Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader Was Right: Liberals are Going Nowhere With Obama
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.
We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us. These mass movements were the engines for social reform, the correctives to our democracy and the true protectors of the rights of citizens. We have surrendered this power. It is vital to reclaim it. Where is the foreclosure movement? Where is the robust universal health care or anti-war movement? Where is the militant movement for sustainable energy?
“Something is broken,” Nader said when I reached him at his family home in Connecticut. “We are not at the Bangladesh level in terms of passivity, but we are getting there. No one sees anything changing. There is no new political party to give people a choice. The progressive forces have no hammer. When they abandoned our campaign they told the Democrats we have nowhere to go and will take whatever you give us. The Democrats are under no heat in the electoral arena from the left.
“There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy,” Nader said when asked about public apathy. “They have bought into the belief that if it protests it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists.
“This is the third television generation,” Nader said. “They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.
“They have been broken,” Nader said of the working class. “How many times have their employers threatened them with going abroad? How many times have they threatened the workers with outsourcing? The polls on job insecurity are record-high by those who have employment. And the liberal intelligentsia have failed them. They [the intellectuals] have bought into carping and making lecture fees as the senior fellow at the institute of so-and-so. Look at the top 50 intelligentsia—not one of them supported our campaign, not one of them has urged for street action and marches.”
Our task is to build movements that can act as a counterweight to the corporate rape of America. We must opt out of the mainstream. We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women. We must give up the self-delusion that we can influence the power elite from the inside. We must become as militant as those who are seeking our enslavement. If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transference of wealth upward in American history, our open society will die. The working class is being plunged into desperation that will soon rival the misery endured by the working class in China and India. And the Democratic Party, including Obama, is a willing accomplice.
“Obama is squandering his positive response around the world,” Nader said. “In terms of foreign and military policy it is a distinct continuity with Bush. Iraq, Afghanistan, the militarization of foreign policy, the continued expansion of the Pentagon budget and pursuing more globalized trade agreements are the same.”
This is an assessment that neoconservatives now gleefully share. Eliot A. Cohen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, made the same pronouncement.
“Mostly, though, the underlying structure of the policy remains the same,” Cohen wrote in an Aug. 2 opinion piece titled “What’s Different About the Obama Foreign Policy.” “Nor should this surprise us: The United States has interests dictated by its physical location, its economy, its alliances, and above all, its values. Naive realists, a large tribe, fail to understand that ideals will inevitably guide American foreign policy, even if they do not always determine it. Moreover, because the Obama foreign and defense policy senior team consists of centrist experts from the Democratic Party, it is unlikely to make radically different judgments about the world, and about American interests in it, than its predecessors.”
Nader said that Obama should gradually steer the country away from imperial and corporate tyranny.
“You don’t just put out policy statements of congeniality but statements of gradual redirection,” Nader said. “You incorporate in that statement not just demilitarization, not just ascension of smart diplomacy, but the enlargement of the U.S. as a humanitarian superpower, and cut out these Soviet-era weapons systems and start rapid response for disaster like earthquakes and tsunamis. You expand infectious disease programs which the U.N. Developmental Commission says can be done for $50 billion a year in Third World countries on nutrition, minimal health care and minimal shelter.”
Obama has expanded the assistance to our class of Wall Street extortionists through subsidies, loan guarantees and backup declarations to banks such as Citigroup. His stimulus package does not address the crisis in our public works infrastructure; instead it doles out funds to Medicaid and unemployment compensation. There will be no huge public works program to remodel the country. The president refuses to acknowledge the obvious—we can no longer afford our empire.
“Obama could raise a call to come home, America, from the military budget abroad,” Nader suggested. “He could create a new constituency that does not exist because everything is so fragmented, scattered, haphazard and slapdash with the stimulus. He could get the local labor unions, the local Chambers of Commerce and the mayors to say the more we cut the military budget the more you get in terms of public works.”
“They [administration leaders] don’t see the distinction between public power and corporate power,” Nader said. “This is their time in history to reassert public values represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and communities. They are creating a jobless recovery, the worst of the worst, with the clear specter of inflation on the horizon. We are heading for deep water.”
The massive borrowing acts as an anesthetic. It prevents us from facing the new limitations we must learn to cope with domestically and abroad. It allows us to live in the illusion that we are not in a state of irrevocable crisis, that our decline is not real and that catastrophe has been averted. But running the national debt can work only so long.
“No one can predict the future,” Nader added hopefully. “No one knows the variables. No one predicted the move on tobacco. No one predicted gay rights. No one predicted the Berkeley student rebellion. The students were supine. You never know what will light the fire. You have to keep the pressure on. I know only one thing for sure, the whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
- Posted in




268 Comments so far
Show AllCome on baby, light my fire....try to set the night on fire...
Education is not filling the bucket but setting the fire.
Thank you Chris ! As much as I'm excited to see such an article, I feel like crying because this nation has been used to falling for pols that sound too powerful and individualist and they are lulled into believing that they will be like them. People love to laugh at and persecute people who are frugal, honest, truly generous, and believe in collective responsibility. I used to get depressed every time Nader lost but I now have an angry feeling that maybe we don't deserve sweethearts such as Nader, Mckinney, Kucinich, Sheehan, or even Ron Paul as our leaders. Maybe we do deserve the filthy leadership most of the electorate gleefully votes for. :(
Chill Jenn, just keep 'keeping on" and don't let the bast*rds get you down sis.
peas in
Thanks Johnny. I've been assessing the whole thing and when I add it all up, it pains me and probably the rest of us that our electorate is so ignorant and cornfed that maybe it does not deserve such wonderful leadership even when such leadership is desperately needed. RichM and SiouxRose have convinced me that in a society where greed and warmongering are the answers and the electorate is plagued by ignorance, mediocre leadership is what society deserves to be stuck with.
Referring to the population as "ignorant" and deserving of our current plight is not going to solve anything. Look at the massive amounts of propaganda the average American is bombarded with on a given day. From television, to print media, to billboards, to radio, to the internet, Americans are subjected to levels of propaganda that are unfathomable for even the fascists of the 1930 or the Soviets. Are people really that ignorant? No. 80-90% of the population realizes there is something seriously wrong with America. However, you have unreasonable expectations to expect that the masses are somehow going to get to the correct reason why America is failing so miserably - illegitimate, unaccountable, totalitarian corporate power - when the information most people get is controlled by the reason American is failing. So, I understand why you are upset, but instead of describing people who may or may not have been exposed to the types of good information you have received as the ignorant masses (as any good Ayn Rand disciple would), I would attempt to educate and illuminate. We all need to be thinking of creative ways we can get together, communicate our message, and eventually revolt ala May 1968 in France.
"We all need to be thinking of creative ways we can get together, communicate our message, and eventually revolt ala May 1968 in France."
The French people don't wait for permission -- they hit the streets immediately and they don't go home until their government retreats. I admire that spirit!
Continually, I am reminded that 72% of the population of this country wants universal health care -- a very strong public option, single-payer or "Medicare for all." The 72% represents almost 3/4 of our country, and do our politicians listen? NO!
When I was protesting the invasion of Iraq, I traveled to D.C. more times than I can count. I attended one rally/protest in Philadelphia, one in Boston, and several in NYC, where I currently reside. With each protest, the crowds grew, by the thousands, and even hundreds of thousands. Even in Lincoln, NE, where I lived for a number of years, people protested -- every Wednesday on the steps of the capital building. People also marched and rallied when there were national protests. One of my friends, here in NYC, told me that the churches in his hometown in Ohio organized protests, and they marched regularly. Still, the mainstream media did not report our actions. And, my elected officials, Democrats, would not meet with anyone who was active in the peace movement. They closed their eyes to us, and they closed their ears to us. I think if we added up the number of individuals who took action prior to the invasion of Iraq, we would be surprised at the total numbers.
I do know that there is ignorance in this country and that our education system is failing us, but I agree with tarheel77 when he talks about -- "the massive amounts of propaganda the average American is bombarded with on a given day. From television, to print media, to billboards, to radio, to the internet, Americans are subjected to levels of propaganda that are unfathomable."
I also agree that the Democrats are not getting us anywhere. If the current health care bill is passed, it won't take effect until 2013. This is definitely NOT change we can believe in.
I have no idea what to do or how to do it. I have marched three times on Wall Street, but the crowds were reatively small. And, like many of you, my friends, too, are hanging onto that idea of "hope" when it comes to Obama. In fact, some of my friends have quit communicating with me.
I voted for Ralph, and I would vote for him again!
Kay, thanks for bringing up the protests. When it comes to protesting for national causes, it appears that protesting in Washington doesn't work unless those protests implicitly favor big business against the working class. Paul O'Neills "all politics is local" gave me another idea. What we need are what I would call decentralized protests. In other words, instead of flying over to Washington DC to protest, we could protest more in our districts and state capitals and spread the word. That would increase the chances of more pols in Washington being forced to listen to us and it could force those big businesses to waste more money or back off and surrender to the will of the people.
You protest every Wednesday and wonder why it doesn't get covered?
A system adjusts to imbalances. It accounts for them, gets used to them, compensates for them and then ignores them. Unbalance the system again.
Why not all dress in suits, gradually surround someone in a position of power while walking along with them on the sidewalk and then protesting all at once or one by one, debating them to and from and during lunch? Why not put branches all over yourselves, or paint yourselves trompe l'oeil as if to disguise yourselves as bushes or a wall and mailboxes outside the offices of your protestee, lying in wait for them with hidden signs, recorded messages to play them or a song or play? Why not have a Council of All Beings outside a government building or corporate office, speaking to their mistakes and transgressions as each species affected--dressing the part and delivering transcripts to the protestee and the press after? Why not have a different person whose life has been changed by illness they can't afford meet with your congressperson every single day--inside, outside, by the door, on the phone, anyway and anywhere you can reach them.
In other words, want some attention? Do something to get it!
tarheel77, I agree that we need to find ways to overcome the massive propaganda. Even on the progressive sites, there's a lot more corporatist talk interfering with reasonable discussions. However, online or in the real world, trying to reason with these people is enormously difficult. I understand that it won't be easy to get even a simple plurality to vote ala Nader just like it won't be so easy to convince Big Bank customers to switch their accounts to credit unions. The way these people talk and act reek so much of total ignorance is just sickening. I am getting over that feeling even though it lingers now and then.
I don't think it is fair to paint SiouxRose and RichM with such a brush...
They don't use language like "society deserves to be stuck with mediocre leadership"...
Nice try...
I did not paint them with a brush. Please learn to read carefully before you misjudge. In case you did not understand, I was stating what they had CONVINCED me to believe. I have great respect for both of them in case you did not know.
If you had actually read my earlier discussions with RichM where he and I talked about credit unions and big banks, you would have realized that he discussed the fact that most people are still resigned to big banks even in these bad economic times. If you had also read what Sioux Rose wrote to not only me but to others as well about Mars and Mammon, you would have realized that we are in a society where wars and greed rule. Taking all those points into consideration, they and I know that getting real leadership is about as easy as lifting a mountain. I may not use the same language as them nor might I be the same as them but that's not the point of my earlier reply. I brought up their names as I do of others when I acknowledge an idea that I have learned but am not prepared to call my own. Haven't you ever heard of the word plagiarism? Did you even go to school?
P.S.: In case you don't know the meaning of the word CONVINCE, here's the dictionary result:
con⋅vince
/kənˈvɪns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-vins] Show IPA
Use convince in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -vinced, -vinc⋅ing.
1. to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action: to convince a jury of his guilt; A test drive will convince you that this car handles well.
2. to persuade; cajole: We finally convinced them to have dinner with us.
3. Obsolete. to prove or find guilty.
4. Obsolete. to overcome; vanquish.
Origin:
1520–30; < L convincere to prove (something) false or true, (somebody) right or wrong, equiv. to con- con- + vincere to overcome; see victor
Related forms:
con⋅vinc⋅ed⋅ly, adverb
con⋅vinc⋅ed⋅ness, noun
con⋅vinc⋅er, noun
con⋅vin⋅ci⋅ble, adjective
con⋅vinc⋅i⋅bil⋅i⋅ty, noun
Synonyms:
1. satisfy.
Usage note:
Convince, an often stated rule says, may be followed only by that or of, never by to: We convinced him that he should enter (not convinced him to enter) the contest. He was convinced of the wisdom of entering. In examples to support the rule, convince is often contrasted with persuade, which may take to, of, or that followed by the appropriate construction: We persuaded him to seek counseling (or of his need for counseling or that he should seek counseling). The history of usage does not support the rule. Convince (someone) to has been in use since the 16th century and, despite objections by some, occurs freely today in all varieties of speech and writing and is fully standard: Members of the cabinet are trying to convince the prime minister not to resign.
" Maybe we do deserve the filthy leadership most of the electorate gleefully votes for."
Machiavelli said as much.
q
Sorry. Multiple post.
q
Ditto.
q
Jennifer: I was still pretty young at the time, so memory is fuzzy, but I recall Bertrand Russell getting arrested in an anti-Vietnam was protest. I believe his arrest took place on the steps of the British Parliament. We don't have a Bertrand Russell, but we had Mr. Nader in the last presidential election, and most of us said, "Ralph we know you're right," but, as before, we voted for the Democratic ticket. The Naders and McKinney were only asking us to stand with them, and we blew them off.
Lingum, I mentioned the idea of decentralized protesting to Kay Johnson. I can't expect a nation's capital to open up. It's too centralized and closed. See my reply to hers.
j.a.h.Ralph is brilliant ,it sure would be nice if people listened to him or read his books.His sister Claire is on the ball too.I think he is a national treasure like Chomski and Zinn and Pete Seeger. peas in and out
I truly enjoy reading Chris Hedges' essays. Thank you Commondreams for posting his words.
Politically, what's mostly wrong with the US of A is that large-scale, representative democracy works. And, what does it yield? Demagogues for the chanting mob ... "please, please won't someone save us from ourselves". It's always been that way.
I suggest, small-scale, direct democracy that demands accountability will create resposibility. Sure, direct voters would make some poor choices but they'd get to live with their decisions, and perhaps, they'd vote more wisely the next go-round.
"Sure, direct voters would make some poor choices but they'd get to live with their decisions, and perhaps, they'd vote more wisely the next go-round."
I would say that we're already living with the consequences but perhaps we could be made well aware of it. On the other hand, look at how "direct democracy" has been working out in CA. I'm not sure that we should pay taxes just to do the pols' dirty work for them. I could be looking at this all wrong though so feel free to correct me here.
All democracy of any type depends on good information. The challenge is to create a situation where people get the information they need. Otherwise, it does not matter what kind of democracy you choose, Garbage in = Garbage out.
Yes, I'm currently debating this with one of my friends on the Right.
Should the first amendment apply to our corporate media which lies 24/7? I personally don't think so. But then how to determine what the truth is? For starters, it must be able to be independently verified.
The purpose of having the media, for the freedom of the press being a right, is to have a properly informed citizenry. And right now, we don't. And you sure as hell can't have any kind of democracy, representative or otherwise, if the people believe disinformation to be true.
I rarely see posted revelations concerning the psychological warfare that is being conducted on the US citizenry every day. Over two hundred books have been written on the subject and it is indisputable that a very carefully crafted and executed set of psychological manipulation techniques, 'brain washing' as it has been referred to in the past, has and is being used on the american population and knowing the workings of these operations affords one some understanding of just how the majority of americans keep making the most pathetic choices at the voting stations. It also helps to understand how the arch criminals that are running this country continue to commit atrocious and heinous crimes against humanity and war crimes while the US citizenry continues to live in a psychologically engineered eerie hypnotic somnambulism.
Just finished viewing "Century of the Self" by British documentary film maker Adam Curtis, tracing the development of mass psychological manipulation techniques from Edward Bernays in the early 20th century through the Reagan/Thatcher and Clinton/Blair years. Series is available on You Tube, with other good Curtis work like "The Power of Nightmares." Which doesn't even touch on the mind-numbing pharmaceuticals eaten daily by tens of millions of people in the USA...
A few months ago, I watched The Century of the Self on Google. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I read Stuart Ewen's book about Public Relations and spin. Mr. Stuart was intereviewed in the documentary. I agree with your breakdown of the 4-part documentary, and it is important for us to understand how we are completely undermined by corporations, our elected officials/government, our system of higher education and the psycologists who work for the corporations. It is a frightening story.
I also watched the documentary (3-parts) The Plan, on Google.
Yesterday, I began reading Chris Hedges' new book, The Empire of Illusion, which also includes additional research on our "popular culture." It's fascinating, but sad!
The lesson of Obama is ... charisma fails us every time. Yet time and time again, we fall for it. How many were skeptical of this man who bragged about being "a blank canvas for people to paint their hopes on."
As the canvas started to fill in we started to see less than we'd hoped for.
We have got to get over this obsession with leaders when we don't have anything for them to lead.
What we need is a movement - not more personalities.
We need a compelling message, one that thousands and then millions can relate to in its simplicity and moral strength, one that can rally people to fight for what they want. We don't need some leader to do it for us ... because they won't, or they won't be allowed to, no matter who they are.
A genuine political movement would produce the kind of momentum that's needed to push the parties out of their comfort zones of corporate patronage and into the harsh light of voter accountability. It will also develop the kind of leadership that can reach out to our diverse population and be heard.
Excellent post, thanks.
Did you know that the word canvas comes from the word cannabis, which means, made from hemp? The sails of old sailing ships were made from hemp, i.e. canvas. I'm not sure what relevance that has to your comment, but I liked what you said regardless.
Chris, it would be great to hear some of the details of just how Nader would have turned things around by now.
The first day maybe he would have whipped the House and the Senate into line, dissolved the corrupt Republican and Democratic parties, fired 6 or seven Supreme Court Judges, gone over to the Pentagon and roughed up the brass, closed Guantanamo, organized a full retreat out of Afghanistan and Iraq that left those countries in order, and without even a single U.S. casualty. The media, in awe, would deify him.
He would have then unilaterally cancelled all status of forces agreements with foreign nations, an action a terrified Congress would have immediately ratified, closing all overseas bases.
On the second day the 50% of the population that feels Obama is too far left would suddenly see they have been wrong all along and Nader was the Way. By afternoon he could have then introduced national health care, nationalized the banks, reorganized the corporations, destroyed the military industrial complex and ended the current depression. Redistribution of wealth and restructuring the educational system would followed within hours.
Lot's of the politicians would now be serving time.
Just dream of what could have been.
Or more realistically, maybe Nader would have been hog-tied, ridiculed, and shunted aside, or possibly just ignored and left sitting in the oval office unable to get anyone to return his calls.
As a Green, I thought the plan was to build a local base first, and then a national base? Has that changed?
No, firsts of all he would have asserted his role as commander and chief of the armed forces and seized the government. THEN, he would have done all the things you mention. Then he would have held congressional elections under a 'clean election' act. Then, if we were lucky, he would have eased up on his powers and let the cleaned up congress and supreme court do their jobs one of which would have been getting rid of corporate power (person-hood).
I just bet the neo-conservatives of this land would not stand a chance under such a government. In fact, they should be given every encouragement to leave, leaving their wealth behind. I wonder who would want them, with just their bull-shit and without their riches.
You think Nader would have led a military coup? Oy.
Wishful thinking. But hope springs eternal---no, that's wrong. I've given up hope. Or rather, I've come to face the fact that I don't have the courage to do what's necessary to effect change because that would destroy me. Neither does Nader, probably. Obviously Obama doesn't, if he ever had any plans to.
The Obamabots on this site are ubiquitous often using multiple sign on names, but mostly they just look foolish.
Calling your self an Obama supporter and a Green is an oxymoron.
I guess you're still smarting from the last beating I gave you — Say, you ain't one of them hand-wringing right-wing Wedgies that come around trying to fragment us and get us to quarrel among ourselves are you?
No mystery why Obama supporters are "ubiquitous"(sic)here. This is sort of a left-leaning site. CD has never supported your guys — McCain/Palin.
And many (most?)Greens support Obama. Maybe not as our first choice, but as the best choice right now.
What Green Party are you affiliated with? I know of no Greens who support Obama, at least not in Oregon.
Whenever I get insulted by the Queen of obfuscation, I know I am doing something right. Just trying to do my part to piss off the status quo clones like yourself, Obamabots, neo-conservatives, and people who characterize themselves as "green" while not knowing the first thing about the movement. I think the type of green you represent is the eco la la type. That is if you ever get time away from your computer screen.
The only way Nader would have been elected is by a movement, which would not simply have kept the identical landscape we otherwise have replacing Obama with Nader, but would have mobilized millions of people involved at multiple levels to engage our political and social and economic systems. There would be resistance, but also the equations would have been changed in multiple ways. The whole discussion about "the bailout" and about health care would be fundamentally different, and the experience of these debates by everyday citizens would be vastly different.
It's not simply a matter of assuming everything else is identical but just switch Obama for Nader...
Boo Hoo! The Democrats have fooled 'us' again. God I'm tired of it. Those who voted for Obama deserve everything they get. We who went outside the 2 party fiasco and were vilified for it don't deserve all the shit going down with the Democrats. But sorry, fools, it's too late to moan and groan and cry. Try to get through all the screwing you are going to get in the next 4 to 8 years. But I really don't want to hear about it.
To assume that all we can do is wait four years and eight years between election cycles is terribly limiting and self-defeating. Nice to know you are not one of the "fools" but what are you doing between presidential campaigns?
We can do plenty of organizing and action-taking and movement building ENTIRELY SEPARATE from any candidate, party, or campaign cycle. That's what i really want to hear about, not more blaming and finger-pointing.
"Those who voted for Obama deserve everything they get" — that's what Rush keeps telling us.
I guess that means you're not going to any townhall meetings to disrupt the disrupters.
So what are you doing? And if you don't want to hear about it, what are you doing here?
Gee, GollyG, guess I'll stop commenting and go to a town meeting and enter the fray. Is that the place where revolution starts?
Maybe I can sucker punch a few angry Medicare recipients. God knows, voting for Ralph didn't do any good.
But you are right. Commenting on CD is a joke.
One of the first and most awkward things we need to discuss is the role Common Dreams played in selling Obama to progressives. We also have to examine the role of the PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), MoveOn, etc. in taking our money and playing the programmed-for-failure-due-to-internal-contradictions "inside-outside" card at such great expense and fanfare, despite their knowledge of its historic failure and its tendency to weaken, rather than empower, movements by deliberately tethering them to the Dem ballot line regardless of who's running on it.
Beyond that, we must see the plutocracy for what it is -- non-partisan. Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for widening the scope of discussion of climate change from science labs and ideological spin tanks to the general population. On the surface that looks good. But at the same time he was out on the lecture circuit and making and promoting his movie, Gore formed a private equity firm with Bush's Bailout Secretary Hank Paulson and other Goldman Sachs execs to trade carbon credits (General Investment Management), and then publicly gave his blessing to Waxman-Markey's cap and trade even though cap and trade does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases, while doing much to profit carbon credit traders by delivering the world's largest carbon market into the cap-and-trade fold. Next broad sectors of mainstream environmentalism started lobbying for Gore/Paulson's profits instead for actual carbon dioxide and methane reductions. There is nothing new under the sun in for-profit bipartisanship. Just look at the Reagan/Bush/Clinton partners of "private equity firm" Carlyle Group and you'll see why we have a permanent state of low-level warfare and other justifications for runaway Pentagon spending regardless of which party is in power. Now that the real Gore that Nader (and a lot of us) knew in 2000 has been outed, does anyone here still blame Nader for Florida?
This, along with Stockholm syndrome-like enslavement of the majority of progressives to the Democratic Party outlined here by Hedges is why we are where we are today. In this plutocratic circus the donkeys and elephants feed from the same trough, and whether it's progressives donating, volunteering, and voting against their own beliefs, or blue-collar reactionaries donating, volunteering, and voting against their own interests, the American population keeps willingly emptying their wallets (and future generations' wallets, which we shouldn't have the right to encumber) to fill it for them.
It's nice to see Common Dreams giving more space to columns exposing and attacking this genuinely inconvenient truth. Let's encourage them to do it more -- maybe even make it the clear focus of their editorial policy.
Excellent analysis, top to bottom. Common Dreams does appear to be opening up more to separation from the Democratic Party, although wait for the next election cycle...
"One of the first and most awkward things we need to discuss is the role Common Dreams played in selling Obama to progressives." Absolutely. The single most devastating thing to me about the last election -- even more than watching my closest friends blind themselves to the magic veil of illusion Obama was hiding behind -- was the refusal of Common Dreams to run articles that were negative to Obama. I'd trusted CD for truth-telling through the worst of the Bush years, felt that it saved my life, had a number of my own essays posted on it. But apparently -- I can only guess -- the editors agreed with most of the rest of the progressive "leadership" that the good of the country/the progressive movement demanded that everyone pull together behind Obama and keep their mouths/minds shut. It broke my heart. So I have to think that there would be great danger in using CD as a gathering point for a genuinely new movement -- unless as you say, an open discussion was had about what occurred during the election season and the editors made it clear their policy now and forevermore is TRUTH AT ALL COSTS. I thought that CD knew that that is the only way to insure you're heading in the right direction. Openness, full discussion, no deals to force people in a certain direction in the name of saving them from themselves.
CD ran articles written by Nader during the election campaign last year. Whether or not they count as anti-Obama is up to you though...but I suppose it depends on how many leftist writers themselves wrote articles against Obama, doesn't it?
"the refusal of Common Dreams to run articles that were negative to Obama"
Exactly my thoughts. The "progressive" media and "leadership" has completely lost my confidence. And yes, there "would be great danger in using CD as a gathering point for a genuinely new movement". I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these 'leading progressive' media operations and organizations are infilitrated and/or corrupted by Wall Street and other corporate interests to sabotage and manage dissent.
It's clear that the Obama campaign was stage managed by the corporate media, to install a spokesman who appears to answer the public's desire for real change, reinforce the narrative of America as a land where everybody can make it and that has progressed from its racist past, all while ensuring business as usual. Look at all the money Obama received from Wall Street, the star treatment he received in the corporate media from the very beginning of his campaign, and the Wall Street insiders he's appointed to run his economic policy. Well, the "progressive media" was part and parcel of this juggernaut. They played to the hippie end of the market.
I was one who repeatedly pointed out CD's Obama bias in 2008. Lot's of articles were available revealing Obama's corporate, militarist agenda and record, but none were ever published on CD. Extremely unfortunate.
One might assume that defeating the Republicans trumped journalism ethics. But, the whole lesser-evil/strategic voting rationale (as flawed as it is) falls apart when one realizes there was another Democrat in the race who would certainly have defeated any Republican candidate.
That candidate's record and agenda were significantly to the left of Obama's. Of course I refer to Hillary Clinton. Yet CD attacked Hillary with every twisted, spin article it could find. There was a complete blackout of any positive articles about her. To this day, CD has never published an accurate assessment of her record in the Senate, which is remarkably different than the caricature of her that endures, both in corporate media and here.
I doubt CD readers will ever learn that wives may have different political views than their husbands. They will only know that every Bill Clinton failure was "the Clintons'" failure, and every Bill Clinton success was his alone.
While CD now allows negative views of Obama, the one-sided portrayal of Hillary Clinton persists.
That's not completely accurate. There was a very good article on here about Obama and the MIC last year that really threw me off Obama, and nearly convinced me to vote for Nader...unfortunately, I stuck with Obama.
One, out of hundreds?
Point taken.