Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Right-Wing Republicans vs. Corporate Democrats vs. Progressive Populists
Ever since early last year, the Obama administration has chipped away at the Democratic Party's base -- undermining its capacity to mobilize for the midterm election -- while sometimes courting Republican leaders to the point of absurdity. Consider this news account from the New York Times a few days ago: "Though liberal and labor groups have been agitating for public works spending, Mr. Obama and his advisers are emphasizing business tax cuts in hopes of drawing Republican support -- or, failing that, to show that Republicans are so determined to thwart Mr. Obama that they will oppose even ideas that they and most business groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, advocate."
Huh?
Or consider the Washington Post report Thursday on "Obama's proposal for $180 billion in fresh infrastructure spending and business tax breaks." The newspaper explained that "his plan would make permanent a corporate tax credit for research and allow companies to deduct from their taxes this year and next the entire cost of whatever they spend in new investments -- ideas pulled directly from GOP playbooks."
Progressives need to fight back -- today, tomorrow and every day. The electoral struggle is just one part of what's needed to build effective social movements, but it's an important part. And that effort should include primary battles to elect real progressives to Congress.
One such election is coming up Tuesday in Rhode Island, where progressive populist David Segal is running against corporate Democratic insiders to fill the seat of retiring Congressman Patrick Kennedy. For many years, Segal has been organizing to challenge banks and other corporate behemoths on behalf of working people and the poor. Although he's been in the state legislature for four years and on the Providence City Council before that, Segal isn't a politician nearly so much as a committed activist whose work has won him wide support from labor unions and many other progressive organizations in the current campaign.
"It's a slap in the face to American workers that our current trade agreements give corporations incentives to lay off U.S. workers and move jobs abroad where they can pay their workers sub-poverty wages and wreak havoc on the environment," David Segal said on Labor Day. "These job losses aren't an accident or the result of a force of nature: they are the direct result of the obscene power that corporations wield over our government. Corporations and the extremely wealthy spend tens of millions of dollars each year to ensure that our trade agreements guarantee their profits, even if it's at the expense of millions of our working families."
Of course Segal is being heavily outspent by the corporate opposition. He's a distinct underdog, but -- whatever the Sept. 14 election results -- the work behind his campaign is an inspiring model for grassroots, volunteer-driven approaches to fighting for electoral power.
More broadly, progressive populism is essential in the quest for economic and social justice -- a vast worldview away from the "populism" flaunted by Tea Bag boosters and the like.
"It's necessary to restate the solid principles of populism and reassert its true spirit, because both are now being severely perverted by corporate manipulators and a careless media establishment," Jim Hightower wrote early this summer. "To these debasers of the language, any politicos or pundits who tap into any level of popular anger (toward Barack Obama, liberals, the IRS, poor people, unions, gays, immigrants, Hollywood, community organizers, environmentalists et al.) get a peel-off ‘populist' label slapped onto their lapels -- even when their populist pose is funded by and operates as a front for one or another corporate interest. That's not populism, it's rank hucksterism -- disguising plutocrats as champions of the people."
Hightower's assessment is true today, and it will be true the morning after Election Day: "Now is the time for progressives to reassert their populist beliefs and bona fides, for we're living in a teachable moment in which it's possible to reach most Americans with an aggressive and positive approach to achieving a higher level of economic and political democracy."
There's a viable -- and essential -- alternative to right-wing Republicans and corporate Democrats. Real progressive populism is grounded in humane values, solidarity, caring and organizing. We can put up a fight. And we can win.
- 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...
172 Comments so far
Show Allin reply to turbulo, 11:48:
You're right: our policy in 2004 was a bad mistake - one that I supported at the time, unfortunately. However, we did not run Cobb "only in those states where a Democratic majority was already assured"; we ran him wherever we could. We just didn't try terribly hard. Nor did we "decline to nominate Nader:" he refused to seek our nomination; we declined to "endorse" him, which would have been suicide in some states. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, nor why Nader chose to run as an independent, which is very difficult.
At least in Oregon, where I operate, we are in fact recovering: our registrations are steadily increasing, after years of decline. When we run a state-wide candidate, we get between 2 and 3 times more votes than we have registrations, even with no campaign. Our fundraising, such as it is, recovered quickly from the huge hit after the financial collapse. And (knock wood) we've kept in-fighting to a minimum for years now. It's no surprise we're doing well: right-wing Democratic presidents are always good for the Green Party. We'd be in trouble if they ran someone good - but I'm not worried about that at all.
Is the Green Party far less than it needs to be? Damn right. As I said in response to Ephraim, we're only as good as the people that join and work to build the party. If you want to support our values (the website: www.gp.org), or just have a genuinely progressive alternative on the ballot, stop making excuses and start helping.
Good luck Charles in building that Green Party. Your comment too did not deserve to be flagged btw.
Flagged? This is becoming absurd.
Why is this flagged?
Question, charlesthegreen: doesn't this comment - "We'd be in trouble if they ran someone good" - strongly suggest that the success of the Green party has taken precedence for you over advancing the interests of the working class? No doubt a strong left wing pro-Labor movement would be bad for Green recruitment, as well. Why would people join the Greens if the real deal were available? Why would people want to "support our values" when they could spend their time engaged in the struggle actually changing political and social conditions?
Would I mind if the Democrats (genuinely) adopted Green Party values, making us superfluous? I would count it a great victory. but if I thought there was the slightest possibility of that, I wouldn't be putting all this work into 3rd party organizing.
Historically, reforms have often started with 3rd parties, only to be co-opted by a major party, thereby extinguishing the minor one. It's revealing that nothing like that is happening. The Dems could put us mostly out of business with a few steps to the left, and pick up a lot of votes, too. Issue polls show that the support is there. Apparently their corporate loot is much more important to them.
Thanks for considering my questions.
Historically, reforms have never started with 3rd parties, and social and political change has never been initiated through partisan electoral politics. Never.
Social and political change was always initiated and caused by radical and militant organizations and actions entirely outside of partisan electoral politics. Always.
This is not a theory or a suggestion or a sales pitch, this is historical fact - the true history of the country, which is whitewashed out of the grand American narrative everyone spouts, the history of the wealthy and powerful rather than the history of the working class people. Political parties and politicians are - at best - a pale reflection of what is happening politically in the country, and even that is extremely rare.
Change can never come through gentrified notions of working within parties, supporting politicians, or voting this way or that, let alone by spending all of our time advocating those things. That has always been and always will be reactionary, a barrier and an obstacle to change.
"Historically, reforms have never started with 3rd parties, and social and political change has never been initiated through partisan electoral politics."
No, but they have been furthered and fulfilled by them and in their absence those "reforms" seldom get very far.
"This is not a theory or a suggestion or a sales pitch, this is historical fact - the true history of the country,"
You and i have been debating this all over the place, and you still haven't verified your "historical" facts. When you bring up your "examples" and i respond, you run away. Why don't you try them here where there are a few more, like me, that do believe in voting! Let's see what happens!
"Change can never come through gentrified notions of working within parties, supporting politicians, or voting this way or that, let alone by spending all of our time advocating those things. That has always been and always will be reactionary, a barrier and an obstacle to change."
Gentrified notions - well how about some "ungentrified" notions? And nobody who advocates "voting" spends all their time doing it, that is a "canard" fostered by those who want folks to disavow the process. Speaking about all the time spent in getting people to vote, how about all the time spent in getting people not to? That "reactionary barrier and obstacle", voting, just happens to be something that many people in many countries over long periods of history (that source you would invoke) have fought, shed blood and died for - and you toss it away with such abandon .....
Thank you, Charles!
I've been debating TA all over this site on this issue and it's good to have someone else make these points.
"It's revealing that nothing like that is happening. The Dems could put us mostly out of business with a few steps to the left, and pick up a lot of votes, too. Issue polls show that the support is there. Apparently their corporate loot is much more important to them."
it hasn't been happening, IMO, because, between success of the efforts of the duopoly, via the "can't win" (wasted vote) and "spoiler" labels they paste on 3rd party/indys, in getting people to not choose them and the success of the "don't vote at all" folks of various stripes, of which some appear here, 3rd parties have not "polled" in the last few decades well enough to force the Dems, especially, to the point where they need to co-opt them. They either ignore them, or, if it looks like they won't go away, pull out the "can't win" stamp, which works all too well, or, if folks persist, pull the "guilt" card with the "spoiler" label. What happened to Nader is a classic illustration of this modus operandi. Why endanger your corporate funding by adopting progressive platforms or actually enacting progressive legislation when you can simply snuff your left wing challengers by convincing folks they "can't win"
I don't think the left is paying enough attention to the power of these labels in stymying their movement. Ask all those folks who agree with you on the issues but won't vote your party "why not?" and see what answers you get. Then perhaps you will understand why it is so important to combat these labels by pointing out whose ends the plastering of these labels on a candidate serve ...
"No doubt a strong left wing pro-Labor movement would be bad for Green recruitment, as well."
Depends, on whether that movement wished to be involved in the "partisan political electoral process" you so often decry. If they didn't, it wouldn't affect Green recruitment at all, unless that movement made a policy of being "non-political", i.e., "don't vote". If it did wish to be so involved, then it could join the Greens as it's political expression, helping to shape and fill out it's "agenda" or start a party of it's own - either way, it would be engaging in that "partisan political process". So, TA, do you want your "strong left wing pro-Labor movement" to be involved in that process, or not? And, if not, what is your preferred mode of activity outside of that process?
False analysis. Sorry.
The 2004 Green strategy had nothing to do with "succumbing to Democratic pressure" but rather was intent in trying to further build a party at a time when most sentiment happened to be "anti-Bush" -- the "lesser of 2 evils" fallacy.
Michael Moore in 2000 at Madison Sq. Garden famously remarked at the Nader Rally: "The lesser of two evils is still evil." Examine why someone like him could so quickly become the polar opposite and trash his own words, and THEN you will begin to understand the incredible depth and breadth of the brainwashing of good folks, specifically THROUGH the Democratic Party corporate agenda, buying into becoming a support system for Enablers (DLC-corporate Dems), even if they are not the enablers themselves (lefty, progressive, decent, or nostalgic Dems).
Where is progressive energy better spent, influencing the Democratic party, or creating a new party (or new partIES) from scratch?
That's the question...
Or to phrase it differently, which is more structurally entrenched, the corporate wing within the Democratic party, or the two-party system within the republic?
These are the big questions that confuse me. How do I get a better insight into such things?
Instinctually I am with David Cobb, who I believe is the person who pronounced the Democratic party to be the burial site for progressive ideas. That's empirically true; that much is not up for debate. But is it structurally inevitable?
The two-party structure, that's another nut that's hard to crack. How about making common cause with conservatives, right-wingers, and whoever deplores the two-party structure, and getting instant runoff voting (IRV) in place everywhere in the country. IRV is not a left vs. right issue; in theory we should be able to advance this idea among people with all types of political persuasions. Is that the best opening? If not, then what is?
I'd favor IRV too, but I'd also favor a parliamentary system where we wouldn't have a winner-take-all result from every election. Since major elections are predictably rigged every time now (since the 2000 and 2004 disgrace, when Dems fully capitulated to Repug vote rigging), there's no way to expect progressives to win at the ballot box under any circumstance. The fascist interests will resort to chicanery and violence any time their agenda seems in the least imperiled. Karl Rove hasn't disappeared.
So really, expecting anything from this corrupt electoral process (a first step would be abolishing the electoral college) is naive at best and self-defeating in the long run. If voting changed anything it would be illegal, as Emma Goldman said. Progressives can't just run candidates on the Dem ticket and expect a damn thing. And the Duopoly has successfully smothered third party efforts to even get on the ballot in most states, at least in swing states. As the other commenter just said, the Greens focused only on getting Cobb on the ballot in states where the Dems were sure to win, announcing that they're only about symbolism. They aren't a serious party, they're just always testing the waters, then backing away as soon as it looks like the Dems chances might be threatened. It's like expecting something effective from MoveOn.
With so many pissed off progressives today, I have no idea why something serious isn't happening. But as for making common cause with rightwingers, I think that's out of the question. Some of them might favor IRV, but that would be the end of it. How can you form a coalition with people who believe the exact opposite of what you believe, and would as soon shoot you as talk to you?
Once again: it's false that "the Greens focused only on getting Cobb on the ballot in states where the Dems were sure to win," We ran him wherever we could. It's true that we didn't try very hard: the purpose was to get rid of Bush, because, like most on the Left, we were scared senseless. Kerry foiled us by throwing the election. It was a big mistake, one we'll never make again.
I can tell you exactly why "something serious isn't happening": because so many so-called progressives insist on sticking with the Democratic Party, like Solomon. If you read his last paragraph carefully, you'll see what the problem is: the harder they work, the more committed they are to a now extremely right-wing party.
I really doubt that even Solomon, with apparently no gag reflex at all, will be able to stand it much longer. Won't we all be surprised when we see a passionate declaration that he's been wrong for years, and it's back to the Green Party after all! Or maybe I overestimate him.
Since viable third parties are an impossibility in the U.S., all progressives can really do is act as a rogue element within the two-party system, voting Democratic or Republican depending on the candidate. If they were to stick with that strategy over time, one party or the other would almost certainly start offering them something in return for their votes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of progressives refuse to leverage the Democrats, which means the left in this country will likely continue to have no real political influence.
What's annoying is that progressives *know* they are sabotaging their causes by blindly supporting the Democrats, and yet most continue to vote Democratic anyway. This leads me to believe that most progressives in this country really aren't all that progressive. Maybe that isn't surprising though, since most Americans who consider themselves progressive are members of the upper class, and probably aren't all that committed to left-wing economics.
Isn't that a counsel of despair?
It simply isn't true that "viable third parties are an impossibility in the U.S". Mexico has essentially the same system, and 3 major parties. Canada and Britain also use plurality voting; both have 3 major parties.
The biggest obstacle is people who believe as you do. The 2nd biggest is pundits like Norm Solomon, who keep telling us to commit our energies to the black hole that is the Democratic Party.
If the progressive energy that went into electing Obama had gone into a progressive party, we'd have 3 major parties, too, instead of just one: the Corporate Party.
Your first paragraph explains the second. It isn't true that "most Americans who consider themselves progressive are members of the upper class," or we'd have a lot more money and power than we do. It IS true that a lot of them are really just Democrats trying to lure us into a trap, like Solomon.
Exactly, Charles!
You point out: "Canada and Britain also use plurality voting; both have 3 major parties." Greens in Australia now hold the decisive position between the traditional voting blocks. You have to start somewhere, and building "3rd" parties is not antithetical to other forms of resistance, in fact the process greatly helps inform and energize larger numbers of people.
If building the Green Party seems like "pie in the sky" to some folks, well, so is the "progressive takeover of the Democratic Party from within" -- they've been dreaming about THAT for over 40 years -- with NO evidence of success. To the contrary, in fact: the "progressive" Caucus is paralyzed, impeachment was "off the table", "health" insurance companies have been legitimized rather than being denounced, torture goes on, as do the wars, rightwing nutcases monopolize the media, etc. ...
We're closer than ever to outright fascism, in large part thanks to the Dems whose agenda apparently is to obfuscate and hide reality from its constituents, never talking about what is really going on, leaving those truly concerned citizens without a healthy agenda of resistance, organization and positive visions.
Pie-in-the-sky for pie-in-the-sky, at least the Green Pie is healthy, tasty, nutritious, organic, and sustainable -- and leaves you stronger and better off AFTER eating than you were before. THAT at least moves you in the proper direction.
I don't understand why people insist on thinking only within the confines of partisan electoral politics, and then complain about being confined. Very strange.
The critcisms of the Green Party are fair enough but it exists today. Its primary handicap is far too few members. If everyone on the left that acknowleges that the Democratic party is not going to be a vehicle for progressive change - including progressive Democratic politicians - moved to the Green Party, a lot of the problems mentioned here would get solved ASAP.
"Everyone on the left that acknowledges that the Democratic party is not going to be a vehicle for progressive change" would amount to at the very most 10% of the population. If we all "moved to the Green party" that would be the most effective way possible to render us all completely irrelevant and impotent.
What does "move to the Green party" mean? It does not mean vote Green party. If we all voted Green party that could be somewhat constructive. But what "moving" really means is moving our minds, moving the focus of our attention, and then spending all of our time talking about and advocating that people vote Green party, and presenting voting for the Green party as a powerful activity, as a solution to the political problems. That idea then drives all other ideas from the discussion, as "vote Green party" becomes the answer to all questions - "war in Iraq? Vote Green party! Disaster in the Gulf? Vote Green party! Corruption in government? Vote Green party!" which means that all of our advocacy then becomes merely sales and marketing for a team in the partisan political process. Nothing could be weaker and less effective.
Why is it that the Green party will always only present 10% of the population? One reason is that politics is always driven by small factions competing for the attention of the public. Those driving the two major parties are only small factions, no bigger - probably smaller - than we are. But you can never build a movement that consists of only the people from the small faction. Yet this is what the Greens always try to do - "if only more people thought like us." There will never be a majority of people in the country who "think like us."
A couple of personal anecdotes illustrate the problem with the Greens. I have sat in on meetings where the topic of the discussion was growing the Green party, with many ideas tossed around. I then suggest that we canvass the poor neighborhoods, the blue collar neighborhoods, the minority neighborhoods. That is met with silence and blank stares. In a movement of "people like us" the notion of reaching out to people not like us is completely foreign.
Another time I mentioned that the Green party was a movement for upscale, educated professional people. A member from the Palo Alto area said "in my area that is what most of the population is - upscale, educated professional people, so of course that is reflected in the local membership."
I responded that I was familiar with the area, and that I could assure him that someone was cleaning the offices, someone was waiting table, someone was cleaning the streets, someone was climbing the utility poles, someone was scrubbing the toilets, mopping the floors, mowing the lawns, repairing the cars, driving cab, working the warehouse, stocking the shelves, hauling the trash, wiring the buildings, laying the brick, pouring the concrete, washing the windows, carrying the mail, making deliveries, and performing hundreds of other vital jobs.
All of those people, whom he encountered everyday, may as well have been invisible. That is the problem with the Green party.
"If we all voted Green party that could be somewhat constructive."
Thanks.
Once again: the party is only as good as the people in it. I'm glad you were in those meetings, even if people didn't "get it" right away.
One quibble: it's generally important to organize people where they LIVE, rather than work, both because they have time to listen to you and because that's where they vote. So your first advice was better than your second.
What you describe is called "canvassing," and it's essential but extremely labor intensive. Did you offer to lead a team to do it? That's a key principle in any volunteer group: you suggest it, you do it.
I was at the founding meetings. People didn't "get it" right away? It has been a long wait, with no sign that anyone is about to get it. The people in the Green party are good, but they are in the Green party to escape politics. Can't blame them for that, but still...
On the farm and in the plant work is where politics are discussed, and work is where we need to organize people because that is where they are shackled. Sell them insurance plans at home when they can put their feet up and hear the sales pitch. Politics is not about sales pitches and marketing plans, it is about life.
Lead a team to canvas? What team? I go out year after year and do it myself. I tell the other activists that the best favor they can do to help my group succeed is to stay away with their gentrified pablum and partisan nonsense. Canvassing is not "labor intensive" it is talking politics, and we should all be doing that all the time everyday and everywhere. After all, we are all living politics whether we want to or not. It is our lives that this is about. There isn't anything to do other than canvass - if you have any interest in politics at all, and as I said I don't think Greens are interested in politics. They are interested in making a beautiful stuffed and mounted specimen of politics and then getting together to admire it and each other.
In reply to Ephraim, 11:20:
Didn't turbulo already explain those problems?
You are describing the problems that come with being underfunded and understaffed. Greens have very little money, precisely because we're anti-corporate. That means we're virtually all volunteers, and only as good as those who show up and do the work. If you don't like the results, you should show up and help. Who the F do you think those anonymous Greens ARE?
Your criticism is a self-fulfilling prophecy, little better than a cheap excuse:
"They need help, so that's my excuse for not helping."
Huh?
I guess if I say anything at all inconsistent with someone's passions, I'll get flagged. Tell you what: I flag myself. I hereby flag this comment. But Charles, I don't know why you've interpreted my comments as if I'm saying "They need help, so that's my excuse for not helping." Your words, not mine. I've merely made some observations, I haven't delivered any prophecies.
But guess what? There are no places to "show up and help" the Greens anywhere near where I live. I'd have to drive about 300 miles. The Greens presence on the American political landscape is little more than an abstraction for most of us. I know they're underfunded, and will remain so, because the whole rotten affair is ONLY about MONEY. Corporations buy politicians the way the rest of us buy a used car. The SCOTUS decision this year only exacerbated an already plutocratic, kleptocratic system, in which those of us without millions to throw at politicians have literally nothing to do with anything.
That's why I've said we cannot hope to win at the ballot box. We aren't going to be ALLOWED to win, because THEY will rig every last election, partly by making it impossible for third parties to even get on ballots. Any progressive strategy that might work can't focus on elections. I don't know what that strategy is, but it should include working to discredit both parties as nothing more than lackeys to corporate power.
Consider this post flagged.
Another excellent comment that had no reason to be flagged ! What's with those flaggers?
Darn Ephraim, you are in such good company getting flagged today, the rest of us are getting envious.
This is getting absurd.
Nicely stated. The Progressive Cacaus capitulated when it came to trashing plans for a Public Option and gave us instead a full blown For Profit Health Model with mandates that will perpetuate a bad system; of course, there are no mandates against the greedy Health industry from increasing the rates once everyone is required to pay for it by legislative fiat. Solomon is like the little boy who cried wolf. After a while, the shout loses its credibility.
Ephraim,
Well stated.
Chelsea
Progressives will remain in the background of congressional politics until they do what needs to be done: BREAK AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Progressives are still trying to fight both the democrats and the republicans while still being labeled democrats themselves. Without a straight forward distinction between progressive policies from "moderate" democrats the public will continue to lump them with democrats.
If norman is not willing to do this, he should step aside and let the youth of the Progressive movement take the leadership decidedly in a direction that recognizes what only progressives already know, that the Democratic Party is not the Progressive Party and therefore has no interest in advancing progressive policies.
Wake up!!
Who was the poster ho said we must look at successful tactics and then use them.
Is not the fact that something is "NEW" always used to promote it? Perhaps
A New Progressive Party
Norman, take off your tie and get out of the box. There is only one political party in America. And that party is beholding to corporate America for its existence. The political whores in D. C. can label themselves whatever they want. Just like the media whores who they collaborate with.
In the past American politicians used the American middle-class to build the country. And it did. Now the politician is telling the American middle-class to build an empire. Norman, why don't you ever mention class war?
Hoa binh
It appears to be a class war. The Repubs and Dems are branches of the capitalist party. Glen Ford brings up the idea of a Progressive party. It seems it would only fracture the capitalist party.
Of course it's class war. The middle-class is no longer necessary. The elite will keep their doctors and lawyers and their military but the average Joe can kiss it good-bye. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together by a political party.
Hoa binh
I would suggest to you that the Middle Class is indeed fighting back and from the looks of the primaries, they are winning more than they are losing.
A Sea Change election is in the works I'd say. And its not just the economy driving it.
The real middle class doesn't exist. The only "middle class" that exists is an illusion. If you really expect a "Republican sea change" to revive the middle class, then you haven't learned the lessons of the 70s and 80s when the real middle class was undergoing systematic economic slaughtering while a fake one was taking its place. The "middle class" is really the sidekick class for the ruling class these days.
There is no republican anything. That is not what is going on. (in my opinion) The middle class no longer side with either party in the main.
And I disagree, there is most certainly a large middle class left, even after the assault of the 80's and 90's. It is that middle class that is preparing to kick the democrats ass's into the next decade. It is that middle class that is giving the republican establishment fits right now.
If not the middle class, who? The 3-4% of folks that are progressives? The 23-27% that are liberals? I don't think so. But we will know after this election for sure.
I don't see the Republicans or Democrats having any fear of the "middle class" even as we speak but that's just me looking at the policies. Each election, one of the two parties out of power will give plenty of sympathy talk to butter up the "middle class", the "middle class" falls for it, and the usual happens. The middle class should be getting behind a third party that actually sides with them but forget that I suppose. I guess it'll take more than elections to wake them up and find out that the "middle class" today would have been yesterday's lower class.
I think the democrats are greatly in fear of the Middle Class at this point. Third parties are far to specific (I think) to attract any widespread support unless they focus on the broad disatisfaction of a great majority.
If I'm right, we'll know in November, not by which side wins (the democrasts are going to lose bigger than even predictied), but by who won the seats.
I would say the imperialists are destroying the middle class ( or all except the greediest 2%) in favor of a global Multinational Corporate Hegemony.
Jlohman writes..."Who really knows whether the extreme left or right is the best?"
The proof is in the pudding. Just look north to Canada or across the Atlantic at Western Europe and it is quite obvious that there is less poverty, longer life expectancy, less bankruptcies, less insecurity and higher literacy simply because a right wing agenda was dismissed a long time ago.
"Right wing" in it's most basic form is anti social as it advocates no taxpayer funds directed towards anything except the military and law enforcement. Of course the right wing in America has added another element, public taxes from the working and middle classes used to fund corporate agendas, while starving any and all public programs.
The Left wing on the other hand recognizes the social aspects of a community; namely that people need to rely on one another. As social creatures we require a collective response that benefits everyone (or close to it!) and therefore is the most logical approach to solving collective problems.
In Canada and Western Europe though, the progressive populists still have a constant battle against the forces of corporatism and as such are still struggling to keep the dogs at bay. Corporatism, which by definition exists solely for the purpose of profits, is devoid of empathy or compassion. The result is that slavery is the ultimate goal of this ideology as evidenced by the need to always seek out a cheaper labor force to reduce their expenses and increase their bottom line. Corporatism thereby has high-jacked the right wing ideology simply because it undermines the public interest more than any other ideology.
Unless you're filthy rich or very naive (such as the Libertarian who believes that if you just leave everything alone, it will all work out), the right wing ideology will always harm the majority.
I hope David Segal wins in Rhode Island because he appears to be one of the few politicians who hasn't been bought and paid for by corporate America. If he loses to either a Democrat or a Republican, it will be a victory for 'right wing ideology' and a set back for the general public.
'"Right wing" in it's most basic form is anti social as it advocates no taxpayer funds directed towards anything except the military and law enforcement.'
There's a whole range of implementation of socialism. You can have the government tax/spend like the US government does with Medicare and the Veterans Administration. The VA is on par with the most efficient systems around, such as in Western Europe.
At the other end of the spectrum is grass-roots socialism, where the system is administered by the people themselves. Socialism is already in wide practice in private homes, in schools and in organizations. Also in some workplaces. Cooperation is another name for it, and it's more prevalent where population is more sparse.
Definitely view socialism as a public expansion of the cooperative spirit that gets people over obstacles with each other's company and shared ideas.
And view capitalism as the master/slave relationship. Try these views and see if they don't resonate with reality.
"It's a slap in the face to American workers that our current trade agreements give corporations incentives to lay off U.S. workers and move jobs abroad where they can pay their workers sub-poverty wages and wreak havoc on the environment," David Segal said on Labor Day. "These job losses aren't an accident or the result of a force of nature: they are the direct result of the obscene power that corporations wield over our government. Corporations and the extremely wealthy spend tens of millions of dollars each year to ensure that our trade agreements guarantee their profits, even if it's at the expense of millions of our working families."
Here is something so obvious, it needs no commenting upon, except to ask: "What's the Matter With Kansas?"
MS, that is a great book except that until the end, the failure of the Democratic Party to be its populist self isn't emphasized. Even when it is, governing as populists gets no discussion.
By the way, who flagged his comment and explain the reason please !
Whats going on here. This is the second flagging in as many days of a perfectly good posts by some little twit. I completely agreed with him, how come I didn't get flagged.
The procedure for flagging needs to be changed. First, restrict the flagging to only users logged in. Second, the user and the reason the comment was flagged needs to be displayed publicly. Third, send a confirmation email asking that user to confirm flagging the comment or it automatically goes unflagged.
NS is right, we can't count on the 2(one,really)major parties, we must build a 3rd party! I'm going to start by posting a long, involved essay here on CD where a half dozen agoraphobics with computers can comment on it endlessly. We can parse out each individual nuance until we bore the paint off the walls. That'll scare the plutocrats! You people ought to get a hobby. Do something that gets results, that exists outside your head. The only thing this country's rulers are afraid of is if we ORGANIZED. 5 times I posted my email address here trying to develop a local group to run a slate of candidates. The 2(!) replies, while appreciated, were not even from this state. I guess no one who reads CD lives in Los Angeles (a small town in south California). The future isn't written yet, but won't be by people who DO NOTHING.
I wanted to do somethin too... so I got out of LA.
Seriously, aren't there any folk clubs left out there?
love folk
Thanks for the reply, Jim, but LOOK at the swill gushing out on this page. A fabulous (in its original sense, like a fable) tidal wave of analysis that is totally arid, useless. "What should we call the party", "need WE change our MINDS before real change comes"... no one cares. You're a debating society, and debating societies don't change anything. Your precious insights are wasting your life. Turn off your computer, go outside and enjoy (what's left of) nature. If you're to be irrelevant, at least lose the sense of urgency. Revel in your (self-imposed) impotence!
Like I usually tell the "get off your ass and do something folks",
"What you write is more important than you think"
I enjoy nature and Common Dreams too.
Ps. Yes, this comment does fit here, because this is where this lunacy is leading.
Capitalism is a Ponzi Scheme, and Ponzi Schemes are illegal. Go figure.
Last night, I watched a documentary on a DVD from Netflix:
WAR OF THE CENTURY, 1999, BBC
This is a must-see * * * * * documentary for all you C.D. people! In my opinion, this is far and away the best ‘war movie’ I have ever seen.
If you would like an uncensored look at WWII on the Western Front; it presents an illuminating look at the two leading psychopaths at work – Hitler vs. Stalin.
There is hardly an American in sight (Eisenhower briefly), but present-day America is omnipresent, including the influence of a major player, Herr Koch (he must be their ancestor).
The most chilling thing about this work (as if the events are not chilling enough) is to see that the mindset that set this madness in motion is totally represented in the United States today!
History will repeat itself (and with nukes), if we do not stop them. I don’t see how we can – refer to ‘mindset’ in the previous paragraph.
If you are a ‘Bleeding Heart Liberal’, be sure to take a fistful of valium before watching this masterpiece. It is a 4-part gem, lasting more than 3 hours. If you are like me, you will not be able to avert your eyes and ears until the end credits.
I would hope that one of our article-writing maestros will write about this. Hint, hint, Mr. Solomon.
I would be interesting in the take from you C.D. observers.
Nothing will change as long as people like Norman Solomon keep making excuses for the democrats. Here we have Mr. Solomon appearing to be critical, but, in reality, clinging to the notion that the republicans are the "right wing" and the democrats are merely "corporate".
FACT:
The right wing militant, avaricious, police state monstrosity has become larger and more oppressive under the control of the democrats.
Mr. Solomon is still giving preferential treatment to the democrats. Yes, he does call for support of progressives, but without an appropriate and accurate condemnation of the democrats. He needs to clearly see that as long as you don't call a tyrannosaurus a tyrannosaurus, you will not be making progress.
This is the same way that Dennis Kucinich is given a pass for supporting the further corporate subjugation of people's health for money.
You can't have it both ways.