For openers, the words ´progressive´and ´Democrat´ should´t be placed in the same sentence.
If you call yourself a Democrat, you can´t possibly be a progressive. Real progressives vote for people like Nader or McKinney, not for an Uncle Tom like Obama.
Like Nader always points out, all signs pointing out to Obama being a Bush clone were there years before the 08´ election, his voting record was plain. Only a fool would fall for his lies and rhetoric. But apparently, the US is inhabited by fools.
Posted by raydelcamino
Jul 10 2010 - 1:14pm
Obama's 2008 campaign won Advertising Age's 2008 gold medal because he was able to get voters to not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Posted by Tiredoftrolls
Jul 11 2010 - 11:17am
Amazing how it is so damn obvious.
Posted by Lingum
Jul 10 2010 - 4:27pm
delia_darrow:
Could not agree with you more. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again (voting Democratic) but expecting a different result?
Posted by linkwray
Jul 10 2010 - 5:04pm
Your litmus test is only exceeded by your 20/20 hindsight. Ralph Nader works with progressive wings/interst groups of Dems all the time to try to get things done and make bad legislation a little less so. Locally and nationally, the progressive movement is even more coalitional than the DLC, in my estimation. I won't question your sincerity but your information is " iffy ".
Posted by delia_darrow
Aug 18 2010 - 10:50am
There was no information, just opinion, so it's your perception that's "iffy".
As for Nader working with Democrats "all the time", do you have any evidence? I'd love to see links, but I bet dollars to doughnuts you can't come up with any.
Posted by drosera
Jul 10 2010 - 12:24pm
I'm tired of voting for people that do not believe in what I believe in. Tired of petitioning them and sending them e-mails to do the right thing. Tired of getting solicitations from people that send to Congress representatives that write blank checks to Wall Street, conduct illegal wars, and allow Israel to do anything it wants. Tired of always being asked to forgive the abundant failures of their party. I'm tired of Democrats. Let them lose. Another opposition will arise to stand against corporate abuse. A political vacuum always gets filled.
Posted by Neilz
Jul 10 2010 - 1:07pm
There seems to be quite a difference between what Norman Solomon and the Progressive Democrats of America define as "progressive", as seen at the PDA website, and what the Democratic Party defines as "progressive" through the actions of its elected officials and Democratic Party advocates like the Center for American Progress, its affiliates thinkprogress.org/media matters, HCAN and MoveOn, and so-called "progressive" web sites.
Until those differences are resolved, considering the fact the Obama Administration has alienated a substantial portion of its base on the left and among the working class, voters will either flock to useless third party opportunists, vote Republican, or simply stay at home.
When voting Democratic or "progressive" means voting for continuing Bush/Cheney era policies, with no help for voters trying to keep a roof over their head and food in the belly...no reform...no change...no hope for change...why vote at all?
If there is no difference between Progressive, Democrat or Republican, what choice is there...besides keeping your powder dry?
Posted by oldcrow
Jul 10 2010 - 1:22pm
stick in the mud
Posted by cosmobilly
Jul 10 2010 - 1:44pm
The problem isn't that the country elected Obama, the problem is that Obama was elected with the expectation that he would or should fix everything for us.
I posted extensively after his election with the theme that we could not afford to sit back, that we must build on the momentum and continue to push OUR agenda. Instead, from my first post, I was accused of being an Obama supporter, which was ad hominem idiocy that had the effect of completely missing the point and side-stepping OUR responsibility. If we are truly a government of, by and for the people than we don't simply rely on elected politicians to do what's right - we know and behave as if it is to be it is up to US. Period.
It is damn hard to build critical mass, and Obama had (albeit for his own political agenda) successfully created more momentum and critical mass than I've seen in this country in decades. WE failed to build on that momentum. Once Obama was elected, most everyone went back to their comfortable lives and figured their job was done, and that he would take care of everything for them.
And so many so-called progressives and liberals played right into the conservative agenda by doing little more than criticizing and chattering about Obama this and Obama that, instead of realizing and capturing the energy, the momentum, the critical mass that existed at that moment. How the hell do they expect any third party candidate, any serious new idea to come forth if they can't understand the opportunity that existed at that moment? Instead, they played right into the divide and conquer stratagem, taking aim and slighting those of us who are their own best allies.
I posted about understanding the Washington machinery, the nature of power and the multinational influences at work, and how we need to address those issues. I posted about the futility of expecting Obama to fix things, and the ridiculousness of expecting him to represent radical change. I posted about the futility of expecting a third party candidate to succeed, or even if one did, the futility of expecting that to result in change in Washington. What is missing is the understanding for a viable coherent critical mass of thought, vision and purpose upon which to effect those changes we need and seek. WE must be the change we desire. The only question is how will we build the momentum needed to make it so? Merely electing an individual, any individual, as a cog into the current political machine WILL NOT, CAN NOT WORK.
Posted by echoes4444
Jul 10 2010 - 1:49pm
Am I vigorously prosecuting both Bush and Obama Admin Whistleblowers?
Posted by linkwray
Jul 10 2010 - 2:44pm
When Ohbummer stabbed the Dean/Kucinich wing of the party with his Cabinet choices and appointing the idiot, Tim Caine, as head the DNC he said all he needed to many about his priorities. His true colors came thru and they were lies and half-truths to people paying attention. Geitner, Salazar, Clinton, etc- all DLCer's and Corp. Dems. Krugman abandoned this pirate's ship almost immediately. Health Care Reform? Give me a break. Ohbummer crushed the progressive energy on purpose and will try to triangulate a weakened party thru 2012 with Corporate money replacing grassroots donations. He has pulled off the biggest hustle since Reagan. The only thing Ohbummer did was end the residual white guilt hanginng over nat'l elections. He's already failed " the content of his character " question miserably for lots of base voters. No one will trust a word he has to say by 2012. The names on the White House doors have changed but the policies haven't. The lies continue, unabated, and it starts with our fearless leader Pres. Barck Ohbummer.
Posted by hattie09
Jul 10 2010 - 10:08pm
I really dislike the name calling--but I agree with most of the points made here. Why women didn't oppose Summers,, I dunno. Why we didn't object when Rahm moved his brother Zeke into Orszag's office, why Baucus was allowed to exclude proponents of single payer while hiring a WellPoint mole as staffer, I dunno. We are paying for Daschle's dance with lobbyists and Salazar's failure to clean up Mining and Minerals.
I think I'll go watch a Michael Moore documentary.
Posted by linkwray
Jul 10 2010 - 11:58pm
Sorry about the language,er namecalling. I meant to explain DLC meant Dirty Lyin' Corporatists. Thanks for the agreement on some things. Enjoy your movie and I'll try to clean up my act when Barck(as in all bark no bite) Ohbummer is collecting fat checks with Holter from his Wall street handlers. P.S. One prominent entertainer here in Portland chose Ohbummer over McCain because " he has such beautiful hands ". Now you might possibly know why women didn't necessarily oppose Sommers. Just sayin'.
Posted by Tiredoftrolls
Jul 11 2010 - 11:15am
Of course, when you say you don't know, you're being rhetorical.
Posted by drosera
Jul 10 2010 - 4:02pm
cosmobilly,
Do you really think Obama was open to the kind of change we all wanted? That all he needed was us standing behind him pushing him to do the right thing? Come on! He was a corporatist from the get-go. He was a militarist from the beginning. He hired Rahm Emmanuel for God's sake. And followed that by Geithner and Summers. And Robert Gates. Obama never shared progressive ideals with us and no amount of pushing could have gotten him to end the wars, nationalize banks, protect constitutional freedoms, promote an educational policy that respected teachers and public schools, provide for a national healthcare program, or anything else. It is NOT our fault that his presidency failed.
Posted by Diana
Jul 10 2010 - 6:21pm
'The problem isn't that the country elected Obama....'
Indeed. The problem is that Obama was selected and installed by the MIC. After 8 years in office of an alcoholic buffoon and Dr. Strangelove, they realized they could go further with a smooth-talking, populist-sounding man in the white house; to seal th deal, they chose a black person, someone they knew the left would have a very, very difficult time opposing, no matter what he did (even if his policies were exactly like the Buffoon's and good Doctor's). Probably the most brilliant political strategy every devised: a smiling, bloodless coup of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, by some two-bit hustlers in three-piece suits. Checkmate!
I agree, cosmobilly, that we need to USE the Obama momentum, but it's tough...what with the now-complete control the MIC has over the government, the courts, and the media.
What's particularly frightening is that due to the MIC's stranglehold, even rational people are getting swept up in completely irrational thinking. A good example is the shock-therapy that says that the only way to slash the deficit is by sticking it to those ungrateful and too-rich municipal workers, immigrants, unions. After a full-court-press of MIC propaganda, a fiscally logical, moral, and ethical solution such as job creation is viewed as some sort of radical conspiracy--when in fact the it is, of course, the neo-libereal radicals that have complete and total control.
Posted by cosmobilly
Jul 12 2010 - 1:02pm
Diana, thanks for considering my actual point. For the others, please reread my post because I am not a supporter or apologist for Obama. I understand the lying and hypocrisy of the two main parties and their candidates all too well. I also understand how hard it is to build a consensus. Diana correctly identifies the challenge in stating how it is tough to buck the MIC, the courts and the media - and that's not even the whole of it. And yes, "they" have been presenting candidates to us for decades. Still, that does not prevent us - the people - from finding our voice. History is not just replete with tyranny and oppression, it is replete with popular causes and social revolutions. What I am saying is that the purpose we serve and how we organize must result in enough critical mass to carry the day, and be substantive enough to last. The idea of a candidate and an elected official simply doing that FOR US, in the current sociopolitical environment is an absolute recipe for failure and disappointment. And nowhere do I say it will be easy. It is easy however to be critical and to leave matters up to others, toward whom we may in turn further be judgmental and critical.
Posted by DCH
Jul 10 2010 - 11:46pm
Sounds like you are blaming the victim. If the people you elect turn out to be liars, psychopaths and con men, who purposely deceived, what are the people to do?
Working for a candidate is supposed to be the momentum for change. Once the candidate is elected, one must expect they do as they said.
Good Grief.
Posted by gregsdiary
Jul 11 2010 - 12:32pm
Things must be pretty mixed up for progressives and liberals when Normon Solomon has to remind them that war and Wall Street bailouts isn't what they voted for.
But then, maybe THEY'RE not the ones confused when it comes to what progressives and liberals stand for.
Posted by liberalbias
Jul 10 2010 - 4:02pm
PROGRESSIVES.......STOP DONATING TO SEN. MICHAEL BENNET IN COLORADO. HE IS THE CORPORATE CANDIDATE......OBAMA'S HAND PICKED SENATOR FOR COLORADO!!! WE HAVE A REAL PROGRESSIVE RUNNING AGAINST HIM, BUT YOU ARE SENDING YOUR MONEY TO THE WRONG MAN......$6,000,000 AND COUNTING!!! SO STOP AND HELP THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE!!!!
ANDREW ROMANOFF IS WHO THE RANK & FILE DEMS WANT TO REPRESENT US!!!
Posted by linkwray
Jul 10 2010 - 6:22pm
I sent a contribution to a guy named Romanoff DeReservation. No wonder it hasn't cashed yet. Never mind. My bad.
Posted by ED
Jul 10 2010 - 4:25pm
The Dems stopped being even slightly "progressive" when Bill Clinton & the DLC were in power pushing NAFTA, ending Glass-Steagall, deforming welfare, bombing Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, and giving OUR airwaves away.
Once many of us saw Obama's corporatist-warmongering record,his corporate supporters (from Wall Street, Big Oil, War Profiteers, and Insurance), his campaign promises (escalate in Afghanistan), praise for Ronald Reagan, and chosen advisors (Zbigniew Brzezinski), we voted for true progressives such as Cynthia McKinney.
The Corporatist-Militarist Party (Dems & Repubs) is the Death Party. Stop voting for them. Vote for true justice and peace candidates, or, if you can, write in a name.
Posted by Thoughts_Into_Action
Jul 10 2010 - 5:52pm
It's sad to see Norman Solomon hasn't learned from his attachment to the Democratic Party. He and the Progressive Democrats of America have about as much influence as a barnacle on the hull of a slave ship. Those who vote for the Dems have about the same influence because Dem control is about big business, not the public interest.
Party principles in action really do matter. Send in your contributions to the Dems if you will, but you'll never match what corporate America delivers to the Dems. Unions are similarly outspent, but they are trying to fund their antagonists, not their friends.
I really urge those who think my views to be totally wrong to read the article, "For the Want of Three Votes," by Gregory Vickrey at Counterpunch.org.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
vickrey07092010.html
This very important article analyzes the $33 billion Congressional vote for more war funding in Afghanistan. It turns out that so-called "progressive antiwar" Democrats could have killed the funding but instead VOTED UP MORE WAR FUNDING.
One would think that a close watcher of the Dems, like Norman Soloman, would have wrote about this abject betrayal in his column, but I don't really think he has an analysis of Dem voting, nor does he seem to recall the constant pattern of betrayals over many years. Instead, he seems to think that if people were more organized, things would change. However, the Afghanistan war funding vote shows that's NOT THE CASE.
The fact that some Dems vote against war funding now and then isn't a good barometer of progress because the Dem Party engineers passage of war funding, allowing some Dems to vote against war funding while the funding bill still gets passed. Don't be fooled by this scam (Obey was a staunch war funder, for instance).
We've all had bad experiences getting behind third parties and other organizing efforts only to lose time and again. That doesn't mean you become some "pragmatist" and try to coddle favor with the corporate-enmeshed Democratic Party. No, if you are a progressive, back parties that support those values - always. Expect to lose. Wait for your fellow human beings to evolve.
-TIA
Posted by herbert r chersonsky
Jul 10 2010 - 7:01pm
PDA is no more than another Common Dreams! Its members get to voice their opinions , but the subjects that needed to be talked about never, never get discussed: 1. Who was behind the attacks of 9/11?
We know World Trade Center #7 was brought down with explosives...
We know Larry Silverstein, the owner, said that "The building
was to be pulled."
We know that AB Brown had 4600 Put Options on American Airlines.
We know that the ISI of Pakistan (A CIA Ally) paid for Mohammed
Atta's stay in Florida
We know that Dick Cheney ordered 5 practice exercises for NORAD
the morning of 9/11 to send intercept planes away from the
Notheast and confuse FAA people.
2. Why did we attack Iraq?
We know that all the intelligence information was fabricated
We know that Saddam Hussein was set up by the CIA in 1959
We know that Saddam waged a "Proxy War" for the United States
from 1981 to 1989.
We know that Donald Rumsfeld and George H. Bush were proud to
give Saddam the chemicals he used against the Iranians.
3. Why did we attack Afghanistan?
We know that 15 alleged terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.
We know that the CIA supported al-Qaeda through the 90´s
We know that the CIA put the Taliban in power
We know that Osama Bin Laden was CIA.
We know that many of the alleged terrorists received
training at CIA/Military training facilities
We know that the CIA in Riyad, Saudi Arabia authorized
visas for many of the alleged terrorists
4. Why was Obama in Berlin for a campaign speech?
We know that all of his advisors are from The Council on
Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, or The Bilderberg
Club.
We know that he talked about a New World Order which his
advisors are all about.
We know that secret societies and the intelligence
community have infiltrated all levels of the U.S. Government.
("JFK, The Unspeakable" by James W Douglass and "Family of
Secrets" by Russ Baker.)
Norman, if you are not a plant, organize a million people to demonstrate against the illegal and immoral invasions/occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the murder of innocent people using drones and assassination lists in Washington D.C. and join them with the "9/11 Truth Movement" that the Controlled Mass Media refuses to recognize.......
Posted by gregsdiary
Jul 11 2010 - 1:01am
Sooner or later TIA, you're going to have to move beyond just the shameful actions of the progressives you mention here(thanks for an informative link) and come to grips with the kind of thinking ("thoughts") that lies behind those actions. In other words, learn from your attachment to progressivism.
Posted by AD
Jul 10 2010 - 6:50pm
I fully agree with Norman Solomon progressives have to work within and outside the Democratic Party to get a more progressive alternative and to put forward our agenda and to put it out there in public. But I'd hasten to add we must also be willing to back Republicans when they're more ant war and more pro our agenda as Mark Hatfield and Chuck Percey were in 1966. Our flexibility will give us an advantage that the right doesn't want us to look at, but that history shows has worked before. In 1966 both Hatfield and Percey won with cross over anti war Democratic support landing two anti war candidates in the US Senate. We must be open to that again as well as even another Dwight D Eisenhower albeit of a darker complexion in 2012, Colin Powell.
A black Ike would easily win, and if Michael Steele can hold on as the GOP's national chairman, he can steer the party's next national convention selection toward not just a sure winner but one who will get the USA out of Afghanistan with a negotiated settlement as Ike did in the Korean War. Don't say it can't happen. It most definitely can.
It happened on the other side of the Atlantic in the 1951 British general election as right before said election the progressive New Statesman was posing the question just the year before "What would it seem like if the Tories (Conservatives) were to appear to be more for peace than Labor?" and exactly that scenario played out as the Tories or Conservatives won that election landing Winston Churchill in Number 10 again as the prime minister after he and other Tories had gone after the Labor front bench for not taking on US military war mongering in Korea enough. It can happen on this side of the Atlantic as well. Churchill also is known to have got MacArthur fired as well.
Also allow for the fact that David Cameron, the new Conservative and supposedly pro Israeli prime minister has said the the Israeli blockade of Gaza is "unacceptable." His foreign secretary, equivalent to our secretary of state has echoed this view. We can make this happen.
AD
Posted by Abbybwood
Jul 10 2010 - 7:09pm
The Republican and Democratic Parties cannot be trusted by ordinary Americans ever again.
They have been and are still working for multi-national corporations, not us.
We need to find the wisdom and the courage to launch a NEW PARTY with a truly progressive platform/agenda. Cut the military/intelligence budget at least in half. What ever it takes to fund a full Single Payer/Medicare for All health care system, fully fund and regulate and OWN the energy systems in this country to insure that they are as renewable and environmentally safe as possible, bring jobs back to the United States where they belong. Feel free to add to the list.
I realize many of you here and at HuffPo, Crooksandliars, Salon etc. think that launching a NEW PARTY is a fool's errand. My position is that it is a fool's errand to continue voting for fascist war criminals in either party who care not one whit about any of us.
We need a fresh start. It's time to abandon the Democrats for what they truly are and I include the PDA and the members of the "Progressive" caucus in this group of "going along to get alongers". The American People are ready for the new I-Pad next year (minus the kinks) and they are ready for a "new" political party that has taken a true evolutionary leap in consciousness!
We all know in our hearts and minds that the Republicans AND Democrats are all nothing but corporatist tools and that is all they will ever be.
Time is running out. Our chance to launch this party is NOW!!!
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -
Mahatma Ghandi
Posted by Big Mac
Jul 10 2010 - 7:35pm
Very Well Said! "...a fool's errand to continue voting for fascist war criminals..."
So many times posters here on CD have opined " if only the Dems would show some backbone" etc. It's the left that needs to show some backbone and quit supporting these con-men.
I have recently moved and when I re-register to vote it will be as a member of the Progressive Party. I know we don't actually have one....yet. But "our chance to launch this party is NOW" Sorry Greens. You had a chance and couldn't decide if you were a political party or a group existing to "put pressure on the Dems"
Posted by Earthian
Jul 11 2010 - 3:34am
It is important to understand key facts about the US political system, and the public.
A majority of the public wants a multi-party system. They want more options more "third" (fourth, fifth and sixth) parties.
And to get that, the way Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Sweden, Taiwan, New Zealand, and other nations have done, it requires, at the national level, constitutional changes. We have a two-party system, not just because the two corporate-dominated parties want to maintain their duopoly. We have it because of three factors: private money not banned; single seat districts; winner-take-all voting rules.
A multi-party system happens because it is designed into electoral/constitutional processes. It can be done in several ways: multi-seat districts and party list systems, and hybrids like the German/New Zealand MMP system. The MMP system has winner-take-all district votes, *and* party list votes. The end result is that in the MMP system, if a party gets X percentage of the party vote (over the threshold of, say five percent) then they get X percentage of the total seats. It is a good system.
New parties can form in such multi-party systems. In Israel with its party list system and a two-percent threshold, a new party can form quickly and win lots of seats, like Kadima just did.
A constitutional amendment or series of amendments could make our system a non-corrupt, multi-party system for legislatures. That's what it would take. But to advocate for a new third party in the US, absent such changes as these, towards a multi-party system, is to advocate, in a chess match, the pawn taking the king on the first move, when, given the rules of the game, that cannot be done successfully. A third party cannot rise up in the present circumstances. Besides we already have a national progressive party: The Green Party of the United States. A new party rose up once in the US when the Whigs died and the Republican Party was formed in the 1850s and took its place, with Lincoln as their first president. Our circumstances have been different since.
So your proposal is ill-formed. Solomon is right, progressives need (in the short run) to work inside and outside of the Democratic Party. I believe that means supporting the Green Party too. And other progressive parties.
In the long run, however, we need to create a multi-party system so your proposal can happen, as it should happen—new parties should be able to rise up as they can in many established democracies. To look over the entire list of democracies, see the site http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/index.cfm
Also, Wikipedia has a nice section overviewing the way electoral design works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
There are a number of ways we can get to a multi-party system via constitutional change: an Article V amendment or series of amendments; and Article V convention; and an Amendment One convention/assembly and national referendum for adoption (with support from state conventions in 1787-89, the Preambles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Amendments IX and X, and the simple core idea that the people are sovereign.).
For a good view of Article V routes, see Sanford Levinson's book Our Undemocratic Constitution. For amending outside of Article V, via and Amendment One route, see Akhil Reed Amar's great book For the People—the first two chapters. Or download his paper Philadelphia Revisited, available free online.
New Zealand in the 1990s had a national debate and two national referenda to change from a US-type system to a multi-party system. They did the equivalent of an Amendment One process. (The right of a constitutional assembly and referendum, as each state did to adopt the current and second Constitution under Article VII.) There is much we can learn from the New Zealand example. See more here: http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/history-mmp.html
This is all to say American progressives need to wake up to constitutional realities, and grow up intellectually.
I'll be blunt: the electoral system design knowledge of most progressives is shockingly inadequate. I've done the work to understand these things. It requires a bit of reading. You can't build a bridge or a skyscraper without studying engineering. That takes work. We need to build a democratic system in America. This takes prerequisite knowledge. That takes hard work to acquire. My question for you is this: will you do the work?
Posted by abuelo
Jul 10 2010 - 9:51pm
Voting. Party politics. so quaint, so obsolete, so last century. we don't do that anymore people. our country has been occupied by the corporatocracy. why have so many failed to notice this?
don't bore us anymore with votes and parties. yeah we'd like a democracy. we just do not live in one.
Posted by hattie09
Jul 10 2010 - 9:56pm
Even when Progressives win, they become compliant consensus- builders once they get to Washington--and the consensus ends up supporting the interests of Wall Street and corporate America.
Where is the honast broker--the representative who cares about Main Street, about the unemployed, about his/her constituency? Who will stand up to lobbyists and the White House staff?
Another point--choose candidates carefully. Neither Coakley in MA, nor Halter in Arkansas were particularly exciting candidates.
Think of all the Progessives who, saying they support single payer, allowed it to be taken off the table, those who voted to add billions to health care costs when a switch to Medicare-for-All would pay for itself with no new monies needed.
We the people are thickheaded--so we get the government we deserve!
Posted by BABOON
Jul 10 2010 - 11:19pm
At one point, did you just have to shut this video down
to keep from getting sick, I did.
Posted by donna
Jul 11 2010 - 10:15am
Ah--Baboon--so appropriate.
Posted by Perry logan
Jul 11 2010 - 6:56am
Progressives don't like to admit this, but they were warned.
During the primaries, progressives like me tried to explain that Obama was a fraud. We were very polite and used words of less than three syllables.
But we were shouted down. Something ugly was happening within the Democratic Party. You could get thrown out of progressives blogs simply for citicizing the Whistling One.
The execrable behavior of Obama's fans alone was ample warning. Their favorite tactic was to call their fellow Democrats racists. That's when I knew the Democratic Party was dead.
And lay off the "evil DLC" crap. Clinton is a DLC Democrat, and he presided over the longest sustained period of economic growth in U.S. history, with higher income at all levels. He was infinitely better than Obama. What have progressives done lately, other than help put a neocon in the White House?
Posted by donna
Jul 11 2010 - 10:14am
If you think Hillary would have been any better, you're pathetically confused. Hillary was and is a warmonger--she would have not only sent troops into Afghanistan, but bombed Iran by now also. She is anti-labor, as was her husband, who signed NAFTA. And she is so pro-Israel that she can hardly keep from gushing everytime Netanyahu opens his lying mouth. So, Clinton was no option. When the top runners are all bad, what's to do? The lesser of two evils is still evil! Oh, and that "longest sustained period of economic growth" was a bubble.
Posted by Tiredoftrolls
Jul 11 2010 - 11:05am
Wow. You started so well
and then ended with the Clinton BS.
President Clinton was terrible, Republican-Lite, and Senator Clinton would have been just as bad.
Posted by Tirebiter
Jul 11 2010 - 3:37pm
Progressive is just another soft, meaningless, social-science-generated term. What the hell does it actually mean?
Posted by AD
Jul 11 2010 - 4:20pm
Progressives really have to stop believing Slick Willy was anything but a closet case Republican in the worse sense. Yes, I know some Republicans turn out like Dwight D Eisenhower, and Ike was Slcik Willy in reverse which is just what this country needs now.
Slick Willy did things against working and poor people people in this country no official Republican would ever dare, and he succeeded with those they did try such as NAAFTA, and had a GOP president been in the White House in 1990s NAAFTA would never have gone through.
AD
Posted by AD
Jul 11 2010 - 4:25pm
Progressives really have to stop believing Slick Willy was anything but a closet case Republican in the worse sense. Yes, I know some Republicans turn out like Dwight D Eisenhower, and Ike was Slcik Willy in reverse which is just what this country needs now.
Slick Willy did things against working and poor people people in this country no official Republican would ever dare, and he succeeded with those they did try such as NAAFTA, and had a GOP president been in the White House in 1990s NAAFTA would never have gone through.
As to what happened with the 9/11 attacks, Robert Fisk of the London based Independent is skeptical of some of the findings of the official version of those events, thus something isn't quite like it should be on this. With that being the case we all ought to keep open minds about this, which ought to be second nature for progressives and even those who simply liberals, which means they favor a more minimalist approach to reform.
Oh, and progressive does mean something, and most definitely did when Henry Wallace and Glen Taylor were the national ticket in 1948. If Wallace had won in 1948 as Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger wanted we would have brought an end to the worthless, damnable Cold War before it got far at all.
AD
Posted by Freddie Kilowatt
Jul 11 2010 - 6:04pm
How come the working classes are drawing unemployment and Slick Willie is now worth more than 100 million dollars and counting? Nafta was bad for us but fantastic for Willie
Posted by shanbaleelah
Jul 11 2010 - 7:35pm
I appreciate the frustration the Progressives are feeling. What I do not understand is why they are so surprised about Obama's so called failures and disappointments. He, after all, campaigned on a fairly hawkish and pro-imperialist platform. Add to the above his votes to sustain the Patriot Act and the funding of Iraqi and Palestinian invasions and you have a war-mongering liberal Zionist in the White House. Progressives could have voted for Nader and Independents for Bob Barr (or Ron Paul). We had options, but decided not to exercise them!
Posted by Dhamma
Aug 16 2010 - 4:06pm
So what should we do? Talking here about it won't do much, so let's take a stab at making a plan. Suggestion, and I hope others post their ideas:
The Greens would be smart if they called for a national conference of all Left of the Democratic Party groups, organizations and people. It may take awhile to get buy in, so this groundwork would be important and shouldn't put the cart before the horse.
In this mix should be the left of the Labor Movement, and though Labor gets a bad rap since some just keep supporting the Democrats while getting pimped slapped every two to four years, there really are Left, democratically run unions that might participate. Those who once supported the Labor Party should be encouraged to come to the national conference.
And the Greens, though they have a good platform, are lacking when it comes to having an agenda that is outspokenly for working people. We need this new party to be a working class party, a worker's party. The corporations already have their parties, and it has been serving them quite well.
Then, the attendees should rebrand themselves, Greens and all, under a new name. They should thank the Greens for much of the leg work they have done to make it so this new party can get candidates on the ballot, and then all should find key races to get on the ballot and work to win a small number of elections each cycle. This may take twenty years to carry out, but what we are doing at present has seen decades pass with the change sliding us bit by bit toward the Right and corporate domination.
Once Dems start to lose elections because of a split vote, then either they accommodate a better platform or they continue to lose elections. You have to face the facts though, that just because Republicans will win in the short term, in the long term the new Party will be the winner. And though to be fair, is does factually make a difference in small ways whether a Dem or a Rep is in the seat, in the long run it makes no difference since the slide it always to the right for the Dems since they accommodate the wrong part of the political spectrum. But even then, whether the Dems move incrementally to the Left or not, the desire and the money should always go to building and expanding electorally the base and wins for the new party. No money for Dems no matter what they do.
The new Party, the Progressive Workers Party, or maybe the Progressive Labor Party, or whatever designation it is given, has got to be concerned always with bottom versus top, since that is what the right left divide is really always about. And it has to be about pushing for more democracy, local up to national, and could work to expand the system, either through legislation or through support for Constitutional Amendments, to allow for a more diverse politics, more parliamentary in design. It should also work to eliminate corporate person=hood and bring democracy back to those who are actually born, eating, and breathing, and living.
So, come on Greens. Let's think bigger here. The perception of what a Green is a kind of a liability, so lets form a new party around workers--and weave the Greens many good ideas into it.
45 Comments so far
Show AllFor openers, the words ´progressive´and ´Democrat´ should´t be placed in the same sentence.
If you call yourself a Democrat, you can´t possibly be a progressive. Real progressives vote for people like Nader or McKinney, not for an Uncle Tom like Obama.
Like Nader always points out, all signs pointing out to Obama being a Bush clone were there years before the 08´ election, his voting record was plain. Only a fool would fall for his lies and rhetoric. But apparently, the US is inhabited by fools.
Obama's 2008 campaign won Advertising Age's 2008 gold medal because he was able to get voters to not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Amazing how it is so damn obvious.
delia_darrow:
Could not agree with you more. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again (voting Democratic) but expecting a different result?
Your litmus test is only exceeded by your 20/20 hindsight. Ralph Nader works with progressive wings/interst groups of Dems all the time to try to get things done and make bad legislation a little less so. Locally and nationally, the progressive movement is even more coalitional than the DLC, in my estimation. I won't question your sincerity but your information is " iffy ".
There was no information, just opinion, so it's your perception that's "iffy".
As for Nader working with Democrats "all the time", do you have any evidence? I'd love to see links, but I bet dollars to doughnuts you can't come up with any.
I'm tired of voting for people that do not believe in what I believe in. Tired of petitioning them and sending them e-mails to do the right thing. Tired of getting solicitations from people that send to Congress representatives that write blank checks to Wall Street, conduct illegal wars, and allow Israel to do anything it wants. Tired of always being asked to forgive the abundant failures of their party. I'm tired of Democrats. Let them lose. Another opposition will arise to stand against corporate abuse. A political vacuum always gets filled.
There seems to be quite a difference between what Norman Solomon and the Progressive Democrats of America define as "progressive", as seen at the PDA website, and what the Democratic Party defines as "progressive" through the actions of its elected officials and Democratic Party advocates like the Center for American Progress, its affiliates thinkprogress.org/media matters, HCAN and MoveOn, and so-called "progressive" web sites.
Until those differences are resolved, considering the fact the Obama Administration has alienated a substantial portion of its base on the left and among the working class, voters will either flock to useless third party opportunists, vote Republican, or simply stay at home.
When voting Democratic or "progressive" means voting for continuing Bush/Cheney era policies, with no help for voters trying to keep a roof over their head and food in the belly...no reform...no change...no hope for change...why vote at all?
If there is no difference between Progressive, Democrat or Republican, what choice is there...besides keeping your powder dry?
stick in the mud
The problem isn't that the country elected Obama, the problem is that Obama was elected with the expectation that he would or should fix everything for us.
I posted extensively after his election with the theme that we could not afford to sit back, that we must build on the momentum and continue to push OUR agenda. Instead, from my first post, I was accused of being an Obama supporter, which was ad hominem idiocy that had the effect of completely missing the point and side-stepping OUR responsibility. If we are truly a government of, by and for the people than we don't simply rely on elected politicians to do what's right - we know and behave as if it is to be it is up to US. Period.
It is damn hard to build critical mass, and Obama had (albeit for his own political agenda) successfully created more momentum and critical mass than I've seen in this country in decades. WE failed to build on that momentum. Once Obama was elected, most everyone went back to their comfortable lives and figured their job was done, and that he would take care of everything for them.
And so many so-called progressives and liberals played right into the conservative agenda by doing little more than criticizing and chattering about Obama this and Obama that, instead of realizing and capturing the energy, the momentum, the critical mass that existed at that moment. How the hell do they expect any third party candidate, any serious new idea to come forth if they can't understand the opportunity that existed at that moment? Instead, they played right into the divide and conquer stratagem, taking aim and slighting those of us who are their own best allies.
I posted about understanding the Washington machinery, the nature of power and the multinational influences at work, and how we need to address those issues. I posted about the futility of expecting Obama to fix things, and the ridiculousness of expecting him to represent radical change. I posted about the futility of expecting a third party candidate to succeed, or even if one did, the futility of expecting that to result in change in Washington. What is missing is the understanding for a viable coherent critical mass of thought, vision and purpose upon which to effect those changes we need and seek. WE must be the change we desire. The only question is how will we build the momentum needed to make it so? Merely electing an individual, any individual, as a cog into the current political machine WILL NOT, CAN NOT WORK.
Am I vigorously prosecuting both Bush and Obama Admin Whistleblowers?
When Ohbummer stabbed the Dean/Kucinich wing of the party with his Cabinet choices and appointing the idiot, Tim Caine, as head the DNC he said all he needed to many about his priorities. His true colors came thru and they were lies and half-truths to people paying attention. Geitner, Salazar, Clinton, etc- all DLCer's and Corp. Dems. Krugman abandoned this pirate's ship almost immediately. Health Care Reform? Give me a break. Ohbummer crushed the progressive energy on purpose and will try to triangulate a weakened party thru 2012 with Corporate money replacing grassroots donations. He has pulled off the biggest hustle since Reagan. The only thing Ohbummer did was end the residual white guilt hanginng over nat'l elections. He's already failed " the content of his character " question miserably for lots of base voters. No one will trust a word he has to say by 2012. The names on the White House doors have changed but the policies haven't. The lies continue, unabated, and it starts with our fearless leader Pres. Barck Ohbummer.
I really dislike the name calling--but I agree with most of the points made here. Why women didn't oppose Summers,, I dunno. Why we didn't object when Rahm moved his brother Zeke into Orszag's office, why Baucus was allowed to exclude proponents of single payer while hiring a WellPoint mole as staffer, I dunno. We are paying for Daschle's dance with lobbyists and Salazar's failure to clean up Mining and Minerals.
I think I'll go watch a Michael Moore documentary.
Sorry about the language,er namecalling. I meant to explain DLC meant Dirty Lyin' Corporatists. Thanks for the agreement on some things. Enjoy your movie and I'll try to clean up my act when Barck(as in all bark no bite) Ohbummer is collecting fat checks with Holter from his Wall street handlers. P.S. One prominent entertainer here in Portland chose Ohbummer over McCain because " he has such beautiful hands ". Now you might possibly know why women didn't necessarily oppose Sommers. Just sayin'.
Of course, when you say you don't know, you're being rhetorical.
cosmobilly,
Do you really think Obama was open to the kind of change we all wanted? That all he needed was us standing behind him pushing him to do the right thing? Come on! He was a corporatist from the get-go. He was a militarist from the beginning. He hired Rahm Emmanuel for God's sake. And followed that by Geithner and Summers. And Robert Gates. Obama never shared progressive ideals with us and no amount of pushing could have gotten him to end the wars, nationalize banks, protect constitutional freedoms, promote an educational policy that respected teachers and public schools, provide for a national healthcare program, or anything else. It is NOT our fault that his presidency failed.
'The problem isn't that the country elected Obama....'
Indeed. The problem is that Obama was selected and installed by the MIC. After 8 years in office of an alcoholic buffoon and Dr. Strangelove, they realized they could go further with a smooth-talking, populist-sounding man in the white house; to seal th deal, they chose a black person, someone they knew the left would have a very, very difficult time opposing, no matter what he did (even if his policies were exactly like the Buffoon's and good Doctor's). Probably the most brilliant political strategy every devised: a smiling, bloodless coup of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, by some two-bit hustlers in three-piece suits. Checkmate!
I agree, cosmobilly, that we need to USE the Obama momentum, but it's tough...what with the now-complete control the MIC has over the government, the courts, and the media.
What's particularly frightening is that due to the MIC's stranglehold, even rational people are getting swept up in completely irrational thinking. A good example is the shock-therapy that says that the only way to slash the deficit is by sticking it to those ungrateful and too-rich municipal workers, immigrants, unions. After a full-court-press of MIC propaganda, a fiscally logical, moral, and ethical solution such as job creation is viewed as some sort of radical conspiracy--when in fact the it is, of course, the neo-libereal radicals that have complete and total control.
Diana, thanks for considering my actual point. For the others, please reread my post because I am not a supporter or apologist for Obama. I understand the lying and hypocrisy of the two main parties and their candidates all too well. I also understand how hard it is to build a consensus. Diana correctly identifies the challenge in stating how it is tough to buck the MIC, the courts and the media - and that's not even the whole of it. And yes, "they" have been presenting candidates to us for decades. Still, that does not prevent us - the people - from finding our voice. History is not just replete with tyranny and oppression, it is replete with popular causes and social revolutions. What I am saying is that the purpose we serve and how we organize must result in enough critical mass to carry the day, and be substantive enough to last. The idea of a candidate and an elected official simply doing that FOR US, in the current sociopolitical environment is an absolute recipe for failure and disappointment. And nowhere do I say it will be easy. It is easy however to be critical and to leave matters up to others, toward whom we may in turn further be judgmental and critical.
Sounds like you are blaming the victim. If the people you elect turn out to be liars, psychopaths and con men, who purposely deceived, what are the people to do?
Working for a candidate is supposed to be the momentum for change. Once the candidate is elected, one must expect they do as they said.
Good Grief.
Things must be pretty mixed up for progressives and liberals when Normon Solomon has to remind them that war and Wall Street bailouts isn't what they voted for.
But then, maybe THEY'RE not the ones confused when it comes to what progressives and liberals stand for.
PROGRESSIVES.......STOP DONATING TO SEN. MICHAEL BENNET IN COLORADO. HE IS THE CORPORATE CANDIDATE......OBAMA'S HAND PICKED SENATOR FOR COLORADO!!! WE HAVE A REAL PROGRESSIVE RUNNING AGAINST HIM, BUT YOU ARE SENDING YOUR MONEY TO THE WRONG MAN......$6,000,000 AND COUNTING!!! SO STOP AND HELP THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE!!!!
ANDREW ROMANOFF IS WHO THE RANK & FILE DEMS WANT TO REPRESENT US!!!
I sent a contribution to a guy named Romanoff DeReservation. No wonder it hasn't cashed yet. Never mind. My bad.
The Dems stopped being even slightly "progressive" when Bill Clinton & the DLC were in power pushing NAFTA, ending Glass-Steagall, deforming welfare, bombing Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, and giving OUR airwaves away.
Once many of us saw Obama's corporatist-warmongering record,his corporate supporters (from Wall Street, Big Oil, War Profiteers, and Insurance), his campaign promises (escalate in Afghanistan), praise for Ronald Reagan, and chosen advisors (Zbigniew Brzezinski), we voted for true progressives such as Cynthia McKinney.
The Corporatist-Militarist Party (Dems & Repubs) is the Death Party. Stop voting for them. Vote for true justice and peace candidates, or, if you can, write in a name.
It's sad to see Norman Solomon hasn't learned from his attachment to the Democratic Party. He and the Progressive Democrats of America have about as much influence as a barnacle on the hull of a slave ship. Those who vote for the Dems have about the same influence because Dem control is about big business, not the public interest.
Party principles in action really do matter. Send in your contributions to the Dems if you will, but you'll never match what corporate America delivers to the Dems. Unions are similarly outspent, but they are trying to fund their antagonists, not their friends.
I really urge those who think my views to be totally wrong to read the article, "For the Want of Three Votes," by Gregory Vickrey at Counterpunch.org.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
vickrey07092010.html
This very important article analyzes the $33 billion Congressional vote for more war funding in Afghanistan. It turns out that so-called "progressive antiwar" Democrats could have killed the funding but instead VOTED UP MORE WAR FUNDING.
One would think that a close watcher of the Dems, like Norman Soloman, would have wrote about this abject betrayal in his column, but I don't really think he has an analysis of Dem voting, nor does he seem to recall the constant pattern of betrayals over many years. Instead, he seems to think that if people were more organized, things would change. However, the Afghanistan war funding vote shows that's NOT THE CASE.
The fact that some Dems vote against war funding now and then isn't a good barometer of progress because the Dem Party engineers passage of war funding, allowing some Dems to vote against war funding while the funding bill still gets passed. Don't be fooled by this scam (Obey was a staunch war funder, for instance).
We've all had bad experiences getting behind third parties and other organizing efforts only to lose time and again. That doesn't mean you become some "pragmatist" and try to coddle favor with the corporate-enmeshed Democratic Party. No, if you are a progressive, back parties that support those values - always. Expect to lose. Wait for your fellow human beings to evolve.
-TIA
PDA is no more than another Common Dreams! Its members get to voice their opinions , but the subjects that needed to be talked about never, never get discussed: 1. Who was behind the attacks of 9/11?
We know World Trade Center #7 was brought down with explosives...
We know Larry Silverstein, the owner, said that "The building
was to be pulled."
We know that AB Brown had 4600 Put Options on American Airlines.
We know that the ISI of Pakistan (A CIA Ally) paid for Mohammed
Atta's stay in Florida
We know that Dick Cheney ordered 5 practice exercises for NORAD
the morning of 9/11 to send intercept planes away from the
Notheast and confuse FAA people.
2. Why did we attack Iraq?
We know that all the intelligence information was fabricated
We know that Saddam Hussein was set up by the CIA in 1959
We know that Saddam waged a "Proxy War" for the United States
from 1981 to 1989.
We know that Donald Rumsfeld and George H. Bush were proud to
give Saddam the chemicals he used against the Iranians.
3. Why did we attack Afghanistan?
We know that 15 alleged terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.
We know that the CIA supported al-Qaeda through the 90´s
We know that the CIA put the Taliban in power
We know that Osama Bin Laden was CIA.
We know that many of the alleged terrorists received
training at CIA/Military training facilities
We know that the CIA in Riyad, Saudi Arabia authorized
visas for many of the alleged terrorists
4. Why was Obama in Berlin for a campaign speech?
We know that all of his advisors are from The Council on
Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, or The Bilderberg
Club.
We know that he talked about a New World Order which his
advisors are all about.
We know that secret societies and the intelligence
community have infiltrated all levels of the U.S. Government.
("JFK, The Unspeakable" by James W Douglass and "Family of
Secrets" by Russ Baker.)
Norman, if you are not a plant, organize a million people to demonstrate against the illegal and immoral invasions/occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the murder of innocent people using drones and assassination lists in Washington D.C. and join them with the "9/11 Truth Movement" that the Controlled Mass Media refuses to recognize.......
Sooner or later TIA, you're going to have to move beyond just the shameful actions of the progressives you mention here(thanks for an informative link) and come to grips with the kind of thinking ("thoughts") that lies behind those actions. In other words, learn from your attachment to progressivism.
I fully agree with Norman Solomon progressives have to work within and outside the Democratic Party to get a more progressive alternative and to put forward our agenda and to put it out there in public. But I'd hasten to add we must also be willing to back Republicans when they're more ant war and more pro our agenda as Mark Hatfield and Chuck Percey were in 1966. Our flexibility will give us an advantage that the right doesn't want us to look at, but that history shows has worked before. In 1966 both Hatfield and Percey won with cross over anti war Democratic support landing two anti war candidates in the US Senate. We must be open to that again as well as even another Dwight D Eisenhower albeit of a darker complexion in 2012, Colin Powell.
A black Ike would easily win, and if Michael Steele can hold on as the GOP's national chairman, he can steer the party's next national convention selection toward not just a sure winner but one who will get the USA out of Afghanistan with a negotiated settlement as Ike did in the Korean War. Don't say it can't happen. It most definitely can.
It happened on the other side of the Atlantic in the 1951 British general election as right before said election the progressive New Statesman was posing the question just the year before "What would it seem like if the Tories (Conservatives) were to appear to be more for peace than Labor?" and exactly that scenario played out as the Tories or Conservatives won that election landing Winston Churchill in Number 10 again as the prime minister after he and other Tories had gone after the Labor front bench for not taking on US military war mongering in Korea enough. It can happen on this side of the Atlantic as well. Churchill also is known to have got MacArthur fired as well.
Also allow for the fact that David Cameron, the new Conservative and supposedly pro Israeli prime minister has said the the Israeli blockade of Gaza is "unacceptable." His foreign secretary, equivalent to our secretary of state has echoed this view. We can make this happen.
AD
The Republican and Democratic Parties cannot be trusted by ordinary Americans ever again.
They have been and are still working for multi-national corporations, not us.
We need to find the wisdom and the courage to launch a NEW PARTY with a truly progressive platform/agenda. Cut the military/intelligence budget at least in half. What ever it takes to fund a full Single Payer/Medicare for All health care system, fully fund and regulate and OWN the energy systems in this country to insure that they are as renewable and environmentally safe as possible, bring jobs back to the United States where they belong. Feel free to add to the list.
I realize many of you here and at HuffPo, Crooksandliars, Salon etc. think that launching a NEW PARTY is a fool's errand. My position is that it is a fool's errand to continue voting for fascist war criminals in either party who care not one whit about any of us.
We need a fresh start. It's time to abandon the Democrats for what they truly are and I include the PDA and the members of the "Progressive" caucus in this group of "going along to get alongers". The American People are ready for the new I-Pad next year (minus the kinks) and they are ready for a "new" political party that has taken a true evolutionary leap in consciousness!
We all know in our hearts and minds that the Republicans AND Democrats are all nothing but corporatist tools and that is all they will ever be.
Time is running out. Our chance to launch this party is NOW!!!
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -
Mahatma Ghandi
Very Well Said! "...a fool's errand to continue voting for fascist war criminals..."
So many times posters here on CD have opined " if only the Dems would show some backbone" etc. It's the left that needs to show some backbone and quit supporting these con-men.
I have recently moved and when I re-register to vote it will be as a member of the Progressive Party. I know we don't actually have one....yet. But "our chance to launch this party is NOW" Sorry Greens. You had a chance and couldn't decide if you were a political party or a group existing to "put pressure on the Dems"
It is important to understand key facts about the US political system, and the public.
A majority of the public wants a multi-party system. They want more options more "third" (fourth, fifth and sixth) parties.
And to get that, the way Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Sweden, Taiwan, New Zealand, and other nations have done, it requires, at the national level, constitutional changes. We have a two-party system, not just because the two corporate-dominated parties want to maintain their duopoly. We have it because of three factors: private money not banned; single seat districts; winner-take-all voting rules.
A multi-party system happens because it is designed into electoral/constitutional processes. It can be done in several ways: multi-seat districts and party list systems, and hybrids like the German/New Zealand MMP system. The MMP system has winner-take-all district votes, *and* party list votes. The end result is that in the MMP system, if a party gets X percentage of the party vote (over the threshold of, say five percent) then they get X percentage of the total seats. It is a good system.
New parties can form in such multi-party systems. In Israel with its party list system and a two-percent threshold, a new party can form quickly and win lots of seats, like Kadima just did.
A constitutional amendment or series of amendments could make our system a non-corrupt, multi-party system for legislatures. That's what it would take. But to advocate for a new third party in the US, absent such changes as these, towards a multi-party system, is to advocate, in a chess match, the pawn taking the king on the first move, when, given the rules of the game, that cannot be done successfully. A third party cannot rise up in the present circumstances. Besides we already have a national progressive party: The Green Party of the United States. A new party rose up once in the US when the Whigs died and the Republican Party was formed in the 1850s and took its place, with Lincoln as their first president. Our circumstances have been different since.
So your proposal is ill-formed. Solomon is right, progressives need (in the short run) to work inside and outside of the Democratic Party. I believe that means supporting the Green Party too. And other progressive parties.
In the long run, however, we need to create a multi-party system so your proposal can happen, as it should happen—new parties should be able to rise up as they can in many established democracies. To look over the entire list of democracies, see the site http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/index.cfm
Also, Wikipedia has a nice section overviewing the way electoral design works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
There are a number of ways we can get to a multi-party system via constitutional change: an Article V amendment or series of amendments; and Article V convention; and an Amendment One convention/assembly and national referendum for adoption (with support from state conventions in 1787-89, the Preambles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Amendments IX and X, and the simple core idea that the people are sovereign.).
For a good view of Article V routes, see Sanford Levinson's book Our Undemocratic Constitution. For amending outside of Article V, via and Amendment One route, see Akhil Reed Amar's great book For the People—the first two chapters. Or download his paper Philadelphia Revisited, available free online.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1988Philadelphia.pdf
Or his shorter summary here:
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eamc_01/eamc_01_00090.html
New Zealand in the 1990s had a national debate and two national referenda to change from a US-type system to a multi-party system. They did the equivalent of an Amendment One process. (The right of a constitutional assembly and referendum, as each state did to adopt the current and second Constitution under Article VII.) There is much we can learn from the New Zealand example. See more here: http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/history-mmp.html
This is all to say American progressives need to wake up to constitutional realities, and grow up intellectually.
I'll be blunt: the electoral system design knowledge of most progressives is shockingly inadequate. I've done the work to understand these things. It requires a bit of reading. You can't build a bridge or a skyscraper without studying engineering. That takes work. We need to build a democratic system in America. This takes prerequisite knowledge. That takes hard work to acquire. My question for you is this: will you do the work?
Voting. Party politics. so quaint, so obsolete, so last century. we don't do that anymore people. our country has been occupied by the corporatocracy. why have so many failed to notice this?
don't bore us anymore with votes and parties. yeah we'd like a democracy. we just do not live in one.
Even when Progressives win, they become compliant consensus- builders once they get to Washington--and the consensus ends up supporting the interests of Wall Street and corporate America.
Where is the honast broker--the representative who cares about Main Street, about the unemployed, about his/her constituency? Who will stand up to lobbyists and the White House staff?
Another point--choose candidates carefully. Neither Coakley in MA, nor Halter in Arkansas were particularly exciting candidates.
Think of all the Progessives who, saying they support single payer, allowed it to be taken off the table, those who voted to add billions to health care costs when a switch to Medicare-for-All would pay for itself with no new monies needed.
We the people are thickheaded--so we get the government we deserve!
At one point, did you just have to shut this video down
to keep from getting sick, I did.
Ah--Baboon--so appropriate.
Progressives don't like to admit this, but they were warned.
During the primaries, progressives like me tried to explain that Obama was a fraud. We were very polite and used words of less than three syllables.
But we were shouted down. Something ugly was happening within the Democratic Party. You could get thrown out of progressives blogs simply for citicizing the Whistling One.
The execrable behavior of Obama's fans alone was ample warning. Their favorite tactic was to call their fellow Democrats racists. That's when I knew the Democratic Party was dead.
And lay off the "evil DLC" crap. Clinton is a DLC Democrat, and he presided over the longest sustained period of economic growth in U.S. history, with higher income at all levels. He was infinitely better than Obama. What have progressives done lately, other than help put a neocon in the White House?
If you think Hillary would have been any better, you're pathetically confused. Hillary was and is a warmonger--she would have not only sent troops into Afghanistan, but bombed Iran by now also. She is anti-labor, as was her husband, who signed NAFTA. And she is so pro-Israel that she can hardly keep from gushing everytime Netanyahu opens his lying mouth. So, Clinton was no option. When the top runners are all bad, what's to do? The lesser of two evils is still evil! Oh, and that "longest sustained period of economic growth" was a bubble.
Wow. You started so well
and then ended with the Clinton BS.
President Clinton was terrible, Republican-Lite, and Senator Clinton would have been just as bad.
Progressive is just another soft, meaningless, social-science-generated term. What the hell does it actually mean?
Progressives really have to stop believing Slick Willy was anything but a closet case Republican in the worse sense. Yes, I know some Republicans turn out like Dwight D Eisenhower, and Ike was Slcik Willy in reverse which is just what this country needs now.
Slick Willy did things against working and poor people people in this country no official Republican would ever dare, and he succeeded with those they did try such as NAAFTA, and had a GOP president been in the White House in 1990s NAAFTA would never have gone through.
AD
Progressives really have to stop believing Slick Willy was anything but a closet case Republican in the worse sense. Yes, I know some Republicans turn out like Dwight D Eisenhower, and Ike was Slcik Willy in reverse which is just what this country needs now.
Slick Willy did things against working and poor people people in this country no official Republican would ever dare, and he succeeded with those they did try such as NAAFTA, and had a GOP president been in the White House in 1990s NAAFTA would never have gone through.
As to what happened with the 9/11 attacks, Robert Fisk of the London based Independent is skeptical of some of the findings of the official version of those events, thus something isn't quite like it should be on this. With that being the case we all ought to keep open minds about this, which ought to be second nature for progressives and even those who simply liberals, which means they favor a more minimalist approach to reform.
Oh, and progressive does mean something, and most definitely did when Henry Wallace and Glen Taylor were the national ticket in 1948. If Wallace had won in 1948 as Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger wanted we would have brought an end to the worthless, damnable Cold War before it got far at all.
AD
How come the working classes are drawing unemployment and Slick Willie is now worth more than 100 million dollars and counting? Nafta was bad for us but fantastic for Willie
I appreciate the frustration the Progressives are feeling. What I do not understand is why they are so surprised about Obama's so called failures and disappointments. He, after all, campaigned on a fairly hawkish and pro-imperialist platform. Add to the above his votes to sustain the Patriot Act and the funding of Iraqi and Palestinian invasions and you have a war-mongering liberal Zionist in the White House. Progressives could have voted for Nader and Independents for Bob Barr (or Ron Paul). We had options, but decided not to exercise them!
So what should we do? Talking here about it won't do much, so let's take a stab at making a plan. Suggestion, and I hope others post their ideas:
The Greens would be smart if they called for a national conference of all Left of the Democratic Party groups, organizations and people. It may take awhile to get buy in, so this groundwork would be important and shouldn't put the cart before the horse.
In this mix should be the left of the Labor Movement, and though Labor gets a bad rap since some just keep supporting the Democrats while getting pimped slapped every two to four years, there really are Left, democratically run unions that might participate. Those who once supported the Labor Party should be encouraged to come to the national conference.
And the Greens, though they have a good platform, are lacking when it comes to having an agenda that is outspokenly for working people. We need this new party to be a working class party, a worker's party. The corporations already have their parties, and it has been serving them quite well.
Then, the attendees should rebrand themselves, Greens and all, under a new name. They should thank the Greens for much of the leg work they have done to make it so this new party can get candidates on the ballot, and then all should find key races to get on the ballot and work to win a small number of elections each cycle. This may take twenty years to carry out, but what we are doing at present has seen decades pass with the change sliding us bit by bit toward the Right and corporate domination.
Once Dems start to lose elections because of a split vote, then either they accommodate a better platform or they continue to lose elections. You have to face the facts though, that just because Republicans will win in the short term, in the long term the new Party will be the winner. And though to be fair, is does factually make a difference in small ways whether a Dem or a Rep is in the seat, in the long run it makes no difference since the slide it always to the right for the Dems since they accommodate the wrong part of the political spectrum. But even then, whether the Dems move incrementally to the Left or not, the desire and the money should always go to building and expanding electorally the base and wins for the new party. No money for Dems no matter what they do.
The new Party, the Progressive Workers Party, or maybe the Progressive Labor Party, or whatever designation it is given, has got to be concerned always with bottom versus top, since that is what the right left divide is really always about. And it has to be about pushing for more democracy, local up to national, and could work to expand the system, either through legislation or through support for Constitutional Amendments, to allow for a more diverse politics, more parliamentary in design. It should also work to eliminate corporate person=hood and bring democracy back to those who are actually born, eating, and breathing, and living.
So, come on Greens. Let's think bigger here. The perception of what a Green is a kind of a liability, so lets form a new party around workers--and weave the Greens many good ideas into it.