The Primaries are about DIALOGUE as much as candidacies

[Armstead]

The article by Joe Conason on anotehr thread prompted me to write something that has been on my mind anyway.

There's a lot of passion and heat in the Democratic primaries. Which is a good thing, if we can focus on real issues and substance, instead of image, personalities and buzzwords.

Much as I hate to think it, next year's genral election could well be another in a long line of Zombie Elections. There could a Democrat who will shrink the issues down to a centrist muddle of meaningless pablum. Meanwhile GW will also tone down his act to be more palatable to the "swing voters" too.

The whole healthcare issue will be shrunk down to some inane meaningless plan with the goal of "health care for everybody within 30 years." There will be NO talk of WTO "free trade" or the hollowing out of the American Economy, or the erosion of the middle and working class. Corporate Power -- and all of its manifestations -- will be ignored. Foreign poilicy will be "We support Imperialism too, but you have to be smarter about it." etc.

At least in the primaries, those issues are getting raised. And that's why it is important to have a varied field. Without Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton and Mosley Braun, the Democrat Establishment would happily bury these issues and merely focus on how bad George Bush is (with all of the usual qualifiers that he is a good president BUT...)

And in places like DU, and elsewhere, instead of flaming each otehr over nonsense about whichever candidates we may support or dislike, or strategic "electability" arguments, we ought to be taking advantage of this time to air the REAL issues.

Hopefully, if we do that, and make it known that we want some substance next year, the General Election may be slightly less Zombielike than it would be if the "acceptable" candidates are allowed to have a cakewalk to the nomination.

[CWebster]

1. No doubt about it

the question is after all the attacks on Dean in highlighting the issues--Lieberman and Kerry on Israel and militarism from the right, Kucinich from the Left, let's see if they part and bow before the perfumed prince... What issues does he bring to the table, again?

[Armstead]

2. kick

:kick:

[RichM]

3. Armstead!! Long time, no see!

Hey, :hi:!!

Hope you've been well, lately.

As far as the issues you raise, though, the outlook seems pretty bleak & getting bleaker, IMHO. The traditional historical function of the Democratic Party is asserting itself. This function consists of occasionally entrusting the White House to a reliably Establishment Democrat -- someone guaranteed not to be a boat-rocker -- after a Republican has allowed the corporate oligarchy to loot so much wealth, that the entire economy staggers for years in the aftermath.

One can see already the outlines of what is taking shape. There will likely be no real alternative offered by the process. The primaries will go to either Clark, Kerry, or Dean. These are 3 thoroughly Establishment figures -- a career representative of the Pentagon who is friendly and comfortable with the PNAC guys; a good senator who has caved in repeatedly to conservative pressure for fear that doing the right thing might endanger his presidential ambitions; and a feisty but otherwise standard-model governor (scion of a Wall St family) who is being marketed & touted as something he's not.

There is almost no hope here that any important underlying issues will gain further exposure. The campaign will proceed with the Democratic nominee mouthing pieties about the need to "work together with our friends and allies." Phrases like "corporate power" or "oligarchy" will not even be mentioned. NONE of the crimes of the Bush administration will be mentioned. Nothing about the stolen election, very little about the fat contracts to Halliburton; perhaps a mention or two of the word "Enron" but WITHOUT any attempt to flush out the deep connections it had to the Bush gangsters. I'd be surprised if any of the candidates winds up speaking as bluntly about the Iraq War as Ted Kennedy did last week.

As far as DU is concerned, there are only a few dozen people left here who seem recognizably Left thinkers. Most of the posters now seem to be militarists (or apologists for US militarism), nationalists, & conventional Democratic Party loyalists. The phrase "far left fringe types" appears here a lot, now -- they hate lefties. "DemocraticUnderground" now commonly expresses contempt and marginalization of lefties! Ain't that rich? The Clark invasion of DU is a disgusting non-stop display of the extent to which conservative thinking has come to dominate the Democratic Party. More than anything else, the Clark invasion has destroyed what DU once seemed to be.

I don't expect a less Zombie-like general election. I do think that the "Democrat" may win -- but it will be a pseudo-Democrat who takes good care of conservative interests, & who doesn't even speak of the issues of corporate power; the use of the media for state propaganda; & the oligarchization of society.

[Armstead]

4. Hi Rich

But tell us, how do you REALLY feel?

I've been on a mental vacation from political concerns for the most part. I just decided it's all feeling like a rerun.

As usual, I think your basic point is correct, but I wouldn't go quite as far. I do think at least the energy of Dean's candidacy (and Kucinich's) is demonstrating to the muckity mucks trhat there is a large hunger for change, in terms of dealing with the fundamental issues. And Sharpton is airing the issues that need to be aired, and reminding the Establishment of a large block of support they are losing by their Wonder Bread style of non-ossue politics.

So even if we end up with yet anotehr Zombie Democrat in the general election, it'll be a little harder for them to ignore that. Maybve that'll push the line at least slightly in our direction more.

As for DU, I dunno. I keep in touch with it, but I do share the discouragement that the balance seems to be tilting away from those who want to see real reform.