EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Tragedy of Under-Reaching
After the Election Disaster: Back to Basics
We need to build a grassroots progressive movement -- wide, deep and strong enough to fight the right and challenge the corporate center of the Democratic Party.
The stakes are too high and crises too extreme to accept "moderate" accommodation to unending war, regressive taxation, massive unemployment, routine foreclosures and environmental destruction.
A common formula to avoid is what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the paralysis of analysis." Profuse theory + scant practice = immobilization.
It's not enough to denounce what's wrong or to share visionary blueprints. Day in and out, we've got to organize for effective and drastic social change, in all walks of life and with a vast array of activism.
Yes, electioneering is just one kind of vital political activity. But government power is extremely important. By now, we should have learned too much to succumb to the despairing claim that elections aren't worth the bother.
Such a claim is false. As bad as the election results are, they would have been much worse across the country if progressives hadn't worked hard against the right-wing juggernaut.
For instance, consider the many hundreds of on-the-ground volunteers who rejected the paralysis of analysis by walking precincts and making phone calls to help re-elect progressive Congressman Raul Grijalva. He won a tight race in Arizona's southwestern district and will return to Congress next year -- much to the disappointment of the corporate flacks and xenophobes who tried to defeat him because of his strong stance against the state's new racial-profiling immigration law.
The mass-media echo chamber now insists that Republicans have triumphed because President Obama was guilty of overreach. But since its first days, the administration has undermined itself -- and the country -- with tragic under-reach.
It's all about priorities. The Obama presidency has given low priority to reducing unemployment, stopping home foreclosures or following through with lofty pledges to make sure that Main Street recovers along with Wall Street.
Far from constraining the power of the Republican Party, the administration's approach has fundamentally empowered it. The ostensibly shrewd political strategists in the White House have provided explosive fuel for right-wing "populism" while doing their best to tamp down progressive populism. Tweaks aside, the Obama presidency has aligned itself with the status quo -- a formula for further social disintegration and political catastrophe.
The election of 2010 is now grim history. It's time for progressives to go back to the grassroots and organize with renewed, deepened commitment to changing the direction of this country. If we believe that state power is crucial -- and if we believe in government of, by and for the people -- it's not too soon to begin planning and working for change that can make progressive victories possible in future elections.
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...
158 Comments so far
Show Allcongratulate yourself, norm, for successfully fudging the line between the alternatives.
you have earned yourself a few more years of shilling job.
Gosh, this Norman is a masochist or delusion--take your pick.
CURIOUS STEVE: You recently posted stating that you were taking classes, a student. How is it that you have come to show up on just about every CD thread these days, offering off-the-cuff opinions on each subject, as if you're educated on all of them? Either you misrepresented yourself then--as student, or you're a fraud now. Which is it? And I find your lack of using capital letters for names and opening sentences annoying. YOU haven't earned yourself a job other than that of shill, either. Mr. expert on everything... without any degree, you're very quick to throw stone from your own glass house. Since the "usual suspects" (by name), who have come to dominate these threads suddenly all have gone missing giving rise to a fresh crop of new names, I believe you are an old re-tread, who now posts under a different M.O.
Nicely stated Siouxrose, go get him.
It a little late to call for the Democrats to take that party in a more progressive direction as was being requested by those "f***ing retards" don't you think?
Why would those "f***ing retards" feel comfortable back in the fold of the Democratic party?
I find it so very strange that what real progressives have been saying all along now becomes "a new direction".
This is what happens when one climbs into bed with the Corporations. They have no loyalty to country or to Political party. All they care about is who will put the most money in their pockets and if it means 20 percent unemployment, never ending wars, and trillion dollar bailouts , the party that can best do that will get their support.
If those are the values a given political party decides it will pursue of what value is that party to a true progressive?
Well said sir, well said! And your point of "what value" is as true for liberals as for progressives.
"f***ing retards" No kidding.
And as on cue, the talking head liberals that (somehow) represent progressives, are already on their post-election jobs of mopping up the guts & blood and summoning the surviving worker-bees to rally! Woo-hoo.
I think not.
Come on, it really isn't Norman's fault. He means well.
He's just trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.
I agree, and would be more sympathetic if he didn't make it his constant practice. Todd Gitlin is another of the type: no salvation outside of Mother Church of the Donkey. As if that corporate sewer would ever allow itself to actually serve the commoners of this nation! Take it from someone who learned his lesson in the McGovern campaign.
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
"The election of 2010 is now grim history. It's time for progressives to go back to the grassroots and organize with renewed, deepened commitment to changing the direction of this country."
I'm right there with you Norman. Time for progressives to start an alternative to the Dems that actually works for our cause, and once it does, time to abandon the Dems for good.
Thanks Dems:
"Russ Feingold, a three-term Democrat and liberal lion, lost his re-election bid Tuesday night to a plastics manufacturer."
Thanks Dems:
"Alan Grayson has lost his re-election bid to Republican Daniel Webster"
The Democratic Party: Where American Progressivism comes to die.
–SS
"The Democratic Party: Where American Progressivism comes to die."
You truly said it with that one.
I'll repeat here what I posted in another Feingold loss thread:
Time to revive the name "The Progressive Party"
Positioning:
Radical Centrism!
From the Wiki:
"Radical centrists are related to what is sometimes called the Vital Center in American politics, and similarly claim to be drawing on the best of both sides. However, they differ significantly from traditional centrism, which prides itself on moderation and seeking political consensus amongst the parties...
Michael Lind, in his 1996 publication Up From Conservatism, writes that, though American radical centrism is today a minority political philosophy, it was, in fact, the dominant political philosophy within the United States from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt through Lyndon Johnson — a philosophy that was shared both by the presidents of that era and the majority of the American people. Therefore, Lind argues, the American "radical" centrism of today is simply the adamant pursuit for a return to the once-mainstream political principle of [the] New Deal... "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_%28politics%29
Once the new party forms, REAL Liberals Leftists and Progressives will leave the Dems (and in some cases, tea Party) in droves.
"Liberals"? I doubt they'd be interested.
Liberals YES, Bourgeoisie NO.
Kucinich and Sanders are what I define as a Liberal (actually, its not 'my' definition).
Feingold and Grayson I would describe as more progressive.
–SS
I like this. All I've wanted was a return to FDRism. I never wanted to burn the whole place down, & I really admire the preamble of our constitution. FDR didn't really fit into the D party (old southern planters' party with wallstreeters handling the money for the planters' "cash crops"), he changed it (but the D's threw out FDRism; time to recognize that). I'd like to see a "Lincoln/FDR peoples' alliance party" (Lincoln for his fight against wallstreet with greenbacks, & his "of, by, for, the people" ideas).
Anyway, great post. We need the NEW DEAL back and Lincoln's greenbacks too (ie. return of credit & currency issuance to gov't hands directly, & out of bankster hands).
glitchy button
.
"We need the NEW DEAL back and Lincoln's greenbacks too (ie. return of credit & currency issuance to gov't hands directly, & out of bankster hands)."
Hear hear.
I personally advocate a split economy, with one set of rules for non-essential goods and services, following a more or less Capitalist model (integrated with a number of other models), and a socialist infrastructure to deal with essential collectively beneficial needs and services, and to protect and manage natural resources which represent our collective, not privatizable, wealth.
Along with the Capitalist models, I support currency reform based off of models similar to John Keynes Bancor concept (a multilateral barter clearing system).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor
I am also fond of the approaches of groups like Mon Dragon, that offer alternate Corporate models (but not an alternate international currency model), and systems such as "Local Exchange Trading Systems"(LETS) that work within other frameworks, as independent micro-trading communities within the larger market.
So, I am open to imaginative, far-reaching reform, but I'm not going to bother entertaining notions of fixing our country by destroying it, or discarding those aspects of our national identity that actually work to our benefit as a nation, or a species.
"the American "radical" centrism of today is simply the adamant pursuit for a return to the once-mainstream political principle of New Deal economic progressivism coupled with a moderate cultural conservatism."
My personal version would be "New Deal economic progressivism, coupled with intense ecological conservatism, and moderate cultural liberalism." But that's just me.
–SS
See David Korten's expanded, latest book!
S.S: I wonder if there is a way to "recruit" Grayson and Feingold so that they use their losses as seeds planted for a future harvest, and greater gain for the nation? What I mean is, these are seasoned (particularly Russ) politicians; and the political animal is so accustomed to living in the political world, that it will be inordinately difficult for him to return to civilian life. Sure, Republicans (and centrist Dems) generally pass through the revolving door into those corporations they once sought to regulate, and now can support... but the ones who own genuine principles need a new place to do their thing.
The time is ripe for those few progressives thrown from office to form a core group that either joins itself to the Green Party, or begins the political genesis of something new. It could borrow from the best movements of history; yet it must also reinvent itself to suit the wave of change that more and more people need and want.
I wonder if a petition--gone viral--could help these two politicians to use their clout to begin the work of harvesting OTHER.
Comments?
"The time is ripe for those few progressives thrown from office to form a core group that either joins itself to the Green Party, or begins the political genesis of something new. "
"a petition--gone viral--could help these two politicians to use their clout to begin the work"
I am ON with it. The time is NOW for TRUE Progressives, and all people with a moral conscience to begin a MASSIVE grass-roots/red carpet (i.e. famous, but still progressive) movement to show the Tea-Party how its really done in America.
I think this election is the perfect wake-up call, and a ~true opportunity~ to begin building SOMETHING DIFFERENT!
Right there with you Siouxrose!
–SS
Count me in Siouxrose - if I can help in any way I will.
SS/BASEN/AMERANGLO: I am more than willing to draft a letter. Do any of you know how to set it up as a petition where it can be emailed to people and signed? I don't know if it would violate CD policy, but we could even form a small group, "Conscious Progressives From Common Dreams."
Just as a few of today's artices attempt to dress up the loss (for Democrats) as a form of gain, I'd use that approach in suggesting to Grayson and Feinstein (and maybe Nader, too), that they are NOT losers at all... but they are cast-offs of a system that's grown so corrupt as to have little use for them, the remaining politicians who still entertain principles that serve the Greater Good.
I am NOT proficient with computer tech. And there are many fine minds here that can equally draw up such a letter. I've been hit with so many expenses this year, that I could not afford to purchase ad space in a major publication. Even if we pooled resources, the fee can be exorbitant. So the best bet for low budget people is a PHYSICAL letter (with a variety of signatures), or a compelling email.
SS: The times truly are ripe for OTHER. With the two parties acting like 2 of the 3 Stooges, hitting and pinching each other while the house goes up in flames; I can only imagine the shell shock that will dawn on the many who think they have cleaned house by voting in yet more repressive mental midgets. After the ashes, the phoenix may be compelled to rise.
Anyway, any computer savvy types "in the house?" Anyone got an idea how to proceed here?
It just occurred to me that perhaps a letter to Amy Goodman or Bill Moyers might work more effectively. Then WE could call upon them to use their clout to speak out about recruiting progressive "outcasts" into the whirling formulation of a new party, its momentum forming as a result of the implosion of our nation's ethics, and elites' increasing departure from respect for (and adherence to) genuine Law, staple of a coherent, honest society!
Well, I certainly don't think computer tech savvy is a prerequisite to putting together and getting a petition going. We have a great cause that is urgent, and completely apropos to our time.
Your idea of kicking this off with a letter to prominent progressives and liberals connected to alternative/left-wing media sounds like a great one to me. I know there are several who may not dump the Dems right off upon seeing it, but who I imagine would at least endorse such a proposition. Eventually, who knows?
I would like to propose as a starting point that we consider this effort a united front, which originally should be willing to consider casting its lot with a range of marginalized voices, from disaffected/defunct progressive Dems, to Greens, non-militant Socialists, disenchanted left-leaning Libertarians, and *all independents* that prefer a shared, livable, cleaner, healthier, safer, sustainable, more peaceful and more tolerant future for our world. (I'm not saying these should be the exact words, btw). I believe the progressive cause requires solidarity, and consolidation at least as a means of having any initial impact against the mainstream parties. Perhaps with a few tweaks to his positions on key policies, someone like Feingold could get Greens and others to stand with him in a presidential run? Are we talking even about setting sites on a major office, or just the initiation of new party?
Either way, can we agree that a Progressive Party can, or should at this time act as an umbrella party, that seeks to serve diverse needs of the valid Left, by not trying to do too much (as 'Liberals' i.e. bourgeoisie, are usually blamed for doing, or more-or-less re-engineering the world), but rather simply seek to serve scientifically proven, and democratically selected social/ecological goods/needs, and serve them very well?
Can we also agree that one of these needs is ensuring that active commerce, albeit responsible (seriously responsible, dammit), but nonetheless free-as-possible trade, should go on? This is important for me because what I see is not the need to get rid of a sick, destructive and monstrous system that threatens all of us. What is necessary it to FIX it, heal it and let it do as it was meant to: enable us to thrive, socially & individually, and through our careful oversight, remain viable by conforming to the natural cycles of the Earth.
How do we fix it? We embrace conservation and social equality as a spiritual legacy common to all people. We accept the need to shift our deepest priorities and paradigms from short-sighted, to far sighted. From narcissistic to holistic. And we build a new party that earnestly endeavors to achieve this.
These are just my thoughts... I'll wait for your thoughts before I go too much further and turn a well intentioned response into a rant ; )
Great posts from you and Sioux here. I am heartened to see some motions towards action on CD finally. If it is of any use, I set up a cause and a facebook page entitled "Neo Progressives" in the hope that there would be an arena to mobilize from and share strategies.
The Cause: http://www.causes.com/causes/533337
The Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Neo-Progressives/100481676683710?v=wall
The page is especially useful as it offers discussion topics/threads which would be useful for specific actionable discussions as well as the more in-depth policy issues that can be fleshed out on one space rather than over several threads over time on places like CD.
Regarding your market oriented goals, I think that we need to open up these discussions in more detail. I don't want to alienate the socialists too early, but I too think that it is not ideal to start touting the end of capitalism.
Capitalism is not the problem in my view, rather it is the pure religious like attachment to free and unfettered markets. I would personally like to see the government intervene in crises by using the nations (future) assets to buy out failed and misused companies and reform them as cooperatives and employee owned organizations or ESOPs). But that is another issue.
Also I do believe in protecting and nurturing industries on a national basis but that cannot be done at the expense of foreign workers and needs to be addressed in a fair way (agricultural subsidies for example).
Good afternoon. This comment is in response to SS, AMERAnglo, RVR, & AMEishiea:
I thought S.S. raised a very compelling point about certain areas of commerce being suitable to the capitalist model, with GENUINE constraints placed upon them. Other areas are absolutely non-negotiable and MUST come under a Socialist framework. Without power these bulwarks to the current "free" (of rules, sanity and decency) trade cannot be enacted, so we're just dreaming.
I agree, too, that there are a lot of disaffected voices on the left; and increasingly more and more "left" pundits are coming to realize the level of fusion that exists between both parties, and thus the awful truth that both serve the same corporate paymasters.
Were I to draw up a letter and send it by mail to these individuals, while hopefully getting assistance from one who understands HOW to create an on-line petition, how can I speak for all the groups you (SS) mention?
The letter could SUGGEST that all of these groups increasingly find themselves disenfranchised from a duopoly that's tethered to the power of big money and its operatives (lobbyists, PR firms, "Think" tanks, etc.)
A few in these threads have pointed out the logistical problems. How can various groups from such a large nation come together? There are definitely areas of common cause (although that "name" has already been utilized).
We can hash out the top SEVEN goals or priorities of a new coalition, one that recognizes its interests are no longer being remotely served by the two-party facade.
That letter can go to Grayson, Nader (who taught much of this, himself), Feinstein, and others. I would also send it to: David Michael Green, Michael Moore, Norman Solomon, Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman, and others. If just ONE figure who had clout got behind the idea, it could grow "legs."
Many groups will dissipate their force seeking ways to extract what they can from the existing bodies of (corrupt) power. They may see the need/urge/plan for a new broad based coalition as anathema to their strategy: that of working "inside" to get what they can in the way of crumbs.
It would be GREAT if a platform in media could pave the way to THIS necessary and timely conversation.
Between Jon Stewart mobilizing the middle of the roaders (i.e. the status quo accomodators) and the Tea Party gathering the right wing back-to-the-future-as-past wing nuts, is there space for another big rally? Those of us who find both approaches to be null and void? Who would show up? The loss of a free press and PUBLIC use of the airwaves makes organizing much more difficult.
I am game, and I certainly like writing letters. I wonder if some of US can find a way to meet to brainstorm?
Re: "They may see the need/urge/plan for a new broad based coalition as anathema to their strategy: that of working "inside" to get what they can in the way of crumbs."
Yes, this is something I'd overlooked - also with regard to Cenk and his Young Turks. It's not clear from their website whether they have any ideas outside of Dem. party.
Can't yet find an address to contact Cenk but will keep looking. From TYT (The Young Turks) Twitter I see that Alan Grayson is giving an interview today
"Alan Grayson's first national interview since election will be with me tonight at 3PM ET on MSNBC! "
I'll try to watch, maybe it'll give a clue as to how he's intending to proceed.
Watched MSNBC just now - Hadn't realised Cenk Uygur is an MSNBC presenter as well as having his own TYT radio show. Seems that if he's drawing a salary from GE/MSNBC he'll not be interested in going against his masters (see also Olbermann & Maddow). Still, if a new movement were to get started he might be interested in giving it publicity via radio. Worth looking into anyway.
Alan Grayson ended the rather bland interview this afternoon by answering a question on whether he'd be back or not, saying "If people want me back - we'll see." So a letter to him is a must, Siouxrose. We're people, and we want him back - though not as a Democrat!
Are you long-time posters here familiar with the approach of David Korten, JUST HERE his very last book was highlighted on CD....THIS WEEK ON Tuesday or Wednesday, I forget which day ?
I think his approach has much useful merit because of the traditional political language of the left that HE doesn't USE!!...
Very helpful because of multiple dozens of years of media conditioning that automatically may shut down the minds of otherwise perhaps reachable fellow citizens.
His Agenda for a New Economy is actually not that revelatory..it a is right-on, up-to-date overview of Capitalism 2010....if you read his views,people of my age will easily recognize strong echos of earlier visionary movements.
I view him as another essential force to permanently challenge the current Democratic Party to fully expose their financial corruption and moral bankruptcy even as they fraudulently continue to label themselves as the political party that "respresents the Working Class....and Middle Class.... if they ever were, at perhaps at the beginning of the four terms of FDR's presidency! WE NEED A PERMANENT SECOND PARTY TO DEFEAT THE DUOPOLY!
I'm looking into this, based on your recommendation. Admittedly, I'm not yet familiar with him.
I like the idea mentioned of a party that draws off the disaffected, disenchanted base of both sides of the DUOPOLY. But obviously, it would be the marginalized, morally conscious people from the left/Liberal/progressive side that should form its widest base.
–SS
"Were I to draw up a letter and send it by mail to these individuals, while hopefully getting assistance from one who understands HOW to create an on-line petition, how can I speak for all the groups you (SS) mention?"
Wasn't trying to be cheeky about the tech savvy comment. : ) But I think the formulation of the letter is going to be the important task. Finding a quality public petition site should be a cinch once we have a quality submission drawn up.
"The letter could SUGGEST that all of these groups increasingly find themselves disenfranchised from a duopoly that's tethered to the power of big money and its operatives (lobbyists, PR firms, "Think" tanks, etc.)"
Awesome. Sounds right to me. My only added thought would be a call for the urgent protecting of Earth's ecological integrity as a common cause for all humans (and species)?
"A few in these threads have pointed out the logistical problems. How can various groups from such a large nation come together? There are definitely areas of common cause (although that "name" has already been utilized). "
Perhaps the most effective way to draw this up would be to assemble/formulate a very bare bones, and inclusive set of collective goals that could serve as our basis for uniting (any particular reason for a set of 'seven'?), but...
if we were to encourage each petitioner to add their own particulars regarding their personal agendas, this would reinforce the inclusiveness, and openness to input that we wish to foster, while at the same time help keep tabs on the priorities of the actual grass-roots participants.
"Many groups will... see the need/urge/plan for a new broad based coalition as anathema to their strategy: that of working "inside" to get what they can in the way of crumbs."
These people are WELCOME to not participate. Their enthusiasm, or lack-of-therein is not only not needed, its not wanted, by me at least. Building does require critical thinking, but not nay-saying.
"I am game, and I certainly like writing letters. I wonder if some of US can find a way to meet to brainstorm?"
And you are an excellent writer, so I am all for it, and thank you for helping to get the engines humming (and not revving!) on this! I am very encouraged that you 'get it' Siouxrose. I think a lot more people are getting it, and think its time for A WAVE of us to crash on the shores of DC.
And I am very open to 'meeting' to brainstorm, either virtually or however. I am ready to activate, and play what role I can in this, and I believe I can do much. I have nothing to fear regarding my actual identity, and have posted nothing I'm not proud to stand for here, or anywhere else, as Selusa Secundus, or as Peter, my actual name (last name for private friends and trusted accomplices only).
I am at work, but am checking back periodically, and will have much more time to continue in the evenings and weekends.
We have been wanting this for decades. Parties have been started ... only to fizzle. Remember Barry Commoner? A plant physiologist, a Washington University professor, Harvard degrees (yeah, that's not such a plus these days.) He went no where. The duopoly has such a grip on the American mind. True, the American mind is easily gripped by the empire's professional grippers. They've been perfecting the art for a long time.
An online petition is easy to do. It doesn't take being savvy with computers. It's more like filling out forms. They set up the template for you. We used petitiononline.com, I believe it was. The owners are architects who have a belief in the value of this service. They ask for small donations but it's not mandatory.
Who knows of any others? I know there are a lot of them out there. We'd need a statement, principles, goals, etc. Mostly, we'd want commitment.
I've noticed that people seem to want a ready made - already viable - party. Only then will they dane to come. But how does a party become viable when no one will bother with it until it's .... viable. Catch 22!
I'd like to know something about American progressives. For example: "If you knew that 15% of American voters would seriously commit to supporting a new progressive party, would that be enough "viability" for you? If not, where would the minimum be? 10%, 20? 25?
In a debate with Ralph Nader, just before Obama was elected, Robert Sheer (the old Ramparts Robert!) said he will draw a line, and the line will be at the wars. He will not support a party that continues the wars. I really don't think he realized that the Dems would be moving these wars forward, so he made this commitment thinking he'd be safe. Has he openly repudiated the party? Let's ask him. Find the debate and listen to it first. It was part of a Nation Magazine sponsored cruise.
Because the Greens already have a beautiful platform and they already have ballot lines in most states, how about expanding that tent. An influx of new, dedicated, alert, and active people could give it the quantum leap it needs.
All excellent ideas and comments. My position for now is to not assume too much about what will form, but to be willing to work as constructively as I can with whatever begins to snowball, so long as it continues to honestly serve the initially conceived spirit and intentions.
I too consider the Greens a decent potential basis for growth, but in some ways I'm not so sure how well that party would handle political power on the macro level. In many ways, due to its long-term marginal status, the Greens almost seem reconciled to a position on the sidelines. This could change with an expanded drive and willingness to attract a wider base, but somehow I assume the Greens would prefer playing an important role under and even more open-ended ideological platform. But what do I know?
My belief is that the only means of creating a viable party is to attract defectors, and marginalized elements of the mainstream – Those who understand and sympathize with our position, but who also have a inside perspective of the system as it stands (and I DO NOT mean an 'Obama team', if you get my drift). I am not supporting insiders as leaders, per-se, but recognize the need to work with those who are experts in each field required. I also feel we need friendly familiar faces that mainstream Americans trust, at least from a progressive standpoint. The aura of authenticity, believability and popular affinity must be established.
more soon!
–SS
Cenk Uygur is saying all the right things in the video on CD, Siouxrosie. How about contacting him? I don't know much about him, but comments on that thread indicate he has a radio show, and already has a good number of fans, presumably of the same mind as us. He might have plans of his own which we could support, if appropriate.
How about setting up a blog for interested people, providing a place to gather and plan? Blogger is easy to handle and free. Someone has already mentioned a Facebook page in that respect. I'm not into Facebook - guess I could dive in though.
I don't particularly like facebook either but if anonymity is an issue, warranted or not its fairly easy to set up an account that has no reference to your real name. All you require is an email address, and if you want that anonymous you can set up an anonymous email account with yahoo, hotmail or google.
Facebook has the advantage of being widely utilized and offering varying degreed of privacy and it provides the tools for information dispersal that movements need with no cost.
Thanks, AMeshiea - I'll look into it. Is there a linked Twitter a/c? I do have Twitter (mainly unused).
No. But I will look into setting it up.
Cheers.
Count me in, Siouxrose!
At 87 I am a diehard relic of the FDR Era and among all these 21st Century pretend democrats have felt much like a party of One.
Why not make the voter trashing of our great progressive stalwarts, Grayson and Feingold, the beginning of something big?
Grayson and Feingold should become Independents like Bernie Sanders!....and grow or join THAT 3rd party! what's to loose?
That didn't take long.
"We need to build a grassroots progressive movement -- wide, deep and strong enough to fight the right and challenge the corporate center of the Democratic Party."
That is what got us into this mess. That approach has failed.
There can never be any "grassroots progressive movement." Work within the system and quit your complaining, or build a movement. You cannot do both. Pick one and stop herding people back into safe, and utterly powerless directions.
The tragedy of under reaching, as opposed to reaching around.
Solomon wants us to all work with PDA, to "challenge the corporate center of the Democratic Party." That's code for, Remain Democrats! Build a grassroots progressive movement WITHIN the party, don't dare go outside it. Solomon refuses to learn anything exactly as Obama does. The important thing for both is staying in the Democratic Party. Tweak it, don't abandon it. So far that strategy has been working just swell! No sense in changing course now! The more we lose, the more we know that in some dim distant fantastical future we'll win!
"Solomon wants us to all work with PDA, to "challenge the corporate center of the Democratic Party." That's code for, Remain Democrats! Build a grassroots progressive movement WITHIN the party, don't dare go outside it." -- Ephraim
I certainly recognize the sarcasm in your comment!
These writers -- Solomon, Nichols, others at the Nation Magazine, etc. -- are all stuck inside their own ideology/mindset of tribalism/2-party system that keeps them trapped into a case of very blurred vision.
If these writers haven't read Lance Selfa's book, The Democrats: A Critical History and the new Chris Hedges book, Death of the Liberal Class -- they should move these books to the top of their reading lists, if the books are even on their lists.
I can hardly believe the comments I'm reading on various websites -- blaming "the left" for Democrat losses, etc. As if we have ever had any power or voice in any of the decision-making through the years.
I gave up the Democrats in 1992.
Lance Selfa, in chapter 6 -- Can the Left Take Over the Democratic Party? -- outlines and provides proof that this will never happen, and why it won't happen. He writes, "We are the only 'advanced' country without a solid liberal-left bloc."
These writers do us NO favors by offering the same tired arguments again and again. We need to build a movement -- slow and painstaking as that mission might be!
Exactly Kay, they offer only superficial fluff and ignore the huge underlying structural issues. It is like running in circles for decades. They keep the non-reactionaries in line. They make a living from playing on the fears and ignorance of people. In my opinion, Solomon, Rothschild, Nichols, Moore, and many others are really co-opted and enemies of change and enemies of true progressives.
We do need to organize, but like they do in France for exmaple. It aint over yet, at least folks in other countries are willing to fight back.
I agree -- organize and move together like they do in France. They don't wait -- the people own the streets! I doubt that they wait for permission or a permit before they hit the streets.
KAY: Great points.
The whole right wing think tank/media meme based on blaming the Left: liberals, socialists, progressives is really gaining tread.
What's SO scary about this is the dire fact that it knee-caps the path to solutions. By demonizing those visionaries who truly care about the health of society (i.e. the greater good), they've pre-empted their opponents' points before they're even uttered.
Notice how this type of smear campaign worked to not only put ACORN on the defensive, it's now been broken entirely. Who will speak for the poor and dispossessed?
America has fallen under the darkest of powers; and to these soulless entities, anything that's good, decent, just, or beneficial to PEOPLE must be prevented. Language is often the first line of attack; so the control of media has empowered the language of deceit to the point where a great many can no longer separate the wheat (truth) from the chaff (PR/lies).
I feel grief. Little by little anyone who's paying attention must face the fact that grief is the appropriate emotion for the times we live in. The manipulation of uneducated people, added to those who naturally defer to authoritarian, faith-based thinking, has produced the darkest of ironies: that these individuals are enthusiastically participating in their own, and the nation's, destruction. Ideals are chipped away, one by one, to become replaced by jingoistic, racist, and mean-spirited calls for "law" and "order." Only those who "look like me," and "think like me," and worship at "my church," count, or are worthy of the benefits sponsored by society. Champions of the small-minded, millions have been bamboozled into the great and awful paradox: that their calls for a safe, supposedly secure society place everyone in chains--literal or figurative. Welcome, indeed, to Inverted Totalitarianism as it sweeps over the land while the bands play patriotic tunes of freedom.
There is a silver lining here I think, as we now clearly have a mandate and incentive to make a fresh start, or a fresh return, as I contend.
One part of this renewal is a necessary rejection of what I see as a major obstacle to our agenda:
The whole idea that its "The Liberal Class" who is ruining America, is not even a far-Leftist meme i.m.o., though they are propagating it happily and willingly. It's prevalence of use must have originated with the Right-wing think tanks, as a way both make socialists appear radical, unreasonable and frightening to most middle-class Americans (a great deal of whom should be assets to our cause), meanwhile it poisons all associations that people have with actual Liberalism, liberal solutions, and all the great Enlightenment concepts associated with it.
Its one thing to desire to homogenize our side.. this is not what I endorse. Its another thing for us to remain divided due to less important differences that distract from the reality of the huge challenges which should be uniting all on the true left to one cause. This will begin when our efforts abandon the 'blame-game' of 'who on our side is at fault', and when we begin instead direct our focus only on those who help the cause, in whatever way they are able.
The time is also here for progressives to begin to fully define some terms and language, to even define philosophically what "Progressivism" IS...
I think its 'radical centrism', as this is in my mind a return to America's true values and spirit of innovative cooperation. Of course, we have to adjust/build to our modern circumstances, but what we need largely (imho) is a RETURN to what we got right, and a new banner to unite beneath, and organize against what We, The People know has gone wrong with this nation.
–SS
SS,
I appreciate your point, but I don't think "radical centrism" is going to serve as a clear definition of progressivism.
How about simple, straight words ...
Progressivism - correcting social injustice and restoring economic opportunities for all citizens. Goals:
- campaign finance reform
- regulating business and ending "corporate personhood"
- undoing the Patriot Act
- doing something about the complexity of laws and the tax code
- protecting the public welfare and the environment
- reestablishing inalienable rights
- paper voting trail
Please add on, one and all.
"I appreciate your point, but I don't think "radical centrism" is going to serve as a clear definition of progressivism."
I tend to shy away from too much centrism, so this is my best compromise. But I recognize that a system that will work for a diverse country must appeal to a diverse group, and not be overly frightening to any. Perhaps a 'radical' approach is not correct, but syncretic politics* is a far better approach than overly moderate approaches, as I see it.
And again, the "Radical Center" used to be mainstream America, as the Wiki mentions.
As far as your list, I agree with them all, 100%
I'll add:
-No monopolies
-No wars without Congressional declaration. Doctrine of 'pre-emptive' strikes declared illegal.
-ending corporate funding of elections
-decreeing off-shoring of corporate accounts/tax shelters illegal.
-establishing tariffs that protect domestic jobs and discourage exploitative labor practices in foreign countries.
-electric mass-transit, phasing out of internal combustion engine technology
-adoption of Instant Run-off Voting
-truth finding commission to look into state sanctioned crimes, ensure accountability for crimes shown to have been committed.
-taking the Bush admin. to trial for the illegal war in Iraq
-a brand new investigation into the events of and following 9/11/01.
-a truly publicly funded health-care system
-a movement to clean up trash, recycle broken down buildings and machinery, and enforce strict waste reform. Recycling made mandatory, with a huge investment in biodegradable packaging, and green infrastructure
*Syncretic politics involves taking political positions that attempt to reconcile seemingly opposed ideological systems, usually by combining some elements associated with the left with some associated with the right. I personally believe this draws the clear distinction between 'progressives' and 'Liberals'.
Excellent list.