Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lefties for Obama, Round Two
I've written a lot of columns for Commondreams over the years. But I don't recall any that got as much response as a piece I posted recently urging lefties to support Obama. Many of the responses were heartfelt outbursts of emotion; some of them were surprisingly angry, even venomous, attacks. Hey, I thought we lefties were supposed to be the tolerant ones.
But some of the responses were quite thoughtful, and they call for a response in kind.
Most of the thoughtful writers offered a list of ways the Democrats were quite similar to the Republicans, and they challenged me to give some specific issues on which Dems are demonstrably better than the GOP. Fair enough. So here are just a few highlights. To name all the meaningful differences would take far too long for one column.
Let's start with the big economic picture. Noted economist Larry Bartels has run the numbers for the past sixty years and here's what he found: "Real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans."
There's no mystery about it. Republican economic policy aims, above all, to protect the interests of the very rich. They make nearly all their money from investments. Inflation is their greatest enemy, because it eats up the profits they expect from their investment. So Republicans regularly throw the economy into recession. Lots of people lose their jobs, which means wages go down, which means inflation stays low.
That's why we had major recessions during the first Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, and the current Bush administration. Republicans are happy to see the middle class and the poor suffer, as long as they damp down inflation to protect the rich.
On top of that, of course, the GOP gives massive tax cuts to the rich, much larger than the Democrats. That runs up budget deficits. With government having to borrow huge sums, there's more competition for investment capital, so interest rates go up. Working people have to pay more on their mortgages and credit cards, but the rich get better returns on their investments.
Labor unions give huge sums to the Democrats because they understand these significant differences between the economic policies of the two parties. In return, of course, Dems are much more likely to support legislation that protects the rights (and the safety) of workers and helps unions build their strength. Republicans have a long record of supporting laws that gut labor's efforts to organize.
Perhaps the biggest single group of workers who are consistently pro-Democratic is not a union but a professional organization: the National Education Association. Teachers know that Republicans pursue all sorts of strategies for de-funding and weakening public schools. Democrats consistently support public education, which in effect means the right of poor children to get as good an education as the rich.
All of this points to a larger pattern that is sad but true. When you ask "What have the Democrats done that's clearly better than the Republicans?", it can be hard to find powerful answers, because Democrats spend most of their political energy and capital just preventing Republicans from doing even worse things. So the biggest differences between the parties are often most evident when you ask what the Democrats have not done.
Consider Bill Clinton's presidency. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 they had a horrendous program called the Contract with America. Clinton risked his political career by throwing the government into gridlock to prevent most of that Contract from becoming law -- one of the many cases where Democrats saved us by making sure nothing got done.
In foreign policy, Clinton resisted pressures for sending U.S. troops out to kill people for a number of years. Finally, tragically, he ordered the attack on Serbia that many of us protested loudly. But he refused to launch the attack on Iraq that the neoconservatives demanded in 1998, even though it would have been politically popular. And Clinton certainly needed to take politically popular steps, to counter the political attack that got him impeached and largely paralyzed his administration. Again, a Democrat spending nearly all his time playing defense.
Now consider Clinton's Supreme Court appointments: Ginsburg and Breyer. They are hardly the true progressives many of us would like to see on the court. But sandwiched in between Republican appointments like Scalia and Thomas before them, and Roberts and Alito after them, they look relatively good. At least they've been able to prevent terrible things that would have happened if their seats had gone to conservatives in the Scalia to Alito mold. Most notably, of course, they've staved off the overturning of Roe v. Wade and protected a woman's right to choose.
Unfortunately they could not prevent the Court's worst moment, handing George W. Bush the presidency in December, 2000. Which brings us to the question: Would things have been different if Al Gore had been president for the last eight years? Much might not have been different. But once again, the question is not whether either party is perfect. The question is whether one party is demonstrably better than another.
Yes, Gore probably would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 too. But the war against Iraq was a neocon project from the beginning. Since Clinton had resisted it, and the Pentagon resisted it too, there is no reason to think Gore would have done it.
There's every reason to think Gore would have stuck to the bipartisan, multilateral tradition of foreign policy, as Obama will -- which prevents the worst excesses of the Bush - McCain style of unilateral, preemptive attack. When Obama pledges to consult allies more and negotiate with "enemies," he's not pandering for votes. It's a politically risky position to take. So he probably really means it.
The other area in which Gore probably would have made a real difference is the one that has proven to be his real passion: the environment. A Democratic administration would have signed the Kyoto protocols long ago and given us precious years to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, years that have been lost under Republican rule.
As it was, the Dems have been forced to spend all their energies for the last eight years just preventing things from getting worse. Remember, the centerpiece of Bush's second term was supposed to be the privatization of social security. It didn't happen, partly because of public outrage, but partly because the Democrats worked to turn that outrage into politically effective resistance.
We saw something similar in the last month, when the administration was ready to hand $700 billion of taxpayers' money to the Wall Street investment firms pretty much as an outright gift, with only a few strings attached. And even that was too liberal for many Republicans. They wanted no strings at all. The conservatives' "insurance" plan would have let the Wall Street gamblers continue on their merry way, knowing that they'd get to keep all the profits, while the government stood ready to reimburse them for all their losses.
The plan that emerged was not good, to be sure. But the Democrats did manage to buffer its worst excesses by insisting on giving the taxpayers some assets in return for their money, some oversight, and at least a hope of some help for beleaguered homeowners.
A President Obama might have to spend most of his political energy just preventing things from getting worse. But that should be reason enough to support him.
More than that, a Democratic victory -- especially when the Democrat is an African-American -- would move the political center back toward the left, not nearly far enough, but quite perceptibly. It would create an opening for real change and a mood of expecting change, as Kennedy's election did in1960. We on the left could channel our energies into pushing the Democrats in our direction -- which is precisely what the theory of community organizing tells us to do.
If Obama and the Dems fail to fulfill the expectations for change, they could trigger the same kind of grassroots activism in the streets that we saw in the '60s. At least the possibilities would be there.
A McCain victory, on the other hand, would reverse the current leftward creep of the political center. It would create a huge impression that America really is an immovably conservative country, which would foster the expectation that nothing will or can change for the better. Once again, we'd all have to put all our energy into merely preventing the very worst. That kind of negative politics has been the hallmark, and the curse, of our national life for some 35 years now.
Some lefties seem to get a perverse pleasure from it. Apparently they enjoy feeling like an oppressed minority, always on the defensive, bewailing their powerlessness, hurling invective at anyone who suggests a more moderate view that opens the way to small but meaningful changes. I don't understand it. But I know that it won't help the poor, or the unions, or the Iraqis, or the environment, or the women fighting to protect their right of choice.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the possibility that we might begin creating positive visions and working to turn them into reality. Not a guarantee -- but at least a possibility. And then we'd have to start doing the hard work of give-and-take politics. Not voting for Obama means four more years (at least) of accepting powerlessness and working frantically just to stave off the worst political disasters. Isn't that enough of a difference to matter on Election Day?
- Posted in
424 Comments so far
Show All'When you ask "What have the Democrats done that's clearly better than the Republicans?", it can be hard to find powerful answers, because Democrats spend most of their political energy and capital just preventing Republicans from doing even worse things.'
Ira, that is just a false picture of reality that you posit here. MOST of the time Democrats are not keeping the Republicans 'from doing even worse things' but are cooperating and collaborating with them in doing even worse things.
Alan MacDonald
yes, logan, Clinton's 'triangulation' with Phil Gramm in the gutting of FDR's depression era Glass Steagall Act was the penultimate cause of this unholy axis of greedy and crooked brokerage/investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance corporations that is DIRECTLY responsible for this financial terrorism, and second Great Depression that we are left with.
‘Free Market’ ideology in a system which allows the known and seminal ‘market-failure’ of ‘negative externality cost dumping’ to be ‘gamed’ by Wall Street is really just a policy of ‘Free Looting’.
What this country needs is a Department of Negative Externality Abuse Protection (NEAP) with as much funding and power as the Department of Defense ---- because the WMD's of extreme 'shock capitalism' (as Warren Buffet has said) are as dangerous to the American people as nuclear weapons.
It is okay to vote for Obama but we need to make sure to tell him that we know what his foreign policy is all about and we need to be aware of who he actually is.
Please read
"Obama: America's "Second Chance" or is it its Last" found at
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/24/obama_america_s_second_chance_or_is_it_i
In solidarity,
Maher Osseiran
www.mydemocracy.net
"Isn't that enough of a difference to matter on Election Day?"
___________________________________________________
No.
"Again, a Democrat spending nearly all his time playing defense."
The Democrats during the last two years could have done the same to George Wanker Bush, but this time for reasons, very good ones, to preserve democracy and our civil liberties and get us out of Iraq. They wound up doing nothing, thanks mostly to Nancy Pelosi. This is the post-Clinton Democratic party that Obama is now the head of. By their actions, they demonstrate that the fundamental moral, ethical and political principles this nation is supposed to stand for, and at times has stood for, don't really mean anything to them. Aside from winning elections and regaining power, what do post-Clinton Democratic politicians really believe in? I follow politics pretty closely and I haven't got a clue.
Truthfully, sir, I resent the title of your article because I think you are doing nothing more than trying to co-opt the views of the left.
You also present, as your core argument, the premise that Democrats are better than Republicans and thus deserve the support of the left. Well, I would argue that Democrats are indeed "better than Republicans" but that they absolutely do not deserve our support.
You may have omitted a few key details from your essay.
Lefties understand that the US is an imperial nation. We understand that US foreign policy has always been driven by corporate greed and not by the best interests of the American people. Democrats do not understand that or just don't care about it.
Lefties understand the very real threats of global warming. Mr. Obama spends $1100 on the military for every $15 he spends to fight global warming. Does he expect the US to be attacked by another military power? Global warming is a far greater risk; Mr. Obama's priorities are totally screwed up.
Lefties understand that, while Democrats may pass out bandages for the ravages of capitalism, deeper, more fundamental changes to our economic system must be made. Contrary to your thesis, we should not be voting for the party that treats the slaves more kindly.
Lefties understand that real democracy and real representative government mandates at least some degree of leveling the massive disparities in wealth distribution. Tinkering with tax programs is only the smallest start. Wealth, not just income, must be heavily taxed until we reach a point where the super-wealthy are no longer able to exert an un-democratic, disproportional influence on our system of governance.
Lefties understand that our "free enterprise" system of corporate media must be dismantled to give the people a real voice. Do your Democrats talk about that? Until we, the people, have a media, and an elections commission, that is not funded by and controlled by ... and for ... corporate interests, we have little or no say in the laws and policies of our government.
Do these views represent your views, sir? I suspect not. If not, then exactly which lefties are you referring to in your article? It must be the ones who put some false sense of political pragmatism ahead of the changes that real lefties believe in. Obama won't bring about the critical changes we require; neither will articles like yours.
Excellent response. Chernus too easily streotypes and abbreviates the objections leftists have to Obama. If all we're ever going to get is "Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans", then it makes sense to go on voting for Democrats forever. Because we aren't going to get anything better. Chernus keeps this fatalistic ball rolling, just as it does every four years. Third parties are a waste of time and can only lead to electing Republicans. Case closed. As long as we can't move beyond this trap we will never realize a single progressive or leftist idea anywhere on the political spectrum. We have to electe Obama because of the same reason we had to elect Gore and Kerry, because there is no alternative. Both wings of the Business Party want us to remain forever lashed to this wheel of fire. They work diligently 24/7 to ensure third parties never have any real access to the "process" and writers like Chernus and many others are taken in by their entire rationale. So in fact, voting for Nader or McKinney or Barr or whomever really is a waste of time, because the sacred "political process", the MSM and far too many bloggers like Chernus and Normon Solomon have bought into the fatalism. Much of leftists' anger arises over this phenomenon.
Great reply.
Bravo on your response. Well done.
"Truthfully, sir, I resent the title of your article because I think you are doing nothing more than trying to co-opt the views of the left."
Yeah, I've noticed a good amount of co-opting right here on Common Dreams by the cutting edge of the fringe of the far left of whatever. This is where dreams leave reality behind and nothing gets done.
Signed,
A progressive for Obama.
Getting something done for its own sake is valueless.
Sorry, I'm tired and a little slow. Would you mind translating that?
Your critique of third party preference included the clause "nothing gets done."
I argue that we need to consider the things that give meaning to getting something done.
See also the short story "Action will be taken" by Heinrich Boll.
.I am tired as well, sir, tired of your support for a candidate who allies himself with the coal industry while prattling about clean air and water. I am tired of a candidate who claims to be for the people and refuses to consider any health care plan that does not profit a proven greedy and corrupt health care industry that values profit over health. I am tired of a candidate who claims to be against war and then proposes to escalate a war. I am tired of a candidate whose track record clearly shows he runs from controversial votes by voting "present" over 130 times in his relatively short career. I could go on but you arent listening.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Name calling, Ted, is hardly reasoned discourse.
I provided a description of values that many might consider to be consistent with the views of some people on the left and suggested that the base article's author failed to include these values in his description of "lefties." For that reason, I believe he co-opted the term.
All you've done is sling mud without providing any substance. All you've done is make an ad hominem attack with no coherent argument to support it.
The stated purpose of Common Dreams, Ted, is:
"... to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future."
I don't see anything in there about electing pro-corporate Democrats. Do you, Ted?
A little sensitive, aren't you welsh?
I merely made an observation after having to read through two months worth of mud-slinging by those who purport to have the Left sown up.
You have a right to your description of whatever you want, but it doesn't necessarily jive with mine and I am tired of being tarred and feathered by people who act more like the fundamentalists that progressives purport to be an alternative to.
As someone who has "progressed" from a NOTA participant to one who sees value in moving a step closer to what I want, I can relate to where many are coming from. I am equally as angry, frustrated, and disgusted by what the Democrats have/not done. I know they are pro-corporate. I happen to have a different strategy than many here and have grown weary of the mud-slinging toward those of us who disagree with their approach.
Carry on with the dishing.
Just to be clear then, I do NOT "purport to have the left sewn up." I offered a series of values that I believe differentiate lefties from liberals (since we're stuck on labels given the base article).
I do not like to engage in mud slinging. I have deep disdain for much of the useless incivility that passes as discourse. In fact, I often criticize many on the left for doing little more than alienating those who don't agree with us. What's the value in that? Others are rarely persuaded by throwing rocks at them.
Having said that, I have no less frustration with the idiocy of phrases like "arm chair leftists" or "self-indulgent perfectionists" or any of the rest of it.
I understand the arguments I see written here for supporting Obama. I think they're dead wrong but I don't think you'll find words from me on CD that go beyond arguing the issues. I am not just someone who was a former Democrat, I was actively involved in local party governance. I'm happy to say they were able to "de-program" me. I feel much better now.
My mission is to try to build a consensus view of what you might refer to as the "far left." I think we need to use these forums to build a platform that we can clearly communicate to the American people. Right now, there is so much bitterness and alienation and rhetoric that it's hard to define just who we are and what our mission is. My goal is to change that. The point is, what I'm focused on has pretty much nothing to do with electoral politics. When people talk to me about which party can "win", they might as well be speaking Martian. What I see is a country and a planet in desperate, urgent trouble and a political system that would punish any candidate who dared to speak the truth about the sacrifices we will have to make and the radical changes that we will make either voluntarily or otherwise. The political process is so badly dysfunctional that it cannot possibly produce someone committed to meaningful change. In my view, you just can't get there from here.
One last observation - CD's structure does little to improve the open hostilities we see. Instead of someone starting a "can we find common ground" thread, we end up stuck under someone else's topic. CD really should have a column on the home page for "subscriber" posts. Sure, some of it would be ugly but, perhaps there would be a better forum for this community to evolve. Just my take on that ...
I never complain about posts that disagree with mine. What I do "get sensitive" about are those posts that hit you with a "what a bunch of crap" but fail to support the criticism. I appreciate your follow-up.
welsh,
I agree with the heart of what you wrote. You know, I think some of the most vitriolic posts against others here on CD are by people who are very close ideologically and philosophically. If we could all just step back a little and see the forest, we might see that we have much more in common than not. Then, I think we could get somewhere.
I strongly believe that you have a perfect right to vote your conscience - no matter who that is for. I may question your reasoning, but not your right. What I was referring to with my flip "leading edge" comment was exactly what moonpie has written below: that if I am not with a prevailing belief, I must be against it. To her/him, I am supporting Obama, ergo, I am a Democrat and can't possibly be a progressive. What a bunch of nonsense! I haven't been a Democrat since 2000 when I switched to the Green Party and supported Nader. (OBLIGATORY NOTE: I AM NEITHER A DEMOCRAT, NOR A GREEN, NOR A REPUBLICAN, NOR A LIBERTARIAN, NOR...). This is the kind of shit that is slicing and dicing the Left and always will as long as we refuse to take the long view. What I have noted is the prevailing belief here on CD that those who do not support the repudiation of all things Democrat, must themselves be Democrats, or at least, benighted. Well, I may be benighted, but I am no Democrat! (with apologies to Lloyd Benson).
And this is where I have changed: I no longer see huge opportunities in politics - I see only shades of gray, each darker than the other (and I am not referring to skin tone). The system is broken and no one person will fix it. What I do believe is that one candidate can, and will, make things better enough for us to do the work WE need to do...the other candidate will continue to make things worse. I choose the former.
Welsh, you and I are in similar places, believe it or not. Other than voting for Obama, I am doing nothing else in the political realm. My work now is in building community resilience in small groups. To whit, I am part of a small community that supports one another in any way that we can. I am also building another community that will share resources, experience, work for sustainable health, etc. In my mind, this is how societal change happens, not through politics. Politics is a necessary evil...for now. I have let go of every illusion that anyone, ANYONE, in politics can help us. The system is way too far broken for that. It is my belief that it really, truly, finally, is up to us to change this society. Indeed, as Margaret Mead said, it is only we who can.
Finally, I am in total agreement about the structure of Common Dreams. I have written to them a couple of times requesting that they change the structure to allow continuity of ideas and themes and a way for us to contact one another...to no avail. I have yet to receive a reply. This is a shame. I know they are busy folks and they are doing a good thing here, but I find it a little offensive to only receive their heartfelt requests for money, and no replies to my suggestions and questions. Pity, this could be the start of something much larger than a mere repository of posts from the Left.
.If I may,
The vitriol in our political arena is common to both sides of the aisle and all ideological spectrums . There were once, I would remind you, fistfights on the floor of the Legislatures and challenges to duels as well. At least we've come a bit further since then.
I confess to allowing some to push my buttons and, as a born and raised NY'er, Ive ammunition aplenty. I abhor dishonesty and stupidity, mine as much as anyones. I have been in and out of forums and various web entities, both private and public, since the Arpanet days of mailboxes and primitive communications and this hyperbole and vitriol is nothing new. This is not to condone it and everyone knows that it is impossible to arrive at concensus that way. Human nature perhaps.
Those of us who seek change continue to muddle through. My passion for a candidate like Nader, or your hope for Obama may make little sense, one to the other, may frustrate or even enrage, yet what other choice is there? We will , sooner or later, learn to get along, to form coalitions or we will simply fail, and democracy will fail along with us.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I agree.
Thank you for your post.
I'd like to add one thing to my post: In no way to I want to omit the voice of progressive Democrats. Those who are willing to look at their party in the light of day and move things forward are needed as much as anyone else.
You are a democrat, not a progressive.
I think there is some imagination at work when it comes to Gore and the environment.
The Dems had some really horrendous policies-well documented by Jeffrey St Clair and others. I believe Gore was behind the "let's resume whaling" project that Japan started with the Makah tribe in Washington state.
In theory the Dems might be better than republicans on some things-but its not as rosy as portrayed here.
I believe Clinton sent some missiles into Iraq and helped kill a million with the sanctions.
Ira your comments are tanned with hypocrisy. This site no more represents the left, than Pat Robertson represents Christianity. This site is a mutual admiration society for people who have been assimilated into the status quo, while making speeches for each other to assuage their unconscious political beliefs. Granted there a a couple of exceptions to the rule: Hedges is one maybe Greenwald. But do not count yourself among them. Of course, you are free to maintain the illusion and characterize yourself any way you want to. But if you honestly believe that Obama is going to suddenly renounce his political pragmatism and actually move this country to the left, then I would say, your not in Kansas, Dorthy. But feel free to continue with what you do best: offering a Democratic apologetic.
Spot on...
A wonderful argument for what boils down to 'choosing' the "lesser of two evils."
The fact is, however, that, unlike this author, more and more of us are sick of having to make such a choice.
"more and more of us are sick of having to make such a choice."
I offer this for your consideration, without irony or judgement: this is about much more than us and our frustration. The entire planet is in massive crisis, and we have to make choices which enable us to move forward into resolution.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign,
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
You are both right, Professor Chernus and logansafi. In the biggest picture, Professor Chernus correctly identifies major areas of important difference between the way Dems tend to govern and the way Republicans tend to govern and the effects on working people of these differences.
Unfortunately, logansafi correctly nails the Democratic leadership in Congress for collusion and failing to dig in and resist, effectively or otherwise, many of the worst excesses of the Bush administration.
While both of you are correct, and despite my own tremendous difficulties with a Democratic Party which has capitulated massively over the past 8 years, leaving me and many other lefties virtually unrepresented in our government (exception for Kucinich and a handful of other stalwarts), I conclude that in this election one candidate brings with him the possibility of change (short of armed insurrection) and the other does not. One of these two will be elected if the elections are held. This is a no-brainer if we hold to reality. This is simply not the correct theatre in which to deny your support to a (far-better-than-most) Democratic candidate for the Presidency. The consequences of a McCain win are simply unacceptable. The time to work for change is after a Democrat is elected President when many more doors will be open. If you support disaster culminating in violent revolution as a path to liberation, go ahead and vote for McCain. Voting Green or Independent will not advance our common objective of freeing ourselves from anti-democratic, disaster-capitalist forces of destruction that are gripping our country.
Katfish, you are right on. Even a marginally better Obama is a step forward. Our only way out of this mess, whoever wins, is for the left to get off of their asses and organize.
All of the arm-chair lefty hot air on this website is dispiriting. If you're not out there making the change, then you have nothing to say to me.
As the anarchist, Peter Kropotkin once said, "Revolutions are born of hope, not despair."
----------------------------------------
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way.
On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.
- Arundhati Roy
"Revolutions are born of hope, not despair."
And the democratic party offers neither.
"The consequences of a McCain win are simply unacceptable"
Actually, the consequences of a McKane win are very likely to contain the ever elusive key that opens the gate for a truly long lasting people's revolution in the USA where it is needed most urgently. Let's have that key, let's open that gate, and let's have our peaceful revolution ASAP. "Bring it on" Kamikaze McKane!
The problem with lesser evilism is the price the people pay for it. The people are carrying the elites' water today, and in percentages, my estimate is that 75% of the people's time, effort and energy is expended to carry the elites' water. O'Bama may provide 5% relief. O'Bama may improve things generally by a token 5%. The elites have carefully chosen that token amount as the absolute minimum to stave off revolution. But we're no longer accepting the tokens.
Well said, rtdrury. That dog just won't hunt anymore. No more tokens. No more accepting these phony "choices" of the oligarchs and calling it "democracy."
The idea that inflation was low at any point in the past thirty years is BS.
During the 1970s the US Government used objective indexes that calculated the rate of inflation. The good news was that workers' and retirees' wage and pension cost of living adjustments (COLA)stayed close to the rate of inflation. The bad news was that US Presidents Gerald Ford (Republican) and Jimmy Carter (Democrat) were blamed for high inflation and each lost elections.
Since 1980, politicians from both parties make sure that they "adjust" the criteria that indexes use to calculate the rate of inflation, resulting in seriously understated rates of inflation, that have resulted in 1)workers' and retirees' wages and pensions continuously falling relative to net present value of the US dollar, and 2) the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates so low that they cause high inflation, thereby prompting the gov. to further "adjust" criteria upon which the indexes are based. These two factors coupled with thirty years of deregulation are what caused the current economic meltdown.
If you have any doubts, look at the current consumer price index(s)(CPI). Based on this year's CPI, I will be getting a 4.5% COLA per the 3 year contract my excuse for a union negotiated. Social Security recipients will get a 5.8% COLA. Do you know anybody whose cost of living went up less than 10% during the past year ?????
What is needed is a way forward. All the anger and dissatisfaction people are understandably feeling and expressing is useful for motivation, but blanket resistance does not constitute a way forward.
Articles like this make me happy I never once donated a dime to CD.
A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain, a vote for Bush's policies. Stupidity is one thing I have no tolerance for.
So you have no tolerance for yourself then?
tetti_tatti is correct.
vote Obama or McCain you get the SAME...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
End the wars
Bring the troops home
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.Do you ever post something of value? Go back to facebook or wherever the children play these days and leave the plitical field for the adults, at least those who actually post thoughtful and considered opinions...which you have never once done.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Mr. Chernus, think outside of the box. Value the lives of others as much as you do your own family. I am only proud of voters who vote for Nader or McKinney; a vote for Obama is a wasted vote since it impedes actual progress - away from militarism, corporatism, imperialism, unfettered capitalism, and the murders of hundreds of thousands if not millions of valuable human beings. Vote Nader or McKinney.
I applaud those who are actually trying to build a third party movement. But the left in this country has not yet built the infrastructure to support a political party. If you are looking for a messiah to build it for you, it ain't going to happen.
Obama is a step for progress, even if only because many of his idealistic supporters want it. We should be encouraging these folks to inch toward the left, and hold Obama accountable. With the kind of negativity I see here, you all are only putting up a wall between yourselves, and the best hope for the future.
----------------------------------------
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way.
On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.
- Arundhati Roy
Revolutions are born of hope, not despair.
- Peter Kropotkin
Good points. Watching the national campaigns for the past 36 years, I have become convinced that the corporate media (CM) has almost total control over the outcomes of the national elections. The CM, representing the worst of the corporate oligarchy, is judge and jury. Who knows who the real Barack Obama is, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the CM would pull the rug out from under him if he publicly took one step to the left. There was a memorable poll at the beginning of the primary season which indicated that Democratic voters were far closer to Kucinich on the issues than any of the other candidates, but the CM was able to successfully prevent Kucinich from ever gaining any traction. It is impossible for a left-of-center candidate to win until there is an alternative progressive media that is at least as influential as the CM.
kivals, we are not going to get an alternative progressive media from Obama or the Democrats. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Telecommunications Bill in 1996 that allowed one company, Clear Channel, to buy up 1200 radio stations and turn them into forums for ranting demagogues like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. You have stated succinctly the rationale for revolutionary change, not the pitiful crumbs offered by the corporate controlled Democratic party.
Well said. I would happily support a third party (or major party!) progressive in any local race, or for the US Senate or House of Representatives. But spending a precious vote on a progressive presidential candidate who has no shot at winning, and would have no chance to govern effectively even if he did win, would be worse than wasteful. With my historically red state now polling at O +10 ("leaning blue"), I have to do everything I can to make sure the Republicans lose my state by a big enough landslide that they can't steal our electoral votes.
If you live in a state that is safely blue or hopelessly red, go ahead and vote your idealistic choice. I would too. But if you live in a state where there is ANY chance that your vote might make a difference in the final outcome, vote for the better candidate who has any chance of winning. And then support a progressive candidate for local office (or run for office yourself). Meaningful change always comes from the bottom up.
Dponcy
If I may say, your comments seem to be a perfect example of self-delusion. You, like so many Obama fans, think that Obama can somehow be persuaded "to inch toward the left." You may wish to do a little research on your candidate. Many thousands of Americans called their representatives urging them to hold the telecom companies accountable. Obama, like other Democrats, instead decided to give the telecom companies immunity from prosecution, allowing them to spy on Americans with impunity. Americans, by almost a 100 to 1 margin, told Congress to bail out Main Street and the working class and the poor. Instead, the [alleged] agent of change ignored the pleas of Americans and voted to bail out Wall Street. "Inch toward the left"? Your candidate believes that Ronald Reagan was one of this country's finest leaders. One wonders if Obama's supporters will ever realize that their candidate is simply another corporate, militant candidate while saying all the right things to convince his supporters otherwise.
Try reading this: www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/16 (why David Lindorff is voting for Obama)
Watch this instead:
CSPAN VIDEO PLEASE WATCH
http://www.cspan.org/search.aspx?For=Nader
RWH: Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader (I) "INFORUM" Event
This week on Road to the White House, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader held a campaign event in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California. Mr. Nader answers questions about his presidential campaign and past runs for the White House. The independent candidate will be on the ballot in 45 states this Nov. 4th and is polling 5 to 6 percent nationally, according to the candidate's website.
Sunday : Washington, DC : 9-05-2008
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
.
"Real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans."
You are attempting to lie with statistics.
1. You are drawing from a historical record that does not apply today.
2. You have completely refused to admit that the Congress has a Democratic majority, and if exercised, their power over the purse strings could have prevented or ameliorated the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Instead, they led the charge to the trough... and supported the corporatist war-machine at every opportunity while giving only posturing lip-service in an attempt to protect their political careers.
Democrats and Republicans differ so very little today as to make any post to the contrary, as absurd as it get. Yours is a fine example.
You are a mouthpiece for an unqualified candidate who certainly does not represent anyone who rightfully includes themselves in the "left". You have been co-opted. That you now reside right of center must provide a great deal of cognitive dissonance.
Feeling "dirty"? I suggest that you find other forms of "cleansing". This attempt doesn't wash.
Angry? You don't know the half of it!
Toast, why do you and others on this site believe that anyone who doesn't see things your way is a liar? I really want to know.
I don't agree with all of what Prof. Chernus says, but a liar? Come on now. Is the strategy of the CD armchair left to alienate everyone you come into contact with? That's a real winner.
----------------------------------------
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way.
On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.
- Arundhati Roy
Revolutions are born of hope, not despair.
- Peter Kropotkin
"why do you and others on this site believe that anyone who doesn't see things your way is a liar?"
I challenge you to demonstrate the truth in that assertion.
1. You expect me to speak on behalf of others.
2. You would like us to believe that I challenge *anyone* who I do not agree with by asserting that they lie. I'll agree with you when you show me the evidence... and it's not enough to demonstrate that I am challenging you. Do you have anything? Just why did you resort to that tactic?
On the other hand, if you would like to know why I believe that Chernus is *attempting* to lie with statistics, I will tell you. I don't hesitate to point to deceit, spin and lies when called for. Was it possibly an attempt on your part to skirt around my contention that the statistics he used can only point to a historical pattern that does not exist today? That he offered no real proof and that actions to date by Democrats and Obama in particular, demonstrate just the opposite?
He drew upon historical statistics to support a hypothesis that current differences exist today. All you can do by citing history is to conclude with some certainty that there is evidence that differences once existed.
Those statistics do NOT prove a significant difference exists today. That's what change is all about. WE have but one party as Chomsky described, but the differences within the management factions are so minimal at this point, as to almost defy description.
To employ Chernus' method of differentiation with any degree of truthfullness, requires hindsight and methodologies of measurement that can not be applied to any moment at hand.
I contend that there were once differences between the two factions of "The Party"... but those differences have almost entirely disappeared. I only have the most recent actions of Obama and the so-called "Democratic Party" to back up my contention, but there is no other way to accurately measure. Those actions directly counter Chernus' claims.
As such, I suggest that we no longer gamble on historical indicators... that instead, we look directly at actions to make our choices. Reject Republicans and Republican wannabes. If you want choice, vote for choice... or abstain from enabling a system that no longer supports you.
It's easy to lie with statistics. His attempt was challenged. Do you believe I should not stand up to his claims?
We are largely in the mess we find ourselves, directly as a result of Democrats and especially Obama. To assert that Democrats still have the best interests of middle class Americans at heart is going to take more evidence than irrelevant statistics. "The Party" represents corporatist interests... as their actions clearly and loudly continue to speak.
There is a class war at hand. You want me to "be nice"?
Before I accord real respect, I want more than a political mouthpiece telling me everything will be okay just as long as I "hope" that it will. Chernus is part of the problem if he believes that I will allow those types of posts to go unchallenged. That he wants me to believe that he represents leftists is laughable.