EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Whither the Sacred Campaign Promise?
Historically, Americans generally held campaign promises sacred. We understood that republican democracy makes us rely on pledges of future action as the metric for choosing representatives; we knew that politicians reneging on pledges without adequate reason were desecrating that democracy; and we therefore often punished promise breakers accordingly.
I'm not idealizing halcyon days that never were - just ask George H.W. Bush, who lost re-election in 1992 after trampling his "no new taxes" guarantee. Indeed, breaking campaign pledges was one of the surest ways for politicians to hurt themselves - until 2006.
That year's highest-profile campaign was Connecticut's U.S. Senate race between incumbent Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont - a race signaling a tectonic shift.
Lieberman had broken two key promises: He was violating an explicit term-limits pledge, and he vowed to "help end the war in Iraq" while working to continue it. And yet he was re-elected without ever explaining his reversals.
I'd like to think that result was merely a symptom of momentary shell shock. Perhaps an electorate so numbed by Republicans' then-recent attacks on John Kerry's changing positions was temporarily unable to process discussions of "flip-flopping."
But then behavior by President Obama suggests a more systemic assault on the campaign promise is under way.
It started in December, when he was asked why he was making Hillary Rodham Clinton his chief diplomat after criticizing her qualifications and promising Democratic primary voters that his views on international relations were different than hers. He responded by telling the questioner "you're having fun" trying "to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign." The implicit assertion was that anyone expecting him to answer for campaign statements must just be "having fun" - and certainly can't be serious.
A few months later, in reversing a 5-year-old commitment to support ending the Cuban embargo, Obama offered no rationale for the U-turn other than saying he was "running for Senate" at a time that "seems just eons ago" - again, as if everyone should know that previous campaign promises mean nothing.
At least that was a response. After the New York Times recently reported that "the administration has no present plans to reopen negotiations on NAFTA" as "Obama vowed to do during his campaign," there was no explanation offered whatsoever. We were left to recall Obama previously telling Fortune magazine that his NAFTA promises were too "overheated and amplified" to be taken literally.
It's true that politicians have always broken promises, but rarely so proudly and with such impunity.
We once respected democracy by at least demanding explanations - however weak - for unfulfilled promises. Then we became a country whose scorched-earth campaigns against flip-flopping desensitized us to reversals. Now we don't flinch when our president appears tickled that a few poor souls still expect politicians to fulfill promises and justify broken ones.
The worst part of this devolution is the centrality of Obama, the prophet of "hope" and "change" who once said that "cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom." If that's true, then he has become America's wisest man - the guy who seems to know my kids will laugh when I tell them politicians and voters once believed in democracy and took campaign promises seriously.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




74 Comments so far
Show AllI find it interesting that the right-wing punditocracy is not calling Obama on any of his reversals - probably because he has "switched" to their side on these issues. In truth, Obama has never really had positions, just speeches.
While everyone else is discussing his speech in Cairo, Progressives are yawning. This president has given the expression "empty rhetoric" an entirely new level of meaning.
q
Obama gets by with "speeches" (empty rhetoric) in lieu of policy because the sheeplet public (led by the nose by a corporate media) lets him gets away with it; and, like any naughty child, he's going to continue to do what Mom and Dad allow him to do. And why not? He gains "political capital" by telling Muslims what they want to hear about his Palestinian "sympathies" and they don't question how that sympathy is expressed in the starving of Gaza (oh I forgot the "suffering" of the Palestinians; thanks for mentioning that) or the droning of Pakistani civilians. And he doesn't really lose that much support from the Israeli lobby by a few "rhetorical" scolds about settlements; if necessary he can have an aide (Emanuel?) whisper to Israel lobbyists (his political beat) that it's all "just rhetoric" like an aide did about his "re-negotiate NAFTA" pledge during the campaign. (And heaven forbid we should stop arming Israeli aggression.) So please, all you reporter types, don't go "having fun" with the Cool Guy in a couple of months by asking him what he has actually DONE to influence Israel's settlements policy.
dumddown says:
I promise not to comment on this article.
Me either.
George H.W. Bush lost not because of breaking his 'no new taxes' pledge but because he looked wooden next to the charismatic Clinton.
Obama can reverse on every campaign pledge without worry. The media has his back. They will protect him.
Besides, ask the average Obama voter to explain his position on NAFTA now compared with his campaign position. I'd be shocked if even 10% would reply with anything other than a blank stare.
odoco
I'm 59, was a Democrat my entire life as a result, mostly, of being a child of the '60s. Then came 2006, the Democratic sweep, and the deluge of broken promises, primarily about ending the war and holding Bush & Co. accountable.
Then came Obama.
I got a call last week from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wanting funds. In a short 30 second burst I shared with the fundraiser my many disappointments with Obama and the party, and why I am now, firmly and forever, totally politically independent. There was no response to my arguments, only the click of the phone.
If Obama ran on his current record today, he would be considered a middle of the road Republican, especially on economic issues. The MSM's portrayal of him being ultra-liberal is a joke. From FISA enforcement, state secrets, hiring the same bank crooks that stole the money in the first place, to shielding Bush & Co terrorists from the legal consequences of their crimes, from allowing more mountain-top mining, etc. - OBAMA IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WELL-HEELED, ARTICULATE, SELF-SEEKING AND SELF-INFATUATED EGO-MANIAC who presently holds the power of this country in his hands (hands controlled by the strings of the military/corporate/media conglomerate).
It is time for a total, impassioned, in-the-street continual peaceful and lawful protest against the plutocracy that now rules us. It will not change without such a human tidal wave of backlash. I see no other course of action. Especially when one considers the electoral process totally broken, and its demise supplemented by the easily manipulated electronic voting devices the rulers of the system so desperately want in place.
We are beaten if we continue to do nothing.
if we continue to do nothing sirota's yet to be born children will die of thirst and heat exhaustion,--there is no time left
Which is ironic, because Sirota helped pander the Obama campaign, buying in deep enough to play the part of an agent taking out Obama's rivals.
The best thing for Sirota is to not have children so he'll never have to answer them when their eyes open and they say, "Daddy, why did you sell Barack Obama to the American progressive? Daddy....?"
Are you kidding? Who would waste time protesting, writing congress, or being politically active?
The plutocracy is in total control. Until they screw up so badly that the system spins away from them, there is no chance for reform.
I sold my birth rite after Vietnam. I knew I was not free, not rich, not smart, and all around me was a fake.
ShadowDancer: Not meaning to be flippant about it, but: didn't Creator promise (through the rainbow) that "never again" would life on earth be wiped out by floods? Would we be just "having fun" with God if we asked about tsunamis that have been and global warming ones to come---what about the promise (and come to think of it, I haven't seen a rainbow in just-forever)? Is the reverence for a deity (or a smooth-talkin' guy) a source for our gullibility about someone who was just trying to win our Love (or our Votes?) Just askin'
Here's video of literally trillions of the most beautiful sunrises ever taken, courtesy of the Creator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiPwEIRzUIE
Carl Sagan is The Creator??
i think obama has demonstrated just how far a good looking guy with real charm and charisma can take the truth
especially juxtaposed against the bush baby years where the stumbling bumbling dysfunctional son was barley able to read a breakfast menu
how irritating bush baby was with his vocabulary
wrapped up in his lies: iran's got nucular weapons
obama has brought the illusion of prestige back to the office and has demonstrated a real ability to move people of all walks of life in his speeches
but, as pointed out here, he has reneged on most of his "change you can believe in" crap
re-dubbed in the alternate meida as "continuity you can believe in"
when bush was lying his ass off it was apparent and clear
not so with brother obama
and that makes him much more dangerous when you think about it
he has the fawning coporate media who herald his every move with just a dash of dissent thrown in to make the jumbalaya a little more spicy
as chomsky says: the controllers provide the illusion of dialog and conflict in the body politic when the relaity is much simpler
once in office the president's prime responsibility is empire maintenance
service the corporations - and boy has he done that - and then charm the sheeple with promises that as the article says were too ""overheated and amplified" to be taken literally"
oh really mr president
well call us fools because - silly kids that we are - we believed in your promises
we pined for the change you were able to invoke in speeches but find to trite to persue in office
joke's on us i guess
unfortunatley, so is the tab which is 13 trillion and counting
btdubbs: the income of the american government in one year is around 1.3 trillion
so we have gone to the banks - who had no money - loaned to them and from them 13 trillion - which somehow they "loaned" us without having any money to loan
now we owe 10 years of our gross income - with interest - to ensure that david reckefeller is able to get his capitol out of the ailing american economy safely
oh the woes a silky voice can cause
Shoot, that is just the tip of the iceberg. It has been an ongoing reversal and betrayal on every front.
They say voting third party is throwing your vote away in a two party system, but you are throwing your vote away anyway. And if the problem is the monopoly of the two (one) parties, then what good does it do to constantly reinforce it?
odoco
You are absolutely correct Vern - it is now apparent to an ever-growing percentage of the populace that there is no real difference between the two parties, and voting for a truly progressive third party candidate now is the only choice for people of conscience. some on this website have known this for years - but this is the point - the masses didn't understand it - AND THAT IS, SLOWLY BUT SURELY, CHANGING. Just go ask the UAW folks in this country how much faith they now have in the system . . .
Actually, it was building momentum with Bush v Gore, but the NEOLibs used the election theft as a way to place full blame on Nader and third party threats and caused a recalibration of voting strategy, especially when Gore turned into such a global climate hero. There was never any mention of the fact that Gore had to run as former VP to the recently scandalized Clinton putting him at even a greater disadvantage than the biased MSM coverage.
Actually, Gore's mistake was in dissociating himself from Clinton--he bought the MSM line that the nation suffered from "Clinton fatigue" when all the polls showed that he was never more popular (in the high sixties), largely because of the public disgust with the Republicans' impeachment of him. Gore was also savaged, by the MSM in endless references to his wooden-ness, his wardrobe and other stupid things. And worst of all was his pick of the smarmily pious Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Who could forget that he was the first to rush to a microphone and castigate the president for his dalliance with an intern?
Of course the shorter answer would have been to say that Gore's mistake was to pick Bob Schrum, perpetual loser, to run his campaign.
And let's not forget that despite all the above, Gore did win.
Don't buy into that. Clinton was poison everywhere except with his DLC crowd of New Democrats. More Reagan Democrats voted for Bush and the base was leaving in droves to support Nader. When Clinton had compromised himself through triangulating everything away he proved himself to be a bigger whore to those who couldn't care less about his sleazy shennanigans (that the women's movement pursued other high profile men on harrassment charges).
Oregoncharles
Gore is one who is responsible for saving the two-party system. I never thought he intended to win. There were things that needed to be done under the Republicans that Dems would have had a hard time doing - politically. The Democrats' role would play out after Iraq was destroyed. On to the good war! Led by the good president, not the bad one.
Cynical take on that election: It was by design. And look how far it got them!
Remember the "Draft Al Gore" movement? and the cries from progressives: "How wonderful it would have been to have an environmentalist in the Whitehouse! Damn Ralph Nader!"
Al Gore received a 64% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters - if you teach, you understand that 64% is a D- grade. I am cynical enough to assume his self-serving books were just a ploy to jumpstart nuclear energy, which he has always supported. When he was VP, or maybe even before, I read a report of a speech Gore made to some nuclear industry proponents in Washington State. Tri-Cities area, I believe. Gore asserted his support for nuclear energy and afterwords received a standing ovation. I can't find it anywhere on the web now. Maybe some of you can.
You can go to snopes.com and look up "tale of two houses" to get an accurate picture of just how serious Mr. Gore is about waste and over consumption.
I'm trying to understand the third party argument but it seems to be based on the assumption that parties don't change over time. As if no matter how many
Kucinichs, Frankens, McKinneys get into congress some magical force will keep it conservative, like a conspiracy theory. Isn't the problem that people vote center-right because they're selfish and/or fools? There also seems to be a sycophantic obsession with presidential power involved-surely if we got to the point where people were voting progressives in locally, they'd probably vote for Dennis.
So how do you convert conservatives?
I'm sure if we fine tuned our arguments and maybe presented them a little different we could change some minds (with a little celebrity help of course). Kids see us as astrology preaching, pacifist, anti-industry dreamers.
Cynthia McKinney is a Green. She was our Presidential candidate last year. The Democrats deliberately drove her out of Congress. And they shut down Kucinich's Presidential campaign by threatening to do the same to him.
You're right: parties do change. In the case of the Democrats, they move steadily to the Right, to where Obama is now perpetuating most of the worst Bushian policies. Clinton was well to the Right of Nixon or even Reagan.
In principle, the DP is a democratic organization that could be changed from the inside. But all efforts to do that, at least since McGovern's nomination, have been miserable failures. (One reason McGovern did so poorly was that the party machinery sabotaged him.) Consider what happened to Howard Dean, let alone the ease with which Kucinich was swatted away. I think there is a firewall in the party, above the local level, that maintains right-wing control. It probably consists of the big corporate donors, who can threaten to withdraw their cash if someone misbehaves.
Oregoncharles
If Kucinich was polling better I might accept the argument, I think the media had more to do with his lack of popularity. McKinney also blamed "hostile media."
Isn't it possible that Fox news, Limbaugh etc are succeeding in confusing the public?
Thank you for the civilized response-I half expect to get flamed when I ask this stuff.
Sioux Rose
PO: Your point is exactly the crux of the issue. Most of us in this forum are well-read and aware of the issues, not the smokescreen similitudes produced by the MSM 24/7. Not everyone has a high intelligence quotient, and I have to sadly admit that some of my "intelligent" friends still trust CNN and "the news." They think if it's not Fox, it's probably true. One thing I just realized this week (and there is a powerful astrological alignment that supports my analysis) is that for many, truth itself can no longer be discerned. The campaign and atmosphere of lies in the form of a vast, well-constructed disinformation campaign, is so pervasive and thick, that the vast majority takes the lies fed them in lieu of Truth. They truly have lost any basis for gauging the latter.
Look at all the money behind campaigns to render global warming a farce to ensure that no changes to business as usual, the filthy naked worship of the profit motive, can gain traction. It's the same with the right wing making Obama seem like a TRUE foe, one advocating for "socialist" policies when all he does is cater to the big business interests. The entire facade produces such intense dramatic theater as to make people believe "there must be differences or why would these ladies protest so much?"
In short, it's always difficult to walk in someone else's moccasins. It is far harder to understand the mindset that isn't all that intellectually incisive to begin with. And since I live among the rightwing ilk, I can tell you, it is virtually impossible to tell them anything. Most now hold Obama responsible for the fiscal chaos, and very few can trace the root origins of the various conflicts the US is embroiled in. The media, with particular emphasis on Fox and the hatemongers of right wing radio (the decision to grant to these broadcast company the right to USE the PUBLIC'S airwaves without negotiating any free time for candidates' speeches or airing of important, shared community issues has operated like something of a modern curse) has caused a consensus vastly departed from the actual state of things. Goebbels, Bernays, Orwell, Pavlov, every one of them would be stunned by how far the "free" media in this "democratic" nation has come, or more accurately fallen.
By poisoning the well of the collective conscience (or unconscious as Jung would put it), our society is now a toxic sewer. I see so much anger and pain in so many persons. Whereas it used to be the rare individual "that went postal," I think we're looking at a sociological Petri-dish where more and more are going to soon Pop. Armed, dangerous and deluded is an apt description of too much of this nation's wounded populace, and this status has had a lot of help from leaders, and media moguls. What a travesty!
I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden.
Get over it! Obama
Clinton started this particular rot. He swore on the campaign trail that he would not support NAFTA without substantial renegotiation and then immediately in office he rammed Poppy's version through Congress as fast as he could. He said he would allow gays in the military and immediately he was in office he reneged on that. I'm sure there was something else but I've forgotten what it was.
When he was running for the presidency, Obama struck me as amazingly like Clinton, and so he is.
Rainborowe
Now you know why I've always referred to him as O-blah-blah.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townshend
Come on Sirota, admit it. Like most of us stupid voters, you knew Obama's real intentions and like the rest of us suckered up and voted for him. We're all losers so let's just get used to it !
Remember who Sirota is - a Democratic operative. He really doesn't care about helping progressives, the poor, or the nation much less the world. He cares about electing Democrats.
In 06 when the Democrats were elected to end the war, he was on the forefront of diffusing the push to end the war. So he helped diffuse it and gave the cowardly Dems cover.
Don't listen to this guy. He doesn't want to help progressives - he wants to insure his party wins at all costs.
Is there no room to allow Sirota to actually realize his mistake? Anyone who can say that he screwed up on voting for Obama in an attemt to further progressive agenda is my buddy.
Mistake? Give me a break.
If it was a mistake, did he advocate for a third party.
No, because he's a Democratic Operative.
Don't let him take control of the message. He's not in it for you, he's in it for the Democratic Party.
I am well aware of Sirota and what he did last year on his blog though I was spared amazingly. I'm still feeling like another loser for having fallen into the trap last year and voting for Obama on the last minute when before Nov 1, 2008, I was ready to vote Nader and for the first time be a proud independent voter. Now that Obama is getting worse and the rest of the party is getting lamer day after day, I don't see myself voting Democrat in 2012. I currently see no rising 3rd party in the works and Jerry D. Rose the other day pointed out that Nader and Mckinney are still trying to recover from the last election defeat. I might not even bother to vote if all there is to choose from is keeping Obama or electing another Republican super looney. Who knows what's in store for us in the next 3.5 years ? I already feel like I got egg all over myself in the last 4 months for having pushed the Obama/Biden button with more to come god knows.
Oregoncharles
"Now that Obama is getting worse and the rest of the party is getting lamer day after day, I don't see myself voting Democrat in 2012."
Make a pledge to yourself and then keep it because the singular two-party system, is designing another scam for you. No doubt about it, electoral politics is doomed.
Are there other progressive strategies besides electoral politics, where corporations and the very rich have all the power and make all the rules?
How many progressives are brave enough to cancel their health insurance? or stay home for three straight days in a row, collectively? It's not just Democrats who are cowards, eh?
"How many progressives are brave enough to cancel their health insurance? or stay home for three straight days in a row, collectively? It's not just Democrats who are cowards, eh?"
Oh boy, you hit me on my weak spot.
As right-wing as Obama is, it was good to vote democrat. Mcain would've been worse. The presidential race is a sideshow anyway, focus on converting conservatives!
I wanna blast Obama but it could mean Gingrich in 2012. It's interesting no one over in the Chomsky comments is mentioning his endorsement of a dem vote. Noam hates sycophants.
So far, you are technically correct. 3.5 years is anyone's guess and we can only see how worse Obama gets or if he turns around and improves and then by how much. If by 2012 Obama turns out to be as bad as or even worse than Gingrich which he seems to be asking for, I won't even bother to vote unless there is a strong 3rd party out there and so far only Nader seems viable in 2012. Whoever wants to take Nader's place had better start building the movement already and prepare straight for the next 3.5 years. Showing up suddenly in election year just doesn't work thanks to our apathetic public.
He endorsed Obama ...sort of, I guess. I think what he said was vote against McCain. and qualified it as there was nothing wrong with people in "swing states" voting for "a lessor of two evils"... and that Obama was a "standard, centralist democrat"... that people should have "no illusions"... which compared to what Sirota was saying, was a full fledged contradiction. that's primarily why Sirota has these periodic melodramatic missives about his future child's misery....
Chomsky then went on to further explain "doing better" historically, the average person does better with democrats, 'if that's what matters', but if reflecting the polls is your issue --representing the public-- democrats don't do that... I think that's what Chomsky was saying... it's an endorsement in its weakest possible form....then again, if more people like Sirota weren't championing Obama like they did, we would have ended up with Hillary Clinton as president. It was a Democrat Year. Would she be worse than Obama? I don't think Chomsky was ever asked that question, but there are people who try to still argue she is historically more liberal the Obama.... Sirota isn't one of those people who thinks this of Clinton.
here's a link to the original interview
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2593&updaterx=2008-10-20+10%3A50%3A58
Sioux Rose
CHUK: As for the comment that "the average voter does better under a Democrat," I think that was the party of the past, not this new Wall-st/corporate/well-dressed criminal ilk that's taken all the Republican positions, as the Republicans have moved so far to the right they'd qualify as apt leaders for totalitarian republics.
I do believe there is a rhythmic structure to these things, the movement of the pendulum if you prefer; and we are seeing the extreme right sweep of this phenomenon (although in the southern hemisphere, operating as our true polarity, the exact opposite direction/momentum is evidently underway) which ENSURES that it will swing back vehemently to the left. I think the shift of this direction begins the end of this year, and there will be enormous, even violent tensions produced largely on the part of those who want to retain their falsely begotten privileges (by bending law, buying candidates and thus policies, making war, stealing from citizens, advocating FOR torture, decimating civil liberties, etc); however, ultimately in spite of the tension (and the conflicts it will give rise to), the pendulum is GOING TO sweep to the other side. I see real progress in the form of a GLOBAL workers' rights type Constitution being implemented by 2020. I know that seems far off, and there are ominous indications that the next 5-7 years are going to be traumatic... but in the long arc of history, various phases of tribulation have (and do) led to improved conditions. This seems to be the song history plays.
Yes, I agree with your motion for us to step back and view the systems and relationships of systems and try to predict what may be our future. Introspection is key. Good point.
It's not clear to me how much worse McCain would have been.
Guilty as charged!
Again, I have to wonder about the 'plane incident' while on the campaign trail, when his reversals became glaringly apparent. Like Wellstone, Carnahan, and so forth, and there are others, there have long been heavy threats on the righteous. For EVERYONES awareness, check on 'Obama's plane incident', though it was dismissed and forgotten by most, I just have to wonder again and again, I....
politicians used to be honest, and now they're not? is that the crux of this?
speaking of cruxes, turn those crosses back over, right side up, and worship the almighty phallus...woo hoo~!
Here's a scene from "Lawrence of Arabia":
Lawrence has just learned of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in which Britain and France agree to carve up the Ottoman Empire after the end of WWI. Lawrence protests and Dryden, the cynical diplomat from the British Foreign Office says to him, "And let's not have any displays of indignation . . . If we've told lies you've told half-lies. And a man who tells lies, like myself, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half lies has forgotten where he put it."
It's the word "merely" that is so telling in that passage. It means that what we do (lie) is really not so bad. It's for your own good. Obysmal isn't any different. In the United States, at least, the half-lie has disappeared completely from the political lexicon. The bald faced lie is now the order of the day.
Lawrence died two weeks after leaving the service in 1935. The official record is he lost control of his motorcycle trying to avoid two boys on bicycles in a blind spot on the road....
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The weeds of crime bears bitter fruit. Hheheehhehehehhhheeeeh! The Shadow knows...."
David Sirota writes:
"It's true that politicians have always broken promises, but rarely so proudly and with such impunity."
Obaama is an utter disaster. Now we have a fascist Revlon Girl with a lot of $, NO working political parties, and an army of celebrity "leftists", media operatives, and Democratic Party apparatchiks who bent so far backward to enthrone a "black" that now they've fallen, and can't get up.
One Arab commentator characterized Obaama's mideast performance as "part vapid, part sinister". That says it ALL about the administration.
A General Strike for Single Payer won't hurt, and might help. With Single Payer in place, we can move on to a General Strike to stop Afghanistan.
Obaama is a predator with a fraying personality cult. He's a pathologically-ambitious mobster, not a "Democrat".
Oregoncharles
I like your attitude!
Prize winning author Arundhati Roy said:
"Why play their game where they make all the rules and have all the power. Why not discover [uncover?] our own power and then use it. Why not force them to play by our rules in game we design?"
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Informed progressives are by now well aware of Obama's sundry reversals and the inability of the Democratic Party to reform itself. The question is: What are able-bodied progressives going to do about it?
The U.S. system is too stratified and calcified for progressives to participate in any substantial and timely change of it unless they rapidly organize in terms of sheer numbers and media access. The younger, non-arthritic Left needs to be better funded, more organized, innovative and radical in terms of commanding attention to progressive ideals and ideas. An umbrella United Progressive Party would pool the resources of the thousands of scattered small progressive groups into a big enough voter bloc to achieve some serious national goals. It could co-opt the many progressive leaning Democratic Party support groups who are being told to shut up and tow the DLC corporatist line by the likes of Rahm Emmanuel while their voices and goals are ignored. Members of these groups are starting to realize they are being betrayed by a Democratic Party leadership that no longer has the excuse of significant Republican opposition in Congress: A Democratic Party approaching filibuster-proof status in the Senate that still caves in to every blast of hot air from Right-wing rant radio and every Big Money corporate lobbyist who strolls through the halls of Congress.
THE TIME FOR PROGRESSIVES TO UNITE IS NOW. The people of this country and the world have no more time to waste to solve the biosphere-threatening problems of our time. America with its wealth, technology and woeful record of exploitative resource wars owes the world a major contribution towards solving those big problems. Only well organized American progressives can compel this in a timely manner. They need a clearly articulated concise Party platform; a media arm funded and prepared to answer objections and attacks from other media, and they need to create/become their own media sufficient to target existing and potential progressive voters with a progressive message defended on progressive principles framed in a more accurate historical context that includes the proud contributions to American society made by over a century of progressive thinkers and activists. It's almost 2010, people. The clock is ticking and time is running out to prevent a global Malthusian Hell. There is no excuse for allowing this result and there will be few literate human beings left alive in another few generations to listen.
What can you and I do? Send emails AND regular mail letters to all the well-known progressive and betrayed Democratic Party support groups urging them to cease wasting time supporting a thoroughly corrupt Democratic Party and to pool our membership and resources under one umbrella United Progressive Party. Demand a national summit of progressive organization leaders for this purpose. Send this message to the Green Party, Ralph Nader and his supporters, United for Peace and Justice, World Can't Wait, Iraq Veterans for Peace, etc., and any other progressive groups--large or small--that you are aware of.
The greatest part of America and being American was when Americans rose to meet hard challenges because naysayers proclaimed they couldn't be met. Before progressive Americans dragged these dreams into existence most people refused to believe that workers had rights, that women could vote, that wilderness areas could be protected, that smallpox or polio could be defeated with public health vaccinations, that blacks could vote, that human beings could ever land on the moon. We can solve the big problems. All we have to do is be angry, proud and energetic enough to refuse to be told that we can't.
metal writes:
"What can you and I do? Send emails AND regular mail letters to all the well-known progressive and betrayed Democratic Party support groups urging them to cease wasting time supporting a thoroughly corrupt Democratic Party and to pool our membership and resources under one umbrella United Progressive Party. Demand a national summit of progressive organization leaders . . . "
Metal forgets the surveillance state, perhaps -- which is presently in the bloody hands of the Obaama Organization.
Besides, there is NO. TIME. LEFT.
General Strike for Single Payer will "organize" the most people, the fastest.
"Every victory's gonna bring another.
Carry it on."
Oregoncharles
What do you mean "General Strike for single payer?"
Has anyone suggested that progressives cancel their health insurance policies by August 1st?
Oregoncharles writes (somewhat incomprehensibly):
"Has anyone suggested that progressives cancel their health insurance policies by August 1st?"
If no one HAS suggested that "progressives cancel their health insurance", maybe NOW -- not August, or October, or whenever the projected launch of the mandatory whatever is hahaha presently projected.
By cancelling their insurance, "progressives" who can presently AFFORD health insurance can get closer to understanding the situation of the millions upon millions, "progressive" and not, who CAN'T afford either insurance OR health care.
Bear in mind that "insurance" isn't the same as actual health care (that's what "Sicko" was about). And that "mandatory" ANYthing is NOT democratic.
What we have here is a re-run -- decorated by a lot of blabla and phony outreach and senseless meetings and the propping up of the dying Ted Kennedy to ennoble the efforts of these rabid weasels -- of the Massachusetts "model" that does. not. work. But which is favored by Axelrod's Obaama prototype Devall Patrick. And by "Democratic" saboteur John Kerry.
Meanwhile, anyone who's NOT read Sirota's "Obama, the healthcare Riddler
(Why is the president suddenly so afraid of a single-payer solution to America's healthcare crisis?)" can do so at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/16/sirota/index.html
Bear in mind that an uncomplicated visit to a run-of-the-mill emergency room runs about five thousand dollars these days.
To enlighten Senator Baucus about Single Payer, go here: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue