EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Roots of the Enthusiasm Gap Go Back to 1992
With the midterm elections only a few weeks away, pundits are buzzing with talk of a so called "enthusiasm gap"; one which has been characterized as a rift between revved-up conservatives and dispirited progressives. If the Obama White House, proud of its accomplishments, is frustrated by a base resistant to heading to the polls in droves to fend off a Republican assault, then it's not looking deep enough. The "enthusiasm gap" is not something new. The growing gap between Washington Democrats and the base of its party reflects a profound rift that's been brewing since 1992.
In that year, Democratic voters were energized by the election of Bill Clinton, which marked the end of the long, difficult Reagan-Bush era. Progressives had good reason to be excited in 1992. Clinton promised landmark legislation on health care, and on the campaign trail he vowed to labor audiences that new trade deals would include strong "side agreements" to protect workers' rights and the environment.
However, once in office, Clinton proved himself to be fixated on transactional politics--politics as the art of the deal. Focused on the insider baseball of beltway negotiations, he put forward a pre-compromised health care plan. Contrary to his belief that a watered-down proposal could be ushered through Congress, his plan generated little enthusiasm and went down in flames.
The White House had more success in pushing NAFTA, but it left the labor movement at the altar by abandoning pursuit of any of the protections Clinton had promised. Furthering the betrayal, the president and the Democratic Congressional majority failed to even put anti-strikebreaker legislation on the map--despite the fact that organized labor had emphasized the importance of such legislation for working people hard-hit by the recession of the early 1990s.
Presenting his 1993 budget, President Clinton did little to fight back against the "starve the beast" mentality of the Republicans and defend the need for essential public services. His pitch to the Democratic base was merely that he would slash less than the right. The debate was over degree, not over the substance of public policy. Within a few years, Clinton would play into conservatives' hands by proclaiming that "the era of big government is over."
In other words, rather than taking stands based on real progressive vision, pushing the limits of the possible, and starting a broad debate about the appropriate role of government in our society, the Clinton administration worked to cut deals in pursuit of what the political class in Washington had deemed feasible.
By the time the 1994 midterms rolled around and Clinton had to go back to the Democratic base for support, a huge rift had formed. There was a yawning gap between, on the one hand, what the Democrats thought they were accomplishing for working class and middle class Americans and, on the other hand, the profound disillusionment felt by these same voters.
People throughout the country were angry. They responded to transactional politics in Washington by adopting a transactional attitude at the polls--rationally assuming a "what's in it for me" stance when confronted with politicians who had long placed deal-making before principle. While just two years before voters were inspired by the prospect of the first Democratic president since 1980, they had since grown disgusted. The Republicans took control of Congress.
Unfortunately, we've seen a very similar pattern emerge with the Obama administration. Transactional politics has once again defined the White House's approach to governing. And this time, the gap between Washington and the rest of America is even wider for three reasons:
First, people remember 1992 and 1994. The disenchantment of the Clinton years is hardly in the distant past, and few in the Democratic base enjoy experiencing it again.
Second, it is happening this time amid an even more trying economy. While largely forgotten now, the recession of the early 1990s caused serious pain for working people, who were being introduced to then-fresh catch phrases such as "down-sizing" and "out-sourcing." Today's economic crisis is of an even greater order of magnitude. The likes of it come along once every several generations, and now the job base in our country has been decimated.
Third, having campaigned on "hope" and "change," Obama created very high expectations. Those who anticipated that the new president would be far more visionary than Clinton ever was have been taken aback at seeing him fill his White House with beltway insiders. These officials resumed horse-trading where the last Democratic administration left off. From health care to financial reform to economic stimulus, President Obama has tried to earn a reputation as a "bipartisan" moderate, avoid being labeled "anti-business," and put forward compromise proposals that end up pleasing no one.
Every time the Democrats are too timid to promote a policy solution that the party's base actually wants, they walk into a trap. They end up passing something that is too insignificant to actually deal with the problem at hand but that nevertheless prompts hysterical denunciations from the right. Despite their efforts at moderation, they are vociferously condemned as "tax-and-spend liberals." At the same time, they have nothing to show for their efforts that might make them proud to have earned the label.
Going forward after the midterms, the choice for these elected officials is clear: They can start acting like progressive Democrats and championing legislation that truly serves the needs of working Americans. Or they can continue to play an insider baseball game and call that a victory, shrugging their shoulders or scolding their base when people prove insufficiently grateful.
It's not a difficult decision. We've had almost two decades to learn from the mistakes of the Clinton era. Let's hope it doesn't take another two for the right choice to sink in.
- 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...


103 Comments so far
Show AllThe choice for the voters is clear: vote for a progressive/leftist third party candidate.
"The point, of course, is that the voters of this country certainly might vote for a third party candidate in this country if they were actually allowed to hear what candidates like Nader had to say. But in the above example the fix is in because both parties, along with the help of the television executives, are making sure that the people in this country will never be given that chance."
Thank you, this is EXACTLY what is going on.
The "top two primary system" recently adopted in the states of California and Washington no longer allow third party candidates to appear on general election ballots and this system will likely be implemented nationwide within a decade.
Those who say there is no class war in America are correct. The class war has been won by the corporations and it is over.
Ray. Speaking for California only. Prop 14, the top two initiative, won 54/46.
You know who OPPOSED it? The Democratic leadership and Republican leadership. I don't reckon this was a win for the corporations.
It allows anyone to run for any office of any party in the primary and only the top two vote getters in the general.
If your third party couldn't get enough votes to make even #2 on the ballot how would they ever have a chance in the general election?
Also this specifically does NOT apply to the presidential election.
Don't be so naive, in order to get elected it takes BIG MONEY, the most expensive "elections" in the world are right here in the USA. Didn't you know that? Or do you even give a toss?
Money is now "free speech" and Corporations have legal personhood.
Look up First Past the Post and study on it a bit, or better yet take a political theory course at your local college.
Or are you just desperately apologizing for the status quo and the D party as November draws near?
Also on CD today: California's Green Candidate for Governor Arrested Outside Debate Tuesday Night
See http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/13-3
!
Golly, I guess we better just shut up and vote straight D in November, we have no other "choice" eh. That's f-in brilliant.
Most people want no part of what you are saying. They don't even vote and have long since tuned you out.
It is absolutely absurd to claim that the performance of either the Nader or the Kucinich campaigns tells us that the public rejected their politics. That would require completely ignoring the role of money and the mass media in elections.
How could anyone make the statement you made with a straight face? How could you expect anyone to accept it?
Why can't we do both?
Aquifer
I agree. Why, indeed, can we not do both?
In theory we could "do both," as people often say. But that is no hat the debate on this issue is rally about. The question is this: can we achieve social and political change through voting choices, or does voting merely reflect social and political changes that have already happened, that have been caused by powerful organizations working outside of partisan politics? The defenders of voting here are defending something else and not really defending voting. They are defending a particular view about how politics works, they are telling people that there is a relatively safe and easy path to achieve progressive change, and that we need not consider more radical analysis and action.
deleted - duplicate
"In theory we could "do both," as people often say. But that is no hat the debate on this issue is rally about."
Oh yes it is. Your attempt to recast the issue within your own analytical framework is simply a way of undermining the potential of the vote - we've been here, many times, before, TA
"that we need not consider more radical analysis and action."
Before responding more fully, lest i commit the error of "misunderstanding" you, what, precisely, is your definition of the "radical analysis and action" that must be taken?
What is left for the right to gain. No taxes for anyone earning over a million a year and public stoning of gays.
"Going forward after the midterms, the choice for these elected officials is clear: They can start acting like progressive Democrats and championing legislation that truly serves the needs of working Americans. Or...
The choice would be clear if their primary concern was to serve the public. However, the two parties run the parties like a business and staying in power, however they can, is more important than serving the public.
If the choice is losing an election after passing good policy or winning an election after passing bad policy serving special inteests or corporate America, they will choose the latter.
You got it! I was going to quote the same lines and point out that they will not "start acting like progressive Democrats" because, quite simply, they are NOT progressives. We live in a one party corporatocracy engaged in a class war that is, for all intents and purposes, over (primarily because it was never opposed).
Elections are smoke and mirrors, people, diverting your attention from the fact that we do not live in a democracy anymore. Vote D; vote R; vote third party; or, don't vote at all. It makes no difference. You really want change? Start thinking much bigger, as in revolution.
Obama does not seem to understand that the only reason he is in the White House is that he is not a Clinton.
Actually, I think the only reason Obama is in the White House is that he was/is a better "Clinton" than Hillary ....
Obama is in office only because the financial meltdown occured in September 2008 rather than Novermber 2008.
McCain and Palin were rapidly advancing and were ahead in the polls during September. The meltdown assured that the party in power would not win no matter who was on the ballot.
Ray,
I should have clarified, the only reason he won the DP nomination is because he was a better "Clinton" than Hillary .....
The only reason Obama is in the White House was the exquisite accident of timing. Just before election day in '08 it suddenly appeared to many frightened, panicked Americans that the entire economy was going to be washed away like a sand castle at high tide. McCain and Palin were leading before the toilet flushed. Had the economy of this nation been more or less stable, or the Republicans and the MSM had convinced the majority that was so, addled-brain McCain and homicidal lunatic Palin would now be in power. They and the Republicans would now be facing the electoral guillotine instead of the Democrats. The wars would still be on and the middle and working classes would still be on their way to their final resting place in the gutter.
The author simply does not yet grasp the seriousness of the current mess or the utter inablility of world governments, not just ours, to deal with it.
Like Walden Bello's essay posted here yesterday, this one too accepts the fictional political drama of a two-party system where great statesment duel in the interest of the common good.
Obviously the author doesn't read Common Dreams, but what does she read? She seems to be trapped in a bygone age.
Agreed, a page in History has turned and left far too many behind. Trying to run a country with 18th Century architecture is like trying to run a modern newspaper with the Gutenberg printing press. The results are predictable. In addition, the current system is being perpetuated by the money equals favorable legislation link that has created a financial imbalance that is shutting down the economy.
The Democrats abandoned the people to support the interests of the rich and now wonder why people choose to abandon them. Gross hubris!
Dare I offer another potential scenario;
The CD folks may well know the Dems are bogus, but, if there are others besides us "diehards" that read this site, especially those that don't post, many may be, in fact, undecided. Articles like this reasonably point out what the Dems "should" do if they were serious. Now WE all know that they aren't, but many out there don't have that same conviction. By presenting all sorts of quite logical, reasonable, actions the Dems would take if they were serious, it is more likely, IMO, that those fence sitters would be, albeit reluctantly, convinced, when the Dems DON'T do this stuff, that they aren't. Printing only jeremiads will drive those "silent readers" away. I think we have to think about that potential audience and not just about what WE want to read. How many are out there? What % of CD readers might they constitute? I think it is a mistake to automatically assume that the authors of these articles are "clueless" about, or defenders of, the Dems. They may be, but they may be doing something else with these articles as well .... That's one of the things i would do if I knew, or felt, there may be many "undecideds" in my audience, if i ever had one. It is a good and honest approach - logical argument, IMO, is always better than a fist in the face if you are not sure who your audience really is ....
And even if they are "defenders", this "if, then" approach may serve the same end ......
When Clinton set up the DLC and focused the democratic party agenda on getting corporate money, that spelled the end of any progressive politics and a return to the early 1900's.
Thanks Billy boy, for treating the working people in America like Monica's blue dress.
The author's suggestion that the democratic party return to their roots is a lot like prayer. A lot of people do it, but no one is listening.
Although Jerry Brown should have been nominated rather than Clinton in 1992, I voted for Clinton reluctantly.
Within one year Clinton zealously pushed NAFTA through without even suggesting that perhaps environmental and worker safety issues be added to the bill.
Since NAFTA I have ignored the hyperbole and listened to the content in Dem. candidates' speeches. This has resulted in 4 votes for Nader and fewer votes for Democratic Party Congresstrons and Senators with each passing election.
Every Democrat on my ballot this year turns my stomach. I will vote third party or nobody on my ballot this year.
Yup! NAFTA soured me as well.
Hmm, do you think we could start a "4 time Nader" club? And have a "reunion" in a couple of years?
I have a hunch that if Bubba was injected with truth serum he might propose a simpler and more credible explanation:
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
Carroll Quigley (Ivy League historian and Clinton mentor) in his book "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"
The author tells us that the democrats are "too timid" and that they have made "mistakes".
This is disgusting drivel.
The democrats deliberately use rosy wording to distract people from their blood-stained actions. Maybe the author would like to tell the viciously murdered people in Afghanistan and Iraq and those languishing unjustifiably in military prisons and those whose waters are being turned into toxic cesspools that this gang of sadists is just too timid and inept and, golly gee, these ruby slippers are hard to walk in!
Bingo!!
It amazes me that people are surprised when murderers lie.
"...championing legislation that truly serves the needs of working Americans." Yeah, right.
Here's another informed, intelligent person with good lefty credentials who still believes there is hope (sorry) in the Democratic Party. Sad, truly sad.
I am going to suggest the roots of the "enthusiasm gap" go back much further to the Democrats under FDR.
As needed as those reforms were the INTENT of them was to head off a Social revolution as happened in Russia and as was beginning to happen in Western Europe.
The reforms were intended to "save Capitalism" from itself. One need only look at the reaction of that Government to those that were trying to organize a coup against the same. They basically held hearings and hushed it up because they did NOT want the people to learn what that "Investor Class" were really up to.
The next 50 years helped to build the MIC state which could not have been done without those reforms. It helped to further integrate Corporate Power with the power of Government. It was 50 years over which the propaganda machine could be used to demonize "Socialists, and Communists".
In essence it created the type of State that those behind that coup wanted to create inside of the United States of America.
If they tried this in 1936 when the labor movement strong and when "Socialism" not a dirty word there would have been massive Civilian unrest.
Today they feel all the mechanisms in place to do as they please.
At the level of the individual senator or congressman during the depression one might have found a number of them who were more independent of "Corporate Influence" but at the level of the GROUP they were still Capitalists wishing to preserve and promote the same.
The true problem with progressives is they think society can progress by putting the lipstick back on the pig.
Yesterday, in a similar article, I had this to say and I believe that it applies here too. In addition to not learning the lessons of enthusiasm gap, here are 5 PROGRESSIVE GAP lessons yet to be learned:
1. Lessons not learned from NAFTA as CAFTA passes although a closer vote.
2. Lessons not learned from Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy as Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy repeats history.
3. Lessons not learned from Vietnam war as Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
4. Lessons not learned from the Great Depression as the Great Recession is likely to become our next Great Depression with the possibility of going permanent.
5. Lessons not learned from the S&L crisis of the 1980s as the 2008 mortgage meltdown took place and the country is still lingering from it.
MAX: I like the points you identify; however, on this issue of "lesson learned," the question is to whom is the active verb applied? People, like many in this forum, HAVE learned these lessons. What exists is a problem of implementation because the elite status-owners do not want to see the system that has richly rewarded them, and largely them alone, alter. Therefore other "enemies" and "scapegoats" are required as targets for the mass projection of anger, aggression, and faux-culpability. With wrath directed at those that own no power, nothing can change, for these unfortunates are in no position to make real change happen.
Because elites choose war, as they profit from it, does that mean that citizens don't recognize the value of peace? And do not forget the very expensive Bernays-Goebbels-Barnum-Orwellian media that works 24/7 to falsify the conversation, and silence dissent while manufacturing consent... even for such "products" as war.
"however, on this issue of "lesson learned," the question is to whom is the active verb applied?"
Thanks for asking and it's a good thing you did. I would say not only the politicians in the Democratic Party but also the partisan party screamers all over the blogs and the campaign trails going overboard about fears of Republican takeover. As both of us know, it makes no difference which party wins control of one or both chambers of Congress.
"Because elites choose war, as they profit from it, does that mean that citizens don't recognize the value of peace?"
It is possible but as today's article by Michael Hudson proves that finance can be used as a warfare, I don't know if there will be enough citizens ready to understand the value of peace. I thought that this nation had warfare in the 1980s and 1990s without the military being obvious with the exception of Bush I's first gulf war but being so short, the economic warfare stayed more obvious. I posted the link to Hudson's article in my reply to socialist.
MAX: Thanks for the post. I'll check out the Michael Hudson link/article.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!!!
Haven't we read this same nonsense about a gazillion times? Enough already!
The Democratic party is NOT made up of a pack of bungling, ignorant fools.
They are simply on the other side. They are cagey, scheming politicians who, with skill and foresight, have been ready, willing and able to sell out the interests of the working class in the US in order to turn a profit.
They're just another business. 'Exploitation 'R Us.'headquarters, Washington, D.C.
There are at least 2 articles like this every day. It's time to move past this quagmire, this desert landscape of quicksand that consumes and deletes all imagination and creativity and on to strategies for progress.
Where is Chris Hedges? He had salient, thought-provoking commentary.
Authentic change is scary for everyone. But we need to move along.
Iowapinko: "Haven't we read this same nonsense about a gazillion times? Enough already!" Yes!!!!!!!
Hear! Hear!
It's the soft D version of "the lies told often enough are perceived as true."
Iowapinko
Here he is - Part I
How Democracy Dies: Lessons From a Master
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_democracy_dies_lessons_from_a_master_20101011/
Posted on Oct 11, 2010
By Chris Hedges
The ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes spent his life battling the assault on democracy by tyrants. It is disheartening to be reminded that he lost. But he understood that the hardest struggle for humankind is often stating and understanding the obvious. Aristophanes, who had the temerity to portray the ruling Greek tyrant, Cleon, as a dog, is the perfect playwright to turn to in trying to grasp the danger posed to us by movements from the tea party to militias to the Christian right, as well as the bankrupt and corrupt power elite that no longer concerns itself with the needs of its citizens. He saw the same corruption 2,400 years ago. He feared correctly that it would extinguish Athenian democracy. And he struggled in vain to rouse Athenians from their slumber.
There is a yearning by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They seek out of ignorance and desperation to create a utopian society based on “biblical law.” They want to transform America’s secular state into a tyrannical theocracy. These radicals, rather than the terrorists who oppose us, are the gravest threat to our open society. They have, with the backing of hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate money, gained tremendous power. They peddle pseudoscience such as “Intelligent Design” in our schools. They keep us locked into endless and futile wars of imperialism. They mount bigoted crusades against gays, immigrants, liberals and Muslims. They turn our judiciary, in the name of conservative values, over to corporations. They have transformed our liberal class into hand puppets for corporate power. And we remain meek and supine.
They want to transform America’s secular state into a tyrannical theocracy. These radicals, rather than the terrorists who oppose us, are the gravest threat to our open society.
The huge amount of taxpayer money doled out to Wall Street, investment banks, the oil and natural gas industry and the defense industry, along with the dismantling of our manufacturing sector, is why we are impoverished. It is why our houses are being foreclosed on. It is why some 45 million Americans are denied medical care. It is why our infrastructure, from public schools to bridges, is rotting. It is why many of us cannot find jobs. We are being fleeced. The flagrant theft of public funds and rise of an obscenely rich oligarchic class is masked by the tough talk of demagogues, themselves millionaires, who use fear and bombast to keep us afraid, confused and enslaved.
Aristophanes saw the same psychological and political manipulation undermine the democratic state in ancient Athens. He repeatedly warned Athenians in plays such as “The Clouds,” “The Wasps,” “The Birds,” “The Frogs” and “Lysistrata” that permitting political leaders who shout “I shall never betray the Athenian!” or “I shall keep up the fight in defense of the people forever!” to get their hands on state funds and power would end with the citizens enslaved.
Let us not stand at the open gates of the city meekly waiting for the barbarians. They are coming. They are slouching towards Bethlehem. Let us, if nothing else, like Aristophanes, begin to call our tyranny by its name.
Iowapinko
Here he is part II
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_democracy_dies_lessons_from_a_master_20101011/
“The truth is, they want you, you see, to be poor,” Aristophanes wrote in his play “The Wasps.” “If you don’t know the reason, I’ll tell you. It’s to train you to know who your tamer is. Then, whenever he gives you a whistle and sets you against an opponent of his, you jump out and tear them to pieces.”
Our democracy, through years of war, theft and corruption, is also being diminished. But the example Aristophanes offers is not a hopeful one. He held up the same corruption to his fellow Greeks. He repeatedly chided them for not rising up and fighting back. He warned, ominously, that by the time most citizens awoke it would be too late. And he was right. The appearance of normality lulls us into a false hope and submission. Those who shout most loudly in defense of the ideals of the founding fathers, the sacredness of Constitution and the values of the Christian religion are those who most actively seek to subvert the principles they claim to champion. They hold up the icons and language of traditional patriotism, the rule of law and Christian charity to demolish the belief systems that give them cultural and political legitimacy. And those who should defend these beliefs are cowed and silent.
“For a considerable length of time the normality of the normal world is the most efficient protection against disclosure of totalitarian mass crimes,” Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” “Normal men don’t know that everything is possible, refuse to believe their eyes and ears in the face of the monstrous. ... The reason why the totalitarian regimes can get so far toward realizing a fictitious, topsy-turvy world is that the outside non-totalitarian world, which always comprises a great part of the population of the totalitarian country itself, indulges in wishful thinking and shirks reality in the face of real insanity. ...”
All ideological, theological and political debates with the representatives of the corporate state, including the feckless and weak Barack Obama, are useless. They cannot be reached. They do not want a dialogue. They care nothing for real reform or participatory democracy. They use the tricks and mirages of public relations to mask a steadily growing assault on our civil liberties, our inability to make a living and the loss of basic services from education to health care. Our gutless liberal class placates the enemies of democracy, hoping desperately to remain part of the ruling elite, rather than resist. And, in many ways, liberals, because they serve as a cover for these corporate extremists, are our greatest traitors.
Aristophanes too lived in a time of endless war. He knew that war always empowered anti-democratic forces. He saw how war ate away at the insides of a democratic state until it was hollowed out. His play “Lysistrata,” written after Athens had spent 21 years consumed by the Peloponnesian War, is a satire in which the young women refuse to have sex with their men until the war ends and the older women seize the Acropolis, where the funds for war are stored. The play called on Athenians to consider radical acts of civil disobedience to halt a war that was ravaging the state. The play’s heroine, Lysistrata, whose name means “Disbander of Armies,” was the playwright’s mouthpiece for the folly and self-destructiveness of war. But Athens, which would lose the war, did not listen.
The tragedy is that liberals and secularists, like Obama, are not viewed as competitors by the corporate forces that hold power, but as contaminates that must be eliminated. They have sought to work with forces that will never be placated. They have abandoned the most basic values of the liberal class to play a game that in the end will mean their political and cultural extinction. There will be no swastikas this time but seas of red, white and blue flags and Christian crosses. There will be no stiff-armed salutes, but recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. There will be no brown shirts but nocturnal visits from Homeland Security. The fear, rage and hatred of our dispossessed and confused working class are being channeled into currents that are undermining the last vestiges of the democratic state. These dangerous emotions, directed against a liberal class that as in ancient Athens betrayed the population, have a strong appeal. And unless we adopt the radicalism held by Aristophanes, unless we begin to hinder the functioning of the corporate state through acts of civil disobedience, we are finished.
cur...thank you for the hedges piece, i particularly appreciated the hannah arendt quote...
yesterday i sat in a bar, next to a self described democrat...claimed he could no longer stand the dems and was going to vote teaparty....also, when i suggested an fdr solution like wpa/ccc he gave me the "govt. is bad argument....
but most disconcerting of all, when i did "the military/industrial complex rant" thinking this at least would produce some "common ground"....he swiveled back around to face his wife, with the parting words: "i don't listen to conspiracy theories!"...conspiracy theory.......
now i know as well as any one, you are falling into a logical trap believing a "particular proves a general"....but, i'm sorry to say i've seen this refusal on the part of my fellow citizens to face reality my whole life, it is confirmation of hannahs understanding, and along with the macro dissections, so common on cd, the micro dude on a bar stool, stands as the elephant in the room...your fellow man just doesn't want to see shit!...peace
You should have asked him "Oh, so you believe a lone gunman caused 9/11?"
Applause!
muchas gracias, curmudgeon
"They" (the Dems) are not "progressives" for one simple reason:
The people don´t demand it of them.´
FDR came from one of the US´s richest families. He wasn´t a "Leftist". The man saved capitalism from it´s own excesses. But that recognition, and the many particular acts (and Acts) that made it, came about because people were striking left and right and demanding a way out. Many were moving rightwards (America First nationalism, etc.) and many moved Leftward. FDR was smart enough to understand the particular dynamics of the American people and the American situation and used the language of the left to remake the Democratic Party and remake the US. But it was the people, from below, who were out there demanding it... daily.
Can´t do that from behind a computer screen or from your dormroom.
WOW! Words of wisdom...where are the radicals of the 60s and 70s who marched in the streets for what they believed in?
Fat and sloppy and on the couch.
Maybe they don't want to be Taser'd. Maybe their attempts at organizing were pre-empted by one of Big Brother's new and highly-equipped surveillance operations. Maybe they are struggling with cancer from an overload of chemical exposures; ones the EPA managed to let slide due to some insider quid pro quo exchanges from a polluting corporation or two. Maybe they're out of jobs and praying the house won't get foreclosed since that would jeopardize the kids' education. Maybe they know if they put the time, energy, and expense into going to Washington and don't get arrested, that the coverage of the event will consign it to limbo-hell, anyway.
Movies, media, and radio all discussed the issues openly in the l960's and l970's. The air was alive with the possibility of change, of taking war out of the establishment. The nation's right wing hadn't seized control of all the major courts, all the major media, 95% of the congress critters, AND the presidency. Universities featured professors who spoke about progressive ideals, and were not afraid they'd get blacklisted for participating in peace marches, and the like.
Do NOT blame the victims for a society that's gone on a mad rush to hell. One that's been financed from high, dark places and managed to bamboozle much of the public on the basis of manufactured lies and a complete (almost) control of media. Ideas are food for thought; and much of our nation is experiencing toxic shock syndome of a sort. Yet it's being medicated away with the prolific use of anti-depressant drugs and/or alcohol. Symptoms are being covered up the way the election votes frequently are. No cure is ALLOWED in sight!
Your judgment here is offfensive and sounds right wing!
I was going to respond to this SR but no need, well put.