EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Biggest Criminal Enterprise in History
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama a 'Socialist'? I Wish
I got an e-mail from a group called 21st Century Democrats, bemoaning the fact that a recent poll shows that 55% of likely voters said that the word "socialist" describes Obama and his policies.
The 21st Century Democrats said, "You and I know [that] is not the case."
I only wish it were!
I wish Obama had pressed for single-payer national health care.
I wish Obama had nationalized Citicorp and Bank of America, rather than bail them out.
I wish he would have favored breaking up the rest of the big banks so they couldn't destroy our economy.
I wish he would have forced any banks taking federal bailout money to freeze foreclosures for at least a year and freeze interest rates on mortgages and credit cards.
I wish Obama would have proposed redistributing income from the wealthy to those who really need it by raising the marginal income tax, and the capital gains tax, and the estate tax.
I wish Obama would have proposed a transaction tax on every stock sale so as to curb speculation.
I wish Obama would have proposed raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, as Ralph Nader has proposed.
I wish Obama would have replaced Ben Bernanke at the Fed with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
I wish Obama would have come out for democratizing the Fed, as Dennis Kucinich has recommended.
I wish Obama would have proposed a public works program to put every American who needs a job to work.
I wish Obama would have ordered every federal building to be installed with a solar panel, and almost every car in the federal fleet to be a hybrid or electric car.
I wish Obama would have proposed opening federal grocery stores in areas that are food deserts.
I wish Obama would have addressed the cruel problem of poverty in America.
I wish Obama would have proposed 12 months of paid maternity and paternity leave, mandatory paid sick leave, and federal child care.
I wish Obama would have advocated the nationalization of the armament companies, as Sen. Robert La Follette did back in 1924.
No decent socialist would have implemented policies that have left unemployment at over 9 percent and foreclosures at record heights.
No decent socialist would have let the banks get off so easily.
No decent socialist would have been caught dead praising the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase and justifying their obscene salaries the way Obama did. ("I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.")
No decent socialist would have left the health insurance industries in the driver's seat.
No decent socialist would have empowered a panel to advocate the cutting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
No decent socialist would have expanded the war in Afghanistan, a hopeless war being fought by the sons and daughters of America's working class.
So, no, Obama isn't a socialist. Not even close.
But we'd be a lot better of in this country if he were.
- Posted in
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...
128 Comments so far
Show All"will The Progressive Magazine, along with "progressive" pundits on radio, television, and the internet, "advise" us to vote once again for President Obama in 2012 knowing he is not remotely a "progressive" president?"
They probably will. But, dwelling on it isn't very constructive. Contact your local state Green party or Socialist Party, if you have one, and get to work.
I cant make any sense of what you are trying to say here.
So, are you saying that we shouldn't support the Greens or the Socialists or do the hard work of canvassing, organizing and collecting signatures to get green and socialist candidates on the ballot (as I'm doing every day after work right now)?
The article is summarized as follows:
1. Obama ISNT a socialist. The very idea is preposterous.
2. But Rothschild wishes he was.
3. And he produces an accurate list of what a socialist, or social democrat anyway, might look like.
What exactly is there to "make fun of" here???
Whew! Thanks for the summary. I thought no one would get around to saying it, amid all the bickering and nitpicking. #s 1, 2 and 3 are exactly what MR is saying, and there's nothing to argue or ridicule. Thanks!
This Right Wingnut is consistent, clinging to No's and other negatives. And confused; Ephriam, for example, can't see any difference between W and which Dickhead? There's a real student of political history.
You definitely are confused. And your meaning here is distorted. By Dickhead I meant Cheney--who else? Would a "real student of political history" make a serious distinction between George W and Cheney?
Why yes and it's real simple. Cheney was the architect and Bush was the nice puppet.
Yet another pundit missing the point entirely. The Right Wing Cons controlling the message know Obama isn't a socialist. The definition of the word is irrelevant. What they DO know is that the word "socialist" is a four-letter-word in the US. Just like "nazi" and "communist". So in true Goebels fashion they repeat it over and over...propaganda tactics as simple as it gets. And while others debate the merits of socialism, they just keep on repeating it over and over.
Come on Mr Rothschild - fight fire with fire.
The "Right Wing" know that calling President Obama a "socialist" accomplishes a win-win situation for them.
1. Those who see the word "socialist" in a derogatory manner and don't look beyond the surface will not vote for the President in the future. A win for them.
2. By defining a definitely conservative agenda (escalation of wars, supporting banks over the middle class, deficit reduction with potential cuts in "social safety net" programs, etc.) as "socialist", very conservative principles become "mainstream". Another win for them.
3. The conservatives know that if a so called "Democrat" must be the one in office, it is better for them to have a DLC corporate friendly one. So, by calling the President "socialist", they can guarantee that he will be re-elected among Democrats to continue the corporate agenda. Another win for them.
What a f@cking worthless and superficial article from Rothschild - as ususal.
All the disastrous problems we are facing and all he can do is write about a talking point of the extreme right-wing?
I must say, he does the extreme Right Wing a great service in his diversionary and superficial articles. We don't want the Plebes looking behind the curtain or realizing that Ds are the same as Rs. and that the corruption is so thick, no one can see through it.
Great Job Matt
But he IS stating that the D's are practically no different than teh R's - by explaining, wishfully, what a hytpothetical socialist Obama would look like.
Read the article again.
I didn't interpret it as a pitch for centrism at all. Rothscild was expressing dissapointment with Obama and the Democrats vis-avis the absurd "socialist" accusation, and then making a pitch for genuine socialism - or at least social democracy.
Superficially yes, but not really SaboCat. Perhaps I am too focussed on discourse, terms, concepts, frames, narratives etc. He ought not use the talking points of the extreme-right.
I admit I am particularly harsh on folks like Nichols, Rich, Rothschild etc.; however it is no secret where their loyalties and interests lie.
Perhaps you need to go back and read the articles by these folks over the last years in order to see what I am talking about. I do not criticize this article out of context.
I realize my opinion means absolutely nothing, as I am too "purist" too "theoretical"; not "pragmatic".
I guess I should just shut up and vote D, or should I vote R?
You should vote Green, or Socialist Party, USA.
Really? That's not what Rothschild, Nichols, KvdH, and many other so-called progressives urged during the last election cycle. Did you forget already?
There seems to be some inconsistency here.
I doesn't matter what they urged in the past! Will you please stop comitting the logical fallacy of discounting a proposition based on the person who uttered it!
Issac Newton was a well-known vindictive asshole, does that mean "F = ma" is not valid?
I am afraid you are the one who has conflated political views with personality.
Why are you supporting those who are anti-socialist, anti-Green?
This article is OK, but doesn't add anything that hasn't been noted in similarly-themed pieces published here, e.g. "Socialism? Not Quite, Say the Socialists" by John Nichols. The site search feature yields a list of several variations on this theme.
It's depressing, even nauseating, to think that by this time next year, the commentariat will be abuzz with 2012 presidential campaign matters. First we have the midterms, of course.
I'm curious to see whether writers like Rothschild, Nichols, and the rest of the herd of "Nation"-type liberal-lites and pwogs will revert to form, and abandon even backhanded paeans to socialism in favor of "serious", practical exhortations in support of "better" Democratic candidates as Election Day(s) draws nearer.
better meaning richer
Why does the Left Always Eat its own? What Rothschild offers is simply harmless but useful food for thought for some "less sophisticated" thinkers who read CD:those calmer folk perhaps less short-tempered and less impatient for real change than some of fellow overintellectually frustrated visionaries here who regularly,compulsively and intolerantly spew invective at authors whose "progressivism" isn't as strident and "correct" as theirs. I'm 78 and have met such fellow travelers--who are the exception--over the years, for instance, at political gatherings. Well, if thats what it takes for you to feel better about the reality of the injustice that exists within and without the American Empire, who can stop you,but what does empty ranting that at best just preaches to the choir really accomplish? Empty ranting is the pits..How does this approach differ from what the wing-nut Right does? SHOULDN'T WE KNOW BETTER; no surprise "the left" has been sliced and diced into such powerless disarray!!!
Was the article "proDemocrat"? I don't think so. Rothschild's "wish list" is hardly the Democratic platform - but it fairly resembles the Green platform.
Please read the article again.
The idea of "platforms" and "wish lists" always leads back to the Democratic party. Wish lists allow a person to "believe" one thing while advocating the opposite. There is only one way out of that box, that contradiction between "beliefs" and "reality" - "I believe in Socialism, don't get me wrong, but for practical reasons I will be voting Democratic because the alternative is so awful and a little improvement is better than none at all."
This is how the drama goes, and I have watched it repeated over and over against for over 40 years now:
1. Between elections - "I really really am a Socialist, and we really really need radical change."
2. As the election approaches - "Goldwater (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Palin whatever) is so awful that I think we need to hold our nose and vote Democratic this one time."
3. After the election - "WTF is this? This administration might as well be Republican!"
4. Go back to step one.
The author of the article is saying the things people always say at this point in the cycle.
Although I agree that this article by Matthew Rothschild is "food for thought" for those who may not have thought through President Obamas policies, I disagree with your opinion that the "left always eats its own" when it does "empty ranting" (your words). It seems to me that much of what we are experiencing now is because the "left" DIDN't do enough "ranting" for the past three decades and let the corporations and wealthy monopolize industry, thereby also taking over the media which controls the message. If the best a person does is shrug their shoulders and say they can't change the system, then they are part of the status quo problem, not the solution. If, in your opinion, the "left" shouldn't "rant", then what do you suggest?
There are times when someones "ranting" as you call it here has led me to think about alternatives I might not have previously considered. Their "ranting" is not "empty" or simply "preaching to the choir". I believe we are on the same side but have been around long enough to know that being "quiet" is not a solution.
Rant on! But, perhaps you need to do it in a higher visibility forum than this obscure corner of the internet.
Seconded.
Rant on all the right-wing forums you can so that your readers actually learn of alternative viewpoints and perhaps are moved to read any links you may provide.
Theres no ranting allowed on fluffpo. Banter...yes. Ranter...NO!!!
I like to rant. I like to bitch and whine and complain. I do. I read CD every day and love to read the comments. There are still a few people out there who have no trouble at all seeing through the corruption and vile bullshit and it's heartening to read what they have to say. All is not entirely lost!
And you sir, have provided me with quite a few chuckles over the years.
Thanks MS.
Simon,
Thank-you. Good points.
Thanks Simon, I will now vote straight D next time. It is the pragmatic thing to do after all. Voting for Greens, Socialists and the like is just not pragmatic in our two-party system. Good points.
I readdly don't see how Simon (or Rothschild, in this piece) was arguing for voting for Democrats.
I'm gathering signatures so we can have Greens on the ballot here in Pennsylvania. We only have a week-and-a half to go. Want to help?
I applaud your effort in PA; but I live in CA and I already vote non Duopoly.
Perhaps you could convince folks like Rothschild, KvdH, Nichols, and the like to do the same. If you recall, they disparage such "third party" voting as helping those bad ol Rs and taking away votes from the Ds. Remember who they urged everyone to vote for?
I thought voting non-Duopoly was not pragmatic and too purist. I don't get it.
I dont wan't to convince them, I don't like their past viewpoints either. But in this particular article, Rothschild is arguing for socialism, or at least social democracy, so I applauud it. It could have been written by Dick Cheney or Hitler and I still would have applauded it.
Can't you distinguish an idea from a person? They are two totally different things.
Like I wrote earlier, just becsue Issac Newton was a well-known vindictive asshole, doesn't invalidate the expression "F=ma".
Do you do anything besides voting?
I don't know MR, he may be a great guy, that is not the point and I never implied it was.
If you believe that Matt is advocating socialism, then just wait to see who he advocates voting for in the next election.
I will believe it when he admits and exposes the deep-seated corruption of our dysfunctional, oligarchic faux democracy.
I will believe it when I see/hear him advocating voting for non-Duopoly candidates and starts advocating for massive, ground-up, non-violent civil disobedience.
RichM,
Excellent. Well done. I always look forward to reading your replies, as they cut directly to the heart of the matter. I appreciate the fact that you take the time (clearly) to articulate the structural implications of capitalism and what Hedges says all the time, inverted totalitarianism.
Thanks.
ps. I think you might appreciate this conversation: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_and_derrick_jensen_on_totalitarianism_20100712/
Interesting comments. How can we have "genuine transformation" in a country which puts a discussion on whether Lindsay Lohan will go to prison as the big news of the day? Transformation will not take place rapidly in this country... it took the conservatives 30 years to message that unions are bad, anyone making big money in financial institutions was good, government was always bad, and ignoring the common good in favor of "individuals" within the society was better for each of us. Having said that, I am not advocating sitting back and "hoping" the Democrats and Republicans will provide a solution...they won't and can't.
We need to change the message such that people will understand why they deserve a better system. The current system is only working well for a very small group of people so there is a necessity of genuine transformation. What is discomfiting, is the possibility that genuine transformation will result not in a "leftist" solution but instead a far right solution such as dictatorship.
Fortunately, we don't need "transformation" and most of the ideas that people float for transforming the population amount to gentrifying them. I think we should leave personal transformation where it belongs - in the realm of religion, and not in the realm of politics.
The reason it took so long for the conservatives to get their message across is because they are lying and they are asking people to think and act against their own interests. Our job is not so hard, because we are telling the truth and are encouraging people to fight for their own interests.
"In most ways, socialists & liberals are more genuinely opposed to one another than liberals & conservatives..."
I have noticed this also. I would go on further to say that, from a certain perspective, socialists and sophisticated conservatives have more in common with each other than either group does with liberals, as both are grounded in reality and understand human society and economics as part of nature, while liberals often appear to engage in some sort of magical thinking. The sophisticated conservatives know as well as the socialists that capitalism does not well-serve the majority over the long term (the socialists think that is a problem, while the conservatives do not), and most members of both groups know that if the majority knew how the system actually operated a revolution, or at least a great upheaval, would follow. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in such fairy tales as "representative democracy," the abundant wisdom of the "founding fathers," the greatness of the Constitution, and the inherent "goodness" of people, among others.
This is why I believe I often find it easier to have conversations about non-trivial topics with sophisticated conservatives than with liberals.
Good insights. I agree.
Here is what I say to people now: the money handed out to Wall Street could have been used to pay every unemployed or under-employed person in the country %50,000 a year. That would resolve all of the "crisis" issues in the economy - health care, housing, employment. If they also produced something, if those who were able went to work - building infrastructure, for example - that would be gravy. Would you support a program like that, yes or no?
Most people say "yes." Run with that.
A handful say "no." They are your conservatives. You can then proceed to discuss objective reality with them, should you so choose, and skip the wasted time "debating" Limbaugh talking points or trying to "convert" the person to your "beliefs."
Liberals say "yes, BUT..." and that is where the trouble lies. The "but" is followed by all sorts of absurd arguments about practicality and being realistic and purism and working within the system and so forth.
This has nothing to do with purity. Ruthless and relentlessness social criticism is an absolutely essential ingredient for any social change, and no one should be immune merely because we think that they are "good" on the issues or have good intentions. That is a completely bourgeoisie and gentrified idea.
It is not purity we demand, it is clarity.
"Empty ranting" as you call it is our most important social duty. we need much more of it, and the calls for suppressing it are apologies for the rulers and for the existing social convention and arrangements.
More "empty ranting" is desperately needed.
The true patriot will enquire into the causes of the fears and jealousies of his countrymen; and if he finds they are not groundless, he will be far from endeavoring to allay or stifle them: On the contrary, constrain'd by the Amor Patriae, and from public views, he will by all proper means in his power foment and cherish them: He will, as far as he is able, keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances; and not suffer them to be at rest, till the causes of their just complaints are removed.
This “you are being a perfectionist” propaganda is infinitely more destructive to the Left than anything that ever comes from the right wingers, and is one of the most important bulwarks of ruling class power.
Those of us on the Left have heard for decades now sentiments such as "what will ever make you happy?" and "you are a purist" and "no one agrees with you" and "that may be what YOU want, but you need to be practical" and "OK if you reject them, who do YOU think would be the right person? What is YOUR choice then?" and "it is easy to criticize, but do you have any positive suggestions or do you just like to whine and complain?" and other similar statements.
"Not revolution, but evolution" people said when Clinton was elected, and we were harangued to see Clinton as some sort of wonderful new direction from the Reagan years. “We” got NAFTA.
On one level this assault is wrong-headed and destructive, and that is in the implied assumption that politics is a matter of personal taste - “well that is what YOU want but not very many people agree with you.” Politics is about the greatest good for the greatest number, not about “what I want.” The narcissistic belly button lint gazing is completely antithetical to working class solidarity, and is nothing more than an amusing little hobby for the pampered and spoiled and selfish latte' liberal.
Barack Obama is the enemy. Looking for a person is the problem, not the solution. Insulting, frustrating, and silencing the most perceptive among us is what is destroying the possibility of a strong Left emerging, and is the tawdry and amoral House Negro work that keeps the ruling class in place. THAT is the fucking problem, and that is a LONG way from the snide and demeaning accusations that critics of Obama and others are being a prissy little perfectionists, carping and fault finding for the sake of irritating people or being a party spoiler.
As an aside, I have been doing a fair amount of reading about social uprisings, revolts, and revolutions lately. There is one thing I know for sure - people successfully demanding social change is NOT some impossible dream. It has happened throughout history, all over the globe. It is common, it is necessary, and, as far as I am concerned IT IS TIME.
Indeed mcoyote. It is HIGH TIME for massive civil disobedience. That is crystal clear to me.
Where and how do we start? (Not what might get the most approval here, but just between you and me.)
"This “you are being a perfectionist” propaganda is infinitely more destructive to the Left than anything that ever comes from the right wingers, and is one of the most important bulwarks of ruling class power."
The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.", from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Literally translated as "The best is the enemy of good.", but is more commonly cited as "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
http://www.famous-quotes.net/Quote.aspx?The_perfect_is_the_enemy_of_the_good
Anyway, I agree that throughout history, we have examples which indicate that only when the citizens rise and speak up do we have real change. As for the "perfect is the enemy of the good" statements, whose definition of "perfect" are they referring to? Is a "perfect" system even possible? It's a ludicrous premise to even begin from and only meant to get people to shut up and go along with the status quo. As an example, health care "reform"...not only did we NOT get a perfect system, but we made the current system even worse by mandating that everyone buy PRIVATE health insurance and even having taxpayers "subsidize" those PRIVATE health insurance policies when the result will just be another transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthier (health insurance industry and their shareholders).
IMO, if Voltaire knew that this worthy aphorism would be hijacked, abused, and reduced to a mindless orthodoxy by future generations of lesser-evil moderate political dogmatists, he would've cut off his own hand before writing it down.
There seems to be a perfect system in place now for the top 1%rs.
You are not alone with your revolutionary sentiments. Many people are fed up and there is discontent on all sides, right, left, and middle. But that's as far as it goes, grumbling and complaining, combined with complacency and a sense that the problems are just too big and too overwhelming. Immobility resulting from fear along with culturally induced laziness ("what can I do, I'm just one person") is the way it is, for now. Things just aren't bad enough, yet. The thieving elite class has won this round.
Leadership is what is lacking. Potential leaders are all co-opted into being apologists for the ruling class. The complacency. laziness, and fear is among the intellectuals, liberals and progressives and even self-described socialists, not the general public.
Things are plenty bad enough if you get out of the circles that the upper 10% travel in - suburbia, academia, and middle management and the professional careers.
The thieving class is not the problem, rather it is the intellectuals and activists on the so-called Left that are the problem.
What? Simply because 45,000 people are murdered every single year by the health insurance corporations, you think IT IS TIME for social change?
What? Simply because our government spends billion$ to send poor and working class kids to senseless wars for empire while the poor and working class kids in our own communities are hungry, homeless and illiterate, you think T IS TIME??
What? Simply because the earth ecosystem is at the precipice of irreversible disaster and our government does NOTHING, you think IT IS TIME???
IT IS TIME to get to work.
To organize.
To defend socialism and explain to our neighbors what it is.
To come to a concensus among ourselves as to what it is.
And then, when we have completed that hard work, and the troops are there to take our place after the empire clamps down and a few of us go down, then IT IS TIME.
I appreciate the sentiment, and the passion s well, I'm right there with you. But we haven't done our homework yet. We need to rally all the troops that are with us but don't know it yet.
Sabocat, I admire your patience and endurance. Thank you. I'm not against ranting, but don't we have to gain the courage to rant where it can help our cause the most.This venue is "home base".I would never dream of challenging a fellow poster just because I don't totally agree with them on some point. Our "opponents"-- except for an occasional stealthy and clever troll--exist not on this website.Are'nt Time and mental acuity precious commodities?I BELIEVE IN CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. I did ask above why the left eats its own, but I did'nt say we ALWAYS do it;but it happens too often!
Obama will be the last candidate by whom I was totally fooled! I've Vowed to my offspring never to again vote Presidential Democratic Party unless Nader, Feingold,McKinney,Belafonte,Waters,Lee,Sanders,Kucinich, etc, is the candidate---totally unlikely; the idea of a socialist candidate is an inspired idea!Eugene V Debs won millions of votes in 1912.
Best that he/he does have some name recognition, with the Internet leading the way, backed by media mavericks elsewhere.
Here's my fantasy. To add muscle to the Green Party,
I would hope more Progressives and "Liberals" reject Lesser of Two Evils voting by 2012 once and for all and join all those newly minted Independents going Green Party.
Perhaps, a chunk of tne million homeowners under foreclosure a year will discover Green, a huge chunk of the multimillions of unemployed,.. and the tens of thousands of middle class investors screwed out of their saving by corporations like Enron, World com, etc,will, too. The Greens need to then catch the attention of all the rational thinkers who are sensitive to the futility of never ending imperial Wars against Terrorism concocted by the Industrial-Military-Congressional-Media Complex.
This fantasy could COME TRUE if the creative tactics for media attention practised by activist groups like Code Pink were greatly enlarged nonviolently forcing the mainstream media to pay attention.
Seeking out some military Smedley Butler types who can think outside the box, like Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's aide, would be more than a plus.The Green Party needs the Progressive religous community, decent social workers, teachers, the best worker's unions,pro-immigrant's rights Latinos, etc.
Like a earlier poster said, getting on the ballot won't be easy, but it has to be done. Not "winning does't matter, what matters is the numbers posted, FORCING the two-headed duopoly to take notice. No better time exists than NOW! Am I gonna get a lot of creative naysayers telling me to cut down on my space cadet boozing? I'll drink to that!
Nice post. A few ideas for your consideration, if I may.
- E. V. Debs winning 5% of the vote had a big impact and put the major parties on notice. A "third party" candidate does not have to win to have an impact.
- The Green Party is thoroughly gentrified and upper class. The way to quickly add muscle to it is to get out and canvass blue collar, poor and minority neighborhoods. I have proposed this at Green Party meetings and gotten blank stares. Nevertheless, I am right about that and if more of us were saying it the message might sink in, unless the core membership there is ultimately and irrevocably committed to being a mutual admiration society of the beautiful upscale people. I fear that is the case. The challenge is not to get working class people to pay attention to the Greens, but rather to get the Greens to pay attention to working class people.
- Seeking media attention is a fool's errand and will never work. Why would we want the enemy to speak for us? We should never be begging, pleading or groveling and that is what "speaking truth to power" and seeking media attention amount to. Sales and marketing are not neutral tools, and no matter what the "product" or "brand" being "sold," the rulers will always win that game. As a brand or a product or a belief system that people are sold on or converted to, socialism will always lose before the battle even begins. Those are the enemy's tools that can only produce the results the rulers want. People who are lying need to resort to that marketing crap. We don't. We can tell the truth.
- The problem is not so much that we can't get our message out there, but rather that our message sucks. It is weak, timid, gentrified and compromised.