Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Third-Party Delusion and the Need for a Mass Movement for Progressive Change
I can't count how many people have bombarded me with criticisms, usually laced with insults and often obscenities, when I have written articles calling for pressure on Democratic politicians to do the right thing, whether that is impeaching the last president and vice president for war crimes or in the case of our new president, standing and fighting for a people's bailout, instead of a Wall Street bailout.
The common refrain I hear is that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, and that we need a third party. Another common refrain is that "all you suckers" who voted for Obama are to blame. We should have voted for Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, they say.
Now I have nothing against McKinney and Nader. That ticket would make for a wonderful administration, I agree. But I also have to point out that there is zero chance of these two people being elected in my lifetime (I'm 59 and pretty healthy) or theirs.
Third parties have not played a significant role in American politics since the 1930s and earlier, when the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs (and Norman Thomas to a lesser extent) managed to make a significant dent in the political equation, though even it had no shot at winning. And that was back in a time when there were millions of immigrants from Europe who had socialist ideas in their blood, and when American workers were not afraid of the idea either.
Today, there is no mass base for a socialist party. Valiant efforts by some labor leaders like the late Ray Mazzochi to forge a Labor Party failed abysmally. The Green Party is a well-meaning but hopelessly internally fragmented group of people that has for years failed to appeal to any mass base and doesn't appear to have a clue of how to accomplish that.
I don't fault third parties for their failure to rise to a position of political relevance. The system of winner-take-all elections is structured against them. But calls to change that system so that third parties might have a chance bump up against the reality that the two parties that have a duopoly on power have no interest in changing the rules of the game to make it easier to bump them off. It simply ain't gonna happen.
This brings me to my main point, which is that all this formalistic arguing about the virtues of supporting a third party is an infantile diversion. Valuable energy is being wasted on trying to organize little parties which, because they are doomed to insignificance, end up being riven by petty internal power struggles (it has always been the case that the most bitter struggles for power occur in organizations with the least power and significance).
The truth is that enormous progressive change has been wrought in the US, within the two-party system, not by third parties coming to power, but by mass movements that have forced the more liberal of the two parties-the Democrats-to grudgingly do the right thing. It was a mass movement of workers that forced Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party to establish the Social Security Program, and to pass labor laws making it easier for workers to organize. It was a mass movement that led to passage of the Civil Rights Act and that ended Jim Crow. It was a mass movement that helped bring an end to the US War in Indochina. It was a mass movement that led to the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid and other elements of the Johnson War on Poverty.
The people who criticize a policy of building a mass movement to pressure Obama and the Democrats to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to create a single-payer national health system, or to pass a progressive economic recovery program instead of a corporate bailout program, because it means dealing with the Democrats would probably have been criticizing Martin Luther King for seeking to pressure Johnson and the Democrats, for that is what Dr. King was doing-working within the two-party system, but by way of building a mass movement outside of party politics.
In a way, the obsession of some people on the left with third party politics is like a perfect safety valve to prevent real change within the Democratic Party. On the historic evidence, absent a powerful labor movement, which might permit the creation of a real Labor Party alternative as we had in the 1920s and 30s, third parties of the left have accomplished nothing except to draw support away from the Democrats and help elect conservative governments.
I know there are those, like Nader, who suggest that candidacies like his force Democrats running for office to adopt more liberal positions, but I see scant evidence of this. The most one can say is that a candidate like Al Gore, in order to prevent voters from straying to a Nader, might say a few more progressive things on the campaign trail, but once in office, such politicians quickly revert to form. Third party campaigns in the end accomplish very little, and yet can, in key states, as we saw in Florida in 2000, do a lot of harm. (I know, I know, the real vote went to Gore, but remember: if Nader hadn't run, there wouldn't have even had to be a recount, folks.)
So, while I expect to be deluged again with verbal brickbats, let me say it straight: third parties are a useless, and even dangerous diversion. What we need to be focusing on is building a mass movement for progressive change-a movement that will bring masses of people onto the streets, especially in Washington, but in every city and town, too, to demand an end to this country's pointless wars, a huge cut in the military budget, a national health care system, a jobs program, a break-up of the large banking and other corporate monopolies, an end to the national security state, reform of the labor laws, and a restoration of a real progressive tax system.
It is not third parties that make history in America. It is mass movements.
We need one badly.
- Posted in
426 Comments so far
Show All"I know, I know, the real vote went to Gore, but remember: if Nader hadn't run, there wouldn't have even had to be a recount, folks"
Enough with this crap already. If Gore were a MORE COMPELLING CANDIDATE he would have won. Period. End of story. Quit blaming the failures of the Democrats on folks like Ralph Nader.
Ralph had a conscious plan to compell the Dems to either adopt his ideas or lose the election. The Dem strategists decided Gore would lose more votes in "the center" by adopting Nader-like positions than he would gain from progressives. For Nader's strategy to work, if only in the long run, the Dems would have to suffer for ignoring his demands. He was consciously playing a kind of political chicken with the Gore campaign. Ralph unswervingly held his course. The Gore campaign ran off the road and into a ditch.
There can be a serious discussion over whether Gore would have won had he "tacked left" to poach Nader voters. I suggest the answer is not obvious. Most Nader voters at that point were fully committed to Nader and would not have shifted to Gore no matter what he said. They didn't trust Al and they wanted to express clear, unambiguous support for Nader's "principled" stand.
Those who argue (without credible data to support them) that Ralph pulled more votes from the Republicans than from Gore, are essentially rejecting the logic behind Nader's strategy. There would have been no payoff for Gore to tack left and risk losing votes from the center.
Lindorff is correct to say third party politics is an infantile distraction. As someone who was involved with third party efforts for decades of my political life, I would go further than Dave and say it reinforces the political isolation of progressives, who end up feeling important and like hanging out with kindred spirits, but prevents them from learning how to talk with and listen to people outside of their likeminded subculture.
The alternative is NOT to abandon all independent political organization and being absolved by the faceless, amoral, unprincipled logic of the Democratic Party. Progressives SHOULD maintain autonomy within the Democratic Party AND maintain connection with the struggles in the communities.
The Democratic Party is adept at coopting individuals and movements. But that is INHERENT in building coalitions and gaining a "place at the table" for making decisions. WE can err by pursuing third party strategies. We can err by abandoning our principles in favor of careerism and cooptation. We can err by refusing to have anything to do with the passage of legislation, election of officials or the administration of government, prefering instead to "remain in the streets," outside of formal power.
What we need, is a movement in the streets (and in the churches, union halls, community centers, schools) which is good at pulling forth from the people a common vision for peace, justice and equality, then electing movement members to office to carry out that vision, while the movement remains strong enough to "reward its friends and punish its enemies."
Progressive elected officials tend to get divorced from the movement which put them into office. We need methods of accountability, like primary challenges and voting them out.
Forging a comprehensive, balanced strategy should be the focus of our intelligence and our efforts. Those who favor "street action" need to have a relationship (some struggle, some unity) with community organizers. Community organizers need to have a relationship (some struggle, some unity) with elected officials and their staff.
Breathing life into our atrophied democratic forms requires a lot of disciplined, intelligent and self-correcting work.
I have read several of your offerings before this and have agreed with much of what you have posted in the past. I must, however, take exception to such as this:
"Lindorff is correct to say third party politics is an infantile distraction. As someone who was involved with third party efforts for decades of my political life, I would go further than Dave and say it reinforces the political isolation of progressives, who end up feeling important and like hanging out with kindred spirits, but prevents them from learning how to talk with and listen to people outside of their like minded subculture."
I am not aware of your previous involvement with third parties, but I would assume you had a reason, perhaps even a quite valid reason for being so involved.Further I see you do not enumerate the reason for your slide back to the democrats( see I didnt say the dark side.....) I would say that , whatever that reason might have been then, there are several even more relevant ones today. One such is the impossibility of moving the Democratic Party leftward to any degree. Since Bill Clinton raised up the DLC to woo corporate money we have seen a silencing of the Progressive Caucus and a rightward leaning that may only be staunched by the loss of a significant number of voters. What was once noted to be the "big tent party" has devolved into the republican lite crowd.
You say that third parties isolate progressives, yet in many voter registration drives I have found the opportunity to speak to new voters about third party politics as they register. I see, in such a political movement the only way to keep the progressive agenda in the fore.
There will always be a place for democrats to work within their party of course, and I would certainly not criticize those who actually attempt to do so. But, as I evolved from grassroots democratic groups to third party building efforts I found in the former ennui and apathy, ignored by the state and national organizations, and among the latter a great enthusiasm and energy.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Hi Red Rick,
I have also found myself agreeing with much of what you have written. I expect we are not that far apart and appreciate your willingness to question my statement.
Even as I wrote the passage you are challenging, I was think exactly about the opportunity a voter registration drive presents for third party supporters to meet members of the public face to face. Perhaps my comment would have had more integrity if I had taken the time to fashion an elipse to discuss that point, but I decided to keep it simple. Your very good question now means I have to, Thanks!
A few years ago, the Green Party in my state was in danger of losing ballot status and my Green friends were complaining to me, a very active Democrat, how this was another instance of the bi-partisan duopoly trying to shut out dissident voices. I saw it differently, Given your comment, you may even agree. I saw the Green Party as having gotten very weak and irrelevant because they had found no good vehicle for organizing their outreach, propagating their ideas, listening to feedback from the public. And now, their strategic blindness was not allowing them to see how useful the re-certification process would be for them.
Given your nickname, I might risk digressing into a discussion of one of Lenin's arguments in "What is to be Done?" Lenin advocated the Russian Social Democratic Party break out of its isolation by building up the Iskra revolutionary newspaper into a national paper. His mind appreciated the dialectical nature of the task. The practical work of distributing the paper imposed a logical structure upon the SDs. As they set up a distribution network, they were building the structure of the political organization as well. In distributing the paper, they were spreading the Party's views on events in Russian society. In the face to face efforts to convince workers to buy the paper, Party members were forced to accept feedback from the workers on their opinions on what was being said in Iskra. The spread of Party ideas and influence could be measured through sales of the paper.
I saw the Green Party being given an opportunity to do the same sort of thing is the requirement they go out and gather a few thousand signatures to retain their ballot status. The Green leaders were not interested in meeting that challenge. (I know sometimes the signature requirements are extremely onereous. That is NOT the case in my state. It was doable and would have been the BEST way of organizing volunteers, including inexperienced ones, and giving them am excuse for approaching their fellow citizens with their ideas. The Greens would have been greatly strengthened.
So, for exactly the reason you cite, I think there is value in third party organizing.
But when "Green" ideas are articulated within Democratic Party meetings--at conventions, in meetings of the Party's legislative committee, in the meetings of COunty and State Central Committees, the advocates are familiar to the other Democrats. Our ideas have credibility to the extent we are known to be not only "talkers" but "workers" on the wide range of issues of concern to the various constituencies which comprise the Democratic electoral coalition. Just as a "door-to-door" signature drive for a third party forces activists out of their comfort zone and onto the "front lines," so too do a lot of Democratic Party activities, from door-to-door efforts, to enveloping stuffing, etc. If the dream of a progressive united front is to bring together trade unionists, African Americans, GLBT activists, women's groups, environmentalists and elected officials, I would argue these groups are already present within every decisionmaking body of the Democratic Party. We don't have to send signals across a long distance for the other groups to receive a message of "solidarity."
What I am saying as a general truth may have less validity in certain communities. I can imagine in some communities, especially college towns, some major cities, areas with an "arts" community or "bohemian scene," third party efforts may have the conditions for ongoing and useful work. But writ large? I think not.
And until/unless the objective basis for the third party "spoiler effect" is eliminated, voters themselves, will not be voting third party in meaningful numbers. The larger the third party grows, the more real the spoiler effect becomes. Nader did OK in 2000. (I encouraged people to vote for him myself, as we were not a battleground state). But voters saw what happened in 2000 and did not risk voting Green (or Nader) in 2004 or 2008. I think the voters experimented, saw how it works and rejected the third party approach. And I think they were wise.
I believe that it is precisely the disagreements, rather than those areas in which we agree, that are the important results of forii like this one. Unfortunately ( not really of course) the more we exchange the closer I find our politics.
I would agree that, so far, the Green Party is a big disappointment, at least to me. Just as was that attempt at progressive radio, AAR, as well. Perhaps we are so indoctrinated as citizens that we find ourselves trapped in the myth of America and can find no way to break out of the intellectual stifling of our pseudo democracy into the light of a better form of governance.
I must add that this third party movement is in its infancy, at least this current incarnation of it. We are, it seems, slow learners, sad to say. I think there is a place for the politics of the two of us, and that, while we work on separate paths, they converge down the road...See you there I hope.
I look forward to further posts from you , sir, and thank you for the way you test my poor old brain..Very refreshing.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"Progressives SHOULD maintain autonomy within the Democratic Party AND maintain connection with the struggles in the communities"
Membership in the Demok party destroys credibility. How can one maintain credibility as a member of a party that, in pursuit of power, enables genocide, mass enslavement, massive plunder and destruction? The Demok leadership has no credibility today. How can you expect its rank and file to have any? You are suggesting working within a corrupt organization to try to reform it from within. So that's a false unity, AND you're assuming ALL the risk in this contract: party leaders get YOUR unconditional guaranteed support and you only get in return a possibility, no guarantee, of accomplishing your goal. THEY like this contract! Hey look at the parallel between this contract you propose between progressives and Demoks and the contract the Demoks implemented with the Repuks. Result: The Demoks dwell today in the extreme right gutter! You want progressives to dwell there too? Abandon the platform of the people? Then who will defend it? Maybe you're frustrated with decades of "fruitless" third party activism. Not fruitless at all! Diamond in the rough! Never surrender your principles! Let the Demoks swallow a principled judgment: They're criminals! We progressives are illustrating to the people a different value system here, the people's value system!
Hi rtdrury,
I'm not sure what you think is added by calling the Dems "the Demoks." I suppose there is a hidden cleverness involved, but I suggest it undermines the clarity of your argument.
But, let me deal with your points, as best I understand them. We don't know each other personally and can only make sweeping (and probably unfair) assumptions about each other. So it goes.
I disagree with your statement one cannot be a member of the Democratic Party and retain credibility. You may believe that as an abstraction, but in the real world, I expect you meet many people you respect who are also members of the Democratic Party. You may not respect them “as Democrats," but you'd be foolish to not respect them as fighters for justice. If you have much political experience, I am sure you know such people. In my state, there are many courageous activists from the unions, the women's movement, the anti-war movement, community struggles, etc., etc., who are members of the Democratic Party.
These people have credibility (or not) to the extent they have demonstrated courage and intelligence on behalf of the struggle for justice. You may disagree with the wisdom of their involvement in the party, but I don't think it is wise of you to make a sweeping pronouncement on their overall "credibility" because you resent the Democratic Party.
I am not a hundred years old, nor am I all-knowing, but I think I am a pretty good student of American history, including most especially the history of movements on the left. I do not write off all the accomplishments of the third party efforts of the past: the Populists, the Progressive of the early 20th Century, the various incarnations of the Socialist Party, the CPUSA, the Wallace Progressive Party of 48, Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party, among others.
I just think the same amount of energy put into supporting Democratic candidates and arguing progressive positions within the Democratic Party would have more effect in today’s society than what I see going on with the Greens, the Labor Party, etc.
You raise the slogan, "Maintain your principles!" Well, I think my principles are pretty well-maintained, thank you, despite the fact I have had to negotiate and compromise with others holding different views in order to get things accomplished. EVERY level of organization entails a compromise. Even the smallest left wing group will include members who disagree with each other over tactics, maybe even over "program," but the differences are suppressed in the interest of common action. Each group which then enters into a coalition with other groups compromises by subordinating the small group's agenda to the larger agenda of the coalition. And so it goes. The more people swept up into a political coalition, the more compromises are made.
You say "we progressives are illustrating to the people a different value system, the people's value system!" Maybe you can "unpack" that statement a bit, taking it apart a phrase at a time to decipher its implications. First, you appear to speak for all "progressives." I see you have written me out of the progressive community, since I have different ideas. Despite the fact I was calling myself a "progressive" since the late seventies and, in a sense, you stole it from us in only the last few years. But OK, let's set that aside and go on.
You say you are "illustrating to the people a different value system." So your group is separate from the people and more enlightened than they are, but in your nobility, you are willing to elevate their consciousness by your example. Familiar presumptions, common to the Jacobins, the Narodniks, the Leninists, the Trots and the Maoists. And lest you bring up the anarchists, God forbid, they are the "noblest" of all, at least in their own minds.
So what IS this value system? You call it "the people's value system!" Ack! I am so confused. I thought this was a system you were bringing to “the people” from outside, from above, through the “illustrating example of your principled behavior?
I am not mocking you for being caught up in the contradictions inherent in struggle. I am mocking you for thinking you are "above" the contradictions.
Winning reforms requires struggle, but as we mitigate the destructive impact of capitalism on people's lives (and the environment), we reduce the need for people to struggle quite as hard. As leaders arise, there is always a tension between the leaders and the movement. As we win institutional structures to carry out reforms, whether by building unions, expanding social services, setting up schools, building political parties, electing people to office, we simultaneously are creating jobs for our people. Jobs which create imperatives, call them "bureaucratic" or "careerist" tendencies within the people holding the positions.
The ONLY way to avoid these contradictions is to remain marginalized and never get drawn into a negotiation over power. And that's what the third party efforts offer those who take them on. If (when?) a third party becomes large enough, it faces the same problems inherent in coaliton-building and the passage of legislation.
Don't "surrender your principles." But don't refuse to compromise for less than what you want when it makes things better.
The Democratic Party is dominated by large corporate money and professional operatives striving to deliver the popular struggles to their paymasters. But you know what? So is American politics as a whole. So is American society. There are classes engaged in struggle, with opportunists, cranks and dreamers swimming along. We have to wade into the battle.
If you are not worrying that you may be compromising too much, you are keeping yourself safe by remaining marginalized. Do give away too much, but become a serious enough player that they are willing to negotiate with you.
I will stop lecturing now.
"The people who criticize a policy of building a mass movement to pressure Obama and the Democrats to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to create a single-payer national health system, or to pass a progressive economic recovery program instead of a corporate bailout program, because it means dealing with the Democrats would probably have been criticizing Martin Luther King for seeking to pressure Johnson and the Democrats, for that is what Dr. King was doing-working within the two-party system, but by way of building a mass movement outside of party politics."
No, that is not what Dr. King was doing. He is very specific to what he was doing and that is glorifying the kingdom of god on earth and passively and non-violently taking the abuse that then was dumped on his head. He had no intention at all of forcing anyone to do anything, he desired choice and change to come about from deep spiritual and love based actions.
You later generations that are typically not desiring a faith based movement and want to twist Dr. Kings obvious motivators will find little proof to back up what you are saying, but let me quote Dr. King to back up what I heard him saying.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"
16 April 1963
"But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid."
Because of injustice he is compelled to carry the gospel of freedom. What he is doing is carrying the gospel of freedom in response to injustice.
So if we want to copy him we need to carry the gospel of freedom to injustice and confront justice with that gospel. What is then done is out of our hands, we cannot force anyone to do anything, but we can be a force of love, freedom and justice.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Imagine how much more credible we all might be if we didn't try to validate our spiritual commitment to justice by attaching it to the delusional bloody, hypocritical gibberish of 8th Century BC "prophets" like Isaiah, and cruel, bigoted, patriarchal crackpots like the "Apostle" Paul...
Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.-Isaiah 13:16
Isaiah 14:2:1 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.
Paul's letter to Timothy: You should help a widow only if she 1) is over 60 years old, 2) had only one husband, 3) has raised children, 4) has lodged strangers, 5) has "washed the saints feet," 6) has relieved the afflicted, and 7) has "diligently followed very good work." Otherwise, let them starve. "But the younger widows refuse [to help them]: for ... they will marry; having damnation." Besides the young widows are always idle tattlers -- "busybodies, spreading things which they ought not." He adds that "some are already turned aside after Satan." 5:9-15
Pauls letter to Titus: The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.--1:12
Paul's letter to the Corinthians: Women are commanded to be silent in church and to be obedient to men. He further says that "if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church." I Corinthians 14:34-35
Wives must submit to their husbands "in every thing" as though they were Christ. "For the husband is the head of the wife." 5:22-24
Women are to dress modestly, "with shamefacedness" -- "not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." ! Timothy 2:9
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 2:11-12
Men are superior to women since Adam was made before, and sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, they shouldn't be discouraged because they shall "be saved in childbearing." 2:14-15
"Imagine how much more credible we all might be if we didn't try to validate our spiritual commitment to justice by attaching it to the delusional bloody, hypocritical gibberish of 8th Century BC "prophets" like Isaiah, and cruel, bigoted, patriarchal crackpots like the "Apostle" Paul..."
Who is trying to attach their spiritual commitment to "delusional bloody, hypocritical gibberish" ? I missed this quote by Dr. King, could you reference where it is?
However in President Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" he does actually reference the sacrifice of Abraham of his son in the bible and it's message to an elite group of understander's of the true meaning of such sacrifices to which he belongs. "Sacrifice" is one of our Presidents and his parties most coveted words in the new day. Dare I connect his understanding of killing a child in the name of God to his idea of "sacrifice" ?
Dare I connect the sacrifice of the third party in the name of the second parties merit?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Dr. Martin Luther King achieved great things in spite of, not because of the biblical baggage he toted around. He addressed groups and crowds which, both by thoughtless choice and ineluctable circumstance, had much of their social and emotional lives baptized in the religious Koolaid of the times.
However, the 8th century B.C.E. prophets that MLK refers to were just as twisted, and insidious as Jim Jones, and if anything, even less prophetic. Isaiah and most of the other Biblical prophets of his era followed up their cruel-minded and observably false incantations with some reasonable facsimile of "thus sayeth the Lord." The gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul spread to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, as referred to by King, includes each one of the vulgar and conscience assaulting scriptural verses noted above, and hundreds more. That gospel in fact says that neither a jot nor tittle of what was written may be removed. That gospel insists, and insists frequently that you take it all, or take nothing.
Re: Obama's "The Audacity of Hope," I had a copy of the audio version awhile back, but couldn't get as far into it as the chosen few, elitist understanding of Biblical sacrifice that you mention. I labored through the first couple of creepy chapters (as read by the author), which made my stomach nearly queasy enough to induce vomiting. It was enough to realize that the title would have been aptly shortened to "The Audacity!"
"Jesus Hussein Christ" wrote:
"Dr. Martin Luther King achieved great things in spite of, not because of the biblical baggage he toted around."
I may be as secular in outlook as you are. I was fortunate enough to have never been raised within the Judeo-Christian mythology of most other American children. Perhaps I was safely innoculated. By the time other adults tried planting silly superstitions in my head, the places were already occupied by the more exciting myths of the Greeks, Romans, Norse and American Indians. I count myself lucky.
But I don't share your extreme hostility to Christianity. I have found it is possible for people to be Christians and still be good people. I would like to join you in saying this is "despite their Christianity, not because of it," but I suspect that is an unfair assumption.
Of course, I believe I have the most elevated values possible for a human to possess, but I cannot give you a good explanation of the origins of my values, other than saying a visiting brainwave archeologist from space (if there are such creatures) upon examining my ideas, could undoubtedly situate my ideas in the late 20th century, probably North America. If my ideas, and perhaps yours, are developed in a social context, can you say your values are as admirable as they (undoubtedly) are DESPITE being developed in a predominately Judeo-Christian culture.
I would suggest there are both humanistic, progressive AND reactionary, oppressive ideas which can be pulled out of the Jewish and Christian religions (and all others). We have a choice (of sorts) as to which elements we elevate to the deteriment of the other. In a sense, there is political struggle, perhaps even "class struggle," going on within all major systems of thought.
I have met priests, nuns and Catholic layleaders in the Philippines and Central America who are more progressive, humble, dedicated and brave than I (and perhaps you) will ever be. I cannot say they would be as admirable without their faith. And, you know what? It is not my place to make that judgment.
I have come to a place where I am grateful for human decency, whereever I can find it. For those whose admirable values and behavior are inspired by a religious tradition, I say "God Bless 'em!'
Back to your casual condemnation of Dr. King's religious beliefs: I think you make a mistake. Dr. King's mind worked within the Christian idiom. He found strength, courage and wisdom within that idiom and put himself in the service of his fellow humans based upon that inspiration. He worked in the African American community, a community which mostly shared the Christian idiom for understanding suffering, morality, justice, hope and courage. He used Christian language and imagery to inspire African Americans to mobilize and struggle for justice under very adverse conditions.
Yet in your hostility to Christianity, you say he should have cast aside his religious language. In favor of what? I have great respect for Malcolm X, coming at the problems from a Muslim perspective. Particularly in the last years of his life, I think he attained a great deal of wisdom and a keen sense of the politics of the struggle for justice in the United States. Malcolm could have, and did, complement MLK, but he could not have reached the people as broadly and effectively as MLK.
I was fortunate to have befriended a major African American leader of the Communist Party (CPUSA). He was an atheist and he and I shared a language and conscious ideas which placed me more in line with his thinking than with Dr. King. (I will not claim he had more incommon with me than with King). He had great respect for Dr. King. In fact, probably because he was not a Christian, but an atheist, he felt a great humility towards King.
Draw from my remarks what you will. Taken as a whole, you may be much smarter than I am. But on this point, your hostility to the religious inspiration behind courageous, progressive activists, I think you are wrongheaded.
I believe that we all tend to be a little arrogant when discussion turns to religion. Dr. King was who he was, accomplished what he did and is remembered in large part because of his faith.
I thank you and Leea for very well crafted arguments and join with you both in standing against generalizations and angry rhetoric.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Thank you Red Rick for the compliments and standing up with me for what you believe in.
I'm not sure that Jesus is really in disagreement and I think his rejection of what he sees as the worst of what biblical and or human history has done is very valid.
"Dr. King was who he was, accomplished what he did and is remembered in large part because of his faith."
The above statement is very important in these discussions that lean on Dr. King, as did dlindorff in his article, thank you for pointing it out so concisely.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
I don't begrudge Dr. King or anyone else whatever affirmative beliefs they may want to cherry-pick and hold onto from an otherwise massive screed of hideous Iron Age fantasies. On the other hand, if someone interjects those beliefs in a public manner as to suggest their connection to some core virtuous rationale, I see it as their obligation to defend that. Out of all the thoughts known to humanity should religious beliefs alone be allowed to hide behind a smokescreen of untouchability?
Over time, we've moved on from the sordid, violent, bizarre "morality tales" of scripture to accumulate precepts of ethical, legal and moral philosophy. We've evolved in what we regard as underpinnings of decent society, such as the idea that we don't approve of slavery or discrimination on the grounds of race or sex, that we are obliged to respect free speech and the rights of the individual. Such things that have become second nature to our morals today owe little to religion, and mostly have been won in fierce opposition to religion. It is only where religion has been relentlessly confronted with modernity and science and secular politics that fundamentalists have had to retreat from maintaining the letter of their maladaptive religious texts.
I don’t object to the tactic of anyone, in plucking a quote or referencing the Bible and using it against the predominantly white Christian institutions that maintained slavery, segregation, sex discrimination and sexual bias. But, though it be the sole basis for Christian belief, the Bible provides no authority for civil rights — none whatever. There is plenty of authority in it for slavery and segregation, sex discrimination, sexual bias, the beating of children, passive acceptance of subjugation, rape, incest, pillage, murder, etc.. One could find far more useful and humane exhortations in the pages of Hitler's "Mein Kampf," but who would silently tolerate that being offered up regularly as a legitimate source on which to base good works?
Jesus,
You have excellent points in regards to "I don't begrudge Dr. King or anyone else whatever affirmative beliefs they may want to cherry-pick and hold onto from an otherwise massive screed of hideous Iron Age fantasies."
You do understand that many people believe that the roman catholic church cherry picked in reverse through history, taking the good that we had learned as humans and putting it in bondage to their ideas of how they wanted the masses to think as well as cutting out much of the good that didn't fit their agenda?
This was a very terrible thing, but I do not condemn the good that was put in slavery to the bad. We must extricate it back and cherry pick in reverse, humanity was not all bad, and the good has always been brought forward.
Thanks for the discussion, it was valuable, and I appreciated it.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Double post. Sorry
LeeAnnG
Once again, "it's" is not a possessive, and "understander's" is not a plural. In fact, I'm pretty sure "understander" is not a real word, although I might be wrong about that one. "Our Presidents" should be a possessive and also is not a proper noun in this context. It should be "our president's." "His parties" and "second parties" should be possessive, but not a plural, and therefore should read "his party's most coveted words" and "second party's merit." And, finally, one does not "belong" to sacrifices. That entire sentence does not make sense.
I've always thought the tale of Abraham's sacrifice was an extension of ancient rituals of child sacrifice and other human. Of course, one can interpret this any way one likes, but nothing can convince me that it's not just another patriarchal horror story. I am aware that it's supposed to be about faith and putting one's life in god's hands and all that, but for me it is no different from any other myth that involves sacrificing lives to the blood-thirsty gods. Very, very ugly. As is much of the Old Testament and (as noted above) the notions Paul had about women.
Even if it's possible to see the story of Abraham as a myth and therefore symbolic, I shudder at the idea of an "understanding" of killing a child in the name of god being connected to any kind of sacrifice required by our current financial situation. There are many other ways to say we need to give up much of what we love and covet for the greater and long range good.
Thanks LeeAnnG, "understanders" was intentional. I am forever trying to improve my skills as you and Sioux Rose have encouraged me.
Yes such sacrifices that are understood and valued by Christians, are values that it seems no morally driven modern human could adhere to to make choices in the new day.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
There is no way there can be a strong third party on the left unless the progressives can join with the socially conservative and often-not-well-educated underclass, including those in the South and in rural areas. The socially conservative underclass voted for FDR again and again, and were always available to the left until the corporatists learned how to split them off with the social/cultural issues, beginning with the race issues in the 1960s. The US left has been dead in the water ever since and could never create a viable third party unless the progressives somehow learn how to de-emphasize the social/cultural issues and merge with such needed allies against the corporatists. However, it looks highly unlikely that will ever happen.
You wrote:
"The socially conservative underclass voted for FDR again and again, and were always available to the left until the corporatists learned how to split them off with the social/cultural issues, beginning with the race issues in the 1960s."
I think it is a mistake to assume low-income people are always "socially conservative." Does that imply middle-class or the wealthy are "socially progressive"? There are both progressive and reactionary elements within the ideas and habits of all social strata. Much of what we know about "folk culture" was preserved through the work of progressive researchers, financed by New Deal programs, to record the memories, and music, of both poor white Southern "hill folk" and rural blacks. The researchers were "progressive," the New Deal was "progressive" and there was much within the culture of this "social underclass" which demonstrated communal values, perserverance and the ability to survive class oppression.
Secondly, while you are correct there has been a conscious strategy for splitting off southern "underclass" whites from a broader progressive movement, it pre-dates the 60s by many decades. The Populist Movement of the late 19th century was doing a good job of uniting a wide swath of folks being ripped off by the corporate interests. A major reason for its collapse was the diversion of much of the populist base into white racism. "We may be poor, but at least we are still better than the n1ggers."
The Democratic Party in the South was a bastion of reaction against civil rights for African Americans. If we had access to the Klan records, I suspect we would see the leadership of the Klan overlapped a great deal with the leaders of the Democratic Party county committees. FDR made an appeal on the basis of class, uniting the poor and working folks against the "economic royalists." He sidestepped race and did not confront it head on. In this way, the New Deal coalition survived and made great gains for working people.
When LBJ signed in law the Civil Rights Act, he said this would cost the Democrats elections in the South for a generation. The plan from the 60s to split off Southeren whites was simply the GOP's explicit articulation of their "Southern Strategy" in harvest white racist votes lost by the Democrats over civil rights and the war in Vietnam. Republican fortunes went up and up, while votes for Dems in the South deflated.
Is there enough "New South" today for the Dems to defeat the GOP's "Southern Strategy"? Is Obama "post-racial" enough to retain enough white Southern votes for the Dems?
I would suggest the re-building of New Orleans provides a good test of Obama's skills and prospects. The breaching of the levees demonstrated the costs of neglecting investment in infrastructure. Bush's refusal to come to the rescue of the people of New Orleans probably burst the bubble of his popularity more than any other action (or nonaction) of his administration. After New Orleans, people no longer wanted to make excuses for him and saw him for the incompetent, bumbling, uncaring bastard he is. They started doubting his intentions and abilities in Iraq with a newly critical eye. They had a new willingness to hear the antiwar criticisms of their friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers. Katrina wiped out the Bush administration's credibility and legitimacy.
Rebuilding New Orleans would demonstrate to the people the falseness of Reagan's claim, "Government IS the problem." People watching will say, "Why the hell wasn't it handled this way in the first place?"
The rebuilding of New Orleans cannot be "left to Obama." Any reconstruction plan needs the involvement of New Orleans residents, past and present, with "underclass" folks of all races demanding a say in how the new city will be organized and demanding a stake in the rebuilding. Jobs for the people.
Here is a concrete opportunity for progressives to work with the Obama administration, but not subservient to it. Look out for the interests of the people, helping the people assert those rights to Obama and the Dems. I suspect the interests of the Obama administration and the people of New Orleans will coincide a great deal, but also clash in some important ways. Out of that struggle, we will get more progressive policies, which will help the Dems, even if they are resistant.
I agree with much of what you say, and you have a good idea with regard to New Orleans, but I would dispute some points:
You wrote: "I think it is a mistake to assume low-income people are always 'socially conservative.'"
I certainly did not mean to imply that all low-income people were socially conservative, but I understand that a majority of low-income Americans, especially whites, are religious and socially conservative, and the Republicans have had great success appealing to them with lip service about social/cultural issues, even while the Republicans have been destroying their economic future. And the more their economic situation deteriorates, the more they "cling to guns or religion."
You wrote: "The Populist Movement of the late 19th century was doing a good job of uniting a wide swath of folks being ripped off by the corporate interests. A major reason for its collapse was the diversion of much of the populist base into white racism."
As someone who grew up in Texas and who has some familiarity with Texas history, I believe that underclass whites in Texas were consistently racist from the end of the Civil War until the 1970s at least, but underclass white Texans were also continuously populist and progressive on economic issues at least until the 1960s. And, as you state, LBJ knew that the South would go Republican after he signed the Civil Rights legislation, as he was afraid that the Republicans would be able to use it as a wedge issue that would overwhelm all the economic issues.
You wrote: "... there was much within the culture of this 'social underclass' which demonstrated communal values, perserverance and the ability to survive class oppression."
That is true, but that is not inconsistent with being socially conservative, just inconsistent with being pro-corporatist. I am arguing that the Southern social conservatives are not naturally pro-corporatist, but have been seduced by the corporatists' lip service to social/cultural issues.
And you wrote: "FDR made an appeal on the basis of class, uniting the poor and working folks against the 'economic royalists.' He sidestepped race and did not confront it head on. In this way, the New Deal coalition survived and made great gains for working people."
Exactly. That was my point. FDR made an appeal on the basis of class and sidestepped the social/cultural issues. That is what is necessary now, but I am not optimistic.
Thanks, kivals, for your well thought out response.
I agree that we seem to be in agreement on a lot of points. I would agree with you a lot of lower inome folks are "socially conservative," with the further agreement (I think) that "conservative" in this context is a complicated subject.
(Please excuse the following comments if it seems I am talking AT you, "lecturing" or "ponitifacting" at your expense. As I said, I agree with what you have written and, perhaps as important, with the spirit of your comments. I would just like to "riff off" your comments as an opportunity to tease out some thoughts.)
If by "conservative" we mean "resistant to change," "Finding comfort in traditional ways of doing things," "prudent," "averse to risk," etc., I am not sure such "conservatism" is such a bad thing. In many ways, I am "conservative" by that meaning. In some ways, I have found a kindred spirit in Quaker and Buddhist friends. And in some ways, Quakers and Buddhists are simultaneously very "conservative" and very radical. Baptists were once very radical and widely suppressed as subversive. They are now a bastion of reaction.
You may be onto the key by focussing on the "socially conservative" underclass. Those who can engage with such people in a manner to reinforce the benign "conservative" elements of their consciousness, without triggering the reactionary reflexes, can probably help organize these folks into a powerful force. Martin Luther King had great success doing this within the African American community and had the patience and strategic wisdom to start reaching out to both organized labor and the unorganized poor white folk in the last period of his life. I think he was murdered because powerful interests saw his approach as a real threat to transform American society towards justice.
"Martin Luther King had great success doing this within the African American community and had the patience and strategic wisdom to start reaching out to both organized labor and the unorganized poor white folk in the last period of his life. I think he was murdered because powerful interests saw his approach as a real threat to transform American society towards justice."
Completely agree.
Thanks for your respectful attitude. I will try to reciprocate.
I would add that the members of the social conservative underclass are usually quite insecure, and that is why they hold on so tightly to what comforts them, often guns and religion. One cannot reach out to them by threatening to take away what they cling to for comfort in an increasingly uncertain world. I believe that they are mostly weak and vulnerable, and are not greedy and not attempting to control the earth like the corporatists, as they just wish to hold onto what little they have left that they value.
kivals wrote:
"I would add that the members of the social conservative underclass are usually quite insecure, and that is why they hold on so tightly to what comforts them, often guns and religion."
Hmm, where have I heard that before? (Next time you're in town, call me and we'll go bodysurfing!)
Thank you for the civil discussion. Too often, I witness "discussion" in our little virtual community which makes me shake my head and (almost) give up hope. There is much in this presentday capitalist society which is meanspirited. Many on the Noveau Left demonstrate they have internalized the negative values of the dominant host culture. Impatience is NOT a virtue. Rudeness is NOT revolutionary.
I find the articles and essays posted her to be very valuable. The discussion, not so much. I have used Common Dreams as my homepage for many, many years. I rarely bother to post comments because of the low level of so many of the responses.
I do appreciate Dave participating in this thread. It sends a message there is an opportunity for thoughtful discussion.
aloha
Hello Shliapnikov and Kivals,
I want to thank you for your intelligent and civil discussion.
"Many on the Noveau Left demonstrate they have internalized the negative values of the dominant host culture. Impatience is NOT a virtue. Rudeness is NOT revolutionary."
Amen! Unless the left learns civility we will not be able to organize a PTA much less a mass movement. We need to see each other clearly and compassionately. If we react like rattlesnakes striking at a warm body every time we detect a theological or ideological deviance, we will be forever forming circular firing squads.
By the way. I read wikipedia on Alexander Shliapnikov. A magnificent nom de guerre.
Agree with both of you. I find comfort in polite conversation with considerate people, rather than in "guns or religion."
However, there are many on the "Nouveau Left" who find comfort in proving to themselves they are ideologically superior to others, ideologically "pure," and by virtue of that intellectually superior as well. But political discussions are not merely intellectual exercises, for if they are to have any value at all it is in forming large and influential political groups, based on agreements of large numbers of people about certain fundamental issues. If one wants to prove intellectual superiority, to demonstrate the achievement of reaching a plateau that others rarely climb to, there are any number of unproven mathematical theorems one can take on.
Right on, Kivals,
"Forming large and influential political groups, based on agreements of large numbers of people," is the goal.
It is therefore NOT NECESSARY to spend too much time arguing with ideologues. Winning arguments is not the point. Organizing that is both massive and personal is what we need. So if you have an ideological disagreement, all you have to say is, "OK, you go out into the world with your theory, and I will go out with mine. In a year we will come back and see who has created the largest and most vital organization."
In organizing it is results that count. Often, the people who do the most arguing are the ones who do the least real work. And the habit of argumentation reduces ones effectiveness and one's ability to listen, which is the first requirement for good organizing.
Vinceremos,
Laurence
Laurenceofberk@aol.com
PS. I should be out organizing "East Bay Neighborhood Vegetables," and "From Cyberspace to Coffeehouse and Back." But I've go pneumonia, so I'm writing instead.
Bodysurfing, huh? I would probably take you up on that if I were a younger man, but now I am afraid I may be a bit too old.
I really need to put quote marks around "guns or religion" each time to make it clear I understand that those terms used together in that context have come to have additional meaning within the last year and that I intend to include that additional meaning.
And it is great to see more civil discussion here.
kivals wrote:
"Bodysurfing, huh? I would probably take you up on that if I were a younger man, but now I am afraid I may be a bit too old."
Because of your remark about low income people clinging to their guns and religion, I had thought I had seen through your secret identity. ;) Hence the offer to go bodysurfing!
Second, one of my mentors died about 18 months ago, at the age of 88. He was a "lion of the left" and served as uncle and mentor to many younger radicals, teaching us the Jimmy Higgins nuts and bolts skills of movement-building. He was a masterful waterman from his youth. A skilled swimmer, he helped drag sailors out of the burning waters of Pearl Harbor on December 7th.
In the final years of his life, he drifted into the fog of Alzheimer's. When I would meet him at community events and went over to greet him, he would smile his broad smile, place his large hands on my shoulders, look directly into my face and cheerfully ask, "How ya doin`?" It was hard to realize he had no idea who I was. Despite his disease, he never lost his cheerful comradely nature. Nor did he stop his daily bodysurfing until the final days of his life. He kept up his strength til the end by dropping down the face of large waves near his home, with the skill and grace of a life spent in the ocean.
kivals I live in rural America. To be honest I think that these conservative folks are very underestimated. It might be the first place we see real movement for growth away from the current system, you never know, it may not be mass, but not all true and long term growth starts as a mass.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Kivals, I surely wouldn't write off alliances forming with those who consider themselves "conservative" as we get dragged ever closer into this "perfect storm". After getting clued into 911, I found myself de-emphasizing certain social/cultural issues and prioritizing focus on the issues that are an immediate threat to us all. In the process, I find myself in association with people of many various political persuasions, including those with whom I wouldn't have previously found much in common with. As this tyranny continues to unfold, I think this tendency will increase in proportion. I think it must. That's why I think it's so foolish when I encounter those who continually trash "conservatives" in a carte blanche manner.
Lindorff writes "But calls to change that system so that third parties might have a chance bump up against the reality that the two parties that have a duopoly on power have no interest in changing the rules of the game to make it easier to bump them off. It simply ain't gonna happen."
So why did he bother to write "The Case for Impeachment"? Did he really think that was going to happen? Who was going to make it happen? The Democrats? Please.
The Democrat party is the rock on which progressive politicians founder and break up.
Calls for change beyond the merely cosmetic have always come from outside the major parties. Without a clear alternative, the only ones holding Obama's "feet to the fire" are Republicans. How's that working?
I agree with your statement that changes beyond the merely cosmetic have always come from outside the major parties, but they were implemented by a major party--under pressure. The examples I gave--most notably social security, as well as the Civil Rights Act and Medicare--were all the result of pressure from outside the party (and not in any significant sense by third parties, but by labor and civil rights groups), but it was the Democratic Party, ultimately, that put them into law. The same was true of the role of the anti-war movement. It was legislative action that finally put an end to US involvement in Vietnam, as Congress pulled the financial plug, but the Dems in Congress did that because of the power of all us anti-war activists in the street.
As for why I wrote the book "The Case for Impeachment," first of all it was to lay out the president's and vice president's crimes. I only gradually learned, along with the rest of the country, the depth of the Congressional leadership's involvement in those crimes. It has become clear as disclosures have come out, that those leaders--Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller, Reid and others--were in fact informed and acceded to crimes like the NSA spying, the torture, the renditions--and that is why they have steadfastly oppposed impeachment hearings. They knew they'd be implicated. This is what is different from the Nixon years, when Democrats were not implicated in the crimes for which impeachment was voted against Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee. In the end, impeachment didn't happen because it would have dragged down the House and Senate leadership.
That is not a reason not to write the book. Moreoever, it is not information that was available when I wrote it in 2005 and early 2006. It was still worth reading (and is still worth buying!), but it was clearly never going to happen.
That doesn't in any way invalidate the point of this article, however, which is that a mass movement for progressive change must be created to force Obama and the Dems in Congress to do the right thing on all the issues I mentioned in the article above.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
"So, while I expect to be deluged again with verbal brickbats, let me say it straight: third parties are a useless, and even dangerous diversion. What we need to be focusing on is building a mass movement for progressive change-a movement that will bring masses of people onto the streets, especially in Washington, but in every city and town, too, to demand an end to this country's pointless wars, a huge cut in the military budget, a national health care system, a jobs program, a break-up of the large banking and other corporate monopolies, an end to the national security state, reform of the labor laws, and a restoration of a real progressive tax system.
It is not third parties that make history in America. It is mass movements.
We need one badly. "
Note to all third party adherents, two-party doubters, third party doubters and two party adherents. I think together we can come up with a solution for all, no need to exclude anyone, or as this gentleman says tell others that their heart is "a useless, and even dangerous diversion".
We all have useful and safe hearts.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Very nicely stated, very accurate as well.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
200,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush instead of their own party's candidate. How convenient to ignore that the Democratic candidate was so unappealing. How convenient to blame Mr. Nader for being the choice of voters who wanted real change in this country.
How convenient to stop at the 2000 election. Whom does the author blame for the Democrats and their 8 years of simpering sycophantic supine collaboration with BushCo and every anti-freedom, anti-rights, anti-peace legislation?
It wasn't the Greens or the Socialists or the Workers who got us stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and broke the budget and ignored all the fraud and corruption that destroyed our economy.
We don't have an effective 3rd party in this country. But for 8 long years we didn't even have a 2nd party.
I'm not ignoring it. Gore was a terrible candidate who couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee. Having said that, he won the popular vote, and would have won Florida if Nader hadn't been in the race. That is an objective fact. Your point may be correct, but it's irrelevant. Democratic candidates generally are terrible. Look at Kerry. Look at Clinton (who only won his first race because of Perot, who was not a party, but a personality with endless cash).
David, You keep repeating this friggin' selective lie: that Gore "would have won Florida if Nader hadn't been in the race" and that it is an "objective fact". As if Nader voters WOULD have voted for Gore. They might not have voted at all, or voted for McKinney, or David McReynolds. You're being presumptuous, David. People who voted FOR Nader did so for very strong reasons. If Nader were not in the race, those same strong reasons would have them going elsewhere, not to Gore.
It's also an "objective fact" that David McReynold's got more votes than the final "official" margin of Florida victory. And once again, you conveniently refuse to blame, and do excuse the 250,000 Democrats who voted for Bush. You, and Democrats, seem to have an obsession with blaming Nader. You know what? That isn't a way to win those of us who despise you and Democrats for doing so, over. Try another approach.
Absolutely right. The Democrats were cowed by the Bush/Cheney gang after 9-11 and we had no opposition party.
Now we do, however. There are two parties, and they are in contention. Obama, whatever you think about him, was decidedly NOT the establishment pick. Clinton was clearly that. She had the media backing, she had the corporate money. Obama had an enthusiastic, involved movement that propelled him to the nomination, and then to victory. Sure, the establishment climbed on board when his candidacy became inevitable, and with its money, it bought itself the seats at the head of the table, but it is simplistic, ideologically-blindered claptrap to claim that his victory had nothing to do with oppositional politics. Tell that to the millions of black people who turned out for him. Tell that to the white working-class people who voted for a black candidate perhaps for the first time in their lives.
Sure, Obama has sold these people out with his appointments. He has, like many a Democrat before him, taken his base for granted. But that is because he mistakenly thinks the movement that put him in office is his movement. It's not.
More likely, those millions of people will feel betrayed and will be part of the basis of an independent mass movement that will push him and Congressional Democrats to the left.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
You are playing at devil's advocate, right?
Since the onset--and even before (Israel's brutality met with Obama's silence)what exactly about Obama and his appointments hasn't been a disappointment? Because he is not Clinton? Where's the difference? at least with Clinton we knew what we were getting--none of this pretense of hope and change.
You can't be serious. People are more likely to become increasingly cynical and suffer in isolated silence.
Well, these days, you might wait even longer for a receptive Democratic party (How do you like those administrative picks so far--change you can believe in and the audacity of hope---do you feel like a betrayed hopeful idiot yet--or a realistic cynic?)With the way it is going the mass movement just might be against those elected not to be complicit, but to confront, challenge and change, not in high expectation that any kind of pressure will be effective.
You may well be right. But that is what primaries are all about. Scaring incumbents--or replacing them.
One problem with futile third party strategies is that they weaken efforts at primary challenges.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Uh. Bernie Sanders has the primary election gig all figured out. Has anyone wondered why he runs as an independent all the time? No need to waste time and energy on primaries? There aren't any for independent candidates. Doesn't Bernie's success suggest that a party is NOT necessary? I think it does.
A major problem here is that so many have accepted the 'party' framing. A party is, by definition almost, a power structure divorced from 'we the people'. If the majority of people voted for an independent, he would get into office. 'Almost', I said, however. A party can also be a central driving force for political power whether it runs a candidate or not -- something to coalesce a political movement and voting block, something like labor unions sometimes do. We don't have a parliamentary system with many parties, forming a government, but the same principles can be applied in an unofficial way, especially during the primary stages. If a third party has the power it can even win a primary, on local or broader levels.
A problem with third parties is that they general try to get in on the top floor without first building a strong base. If they wanted to elect a governor, representative or senator by pooling national resources to one electoral race or state there would be a good chance of succeeding -- and then having a foothold for further progress.
We have to stop thinking of third parties as merely entities to run candidates, especially on a nation level, but rather a political organizing force which might run a candidate when appropriate, and otherwise a political space which can use the power of its members to shift one of the 'two' ajor parties. Done properly, a political party IS a mass movement.
Your framing is almost right, but it still puts the party before the horse. A third party could become a serious electoral presence, but it would have to come out of a movement to do that. You don't build a movement around a party. That's sort of what the Bolsheviks tried to do--it's the "vanguard" concept.
A successful third party would come out of a mass movement. The labor movement, revitalized, for example, could spawn a labor (ie socialist) party. But not the other way around.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Well... yes, but this can be concurrent. A party can be a good tool to help build a movement, albeit not the only tool. The vanguard movement assumed that the party would lead and people follow, and that fails because the 'leaders' get too far ahead and lose the power of the base. What a successful 'vanguard' does is get power from the people and then give right back again -- trying to keep it just sets up another tyrannical elite, or it fails like an army with it's supply lines cut. A party can be, should be, a focus and organizing principle of the people's power, however.
We see a similar problem with unions which grew out the workers' power but then became corrupt and isolated, so that union members rebel against it's own 'leadership'.
There is a principle in biology: when parts of an organism grow too far distant from the source of nutrition, air, and water, the organism must develop a circulation/communication system or stop growing. There are also similar limits to complexity. If our brains were much more complex, the parts couldn't effectively communicate with each other. These sorts of problems are also seen in computer science -- and in politics. We can gain some insights by comparing the structures and organization of these different things. Please note that most databases now are networked or relational -- not hierarchical -- for these reasons. Try to imagine an internet where all communication had to flow through a centralized 'party headquarters'!
Dave,
I think you are conceding too much to the third party distraction in your reply.
Any mass movement capable of building a meaningful third party would have enough strength to strongly influence, perhaps even "take over," the Democratic Party. Many of the problems third party advocates complain about: compromise, cooptation, distant elected officials, corporate campaign financing are inherent in the election/legislative process, regardless whether the candidate/officeholder is a Democrat, a Green or a member of the Socialist Workers Party.
To win elections you have to build coalitions, frame your message in a manner which appeals to enough voters and pull together the resources necessary to run a credible campaign. If you are "Movement" oriented, you can substitute volunteer eneergy for some of the necessary cash.
Once elected, a legislator has to deliver to supporters within their district and, perhaps, across the city, state, or nation. To deliver meaningful programs or spending to the district, you have to win over support from your legislative colleagues and/or play ball with Leadership. To get your bills passed, you have to support other people's bills. To cobble together enough support within the district and/or within City Hall or the Capitol, you have to ensure you have more interests who benefit from your bill than are hurt by it. Public support can sometimes trump "special interests," but it requires a lot of ongoing work and developing a communications strategy in the face of corporate media control.
Your elected official, whether Dem, Green or Red, will have difficulty not believing they are smarter and better informed than their supporters. And, in many cases, they are right. Supporters generally do not understand the realities of getting legislation approved or pulling together the resources for running a successful campaign. The most well-intended candidate, running on a dozen key issues, will find, once they get elected, that 3 of those ideas are totally unrealistic, perhaps counter-productive, 3 ideas are good, but unrealizable until "after the Revolution, 3 of the ideas might have a chance of being passed, in a greatly modified form, after several years of building influence, gaining credibility, making deals and winning over support both inside the legislative body and in the general public, 2 of the ideas can be passed fairly quickly, if you trade your vote on a couple of other, notso good bills and the final one bill can get passed by the end of your first term, but it turns out to have had little impact, beyond making you look good for a brief moment.
I strongly advise folks to organize movements within the community around real needs. Use street demonstrations when neceassary or possible to raise the profile of your issues and organizations. But also develop a strategy for forging a progressive network within your local Democratic Party, building relationships with the elected officials, their staff, campaign aids, with allied lobbying groups, reporters, etc. Do not go in as an isolted individual. Elect the most progressive viable Democrats, field primary challengers to vulnerable regressive Democrats. But maintain your links with the community organizations.
In many ways, the Democratic Party is a big "paper tiger." It is very easy to get progressives elected to higfhranking party offices. Heck, the Party is already full of them. Energy "wasted" on thrid party efforts can be poured into electing progressive Democratic officeholders and internal officers. Establish toeholds and beachheads. This is longterm trenchwar. Yes, you will encounter resistance from corporate interests rather quickly. You can avoid that in your third party simply because they feel no need to struggle against you at that stage. Corporate power will engage you whenever and wherever you start to threaten their influence. The fact they do it within the Democratic Party should be regarded as a hint this is where you should throw your energy.
"I strongly advise folks to organize movements within the community around real needs"
That's it, Shliapnikov, that's the key. The best examples in the world today are in South America. The MST, or Landless Workers Movement, in Brazil has put over a million people onto land which they have seized non-violently. They have their own schools, their own churches, their own cultural movement. They are loosely allied to Lula's Labor Party. Lula has mostly betrayed the MST and favored corporate agriculture. The MST now has to decide whether they will struggle within the Labor Party or go somewhere else. But because they are an independent social movement (now making alliances in the cities) they have the freedom to make that choice. See www.mstbrazil.org
And in Bolivia, the community movements which fought off water privatization have chosen a party (Movement Towards Socialism) and a president, Morales. But they remain independent and can pressure their party and president or, if needed, create new ones.
We need a reverse Peace Corps, from South to North. But then, in Latin America, people have not yet been narcotized by the ultimate privatization of electronic "entertainment," and they still have a largely communal culture. When you go dancing as a couple in Mexico, other couples catch your eyes and you soon find yourself part of a group of four or eight. A delicious experience. To build a mass movement here we are going to have to have a cultural revolution, and learn again to really see and hear each other.
I never did read the part in the constitution where it states that a person must have a strong base of support to run for president, nor an amendment that states such. I'm going to go reread the qualifications for president or any public office....maybe I'm missing something.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea