Are the Democrats Proposing Peace, or Counter-Insurgency Without End?
Pushed by powerful voter sentiment, the leading Democratic presidential candidates all talk of ending the Iraq war, and the November election seems headed toward a showdown with a Republican committed to a long-term war and occupation.
But it’s not necessarily true.
The press, the politicians and much of the public have embraced a paradigm that equates ending the Iraq war with the phased withdrawal of American troops from combat roles, a position favored by the top Democratic candidates. Sen. Hillary Clinton, according to her campaign statements, would withdraw most or all of them in five years though she “hopes” to withdraw them sooner, and Sen. Barack Obama would do the same in 18 months. Former Sen. John Edwards has recently espoused a more rapid and complete withdrawal timetable.
Overlooked is the fact that if and when those combat troops withdraw, U.S. counter-terrorism units will remain indefinitely to fight the Iraq-based al Qaeda along with other undefined “terrorists.” There also are American advisers who will continue training roles for the Iraqi army and police, and will be embedded in the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a Shiite stronghold widely criticized for torture, detention without charges, and other human-rights violations. There will be armed forces to protect the diplomats in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest embassy in the world. Finally, these units will require “force protection” by additional American troops.
To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central America in the ’70s, or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture. Top American advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have praised the Phoenix program.
This, in fact, already is happening. The Baghdad regime is described by a source in the Baker-Hamilton report as a Shiite dictatorship. The recent lessening of violence in Baghdad largely is due to the ethnic cleansing of its Sunni population. At least 50,000 detainees are imprisoned today without charges or trial dates. The United States is paying Sunnis to fight Sunnis, funding the Shiite-dominated security forces, and has increased its bombardment from the air by fivefold since last year.
Morality aside, there is no certainty that transferring combat duties to the Iraqi army, with embedded U.S. advisers and trainers, will succeed in stabilizing Iraq any time soon. Nor will inevitable revelations of human rights abuses in Baghdad’s secret prisons salvage America’s ruined reputation in the world.
The silence of the candidates and the media toward this U.S.-created, U.S.-funded, U.S.-armed Frankenstein in Baghdad perhaps reflects a bipartisan establishment fear of “losing” Iraq. Such fears resonate strongly in American politics in favor of Republicans, from the acrimony over “losing China” in the ’50s to the continuing polemics over who “lost Vietnam.” It may also be rooted in an unspoken consensus on securing a an American advantage in the sharing of the Persian Gulf oil supplies.
If the Democrats continue to downplay this issue, they may provide a pretext for a Ralph Nader candidacy in an extremely close November race. Moreover, they may disillusion countless Americans if, despite promises, the war goes on for five years or more.
An alternative has been pointed out by, of all people, former CIA Director John Deutch, who says the United States must decide to end the occupation and open a diplomatic offensive with Iran, “the only country that could make our withdrawal difficult.” The Baker-Hamilton report concluded that Iran will not support a solution in Iraq as long as Tehran believes the U.S. goal is to overthrow the Iranian regime.
Meanwhile, the moment before California’s Feb. 5 primary will be one of the last windows for the media and the public to clarify if and when the Democrats really plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq.
Tom Hayden is the author of “Ending the War in Iraq” (Akashic Books, 2007). His writings on Iraq can be found at www.tomhayden.com
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
When you watch the primaries or when you watch the debates it is important to remember that you are really watching a bunch of marionettes. They sing and dance, promising the moon for your vote. They tell you just what you want to hear.
With Kucinich out of the race, all that’s left is a silly puppet show. Unless there’s a decent Green candidate, be sure to bring a coin with you to the polls. Heads they win, tails you lose.
The Democratic Party is no different from the Republican party in the foreign policy arena. Obama says at least he will talk with you before he bombs you. Everything else is the same. Imperialism is a bipartisan project, and our power elite has no plans to wind it down anytime soon. Our leaders of both parties would tell us that we should always have some presence in Iraq. In the end it won’t matter. The people of Iraq will eventually drive us out if it takes fifty years for them to do it.
Tom Hayden is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America. Part of their mission statement reads:
“We will reach our goal by working inside the Democratic Party to return it to its roots as the party that represents the workers and the less fortunate, and by building coalitions outside the Democratic Party on shared issues.”
What I would like to know is what the organization plans to do when the Democrats nominate a supporter of the corporate-imperialist agenda. Does “working inside” mean that, in the end, they will support the Democratic presidential nominee? Fighting for change, both inside and out, is great; caving in at the finish line is NOT great at all. One might even call it treasonous.
Several of the PDA board members have already given their endorsements for mainstream Democratic presidential candidates. The ones I’m familiar with are Lynn Woolsey (Clinton), Jim McGovern (Clinton) and Barbara Lee (Obama). Are there others?
I’m all for supporting progressive candidates be they Democrats or anything else. When I see PDA’s board members endorsing the corporate state, I have to question the organization’s vision. I wonder who will get Mr. Hayden’s support next November.
Well, if the GP nominee really is former-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, there will be a Left anti-war candidate. And of course if Dr. Paul goes on to Nov as an indie or whatever, there will be an anti-war candidate from the Right. I just wonder if the kids will be able to get over their fear of confrontation (that stupid group - everybody is a winner - think their parents and schools inculcated them with), and be able to figure out that voting for Hillary is not in their interests?
Here is a very usefull Youtube on the Pheonix Program. Please watch it and post it on major US newspaper sites, so more can learn about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTE–9sPgPg
I am a member of the national board of pda
I am resigning because of what welshterrier2 says
The PDA will not endorse me, even though I am a progressive
and am the same person as I was when I was a Democrat with
the same positions and ideologies.
I believe that most orgs with “Democrats” or “Democratic” in
their names care more for Democrats than democracy.
My campaign also has an inside/outside strategy:
Kick Pelosi out so I can get in…that will be true change!
CindyforCongress.org
Love
Cindy
I’ll shout it from the rooftops: This time I’m sticking with Ralph Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney. Maybe they’ll run together. Or maybe I’ll stay home.
This frees me up quite a bit. I don’t have to rattle on and on about who is the lessor evil.
Too bad Ted Bundy is dead, they might have wanted to put him on the ballot …. but then, he actually did the killing with his bare hands. Edwards and Clinton only gave money for other people to do the dirty work - my money, your money! Maybe I’m too young to understand why the lessor of evils is acceptable.
Lewis Lapham said that when he met Bill Clinton, he felt a flush of obsequious attraction. Clinton was so charismatic … as was Ted Bundy.
Clinton killed more innocent people than Ted Bundy so, using the lessor of two evils strategy, Bundy could have made a good choice.
ps:
I am also supporting Cynthia McKinney for Prez
It is too bad Cindy that PDA could not make decisions in such a way as to keep you on their board (by earning your respect). You are such a true progressive leader.
It is now obvious that three pro-war (in voting) and pro-death penalty Democratic Party candidates are IT. What are progressives to do?
It is not for me to decide. But . . .
I’d like to see you Cindy, and Ralph Nader, and the Green Party, and Cynthia McKinney, and David Cobb, and the true progressives among the Democrats (like Kucinich), *somehow* come together and cooperate during this election.
Any thoughts Cindy? Anyone else?
I should add Tom Hayden to the above list of people I’d like to see cooperate, for I admire him greatly, and this essay is a good example of his credentials as a good, true, progressive leader.
welshTerrier2 (4:16) notes that PDA’s mission statement reads, “…“We will reach our goal by working inside the Democratic Party to return it to its roots as the party that represents the workers and the less fortunate, and by building coalitions outside the Democratic Party on shared issues.”
This phrasing sounds pretty, but hardly represents the “roots” of the Democratic Party. PDA can get away with outrageously misrepresenting history in this way, only because of the New Deal. Without that one unique and extraordinary chapter of American history, the DP has no legitimate claim at all to “representing the workers and the less fortunate.” And even that one exception is not quite what it appeared to be, on the surface.
During the 1930’s, class tensions were inflamed to a point where there was a very real risk of massive social upheaval. The DP at that time sought to head off possible insurrection by making substantial concessions to the working class — but did so only to save the prevailing social order. This is not the same thing as “representing workers and the less fortunate.” Rather, it was a case of giving up a little — when there was practically no alternative — in order to save a great deal.
After FDR died, the DP went back to its real roots — which are not so much “representing workers and the less fortunate” as pretending to represent them (to gain their votes, and defuse social unrest), while actually betraying them at every turn.
It is ludicrous to pretend that today’s DP has anything to do with “representing” workers and the less fortunate. Rather, it’s a corporatist party that’s still able to get the votes of workers and the less fortunate, only because there’s no officially-permitted alternative (and to some degree, because the party still feeds on the legend of FDR — imperfectly understood though this legend may be).
The Democrats are not proposing peace.
It isn’t clear that they are proposing anything except for being not-Republicans.
Or to offer an alternative phrasing,
the Democrats are proposing something that’s meant to sound like peace, but really isn’t.
Republicans: “We like occupying other countries, especially when they’re oil-rich! We make no apologies for this!”
Democrats: “We don’t mind occupying other countries, especially when they’re oil-rich. But we prefer to make it look like we’re always on the verge of withdrawing our troops at the earliest ‘feasible’ opportunity.”
A one party state is GOOD. It reduces friction. So do prisons. Things are going very well, thank you very much. We are building dissentor holding centers in preparation for the need to host the malcontents. Once they are identified and cleared off we will have a frictionless society. Hey, hey,hey ho, it’s off to work we go….
“What I would like to know is what the organization plans to do when the Democrats nominate a supporter of the corporate-imperialist agenda. Does “working inside” mean that, in the end, they will support the Democratic presidential nominee? Fighting for change, both inside and out, is great; caving in at the finish line is NOT great at all. One might even call it treasonous.”
Well said: Hayden does not get in the dirt with the rest of the peasants. Instead he stands on his elevated perch which mean “work within” with the rest of the elitist bastards…well, kiss my ass…
These blogs are often filled with discussions differentiating the soulless centrists of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. This post is not about that. This post will seek to highlight some of the key differences, and perhaps similarities, between progressive Democrats and those who can no longer tolerate the party’s close ties to K Street.
For ease of use, I’ll call the progressive Democrats liberals. I’ll call the ex-Democrats anti-corporatists.
The liberal agenda (at least during my lifetime) has always focused on lifting up the weakest among us and it’s always focused on “equality.” It’s been highlighted by the civil rights movement, the woman’s movement, the gay movement and a deep commitment to the social safety net. I think it’s fair to say that most anti-corporatists could easily find common ground with this agenda. It’s a good agenda. It’s a fair agenda. It’s an agenda based on sound values and principles.
The flaw in the Democratic ointment, however, is that equality does not mean freedom. Therein lies the rub … and the chasm that divides us. Equality does not mean freedom nor does equality mean fairness nor does equality mean democracy. Until human values are empowered and corporate greed is disempowered, we live in a country controlled by greed where democracy is not possible.
Corporations, in their singular pursuit of profits, are melting our glaciers and threatening all life on the planet. Corporations, in their singular pursuit of profit, have purchased the mass media and control most of what passes for our national dialog. If information is the lifeblood of democracy, corporate greed has poisoned our blood supply. Corporations, in their singular pursuit of profits, have opened an enormous gap between rich and poor. Corporations have purchased the electoral system as well as the politicians who act on the stage of government. Corporations define our national policies in the halls of the “people’s government.” Our foreign policy serves only corporate interests. We fight wars; we assassinate; we blackmail using the IMF and the World Bank all to coerce “cooperation” for the corporate agenda. The lives of America’s fighting men and women are sacrificed, however well-meaning they might have been, for corporate profit. America’s “safety net” has been spent fueling the military-industrial-Congressional complex. America’s insurance corporations and America’s pharmaceutical corporations have conspired to leave almost 100 million Americans, including a high percentage of children, with either no health coverage or inadequate health coverage.
The Democratic Party, their supporters and their candidates, refuse to look this tyranny squarely in the eye. While the many “interest constituencies” in the party are busy fighting for their special cause, they fail to note that our country has been stolen from us. The issues they fight for so passionately are all critically important but job one has to be empowering the American people and kicking the corporate tyrants, including many Democrats, out of their lofty perches of power.
What good is “equality” and the right to vote when that vote has been stripped of power? Which Democrat can we vote for to shift our national policies and spending priorities to ones that would actually benefit “we, the people?” Which Democrats are talking about reclaiming the people’s government and casting those of a singular, greedy pursuit out of the people’s halls?
That’s the divide we’re suffering with. Some of us stand here, outside the Democratic Party, and call on well-meaning liberals to awaken to the tyranny that mocks us all. Bad feelings are commonplace across this divide; it’s unfortunate. Until we find unity, there is no hope for meaningful change … perhaps not even then. The empire cannot stand forever. I’m confident the others will awaken as the waters rise. Let’s hope it’s not too late when they do.
I would like one the very bright and capable CommonDreams/progressive media regular contributors to document in summary form ALL of what Tom describes as “low-visibility, dirty wars” that the U.S. is currently engaged in.
I agree with what many have said, but part of the thinking here is a bit confusing. Some of these discussions are confused. First, the Democratic Party as a structure has acted in service of various militarist objectives and against them, depending on which time period, individual, and constituency you are talking about. In the McGovern period, it was hardly militarist, but when Henry Wallace ran for President in 1948 he ran against Harry Truman as an architect of the Cold War.
Second, the opening within the Democratic Party may have passed in the minds of some, but then again this misses another point. If the progressives can’t muster the quantity and quality of power to take over the Democratic Party, then how will they take over the American state?
You could argue that the Democratic Party is not the vehicle for change in taking over the State, but that slightly begs the question.
Third, even if we were to argue that the Democratic Party is “structurally” committed to militarism, by the votes of its majority or dominant factions, or leading candidacies, this also begs the question. That question is as follows: Why don’t these campaigns offer comprehensive change? Why do these militarist democrats exist? The answer to that question is that these candidacies can not do the work of a social movement. Aside from Edwards whose chance of winning seems infinitely small, no one is moving close to that kind of perspective. Edwards is admirable in many ways, but his failure to win a single primary is indicative of the structural barriers. “Campaigns” can not in and of themselves usually create power accumulation systems. They come and go, like leaves in the wind, with a few exceptions.
The exceptions come from building a long term alternative machine, as in the Burlington, Vermont Case, or through a quasi social movement, as in Harold Washington’s candidacy. These movements had powerful demographic support systems and built upon an already established reservoir of consciousness. To reproduce that on a national scale would require building networks of alternative economic and media power, independently of where or what party you choose. That is the necessary condition for any strategy such that: (a) individual candidacies or (b) operating in the Green or Democratic Parties are really besides the point if you can’t build up this indepedent power first. Such a base of power might benefit from an alliance with progressive elites, but such an alliance without cooperatives, community radio stations in Alabama, etc. is largely meaningless.
I have outlined this all in a few articles:
http://counterpunch.com/feldman05262007.html
http://counterpunch.com/feldman01082008.html
more generally, www.economicreconstruction.com
In sum, it is not that a Third Party or working inside the Democratic Party is necessarily bad, it’s really a question of (a) what “homework” has to be done first, (b) when one of these might work, (c) building up accountability structures and a democratic process within the social movements.
Third Parties or Demcoratic reform movements could raise burried issues, but would work best if they set up some structure independent of both.
You could read this by William Domhoff:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html
and this by Alexander Cockburn:
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20031124&s=cockburn
Jonathan Feldman
This country and the Democratic Party and Mainstream media didn’t support DENNIS KUCINCH!
It is our complacency that we allowed the Corporate Media to run the show.. allowed the DNC to push Dennis out…
I am disgusted with this country.
Dennis Kucinch was the best chance at getting us out of Iraq.
I am ashamed. WHere are the people in the streets? Is the media just not covering them???
WHen you vote for the lesser of two evils.. you still get evils…
I second Mr. Caelidh. So many great candidates, all at 1% OR LESS, and don’t tell me it’s because of the media. It isn’t. Where are the marches, the outrage. Zippo. Pink this and move on that and nothing happens.
Are the people in the streets but not reported? That does happen, and when it does, you will know about someone who came home with a cracked skull at a demonstration that was not reported. Does anybody know of any such person?
Perhaps cracked skull is too much. How about a bruise?
“The Democratic Party, their supporters and their candidates, refuse to look this tyranny squarely in the eye. While the many “interest constituencies” in the party are busy fighting for their special cause, they fail to note that our country has been stolen from us.”
welshTerrier2,
First, I think that’s letting them off the hook too easy. How can we say that the Democrats refuse to look tyranny in the eye when they cooperate with it? They voted for a war based on lies, they willingly (with eyes wide open) take money from the military/industrial complex, and they work to exclude competing ideas. This may not be a classic example of tyranny, but it is a classic case of being sympathetic to tyrannical causes.
Secondly: They fail to note that our country has been stolen from us? Then they are blind, stupid, and incompetent and have no business being in the positions they are in.
Democrats don’t deserve a pass and we shouldn’t give them one. They deserve and need as swift a kick to the groin and a heave-ho out the door! They are traitors both to our constitution and to the cause of democracy and decency. If we are to even hope to get to some place of fairness, justice, and decency in this country, we must make an example of these quislings. We must set a precedent that the next seven generations will know and understand. We must not allow this to continue!
Why is Tom Hayden publicized so often here? He routinely offers an accomodation or a selling out to the powers that are screwing us.
iammyself - Just to clarify, my post was NOT intended to comment either on the Democratic Party or on elected Democrats. Those who hold power today who have enabled the subversion of democracy are traitors.
The intent of my post was to describe the differences I see between those Democrats (individual citizens) who see themselves as liberals and those who have left the Democratic Party who might describe themselves as anti-corporatists. The Democratic Party cannot make sense to this latter group that rightly sees the Democratic Party’s hands buried deep down in the K Street cookie jar.
There can be no argument that both major parties, whether they have their differences or not, are complicit in building and sustaining the corporate state. In doing so, they have poisoned any semblance of democracy, threatened our “unalienable rights”, polluted our air and water, bankrupted the nation and traded away America’s moral standing in the world. They’ve left very little on the bones for the crows.
I am happy to read here from her in this blog that Cindy Sheehan has finally seen the light and has decided to step down as a board member of PDA. I have been waiting for this.
Because I am a Vietnam veteran I Traveled to Crawford,Texas in the summer of 05 and camped out for a week in a ditch to support her. I had come there with our mutual friend, Bill Mitchell, who also has lost a son in Iraq.
I could see then that PDA was there trying to recruit Cindy but there was just no way then that I could have exlained to her at that time what was to be in store for her. She would have to find out for herself.
PDA founder/director Tim Carpenter began his political career here where I live in Orange County, California and it is here where I obseved how he works. Tim is a long time Tom Hayden protege. They both worked together to found PDA. Their gig has always been to sustain themselves by playing off the intersts of the owners of society against the interests of the rest of us and they very adeptly use the left’s weaknesses to accomplish their ends.
They love to play up to big to celebrities. They usually prefer the Hollywood limomzine liberal types (Jane Fonda, Will Ferrel,etc.) but when they no longer have access to those they will step down to someone like Cindy Sheehan when there is nothing else available.
So they used Cindy for a few years for their purposes and now Cindy has seen how they operate and has now broken free.
Good for you Cindy! Go Forward!
Jim Gibson
Very good summary article by Mr. Hayden. I’m surprised the Chronicle carried it before the elections. I thought their MO was to hold the important news until after decisions are made.
John Edwards mentioned in the Jan 5th debate in New Hampshire: “if you look at what happened in Iraq when the Brits began to pull their troops out, in the part of Iraq where those troops were located, there was a significant reduction in violence.” Well this confirms George McGovern’s point that complete withdrawl will reduce violence and rejects the Bush doctrine that violence would increase with a complete pullout. The reduced violence must have come from Iraqi conciliation after a foreign power leaves.
Obama and Clinton still cling to the Bush doctrine and insist on keeping contractors and NGOs and counter-insurgency troops and trainers in Iraq. According to military sources, reducing troop levels can be compensated by increased air strikes. Reducing troops does not make Obama or Clinton anti-war, just makes them politically opportunistic.
I would also add that over 1 million Iraqis have died, over 4 million are displaced or in exile and numerous statistical surveys of Iraqis confirm their wish that we leave completely within 1 year.
Why do Obama and Clinton keep up their denials and lip service?
Just get out on the streets and protest. What happened? Why did those who were anti-war quit the streets?
We have been protesting regularly since before the invasion.
On the local level we are reminding the public that this war on Iraq is still going on in our name and people are dying every day.
Don’t tell me it doesn’t do any good.
I will only support a candidate that will pull all the troops out of Iraq now.
If there is no candidate who represents my view, I will not vote…a big decision since I have voted every election since Kennedy.
marlee, vote for McKinney. Help to build the alternative.
I am working with Cynthia McKinney’s campaign: we are working together.
And to Jim Gibson: I was on the board of PDA before Camp Casey…
Please give me some credit for having my own thoughts.
Nobody co-opted me. I worked with orgs as long as our beatitudes matched…when they didn’t, we parted. That’s what happened now with the PDA. Tim Carpenter is a hard worker and a good guy, I just think it is misguided to support the Democrats over true change and democracy.
Some people think that there is always someone behind prominent people who speak out. There has been no one behind me, ever. I have people beside me and co-operation can be beneficial and productive.
Cindy
It’s too bad Hayden didn’t include a link to John Deutch’s position.
All I could come up with is this: www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/opinion/15deutch.html
Anyone know of anything with greater detail.
Cindy, Johnathan and all:
I think in recent national polls the majority of people feel that corporations have way too much power.
This is a good place to start because it is just another way of looking at the War Machine.
I think a key thing to go forward would be if the Greens are into building new coalitions.
If they get off this “We are the only true party of the people” reputation and begin to take over or compete or even work with the most radical folks in the PDA and other groups socialists and environmental and minority rights and poor peoples rights and than get more folks interested in voting, the stated mission of the PDA, maybe they could get with the help of Cindy and others who are looking for a stronger progressive movement … maybe Tom Hayden or others who are pissed off with the predicament (Corporate domination) we are in.
It seems we are on the right track now so lets think “Coalition and Local” on a national effort and try to get a movement together while we still have access to the internet that can get our neighbors and friends and family interested in an alternative and organized way to check Corporate Domination.
If nothing else we will help move the big system a bit like Dennis is doing just by keeping on fighting for our inalienable rights.
Don’t forget to support you local muscians too.
Jim
Member American Federation of Musicians
Florida Gulf Coast local 427-721
Cindy,
Is Tom Hayden and the PDA supporting Pelosi?
If they are afraid of losing her, they are not progressive at all…just helping corporate domination.
The greatest stumbling block facing the Green Party may be partisanship itself. I met with a young Green activist not long ago and told him that I’d be happy to vote Republican if that party championed preservation of old growth, civil liberties, socio-economic justice, dialing back the war-time economy, etc. And if it offered reasonably coherrent and consistent ways of getting there. My point was that it was principles that matter most of all. The other, implied, point is that we shouldn’t box progressive ideals into isolated/sealed partisan structures which are clearly marginalized from power.
I believe that electoral politics, like money, are the problems — not the solutions. The rules are so terribly rigged against third parties, and cannot be rewritten without getting to power. In many ways, it’s a catch-22.
So I would suggest that everyone take progressive ideas into their party — whether Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Populist, independent, or just out into the coffeeshops and blogs. We need to bring this shameful country back to a point where there are legitimate debates between multiple good ways of solving problems, and not just a choice between two sorts of corporate/autocratic/criminal solutions.
And while I believe the Green Ten Key Values to be the best value set for the future, I believe they can best be realized through through non-partisan — or pan-partisan — means.
Yes Paul, I agree.
And money is always a problem…it is hard to live without it.
I might conclude something different if we had Range or IRV, publicly financed elections, electoral reform, no more Diebold, and an ounce of fairness from the Corporate Media (debate access, access to air-time, etc.).
But as it currently stands, I believe that the way to change is like a castle wall defended by a corrupt despot. Electoral politics is arguably the best defended entrance to the castle. It’s clearly hopeless. If Kucinich dropped out, McKinney hasn’t a chance in hell. We should arguably be focusing our efforts on cultural change, and introducing progressive ideas to people who — for one reason or the other — must remains committed to the Republicratic Party in name.
Stubine:
I don’t quite follow your reasoning. First you slam all Democrats, then you promote Edwards (a Democrat).
Anyway, my point is that (a) the electoral system is possibly (I’m not entirely sure) the LAST LAST LAST place we should be hoping to promote a progressive set of ideals, since it has so many barriers and (b) money is apparently something that comes AFTER one has power, its very denial to others is a trap of sorts. The carrot on the stick, always just out of reach. It is not something that can be accumulated in critically large sums before obtaining power. At least, I’ve seen no example of it.
As I’ve said…I’ll vote with my voice and creative works, pocketbook and (if necessary) my feet. If we had the critical mass of cultural momentum, the politics would follow naturally. And we can still organize boycotts — it’s not (yet) a crime to refuse buying certain things, etc.
Hey Stubine,
What have you done for John Edwards?
I guess it takes a Republican to know what Democrats have decided…
So on the issue of War which you bring up.. What has Mitt and the Republicans Decided?
Paul, Jim, & others - this is a most stimulating conversation.
I think the bottom line is that we need to put together a MOVEMENT, with permanent structure that can continue to build. To do that, we certainly must reach across as many lines as we can: party, class, and so on. But in politics, we come to certain bottom lines, like elections or votes in Congress, when we have to make a choice.
Paul, I can remember when there were Republicans who fit your description - in Oregon, Tom McCall and Wayne Morse. And today, I live in a very liberal town where the local Democratic committee regularly works with the Greens on particular issues, at least until they finally catch on and switch over. We’ll be picking up some more now that Kucinich is out of the national race. I’m grateful that he chose to drop out now, rather than sticking it out to the bitter end. (One reason is that the DP threatened to McKinney him in the primaries.) The Democrats here even support IRV - in fact, it’s in the state platform, for all the good that does.
Back to the movement, institutions, and voting: it’s always good to reach out to others, but in the end you decide whom to campaign and vote for, and which organization you’re going to build. Full disclosure: I’m a Green Party activist, and I hope you’ll all wake up, smell the coffee, and join a real progressive movement. Otherwise, like the so-called “Progressive Democrats”, you’ll be pounding your head against a machine with an entrenched, moneyed bureaucracy with its hands on the levers of power. Alternative-party politics aren’t exactly easier, but at least we only have to worry about our own inadequacies, and we’re building an organization that belongs to the people in it.
And yes,we have to also build co-ops and a cultural movement. In fact, I think the lack of a culture of resistance is the biggest difference between the Viet Nam War (which I remember very well) and the present one, the reason there isn’t a vast groundswell of people in the streets. That, and the seduction of a Democratic Party that pretends to be against the war, since a Republican President started it this time, while it makes sure to keep it going.
Sometime, there has to be a penalty for betrayal, and in this case, that happens at the ballot box.
Artist: Thunderclap Newman
Song: Something In The Air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pGht71KFkY
Call out the instigators
Because there’s something in the air
We’ve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here, and you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Lock up the streets and houses
Because there’s something in the air
We’ve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here, and you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Hand out the arms and ammo
We’re going to blast our way through here
We’ve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here, and you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together
————-
TOM PETTY VERSION:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUc9RARCGpo&feature=related
Call out the instigator
Because theres something in the air
Weve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolutions here
And you know its right
And you know that its right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Run through the fields and houses
Because theres something in the air
Weve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolutions here
And you know its right
And you know that its right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
Call out the instigator
Because theres something in the air
Weve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolutions here
And you know its right
And you know that its right
We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now
————-
I’d like to change the original to
“Don’t need the arms and ammo
to blast my way through here”
instead of leaving the whole verse out
The folk process
Jim
I’d say that disgruntled Iraq vets are the greatest force for change in the US. What’s stopping them from directing their military skills to targets in the US (besides the dumb spooks in the military)?
A million vets risk their lives and come back home to what? Contract jobs with Blackwater?
After World War II some vets rioted and governments opened up new factories to stop them from going socialist. And they didn’t have the technology of today to organize either.
If no Kucinich, no media debate, no voting system accountability, no compulsory voting, poor turnout. No Democracy that I can see. As already said, just a puppet show.
It is not necessarily true that Kucinich’s dropping out creates a media vacuum. He was kept out of key debates because of the establishment media’s option to do so, because he got very little support. Part of that was the way the media screened him out earlier, but then again while they demonized Jesse Jackson, he was still able to gain media access. The reason was that he had built a somewhat effective movement to challenge or interest the media. This independent base of power has to be institutionalized as suggested by myself and others. If one created a permanent and democratic movement, you could “recycle” that and use it before, during and after the elections, see my references above. Instead, the Left often wants to re-invent the wheel, but sometimes progressive forces are forced to that because various interests don’t offer them the wheel that they already have?
These problems are rather systemic and have more to do with the internal functioning and design of the Left than what the Right or establishment does. There is an incessant tendency to take a progressive figure and give them a pass, or to blame the Right for why the Left does not have power. I don’t think attacking individual personalities helps when some of these are heroic figures and the larger problem is a systemic one driving the entire political process.
We need to define what we mean by “democracy” and then design a criteria that matches that. For example, “a person is chosen to be a leader based on a number of votes by a particular caucas.” Then, we need to take that criteria and apply it to who becomes chosen and leads us. We have a lot of self-appointed leaders running around. These persons get us into trouble when they drop out and leave the investments in their campaigns without any residual to build upon. I am not pointing to any particular individual, just a larger process that has repeated itself for about 30 plus years. Just review the history. One might consider some of the language in Tom Hayden’s Port Huron Statement as a place to start.
This idea about “Greens” versus “Democrats” is a bit misleading. These groups have been in many effective coalitions. They both benefit by creating autonomous, progressive media networks outside the established structures.
I have checked some key votes in the Senate, e.g. for the military budget, and some of these have zero opponents. Zero. We have a lot of work to do.
The PDA can’t tell the difference between a Nancy Pelosi and a Cindy Sheehan? That is so precious!
Well, one of Obama’s advisors is Zbig Brzezinksi, you know the guy who got us involved in Afghanistan? Leading to directly to 9/11.
Well, that’s just great.
The new boss (if Obama) will be the same as the old boss.
Jonathan Feldman, I hope you keep posting here. Your comments are thoughtful and well-researched. I’m still reading the articles you referenced by you, Bill Domhoff and others. Progressives need a good solution to the dilemma of voting one’s ideals and helping the most corporate-conservative candidates—and voting for the lesser corporate-conservative Democratic Party “evil” and betraying one’s ideals. The articles provide some good progress towards a solution. But more debate is necessary.
I could not, however, find a free copy of the Cockburn article you reference. That one is for a fee. If you know of a free reference to the full text, please do tell.
(Here is Feldman’s earlier post reference:
“Jonathan Feldman January 25th, 2008 7:28 pm”
And there is one two above this one.)
Dear Earthian et al.,
I don’t know how to get a free copy of the article by Alexander Cockburn, try the library is my best guess? Nevertheless, if you follow his posts on Counterpunch or read Ralph Nader’s various posts, you can get a good idea of the argument on behalf of a Third Party. One idea is that his running will help to keep the Democrats to the Left, or more honest. Of course, it could also help elect McCain who is looking for some more wars, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/mccain-warns-there-will_n_83459.html
I wonder who does his accounting for him? I mean doesn’t he get it that the dollar and the U.S. economy can’t afford to have these things? Sure it is good for the defense firms but what about the middle class, don’t you need that to buy products?
In other cases, particularly at the local level, no one should doubt that an insurgent peace candidate could be a quite good source of pressure on established Democrats.
One key point of reference for a Third Party effort is the campaign of Henry Wallace. He already saw the established parties supporting militarism that he regarded as unpatriotic. Yet, McGovern who supported Wallace was able to capture the nomination. You can criticize Edwards or Obama all you like, but the fact is that these persons are byproducts of what oppositional culture and resources exist. And then the peace movement has invested a lot more resources into campaigns outside the White House, than they have in educating the public in key battlegrounds where they have leverage, e.g. Iowa and New Hampshire.
Can someone tell me why the peace movement has more confidence in Bush (the White House that they are petitioning) than in a political process where they might actually exercise power, e.g. New Hampshire which Hillary Clinton only won by about 8,000 votes? Surely if she or Obama were faced with a mass organizing effort there, they might have better addressed what a comprehensive peace program actually means, e.g. defined by general and complete disarmament, economic conversion, alternative security, alternative budget coalitions, etc.
I really think that the debates about what the Democratic Party does and does not do are secondary to what the peace and labor movements do or do not do, but that is just my opinion. Yes, we should criticize them for their failings as Mr. Hayden has done. But, we also need to ask some fundamental questions. What is a political party, after all, but the byproduct of the various vectors of power operating on it? We know that the Party has been transformed by the changing vectors of Power. Obama’s strategies simply reflect that vector. He at least tries to run a decent and honest campaign. That is worth something.
We need to debate how social movements are designed. That is the beginning question. That is the question that the Port Huron statement began with. What has emerged from that legacy?