EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ralph Nader: ‘The Left Has Nowhere to Go’
Ralph Nader in a CNN poll a few days before the 2008 presidential election had an estimated 3 percent of the electorate, or about 4 million people, behind his candidacy. But once the votes were counted, his support dwindled to a little over 700,000. Nader believes that many of his supporters entered the polling booth and could not bring themselves to challenge the Democrats and Barack Obama. I suspect Nader is right. And this retreat is another example of the lack of nerve we must overcome if we are going to battle back against the corporate state. A vote for Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was an act of defiance. A vote for Obama and the Democrats was an act of submission. We cannot afford to be submissive anymore.
"The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes," Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. "The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats."
Nader fears a repeat of the left's cowardice in the next election, a cowardice that has further empowered the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, maintained the role of the Democratic Party as a lackey for corporations, and accelerated the reconfiguration of the country into a neo-feudalist state. Either we begin to practice a fierce moral autonomy and rise up in multiple acts of physical defiance that have no discernable short-term benefit, or we accept the inevitability of corporate slavery. The choice is that grim. The age of the practical is over. It is the impractical, those who stand fast around core moral imperatives, figures like Nader or groups such as Veterans for Peace, which organized the recent anti-war rally in Lafayette Park in Washington, which give us hope. If you were one of the millions who backed down in the voting booth in 2008, don't do it again. If you were one of those who thought about joining the Washington protests against the war where 131 of us were arrested and did not, don't fail us next time. The closure of the mechanisms within the power system that once made democratic reform possible means we stand together as the last thin line of defense between a civil society and its disintegration. If we do not engage in open acts of defiance, we will empower a radical right-wing opposition that will replicate the violence and paranoia of the state. To refuse to defy in every way possible the corporate state is to be complicit in our strangulation.
"The left has nowhere to go," Nader said. "Obama knows it. The corporate Democrats know it. There will be criticism by the left of Obama this year and then next year they will all close ranks and say ‘Do you want Mitt Romney? Do you want Sarah Palin? Do you want Newt Gingrich?' It's very predictable. There will be a year of criticism and then it will all be muted. They don't understand that even if they do not have any place to go, they ought to fake it. They should fake going somewhere else or staying home to increase the receptivity to their demands. But because they do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power.
"Corporate power makes demands all the time," Nader went on. "It pulls on the Democrats and the Republicans in one direction. By having this nowhere-to-go mentality and without insisting on demands as the price of your vote, or energy to get out the vote, they have reduced themselves to a cipher. They vote. The vote totals up. But it means nothing."
There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse. McCain, like Bush, exposes the naked face of corporate power. Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists. Environmental and anti-war groups, who plead with Obama to address their issues, are little more than ineffectual supplicants.
Obama, like Bush and McCain, funds and backs our unending and unwinnable wars. He does nothing to halt the accumulation of the largest deficits in human history. The drones murder thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as they did under Bush and would have done under McCain. The private military contractors, along with the predatory banks and investment houses, suck trillions out of the U.S. Treasury as efficiently under Obama. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus, have not been restored. The public option is dead. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts, adding some $900 billion to the deficit, along with the reduction of individual contributions to Social Security, furthers a debt peonage that will be the excuse to privatize Social Security, slash social services and break the back of public service unions. Obama does not intercede as tens of millions of impoverished Americans face foreclosures and bankruptcies. The Democrats provide better cover. But the corporate assault is the same.
"Obama has the formula now," Nader said. "You give the Republicans a lot of what they want. Many of them vote for you. You get your Democrat percentage. You weave a hybrid victory. That is what he learned in the lame-duck session. He gets praised as being a statesman and a leader and getting things done. Think of all the rewards he can contemplate while he is in Hawaii compared to what they were saying about him on Nov. 5. All the columnists and pundits say that now he can work with John Boehner. But once you take a broader view, it is the difference in the mph of corporatism. McCain is 50 miles per hour and Obama is 40 miles per hour.
"The left has disemboweled itself," Nader said. "It doesn't even have a strategy every four years like a good poker player. The best example is Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO. Obama has given them nothing. Therefore, they are demanding nothing. They huff and puff. They make tough speeches. But Trumka hasn't even made Obama's campaign pledge of a $9.50 minimum wage by this year an issue. If you want to increase consumer demand, what better way to do it than to unleash $300 billion in wages? The card check for unionization, which Obama pledged as his No. 1 sop to the labor unions, is dead. The unions do not even demand a hearing. And now wait till you see what they will do to the public employee unions. Part of it is their own fault. They are going to be crushed. Everybody is ganging up on them. You have new class warfare. It is non-unionized lower income and middle class taking it out on the unionized middle-income public employees. It is a classic example of oligarchic manipulation. It will start playing out big time in New York State with Andrew Cuomo and others. They will start saying, ‘Why are you getting this? Most workers who pay the taxes, who pay your salaries, are not getting this.' This plays."
The banishment from the corporate media, Nader argues, has been one of the major contributors to the demoralization and weakening of the left. Protests by the left, which get little national or local coverage, have steadily dwindled in strength across the country. The first protest gets little or no coverage and this leads to movements, as well as the voices of activists, being diminished and finally suffocated.
"The so-called liberal media, along with Fox, is touting the tea party and publicizing Palin," Nader said. "There was an editorial on Dec. 27 in The New York Times on the Repeal Amendment, the right-wing constitutional amendment to allow states to overturn federal law. The editorial writer at the end had the nerve to say there is no progressive champion. The editorial said that the liberals and progressives have faded out to let the tea party make history. And yet, for months, all The New York Times has done is promote Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They promote Newt Gingrich and the neocons on the Op-Ed pages. The book pages of the newspaper ignore progressive authors and pump all the right-wing authors.
"If we don't raise hell, we won't get any media," Nader said. "If we don't get any media, the perception will be that the tea party is the big deal.
"On one notorious Sunday, Oct. 10, two of The New York Times' segments led with a big story about Ann Coulter and how she will change her strategy because she is being outflanked by others," Nader said. "There was also a huge article on this anti-Semite against Arabs, this Islamaphobe, Pam Geller. Do you know how many pictures they had of Geller? Twenty on this front-page segment. The number of anti-war Op-Eds in The Washington Post over nine months in 2009 was 6-to-1 pro-war. We don't raise hell. We don't say Terry Gross is a censor. We don't say that Charlie Rose is a censor. We have got to blast publicly. We have got to hammer them, because they are the tribune of right-wing fascist forces.
"Three thousand people rallied to protest the invasion and massacre in Gaza two years ago," Nader said. "It was held four blocks from The Washington Post. It did not get a single paragraph. People should march over to the Post and say ‘Fuck you! What are you doing here? You cover every little blip by the right-wing and you don't cover us?'
"They are afraid of the right-wing because the right-wing bellows, and they have become right-wing," Nader said of the commercial press. "They have become fascinated by the bias of Fox. And they publicize what Fox is biased on. The coverage of O'Reilly and Beck and their fights is insane. In the heyday of coverage in the 1960s of what we were doing, it was always less than it should have been, but now it is almost zero. Why do we take this? Why do we accept this? Why isn't Chris Hedges three times a year in the Op-Ed? Why is it always Paul Wolfowitz and Elliott Abrams and all these homicidal maniacs? Why are they there? Why is John Bolton constantly published in The Washington Post and The New York Times? Where is Andrew Bacevich? Bacevich told me he has had five straight Op-Eds rejected by the Post and the Times in the last two years. And he said he is not inclined to send anymore. How many times do you hear Hoover Institution? American Enterprise Institute? Manhattan Institute. These goddamned newspapers should be picketed."
The timidity and silencing of the left fuels the steady impoverishment of a dispossessed working class and a beleaguered middle class. It solidifies a corporate oligarchy that is dismantling the anemic regulatory agencies that once protected citizens from predatory corporations. The economic system is designed to bail out Wall Street rather than replace the trillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost by workers. And the only hope left, Nader argues, is if the conservatives in the right-wing movement break from the corporatists. If the big banks again start going to the cliff and calling for new bailouts, Nader says, this may provoke a schism between conservative groups embodied by figures such as Ron Paul, and corporate lackeys.
"Every major movement starts with field organizers, the farmers, unions, and the civil rights movement," Nader said. "But there is nothing out there. We need to start learning from what was done in the past. All over the country people are pissed off. They hate Wall Street. They know they are being gouged. They know they are slipping behind. They know their kids will not be as well off as they were, and they were not that well off. But no one is putting it together. Who could put a thousand organizers in the field, besides George Soros? The labor unions. They have the money. They have a lot of cash. These idiots are going down. The UAW is a paradigm of a suicidal, supplicant labor union. It is disgusting. They are a puppy dog of GM, Ford and Chrysler. They have huge reserves. The labor unions could organize the country, but they are into their own emoluments and high salaries. The union leadership has so distanced itself from the rank and file that it is ashamed to do anything controversial. These union leaders will not go on TV on Labor Day because they do not want someone saying ‘Why are you making $500,000 a year with a pension that is six times your rank and file?' There is corruption at the top. The only way the union leaders can continue is to be in the shadows. And you don't build a strong movement in the shadows.
"The black swan question is whether something will erupt that is rare, extreme and unpredictable," Nader said. "It is amazing that it hasn't happened in any pockets of the country. How much more can the oppressed take before they revolt? And can they revolt without organizers? These are the two important questions. You have got to have organizers, and as of now we don't."
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...
331 Comments so far
Show AllI was taught that it takes up to seven lifetimes to comprehend The Great Mystery. Yet some develop advanced wisdom and comprehend in less time. I claim no such special wisdom. I am often invited to ceremony by a few whom I believe do possess such insight and wisdom. When asked to speak I do so with a sense of smallness among giants. I have listened to the Elders closely and over time have been guided along the wisdom path. My sense is this, to survive we must seek unity. There will be helpers along this path to both purify and open the mind. There are transformational energies growing in intensity that will change us into more spiritual beings if we are prepared and seek change. Those who change will be elevated to a more spiritual plane of existence. Those who do not may be lost in the purification. Time will accelerate by a factor of twenty thereby clearly identifying and displaying our selves; therefore. it is very important and timely to seek our spiritual selves and to learn to live in right relationship with all now, for the time is short. When the Earth and Sun allign with the center of the milky way, energies are expected to amplify. We do not fully understand the implications of amplified energy. We have teachings and prophecy to guide us. And so we prepare.
"The more outrageous they [the right] become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats."
This situation arises for one simple reason: the right agrees on a basic scenario, the one visualized by Norman Rockwell. This agreement allows them to carry the election. The left agrees on nothing because it has abandoned socialism -- at the insistence of moderates and conservatives alike.
If capitalism presents problems and democracy presents problems, why should socialism not present problems? The mere fact that it faces difficulties in implementation does not mean that its goals and ideals are false. Until the left comes together in agreement, it cannot expect to inspire the public, much less to carry an election.
Nader is wrong: the left does have somewhere to go.
Go inward, and discover your personal power.
Instead of moaning and groaning about how powerful the right is, become powerful yourself by discovering your true value, goodness, voice, creativity, will to prevail, and determinatin to make a difference. And do it in the spirit of freedom and joy and gratitude that you live in America instead of China.
That was parody, wasn't it?
John
the desire to be rich is taught
just like religion has to be taught
no one is born with beliefs
how about if we let people be people and teach them very little
Yet another well written article by Chris Hedges.
It is correct that Progressive Liberals have nowhere to go, and it's mostly because Progressive Liberals cannot grasp that libertarian-minded politicians like Ron Paul are potential allies not enemies. For instance, before the Tea Party was crashed by corporate Neo-liberals, Progressive Liberals should have joined the party and helped guide it. Instead, Liberal Progressives spent their energy ridiculing other Americans that held very similar views on most political issues. Extraordinary!
You don't seem to know what "neoliberal" means. The Ayn-Rand "libertarians" like Ron and Rand are the heart of neoliberalism.
SaboCat,
Thank you for your reply, although, I heartily disagree with you sir.
For the most part, Neo-liberals (wrongly called Neo-conservatives) are disaster capitalists and foreign imperialists (in the Woodrow Wilson mold) best reflected in the Clinton / GW Bush / Obama administrations financed by mega-corporations and Wall Street bankers. Naturally, the Federal Reserve provides fiat cash on demand to these interests.
Think on it, Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve, he favors a non-interventionist foreign policy, he wants to protect our rights of privacy and property, etc. etc. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist and a man of conviction and courage.
Certainly, I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas, yet, he is a Classic Liberal and should be a great ally of Progressive Liberals and Independents.
Unfortunately, it seems most Progressive Liberals are good-hearted but naive socialists who can't grasp the inherent failures of socialism in a large, heterogenous population like ours. The United States is not Norway or Sweden for Pete's sake. The United States is an enormous, world-wide economic empire that is in the initial stages of decline, perhaps, collapse.
Check out this website:
Niall Ferguson: Empires on the Edge of Chaos
http://fora.tv/2010/07/28/Niall_Ferguson_Empires_on_the_Edge_of_Chaos#fullpr
Have a great day!
"Neoliberalism" means a return to classical Adam-Smithian economics. It initial usage would probably be most associated with Margaret Thatcher. By extension, it also refers to the cultural phenomenon where "free markets" gets used as an orgainzing principle behind even non-economic human affairs.
I've used, and have been around people using, the term "neoliberalism" since at least the mid 1990's (anti corporate-globalization organizers; Monthly Review writers). I've never heard it used as you are using it. But leave it to typical USAn to discover an important concept 20 years late, then completely redefine it into something not used anywhere else in the world.
As far as Ron and Rand Paul, they want to basically abolish the 20th century:
No health, safety, wage and working condition protections for the worker,
No protections for the environment.
No safety protections for food, consumer goods and trasportation.
No regulations regarding the financial conduct of corporations or banks.
No basic social wage for the unemployed and poor.
No protection of the right to oirganize a union.
If you want to see a star-pupil of the "libertarian" philosophy, of the Pauls just go to El Salvador or Honduras.
Even worse, just look at PA itself with gas drillers getting away with poisoning the waters in exploiting the weaknesses of the Paul version of "libertarianism". :.(
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/422066/
Are you trying to tell us that abolishing the UN, the EPA, allowing prayer in public schools, opposing abortion, stem cell research, etc. (all positions Ron Paul supports) are "progressive liberal" views? The only thing that is "extraordinary" is that you somehow manage to contain your cognitive dissonance about so-called "libertarians" without your head exploding.
Biomusicologist,
Thanks for the reply to my comment. I like your moniker ... Biomusicologist.
I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas. And, you listed several of them. He's no great fan of conservation either.
Successful politics depends on building solid coalitions which means prioritizing issues. Ron Paul wants a non-interventioist foreign policy; Paul wants to dismantle the "military-industrial complex"; he strongly defends our rights to privacy and property; Paul wants to audit the outrageously corrupt Federal Reserve System; in 2008, he wanted the large investment banks on Wall Street to fail not be bailed out; Paul wants competing currencies to the US Dollar, etc. etc. To me, these issues far outweigh stem cell research, abortion or prayer in public schools. It's not that those issues are not important, they are important, but much less than the ones I mentioned.
The inability of Progressive Liberals to form allies and political coalitions are the main reason they are finished.
Have a great day!
Widhalm 19 believes that Ron Paul's stand on issues, such as a non-interventionist foreign policy, "far outweigh [s]" other issues such as stem cell research. As a Vietnam veteran I strongly oppose U.S. militarism and American imperialism. But I also am firmly against Paul's Neanderthal and stupid and misguided approach to being against stem cell research. Paul's backward stance on this issue is a huge issue for me given the fact that stem cell research could definitely help benefit my wife and others who are afflicted with Parkinson's Disease as well as those who have other diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Lou Ghering's disease, etc..
I therefore do not support a cretin like Paul whose stance against U.S. militarism does nothing to disguise his totally idiotic and illogical position that he has taken against stem cell research. Here is a little news flash for Mr. Widhalm 19. One should not mention Paul's position on U.S. foreign policy while also attempting mental gymnastics in order to justify if not excuse the incredibly wrong position that he has taken, both morally and scientifically, in regard to stem cell research.
There is absolutely no excuse for the position that Paul has taken on this issue especially given the fact that this politician and this allegedly erudite individual also happens to be a doctor! Despite Paul's medical credentials, it would appear that Dr. Paul is more intent upon leading Americans back to the Dark Ages rather than into the 21st century.
How could a Libertarian be against stem cell?
A typical libertarian could be baited into saying no on public funding but go silent on privatized stem cell research.
I was not able to tell whether or not Widhalm supported Paul's opposition to stem cell research. His post comes out to mean that we should first stop the wars and occupations before thinking about stem cell research. I have one way to put these two issues together. Stem cells should be used to help heal as many scars as possible but not to the point of misusing them to throw soldiers back into war.
My take on Ron Paul is mixed when I compare his take on the issues to most Republicans and Democrats. Yes, Paul should not be allowed to get away with his opposition to stem cell research. However, since Paul comes out to be to the "left" of Obama but to the "right" of Nader, Mckinney, Sheehan, Potts, etc..., he can be difficult to completely dismiss what with his overlapping with the progressives on some issues while coming out repulsive on others. I wish that the American "Left" can be more like Nader and less like Clinton/Obama.
Jennifer B.
I am confused as to your confusion regarding the thinking of Mr. Widhalm 19. At 11:56 am he said that stem cell research is "important but much less important than the ones I mentioned." He further went on to say that issues such as U.S. foreign policy [which I, also, am extremely critical of] "far outweigh stem cell research."
It was quite clear to me how Widhalm feels about this as his own words reveal that he does not believe, to borrow from what he had written, that stem cell research is not that important as other issues that are out there while never realizing that stem cell research should be considered just as important as other issues. Again, U.S. foreign policy should not be thought of as far outweighing stem cell research because of the simple fact that BOTH of them should be considered to be equally significant.
This is what libertarians like Ron Paul will do. They will justifiably criticize U.S. foreign policy while also condemning such worthwhile programs such as stem cell research, which should then prove that libertarians are no true friends of those on the left.
Erroll, I went back and thought some more about this. Last year, I had a discussion with Metal and someone else about rugged individualism that makes up American libertarianism and why it differs from libertarianism in other nations such as most of Europe. In our case of foreign policy, it is possible to agree on being anti-war albeit for different reasons. The Ron Paul reasoning may look harmless at first until they show their differences on anything resembling socialism. Widhalm probably thinks only about the monetary costs of the wars and occupations while you and I both take into account the human and environmental costs of war in addition to monetary costs. By his reasoning, we would just have the troops brought home but left uncared for because to set up public social programs such as single payer health care and stem cells would look too "socialist" to him.
I have been at odds with myself wondering if we should just use the Paul thinkers for general support and then try to get them on board with issues such as socialism and stem cells or if we should get them to see our way of reasoning even though we would all agree on being anti-war overall. The latter option is more promising because it cuts down long term worries on sustaining support. The former option can almost be like making the same mistake of worrying about the ends over the means.
P.S.: I apologize for my confusion. This article had me thinking a lot about ends and means.
Duplicate post
Interesting article... I think, and have said this before, that progressives have to abandon the Democratic party if they haven't already. By sticking with them and accepting that they have to vote for the lesser (maybe) of two evils, they give the democrats that 4-5% that keeps them in the running. If they were guaranteed of loosing every election till they move to the left, they would damned well move there.
Time to save the left by letting it lose a few times. Make it clear that there is no place for THEM to go *but* left.
Exactly Shade and also take credit for OilyBombers losses in Congress.
Agreed. No guarantee it will keep the power mongers out, but it seems to only choice politically.
Well I don't see any other course. In effect to love it, you have to kill it.
Thank you Chris again and Nader again, my question to all the well versed readers and thinkers. So when do we begin the change for a real democacry/United States of America for all and one? Writing is good to be informed and recieved more witness, but we are going to have to remoev oursleves fron the computer soon. Thank you, brothers and sisters.
Hello John, Not my form of discussion, as I find words short of strength for change. Simple said, most wish not be informed on real root causes...Ignorance, arrogance and hubris for those in power and even intelligence blocks can block awareness. If I am asleep, why would I want anyone to awake me from my dream? To be aware of root causes one has to be willing to dig deep into analysis of much vomit and entrails of our legacy...Most can't even deal with racism, let along all the many atrocities on others...I find more answers within myself and then take actions for peace, anywhere and share in my daily actions throughout the day...at times even within nano seconds.
duplicate
This idea that man must repent and turn back from his sinful ways before there can be any political or social change is a religious pitch, and not appropriate in a serious political discussion. Perhaps God would favor us with more abundant harvests on the farm if we would only turn back to him, but that is not relevant or useful in a serious discussion about agriculture. Nor are the things you are saying relevant to politics.
Quit talking and organize.
Great minds think alike
The answer to your question all depends on what change we are talking about. Is this change for real or is it just another illusion of "change" that we are to fight for? It is one thing to demand change but without the proper foundation, the only "change" we will continue to end up in will be another slippery slope into a greater mess followed by wondering what hit us.
the obvious answer is when things get bad enough - even for the "middle class"
some one said a 60% poverty rate - I think it might have to be higher than that.....
Your question, while good, is not a question to be answered at until we get a good grip on what it really takes to be any of those labels that are otherwise rendered meaningless by the political elites. For example, you may come out surprised that even a working truck driver who may be a typical Limbaugh conservative and yet a typical worker pro-union when properly informed and educated about labor unions.
"for the root cause is, for a fact, that society is trying to achieve the impossible. Namely, to satisfy everyone’s desire to be rich, surely what the dominant paradigm is all about."
Maybe that's your root cause. I think, for most people, what individuals want is an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, to be secure in their persons and homes from government thugs, and.......to have the people we elect to represent us actually do as we say.
Unions have all this people power and their leaders are stupid. They support one party that never, ever delivers--and is, in fact, hostile to them--when they could play each party against the other. They could threaten to go third party in the 2012 election. They should shed themselves of the Obama Democrat Party and do it now. That would be a start.
We should picket and protest corporations and especially the government. We should make noise. Maybe they won't cover us, but you can bet we will be heard if we get out and do something. It scares the shit out of them.
One of the things that is a problem, the big reason third parties don't stand a chance and we remain a two party state is first past the post. The fact is, people are too afraid to vote other than the democrats for fear of splintering the liberal vote and handing a victory to the Republicans. I am convinced that a proportional system is the best way to fix this, since it assures that a large number of parties will get a vote share equal to the number of votes they recieve in the elections.
another problem, and the reason we do not live in a democracy, is that there is no real mainstream independant media. The BBC in the UK provides some independent perspective, it has its own taxation authority independent of parliament but for all intents and purposes much of the media in the US is controlled by corporations or corporate controlled politicians who control the funding of PBS.
Th media focuses in on certain candidates and ignores issues, or frames issues in ways that promote corporate interests. The advertisers control the news and information, in effect. The US needs an independant media with its own constitutional taxation authority.
In addition corporations buy politicians and thanks to Citizens United, now also can manipulate the country further with unlimited issue advertising. Campaign finance needs to be completely banned and corporate issues advertising prohibited or else it should be made very clear that we are not living in a true democracy.
Changing the electoral system would require an organization with the power to do that, and if there were an organization powerful enough to do that there would no longer be any need to do that.
The same applies to overthrowing the media, as well.
Neither the mass media nor the electoral political system are doing anything other than exactly what they were intended to do. It is all a grand illusion that elections determine how we are governed and that the mass media is presenting the news. Neither can be "restored" or "reformed." They can be replaced, but the people benefiting from the existing arrangement will not let that happen, will not relinquish power over them without a fight.
It is indulging in fantasy to say "if the media were different..." or "if we had better choices in the voting booth..."
There is more to the loss of the American "Left" than what even this article discusses. Until the last two paragraphs, the article came off as a little too political even Hedges was spot on about the reality of the American "Left" that is long used to "accepting" abuse and would look rightist to people in other nations watching the politically dysfunctional in this country. In fact, without realizing it, even some on the supposedly "Left" go as far in "defending" abuse. A typical Democrat/Republican party apologist will read this article and call Ralph all sorts of names such as "spoiler", "sore loser", "unwinnable", etc... but the loser isn't Ralph. The losers are the people who are truly conditioned into fearing real change without understanding how we got there and why we will continue to stay there.
Take a look back at Election 2008 where Obama seduced enough of the electorate to believe in his "hope and change" crap to get his 53%. Mccain had his own set of crap to sell just to get his 46%. I may have been a strong Nader lover when I voted three elections in a row for that man but it was only after I realized that my real reason I went for him was because he actually stood for all of us on issues that mattered a great deal to everyone. Neither he nor Mckinney played into this "first black" or "first woman" president celebrity nonsense. You would never see anything like that from Obama, Hillary, Mccain, or Palin. Unfortunately, 2008 was the year where celebrity trumped principle and issues despite both the financial meltdowns here at home and accumulated disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the Middle East thanks to USA foreign policies.
Even in the last election nothing changed. People were still not ready to vote on principle or the issues. Instead, it was another year of feeling like some new "change" was coming from the Republicans in this "Tea Party" form. Then there were those who went on with their usual "the Democrats are doing bad but we must shut up and be practical or else those big bad Republican wolves will eat Obama alive" crap. The fundamental problem with politics is the temptation to assume that we have control over the end (i.e., voting on party and even ideological labels) than the means (i.e., voting on principle and on issues) when our ability to get a good product can only come from the best means. To the people who still want to trash critical thinking as "purist", I recommend reading the following article on why settling for "pragmatic solutions" is not only lazy but the worst form of self-defeatism and a concession to authoritarianism.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/g_relevance/chap28.htm
The history and philosophies of Nader and Gandhi ought to be required reading in both schools and home schooling. Each of those heroes went out on a limb to wake up an otherwise lethargic society in their times. The sad part is that one met his end in sudden death while the other was systematically marginalized both by the political elites and the weakness associated with most voters focusing on the ends over the means. Until this American "Left" gets it, they will continue to believe that there is "nowhere to go" which will be as good as politically stabbing their hearts with a dagger election after election.
Thank you for posting your intelligent, well-written words. I enjoy reading your responses here at Commondreams.
Have a great day!
Thank you as well. I saw what you had written on Sweden and Norway and while you may be correct that the USA is nothing like Sweden or Norway, making them more like those nations is not impossible. Socialism is possible even in a society that has a heterogeneous population. I cannot count on Ron Paul to have a heart for socialism or ease up on his strict interpretations of the Constitution.
JenniferBedingfield,
Thanks for your reply. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful words. Thank you.
It's funny how much writer's assume when responding to one another, so, I will offer a little bio information. My wife and I work in southern Alaska (the Chugach State Park area) during the summer months as field guides. We both have graduate degrees in science. We are deeply involved in conservation and education - public and private. We own a wildlife sanctuary in eastern Colorado near the little town of Matheson. It is part of a much larger prairie wildlife sanctuary (30,000 acres in all) that is managed on a modified HRM (Holistic Resource Management) scheme. We raised our 3 boys in Hawaii where we started a high school - Hualalai Academy - and developed the curriculum on holistic principles. For the past five years, during North American winters, we travel to southern Africa where we volunteer with conservation projects and secular charities.
The reason I oppose most Liberal Progressive (socialist) politics is that I've traveled in a dozen socialized nations! I have witnessed first hand the disaster of a socialist economy in action. The only thing worse is the disaster capitalism flowing from Neo-liberals. And, it's true, socialism does struggle along in Scandanavia, but it's mostly because those ancient cultures are highly homogenous, cohesive and still somewhat kin-related .... almost the opposite of the United States of America. Have you traveled to Norway, Denmark or Sweden? Beautiful country! Anyway, look what happened when socialism was practiced in the Soviet Union and China. In large highly diverse cultures, socialism REQUIRES an authoritarian government to enforce its tenets. Somehow, Progressive Liberals - naive Marxists - cannot grasp this verifiable fact nor the evidence of history. I suspect it's mostly due to inexperience, good will, naivete and something termed the "great mistake" by a few bold anthropologists.
Simply put, the "great mistake" is a misunderstanding of the neolithic revolution to be evidence of a linear "human progress" by way of technological advancement. You seem a smart lady, please, research the topic. I suspect you will find that Homo sapiens sapiens did not "progress" toward agriculture then city dwelling, no, no, human beans were forced to agriculture at the very margins of existence. Agriculture and it's by-product, civilization, are extremely unsustainable endeavors that borrow too heavily from the future to enrich the present (just like the Federal Reserve Banking System today). The highly urbanized Progressive Liberal does not seem to understand this fact. Please, heck out Lewis Binford's and Lewis Mumfords' work on the subject.
At any rate, our ancestors (hunters, gatherers, scavengers all) evolved in small, kin-related / kindred spirit groups highly interdependent on one another. Generally, our kin and kindred spirits numbered no more than say, 30 to 300 individuals per band. Even today, in our highly industrialized cultures, about 30 to 300 people is the number of significant others in our lives. In hyper-brief, the "great mistake" is extending our intimate care-taking and necessary resources of kin and kindred spirit to strangers ... in many cases, hostile, aggressive strangers. In microcosm, you can witness this process here on Commondreams daily. Often, when I disagree with a Progessive Liberal their reply is ugly sometimes savage, yet, the same writer will go on to encourage the decency of socialism for the good of all. That level of disconnection and delusion befuddles the mind!
JenniferBedingfield, I do appreciate your insight and thoughts to words. Keep up the good work.
Have a great day!
Widhalm19
Widhalm, I think that you are an environmentalist at heart from what you have written and I admire your background and history. I myself will be turning 30 towards the end of next month so I believe that I have a long ways to go. You have plenty in common with progressives and people here generally do sympathize when you make your similarities and differences clear over time.
Erroll has nothing against you and he means well for all of us. The fact that most of us here are disgusted with disaster capitalism and wonder if we will ever attain anything close to socialism can cause some of us to give hair trigger responses. Generally, I have gotten over it unless were to push me hard enough into it.
But before I digress, let me help you out on your views on socialism. I have been to Sweden and while it is not as socialistic as it used to be, it is a great nation that should be looked at as a model of socialism. Your mistake, and you are not alone, is mixing socialism with communism which is what China and USSR were all about. Most of us on this site including myself are in favor of socialism but not communism. Your other mistake is tying neo-liberalism to socialism. Socialist policies are all about fairness for all and keeping the risks minimized while neo-liberalism is a little too "faith based" and allowing too many risks and preventable losses to trickle in and make a mess of things.
I admit that I am mainly socialist but don't mind a little wiggle room for regulated and limited capitalism. If one allows too many risks and preventable tragedies in, then it gets harder to track down the perpetrators which then leads to blaming the individual because it is so "easy" to do. That is where our anger on this forum comes from. None of us desire a utopia but we truly desire fairness and justice for the good of everyone.
I cannot speak for everyone here but I do not mind using this forum to spell out our similarities and work out our differences. It helps not only us but plenty of other readers. I might get annoyed if the same person repeats the same arguments pretending that no one else tried to work it out with them but very few are like that here. I enjoyed discussing with both you and Erroll and I look forward to more great discussions ahead. Happy New Year. :)
P.S.: I grew up in the country side when I was young and while I eventually became a city girl, I couldn't help but go back and revisit the rurals no matter how depressing it has become out there. Erroll is from the rurals too or that is what I read (2009 or 2010) in one of his posts. He has discussed about the difficulties associated with trying to do without a car in the rurals given the great distance between home and every place that people living in urban areas would take for granted walking or taking a train to them.
As for CD, I used to be here quite frequently in 2009 but things changed and I haven't had as much luxury. However, I take the time to read everyone's points of view and think things through. Yes, I used to be way too emotional but I have overcome that weakness without losing my passion. Some people come and go while others stay longer. I have no clue as to where I will be in the weeks, months, and years to come. We all have our differences but generally do our best to understand and possibly work them out.
If you are new to CD, then I'm pleased to meet you too and I think that this site could be a learning experience for you as it was for me. :)
Poker is a fun game for winners & losers, gambling is what it is... except when the other players are cheating. Nader correctly announces 'there is no where to go', after himself playing several hands in the big show. As in any rigged game, the cheaters ploy is to let the honest (like Ralph, Ross, Cynthia) in on small wins, while anxious to play their secret cheat when the bets are maximized. Being honest & fair is not cowardice, nor apathetic, remain whole & refuse to pay into the cheaters game. The cheaters have been revealed for what they are on so many levels, mountains of proof, and worn out excuses have reduced the rigged game to an exercise of glitter, secrets, & overwhelming bets.
whocares;)
The more legitimacy that a government attains the less it needs to exercise outright violence against it opponents. A government which continually had to resort to violence to achieve its ends would soon be seen for exactly what it was: a criminal gang.
So, given that a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation, what is the responsibility of the voters for the actions of its government?
Voting in the United States isn't about "democracy"—it's about perpetuating the illusion of democracy.
We need to remind ourselves of Albert Einstein’s admonition: “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Trying to reform the political process makes no more sense than trying to reform the carnivorous appetites of jungle beasts. If it is your desire to put an end to the violent, destructive, corrupt, and dysfunctional nature of government, stop wasting your time by focusing on the current management of the system.
As physicians have learned from the study of the body , a disease often indicates, not a permanent deterioration, but an attempt to restore an equilibrium that has been disturbed, and to recover natural functions that have been thwarted or suppressed. Without some overt manifestation of pathological symptoms, permanent damages might result before the disease could be detected and adequate measures taken to overcome it.
The voting ritual serves to disguise the symptoms. The patient is gasping for air. A face lift won't help.
I come to this discussion very late ---- Many, many good points made, but, mcoyote, I quote you from above---- "Voting in the United States isn't about "democracy"—it's about perpetuating the illusion of democracy"--"The voting ritual serves to disguise the symptoms" --- I agree that our system has been perverted --- it has even been said that if voting really mattered, it would be illegal ---- I point out, however that while you have identified one of the symptoms of our national malady, You fail entirely to prescribe its cure. How would you have us select, or impose leadership? dh
Chris, what are the odds in scientific polling that if we follow your advice, Republicans won't dominate all branches of government?
In the realm of the possible, I think we might press some progressive legislators to introduce a bill allowing for binding referendums. Referendums at the federal and state level could undo much of the harm that compromised politicians cause.
http://ni4d.us/
The righteous and justifiable anger coming from Hedges and especially from Nader is most palpable and most gratifying to see. It was distressing to read that Andrew Bacevich had five Op-Eds rejected by The Times and The Post apparently because he had the temerity to challenge the status quo.
As Nader points out, there are voices out there that can help to awaken the consciousness of the American people. But the corporate media is doing its best to make sure that people like Nader and Chris Hedges and Bacevich and David Swanson and John Pilger and Robert Fisk and Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein and others are going to be shut out in the public forum just like Nader basically was when he ran for president in 2000, 2004 and 2008. It would seem that the last thing that the mainstream media desires to see is anyone going up against the Democrats and the Republicans. The game is fixed with the American people and especially the left [at least what there is of it in this country] suffering the consequences when they attempt to go up against a stacked deck.
Leftwing, rightwing and centerist are symbolic terms used to artificially divide the continuous spectrum of political philosophy into tidy, bite size groupings. This averaging of diversity not only doesn't reflect the true nature of the political spectrum it also frames the discourse into a linear relationship when a circular one far more accurately symbolizes the body politic of all western countries.
The linear metaphor puts anarchists and libertarians, for instance, as the two most distant groups ideologically when, in my opinion, these two are kissing cousins philosophically. Anarchists and libertarians are no more different in political philosophy than say RINOs and DINOs. The circular metaphor much more accurately reflects the real relationship of political opinions in America. The circular metaphor offers an alternative to the political dead end of our current artificial divisions, it shows how we are all cousins, how we are all in this together.
This would be true if and only if politics were about imaginary subjective concepts rather than about reality.
the alternatives are NOT on a continuum on which the difference is only a matter of degree.
No guts, no glory.
'Field organizers' begin with an individual who has an idea and wholesome goal, feels passionate about it. The imagination is captivated and begins to entertain this idea in more detail. The individual starts to see it, taste it in the mind. Personal excitement builds. Possibilities and potential approaches begin to unfurl. After some contemplation about the idea from different angles, after doing a bit of information-gathering and research about it, a sense of some specifics begin to take shape. The idea starts to have some meat on its bones. At this point, the individual might consider sharing the idea and some preliminaries with a likeminded, trusted pal. Input from the pal is solicited. This idea's strengths and some potential weaknesses are discussed. If the pal becomes animated and passionate about this idea, too, if lively discussion of possibilities and sharing ensues, if both individuals lose track of time during the lively discussion, if there's willingness, enthusiasm and courage to move into the unknown together, bingo, the beginnings of 'field organizers' are underway. The pals are ripe to outline a basic plan together, work toward next steps. The work will teach you as you go. The first step includes a commitment to see the idea through. There's no guarantee of anything. As Clint Eastwood said in a movie, "If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster." Plotting and scheming are cunning saboteurs wielded by the ego. Outsmart it: Let go of the outcome.
This isn't rocket science. There's genius inside you. Unleash your latent genius from the grips of false pride, ego, fear. Stop allowing fear to eat your lunch. Heck, what have we got to lose? We've been looking for leadership in all the wrong places.
Been there, done that. No matter what happens, no matter how exhausted or frustrated you might feel from the work itself, an unspeakable joy takes over. It happens from being true to yourself, giving your all and everything "for a purpose that you recognize as good". A sense of living without regret is beyond words and theories. It's work you were born to do and contribute. It's an EXPERIENCE awaiting your cooperation and participation.
"Never doubt that a small group of caring citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
from the article:
~ "They are afraid of the right-wing because the right-wing bellows, and they have become right-wing," Nader said of the commercial press. ~
Afraid of bellowing? no...
President Kennedy wasn't 'bellowed'...he was shot through the head in broad daylight while waving to a crowd...
The World Trade Center workers weren't 'bellowed'...they were burned alive in broad daylight high above a crowd...
The innocent Afghanistan civilian isn't 'bellowed'...he or she is targeted and murdered via a remote control drone as one of many within a crowd...
The right wing kills...publicly...that is why they win...
those that don't wish to engage in killing, acquiesce...and whine...and work to pay those that do...