Let's Stop Searching for a "Messiah" and Build a Movement

[struggle4progress]

By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future
Sunday, 25 May 2014 09:30

... Today’s situation necessitates common movement-building ...

Some might say the right’s success came about because there is so much more money on the corporate/conservative side. But we have the numbers ...

Imagine dozens of fully funded, fully staffed progressive organizations reaching out to all corners of America, employing people to write op-eds, appear on the radio, speak to audiences, knock on doors ...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23926-lets-stop-searching-for-a-messiah-and-build-a-movement

[el_bryanto]

1. That's a pretty good analysis. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I remember in 2008 when the right wing would sarcastically refer to Obama as The Messiah

Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I would always laugh at this and brush it off as stupidity.

But as time goes on and some liberals attack Obama for things like failing to get single payer through Congress, it appears some on the left were actually looking for a messiah. Those folks wanted someone who could wave a magic wand and make it all better.

Now some are trying to make Warren into a messiah.

That's just not how it works.

[Doctor_J]

3. Ah, yes. 2 replies before "liberals" are blamed for

TPP, KXL, Heritage Care, charter schools, and drone warfare.

Might's well get the thread headed in the "right" direction.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. You have gotta stop chasing people like Bernie through the desert as though they are a messiah

Build a movement, don't try to build up a messiah.

Shit. Don't. Work.

[rhett o rick]

7. Of course just drink the Blue Dog cool aid and settle for Clinton-Sachs. No thanks.

I will keep looking for a leader that represents the 99% and not Wall Street. Yes the left was looking for that in Obama, he told us during the campaign that he was a leader for the 99%, but we quickly learned with choices like Rick Warren, and Rahmbo and dumping Dean. Then appointment after appointment of Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Then Penny Pritzker kind of said it all.

I wonder about the motives of the Group trying to discourage the left from finding a leader.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Again....you're looking for a messiah.

It's not about Warren, Clinton or any individual. It's about building a movement to achieve goals.

Did you read the link? Hilarious shit:

After Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gave her rousing speech at the New Populism Conference Thursday, she, of course, was asked if she was going to run for President. (The crowd was chanting “Run, Elizabeth, Run!”)

Warren replied, “I am not running for president,” which prompted one hopeful progressive to tweet, “Interesting choice of tense.”

<...>


In the scene, imagine that progressives chase Sen. Warren through the desert. Finally, she says, “I am not running for President, do you understand? Honestly!” A woman cries out, “Only the true candidate denies her candidacy.”

You're going about it all wrong. You need to stop searching for messiahs. You can sport a Warren avatar and signature line all you want, but that will not help you to achieve your goals.

Warren bumper stickers do not help to get legislation through Congress. The sooner you realize that, the better.

[jwirr]

15. It isn't about one person but it is about who can veto the bill we have worked for. Thus who is

president is important. But I do think we have need to fight fire with fire and build the movement that the OP has suggested. That will require grassroots movements that build to the top. And yes the rethugs have given us a good example of how to do it. They used to churches to build a coalition that could be called on at the drop of the hat to do their part: write editorial in local papers, make calls, etc. They are very good at it but we are not because we do not have the central church to gather us together.

As an example - Even though I have lobbied for years I did not even know how to contact my local country party officials. This comes from knowing that we are a Democratic area and do not need to do the usual thing in elections. But if we are going to become a cohesive national party that answers to the call we are going to have to meet and greet each other. I am going to have to know who I can count on to answer when it comes to getting a bill passed.

[rhett o rick]

26. The movement has started all over the country. Every week you have a protest somewhere.

GMO's or teachers fighting for contracts, vets protesting bad services, etc. We dont hear much because of the Corp-Media. What we need is a strategy and tactics and a leader. While I agree we need to take our party back from the Conservative-Democrats that work hand-in-hand with the Republicans, we need to work on the movement outside the party. The party machine is controlled by the oligarchs.

[jwirr]

34. I agree but that will make it all the more hard to organize if we are outside the party. The rethug

used the churches and the gop which made it rather simple to take over that party. If we are going to work out side the party and we do not have the church to bring us together - what is going to unite all the different issues. We need to have a source of info that does not rely on the MSM and we need a way to let people know what is happening in their neighborhood.

[KittyWampus]

8. wtf? the person you are responding to didn't blame liberals for anything. That your take away

from the post is that liberals are being blamed says volumes about your mindset.

It's very, very telling.

[treestar]

33. this ^^^^^

You have it spot on.

[Drew Richards]

5. We tried that and then they booted the creator out the door...sorry Howard Dean...

[KittyWampus]

9. Dean was running for president. Maybe some people glommed onto him. But he was always

just left of center and would have governed just left of center.

By bringing up Dean, you reinforce the OP.

[rhett o rick]

11. And what's your suggestion for the left? nm

[Drew Richards]

12. W T F ??? The OP is not saying that, the article is not saying that, i'm not saying that did you

Bother to even read what was written or just shot from the hip....

DEAN before he ran for president created and RAN the 50 state strategy...a grass roots movement if you will...that got MILLIONS involved in the political process...

The OP is calling for this again...the article is calling for it again..and I pointed out that DEAN did this for the Democratic party and the leaders spit on him...

Way to miss the point KW.

[RobertEarl]

18. That is true: 2006

I was occupying some democratic party space and rubbing elbows with some very connected individuals. They big shots did not like what Dean was doing with the grassroots. Looking back i determine that sharing their power was not in their personal best interests and Dean was suggesting they share power with the grassroots.

[BuelahWitch]

36. Yep, probably the best Chairman the DNC has had in recent years

Maybe ever.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. A movement is a good idea, but they still seem fixated on money

"Imagine if 100 million left-of-center Americans gave an average of $100 (27.4 cents a day) each year to build progressive organizations… (Hint: That adds up to $10 billion a year.)"

If 100 million left-of-center Americans just voted Democratic, it'd be a landslide - reality was 60 million for House candidates in 2012, and 66 million for Obama. Don't think that you need to employ people to knock on doors - get them to volunteer. "Employing people to write op-eds" - do they mean "buying newspapers and media sites to employ people"?

[rhett o rick]

10. Interesting that when OWS was in the street the comments were that we

needed a leader. Now we are seeking a leader and we are being told we need a movement.

The movement has started all across the country but many are blind to it or ignoring it. The movement needs a leader and cohesion. If we continue to elect Blue Dog presidents and Senators the movement will continue to be stymied. Holder thinks that prosecuting medical marijuana patients and keeping our prisons full is more important than stopping Wall Street crime.

The Blue Dogs are panicked that the left will find a leader. They post post after post trying to convince us 1. Not to bother with 2016, 2. Forget Sen Warren because "she promised"*, and 3. Sen Sanders is old and not even a Democrat.

Of course the Blue Dogs and Wall Street have their "Messiah". In fact I heard that since the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people, they can run for office. H. Clinton's running mate will be Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold.

*The Blue Dogs that are running around with hair on fire proclaiming that Sen Warren "promised" she wouldnt run are the same that, when asked about Obama's campaign promises, counter with "situations change."

The left doesnt need a messiah but a leader that will represent the 99%.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. You continue to cry out for The Messiah

It's not going to happen.

OWS failed because it couldn't translate those protests to concrete results like electing representatives.

It was all talk and no concrete action.

It's not about Warren, Clinton or Sanders. It's about building a movement that can achieve concrete goals.

[rhett o rick]

16. Messiah is your word used to belittle efforts by the left to find a leader.

I believe that movements need leadership. The left thought they found that leadership in 2008, but where naively wrong and are again looking.

You may be right that we might not be successful and the Blue Dogs will dance for joy. Eight more years of the slow death of the middle class. But I, for one, will not settle for "the best of evil" theory that has gotten us where we are.

I have been posting about starting a movement for a long time. But the movement has started and ignored by the media. We need leadership. And electing a Wall Street hack in 2016 wont do, Blue Dogs be damned.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. You continue to cry out for a Messiah and focus on the 2016 presidential election.

You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

You're not going to achieve goals by sporting Warren signature lines and avatars.

Frankly, that's just silly.

Many on the left actually did view Obama as a Messiah and now many see Warren as a Messiah that must be worshipped. It's enough to make one's head spin.

It's all about movements.

The sooner you realize that, the better.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

23. Hillary is terrific

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

To re-cap:

Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly stated that she is not running for President

Elizabeth Warren has stated that Hillary Clinton is terrific, and co-signed a letter urging her to run for President.


I'd also note that, between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, one was actually a registered Republican during a time in the 1990s. Hint -- it's not Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

29. Hillary is in the pocket of Wall Street. I guess you are ok with that. Not really surprised.

Some seem afraid to fight for their freedoms and liberties. They want 8 more years of the degridation of the middle class. If H. Clinton-Sachs has said that she will fight for the 99%, please enlighten me. IMO she has clearly signaled she supports the 1%.
But maybe you believe the trickle-down lie.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

30. I didn't say "Hillary is Terrific"; Elizabeth Warren did.

I didn't co-sign a letter asking Hillary Clinton to run for President. Elizabeth Warren did.

I wasn't a Republican in the 90s. Elizabeth Warren was.

So, Mr. Rhett, before you criticize me for what you say I'm OK with; before you accuse me of believing a "trickle down lie"; and before you accuse me of being afraid to fight for freedoms and liberties; perhaps you should ask Elizabeth Warren why she feels Hillary is Terrific? Why she co-signed a letter asking Hillary to run? Why she ever thought it was a good idea to join the Republican party?

[rhett o rick]

31. Why dont you speak for yourself?

You are making a common mistake. You think the left worships leaders like the centrist/Blue Dogs. We dont worship Sen Warren.

You cleverly havent committed yourself. How do you feel about H. Clinton-Sachs?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

32. Better idea: Why don't you answer the questions?

Why keep putting Elizabeth Warren's name out for President when she keeps insisting she will not run for President?

Why continue to insist that Hillary Clinton is without redeeming values when Elizabeth Warren says Hillary Clinton is "terrific"?

Why do you and other Elizabeth Warren supporters villify Hillary Clinton supporters at the same time Ms. Warren is co-signing a letter encouraging Hillary Clinton to run for President?

Why did Elizabeth Warren -- a highly intelligent woman who seems to know her own mind - flip flop on party affilitation?

Possibility #1: Warren intends to run for President. This makes her adamant denials lies.

Possibility #2: Warren thinks that Hillary Clinton brings more to the table than being a corporate shill.

As for my opinion: in this instance, I was responding to a post in the thread (not your post - I might add). In most other instances, I post excerpts from articles that I think might be of interest to other DUers. As for left wing worship, I'll let your avatar and the countless DUers sporting Elizabeth Warren sig-line "bumper stickers" speak for themselves.

[rhett o rick]

35. I can only answer why I will not ever support H. Clinton. In 2000 I was rocked by the

SCOTUS decision to award the presidency of the USofA to Georgie Bush, the poster child for the idiocy of inherited power. I was dismayed at the courts decision. Worse was the ho-hum attitude of the media and the Democratic Congress. Our champion Al Gore gave in like it didnt matter, like a loss at tennis. The consequences most likely destroyed our democracy and our great middle class.
And then came the Iwar that Cheney and the neocons wanted so badly they'd do anything. I still had faith in our great system of two parties keeping each other in check. But what? Democrats actually voted to give Georgie Bush the power to wage war, an illegal war. Who were these Democrats than gave up their integrity and groveled at the feet of the Boy King? Millions protested world wide and yet some Democrats choose to let Bush and Cheney and the neocons invade Iraq and kill thousands, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. We tried to stop them. We protested, but to no avail. We are partially responsible, we should have done more. But our country invaded an innocent nation for oil, for greed. And we can blame the Republicans and their lap dog Democratic followers. I counted on the Democrats to, if not stop the madness, to at least make it plain that they stood with us that rejected this war of greed. But to no avail. Some things speak louder than honesty and integrity. Ask H. Clinton what that is. I knew that Bush and Cheney were low life scum, but I expected more of H. Clinton. I was wrong. I will not make that mistake again.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

37. You could have saved a bunch of keystrokes and just typed "She voted for the Iraq war"

I expected more of H. Clinton. I was wrong. I will not make that mistake again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024999640#post35

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/




To recap:
a) You don't support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton for President.
b) You wish to draft Elizabeth Warren.
c) Elizabeth Warren has stated repeatedly she's not running for President
d) Elizabeth Warren has encouraged Hillary Clinton to run for President and states that H. Clinton is "terrific"

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

In summation, you support a candidate who, in turn, supports a candidate you despise.

[rhett o rick]

38. You are smug because you have the money and power of Goldman-Sachs and the Carlyle Group

behind your choice and I expect you will prevail. It will be a bad day for Democracy but you will rejoice as the poverty levels increase, as the Wall Street profits increase, as the bank bailouts continue, as the middle class families lose their homes, as the bridges collapse. But you will feel comfortable because you chose the winning side.

And if you think that Sen Warren would at this time say anything other than she supports H. Clinton-Sachs, then you dont know politics. The complete Democratic Machine supports H. Clinton-Carlyle and it would be suicide for Sen Warren to say anything else.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. I quoted you. Then I quoted Elizabeth Warren. Then I quoted Wikipedia. This makes me smug?

How this makes me smug, I don't know. I do know that "... if you think that Sen Warren would at this time say anything other than she supports H. Clinton-Sachs, then you dont know politics. The complete Democratic Machine supports H. Clinton-Carlyle and it would be suicide for Sen Warren to say anything else..." is the same thing as saying "Senator Warren is just lying about her support for Hillary Clinton. She's a politician, and politicians lie for the sake of expediency." While I question some odd choices that Elizabeth Warren has made, she doesn't strike me as a liar. I take Elizabeth Warren at her word: she isn't running for President and she admires Hillary Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

41. Sen Warren isnt a "lair" any more than Pred Obama or H. Clinton-Sachs.

Seems that you guys all use the same talking points, "I dont think Sen Warren is lying". Insinuating that others do if they dont agree with you. Not very clever, but totally worthy of Fox Noise.

Politicians often say things honestly, then later back track. Kinda like Obama when he made all those promises during his 2007 campaign.

Sen Warren may not run. She may see that the Conservative Wash DC Party Machine is set on H. Clinton-Carlyle.

The oligarchs have their eyes on Clinton and the conservatives here will be smug, content on 8 more years of the growth of poverty and Wall Street profits. The status quo is literally killing Americans, yet the conservatives among us dont care.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

42. Let's be clear. She's not a "lair". That's where a bear would live.

Elizabeth Warren is many fine things. She's not, however, a home for bears.

[rhett o rick]

43. Good grief. Remind me not to bother discussing anything with you.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

44. Seriously - you can't take a joke over a typo?

It shouldn't surprise me. My posts point out that Elizabeth Warren has expressed admiration for Hillary Clinton, and that Warren has repeatedly stated she's not running -- and I've pointed out these things in Warren's own words using sourced quotes. To me, it seems inherently contradictory that you despise Clinton, but support a candidate who says Hillary Clinton is terrific. In response, I've gotten your un-clever "H. Clinton-Sachs" nomenclature; gotten accused of using Fox talking points; got excuses for her Clinton support by way of the the she's-going-to-backtrack -because-she's-a pol explanation; and I got called smug.

You don't want to bother? Fine. I doubt either one of us gives a good God Damn what the other thinks -- which is ironic, because we probably agree on far more issues than we disagree.

You don't like Hillary Clinton. I get it. She voted for the Iraq War resolution: so did Harry Reid, so did Chuck Schumer, so did Secretary of State John Kerry, so did Maria Cantwell, so did Tom Harkin, and so did Vice President Joe Biden. I'm sure you don't like them either. For the record, I didn't support the resolution either.

Meantime, back at the Ranch, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican in the 1990s. Now,you seem unwilling to express any forgiveness to Hillary, but you seem fine with the fact that Elizabeth Warren stood with the party of Bush and Dole in the 1990s. It's not like Republican economic theory has changed since Reagan.

Now, a smug, hair-on-fire conservative with FAUX news quoting tendencies would generally bring up the Native American Controversy. I'll skip that, because there's really not much to the story, IMO. I will include a link to the WaPo summary here.

My problem with the views you present about Hillary Clinton are troubling because they remind me of Nader talking about Gore. To wit:

Vice President Albert Gore is preeminent among the politicians who have seized on this new corporate prerequisite for investment as an avenue for career advancement. He has best defined the role of politicians deemed attractive by corporations that appreciate the dangers and opportunities of environmentalism in politics. Corporations now reward politicians who can deliver environmental votes and opinion without seriously deterring their goals with burdensome environmental constraints.

Albert Gore is the politician who has best understood that his ability to attract and deliver the environmental constituency would make him attractive to corporate backers. Earth in the Balance, Gore's script for his reemergence as a national politician was an advertisement for his calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur, prepared to attract, barter and mollify environmental support for corporate cash. As a broker of environmental voters on corporate terms, Gore is the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician. He has literally written the book.

We can document Gore's commitment to his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash. Gore's agenda explains his apparent broken promises as, more than betrayal, proof of his calculated role as corporate double agent within the ranks of conservationists. Some examples:

Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore's compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse gases, and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty. These would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporation that build nuclear power plants. It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn't stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change affects big corporate contributors.

http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/NaderSierraC.htm#sierraclubnader

While there is some truth -- perhaps a great deal of truth -- in what Nader stated, no one at DU would say we were no better off with Gore than with Bush. So I see danger in painting Hillary Clinton as a tool of Wall Street and to imply that she's no better than Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush.

I see Hillary Clinton in much the same light as once saw Al Gore. Is she pro-business? Yes. Has she made mistakes? Yes. However, at this point, she has experience in the legislative and executive branches, and she took on the unenviable task of being the SecState who had to clean up after W. Bush's foreign policy disaster. I unapologetically think the American middle class is better off with President Clinton than with Presidents Jeb, Mitt, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, or Susanna Martinez.

So if you insist on supporting a candidate because she's not Hillary Clinton, even though she purports to admire Hillary Clinton, go ahead.

[Drew Richards]

20. I dont know if I can agree with your analysis ows was crushed through gov and corporate interference

At least thats what I took from DC rally...there were more cops and provocatuers being violent and brutal than there were actual protesters...at least on the secomd day thats what I saw.

[rhett o rick]

17. I find it ironic that some accuse the left of looking for a messiah. The left "dont play that game."

It looks like projection by the Blue Dogs that worship the ground Pres Obama walks on. They never, ever hold him accountable. They wont even post in threads about fracking, the TPP, the XL Pipeline, indefinite detention, Wall Street criticism, net neutrality, etc. They limit their threads and posts to ad hominem attacks on whistle-blowers and anyone that dares to speak truth to power. And they have the nerve to suggest that the left would worship a messiah.

The 99% needs a leader and it sure as hell aint H. Clinton / Goldman-Sachs.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Blue Dogs hardly "worship" him

They hardly publicly support him and usually have to run against him/his policies to keep their seats

[rhett o rick]

25. I am talking about those that will not question anything the Pres does. Those that here in DU

will not post in threads on fracking, TPP, XL Pipeline. You know who I mean. Call them what you will, but they aint liberals by any stretch of the imagine.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. We need a responsive Congress and somebody to sign its legislation

Period. Same with state legislatures/governors. We could have Democrats in the WH in perpetuity but if we keep getting the kinds of Congresses that PBO and Bill Clinton have had to deal with for most of their Presidencies, it's hard for them to move things in a more progressive direction. We ultimately need to build a strong electoral majority that supports our agenda at all levels first and then the rest will (presumably) follow.

[struggle4progress]

24. Yes, we need all that. And we need much more

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Finding one messiah is hard enough.

What you're calling for would require (435 + 100 + 1) * 0.51 messiahs for a sustained 100 years then repeated for every state in the union. Faith in The Messiah, I got. Humanity in general and politicians in particular? Not so much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. "Imagine dozens of fully funded, fully staffed progressive organizations..."

Unless those organizations are self-sustaining and wholly independent they'll be looking for a patron which means we're still in the messiah-hunting business.