Leftists, Liberals—and Losers? .... How and why progressives must unite for real change

[marmar]

from In These Times:



Leftists, Liberals—and Losers?
How and why progressives must unite for real change.

By G. William Domhoff


As President Barack Obama’s first year in office draws to a close, perhaps most In These Times readers feel the same way I do—more disappointed in the new administration and the Democratic Congress than I expected to be, even as I recognize dramatic changes since the Bush administration departed. Yet, I am even more disappointed that we on the left (progressives, socialists, anti-corporate capitalists) seem to be missing opportunities to change the direction of our country.

Those of us who seek progressive social change in the United States have made few advances in recent decades. This dearth of progress comes after a wealth of earlier successes: the organization of industrial unions, the creation and triumphs of the civil rights movement, and the successes of the feminist, environmentalist, LGBT and living-wage movements.

One cause of our current lack of accomplishments is an impasse between the two main political forces working for social change—Democratic liberals and leftist progressives—who differ in both goals and strategies. Liberals support gradual changes through education, lobbying and elections to curb the worst excesses of our capitalist system and provide greater social benefits through government. Leftists argue for more radical changes to the status quo.

Rather than lament the failures of the Democrats in Washington or the past failures of leftists, I want to offer a concrete strategy for creating the change we all want. In this more hopeful post-Bush/Cheney era, it is time to figure out how these two forces can rethink their strategies and create a coalition that could transform the nation.

Why don’t leftists connect with very many people, even though most Americans support greater equality, jobs for all, government support for education at all levels, government health insurance and much more? Maybe the problem is in the solutions the left offers and the way we’ve framed them, rather than people’s unwillingness to support greater fairness and equality. To overcome our relative marginalization, American leftists should create a strong new alliance with our more numerous brethren—the approximately 20 percent of Americans who define themselves as “liberal.” ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5314/leftists_liberalsand_losers

[Xipe Totec]

1. 60 votes in the Senate. Losers? In your face n/t

[marmar]

2. This is about Leftists and Liberals....not centrists and DLCers.

nt

[Xipe Totec]

3. I'm slightly to the right of Che

And I support the bill as the best of all achievable choices.

Some people think that you can't be on the left unless you're rolling on the floor, pouting and throwing tantrums.

[marmar]

4. Well, I'm not one of those people, because I hate the whiny myopia, but....

..... I don't consider this a "victory" for liberals. It's a starting point, I suppose.

[MineralMan]

7. OK, I'm an ideological socialist.

I want the entire country to be run on socialistic principles. That means that taxation rates will increase until nobody is any greater than anyone else and that those who have need will be supported by those who have excess.

I want all major businesses to be run by the collective government. I want churches to pay their share of taxes. I want the poorest new immigrant to have precisely the same health care that is available to the highest elected official. I want every child who has the intelligence to do so to continue his or her education to the highest desired level, all paid for. I want all vehicles which get less than 35 mpg to be banned from manufacture. I want people to have no more children than required to replace their parents. I want recycling to be mandatory with prison sentences for non-compliance.

Is that liberal enough for you? That's not the society in which we live, and is unattainable.

I support the passage of this health care bill as the best thing that can be adopted at this time. If you have a better, feasible, plan, trot it out. Otherwise, what is it that you're saying?

[Berry Cool]

8. You call that "liberal"?

You call mandatory family size control and recycling (with prison sentences for non-compliance) liberal?

Just wondering.

[MineralMan]

10. I said socialist.

Everything for the greater good. Overpopulation is a problem for society. The greater good demands that people reproduce only to replace themselves. Recycling is a major good for society. Therefore, it is mandatory.

The greater good. Nobody is superior to anyone else. If your actions harm society, then your actions are prohibited. If you are one of the Master class, then you must be reduced in status to be the same as everyone else.

All are equal, absolutely. Privilege is not socialism. Why should one person, or a group of people, be able to exert their will on the society at large? That is not socialism.

I live in this society, though, so I behave as a member of this society. We do not have socialism here, so I embrace any measures which improve the status of the members of society. Clearly, this bill helps some people who have long needed help. So I support it. It is not what I would wish to have, which is cradle-to-grave health care paid for with tax dollars, under an extremely progressive tax system designed to minimize the difference between the "master" class and the least capable person in the society.

I will not get what I want, so I want what is possible. This was possible. More was not, at this time.

[comtec]

17. Yes, Technically that would be "liberal"

Actually it's be hard-core communistic (Stalinist), but that's why we have to be "moderately" liberal.

too far to either side and you get into a state-run "For their own good" situation.

A little left or right is healthy.

Humans by nature are moderates leaning left.
We want to help others, or at least make sure we're all protected to some extent.
Most religions reflect this.
its the cults within those religions (such as the ones that demand ABSOLUTE obedience, etc) that cause the problems we associate with religion.

But if we are not careful any liberal "well meaning" government will become a dictatorship. Rule by those at the top for the good of the poor proles!

So be careful for sure!

[marmar]

9. I posted an article....and then said leftists and liberals are whom the article is speaking to.

And quite frankly, I don't know WTF you're talking about.

[MineralMan]

11. It's clear that you don't know what I'm talking about.

That's OK.

[marmar]

12. Umm, okay.

nt

[MineralMan]

13. Thank you, citizen.

[rudy23]

5. The key is to calmly educate the "moderate" against the "corporate"

Deep down, the "center" identifies far more with populist idealism on either side that favors the people than compromised wishy-washyness from the center that only favors 1% of us.

[cornermouse]

6. No thank you.

You know that old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I'm going to have to decline the invitation to be used.

[tblue]

14. Oh that's how it goes!

That's not how they say it in Texas! (or was it Tennessee?)

[bertman]

15. Looks interesting. Will read later. Thanks for posting, marmar.

[Union Yes]

16. A movement to repeal the NAFTA's, and our abysmal "Free Trade".. could be that UNIFIER. knr nt

[Doctor_J]

18. This will be impossible as long as Big Media and hate Radio hold sway

The brainwashed middle-Americans blame everything that's wrong with the country on every Dem, going back to FDR. Getting them on board for something as straightforward as NAFTA or Health care will be completely unachievable while the fascists control the message.