggerates the situation to say theyhave all power, or that this situation is irrevocable.
RichM is right. When he is criticized for not giving concrete examples about the Dems, well, one doesn't have to give citations on something that is common knowledge. Cred-card Hillary (as she has been rightly dubbed) voted for this war (she was misled). Can't Hilary realize that we are tired of liars in the Republican AND Democratic parties. If she is not a liar, she is a fool. But the truth is, the 9-11 hysteria drummed up by Bush and the Republican party, as well as the drumbeat for war in the press (as well as Hillary's constituents) made Hillary take the easy way. When it came time for an election, the Democrats gave us as an alternative--ta da! John Kerry, a Skull and Bones brother to Bush. Kerry's problem with the war: not that it was wrong to kill for oil, but that Bush wasn't crafty enough in his killing. Now the Dems are selling the same old rehashed candidates. (Dennis is the only one that is truly different and he IS NOT a war criminal.)--the shadow government would probably take him out if he were a real threat to their power. Obama acts like a water boy and I fear he will just tote water for the corporations. When Obama and others come up with a health insurance plan, like the Republicans, they make sure vast sums of money will be transferred from the treasury to private insurance companies. But should we blame our politicans who ARE a reflection of us? Should we celebrate the fact that it is only because the country feels like it is getting it's butt kicked in Iraq that the majority has turned against the war and voted for the other party last election? Remember Nixon was re-elected under the so-called secret "peace with honor" routine? Even then, the majority of the American people (or as it was called then, "the silent majority") was more concerned about the practicalities (money and lost Americans lives) rather than the moral unjustness of that war. It would be really nice if the country said, you know, it is immoral to invade another country that has done nothing to you, bomb and kill its people in an attempt to steal their resources and make them more amenable to our economic ideals. It would be nice if Americans would say no to such a war because it is immoral and not because we run the risk of losing more of our own. This proves that, as a people, we have a real moral deficit to go along with our financial one.
holymoly June 21st, 2007 9:48 am
"RichM is right. When he is criticized for not giving concrete examples about the Dems, well, one doesn't have to give citations on something that is common knowledge."
"Common knowledge"? You should excuse me, Mr. holymoly, but you are not now sitting at your kitchen table with your family and your friends who see the world just like you do, kvetching about what you all agree is true.
And Mr. holymoly, the argument between Miss Baska and Mr. RichM was not about Mrs. Hillary Clinton. It was about if one of your 21st century American progressive groups can push the Democrat party to the left. Maybe you have a view on this question which it looks to me like you do not read carefully enough to notice was the question.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
Abraham Lincoln
abramawicz: Well, looks like I touched a nerve with somebody. How can you move a bunch of right-winged, war-mongering, corporate butt-kissing dems to the left, pray tell? How long are we supposed to wait for this miracle to occur? Did I tweak your little girl Hillary and get you choking on your bagel at YOUR kitchen table? Good! The accusations against Hillary and company stand. Fine, if you have a different point of view, as your wonderful president says: bring it on!
holymoly June 21st, 2007 11:55 am
"Well, looks like I touched a nerve with somebody."
Well, it looks like "somebody" cannot defend their view that evidence is unnecessary in argument, and so fall back on patronizing dismissals.
"How can you move a bunch of right-winged, war-mongering, corporate butt-kissing dems to the left, pray tell?"
At least you are addressing the topic, even if you are too ignorant of the history of the problem to do more than phrase it as a rhetorical question. That is a kind of progress, however limited. Now, pray tell, Mr. holymoly, what is your "progressive" approach to this problem?
"How long are we supposed to wait for this miracle to occur?"
Very long if you are the best American progressives can serve up.
"Did I tweak your little girl Hillary-"
I would make a telephone line of Mrs. Clinton's guts before I voted for her.
"-and get you choking on your bagel-"
Such sentiments belong on an aryan supremacist website, where you perhaps would feel more at home.
"The accusations against Hillary and company stand."
The accusations against Hillary and company are irrelevant to the topic under discussion. No one is defending her - as you are, evidently, still too poor a reader of others' posts to have grasped. The issue is whether the approach taken by the CAF can be in any way effective. (Oh and Mr. holymoly, it is really not reasonable of you to make me repeat myself, after I have patiently and politely pointed out this to you before.)
"Fine, if you have a different point of view, as your wonderful president says: bring it on!"
Supporting your "point of view" (so to speak) with quotes from your American President. Why is it that I am not suprised?
baska writes:
"The accusations against Hillary and company are irrelevant to the topic under discussion. No one is defending her - as you are, evidently, still too poor a reader of others' posts to have grasped."
The article says we should take back our party--from whom? The neocon Republicans. And give it to whom? The Democrats, of course--he calls them progressive. He informs us that not all Democrats are progressive--and who does he name--Lieberman--well isn't that the understatement of the century? Yet that is the man the "progressive" party put up for VP of this country. The man is a war hawk. The only reason people voted in dems last time is that it was their only choice. And Hillary is like Lieberman, and most all of the other so-called progressives aren't much different. Once in a blue moon there is Wellstone or a Kucinich, but they are so few and far between they hardly count.
Baska writes futher: Such sentiments belong on an aryan supremacist website, where you perhaps would feel more at home.
Oh, no, baska, I feel perfectly at home here where I irritate someone so much they accuse me of "kvetching" and imply that I am provincial and state that I sit around the kitchen table discussing issues only with those of like mind. If I can kvetch, and abramwicz knows nothing about those with whom I debate politics, then I can make equally ludicrous statements about him/her.
I wasn't supporting my point of view when I quoted Bush, I was simply saying if you would like to debate, I'm all for it. But as your reading skills are so inept that you couldn't figure that one out, you're past hope anyway.
The democrats suck and there is nothing progressive about them--yet given our system we are told to like that party or leave it--or perhaps to grow very very old trying to change it. That's why I voted for Nader is 2000. Leaving it sounds better and better.
holymoly June 21st, 2007 9:48 am
"RichM is right. When he is criticized for not giving concrete examples about the Dems, well, one doesn't have to give citations on something that is common knowledge."
Good point. Afterall, God created the earth in 7 days - as is "common knowledge" at any Christian fundamentalist meeting. Screw evidence.
RE: WILLFULLY AVOIDING THE MEANING OF STRAIGHTFORWARD STATEMENTS
holymoly June 21st, 2007 6:29 pm
"I feel perfectly at home here where I irritate someone so much they accuse me of "kvetching" and imply that I am provincial and state that I sit around the kitchen table discussing issues only with those of like mind."
Abramawicz's point was straightforward and to the point. He/She wrote:
abramawicz June 21st, 2007 11:00 am
"Common knowledge"?...you are not now sitting at your kitchen table with your family and your friends who see the world just like you do, kvetching about what you all agree is true."
The meaning - the obvious and pointed meaning - of this statement is not that you are "provincial," but that your post reflects an insular mentality.
That is: a post that leads off - and concludes its argument - by rejecting the need for evidence on the grounds of "common knowledge" is insular.
That is: that, whereas persuasion through evidence is not necessary when you're speaking with people who agree with you - whether at your kitchen table or at a political meeting of the likeminded - it is essential (not to mention normative) in debates with people who disagree with you. And it is particularly essential to deflating right wing lies and - thereby - persuading the undecided.
This, of course, assumes that you actually want to persuade anyone - particularly the undecided - of your views. If you wish to persuade others, then you must submit to necessary and normative forms of argument; if you wish to reiterate your opinion and receive a resounding 'Yes, it is true! Yes it is 'common knowledge!' from the chorus of likeminded...well, there are churches and insular political parties for that - parties where you can also ridicule the occasional disbeliever into silence by invoking what is 'common knowledge.'
RE: RichM: 'OK, IT'S NOT THAT CAF SAYS JUST 'VOTE DEM,' BUT THAT THEIR STRATEGY - WHICH I'M ADMITTING IS THEIR STRATEGY, EVEN IF I'M NOT ADMITTING I'M CHANGING MY TUNE ABOUT WHAT THEIR STRATEGY IS - IS UNREALISTIC'
As I hope you can now see, the original post concerned lack of evidence for your statement that CAF seeks ONLY to get people to vote Democrat.
As I pointed out to you, that is not what they seek. It was a simple matter to support my statement by giving evidence - concerning their intentions - from the article. I then concluded by stating that if you still believed otherwise, you should provide evidence to support your view that CAF's single purpose was to get people to vote Democrat.
In your reply, you shifted tack: you argued not that CAF was simply seeking people to vote Democrat, but that their goal of moving the Democrats left was unrealistic. That is a reasonable counter-argument – although not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. What is key, however, is that – in shifting arguments – you wisely abandoned your first assertion – which the evidence does not support.
RE: RichM: 'WHU? HUH? WHAT DID YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR, ANYWAY? WHAT WERE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT DAY IS IT?'
RichM June 22nd, 2007 11:22 am
"there's no room for rigorously documenting all assertions....What is it exactly that you are demanding "evidence" for?"
Forgotten? Or just not paying attention? Whatever, here it is again:
baska June 20th, 2007 9:40 am
RE: IS THE CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE A "COMMERCIAL" FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY? (RichM)
RichM June 19th, 2007 2:37 pm
"This "article'…[is] just a shallow commercial for the Dem Party, like a bumpersticker that says, "Had enough? Vote Democratic.""
"What Borosage means by "taking our country back" is just putting Democrats back in power."
No. That is not what Borosage means. Obviously, he endorses working through the Democrat Party. But what Borosage - obviously - "means" by "taking our country back" is building a progressive movement to pressure Democrats to move left.
Borosage states this strategy when he writes, "increasingly progressives are driving the Democratic debate. We are setting the agenda. We are recruiting and identifying new candidates."
That strategy is - obviously - not the same as a strategy whose goal is merely ("just") getting people to vote Democrat.
If RichM thinks otherwise, he should provide evidence for his assertions - assuming his purpose is to be credible and persuade others.
RichM June 22nd, 2007 11:22 am
"In your above post (4:21 pm, June 20) you seemed outraged by my uncontroversial statement that …"the Democratic Party is ultimately subordinate to capitalism, and when push comes to shove, it sides with the interests of the wealthy few over the interests of the rest of the population.""
1) I know you'll forgive my being a bit of a johnny-one-note here, but...could you please give evidence of this tone of "outrage" you impute to my posts? Simply breathless, awaiting your non-outraged, non-ad hominem-laden, masterfully persuasive reply...
2) It's not really a question of evidence for your generalization re an institutional superstructure's ability to modify an economic base; it's a question of application to the question at hand. The question is how much modification or political movement is possible in the U.S. The "ultimate" subordination of the Democratic Party to capitalism is irrelevant - no one's envisioning socialism, evolutionary or revolutionary; the issue is whether progressive movements can push the U.S. political structure back to the left AT ALL - and, if so, how much.
Do you believe that capital has such a hegemonic lock on the political system that no leftward shift back is possible?
"If you can't understand the plain truth of that statement without screaming for proof of it-"
"Screaming" for proof? Please refer to above comments.
RichM June 22nd, 2007 11:22 am
"You attempt to defend Borosage's CAF program by claiming it envisions "gradual, mounting pressure" rather than sweeping reforms."
Nupe, pal - I "claim" that is CAF's intention.
"You write it exaggerates the situation to say they (business) have all power, & you ask what prevents its working in reverse? (referring to application of pressure for leftwards change, to "reverse" the rightwards march of recent decades). All these claims reflect your (& Borosage's) underlying view that we can have real progressive change within the existing political framework"
Strawman - the change envisioned by CAF is obviously not "real progressive change," and I never claimed or implied it was - that's you, rehashing your evolutionary vs. revolutionary socialism paradigms onto a different situation.
As stated above, the question is whether progressive movements can shift the Democratic Party at all back towards the Rooseveltian position.
"the Democratic Party can [not] be the vehicle for such change....To not see this is to be in denial."
O poor little duped me...If only I had access to your uber-understanding.
"The reason "gradual, mounting pressure" won't work any better than a direct attempt for "sweeping change" is-"
-because you say so.
"As Chomsky says-"
I read Chomsky, he's great - doesn't mean I have to agree w/him on all points. But at last you introduce shred of evidence to support your view. Who knows, keep it up and you might change someone's mind.
"When you claim that US legislators have been moved (both to the L & R) by constituencies, you're once again trying to defend the existing political framework-"
Nope. I'm saying this is CAF's intention, and it's the question. Which at least now you're addressing.
RichM June 22nd, 2007 11:22 am
"why you scream like a stuck pig"
Gotta work on that revolutionary invective of yours, comrade, it's not coming off quite right - it's more like, 'why you scream like a stuck pig lackey of the capitalist classes'...That'll teach us dupes and traitors to the working class...