Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Liberals Express Anger over Obama's Decision to Raise Troop Levels
Deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan causes most ardent supporters to become disillusioned
Barack Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan war brought a vehement reaction today from Americans who only a year ago had been among his most ardent supporters and are now disillusioned.
U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen (R) is pictured alongside an anti-war protester holding up a sign prior to his testimony at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Afghanistan war on Capitol Hill in Washington, December 2, 2009. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES POLITICS MILITARY) One
of the leaders of the anti-war movement, Paul Kawika Martin, disclosed
today that there had been a lot of angry comments aimed at Obama during
a conference call with progressives from around the US today to discuss
the Afghan move.
"I heard a woman say 'Obama can go to hell'. That was from someone who had campaigned for him."
Martin, political director of Peace Action, added: "I am hearing a visceral reaction among the grassroots who are very disappointed. People are feeling disillusioned. People did want to give Obama a chance but that honeymoon period is clearly ending."
The reaction Martin found today mirrors a wider liberal backlash against Obama that has been growing for the last few months over the watering down of the health bill, the failure to make a significant move on climate change and, above all else, the deployment of more US troops to Afghanistan, firstly 21,000 in March and now a further 30,000.
Such sentiments can be heard at social gatherings round Washington where liberals meet and can be seen in the daily debates on liberal blog sites such as the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Firedoglake and Talking Points Memo.
David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo defended Obama's new Afghanistan policy but acknowledged liberal disillusionment: "I know many progressives are disenchanted with this decision."
The liberal grassroots group, MoveOn.org, whose members campaigned hard for Obama last year, helped raise funds for him and continued to defend him throughout the early stages of his administration, today turned on him and unequivocally denounced the Afghanistan escalation.
MoveOn, which has been credited by political analysts as having helped get many Democrats elected to Congress in 2006, a turning point for the party, today called on its members to call the White House to protest the Afghanistan decision.
"President Obama has ordered about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan - escalating the war. But escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire. The president needs to hear that we want to bring the troops home, not send more to Afghanistan," MoveOn said on its website.
Opposition to the escalation reaches deep inside the Democratic party, with liberal members of Congress opposed to the war making their resistance felt even before Obama had completed his speech. They pose a danger for Obama, threatening to block his request for the $30bn extra he needs Congress to approve to fund the 30,000 new troops.
Reflecting liberal unease in Congress, New York Democratic representative Louise Slaughter said: "I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues like our economy to deal with in this country."
Another Democrat, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, echoed the sentiment: "It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilise Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al-Qaida is headquartered."
Anti-war Democrats are pushing for an early vote on funding before troops are sent into action.
The White House is extremely conscious that part of the base that helped get Obama elected last year is in danger of being eroded. The decision to put in a date for the beginning of withdrawal of US troops was primarily a political one, designed to try to placate not only a US public sceptical about the war but the liberal, anti-war wing of the coalition that Obama built. It did not appear to have worked, with some liberal commentators noting that it was only the start of the process and large numbers of US troops come remain in Afghanistan for years to come.
Public opinion polls show that support for the war has gradually waned since the start of the year, with hostility higher among Democratic supporters than Republicans.
The anti-war protests that were a feature of the Bush presidency have been in little evidence this year but that could change. A new coalition has been formed in response to Obama's decision, the Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally, and announced today it is to protest in front of the White House on 12 December.
VoteVets.org, which represents progressive American veterans reports its members are ambivalent about the Obama plan. Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets, said:
"We have been supportive of every move the president has made since he was elected, and have supported an increased focus on Afghanistan since our inception, but given the serious questions that are unresolved, we aren't ready to support what he's laid out."
The tone among liberal bloggers was more outspoken. Typical of the comments today was KathyinBlacksburgh, who is an editor on the Virginia-based Blue Commonwealth site. She wrote: "So, not one single life is worth it .... It has become clear you do not care what the majority of Americans think. By the way, we, the majority, think it's wrong. We think it's unsupportable. We think it's unaffordable. And we think it's a huge mistake from a security perspective."
75 Comments so far
Show AllI worked door to door for him last year--now I won't even vote for him in 2012. Too bad--it wasn't even good while it lasted. Hello-o-o Dennis K!!
Does anyone know if Dennis is going to run again? He was my first candidate last election, but when he dropped out, I went to Gravel and then Nader. They were the only ones I could conscionably vote for. I would definitely support Kucinich again. The weird thing is that SO many people I talked to said they liked what Kucinich stood for but that he "didn't have a chance". I don't get it. If you like his platform (and so many did) how is it that he doesn't have a chance? If we all vote for him, he'll win. Simple as that.
I'm so glad I didn't vote for Obama. But at the same time, I don't understand the outrage. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Maybe people just don't listen very well.
The "he doesn't have a chance" is the disease used to make excuses. I used to work for the Nader campaign in 2000 and 2004. Even among the Nader voters in 2000, most of them bought into the "Nader cost Gore" disease by 2004 and 2008. I think people listen but another thought such as "spoiler" thoughts prevents them from making sound judgments.
The simple truth is that "Gore cost Gore". The mere fact that Gore tapped a veritable political snake to be his VP companion showed to me that he was totally unfit to be our President then.
Lieberman, Cheney, no difference. Hell, Old Joe might have been even worse. Take out Prez. Gore and the madman is totally loose on the world.
If your a liberal in this country you really don't have a major party that speaks for you. If you are a conservative you get two. The Dems that are right center and the Repubs that are so far to the right they can barely stand up.
odoco
If Kucinich would commit to running in 2012 I would dedicate my life (or what is left of it) to the project. I was a life-long Democrat - I am now rabidly independent. The only way to beat the system is to dismantle it; there ain't no fixin' it.
Well said
"If we all vote for him he will win, simple as that." Sorry to rain on your parade Debbie and I wish it was that simple, but we will never be given a chance to vote for him as long as he stays in the Democratic party.
Kucinich's major problem is that the Democratic party will not allow him to win and it is perfectly legal since the party can make its own rules. Note in the Democratic primaries, he wasn't allowed to participate in an Iowa event. Also, remember when Clinton and Edwards were caught on an open mic speaking about getting rid of the "marginal" candidates from the debates.
Progressive 101: You nailed it! That is why I do not believe Kucinich or any other honest politician ( I know it sounds like an oxymoron!) like Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney,or Bernie Sanders would ever be allowed to win because they are perceived as a threat to the politically, powerful, elite.Also, the Republicans threw Ron Paul under the bus and chose the senile war monger, McCain and that pistol packin mama airhead from Alaska for the same reasons.
You'll be wasting your time.
Vote 3rd party or not at all and encourage others to do the same whether they've voted Democrat or Republican in the past.
Extremely low voter turnout will, in my view, help undermine our election system and 2 parties. Likewise, votes for a 3rd party will send a similar message.
But we need to set bigger goals as well. Hoping one left candidate, 1 3rd party will magically win and fix everything is delusional; escapism for the American left.
And I don't expect the Democratic Party to move left if we vote third party.
The 2 parties need to be appear unsupported.
Fool us once - shame on you!
It's all a huge mistake, as KathyinBlacksburgh says, unless you're totally committed to imperialism via military conquest, as Obama most certainly is. He stood there and told lie after lie that the US has never been about world domination, killing innocents in other countries that stood in the way of "our interests" and related hogwash political boilerplate. He actually thinks he sold the war to Americans when all he did was appease his hawk constituents at the national intelligence centers, the Pentagon, the Blue Dogs and warmongering Repugs like McCain. The guy dug a significant portion of his own political grave last night and I hope there is an anti-war movement that shakes the foundations of his self-satisfied bubble world in D.C. The Afghans will hate him as much as the Iraqis hate Bush, and these are the people he thinks he can "liberate"?
Here's an idea.
Since these greedy pigs are so "Hell-bent" on privatizing socially beneficial programs, we need to start demanding that they totally privatize the Pentagon and do NOT give them another penny of our money. Let the military get their money from the so-called private corporations which promote these wars.
I know it's foolish to think this could actually happen, but imagine if the hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR went to healthcare, education, green technologies...
Anyone who votes to further fund these wars does not deserve to be in government.
I watched last night's speech with two republicans. All of us railed against this futile escalation. Obama is becoming very unpopular. Will he be greeted with angry protester when he goes to pik up his Nobel peace
prize?
I f@cking hope so, but Norway isn't a heavily populated country.
Also, I fear Europeans are under the spell as his continuation of Bush's foreign policies don't directly affect those in Europe. He acts like the cool rich kid that everyone wants to be friends with who flies over to major European cities for the weekend to party.
Most reactions in Germany, a country that participates in the occupation of Afghanistan, were glowingly positive. Afghanistan is the first country in which the Germans appear as occupiers since they were driven out of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway in 1945. Apparently these Aryans cannot live without having their soldiers in other countries.
If this speech last night did not put the nail in the coffin for all Obama supporters,then nothing will, but for the rest of his constituency that know they were hoodwinked and conned by this MIC quisling, please take your anger and channel it to third party candidates. In my dreams, I would like to see a new Constitutional Convention that is ratified by the fifty states and fire Congress and the President who with a very few exceptions, are nothing more than corrupt, deceitful, and crooked attorneys for the MIC and are guilty of the highest treason to America, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
Paul Revere, your warning/alarm is prescient and needed, but we Americans have fought Empire before, and won. Besides, the tables are tuning in the favor of the Global People's Movement against this Global Empire, because its disguise is slipping and its bloody red coat of war,oppression , and tyranny is becoming more obvious every day --- as it was obvious in the confusions and incongruities of Obama's speech last night to defend Empire with people's blood and treasure.
Obama’s confusing speech last night for the Global Empire
The key to understanding the impossibility of Obama’s dilemma is that he is trying to defend a Global Empire with American blood and treasure.
Obviously Obama will not articulate this reality, and thus his plan entails seminal incongruities, which are seen by a few, but sensed by the wider audience of Americans.
Obama has tried to gloss over these incongruities by using the historical techniques of Empires’ salesmen --- he has engendered fear by characterizing the enemy as a “spreading cancer”, or ‘falling dominos’ like communism --- but the real spreading cancer is the Global Empire that hired him to guilefully defend it with American blood and treasure.
Historically, the salesmanship of Empire has always been based on promising the domestic population that they will share the ‘spoils of war’, or the ‘safety of winning’, in return for fighting, and paying, for imperialist adventures.
But Obama, although a consummate salesman, will encounter increasing resistance from the American populus because of the unique incongruities of fighting and paying for a Global Empire with domestic dollars and dead, and without any benefits actually accruing to the American public.
Obama’s dilemma in selling and defending the escalation of war first in Afghanistan, and then in Central Asia and the greater Middle East, is the same as his dilemma regarding his escalating defense of the very same Global Empire on Wall Street ---- that all the benefits are privatized and all the costs are socialized.
Unfortunately for Obama (and his paymasters), but fortunately for we average middle/working-class Americans (and all citizens of the world), the confluence of symptoms pointing to Global Empire as the single, hidden, and metastasizing cause of the real cancer is now becoming increasingly apparent.
When the traditional ‘nationalist empires’ of the 20th century (British, French, German, Soviet) misled their homeland’s people, by promising benefits and security in exchange for fighting and paying for empire, the pride, prizes, and protection of reaching ‘Empire Status’ at least initially were apparent. This was also true for the late 20th century American Empire, even though it was more politely referred to by the consummate propagandist Luce, as just the “American Century” --- since it was the last empire of that century.
But when the American Empire was forcefully morphed into the Global ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist Empire --- which now controls our country by hiding behind the façade of its two-party ‘Vichy’ sham of democratic government (aided by the equally ‘Vichy’ corporatist media) --- the traditional empire promises of war booty, economic benefits, and homeland security were broken.
As this ‘shape shifting’ of Empire progressed, increasing segments of the American middle/working-class started to notice that shares of those traditional ‘war spoils’ from what they suspected was ‘their American Empire’ were not being shared with the domestic population --- not ‘trickling down’ as another famous propagandist/ spokesman/salesman for empire cynically suggested.
The reason, of course, that the traditional promises and benefit streams of empire were not ‘trickling down’, was that the bonuses of empire status were being increasingly captured by only the top tier elite of American society (which always happens within all empires), but also that the spoils of empire were being uniquely employed to lure other nation-states’ ruling-elites into this new and growing form of Global Empire.
Now that the American people are directly feeling the ‘tip of the lance’ of this Global Empire directly in their own faces ---- in the form of; the highest GINI Coefficent of Income Inequality in the world, the continuing ‘crash’ that this Global Empire is causing in its Wall Street lair, the health care oppression at hands of insurance corporations, foreclosures, domestic tyranny and spying, poor education for their kids, plus the increasing number of lives sacrificed to imperialist wars abroad ---- Americans will increasingly (and painfully) recognize that this Global Empire, which Obama will not even name, let alone confront, is the source of all our symptoms and ‘sorrows’ of Empire.
Yes, despite how great a salesman he is, Obama will increasingly find Americans understanding that all their pains and sorrows have one singular, signal, and seminal deep and previously undiagnosed tumor of a cause --- that they are being asked to pay in lives and treasure the socialized costs for rapacious benefits that are accruing only to this new private Global Empire.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Sagacious post Alan.
Right. We need a new constitution, a new government structure, a new election system. This must be the top priority for activists, not channeling all of our energy into a single 3rd party or movement. The movements come and go. The 3rd parties don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and if by some miracle one did, they'd still be unable to do anything as the 2 parties who run the House and Senate would not work with that candidate.
The system must be fixed first, then we can vote for and campaign for any third party we want and know they have a high chance of gaining seats in the government, which can build, and will allow that party to perhaps gain control of the government at some point. Our election system and structure of the government must change first.
It's a shame that Obama decided to hang his hat on a (poor) decision on the war in Afghanistan instead of the issues of healthcare reform and global warming/climate change. These are issues that matter. Instead he'll throw away thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
politicscorner, all the supposed 'issues' boil down to only one thing; the Global ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist Empire --- which controls our country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy --- and which is singular cause (like a hidden cancerous tumor that is metastasizing) of all the individual symptom 'issues' of which you speak.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
I tend to agree with you about the presence of global corporate interests that dominate the governments of the large nations and in turn their militaries (primarily the US but also others). This has been building for decades and is immensely powerful though construction has been incremental from different sources and not through central control of some small elite cabal - that is too much of a conspiracy theory and not the way the world works. No one has that much control, at least not yet.
Nevertheless, there are many steps that people can take to resist control. In my small corner of the world this involves connecting local social and economic networks that link things like production, sustainability, environmental protection, green jobs, and health, equality, and social justice together. AND more broadly connecting together into global networks of like-minded peoples.
You describe specific issues as symptoms of the larger problem. As I noted above the global corporate stranglehold has been developing for decages and it will take decades to dismantle or change, if it can be done at all. I see the issues/symptoms as starting points to chip away at the monster and provide people and the planet some relief as well as points of network creation. You have to start somewhere.
Where were the peace activists last year when the Peace Party nominee Ralph Nader was trying to make the case? It's too late to get angry at Obama. Cry all you want but here's my response to the "peace" activists suddenly getting mad. OH BOO HOO HOO !!
Right on. :-)
Martian, YES, Ralph is the only one since Eisenhower and JFK to dare to say boo about the corporate/financial/militarist Empire, and the only presidential candidate to publicly commit to confront the Global Empire that is killing our country and the world.
Ralph would do it himself, but we have to build the Global People's Movement (qua Revolution) against Global Empire if we are to work with him, or any leader insightful and courageous enough to confront this singular evil.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
OUR JOB NOW
is to figure out how to build a mass anti-war movement and a mass "third" party.
In the absence of a draft, how to spend the wasted war money may be our most persuasive message. Two tacks: jobs and compassion.
Jobs. A million dollars per 100,000 soldiers, = $100 billion for Afghanistan (and that cost is vastly understated, not including veterans benefits & healthcare) At $50,000 each that equals 2 million middle class jobs - teachers, teachers' aides, nurses, solar construction workers, etc. And the salary for those jobs is vastly multiplied into millions more as the money is spent at home and creates more demand.
Compassion. Five million children die every year of hunger and malnutrition. The UN wants $45 billion a year to halve hunger by 2015, and eliminate it by 2025. Which brings the US more "security;" leading the effort to eliminate hunger in all poor countries or defeating the Taliban in one?
If we wish to build a mass party, these are just some of the questions we need to be asking the American people.
Laurenceofberk, what we must organize, educate, and build is the Global People's Movement (qua Revolution) against this Global Empire.
The Global Empire comprises much less than .1% of the people on earth.
We, poor/middle/working-class people of all former nation-states comprise well over 99.9% of the people on earth.
This Global People's Movement must include all people on earth regardless of geography, ethnicity, nationality, etc., which is a tall order, but the movement needs to organize and focus around only ONE ISSUE --- confronting the Global Empire which is the proximate cause of all problems, fears, horrors, and sorrows of all people, so the organizing principle can be simple; namely, "are you for people's political-economic and social democracy, or are you willing to suffer at the hands of Global Empire (to which you have zero value)?
Big audience, small target, simple premise.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. BTW, the motivation will become more obvious to all as the Global Empire increases the pressure, continues to squeeze humanity, and starts putting the 'tip of their lance' in every ones face, but the time-frame for success is also slipping away.
Hi amacd,
You ask, "Are you for people's political-economic and social democracy?" I'm glad you are asking the question, but to be effective we are going to have to be a little more specific, and a little more directed towards people's everyday lives.
Example. In 1917, the Bolshevik slogan was "Bread, peace, land." Related to everyones life. Five million Russians had died in the War, people were starving, and peasants, the vast majority of the population, wanted their land back from the aristocracy. (Never mind that the Communists never gave land to the peasants, but set up state controlled collectives, or that their other slogan, "All power to the workers' councils" was equally fraudulent.)
"People's political-economic and social democracy," can, first of all mean anything, and second, is far removed from daily experience. Do we mean that the state will guarantee everyone a job and/or a good income? Do we tax the rich to provide public service jobs? Do we mean that workers co-ops should own and control individual enterprises, or do we mean co-determination, as in Europe, where workers elect a minority of representatives to the boards of all large businesses?
If, as you say and I also believe, that life in the Empire is going to become increasingly difficult, then it is up to us now to enunciate alternatives which are simple and understandable, and which people can see themselves living with.
Very soon there will be more and more people who are seriously looking for alternatives. If we are smart, we will not try to hand our utopias to people on a platter, but will involve millions in creating these alternatives for themselves. To paraphrase Gandhi, there is no way to democracy; democracy is the way. But at least we can help set up the discussions, and suggest some of the alternatives - and some living examples.
PS. I don't mean to be critical. We are all groping forward as best we can in a situation which changes every day.
Helpful comments from Laurence and others here, thanks.
Well, we shouldn't channel all of our energy into a single third party nor a single reactionary-based movement. The movements come and go and are easily coopted by the parties when it suits them politically; this is especially true with the anti-war movement. Some Republicans are already trying to play this game, just as the Democrats did for the past few years.
Also, our election system will not let a single 3rd party win the presidency. It'd take a miracle, but even then, they would not be able to accomplish anything with the House and Senate controlled by the 2 parties who share the desire to block the 3rd party candidate from doing anything.
Forgot to repeat, that we must think bigger as Americans. I think if we can build a mass movement with the support of 3rd parties and many, many Americans to change the government in some way so that it is a multi-party democracy with a much better election system (voting based on a candidate's/party's history and specific stances, not on marketing campaigns), that has many safe guards to prevent corruption, and reduces the power of the presidency, or eliminates such a role entirely.
First, from Bush, 2000; to Pelosi, 2006 through now, Obama US betrayals, MuffOn, indeed!
Another Democrat, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, echoed the sentiment: "...Sending more troops could further destabilise Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al-Qaida is headquartered."
I am unsure whether it is deliberate or not but many people do not or cannot differentiate between Al Quaeda and the Taliban.
I am generalising here, but Pakistan likes the Taliban. Pakistan does not like Al-Quaeda. The West does not like either of them. To say that Al Quaeda is headquartered in Pakistan is the same as saying that 9/11 terrorists came from Florida.
Having said that I feel sure that the military corporation that now owns all Americans will turn Pakistan into an Afghanistan very shortly. However the rumblings are that first Iran and Syria must be dealt with and perhaps even before the end of 2009 -nevertheless they might just wait to see what lethal toys Obomber buys them for Christmas.
Let's watch the flow of events in congress to see whether he made a deal with America Inc. Maybe sending 30,000 soldiers (and pouring the associated dollars into the war industry) to Afghanistan to secure our hold on the oil and gas there and in Turkmenistan was the price he agreed to pay to get the conservatives not to stand in the way of the health care bill. Heath care is off the agenda in the media. If it passes without further drama by year-end, I will personally be convinced.
A very sad day here during Bush's third term.
Bahaha. The HCR bill atm is already incredibly weak, with a PO only available to a small percentage of people in states who don't "opt-out". But recent word is Reid and team say they couldn't pass that version, so they're in the process of watering it down even more, perhaps to co-opts. So, in exchange for being forced to buy crappy, unreliable, expensive private insurance, we also get co-opts.
It's just not okay to bargain this way.
My how tolerant of tyranny we've become.
Americans are awfully good sports aren't they? Getting royally fucked every day, year after year, tyranny after tyranny, atrocity after atrocity, and taking it all with a shrug and a smile and being oh so tolerant, awfully sporting of us overall.
The bodies and the money just keep piling up, the insanity just keeps growing, the futility and the mendacity have tipped the richter scale, yet, here we all are, sucking it all up, taking it in the posterior and sappily shrugging it all off as if it were all normal.
We can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. I wonder if we will ever, ever get tired of it, get to a point where we've simply had enough and say so, or if we'll just vanish into the fog of apathy and oblivion with a sigh and a whimper, like abused wives, tolerating it until we just give up in exhaustion and frustration. Or has this already occurred?
Every day that I see the pigs in Congress and the vile charlatan in the White House and I say the same thing, my, how very, very tolerant of tyranny we've all become.
I posted this around the interwebs about a month before Obama was elected:
A message from the elite that it's time for capitalism's "B Team," the Democrats, to take the wheel for a while.
Though many will think otherwise, this is not really good news. The ruling class feels that the recklessness & overt corruption of the Bush regime has begun to damage the interests & credibility of US capitalism to an unacceptable degree. At the same time, the Democrats have demonstrated that they are ready to follow all the same basic policies that the Busheviks have built the structure for, with only minor variations in rhetoric & personalities.
Therefore, much is to be gained (from the viewpoint of elites) by a change of personnel. The Democrats will be allowed to win next month's elections, there will be much cheering & self-congratulation about how American democracy "works" and allows the people to vote for change, and tensions will be greatly reduced.
But this is precisely the kind of situation for which the 2-party system is designed -- to allow for a blowing off of steam, and a fake "rejuvenation" & feeling of "new direction" -- while fundamentally, nothing at all really changes. The effect of a Dem win next month will be to strengthen faith in the 2-party system. Yet, the Dems will continue support for the War on Terror, for all military funding, and perhaps even an increase in troop levels. They will continue all free-trade arrangements, and 100% support for Israel. Almost none of the horrible Bush legislation (PATRIOT, torture, eavesdropping etc) will be undone, and no serious investigations of Bush crimes will be undertaken, except perhaps for marginal cases which, when all is said and done, will raise hopes then amount to nothing (like the Plame case).
The point here is not to quibble over whether a Dem win or a Repub win next month would be "better." The point is really that it makes no difference, because 99% of the populace will lose either way. And, longer term, it is actually a negative to have general faith in the 2-party system strengthened by temporarily passing control over to the B Team. As long as we stay in the framework of the 2-party system, there is no chance of meaningful change.
Personification + false dichotomy = bad government.
Or, in quainter terms: taxation without representation is tyranny.
My hi-tech business friends, many wealthy and usually VERY apolitical, were excoriating Obama today. Apparently many had secretly voted for him, hoping he would bring needed "change".
Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org
In responding to President Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan War, given that it's crunch time on account of perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday, we progressives have 4 options. The first is to convince ourselves that our President is going to make good on his promises, just needs a little more time to do so, except right now, for obvious reasons, that's an extremely difficult sell. The second option is for us to back candidates (regardless of party affiliation) who promise that, if elected, they'll support progressive legislation, such as, troops out now, demilitarization, Medicare for all, full employment, reversing global warming and nationalization of banking & finance. Unfortunately, given our elected politicians miserable track record for delivering on their campaign promises, our choosing this option would be risky if not foolish. Option three is for progressives to give up on the political process entirely and, instead, go the think globally, act locally route. The problem with this approach is that no matter how much the local community may benefit, this does nothing to avert doomsday, in that perpetual wars and global warming most likely will continue unabated. The forth and only option that'll avert doomsday is for us to rise up en masse and change the world, such that, there's peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings. And these, progressives, happen to be our options. Which of the four will we choose?
That's easy enough: #4.
Suddenly, everything is now crystal clear.
Not easy but necessary what with time running out on account of global warming. it's unlikely that the Greens or any other 3rd party will be bring about change unless there is an accompanying popular uprising. Admittedly things look grim now for a turnabout but so did they 20 years ago in Eastern Europe and, then, almost overnight, look what happened. Seems that in America that the right-wingers have more energy than us progressives. Partly, of course, that's because MSM only gives coverage to activities on the right, rarely on the left, but we've done better in the past so why is it so far-fetched to believe that we can (better, have to) do better now. And yes, peace on earth & goodwill to all living beings is vague, but it's not for any one person to define what sort of world, were up to us. That's a collective decision.
I'm afraid running candidates, however peaceful, will not succeed in a world ruled by corporate mass media.
Each day, let us activists offer one message breaking a tiny crack in the wall of corporate propaganda. Most Americans live their entire lives behind that wall, walled up in a ghetto of their own ignorance about what is really going on.
As the financial and economic collapses accelerate, and the environment deteriorates, more and more regular people become aware that something is deeply, terribly wrong.
Let's be out there offering them analysis they can use, and a collective action that energizes and empowers them as they come out of their media induced stupor!
To prepare ourselves, we can read scholar Gene Sharp's free downloads on the use of strategic nonviolent action in conflicts here http://www.aeinstein.org/ to get ideas from all the greats who have gone before us.
Or, if you have youngsters around, Anne Sibley O'Brien & Perry O'Brien's new book After Gandhi: One Hundred Years of Nonviolent Resistance.
"Seems that in America that the right-wingers have more energy than us progressives."
IMHO the right-wingers are energized by their fear-based ignorant ideology, which is insane.
"Progressives" IMHO need to remain calm and strong and clear-headed, unify not bicker, and create change PEACEFULLY. Let's live according to principles of love finally! We need to grow in strength by winning hearts and minds.
I've tried all these options. Your 4th is quite vague, like something a Miss America contestant would say.
I think there is some hope if 3rd parties, activist groups, and many many people work together, the government can be radically reformed or overthrown peacefully. It would require somehow a new constitution or new amendments or some new Bill of Rights.
The only mass protest I can see working is mass non-voting in an election, at least for the 2 main parties. The legitimacy of a government with only a tiny percentage of the population participating is immediately undermined.
I hope both of these things happen.