EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who I Give To
Because I write books on citizen movements, people have often asked me what social change groups I personally support. I'm not a wealthy donor and have often had to fundraise for different projects. But as I've moved from an situation where I barely get by to one where I have a bit of extra resources, I've valued the chance to donate to causes I believe in, with the hope that often-small donations will matched by those of others.
The end of the year is often a time when people often figure out their donations (though most of the groups I support are too politically engaged to be tax-deductible), so I thought I'd post an informal list that thought might be helpful, along with some of the rationales of why I've chosen these causes. I focus primarily on groups that do a particularly good job of engaging people, particularly people who aren't necessarily politically involved, as opposed to simply advocating for good policies. I've also been supporting political campaigns that I think can make a difference. (And of course the list doesn't count some great local groups I support). As we've seen the last seven years, electoral politics matters hugely, but we also need to build strong and durable citizen movements, so I've focused on organizations that help with both. And of course there are lots of great groups that didn't make this list.
You're on the CommonDreams site, and I go there too; in fact, it's what loads up when I first open my web browser. So I support it during the fund appeals, and you should as well.
Next, you should definitely have your phone and wireless service with Working Assets/Credo. The company was founded specifically to raise money for progressive causes, and has given away $50 million since their inception (subscribers vote each year on where the money goes). The company also does lots of additional engagement projects, from voter registration drives to email action alerts, and their top executives are good and committed people. Signing up with them helps support all sorts of good causes.
Speaking of organizations, I don't know if you're familiar with the environmentally-oriented auto club, Better World Club, but they're a great alternative to AAA, which despite its wholesome image, spends major resources lobbying for new road construction and against non-car transit options. I found out about Better World through the NPR show "Car Talk," and they contract with pretty much the same network of local towing companies (I've had no problem when I've needed assistance), give out similar free maps, and have other comparable services. But they also donate to environmental causes, encourage their members to speak out on them, and even have a roadside service option for bicycles, though I haven't had to use it as yet.
So on to some organizations, some well-known and others not:
They aren't that well known, but I love Institute for Public Accuracy. With a staff of just six people, they do a wonderful job in securing a media presence for progressive alternative perspectives. Every day they fax and email releases to an array of media outlets, containing three or four experts weighing in on a specific topic, generally one related to breaking news. The media outlets then contact the experts, generating significant coverage. When I've been on their releases I've gotten everything from the BBC and the largest newspaper chain in Japan, to the God-awful Bill O'Reilly show on Fox, major commercial radio outlets, and alternative networks like Pacifica.
Most people have heard of MoveOn.org by now. They draw plenty of heat from the political right, but that's because they're probably the most single effective progressive social change organization in terms of getting regular people involved. They did get in trouble this year trying to be too cute with the headline of their General Petraeus ad (though Petraeus is giving exactly the kind of political cover to the Bush administration that Generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland did for Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam). But no group in recent years has engaged more ordinary people in progressive politics, particularly new participants, and they're working continually to get their over 3 million members not only to sign petitions and email their Congressional representatives, but also to take additional steps towards involvement, like participating in local activist networks, or joining the phone banks whose seven million phone calls helped shift the House and Senate in 2006. They do this all with a tiny national staff (less than a dozen people at one recent point), and I've donated to a variety of their efforts from general support to specific targeted campaigns. (The political right promotes the myth that they're just puppets of George Soros, but although Soros did contribute significantly to their 2004 election efforts, their primary base has always been donations from regular members).
I don't share the theology of Sojourners (traditionalist Christian, tending toward evangelical), but no one has had a greater impact in getting conservative Christians, including evangelicals, to think about peace and social justice issues. Founder Jim Wallis has been an amazingly influential prophetic voice. Together with the organization, he really has created powerful ripples for change in a constituency that has been the core grassroots base for people like Bush and Cheney.
WellstoneAction does great regional trainings for progressive candidates running for office, including people who've never run before. Founded by the children of the late Senator Paul Wellstone, they continue his mission of trying to broaden citizen participation. If we're trying to bring new people into politics, they need to learn the necessary skills to run effective grassroots campaigns. No one does this better.
If you've ever felt that progressive organizations end up being less than the sum of their parts come election day, America Votes is an antidote. They bring together major environmental, labor, social justice, and peace groups to register voters and get them out to vote come. In 2006 they involved 250 different groups--from Acorn and the AFL-CIO to the NAACP and the Sierra Club--to coordinate and magnify their impact. And they reached 13 million voters in key swing states..
Democracy for America does similar work to MoveOn, but are a bit more face-to-face focused. They grew out of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign as a way of keeping participants involved, and do a mix of excellent action alerts, their own campaign trainings, and general organizing. They're smaller, but more intimate than MoveOn. And they put lots of good energy into building local community.
Speaking of Howard Dean, the media may have buried his career for trying to shout over a noise-filled room after he lost the Iowa caucuses, but I love what he's doing with the Democratic National Committee. He's trying to recreate the Democrats as a genuine grassroots organization as opposed to one relying primarily on media consultants and ad buyers, and to do it nationwide, and he's doing this despite major opposition from DC insiders. I don't know if he'll succeed in his goal of recreating a Democratic Party where people actually participate on a local level-like they used to do in the old political machines, but without the corrupt ward bosses. But if these horizontal connections grow enough, we'll see state parties strong enough to actually begin to call the shots on a national level. And to maybe even make possible genuine primary fights when incumbents get too complacent and refuse to lead. This is a long-term process, and may not succeed, because the Democrats have let their base atrophy for decades. But for all my frustrations with the timidity of Senate and Congressional Democrats, and believe me I'm frustrated, I've felt great supporting the DNC in building that basic infrastructure of volunteer coordinators and grassroots organizers that has the potential to both revitalize the party, and help shift its direction.
I also think it's important to support individual candidates who we like, and not just leave this to the big money donors. The internet really has made the small donor model more possible, so I often use it to add my small contribution to those of thousands of others. I'll sometimes give directly to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who then funnel resources to appropriate campaigns. They have the advantage of having an overview on which races are competitive and which aren't, and have a sense of who needs additional resources. But I can't say I always like their choices, so more often I'll pick specific candidates who not only seem to have a decent chance of winning, but also more closely reflect my values. Those tend to be the ones featured in the emails of MoveOn or on the pages of politically oriented blogs like the Daily Kos .
I've also been giving some to the presidential campaigns, just because the stakes are so high. I like to think my money is going not only for ads (where my dollars feel a pitiful drop in the bucket), but also for the campaign infrastructure that actually coordinates volunteers, gets people out to vote, and in the case of both the Edwards and Obama campaigns, goes to some lengths to try to build grassroots movements that might stick around, no matter who ends up getting the nomination. I've written about my objections to Hillary Clinton in some recent articles like Hillary Clinton and the Politics of Disappointment and Hillary Clinton and the Ghosts of 2006), Clinton is my distinct last choice of the Democratic candidates, though still better than the Republican field. I've been giving most of my money to John Edwards, who I think has taken the strongest recent stands. I loved how when he spoke to a Seattle union audience, Edwards led with not with economic issues where he knew he'd get an enthusiastic response, but with more challenging positions on the Iraq war and global warming. And I appreciate that he's been the first to stake out strong positions on issues like health care and global warming, with the other major Democratic candidates following in his wake.
I think Edwards still definitely has a chance, and a recent CNN poll flagged him as the only Democrat to beat all four major Republican candidates But I've also given some money, though a lesser amount, to Barack Obama, who I like as well, and who really does seem to be bringing new participants into his campaign in an exciting way, especially younger voters. I was quite impressed hearing Obama in Seattle recently, and think he could be both an effective candidate and president. And though I'm wary about they way "unify America" rhetoric can blur real policy differences and interests, I just read a very thoughtful recent piece that links it to Obama's community organizing background and suggests it might actually be the soundest approach in a nation where people have been deliberately polarized for short-term political gain..
Of course none of these electoral donations sever the link between money and politics, which we have to do if we are going to reclaim America. By far the best approach is the Clean Elections model that I described in one of the profiles in my Soul of a Citizen book, and which has worked wonderfully in Maine, Arizona, and Vermont. If you raise enough $5 contributions in these states, you now get public resources to run a competitive campaign. The approach has brought wonderful new people into politics (I recently heard a great presentation from an Arizona teacher who was able to run for state rep only because of this process, but could now be a rising political star). And it severs the link between campaigning and having to constantly do the bidding of wealthy donors. Public Campaign is the great group that coordinates the national efforts (with good work from a reenergized Common Cause and from the campus efforts of Democracy Matters ). Many states also have local Clean Elections efforts that are coordinated through Public Campaign. On a hopeful note, all the Democratic candidates have said they'll back the Clean Elections approach, although Hillary Clinton only signed on after Common Cause ran major Iowa ads on the subject, and it will clearly take a sustained grassroots effort to make this happen.
All of the groups and campaigns I've mentioned so far are multi-issue, because the challenges we face are so profoundly interconnected. But there are also some issue-specific groups that I've also been supporting.
I'm working a lot on global warming, as you may know. And more good groups spring up on the issue each day, like the 1Sky coalition, or the Focus the Nation project that's planning a day of national teach-ins January 31. The Climate Crisis Coalition puts out a particularly useful weekly digest of relevant news in terms of related science, new energy initiatives, and citizen and political efforts, and does it on an absolute shoestring. But of all the good environmental groups, the Sierra Club seems the most genuinely participatory and grassroots-which is key for me. Most of these groups lobby and take good stands, but the Sierra Club really puts energy into developing local chapters, which means it connects people to each other and then encourages them to take the lead. Sierra Club has also been in the forefront in creating labor-environmental alliances, as in its Blue-Green Alliance with the United SteelWorkers, who along with SEIU, do more innovative organizing projects than any other unions in America.
In fact, the UnitedSteelWorkers have a new Associates Member program, Fight Back America, which anyone can join for $40 (less if you're a student or unemployed), and which both builds their base and gives you a connection with union activism even if you aren't in one (or if you're in a union that's doing little to build social movements). The other major union-oriented group that anyone can join or support is Jobs With Justice. They do great work building labor-community coalitions, and have local offices in 23 states.
I also belong to the NAACP because they're still the major force working for racial justice and these issues are far from solved. Results is a great grassroots non-partisan lobby group on global and national hunger issues And I'm a card-carrying ACLU member because well--after what Bush, Cheney, and their appointed judges and justices have done to the constitution, we have a long way to go to get back to a balance that Thomas Jefferson would have approved of. (interestingly, somewhere around a third of the ACLU's new post-9/11 members have been self-described political conservatives.)
Finally, we need strong forces pushing outside the electoral arena to get us out of Iraq and to prevent future destructive wars. Lots of the multi-issue groups I've mentioned make this a major focus, but there are also some excellent specific ones working on war and peace issues, like Peace Action (formerly Sane/Freeze, the largest national group focusing just on peace issues), and True Majority (founded by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's). I'm not a pacifist, but The War Resister's League has carried the banner of peace activism for 85 years, and I always admire what they do. And there are some local friends, The Backbone Campaign, who are probably a bit harsher on mainline elected Democrats than I am, but have initiated wonderfully innovative efforts with puppets and processions, that have developed a national presence. I also support a couple of primarily Jewish peace groups that are definitely pro-Israel but push for a major shift from current Israeli policies), Americans For Peace Now and Brit Tzedek.
Hope this list is useful. If you don't like some of the groups, I've suggested that's fine, and I hardly expect you to give to them all. But I thought this might offer a useful window into some citizen engagement efforts that I admire and try to support.
By the way, a friend named Harvey McKinnon has a nice little book on donating called The Power of Giving. It's a bit more volunteerism oriented than I'd like (vs social action), but has some good thoughts on the role of giving in our lives
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
27 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Loeb, I agree that you may have a point about HOW Kucinich phrases his message. I heard him speak in Albany and found myself having to translate some of his speech to some of the people I was with. As far as I can remember he used a quote from a William Butler Yeats poem in his speech and, yes, that kind of thing is puzzling to the average citizen. It shouldn't be, but it is. But he was speaking at a rally organized by an Albany-area peace organization at the time, so he was speaking to the choir. But he doesn't always do that. On televised debates he gets right to the point, leaving out the "New Age" material. But when you get right down to it, "New Age" material or not, it all translates into peace and cooperation with others, and that's something that America sadly seems to have forgotten, although Dennis Kucinich has not.
The bottom line for me is that the only reason Dennis Kucinich can't win is because people have been conned into thinking he can't (Gandhi might not have been much of a force for change in India if the average Indian citizen had a television in his or her house). And that is exactly the way the powers-that-be want it. And, once again, keeping the voters uneducated about whom they're voting for is the key to the successful conning of them.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
So, in my opinion (for what it's worth), We, the People should have been educated by those who are in the know a long time ago, but, since we weren't, maybe we'll just have to educate ourselves. It doesn't look like anyone else is going to dare do it for us, not even progressive political writers and liberal Hollywood actors.
And you and I both know Kucinich's ideas are the best for both the country and the world.
end your worries support the lovolution www(dot)lovolutionvillage(dot)org
The thing abt pretty much anything Mr. Loeb writes or says, while sounding all cheerful grass roots and empowerment, the truth of Mr. Loebs action speak a great deal louder than his pleasant words. Those actions? When push comes to shove Mr. Loeb is a shill for the Democrats. Period.
"I don't know if he'll succeed in his goal of recreating a Democratic Party where people actually participate on a local level-like they used to do in the old political machines, but without the corrupt ward bosses."
Statements like this may seem charmingly naive, but this is always the crux of Mr. Loebs enthusiasms: support the Democratic Party. Only via the Democratic Party shall we be saved! Every election this man prattles on abt the importance of this or that progressive Democrat, but when it comes time to actually vote, his slavish adherence to the Democratic Party means anyone who questions the usefulness of continuing to prop up the other coroprate party.
Of course Mr. Loeb will howl abt how not voting for John Kerry or Al Gore has led to the Iraq War, etc. When if you actually bother to read the history of what happens in this country you see the Democrats, whether in the minority or the majority, have always supported the same policies as the Republicans. But Mr. Loeb would have us still give them are money.
I can't believe anyone finds Mr. Loeb's two-faced approach to politics anything but distasteful?
My list:
Monthly sustainer: Progressive Democrats of America, Kucinich campaign, Healthcare Now, Global Exchange, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Truthout
Occasional/Annual: Ryan's Well foundation, Commondreams, CodePink, campaigns for legal defense for conscientious objectors, National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, and lots of smaller grassroots movements that I come into contact with.
I used to give to more "social service" oriented causes, but for the past few years, I have concentrated my giving on "social change" in hopes of bringing more lasting solutions. Some of this is not as tax deductible, but that's really not the point of the giving. A lot of times I started giving to a certain cause when they made a bold move, like when Amnesty called Guantanamo a gulag, or when Greenpeace appeared on the "terrorist list".
For anyone who doesn't give regularly to causes they believe in, I strongly encourage you to begin. I have a very modest salary and 4 mouths to feed (not counting pets) and I would never have thought I would be able to give as much as I do. But there is some kind of karmic force that makes everything turn out fine when you align yourself and your resources with your beliefs. No matter how tight things get, I have never cut back on my giving and somehow, we just always make it. Of all the things I spend my money on, nothing feels as good or as right as supporting my favorite causes.
Happy holidays everyone.
Dennis Kucinich, only because he started the Impeachment ball rolling whereas the other spineless Dems did not, walkinmyname.org, for John, any homeless person in any country, anywhere, I don't care if it's for crack, heroin, alcohol or whatever, not my damn business, they should NOT be without a roof in this country, use it to help them get through the night, ASPCA, Amnesty International, anyone that needs a burial, I offer a cot and a hot to any activist on a roll that needs somewhere to place their head, I offer myself to whomever needs respite, I do what I can. Maybe it isn't much but I try.
Doesn't make me more or less than what I am, just feel I should share what I have. Will never donate to the Dem Party ever again, as I said, Kucinich for what he did not who he is.
I give to Amnesty Intntl. ACLU, EL Awda (right of return for Palestinian Refugees)
ASPCA, Defenders of Wildlife Center for food safety and I haven't started yet but am looking into SOS VIllages for orphans & refugees and this Heifer Organization that
gives livestock to needy such as llamas & sheep for shearing so people can become self sustaining, bee hives, baby chicks, I got a catalog from them & believe they say 100% of donations go directly to those in need.
Here, here for Kucinich. It makes me crazy to hear anyone who more knowledge, to my knowledge, as I do about politics say about John Edwards, "And I appreciate that he's been the first to stake out strong positions on issues like health care and global warming, with the other major Democratic candidates following in his wake." What is that? Kucinich was the only one to vote against the war, Kucinich is the only one advocating Universal Health Care, Kucinich is the only one who drew up the papers to impeach Cheney, etc. Dennis Kucinich follows in no one's wake. So this guy - Paul Rogat Loeb - is off my Christmas card list and I'm glad he supplied his email address. I donate to www.dennis4president.com.
Kucinich, Cindy Sheehan. I will not give to the Democratic establishment again, only individual candidates who are truly progressive. MoveOn proved to be too close to the Dem. establishment, and have shut down discussion of 9/11, Kucinich, Zionism, and other issues. Same for DailyKos, now too close to the Dem. establishment.
Progressive Democrats of America appears to be on the right track, however I disagree with their stance that they will support the Democratic Party nominee, despite their views and what happened in the primary. We have to rip control of the party from the current "leaders", and the only way to do that is deny them the power of holding office.
I once gave to the ACLU as a protest against Bush, specifically told them it was a one time gift, and not to make me a member. They ignored that, gave me a membership and proceed to hound me for more money and membership "renewals" for YEARS. They have totally turned me off, and I will NEVER give to them again!
If you believe in changing the way we live and travel, then joining or giving to the National Association of Railroad Passengers (www.narprail.org) is a worthwhile donation. They have a very small staff, and a high contribution/use ratio, and advocate tirelessly for the continuation of Amtrak and rail transit in general. Most people close to Amtrak will tell you that if it weren't for NARP the past 30 years, there would be no rail passenger service in the U. S. There are also various state rail advocacy groups you could give to as well.
For those who value information with a progressive point of view I would recommend donations to the following:
Democracynow.org--Amy Goodman does 260 hour long newscasts on Mon-Fri throughout the year. You can watch her 10 minute news summary at the beginning of each show is usually 1-2 weeks ahead of the MSM.
Alternativeradio.org with David Barsamian features hour-long radio programs (available on CD's or as downloads for a modest cost) with guests like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Tariq Ali, and Vandana Shiva. David is multi-lingual, a world traveler, and has personal contacts all over the world with interesting and well-informed scholars and activists.
TUCradio.org--Maria Gillardian's half hour weekly show featuring interviews and speeches by progressive scholars like Michael Parenti, activists like Ralph Nader, and scientists detailing things like global warming, pollution, and alternatives to our current energy dependence. Maria can do to a speech what Readers Digest does to many of its articles--she distills the essence of the presentations into a very tight and compact half hour jam-packed with information. Her shows are also available for purchase.
all three of the above organizations are working to make available information otherwise supressed or ignored by conventional media.
KEM -- you're going to like this:
I generally don't give to partisan efforts, since I feel most of the real issues may arise from partisanship but ultimately cannot be solved that way. Check out Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps and your local food shelf.
Mr. Loeb,
Drop the Obama fascination would ya?
This guy is bad news.
Google Paul Street's exposes of this man's phony progressivism and ties to corporate America and get educated now.
Your activism against this triangulator is badly needed.
Yes there are so many deserving people/groups to
give to. Whom one gives to is one's personal choice.
I must admit to being put off by the spectacularly ungrammatical title of this article.
Paul, could you please follow up with us and let us know why you're not giving to Kucinich?
If this site is home on your browser, you must know that Kucinich is by far the most popular candidate among those who comment on the site. This article's not a reprint, it's been written for this site, so why not talk to your readers more specifically?
My login wasn't working for a few days so am just now able to respond, but a couple quick thoughts. I'm delighted at people adding their own good suggestions to their threads--lots of great groups and this was just my personal list. Also forgot to add Military Families Speakout, a great group (I was going from my Quicken file and a lot of them went through Paypal, so didn't list the group).
Can't say I like being called "a shill for the Democrats." I definitely believe we need grassroots groups to pressure them, and thats why I support these groups. But if we didn't learn the importance of who we elect from the Bush years, I don't know when we're going to learn it, so the question to me is how to stop the Republican march towards totally destroying Democracy. And also how to push the Democratic party toward the best of its roots (Roosevelt, the Civil Rights laws etc) and not the worst (Vietnam and other illicit wars).
You do that by supporting outside organizations clearly. But also I think in this time, by supporting those forces inside the Democratic party (and if you don't believe Dean is in a serious fight for the Party's direction you haven't been following what he's been doing) that give it a chance of moving it in that direction. And of course if you want to put your energy and scarce dollars entirely outside the Democratic party and even outside electoral structures, that's fine--just wasn't the choice that I made.
Finally, on Kucinich, no question that he has excellent values, that I definitely share. And the most clearly progressive stands across the board. But he just doesn't have a shot at winning. My sense is that he doesn't appeal that much beyond hard core progressives (outside of Cleveland where they've really had time to get to know him), plus being a vegan would totally knock him out—you can just imagine how the Right would talk about his wanting to take away people's macaroni and cheese. So I also don't really think he has a chance. As a result, I'm backing Edwards, and then Obama.
Because they do have some chance of beating Hillary and there are significant differences between them and her, on the war, on tax and trade policies, on health policies—lots of areas that matter. And yes Kucinich would be better, but it means supporting him is much more of a symbolic vote. And I see a large enough political gap between Hillary Clinton and either Edwards or Obama that I'm doing what I can to try and ensure that one of them is the nominee.
Also, to be honest, I wish Kucinich had focused more on explaining progressive issues in the debates and a bit less on attacking Edwards and Obama. But that's just my response.
Mr. Loeb, I hope you're still reading the responses here:
You yourself said that Kucinich's ideas are the best ones out there, and yet you are afraid, just as the MSM is afraid, of endorsing him. This illustrates the problem we have in America today: we have all been conditioned to be afraid to vote for the candidate who is truly in our best interests. If truly progressive people like yourself could get past this fear conditioning maybe we could get somewhere. I understand why the MSM tries so hard to convince American voters that Kucinich doesn't have a chance, but it scares me that progressive political writers such as yourself, and progressive celebrities like George Clooneyand Oprah Winfrey should have been so conditioned.
Call me Don Quixote, if you want, but in my opinion if one influential person could override this decades-long conditioning we could get the ball rolling and elect the one person who, by your own admission, is the best candidate for us.
As for Kucinich's being a vegan setting him up for ridicule by the MSM, it seems to me that if we think about it we'd realize that it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure that you don't have to be a vegan yourself to want to end the war and have universal health care. There is no direct causal relationship between the two, and of course Kucinich isn't going to try to outlaw eating meat if he gets elected. Whether you eat meat or not is a personal decision, just as is whether you believe in God or not, and Kucinich's platform is the one that is, in general, in the best interests of the poor and middle class - hands down. I agree with you that Edwards is probably the best of the "upper tier" candidates, but they lag far behind the ideas of Kucinich.
Bottom line: Kucinich is by far the best candidate for We, the People, and you, despite your obvious political savvy, have been conditioned to be afraid to vote for him, just like the majority of Americans have. And that makes me sad, because you have a lot of clout and could help Americans to override this fear, if you chose to do so.
Not eating meat has nothing to do with ending the war or having universal health care. Neither does having a young and pretty wife or being short and funny-looking. Those things are not interconnected. The real connection is that Kucinich's ideas in general are the ones that are in our best interests, and if the MSM won't educate us about this, maybe political writers like you should. After all, the real problem with the American voting system is the voters' lack of education.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Wow, take that, Paul. This Ticonderoga is giving you a run for your money. We die-hard Kucinich fans won't settle.
You die hard Kucinich fans are going to "die" on January 3. Bye bye.
My loss is your loss.
You're right, sophia, if Kucinich loses it will be the loss of every member of the poor and working class, whether they're male, female, straight, gay, white, black, hispanic or whatever. The only ones who won't lose are the huge corporations, crooked politicians, and the military-industrial complex.
In the meantime, I just put my Kucinich For President sign on my lawn and my Kucinich bumper sticker on my car, and I'm going to continue sending his organization what little money I can and telling everyone I get a chance to about him. I suspect you'll do likewise. I only wish the people with clout who know the deal could find the courage to the same.
You are so right ticonderoga. I have to conclude that people like this author are not really serious about true progressive change in this country, because if they did, they would use whatever influence they have to support the candidate that most represents us.
It's very disappointing. They expect us to settle but I, for one, will not.
Thank you, bless. I'm glad that you won't settle.
However, I do think Mr. Loeb is very serious about wanting progressive change. It's just that I also think he's afraid to take a chance on the candidate whose ideas are the best the poor and middle class have seen since the New Deal, and that's a crying shame.
Now it's time for me to log out and write a reader editorial for my local paper about Kucinich and his ideas. I think that if we all did that we just might have a chance to get Kucinich's name out there. I heard somewhere that the first thing people read when they buy a newspaper are the reader editorials because they like to see what their neighbors think.
Bless, I hope the New Year treats you kindly.
At this point, Kucinich is polling at 1%, occasionally two. And yes he won the DFA poll, but that's because it wasn't a poll of members, and the Kucinich campaign encouraged people to flood it with responses. For a variety of reasons, he has no shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Which means that his supporters are going to have to decide for themselves whether there's a significant difference between Hillary Clinton and either Barack Obama or John Edwards, and if they think there is and want to affect the nomination weigh in for oneof those two candidates.
Could Kucinich have won the nomination if people like myself with a bit of a podium had backed him early? I still don't think so. It's money in part, but it's more than money. Progressive as it is, I think the way he phrases his message works very well for those on the Left (and maybe some New Age types). I don't see it resonating with those who aren't. So yes, I and others have made the choice of supporting candidates like Edwards and Obama who are still progressive in many ways, and still get the importance of social movements--but admittedly aren't as much as Kucinich.
To PaulLoeb--I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion that Kucinich's message only resonates with those on the "Left (and maybe some New Age types)." On the contrary, his message is good common sense: peace not war, diplomacy not aggression, universal health care, equal opportunities for education, taking care of the environment. I could go on, but for God's sake--this is the agenda that would benefit the vast majority of Americans if we could get the word out. It's just a crying shame, as ticonderoga said, that people like you are afraid to take a chance on a leader who is the real thing.
By the way, your comment about him wanting to take away people's macaroni and cheese is beyond absurd!
Remember tithing? We'd do well to impose a budget on our annual giving where we put aside a certain amount as a percentage of gross income (or discretionary income). The next step would be some strategic triage. My approach is to avoid the big acts because they have appeal to a broader array of people and instead to give to smaller more radical organizations with little hope to get anything from a middle of the road soccer mom.
The cool thing about a budget is that it invites creative accounting: for instance, you can pay your attendance at a progressive conference out of this budget, or excessive purchases of political books, or your magazine subscriptions. You can finally allow yourself to subscribe to Alternative Radio and get all their programs on CD!
And best of all: when fundraisers call you, you can calmly tell them: I'm sure you have a worthwhile cause but I've budgeted my donations for the year, and you're not in it.
If you find that your budget is pitiful, this may prompt you to analyze your expenses and discover creeping costs for dispensable purchases or services you can do without.
It's late for this to be read, but a thought that has occured to me some time ago was stirred by reading this article and discussion. (I've gotten behind in my reading, during this vacation time.)
Most people seem to feel that they have to choose one candidate, choose early, and then stick with that candidate to the end.
(Then, there's the people who will only choose from the candidates that they and the MSM think have a chance to win.)
I believe that we can fully support the candidate we personally like best (definitely Kucinich), and if and when our initial choices are no longer available, we can move on (albeit reluctantly) to our next choice. Our ideals should come before pragmatism, but only by a bit.
Although our whole culture makes everything into a competitive game -- where we feel we need to "choose up sides" (and take up a loyalty to a team) -- life (and politics) needn't be thought of that way, if you can break free from the mold.
Don't be afraid to be "complex" -- have a mix of ideals and practical motivations.
Don't be afraid of "changing loyalties", as reality itself changes.
Choose the best candidate, first, and support that candidate as long as you can.
Maybe later, we will (reluctantly) support a different candidate.
Maybe later, we feel that cannot in good conscience support any candidate.
So be it.
Ideals and best candidates first!
I think you've made a good point, Fishmael.
Personally, I plan on doing what I can to spread the Kucinich word, since I think he's by far the best candidate for the job, but if he doesn't win the Democratic primary and Edwards does, I'll vote for Edwards. He's changed his mind on a number of issues, yes, but that's all right with me. It's like how science works: if you get new information you change your mind, instead of blindly sticking to your guns just for the sake of blindly sticking to your guns, like George Bush does.
What scares me, though, is if Hillary Clinton wins. No idea what I'll do then. Guess I won't until it happens (sure hope it doesn't).