There is no difference between the Demorcratic and Republican parties.
Both of them are now owned and controlled by big Business/Money. The Democratic party of the New Deal is a distant memory. Any Democratic
candidtate will be considered plasphemous if he/she uttered New Deal ideas.
For now, Nader is only viable hope, although in the long run a new populist party has to emerge.

You have to understand, today's Democratic Party has firmly rejected the New Deal. They've also rejected the political coalition that FDR formed to support it.

This was the whole point of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The deliberately restructured the Dem party in the late 80's. They removed its former reliance on people. It used to be Dem campaigns had less money than Republicans, but they had lots of volunteers. Labor Unions were a big part of this, but so were people coming out from all the other aspects of the coalition.

Instead, the DLC restructured the Dem party such that it relied on big contributions. These of course come from the same class of Americans that support the Republicans, because that's the only people who have the money to make big contributions. And of course, they also shifted the policies that the Dems actually follow to back this class of people because they are now the key support that the party relies on.

So, of course no Dem candidate has invoked the New Deal. Nor anything anywhere even close to it. Its absolutely fundamentally the opposite of what the Dem party stands for these days. Of course, they try to hide this. They still need the votes from the traditional Dem voters. But, they get these by lying these days.

This is why there is such a disconnect between what Dem voters think they'll get and what the Dems actually do when in office. This is why Dem voters always seem so shocked when the Dems in office support govt spying or tax cuts for the rich or funding the war or bills that support the pharma and banking industries or ....

And, Obama is no different. I'm constantly struck at how he never actually says anything. Oh, lots of words come out of his mouth. And they sound good. But he goes to great lengths to make sure he doesn't say what he'll actually do in office. Now, combine that with knowing that Obama is the number candidate for getting Wall St. support. Do you think that Wall St. is funding a candidate that's going to bring a new New Deal to Americans? Hardly!

If we want a party to bring us another New Deal, we gonna have to build it ourselves. It sure ain't today's Democrats.

Thank you LeeAnnG! TRUTHIE is misguided.

However, I would disagree that we need Nader again. I think we need Obama, and Obama should find a place for Nader on his staff once he overtakes the White House. Nader's biggest effect will come from being in a rule-making position again.

I think we're going to need soup lines before people get their fat asses off the couch and demand this kind of leadership.

Obama/Gravel 2008

Ahem. One thing that FDR had, but that we lack, is the apparent enemy on the porch -- "communism". I understand that he (and many of his supporters) pushed for his programs, not so much out of basic humanitarianism, but because they were afraid that unless serious reforms were made in the marketplace, there would be a communist revolution in the United States.

What do we have today? Al Qaeda? "Radical Islam?"

Do we even have evidence of massive "unrest" amongst the population?

I'm afraid our politicians, by and large, will not go where they are not forced to go.

I don't have an answer for all of this, but I think we should be aware of the help that communists gave to ease the nastiness in the U.S. "system", that the New Deal embodied.

Yet another outstanding, inspiring essay from Howard Zinn.

As peak oil, climate change, economic instability, and other calamities bear down upon us, "business as usual" is coming to a definite end. Very soon, we and our political leaders will be faced with a choice as to what kind of future to build: one in which we give in to the baser parts of our nature, or one where we face adversity with courage and compassion, as Zinn calls for.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. With teachers like Howard Zinn, maybe the odds are stacked a bit more in our favor.

Yes! I have always admired and applauded Howard Zinn's comprehensive historical perspective combined with his progressive sensibilities, and I feel this piece should be a much-needed guide and primer for a candidate to inspire and transform the current political climate.

I feel like saying, "are you listening, Obama?", but I feel we need to go beyond cute phrases. How about a "letter-writing" campaign where everyone who agrees with the concepts expressed sends a copy to their favorite presidential candidate, along with their personal comments? How about using Zinn's article as a guide for letters to the editor, to local political reps, as a basis for discussion groups, etc.? How about advocating real change and forming a citizen's consensus for meaningful action that can't be ignored?

The way America will get its (new) New Deal, if there is one, is to elect Obama and a full stable of Democrats to Congress. Then, before the ink is dry on the November morning papers announcing those victories, PROGRESSIVES must show up in mass to DEMAND THE AGENDA. Health care, jobs programs, tax hikes at the top to balance the budget, education reform, Wall Street re-regulation, energy re-regulation, conservation, climate change, war de-escalation, national peace service, public infrastructure, elder care, Social Security, you name it. The full boatload as a frontal assault.

You won't get it all. You WILL get some of it. With McCain as president, if you let that happen, you won't get any of it due to 1) Stupid priorities, 2) Veto power.

And, yeah, Obama is "listening". He just can't afford to (yet) adopt the Kucinich agenda and style, because he would lose the election. Nothing wrong with the Kucinich agenda, of course. You just can't sell it in elections and Obama knows this. You win first. They you define your "change."

There are so many parallels between what is happening now to what was happening right before the Great Depression. Has anyone seen the BBC coverage of the growing tent cities around L.A., whose numbers have swelled by the foreclosure crisis? A genuine modern "Hooverville" (we could call them "Bushvilles" if our media bothered to cover them).

There is little doubt in my mind that our country needs sweeping reforms such as what took place by a bold, sensible and compassionate FDR - but there is SUCH a resistance to that from the most powerful people in this country. There are even nuts on the right-wing talk shows talking about what a "facist" FDR was, and millions of people believe that crap (even while they are enjoying their medicare and social security benefits!).

I like the idea of a mass letter-writing project - something so large, so organized that it might even get media attention. Americans need help now more than ever since the 1930s and Corporate America and conservative policies are NOT going to help us!

Hmmmm I wonder what would be said of those words if they were utter from the mouth of Ralph Nader ? You do know that Zinn supported Nader unconditionally in 2000 and said nothing against him in 2004 ?

"New Deal" conjures up a lot of images in our minds, of the Depression, FDR, the CIO, the Democratic Party, Social Security, for some the spectre of Big Government, etc., but how many of us ever stop to think of what the phrase really means?

A new deal is when you take all the cards back, shuffle them and deal off the top giving everyone a fresh chance at the game, whether they were winners or losers the last time around. It is code for redistribution of wealth - radical redistribution. How far the last New Deal went can be debated, as can be the part Roosevelt and the Democrats actually played in this outcome, but there is no doubt that in 1945 wealth was less unequally distributed than in 1928, which goes against the trend of the entire rest of US history. No wonder the wealthy still hate Roosevelt as if he were the devil!

No politician yet, not even Kucinich, has dared to talk about redistribution, as opposed to stopping the bleeding, arresting the process of redistribution of wealth away from the working people to the super-rich. That is why they don't talk about the New Deal.

The New Deal wasn't a revolution. It left the same people in power, even leaving them with new tools of control and more powerful instruments for their imperial ambitions, and it left the system free to repeat the cycle that brought us to 1929. It put in place many checks against a repeat of the Great Depression, but the ultimate cause of the Depression, the cycle of wealth accumulation at the expense of the wealth producers, the people, remained in place and has inexorably been driving us back to (and indeed far beyond) where we were in '29.

Whether we could afford to settle for another new deal, whether the world could survive another cycle of capitalist wealth accumulation and expansion, is something we need to seriously consider. But for the moment, the slogan of a new New Deal is certainly a call to the working people to take up the class struggle in politics, one which Warren Buffet has so candidly pointed out is already being waged against us by the rich. The rich will treat it as a call to revolution (which it is not) and will resist it as though it were and brand its supporters as hate-mongers and communists, for it would involve taking away at least a big hunk of their money and power. In so doing they will provoke millions who are committed only to a better chance for themselves to think more deeply about our situation.

In the context of America today a new New Deal is both a radical step and a necessary one, sufficient or not.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.

.

Here's the REAL DEAL...

http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph...Ralph_Nader.htm

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now

.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the beatings will continue until the morale improves.

By Truthie "Hmmmm I wonder what would be said of those words if they were utter from the mouth of Ralph Nader ? You do know that Zinn supported Nader unconditionally in 2000 and said nothing against him in 2004 ?"

Yeah, well, me too. I voted for Nader in 1996 (Clinton won anyhow!), and again in 2000. And NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - IT DID NOT PUT BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE! What a crock of nonsense. Gore did not win his very own state of Tennessee, he was a wooden speaker and an uninspiring candidate. One can only wish he acted then as he does now.

There was voter fraud, disenfranchisement, and trickery by the Republican party on a very large scale in 2000 and 2004. I don't believe anything could have kept Bush from "winning" the election in 2000. It was a done deal before it began, and the Democrats gave them a pass.

I like Nader now, I liked him in 2000, I liked him in 2004, and even though I did not vote for him in 2004, he was far preferable to me than Kerry. And, gee! Only a complete fool really thinks Nader stole the election from Bush in 2004. That year, the Republicans were so bold, they didn't even try to hide their illegal tactics - rightly so, since no one has ever brought them to task. I should have voted my conscience instead of the lesser of two evils who lost anyhow.

Nader may have his flaws, but he stands for everything I believe in. He is now getting too old to be effective, and he has no chance of winning in any case. I wish Obama had more of Nader's integrity and political views, but I hold out hope that, among other issues, he will eventually lean toward supporting real human beings over corporate organizations.

Great, great article by Zinn. His books are quite wonderful and informative also.

The lesson learned from FDR was simply this: deficit spending is a sound economic policy for governments to pursue. Capitalism cannot abide government spending for the benefit of the public, but cannot get enough of government spending for war. The New Deal was too timid in its deficit spending on social services and infrastructure, so its successes were only modest. The plan for spending on warfare, however, was considered so successful that it has been expanded upon ever since.
As a famous revolutionary once said, "War is the ultimate capitalist product."

So beautiful Mr. Zinn, your call to see the basic truth about how our economic system is structured by super-wealthy corporate criminals who turn the Earth and its peoples into a giant gambling casino that tumbles our lives and our communities like dice.

And so utterly ridiculous, "truthie", to inexplicably try to denounce this analysis by connecting the brilliant and hard-working Zinn to your imaginary fantasy of an evil and hateful Nader, who in your dream-world is personally responsible for destroying America. Your mind is warped, and the reality-based arguments of what actually happened in the 2000 and 2004 elections will have no effect on your delusional thinking.

And of course, the obvious truth, "truthie", is that the dismantling of the New Deal and the restoration to absolute power of the fascistic corporate capitalist gamblers, has continued equally under Democratic and Republican party rule. Or do you not recall that Bill Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act that stopped banks from speculating in financial markets? And worked his ample ass off to pass NAFTA? And supported the WTO? Etc...

And the shining lights of the degraded and demeaned corporatist DLC-Democratic party of today will say NOTHING about the actual roots of our current financial turmoil, not a single one of them will have the guts to stand up and proclaim that fascistic corporatist capitalist gamblers (and their party sycophants) must be stopped. Until the entire house of cards is a heap of rubble and the US economy is a heap of rubble. Which is just around the corner. And Ralph Nader and Howard Zinn are heroes who in their different ways have both always resisted the absolute rule of fascistic corporate capitalism, and they are in NO WAY to blame for the destruction of the United States.

And you, "truthie", cannot think.

ClassAct (2:31 pm) rightly points to the central role of spending for warfare in stabilizing the system. But that was not all that the New Deal entailed. The progressive income tax, the estate tax, legalizing and protecting unions and strike actions, setting up Fannie Mae had powerful effects on the distribution of wealth. If we trivialize the fruits of past struggles we condemn ourselves to impotence and despair.

Interestingly one of the things that is bringing on this crisis is the ultimate failure of deficit spending and the warfare state. The Federal debt has grown so huge that the willingness of states to hold dollars as their reserve currency and of investors to hold US Government securities is crumbling. The debt is ballooning by the week now as more and more bad private debt is nationalized with market bailouts, on top of the huge cost of the Iraq war. Thus the Keynesian answer to the Depression is not relevant to the current situation.

A great cry needs to go up: no bailouts. No foisting of this bad debt on a public already groaning under the burden of private debt. Another has to be shut down the military machine, end the wars and close the foreign bases. And then perhaps one demand would have to be some kind of wholesale debt liquidation. Say, anyone who has been paying more than 10% on a credit card or 5% on a mortgage gets all the "excess interest payment" taken off their principal. Plus everything they've paid in excessive fees.

Restoration of the progressive tax structure and a confiscatory tax on large estates are still appropriate responses.

With labor laws, repealing Taft-Hartley is an appropriate demand, but we need to go beyond a return to the laws of the New Deal. We need laws that protect and support organizing and contract negotiations that cross national boundaries. We need laws that support the ability of a dispersed workforce to organize and negotiate with whole classes of employers, many of whom are smaller sub-contractors, subsidiaries and franchise holders of great corporations.

The point of what I wrote is not that we should recreate the details of the New Deal, but that we should recapture the essential demand which its name encapsulates: redistribution of wealth, power and opportunity.

Here's why our DLC Dims have rejected FDR:

90% tax on earned income over $6mn (adj for inflation <- 1930's)

53% tax on unearned income.

50+% tax on mega-estates.

Wagner Act.

Glass-Steagall.

That's all. That's what you demand, to begin with. See just how fast all those Dims vacate the premises. That's your Dimocracy in action, running away. No doubt they noticed how the money was evaporating from their pockets and realized they needed another infusion from their richfilth corporate masters. That's who they work for, not us.

Will Obama change that? Will we DEMAND it from whoever wears the American Purple? Will they, whoever they are, as head Overseer on the Plantation, tell you to shut up and go away or they will taser you, gas you, microwave you? Is that your Dimocracy? Let's see if I remember:

Democracy is where the government fears the People.

Tyranny is where the People fear the government.

Answer that for yourself. Who's afraid now?

Just asking.

Pieces of 8.

What if a Democrat said ...... ???

But John Edwards wasn't too far off the "new New Deal" message with his 2 America's. Edwards' constituency turned to Barack Obama and the message of "one America." The public prefers reconciliation to class war.

Of course, the media would prefer reconciliation to class war, as well, so Edwards would be marginalized in the media in favor of moderate Democratic candidates.

The missing piece is that the public still trusts market solutions. In 1935, market failure was an immediate everyday experience.

Karl Rove teaches us, ..... Attack your opponent's strength.

The public can accept a new New Deal only after market solutions are discredited (so to speak). The current credit/mortgage crisis is one step in that direction. Global warming is another spectacular market failure. The collapsing health care system - market failure. Trade policy - market failure. Growing income inequality - market failure.

It will come.

Hitler did more to end the great depression than FDR, he helped thin out the ranks of Unemployed young men and set the great MI complex loose to usher in the prosperity of the 50's. Let's give credit where credit is due thank God for WWll.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp?cycle=2008

Open Secrets has a new toy... very interesting to see who gets from whom...

It is very refreshing to read about what the New Deal did along with what it
DID NOT do. This time around, we need some structural changes.

In response to Earl Simmins remarks about Hitler and WWII doing more to end the depression, the reason for this is that capitalism can profit from war on the short term more than it can from the New Deal; all the same players and corporations that profitted from The Great War could profit from WWII, so of course they supported it, and resisted the New Deal. But still, the fact that increased Gubmit spending for the war helped lift us out of the Depression proves that increased spending for the New Deal could have done the same, except for the fact that the capitalists had only so much patience for FDR and his New Deal. They tried to overthrow FDR's government by appealing to retired Gen. Smedley Butler and some who'd rallied with the Bonus Army, to stage a coup. It is a sad glimpse at the depths of greed and its grip on our nation's history.

Fishmael is on to something as far as the impetus to enact new deal legislation in the 30's. Many were "feeling the heat" of potential revolution rather than "seeing the light" of the proper role of government to protect those who are weak from being exploited by the strong.

The forces of fascism have since been smart enough to buy off the outrage of the citizenry by selectively targeting those they wish to neutralize rather than conduct an all-out frontal assault on everybody. They have also filled our lives with the attractive distraction of endless mass media entertainment and presenting trivia in the place of news.

Obama is "listening". He just can't afford to (yet) adopt the Kucinich agenda and style, because he would lose the election. Nothing wrong with the Kucinich agenda, of course. You just can't sell it in elections and Obama knows this. You win first. They you define your "change."

Let me get this convoluted , immoral strategy for election straight . You campaign as a non-socialist to win and when you have won , preside as a socialist . ( to me a socialist is a compliment not a slur . ) Having decieved the voters and assuming Americans regain their memories , do you think that you would preside over USA with your New, New Deal intact in a subsequent term ?

I'm starting to think like you about assuming American voters are two stupid or long-suffering to worry about being lied to.

Would this strategy be any different than Clinton campaigning on an anti-NAFTA platform and winning the nomination only to "change her mind" in the presidential race ?

If McCain can successfully run a fear campaign , win and immediately pull out all American troops out of all countries ( which is the right and proper thing to do )would he not suffer the same fate as Lincoln , McKinley and the Kennedies ?

You've must have Vince Lombardi's famous mantra tattoed on your forehead " If winning isn't everything then losing is nothing " ( or something like that )

Between this machination and the blind-faith of "electing Dems across the board " your posts are wearing thin.

Any Democrat who made such proposals today would find himself being asked questions about UFOs in the corporate-owned media's fake, phony "debates".

americans for america. all the people living on the continent AMERICA (north and south) uniting to create a new world order. how novel.

We might have a chance of getting a "New Deal" if the Dems and all of their helpers could stop undermining both of the Dem candidates with a lot of foolish and incorrect rhetoric. Either one will be much different than the present disaster, and with a strong Dem majority in Congress will make some quick progress. We cannot expect to put things right in a short time that have been destroyed for the last seven years, but we have to start.

If we continue to run down the only ones that have a chance to bring about change, voters might just get sick of hearing all of the crap, and decide to stick with Bush Three McWar and his sidekick, the great Lieberman. No one knows for sure what will happen anyway, as remember Bush did exactly the opposite of what he promised he would do.

Anyone happy with the present situation should just keep on dragging both Dems through the mud or dreaming about Nader and other unelectables and they will probably get their wish, endless war and a depression worse than the 1930`s. I still remember when people would stop in looking for some work they could do for a meal and it could happen again.

RUN HOWARD RUN! We need a long view, a hisotiran's view!

Instead of a chicken in every pot, how about a copy of _A People's History_ in every pair of hands!!

Oh, what has been squandered, and oh what we owe to the rest of the world, especially Iraq and everywhere else the U.S. has destroyed, murdered, and demonized!

We shall reap what we have sown!

Yes, as some have noted, only Ralph Nader leads us back to the New Deal.

Obama?

Give me a break. That guy is only going to put a black face on privilege at home and imperialism abroad.

We should not forget that the corporatists still have the majority of voters bamboozled with the concept of "freedom," as they argue that New Deal programs restrict an individual's freedom. That argument has to be taken apart before progress can be made by progressives through democratic processes.

As most on the left know, the word "freedom" by itself is all sound and fury signifying nothing. It can only have meaning if freedom for whom from what is specified. Everyone in a society and participating in the economy is interconnected in innumerable ways. What people desire is to be free from that which is inconsistent with their health, welfare, and general well-being, but to be more well-connected with that which aids their health, welfare, and general well-being.

Deconstructing the concept of freedom appears to be a sine qua non for progress in convincing US voters to accept proposals of the left.

And why aren't you running?

http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com

I see that DD not only continues to drink the cool aid but still tries to offer it to others as well.

His belief that you can accept the deal (vote for a candidate based on what he campaigns on) and then demand that it be changed after the fact is at best naive, and at worst is deliberately deceptive in an effort to elect the candidate of his choice.

Lobo Gris

Kucinich invoked the New Deal all the time. His plan would have gone a step further, not only repairing our outdated infrastructure, but converting our government into a model of sustainable, green processes and energy. But the powers that be forced him out of the race before we citizens even had a chance to vote for him (as they did with Paul). Very interesting, though, that for all the Republicrats' slimy tactics, both of them won their primary races quite handily. Restores a little bit of my faith in the American sheeple.

Nice essay and comments.

Unfortunately, at present, we can expect no New Deals from the DLC Democratic Party. Its leaders have long embraced military Keynesianism over the years and are not deviating course for this election year. The Dem frontrunners just claim to be better managers of the wars than the Republicans. Corporate funding is determining the policies they'll enact, including fake healthcare reform.

Clinton and Obama will continue the wars because that's the economic system. The leading export of the United States is weapons. U.S. tax dollars traditionally get funneled to Congressional districts through military spending. That's where the money is (while it lasts), and the Dem frontrunners have said nothing indicating a different direction.

I think we have a long way to go to change this system, but it begins by changing minds. There are a lot of U.S. citizens who are fairly detatched and witless about all of this. The waste and death of the permanent war economy is out of sight and out of mind. Hardcore Democrats are in denial of what their party represents, which is corporations - not us. Republicans hate nuance, and are easily steered by xenophobia and racism. Both end up supporting plutocracy by default.

Zinn at least points to a slight window of democratic change that happened once before. The best guide at the present, I think, is to be clear thinking. Maintain your progressive ideals, stay informed and always aim toward enabling long-term change that benefits people in the broadest sense.

Have courage and don't get distracted from this course. Horse-race Presidential campaigns with candidates that don't represent our views aren't worth our time and energies.

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose!

The New Deal would not work today. It is too limited in it's scope and does not recognize the hyperculture we are living in. Today we need BIG ideas so let's call it the Big Deal.

End the Iraq War
Revolutionize U.S. Foreign policy
Redistribute wealth
Establish universal health care single payer
Revolutionize education
Establish Domestic decentralization
Water is a public resource
Food is a public resource
Energy is a public resource
Provide decent housing
Stabilize and reduce global warming
Nurture the environment
Convene a constitutional convention
Honor American Indian Treaties
Demolish the defense establishment and start over
Eliminate corporate personhood
Eliminate private military contractors
Make illegal any religion that practices dominion
Replace competition with cooperation
Practice respect for all life

Big ideas and big changes make a Big Deal.

Doom n Gloom:

You should add: Money as a public resource.

The New Deal changed the fundamental relationship between the people and their government. It created the Nanny State. It obligated the elite to take care of those less fortunate but did nothing to empower the people.

The Federal Reserve was responsible for the Great Depression, a fact acknowledged by Chairman Bernanke. Until the financial system is placed on a Constitutional basis, the money will be controlled by a small elite and the people will be forever indebted to them.

The financial system should be a transparent government monopoly, with all its records available online for anyone to access. The private financial system should be abolished. The treasury should do what the Fed now does: create debt free money.

Prof Zinn's nostalgia for the New Deal does not recognize that the wealthy minority has a great deal more power today than in the 30's. "Fire Side Chats" were FDR's direct connection with the people. Radio was new and powerful. It brought Hitler to the world stage. Today the media is a private cartel that does not serve the public interest and would not permit an FDR unobstructed access. Only the internet is free, but limited to those who can afford it, first of all, and secondly have a high degree of literacy. The internet is an elite medium. Television is the primary source of political power. THEY own it and they will never permit it to become a vehicle for a populist agenda.

The Constitution is a radical document after all these years. Not Professor Zinn and not a single commentator in this thread has recognized the real source of our problem.

Remember, once Obama is the declared democratic presidential candidate, we must work to clean house in congress. Every single congressman/woman who voted for the Iraq war can be found in coporate pockets and needs to be replaced. We can't change a country with a congress still dependent on corporate largesse.

Earl Simmins seems to admire Hitler's way to get Germany back on track: he should vote MC Caine then!
He may also actually admire Hitler the man.
Let's add the ovens to the concentration camps -and build more of the camps- that's job creation I suppose...

Obama picking Boxer as VP? let's hope not! Boxer as well as Pelosi are about as discredited as Lieberman.
I used to live in CA. I saw them being bought more ands more.
Congress has a low approval rate: Boxer-pelosi-feinstein... are responsible chosing unpopular officials is suicide.
I think Richrdson is conservative but Latino and people may have forgotten what he did or didn't do in the Clinton years - I DID!
Nader for Secretary of Labor
Kucinich as Secretary OF PEACE.
Edwards as Attorney general or secretary of the New Deal?(A temp position).
OR Mc Cain and a Hitlerian program including invading morecountries, war for ever, and genocide (it reduces unemployment roles U know!)I bet no-one thought of the latter! Kill the enemployed (blacks, retarded, mentally ill, islamofascist, illegals..)

.

I'll say it again...

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

.

Good article by Zinn, an American hero for being able to keep progressive analyses of history and progressive ideas from dying out altogether.

The missing piece in all this discussion seems to me to be activism.

FDR instituted social security, unemployment insurance, union protections, CCC and WPA (to whatever extent he did) ONLY because activists forced him to. Obama is running on the same type of 'change' platform today. No matter if he is a 'liberal' or if his true feelings are with the people at large, he will only be empowered -- or pushed -- to adopt progressive, pro-people, pro-planet programs if he is FORCED to do so by a large minority of mobilized progressives.

Doom and Glooms' program is viable/needed:
End the Iraq War
Revolutionize U.S. Foreign policy
Redistribute wealth
Establish universal health care single payer
Revolutionize education
Establish Domestic decentralization
Water is a public resource
Food is a public resource
Energy is a public resource
Provide decent housing
Stabilize and reduce global warming
Nurture the environment
Convene a constitutional convention
Honor American Indian Treaties
Demolish the defense establishment and start over
Eliminate corporate personhood
Eliminate private military contractors
Make illegal any religion that practices dominion
Replace competition with cooperation
Practice respect for all life.

What has been missing for decades is mass mobilization. It starts with each of us talking to our neighbors and colleagues, writing letters to the editor, leafleting and blogging, marches and CD at sensible, recognizable targets (banks, recruiting stations, government buildings) -- each doing what they can do to reframe the various debates and demand actions.

It seems to me that movements are built incrementally by helping people make connections between issues that resonate with their self-interests: the potholes in your street, the crappy education your kids are getting, and the high-priced-but not-adequate health care you get are the results of tax breaks for the rich and obscene levels of military spending. And so on.

Thank you Howard Zinn. I don't always agree with you or your high school history book, which I still think is overly pessimistic. You have many good points. You are a strong opposing point of view which makes a ton more sense than the other end of the political spectrum. America would be a lot better off if it listened to you instead of the neocons.

The way to get mre New Deal reforms is for YOU to run for office. I mean YOU, whomever is reading this. We need more 'common' people to run, in order to get election reform, and have our Republic start focusing on the majority and not the top 1%

Crispy - How about Nader as head of the FDA or EPA?

YES Nader at FDA or better yet EPA but I like secretary of labor (He's done so much; where is he bat his best?)