EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War, Dems, MoveOn and The Uprising
An interview with David Sirota
Sheldon Rampton and I could see it coming soon after the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007. In March, 2007 we pointed out that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the support of MoveOn, was advancing legislation that would fund the war in Iraq while giving Democrats PR cover, allowing them to posture against it while the bloody, brutal occupation of Iraq continues. We were attacked at the time by Democratic partisans, but unfortunately our analysis has proven correct and today the war in Iraq is as much of an interminable quagmire as it was when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January 2007.
Democratic political activist, columnist and author David Sirota has also strongly condemned this failure of the Democrats and "The Players," DC's professional partisan insiders such as MoveOn. On May 24, 2007 he wrote: "Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth - all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation at the request of the most unpopular president in a generation at a time polls show a larger percentage of the public thinks America is going in the wrong direction than ever recorded in polling history. ... That will make May 24, 2007 a dark day generations to come will look back on - a day when Democrats in Washington not only continued a war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government's role is to ignore the will of the American people."
This month, more than a year later, the Democratic controlled Congress once again gave the Bush Administration funding to continue the Iraq war well into 2009. David Sirota now has a new book out: The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. In it he expands on his criticism of the Democratic Party and its partisan, professional antiwar activists in the leadership of MoveOn.
Sirota writes in his new book (page 82), "The absence of a full-throated antiwar uprising is tragic at a time when the country appears more skeptical of knee-jerk militarism than ever before. ... When this particular war does eventually end, both AAEI and MoveOn will undoubtedly claim that their narrow, ultra-partisan Beltway strategies were the key. They are, after all, experts at media promotion, and such a laughable yet easy-to-understand story line will be fairly simple to sell in the same era that has seen politicians and television pundits originally lie the country into the conflict. But what will be little discussed is the possibility that ... their strategies prolonged the Iraq War at a time when Democrats had the constitutional power of the purse to stop it immediately." Sirota concludes, "The Players may actually not mind the war continuing, because it preserves an effective political cudgel against Republicans. Actually ending the war, after all, means less fodder for the next television ad."
I recently reached David Sirota via email in the middle of his grueling months-long book promotion tour. He was "exhausted and tired from the tour" and "hiding out" over the 4th of July weekend at the home of his in-laws in rural Indiana, but he responded quickly to my questions.
STAUBER: What inspired your commitment to populism? Have you read the classic book Populist Moment about the powerful 19th century movements that were eventually done in by the banks and Democratic Party co-optation? And if so, what lessons do you take from it for 21st century populist progressive movements?.
SIROTA: My commitment to populism was originally forged from working with people like Bernie Sanders and Dave Obey - two very different politicians who, on economic issues, are populist to the core. My career has been one centered around the concept of social justice - and that probably was forged even earlier than my politics. I grew up in a progressive family, among progressive friends, and with constant progressive influences in my life - from school to summer camp. In writing the book, I studied a lot of populist history, including The Populist Moment.
STAUBER: You are a mainstream Democratic partisan who is embracing populism and in your book you criticize MoveOn, Netroots mavens like Markos, and other Democratic leaders for their single-minded partisanship. What sort of response has your advocacy of movement building received in those Netroots quarters?
SIROTA: I would hardly say I am "a mainstream Democratic partisan" - ask any "mainstream Democratic partisan" who knows me if I'm one of them, and they'll say the same. I guess I have been "a mainstream Democratic partisan" at a few past moments in my career - namely, when I was the spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee. But that was a two-year stint (and indeed a proud one) out of an entire career that has spanned working for Congress's only independent, for Brian Schweitzer (hardly a typical Democrat) and as a progressive journalist. So far, the response to the book - and to the critiques in it - has been nothing but positive. As I say in the book, the Netroots is not a monolith - and I think people in that community have seen my writing as respectful and fair.
STAUBER: When the Democrats realized that the "gift" of the Iraq war -- as Mario Cuomo has sarcastically called it -- had given them control of the House and Senate in 2006, Pelosi and other leaders obviously decided to play it safe, not investigate this Administration for its many possibly impeachable offenses, and not force an end to the war by refusing to fund it. Apparently they hope that Iraq will play out politically in a similar fashion in the 2008 election and provide a Democratic victory. Do you agree with this analysis and whether or not you do, how do you view the failure of the Democrats and major collaborators like MoveOn to force an end to the war in Iraq after the 2006 elections that were such an anti-war vote?
SIROTA: Yes, I think Democrats are hoping that they can do nothing substantively to end the war, but get the sizeable antiwar vote in the general election nonetheless. The strategy is a predictable reflection of an unfortunate reality: namely, the reality that there in fact is no strong antiwar accountability system that is willing to use the election as an instrument of pressure. Instead, there are groups like Moveon.org that have built up an enormous capacity for pressure, but are using that enormous capacity as an appendage of the Democratic Party, regardless of whether Democrats use their congressional power to end the war.
STAUBER: MoveOn is not a movement although it wants to be perceived as one. It is a brilliant and effective fundraising and marketing machine, but 95% or more of their so-called members ignore any particular email appeal. These 3.2 million people on the MoveOn email list are the object of marketing and fundraising campaigns, but they have absolutely no meaningful or democratic control over the decisions of organization, there is no accountability from the leadership to the MoveOn list members, and those of us on the list are unable to organize and communicate amongst ourselves within the list because it can't be accessed by the grassroots at the local or state level. MoveOn, the Democracy Alliance, and the various liberal think tanks that have arisen to fight the Right are clearly a force able to raise millions of dollars for Democratic candidates and launch PR and messaging campaigns, but none of them are about empowering a populist grassroots uprising. Or am I missing something?
SIROTA: I believe Moveon.org, the Democracy Alliance and the array of left-leaning institutions that have arisen in recent years possess a vast amount of potential for a progressive movement - but it is only potential at this point. That's for many reasons - one of the biggest being the utter lack of small-d democracy. You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file.
STAUBER: Barring a military or terrorist attack that the Republicans could exploit, it seems certain that the Democrats will be able to win a solid majority in both the House and Congress this fall given the twin energy and economic crises, and the continuing war in Iraq. If Barack Obama loses the White House, do you see the Democratic Congress in 2009 any more likely to stand up to John McCain than it has to Bush on issues like this long, continuing war in Iraq?
SIROTA: No
STAUBER: I have read Obama's autobiography and he is certainly an impressive person and thinker. However, his policies and political stands to date are rather mundane. If not for his opposition to the war before he was in the Senate, I doubt he would have defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination. More recently he seems to have come under even more controlled management by his political handlers and pollsters, almost desperately trying to make his image as mainstream as possible. As a Democratic activist and a populist, how would you advise Obama right now?
SIROTA: Obama's latest flip-flops are not moves to the "center" or the "mainstream" - by the empirical public opinion data on major issues, his moves are ones away from the center and from the mainstream. That's not surprising - he has surrounded himself by Washington insiders whose definition of "the center" is radically different from where the actual center of American public opinion is. If he continues down this path, he will hurt his chances of winning the election. I would advise him to remember where mainstream public opinion is on issues like trade, the war and civil liberties is - and instead of going to the center of a corrupt Washington, go there.
STAUBER: If and when populist forces build an email list as big as MoveOn's -- and most of that list was built by MoveOn's posturing as an ardent anti-war organization, which it is not - - and harness it for real grassroots empowerment, that is when we might see some exciting political developments that combine the Netroots and grassroots for fundamental change. I'd love to see a MoveOn-type organization that would actually trust and empower the millions of people on its email list so that the decision making, organizing and money benefit the grassroots and grow power from there upward, one in which the structure at the top is accountable to and elected by the members. It's hard to have a political democracy when we don't even have democratic organizations or movements. I've talked with some of the leadership of MoveOn about this, but they have no intention to democratize and will remain a top-down marketing and fundraising organization. How do you view this challenge of building a powerful new populist movement serves a movement rather than serving a Party or a small elite of decision makers who fund and run liberal think tanks?
SIROTA: It's a huge challenge and gets to a deep psychological issue. Are we willing to think in movement terms, or are we going to keep succumbing to partisan terms foisted on us by a shallow media? Breaking free of that latter propaganda is no easy task - it requires a real commitment to grassroots organizing and education. That's unglamorous stuff - the kind of stuff that doesn't get you media accolades in the 24-hour news cycle. But it's the kind of stuff that builds real power. I would say that if the institutions of the much-vaunted new progressive infrastructure are interested only in being celebrated in the short-term, meaningless media cycle, then they should do what they are doing. But if they are interested in actually building a movement that wields real power, they need to radically change from autocratic institutions looking for applause from Big Money, Big Media and big politicians, to democratic institutions looking to make meaningful change. There's a reason why the labor movement continues to be the most durable and powerful movement apparatus in human history: it is fundamentally a democratic movement. Trying to build a progressive movement on an autocratic model is a concept that may change the deck chairs on the Titanic - but ultimately a concept that leaves everyone on a sinking ship.
STAUBER: What is the best way for people to find out more about your writing, work and new book?
SIROTA: The best link for my website is www.davidsirota.com and the best link to buy the book is at Powells: http://www.powells.com/biblio/0307395634
John Stauber is the founder (1993) and current executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy.
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...
120 Comments so far
Show AllGreat article and great interview!! It's time to do the REAL work & stop worrying about getting approval from others. We all have to sacrifice for real democracy to occur. I hate Moveon.org - they could have been such a strong force but they chose their nice homes, their cars, their goodies, rather than true democracy. Let's say we built a real progressive party that allowed members to do what they can do and stop trying to impose & only care about $$$. It IS possible; it's just hard work.
After the latest FISA assault on We-The-People I unsubscribed from MoveOn.
Eli Pariser sent this: "You've been permanently unsubscribed from the MoveOn list -- if you take no more action, this'll be the last email you get from us."
I also cut any residual ties to the DNC.
They were 'trying' but not doing.
If your hair was on fire would you want help from someone who would put the fire out or from someone who would only 'try' to put it out?
It's not easy being Green.
Great article. Thanks.
Isn't Sirota a great example of the very problem he describes? He's done splendid work documenting the Democratic Party's betrayal of the populist values he supports, and of the anti-war movement, but he never draws the lesson. He never even proposes a CONCRETE way of pressuring the Democratic Party - just something vague that someone else could do. Apparently he learned nothing from his time with Bernie Sanders, and remains a "Democratic operative" at heart.
How is this different from MoveOn?
As he and Stauber studiously refrain from mentioning, there is a functioning, genuinely progressive, populist, and anti-war alternative to the Democrats: the Green Party. Not very effective, you think? Well, we'll see: this year looks more and more like a political Singularity. But I certainly wish we were more effective than we are. You know what it takes? The same as any political movement: people who care and are willing to work, and money to hire some of those people so they can work at it full time.
Some experienced political strategists would be good, too, but this isn't a job offer for Sirota: I no longer trust his strategic sense. He can stick to reporting. He does that very well.
The underlying problem that progressives must address, is their impotency in a two party system. Progressives have been effectively corralled in the Democratic party, just as the religious right has been corralled in the Republican party. The good news is, both have been making loud noises about breaking free, but the bad news is, neither have the organization needed to do it successfully, and the efforts so far have been too little, too late.
Both are allowed to have candidates in the presidential election primary process, but the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex) decides who's message will be heard, by how many, for how long, and how those candidates will be perceived by the unenlightened masses.
They shut out the really progressive voice of Dennis Kucinich very early in the primary and then proceeded to mute John Edwards anti-corporate messge. The MIMIC has effectively chosen the two acceptable (to them) major party candidates for you.
Without a major organized "Internet Progressive Revolution", that I referenced in earlier comments on other threads, we, and our progressive views will be used and abused for political gain. If the MIMIC is allowed control over the internet, the game is truly over.
While at times, it may not seem like it, but there is a big difference between the Dems and the Reps, as the last eight years should have convinced any sceptics. Are there MIMIC members in the Dem party? - absolutely! But we have some damned good progressives in it too - a lot of them!
I think that without a strong, united "Internet Progressive Revolution", it will be easier to take over the Dem party by keeping progressives like Kucinich in office and removing DINOs and replacing them with people like Donna Edwards. You don't want to throw out the "progressive baby" with the dirty bath water.
The progessives are a bunch of orphans in need of a home. The Green Party could be that home, with a lot of organization that no one seems willing or able to do, so until that happens, let's keep on ridding our current home of our malevolent foster parents!
Sirota has to know that there are already alternatives to the two-party monopoly: The Green Party and Ralph Nader's candidacy are two that spring to mind. These choices have been there for years but progressives refuse to put effort into making them viable and helping them grow. Democrats have succeeded in keeping the herd fenced in. Sirota completely ignores this. Our country is heading towards fascism at a pretty steady rate. Taking over one or the other party will take decades if not longer. We don't have time! We need to resist NOW!
The Greens have little money and so when you hear that they're disorganized or not doing all they should be doing, that's the reason. It's a catch-22. So send them money and start working for the Green alternative.
Nader is still maligned for running against DLC founder Al Gore, who stated that giving telecommunications corporations even more power than they already had was "good for America." Is there any question what "America" he was talking about? Nader could get into the presidential debates if polls show 10% would vote for him. Getting Nader into the debates would change the course of things. Can you imagine Nader debating Obama with Obama preaching about change and hope, etc. Nader would nail him, no doubt about it. I say Bring it On! Support Nader for this reason: he could get into the debates, thus change the conversation in this country by putting some muscle behind the words, "hope" and "dreams."
The truth is ever so clear: neither major party - not the Dems, not the Repubs - will stop the tragic folly that is bringing this country down. I don't think we have time to wait it out, change the Democrats from within or any of the other strategies coming from the "progressive" Democrats. It would be like taking over Haliburton from the bottom up. You will be kicked down before you reach the second rung. I'll correct that: sometimes they let you get to the third or fourth rung before they kick you, that way they get to kick not only you, but the others who follow your lead. The two-parties are not ours to "take over." They are corporate entities that have the ability to keep power out of the people's hands. This is becoming more and more blatant as they see the American voter have no teeth left, having had them all kicked out by now. The two-party's objectives are thinly veiled now and their collective voice seems to be saying: We have fooled most of the people most of the time, and yet, here they are again, asking for more.
I think most people aren't willing to give up their "goodies", so they stay locked in the system as it is. It takes sacrifice - for example, voting for a sure "loser" in order to get more progressive policies eventually - we want and need it NOW but we have to be willing to sacrifice and realize we can only get it THEN. I also think people want to be "winners" and so they stay mired in the muck of the two party (sic) system.
I'm glad to be a "loser"!!
Rich, we don't have the time or the resources to vote for sure losers. Organization via the internet is the key. Even with all the progressives together, we couldn't win national elections, but we could certainly have enough power to threaten the Dems with defeat. But, the presidential election this year is not the time nor place to do it.
MikeBin quotes Rich:
"Rich, we don't have the time or the resources to vote for sure losers. Organization via the internet is the key. Even with all the progressives together, we couldn't win national elections, but we could certainly have enough power to threaten the Dems with defeat. But, the presidential election this year is not the time nor place to do it."
MikeBinSC: its never the "right time" for weak and naive people like yourself, is it?
The damage is now done by the democratic nominee and congress. They must lose this upcoming election again to force change. The democrats aren't even an option anymore. What does it take to get that across to people like yourself, MikeBinSC? What?
As for Nader costing Gore 2000: as bad as Cheney is, thank god we didn't have Joe Lieberman as VP (or maybe he' be president by now?)
Read that again--JOE LIEBERMAN was your choice for VICE PRESIDENT.
That in itself says it all about your "democratic" party.
Vote Nader.
Congrats to the Greens for nominating Cynthia McKinney for President. They will get my vote this year. I haven't seen anything on common dreams about it though. Hmmm
"...it requires a real commitment to grassroots organizing and education. That's unglamorous stuff - the kind of stuff that doesn't get you media accolades in the 24-hour news cycle. But it's the kind of stuff that builds real power."
This is exactly correct and too often goes unstated. The "netroots" are a tool. The grassroots are a human, politcal, function of organizing and education; although, in my opinion, it has become nearly impossible to educate the increasingly ignorant U.S. public in recent years.
******
"There's a reason why the labor movement continues to be the most durable and powerful movement apparatus in human history: it is fundamentally a democratic movement."
It is nearly impossible for me to beilieve that Sirota -- who so brilliantly and succintly analyzes the state of democracy in the U.S. -- can say this about the U.S. labor movement (and much of the global labor movement since the end of the Cold War).
The U.S. labor movement is anything but democratic, is extremely corrupt and too-often designed to do little more than line the pockets of its leadership and staff(though not nearly on the scale of their corporatist counterparts).
Labor sold its soul during the Cold War when it fully adopted the twin ideologies of business unionism and labor/management cooperation after a decades-long frenzy of red-baiting and political terror drove out or co-opted the best and most courageous organizers and leaders.
In terms of power, U.S. unions do less with more than most organizations on the face of the Earth. An excellent example is the UAW, which totally failed to organize in the Southern U.S. and has become a public relations arm of the big U.S.-based auto companies doing little more than helping to engineer contract concessions and downsizing while offering a veneer of worker input for media consumption.
This, despite the fact, that the UAW once had billions of dollars in strike funds and pension funds that could have been used over past decades to leverage better deals for workers and to ORGANIZE.
Not to mention the many billions of dollars that unions i general have pumped into the electoral process, yeilding nothing but loss after loss for workers, the environment, the general public and the world in general.
Not to mention the failure to mobilize our own members or enter into coalitions with other unions and civil organizations.
To call unions powerful and/or democratic (with a few refreshing exceptions like USW/Workers Uniting) is either inane or insane. I am not sure which word is most applicable: they both are pretty close to the truth. As are the words: structurally, historically and culturally racist and sexist. "Democratic" doesn't quite fit.
I hope that David Sirota does a book on the labor movement. He will see that he is flat-out wrong and probably do something pretty great.
Alexandro sez: (On the Huff Post)
I am not sure that he (Obama) really hopes he can change this later - after all he has the constitutional background to understand that it won't be easy to reverse this, if not impossible. In addition he never said he would reverse it - he will review it. He didn't take a stand now so why would he later?
This, as many already said it, is a matter of character, principles and belief in the Constitution - I am deeply disappointed by his move and i agree with you and the author that it was a huge mistake what he did - NO MATTER WHY he did it!
I am aware, as so many others, that there is no "better" alternative to him though - but that doesn't make his decision any better or more palatable.
He is going to be better than Bush and McCain - but he is most likely not as good as many of us have hoped for.
5280, you are a fool.
"How do you view this challenge of building a powerful new populist movement serves a movement rather than serving a Party or a small elite of decision makers who fund and run liberal think tanks?"
By using the referendum:
www.nationalinitiative.us
5280, Lieberman changed his stripes after the 2000 election, and progressives threw him out of the Democratic party for it. Don't you remember that, fool?
ezeflyer-----why are we all so afraid to endure even more abuse and hardship at the hands of the Rethugs ( if that is what would happen if we refuse to endorse a lighter version of the same abuse)?????
At what point do us older lefties say, enough is enough. I want to make a sincere effort to reclaim a real alternative to the duopoly that we now have. If we are brutally honest with ourselves, I think like those we accuse of collusion, we, too, are simply afraid to take to the barricades, still hoping against all evidence to the contrary, that the lesser evil will somehow preserve what little is left.
What I see is slow erosion versus meltdown that at least has a chance of waking allot of the population from their mind numbing apathy. I see no one willing to suffer to do whatever is possible to turn thngs around. I feel like a silent collaborator in the dismantling of my country's values when I continue to vote against what my heart and soul are screaming against.
5280, you need to read and comment on my previous comment, MikeBinSC July 13th, 2008 1:32 pm
I don't see either of them backing Dennis Kucinich for his constitutionally supportive approach to governance. In doing so, they could at least maintain ties to the party they love enough to sacrifice their hearts and minds to it. A real shame. Third party ALL THE WAY. No difference between McNut and Obama-stand for nothing.
Howard Zinn - Election Madness
The Progressive March 2008 Issue
http://www.truthout.org/article/howard-zinn-election-madness
I'm not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.
I'm talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
===
YES!
MikeBinSC---so what actual progress can you point to in the last 10-15 years in ridding the Dem party of it's cruel foster parents? I ask this question sincerely, since at the age of 61, I have seen one progressive Dem after another get marginalized, if not downright abused by the majority of his or her party. So tell me, is your stategy producing tangible results? If ao, I must have been sleeping and missed them. I am not being sarcastic---I am willing to be convinced by facts, but not by wishful thinking.
fusion----I do believe that since the Internet, that is exactly what progressives have benn trying to do. So do you honestly think that any in the power elite have been listening to we, the people, as long as we kjeep putting them back into office time and time again so matter how badly they smell????
Really, indeed? Don't you think it just might be possible no matter who occupies the White House? I mean, supposedly we have another branch or two of goverment. Wait a minute, that's right----they don't honestly care about the Constitution or reining in the executive, or what happens to we, the people.
Besides, with this hideous war machine fueled by greed and an insatiable lust for power in so many countries around the world with govts that seemingly aren't supported by their citizens, maybe we should consider that who we elect is simply a smokescreen for the real Players, the shadow govt behind the scenes. They control whoever occupioed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I am going to do all I can to help and support family friends and neighbors. Love is more powerful than playing in a game that's rigged against you. Stop believing in it and maybe it will just go "pouffff!"
The United States, and the world, is not ready for a meltdown under an Insane McSame, sitting in the unitary executive, Neo-Fascist throne, of Bush's 43rd Reich.
starofthesea:
Don't ever vote/act against the screaming of your heart and soul. Let them guide you. And also honor this: in you, unlike the vast majority, your heart and soul refuse to go silent. Such is real life.
peace
Obama is McCain with a tan.
Don't be fooled by a Democrat again. Vote McKinney or Nader.
tj--thank you for your wisedom and kindness. These traits are so much more powerful than all the rhetoric flying around on the airwaves today.
Veracity said it well on another thread----"reality is just one of many possible illusions."
I believe in the power of Love and Light. That doesn't mean it will always look that way, or that naysayewrs won't try to convince us otherwise. It is a belief that helps me continue this challenging sojourne on Gaia. We are called to serve others. Love is the only service possible. And when I am loving others, I feel power-filled, not powerless. It's my best strategy in these dark and sometimes heavy times.
Blessings and LOve to all who post here!
It's funny to watch people like Sirota twist themselves in all sorts of knots to excuse their support of the Democrats. Wait, no, actually, it's just sad.
And where on CD is reporting on the Greens nomination of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as the presidential nominee? A much more interesting topic than Sirota's confabulations abt why he is still a Democrat. He reminds me of that hack Rogat-Loeb; always making excuses for the Democratic Party. *snore*
I've been wondering why there are no articles about Cynthia McKinney yet on CD?? I'm torn between Nader & McKinney, still not certain who I will vote for in November.
I just hope more and more of you who are still supporting Obama will change your minds and help us to grow alternatives - winning isn't everything, it's more important not to reward cowards - incumbents are usually cowards. The fact that the Dems did not deliver on their promises they made back in 2006 is enough of a reason to say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! and vote outside the two party (sic) system.
MikeBinSC, HoJoe Lieberman does not strike me an example of the Democratic Party's ability to reform itself from within.
Yes, he "left" the party, but claimed that he's still "really" a Democrat at heart. And when he made his successful end-run around the Democratic voters who'd nominated Ned Lamont, with overt and unapologetic support from the Republic Party, he returned to the Senator's Club and was received with a warm bipartisan welcome.
Even now, when he's behaving like McCain's running mate, the Democratic leadership is only starting to make noises about excluding him from Democratic caucuses.
I think that the chances of Lieberman being re-elected are dubious at best, assuming he runs again. But he's hardly a bellwether for a resurgence of progressive values in the Party of Judas.
Starofthesea, most people weren't paying attention during the Clinton years, but the progressive movement has made progress since the SCOTUS overthrew the system and appointed "W" to the office of president.
The internet has been crucial to that success. As I said we threw Liarman out of the party in favor of Lamont, but the Reps elected him anyway as an independent Liebertarian. People like Cynthia McKinney, who was in, out, in and out again, and was the first to bring impeachment charges against this criminal administration.
Kucinich continues to fight the good fight and we are adding more, like Donna Edwards all the time. Al Wynn (DINO)out, Donna Edwards in. And this is happening in other races around the country as we speak.
Nobody can stop the crash that is coming, as it is already baked into the cake, but we can move to lessen its impact by taking the appropriate actions now. If anyone thinks that it will be easier to organize resistance under Insane McSame, rather than under Obama, they are not being honest with themselves.
If you want to hasten the crash and have it now, before the elections, we certainly can do that, and it would be easy, not requiring anyone to protest in the street or go out on strike. All it would take is organization on the internet, and here is how you could do it -
The markets and the financial institutions like Countrywide, Bear Sterns, Indy Mac, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, just to name a few, are on the brink of failure. The economy is headed into recession/depression. Two thirds of all economic activity is from people like you and me buying stuff -
See - www.storyofstuff.com
All that is required to push it over the edge is for people like us to stop buying everything except the barest essentials of existence. Those who have 401k plans through their employers and individual IRA accounts should divert all investments out of the stock market and into stable value funds or precious metals(not mining companies).
These actions would impact Wall Street and the corporate Oligarcy like no election ever could, in the only place that means anything to them, the wallet! Who's in?
starofthesea
"So do you honestly think that any in the power elite have been listening to we, the people, as long as we kjeep putting them back into office time and time again so matter how badly they smell????"
==
No; of course not; they do not...Zinn said it; only by action at the local level can we build strength to force change.
recall the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."
But voting can matter.
And, indeed, all of this is driven by our founding principles: only by governing ourselves can we be free of governance by tyrants. We are in this together; we care for one another; this is love, not an abstraction but the handshake of partners in defense of the Constitution...
Which many of us have sworn to uphold, "..against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..."
support Cindy and send the hacks a message!
I agree strongly with Sirota's thesis that we need to be building movement politics and not top-down structures to support candidates and positions. I don't however see this as meaning we should all go out and build a third party, although that is a valuable and useful thing to do. Rather we need to be building a movement that transcends parties and includes among its strategies working within parties and building independent parties.
First, we need to understand that the Democratic Party isn't really a political party, as historically understood or as seen in other countries. It has no control over who is a member, that now being largely governed by state laws. It has no meaningful program or philosophy that any politician or officeholder need pay much attention to. Rather, the Democratic Party consists primarily of whomever wins office, first in the primary elections, which are set up and regulated by state governments, and then in the general elections. There is an organizing and fund-raising body, the DNC, which reports to those office-holders (and sub-rosa to the lobbyists and donors.) But they don't run it. Thus it is a part of the legally-defined playing-field on which the electoral process unfolds.
Second, we should recognize that the changes in the Democratic Party over the past 40 years present a possibility. The alignment of American politics has changed dramatically since I came on the scene around 1960. At that time the Democratic Party was dominated by an alliance of segregationist Southern Democrats and northern big city party machines based on ethnic coalitions, with the support of the mainstream of the labor movement and the people who remembered the Roosevelt era. It thus was the primary political vehicle for the reactionary Southern branch of the American ruling class, placing it beyond the reach of the progressive movements.
In the Port Huron Statement in 1962 - an amazing document which is well worth Googling and reading - we laid out a vision for a political realignment that would make the Democratic Party a more useable and viable vehicle for progressive organizing. This realignment has unfolded very much as we foresaw, but its potential has not yet been realized. The civil rights movement brought about a vast increase in Black participation in the political process in the South. That and the breakup of most of the big city machines has cleared away major obstacles to claiming the Democratic Party for the people. The Republican Southern Strategy, which dates to Nixon and Goldwater, has led to a wholesale movement of the Southern ruling class into the Republican Party. The ruling class supports and controls many democratic politicians but the split has healed and now almost all of its members are Republicans. However, in the dramatic decline in the relative size and legal status of the labor movement and of the left generally, and the collapse of independent voices in the press, has led to a failure to capitalize on this opportunity.
There is a possibility that a third party or independent candidate could at some point upset the current system and ride an upsurge of popular outrage and disgust into office; but the institutional hurdles are huge. Now that the Presidential primaries are over, I very much want to see Nader and McKinney (did she win the nomination?) on the ballot and on any debate platforms they can manage. I think it is far more important (and ultimately helpful to the "not-McCain candidate", Obama) to have a genuine progressive be able to grab the microphone and get in even a few minutes of telling the people the truth. But the reality is that the system is structured in such a way that the primary process - most particularly the Democratic primaries - is the legally defined vehicle through which progressive candidates and movements can build an electoral movement and win some representation and voice.
The state primaries for congressional candidates are another theater to use, and then we need third party candidates running for those positions and telling the truth wherever a genuine progressive has not won the nomination. An aside: much as I appreciate Nader's voice, the work and vision of the Green Party around building a peoples' coalition is far more an expression of where we need to go.
Within the Democratic Party we have a democratically structured grass roots movement, the Progressive Democrats of America or PDA which grew out of the Kucinich Campaign of 2004, actively working to support progressive challlengers in the Democratic Congressional primary contests, and its web expression, Democrats.com that is worth checking out, and voices within the Democratic Party, such as Kucinich, Barbara Lee and Russ Feingold, that are trying to give leadership and need our support.
But we need to think bigger than this. We owe Move-on.org a debt of gratitude for showing the potential of an internet-based fund-raising and organizing organization, but it is not the vehicle we need to build a peoples' movement and is not about to become that. We have a lot of work to do, but we have many thousands of people with the experience and understanding to do it, and a population that is being brought by events to the boiling point and will need our leadership.
What we need is a movement dedicated to organizing and supporting the people in all our theaters of struggle, and to rallying them to oppose and resist and expose the Empire in all of its manifestations.
fusion---I am not suggesting I will not vote. I am saying that voting for the one of the two anointed ones as my only choice is no choice at all.
I supported DK for the last two elections. I know Cynthia McKinney was put out of commission not just by Rethugs but by the silent complicity of her own party who would not give her any funds when she was being sabotaged. See the documentary American Blackout, and then watch An Unreasonable Man. This is your Democratic Party at work, Ok?
If DK and McKinney are all you've got to prove the Dems are salavageable, then I'd say yopu are quite the optimist. The Dems wouldn't even insist DK not be excluded from the early debates.In fact, they colluded to get him out because folks who listened liked allot what he had to say. What does that tell you? If he's our token "voice" and he was silenced, then how do you mainatain the belief that they can be swayed? Your efforts ar Herculean!
What works is to turn our backs on them and their falsity. Refuse to buy into their empty promises. Haven't you taken enough abuse?
NO????? Well, I have, and I am leaving my abuser once and for all. My heart and soul are crying to be heard and I will not ignore them any longer. YOu are of course free to do what you want. I wouldn't even try to talk you out of your optimism---I just don't share it and cannot feel any for what is currently going on. Will take my chances trying to create authentic change, no matter how long it takes.
I don't expect it to happen soon and I have been backing losing candistes most of my life because I believ my vote matters even if it is a protest vote. I can live without being on the "winning side."
Yes, Cynthia McKinney is the official candidate of the Green Party for president as of this afternoon.
I expect Ralph Nader to concede and put his considerable knowledge and speaking ability into her campaign and work the country getting Greens elected wherever they are running.
Just kidding; but, really, would that be so terrible, awful, unthinkable...?
Starofthesea, most people weren't paying attention during the Clinton years, but the progressive movement has made progress since the SCOTUS overthrew the system and appointed "W" to the office of president.
The internet has been crucial to that success. As I said we threw Liarman out of the party in favor of Lamont, but the Reps elected him anyway as an independent Liebertarian. People like Cynthia McKinney, who was in, out, in and out again, and was the first to bring impeachment charges against this criminal administration.
Kucinich continues to fight the good fight and we are adding more, like Donna Edwards all the time. Al Wynn (DINO)out, Donna Edwards in. And this is happening in other races around the country as we speak.
Nobody can stop the crash that is coming, as it is already baked into the cake, but we can move to lessen its impact by taking the appropriate actions now. If anyone thinks that it will be easier to organize resistance under Insane McSame, rather than under Obama, they are not being honest with themselves.
If you want to hasten the crash and have it now, before the elections, we certainly can do that, and it would be easy, not requiring anyone to protest in the street or go out on strike. All it would take is organization on the internet, and here is how you could do it -
The markets and the financial institutions like Countrywide, Bear Sterns, Indy Mac, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, just to name a few, are on the brink of failure. The economy is headed into recession/depression. Two thirds of all economic activity is from people like you and me buying stuff -
See - www.storyofstuff.com
All that is required to push it over the edge is for people like us to stop buying everything except the barest essentials of existence. Those who have 401k plans through their employers and individual IRA accounts should divert all investments out of the stock market and into stable value funds or precious metals(not mining companies).
These actions would impact Wall Street and the corporate Oligarcy like no election ever could, in the only place that means anything to them, the wallet! Who's in?
MoveOn.org cynically used the anti-war movement for Democratic Party support and fund raising. At the same time, the Democratic Party snubbed its anti-war politcial base by supporting the wars.
Nice strategy, but what kind of brain comes up with such ideas in the mainstream Democratic Party?
A lot of people posting here, even Obama apologists, need to ponder this sort of manipulation. If the Democratic Party gives lip service to peace and trashes the Constitution, is there any pragmatic strategy left to support in the Democratic Party?
The Democratic and Republican Parties control the narrowed public debate mostly through mountains of corporate cash. MoveOn.org is a fake grassroots front with a veneer of populism, pretending to be different, but it just co-opts popular opinion and grabs the cash. How can progressives be heard through that?
One alternative, the Green Party, faces a tough road to match the funding power of the duopoly, so it will be slow-going organizationally for the Greens. However, at some point, it's not just about the money and "winning." Alternative political parties just need people to cast votes for them.
For that to happen, mainstream Democrats will have to see the true face of the DLC Democratic Party. MoveOn.org is a reflection of that. It's not an anomaly, but is par for the course.
People should learn from the MoveOn.org example about how the machine works, and how they are taken for granted by the Democratic Party, which will not be reformed because it is bought and paid for by corporations with more cash than you or I have.
And when you've digested that hard lesson, voting third party is really quite easy.
You can't have change by doing the same ineffective thing over and over again. There's no internal reform movement that can trump corporate cash donations in the Democratic Party. Get over it, and support your third party however you can.
"The Republican Southern Strategy, which dates to Nixon and Goldwater, has led to a wholesale movement of the Southern ruling class into the Republican Party."
-- ChrisHorton
This statement is only partly true, and dangerous. The white Southern working class and the vast majority of lower-middle and middle-class whites are firmly in the pocket of the Republican Party -- both in terms of voting patterns and generally reactionary attitudes and behaviors.
This is the real New South and it cannot be overlooked. In fact, much of the Southern ruling class is not Southern at all, as much ownership of wealth and property is by capitalists residing outside of the South, and the U.S. They seldom have difficulty buying elected officials to represent their interests and voters to blindly return those servants to office.
Try to find a single white elected official with any independent voice whatsoever in the South. Try to find any kind of white (or multicultural) progressive organization of any substance. Let me know when you do. The ruling class is not the problem. It is a symptom of a fundamentally (and fundamentalist) way of life that is backward and proud of its backwardness.
fusion:
Your comments to starofthesea are spot on.
"ezeflyer—–why are we all so afraid to endure even more abuse and hardship at the hands of the Rethugs"
Because I have serious doubt as to whether life on earth can survive WWIII.
What is "progressive" and what is "populist"?
Progressive means "New Deal".
Populist means something else. It actually belongs to another political species. Populist is radical. Progressive is not.
The difference is spelled out clearly in the seminal book on populism written by Lawrence Goodwyn, DEMOCRATIC PROMISE, Oxford U Press, 1976. THE POPULIST MOMENT Stauber and Sirota refer to is a significant abridgment of that book, though it was done by Goodwyn.
Populism of the 19th Century was defined by its demand for a complete over haul of the US national banking system of the time. Populists understood that the goal of economic justice could not be achieved unless the financial system were taken from private hands and turned over to the Congress according to Article i, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Populism, in short, demands that the financial system be nationalized according to the Constitution and the intent of the founders, not including Alexander Hamilton and others tied to the Bank of England and European finance.
Progressives, thanks to FDR's desire to avoid assassination, is content to work with the privatized banking system established in 1913, which is today driving us all into financial ruin, with the exception of the owners of that system who are prospering as never before.
Do not confuse "progressive" with "populist".
You will be as befuddled as David Sirota.
Thoughts_Into_Action July 13th, 2008 4:21 pm
"MoveOn.org cynically used the anti-war movement for Democratic Party support and fund raising. At the same time, the Democratic Party snubbed its anti-war politcial base by supporting the wars."
And just how will getting McCain elected stop the wars? - and the next one?
The Reps and some Dems actually spanked MoveOn in public with votes in congress after the General Betrayus ads, remember?
Sorry for the double post earlier.
I am resubmitting this comment from another thread for those who have not seen it. If you have already read it, skip to the next comment -
I am as angry about the waffling and compromising as the rest of you are, but you can't solve the problems we have by voting third party or write-ins in November. It's too late for that now and we have many progressive candidates in the Dem party, like Kucinich who need to be re-elected, and first-timers like Donna Edwards who will be replacing a DINO if elected in November.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face! A McCain presidency will spell the end of America and the end of any chance of turning things around before it is too late. Anyone who is serious about changing the system must start organizing NOW!
IT'S ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION
This is the only way progressives can hold Obama's and the Democrats' feet to the fire, and at the same time, create a viable third party, the Green Party, and make the progressive voice heard. It would take a massive amount of organizing and cooperation, but it could be done, and I would love to be able to vote for progressive people like Cynthia McKinney and even Ralph Nader knowing that my vote was not putting Bush III in the White House.
First of all you would have to organize all the progressive outlets on a common thread and around a common mission. By progressive outlets I mean websites, news sources, blogs, radio and podcasts, and print media. I'm talking about MoveOn, CommonDreams, TruthOut, BuzzFlash, DailyKos, HuffPost, AirAmerica, NovaM, DemocracyNow, The Nation, Mother Jones and all the rest! I'm talking about an Internet Progressive Revolution here! This can't be done on a piecemeal basis!
And here is the mission -
Get every single progressive Democratic voter to change their registration from Democrat to Green. Even if we got eveyone to do this, we would not have enough to win an election, so they can, and still should, vote Democratic in November, but we would be well positioned to make demands on the new Democratic power structure by threatening them with mass losses in the 2010 elections for the House and Senate, as the entire House stands for re-election every two years, along with one third of the Senate.
By 2010, we could make the Green Party a viable alternative if threats are not enough, and should we still need it. I would hope that we don't need it, as the time available to make a course correction to save this country, and this world, is growing very, very short. We are in that proverbial quandary of an irresistable force on a collision course with an immovable object, and it ain't gonna be pretty! The perfect storm of financial and economic failure, war without end, global warming, peak oil, food shortages, water shortages, resource depletion and dying oceans is bearing down on us at breakneck speed and the ship's crew is either asleep-at-the-helm, or as another commenter said, trying to figure out how to make us pay for the carnage with our tax dollars!
Mike B. in SC
fusion July 13th, 2008 2:55 pm
Precisely. Zinn has it correct, as usual. Enough of this magical thinking about presidents. We are supposed to be the ones with the power. Unless We exercise it We won't have it.
Forget about McCain, Obama, Nader, Kucinich...
Unless We organize and mobilize and tell our reps what We want, we will be doing what They want.
It is so sad to be here, 8 years after Bushs' election, and see the same people, making the same old tired, worn out excuses for the Dems. Wake up and smell the coffee folks! The duopoly we suffer under is not good for us, was never good for us and can never be good for us. The only sane reaction to all of this is to work to break the duopoly. Just cast your damn vote for whatever third party candidate is running. It really doesn't matter who it is, they will not be allowed to win anyway. But at least you will have voted with your intelligence and not with your fear.
Things change. The time when the Dems could have made a difference, done the right thing, stopped the insanity have passed. Yes, I've read all of the email offerings of the PDA. But the time when you could have mattered to the party are over. The party is dead, long live the party.
It's time to stop voting for any party. It is time to vote for leaders. Not lawyers, business persons or party hacks. But leaders. They are not to be found among the Dems, nor among the Repubs. They are to be found among the people. Until we get a chance to vote for someone other than those that have "the parties endorsement", we will see no leadership.
People have said that G.W.Bush is stupid, a bad President and a failure. When he took office oil was $35 a barrel. I think he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He has done more for his cronies in 8 years than they ever expected. The dems have had every opportunity to stop him. They have choosen not to do a thing. One can only wonder what little shop of horrors would be uncovered if impeachment hearings were started?
I haven't heard from any takers on this from those who advocate bringing on the crash. Do you lack the courage of your convictions? Who's in?
If you want to hasten the crash and have it now, before the elections, we certainly can do that, and it would be easy, not requiring anyone to protest in the street or go out on strike. All it would take is organization on the internet, and here is how you could do it -
The markets and the financial institutions like Countrywide, Bear Sterns, Indy Mac, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, just to name a few, are on the brink of failure. The economy is headed into recession/depression. Two thirds of all economic activity is from people like you and me buying stuff -
See - www.storyofstuff.com
All that is required to push it over the edge is for people like us to stop buying everything except the barest essentials of existence. Those who have 401k plans through their employers and individual IRA accounts should divert all investments out of the stock market and into stable value funds or precious metals(not mining companies).
These actions would impact Wall Street and the corporate Oligarcy like no election ever could, in the only place that means anything to them, the wallet! Who's in?
Don't you just love having a ringside seat at the death and disintegration of the biggest genocidal slave empire the world has ever seen? Gives me chills. Like having a seat to watch the disintegration of Rome in the 6th century. Better than Desperate Housewives. Any of those women fuck their sons yet? I mean this is America right?
Re: MikeBinSC - on point that a McCain Presidency would continue the wars.
Sure, McCain will continue the wars. However, Obama will continue the wars as well. Why vote for either?
Yes, it's true that MoveOn.org did its "General Betrayus" ads. However, where does its funding go? To a Democratic Party that supports the wars!
A point made in the interview is that the Democratic Party just uses the anti-war sentiment. I think that's crystal clear. It should make loyal Democrats sick to their collective stomachs to be so betrayed (that is, if they oppose the wars).
I think, Mike, that you just don't agree that this is a fair picture of the Democratic Party. For me, I don't see any "hope" there. Sometimes Democratic leaders seem to be saying the right things, but what is more important is what they do, and the track record has been dismal for anyone with any hopes for this country.
MikeBinSC -- I like some of what you say, but I think you are missing a few things.
Millions of people were fooled into thinking Obama was a progressive. It was strange as he never really said or did anything on which to base that view. (I know you agree with this.)
So when he is elected, there will be a big media blitz - "A New Day in America" or something like that - and a young, personable, intelligent president with a remarkable ability in oratory will mesmerize the folks again. He'll throw a few bones to the progressives, enough that they will feeble-mindedly hope that he'll show his true progressive colors...sometime soon. It could drag on for years.
In the meantime, much of the organization and work that you correctly say is needed will be diffused, once again, into the great corporate maw with Obama as the front man. The fact is, a large percentage of "progressives" don't have the heart for a true and necessary struggle and are addicted to the great American pastime of wishful thinking. Give them a easy way out and they'll take it.
The little progress that has been made (damn little, actually) was more of a function of Bush and his administration than of consciousness of the nature of corporatism and its death grip on everything that should matter.
Why didn't this organization and work happen in recent years? Why is it more likely to happen under an Obama presidency?
I personally have been advocating massive boycotts and full-spectrum resistance during the last few years and have consistently encountered, "um, um, not yet" or "Great, let's all not buy anything for a day". Why will the election of Obama suddenly put heart and consciousness into people?
You are right Arry July 13th, 2008 6:01 pm
Nobody should ever have had the illusion that Barack Obama was ever a progressive, I argued this point with others on this blog during the primaries. He has always been a centrist, just like the Clintons. All you had to do to know this was to listen to his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He told everyone, in no uncertain terms, that he did not see red states and blue states, he only saw purple United States, and everyone working together for a better America. But, that is still a far cry from what the Republican party is offering!
I'm not suggesting that electing Obama solves all our problems, I'm just saying that resistance would be easier to organize under his administration, as opposed to a McSame Administration. In either case, we still have the MIMIC to deal with.