For leftists like me, questions to think over

[jpgray]

Why isn't Nader 'landsliding' Bush? Why didn't Kucinich win our primary? Is it because voters aren't interested in leftist values, or is it because the system is stacked against leftist values?

Let's take each a step further:

Since leftist values are in the best interest of the majority, why do so few vote for Nader/Kucinich? Is it the media that color voter perceptions against Nader/Kucinich and leftist values? If it's the media, how can the media be changed? The media are controlled by corporations. How do you limit or affect the control of corporations? By changing the system?

If the system is stacked against leftist values, how do you fix the system? Either you wait for it to collapse, or you change it. The only way to change it is from the inside. The vast majority of candidates can't or won't get elected or nominated with leftist values, so what do you do?

edit: No Nader-bashing please--focus your replies on the questions, if you would. I'm no fan of the guy's stock portfolio or his hypocrisy, but he does espouse leftist values.

[Leilani]

1. I believe the vast majority of Americans

are moderates. They are turned off by extreme left or right views.

Look at past elections: Goldwater, McGovern, both considered extremists, lost in landslide elections.

2004 will be interesting because Kerry is more liberal than Clinton or Gore. And Bush is more conservative than voters thought in 2000, & is more conservative than Dole. So this campaign will have more issue differences than past elections; there is a wider gulf between the two. That's also why I believe it will be very close.

I don't think the system is stacked against leftist values. I believe voters have heard the leftist arguments & rejected them. You have to look at the country as a whole. There are many, many conservatives out there, & there are many moderates who lean right.

I think it's just the way the country is at this time. things may change. I think if the left were to propose some new & interesting ideas, they might gain more traction.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Every time I say this...

it sinks like a stone. So I'll reply to you so at least yours doesn't sink.

Aside from periods of great crisis, no one wants to rock the boat and put extremists in office. There are some local exceptions, but usually even the extremists run as moderates and try to con the voters.

The pendulum does swing from mildly left to mildly right, and now we're in a rightward swing. It seems to be swinging back, though, and we may be seeing some more acceptance of us dreaded "liberals."

But, as someone else said, we are much too fractured in our message. Just what does a leftie, liberal, or progressive actually stand for? One reason the wingnuts have been able to attack us so successfully is that we don't really have much out there that resounds with the average voter, so they can make stuff up about us and get away with it.

[JI7]

9. yes

there are conservatives out there who are poor and would probably do a lot better financially if democrats were in office, but they are anti choice, anti gay , etc, and these issues do matter to a certain amount and in a close election even if they aren't that big a group it does matter.

also, many people do feel comfortable with the system and any change they want is probably small. this is where bill clinton was the best at, he always emphasized that PEOPLE wanted moderate change. and much was based on the polls and he was right. this is why he did well because he got those who need a better job, health care, education and other things yet did not want some huge revolution to vote for him. they saw him as just setting things in the right direction to help out with their problems without wanting to change the system in a big way since they were largely satisfied with it.

also, liberals need to accept that there are people out there who don't agree with them on issues and it's not always because they are just stupid. it IS a democracy and conservatives have a say in it and we have to try to get things based on that.

about john kerry, i agree this is a little unusual this time. i think what he will have to try to do is convince voters that he wont try to change their lives in some big way , rather he will do help them in what they already have or need to make their lives a little easier such as better jobs and health care w hich is what clinton did.

[Nadienne]

10. Perhaps the leftist arguments need to be remade

and rephrased to appeal to the inherent goodness in people.

Whereas, the righty arguments appeal to the selfishness and the fear in people.

In my own opinion, those who would deny someone the right to see a doctor when they're sick... Those righties who say, "No! You don't earn the right to health! Die, or live to pay those bills!" are nothing short of murderers, in my opinion.

Furthermore, when it's your son or daughter, your brother or sister, mother or father, aunt or uncle, cousin, friend, coworker who may die in Iraq for some cause so un-noble that the pResident had to lie to convince us to support it... I don't know...

I think "moderate" is quite a bit more to the left than anyone thinks it is.

Whether that means the system is or isn't "stacked", I don't really know. I rather think it is stacked, though.

[JI7]

12. you mean like Kerry quoting that specific biblical passage ?

i thought it was good because it appealed to those who ARE religious and may view liberals as being anti god or turned off by liberals being too pro separation of church , but the specific quote is also one most liberals no matter what their religion or even if they believe in god would mostly agree with.

[Nadienne]

20. That was good.

:) A very good move by Kerry.

But I'm talking more about... If you want protection for yourself, you ought to be willing to let everyone have protection. If you want to go to the doctor when you're sick, if you think good health is as much your right as is the right to live, then you should be willing to extend the same right to everyone.

I'm talking about equality. And honesty. And fairness. Something I believe most people want. But the conservative media sold them these things and told them, "If you want it, you gotta be conservative."

It would be so easy to make being a liberal popular. It would be so easy to demonize greedy, selfish, murdering, robbing, manipulating, favorite-playing conservatives. If, of course, we had the media on our side.

Maybe that day is coming.

[no name no slogan]

36. You're right-- the nation is not as "Moderate" as it seems

I would encourage anybody who thinks that we're a nation of "moderates" to read Jim Hightower's book, "Thieves in High Places". Specifically, Chapter 6, which is entitled "Even the Smallest Dog Can Lift Its Leg on the Tallest Building".

Hightower provides some compelling evidence about the political stances of most Americans, backed up by numerous polls from credible sources.

Here's just a few examples (all page citations refer to hardcover copy of the book):

HEALTH CARE/COVERAGE:
* More than half say government should create a plan to cover everyone, even if it requires a tax increase (WaPo/Kaiser Family Foundation) (p.120)

TRADE DEALS
* 64% say global trade pulls down, rather than pushes up, U.S. wages (Market Strategies/Committee for Free Trade) (p.121)
* 72% say the White House and Congress give too little attention to working Americans when making global trade policy (U of Maryland)(p.122).

There's several more along these lines that I can't list, but overall it paints a picture of an America that favors its public schools, a strong Social Security program, a healthy Medicare system, AND health coverage for ALL Americans.

But why don't our chosen candidates reflect these values? Or better yet, why don't Americans vote for candidates who reflect these values?

One word: FEAR. People are afraid to vote for the candidates they want, because they feel they're all alone in their feelings and beliefs. Plus, the media and leadership in BOTH political parties hammers it into their heads that their desires aren't "realistic", and won't happen because there's too much "opposition" to it.

WTF? The only "opposition" to our wishes is the leadership of the major parties, who are too afraid to take a risk for fear of alienating their big-money donors. Allah forbid we consider the will of the people and the average working stiff when we define our trade policy! Why, that might offend Ken Lay, or Michael Eisner, or Bill Gates! We certainly can't have THAT happening, can we?

I've been really disappointed by the so-called "leadership" of this party for the last decade. Instead of facing our fears, and standing up for what's right, we're constantly cowering, because we're afraid of what Faux News, and Rush von Hindenburg will say.

Since when have Democrats won by being likable to Republicans? And if we do win by appealing to Republicans, what have we REALLY won?

[Lexingtonian]

2. It would be nice to know

which specific 'leftist values' you are most interested in discussing, because the counterarguments are far from uniform.

This is a country whose state/government was founded as a means of putting natural resource wealth and agrarian labor proceeds into the hands of landowning white men of European-ish acculturations such as Calvinistic Christianities. Institutions of the society were the Church, the King, slavery, a landowning class, racial segregation, legal discrimination against women and non-whites and 'immoral' people, the predatory Corporation (e.g. the Virginia Land Company), and a few others. The privileged class- landowning white men- competed with each other for rule via elections that placed them into executive positions and on councils of several kinds.

Greater economic justice has always been interlinked with- alternated with- increases in social justice in this society. Arguably almost every major increase in social justice was preceded by an increase in GNP- selfsufficiency meant that the King became dispensible, the beginnings of the Industrial Age meant slavery became dispensible, the hugh productivities gained during the 1920s and into WW2 meant that segregation's economic rationale vanished, and so on.

The essential nature of the U.S. economy until WW2 or so was that expansion had to do with exploitation of new technologies and thereby newly available natural resources- land, timber, water, ores, coal, oil, metal, nuclear power. Labor was ignored as a method of attaining wealth- it was only the means of tapping stuff for the having and taking. Thus labor was degraded as a human activity- the product had dignity, the process and its operators were ignored. So it is in all colonial economic systems. (That's why the corporation version of it is called 'neocolonialism'.)

Secondly, a hugh number of people in this country are very well aware that economically they are just tiny cogs in a system that values the exploiter over the man with dignity and foresight. The only means of attaining dignity is in redefining the project- and so they fall back on the one myth in the mainstream culture that is disconnected from economic status and confers virtue, that of The Christian Country.

You would think that the Christianity pursued in this country would be of a Left-leaning variety, but it isn't. Because a large number of its adherents want it to be the dominating ideology they've neutered its critique of social and economic injustice- so that it doesn't conflict with the secular powers. And as the country de-Europeanizes culturally the Dominionists find that the organized Christianity they control is in decline, and they have turned Right in their politics. They've made an alliance with the conservative economic power holders to limit social and economic change as well as justice to preserve their power.

So: the Churches and the Corporations are in an alliance against the forward-looking Individual American and her/his desire to live life according to fairly Modern (post-theist, post-chauvinist) intellectual standards and Post-Industrial Age material standards.

Our trouble is that the dividing line between the supporters of these two groups goes right through the Baby Boomers, splitting them pretty much in half (well, depending on what standard of purity you apply) for now.

The Right's problem is that they're running out of voters of the pre-War generation and are only gaining a little bit among Boomers. The Christian Right is weakening more rapidly than the Mammon Right, though, so we're going to see the pretense of equality between the two end in just a couple of years.

I'm quite sure that Nader doesn't really understand this interplay between economic and social justice gains in American history. He has no serious historical sense of this country, only an ideological substitute, and that's why people don't trust his judgment.

[mouse7]

3. The left is splintered all over the place

A few in the Democratic Party. A few in the Green Party. A few anarchists. The strength of the the left is badly scattered, and rarely pulls together to focus on anything.

The only place the left can focus it's will is in the Democratic Party. The left could be playing the party rules and wielding significant power any time it decides to. See what the result is if you walk into your monthly Dem county committee meetings with 40 people who have agreed to vote as a block in all votes. Now, multiply those shocking effects across the country. That's real political power.

[GOPBasher]

4. John Kerry is very left.

Kerry would be the most left wing President ever. He's not quite as liberal as Kucinich and Nader, but they are way outside the mainstream in this country. Most people, as another poster pointed out, are centrists. I'm not really sure why so many people act like Kerry is some moderate; he's not.

[DaveSZ]

5. I don't think he'd be the most left-wing President ever

He'd be to the left of Clinton and Gore though.

[Sparkly]

8. Who was more left?

Just wondering.

[Kanary]

13. Kerry is "very left"??

So, what would you say FDR and JFK and LBJ were.... communitsts, I suppose?

Amazing.

No wonder we're in a world of hurt.

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Explain to me how he was implying that FDR, JFK, LBJ were communists

He was saying that Kerry was liberal. Degrees of liberalism and conservatism are very relative and based on peoples' personal opinion.

[messiah]

14. Really?

[redqueen]

19. I'll take it

CMB was more authoritarian than he, by this graph. And he's the closest candidate to DK and AS.

[sangh0]

21. IMO, Kerry is a liberal, not a leftist

I don't see Kerry as someone who is going to make a fundamental change to out political system or our govt. Instead, I see him as someone who will maintain our current political system and government by pursuing policies that are more liberal than it usually does.

[JohnKleeb]

46. thats what Ive been trying to say

thats why he was high on my list when I supported DK. He may act moderate but hes quite liberal. BTW that is done by British proportions so hes more to the right there than he is here. I wish he would show his liberal side, but Kennedy acted moderate too.

[REP]

7. Bad Examples

Nader and Kucinich are truly fringe candidates, and both have problems with appearances: Nader's portfolio and personal wealth, and Kucinich's seemingly sudden and expedient reversal on reproductive rights (not to mention he said his Catholic faith made him vote against reproductive rights but didn't deter him from divorcing twice). To political hobbyists and true believers, these may not seem like fatal flaws, but to the rest of the voters, who have jobs and families to tend to and may not have much energy for parsing political platforms, these false notes jar. Additionally, superficially at least, Nader and Kucinich represent ideas that few are interested in such as smaller houses, restrictive diets, spartan lives, etc - too many are already in houses that are too small (or can't afford to buy a house), eating a restricted diet because there's not quite enough money, and leading spartan lives means doing without even the smallest luxury (like replacing worn clothes) because they're broke.

Voters ARE interested in leftist ideas and values; the Democratic party just isn't that wild about them lately. No doubt there are fine lefties out there who could have been elevated, but as usual, the Party selected the guy whose turn it was and/or the lowest common denominator. Had they lived, Wellstone and Carnahan might have had leftist populist appeal to the voters; no doubt there are others out there, but once again, the Party is just too chickenshit to look.

edited for funny typo

[RichM]

15. What an extraordinary load of bull. Thanks for the laugh, though.

This isn't even worth a point-by-point refutation. Let's just confine ourselves to the first sentence BS about "Nader's personal wealth" & DK's divorces being "jarring false notes to the rest of voters."

Nader is worth 3 or 4 million dollars. This is exceedingly modest, on the wealth-scale of American political figures. The idea that Nader's "wealth" causes significant concern, when Kerry's, Edwards', Bill Frists', Jane Harman's, Dianne Feinsteins' etc does not, is just too silly to comment on.

As for DK's divorces - nobody in the great unwashed mass of American voters even knows who the fuck Dennis Kucinich is, let alone be bothered by his divorces. (In fact, I personally am extremely knowledgeable about him, relatively speaking, & I was aware of only ONE divorce.)

[NNadir]

64. Their false notes to me. In fact, they're lies.

Nader claimed until recently that he had no personal wealth. He has never accounted for how he got it. He has never consented to audits of any kind. This is the strategy of a fraud. It matters.

Kucinich has one of the most regressive histories on women's rights, choice, reproductive rights in Congress. It is only a matter of small significance if you don't care about these issues. Then the matter becomes "silly" and unworthy of response.

Once again we have the "Progressives" lecturing us on what to think and telling us what is worth considering and what isn't. This is a picture perfect demonstration of why you are 2% and why you will always be 2%.

[no name no slogan]

100. "Most regressive histories on women's rights"???

Oh, now THAT's a good one!

Even when Kucinich voted against the doctrinaire pro-choice position, he still voted in favor of contraception and family planning-- two things the anti-choice movement hold in contempt. Are you trying to say the likes of Bob Dornan or Rick Santorum are somehow "less regressive" than Dennis Kucinich?

BTW, did you know that, if they were running today and not in the pre-Roe days of 1972, George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey would be considered "pro-life"? Neither one would pass the test for most pro-choice Democrats.

Humphrey's son, Skip, was also very "pro-life", until he changed sides in the mid-80s-- quite possibly to run for US Senate in 1988. I myself attended at least one DFL state convention where a full 25% of the delegates were "pro-life".

Al Gore was decidedly "pro-life" until 1988, when he ran for president. Same with Dick Gephardt. Are both of these men not worthy of our support because they changed their minds on this issue?

Abortion is a very divisive issue that is unfortunately used as a football for political ends. To judge ANY candidate solely based on a past position that s/he has renounced and since voted against does a huge disservice to not only our candidates but to our party as a whole.

BTW, the other 45% of my state Senate District who voted for DK would take issue with your 2% assessment.

[REP]

81. So, You Can't Refute A Thing I Wrote

Not that I expected a refutation, as what I wrote is true. 3 or 4 million dollars may be an "exceedingly modest" fortune to you, but not to most people I know.

Kucinich may well be a Cafeteria Catholic; many American Catholics are. But when a man uses his deep and abiding Catholic faith to justify a hateful record of voting against reproductive rights, yet can put aside that faith when it affects him directly, ie, two divorces, it smells to high heaven. You may not see the hypocrisy, but many do.

The Great Unwashed, as you so quaintly put it, have heard of Kucinich, namely in his home state of Ohio - where he lost yet another primary. They know "who the fuck" he is, and they aren't buying. Perhaps the people of Ohio, who know him better than the rest of the country, are under some demon sway rather than familiarity breeding contempt ... but I doubt it.

[no name no slogan]

101. Ooops, better check the map

Kucinich does not represent all of Ohio, only his district in Cleveland-- which he won overwhelmingly in the Presidential Primary.

Ohio is a populous state, and I myself have talked to Ohio Democrats who did not know who Dennis Kucinich was. I personally know active Democrats in my own Congressional District (MN-5) who have no clue who Colin Peterson is, even though he's been the Democrat Rep from MN-7 for over ten years.

And please, let's lay off the "hateful record against women's rights" bullshit already, huh? There's a long line of "pro-life" Democrats who've been presidential candidates and officeholders going back to Roe v. Wade.

Who, for example? How about Hubert H. Humphrey. Or George McGovern (circa 1972). Want a recent example? How about Al Gore-- solidly "pro-life" until 1988-- coincidentally the same year he ran for President for the first time. Oh, almost forgot about Dick Gephardt (same story as Al Gore, above).

It's the use of language like "hateful" to describe the well-meaning (if misguided) beliefs of Democrats that does more to alienate and divide this party than any previous votes Dennis Kucinich may have made.

[govegan]

95. Gorging oneself on animal products is a truly restrictive diet.

Restrictive to personal health, restrictive to planetary health, restrictive to moral and ethical growth, restrictive to spiritual growth.

Not to mention the incredible inefficiency of the whole process of feeding vast amounts of corn, grain, etc. to other creatures in order to extract relatively small amounts of nutritionally inferior "foodstuffs."

Of course, I am sure you can find plenty of neo-fascist pseudo-scientist propagandists who will extol the virtues of dead animals for you, no matter how many legs they have.

[messiah]

11. Republicans and Democrats are against the left so the media is against

the left.
The system will have to collapse since democrats will not change a damn thing.

[zulchzulu]

16. "Leftist" has a lot of baggage. Issues and solutions are what count

Saying that you are a "leftist" invites the usual stereotypes from people even before you get to talk about issues and solutions.

Name the issue. Declare the problem. Offer the solution.

Most people are moderates, but do see that things need to change.

If the solution offered on an issue is stated succinctly and without a lot of puffery, people might listen. If the solution is doable and incremental, it might be accepted.

Personally, I don't think either Kucinich or Nader are the right personalities to deliver the goods. It's obvious with Kucinich's primary results with being in last place with delegates. Nader's notions are barely listened to due to the pitfall that he could be the spoiler in the 2004 election.

Kucinich's ideas on up and leaving NAFTA forget what would happen if such a move was made. Nader's wanting to de-corporatize the election process is not realistic.

It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. That approach never works not will the American people ever accept it..

Think incremental. You'll get somewhere.

[RichM]

27. Typical bourgeois excuse-making for clinging to the status quo.

[sangh0]

31. typical leftist authoritarian name-calling to disguise the lack of ideas

.

[zulchzulu]

33. I didn't see what whoever said whatever they said

I have that person on ignore. Ah...I love this feature.

[zulchzulu]

91. Wow...that's it?

I turned everyone I've put on Ignore off just to see what you said.

That's all you have? Name-calling that sounds more like a Monty Python skit response than something of any substance?

That's certainly one way to conclude you indeed have no concrete ideas nor wish to deal in realistic poliitical discussion...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Working on the Kucinich campaign

I found that the first obstacle was that people hadn't heard of him. If they had, they usually liked his ideas but said, "He can't win."

This drove all of us crazy. If everyone who liked DK's ideas stopped second-guessing everyone else and actually voted for him, he would have won.

Since I looked for mentions of Dennis in the national media, I saw how he was blacked out of the New York Times most of the time, and subtly ridiculed when he was mentioned. He was rarely mentioned on network news.

His showings in the various states were minimized. For example, he was reported as having gotten "3% of the vote" in Iowa. Actually, that was 3% of the delegates, which meant that he got 15% or more in several precincts and unknown percentages in others. Theoretically, he could have gotten 10%-14% in every precinct in Iowa and it wouldn't have shown up in the delegate count. (I don't know what the actual figures were.)

The habitual Dennis-bashers on DU kept saying, "He got only 1% of the vote" even after surprising showings in Hawaii, Washington, Maine, New Mexico, and even Utah (7%). In Hawaii, he got great publicity for being the only candidate to visit twice before the primary. People heard of him and liked him.

In Minnesota, we did relentless guerilla publicity, such as handing out flyers at the State Fair, putting banners up over the freeway, writing personal letters, flyering our neighborhoods, and badgering the local newspapers into providing coverage. Even so, only one TV station covered DK's October visit (for about 30 seconds)--on an evening when all the stations led with a soap-opera like account of a county sheriff's domestic troubles.

It is thanks to these efforts that Kucinich won 17% of Minnesota. The lack of a similar organization in Wisconsin, which is very similar demographically and politically, is probably why he got only 3% there. I wonder how he would have done in both states if he had received the same kind of publicity and coverage that Kerry, Edwards, and even Dean received, instead of being branded "minor" and "fringe" even before a single vote had been cast.

I saw each of Dennis' three appearances in the Twin Cities, and each time, he was terrific at working the crowd and handling hostile or flaky questioners.

If given a chance, he does appeal to a wide variety of people, not just Birkenstock-wearing "granolas," and that was threatening to the corporate media and the party establishment.

I have to ask the people who say that Dennis has "no appeal" to the masses, then why did he do better in states where he got more publicity?

[goodhue]

34. Thanks, LL!

Your summary and analysis is entirely accurate. Did you know that DK was actually here in the Twin Cities four times? He was here in St. Paul on June 20th at the Association of State Democratic Chairs Presidential Forum. Some of us MN4DK types were there as well. Here is photo of him flashing his union card at that event:



http://www.4president.org/asdcmn2003.htm

[ACK]

18. Porgressive platform ... manifesto and campaign hints

We have to come up with the vision. Remember the contract on America that the Repubs used during the Republican Revolution? We need our own manifesto for the future.

Kuicinch may feel too much like Dukakis for my tastes. However, he has something right when he states that some libertarians, reform party, greens and other outside forces in American politics can be wooed to a Dem candidate with a unified vision of America and its future.

We have much of the roadmap already laid out in front of us people.

Wellstone showed us the power of grassroot movements in modern politics.

Dean showed us the power of new media and the essential need of small contributors to stop the influence of big money and the DLC on Democratic politics.

Clinton showed us how to communicate and talk to the population of this country and he also illustrated how to paint our rivals as the dangerous radicals they really are. He did this to Dole but no one else has had the guts to pull this move again?

Mark Warner in conservative Virginia showed the Democrats how to run in the districts they are actually trying to win. He did not change positions or whatever he understood the image is the thing. He instead just shows up in front of guns and nascar vehicles and got pictures taken to show he knew who his own damn constituents are.

This is the way you win seats and influence people. There is no rocket science to this.

Here are set of my core political beliefs. I propose that a platform of change around these ideals could appeal to all of America. The real key is to reclaim the language of debate and find a new progressive populist voice forged around our beliefs.

1. I believe the Government has a duty to regulate the power of corporations when the corporate interests conflict with public interests. In a capitalist society you have to work with business interests but you cannot be whores to them. When the rubber meets the road and the public interest is at stake then the citizen's interests much be preserved.

2. I believe that the full protection of the Bill of Rights outlined in the Constitution should not be curtailed. Repeal the Patriot's Act and keep government out of the bedrooms and out of the business of trying to dictate behavior and speech.

3. I believe in a woman's right to choose. It is not the government's place to regulate procreation.

4. I believe that universal healthcare is a moral imperitive and can benefit both the public and the corporate structure of this country. This can be a great benefit to both the public and business interests in America. Free up the HR departments from having to worry over healthcare and you free up an incredible amount of money into the economy. With that kind of money back into the economy insuring the uninsured with pay huge dividends in increased productivity in the end. I see a single-payer system with plenty of options much like what is available to the feds right now. However, I am open to all options that meet the requirements of universal healthcare.

5. I believe in the seperation of church and state and that public money should not go to fund religious organizations.

6. I believe in the social safety net. I believe that government can give a hand up and not just a hand out. The real issue is connecting people with jobs in the private sector. The real issue is retraining and getting people to the available jobs in their areas. Moreover, the biggest issue is figuring out how to prevent single moms from having to choose between providing for their families and abandoning their children. A workfare system with a system of available childcare, retraining programs that work with local businesses and job networking systems that focus on the local employeement needs.

7. I believe in proper education funding. Focusing on the schools in the most need is crucial and accountability for performance is important as well. There can be no more unfunded mandates. We must have the guts to put our money where our mouth is. The money has to be connected to results but the idea of results without proper funding is a self-fullfilling prophecy of doom.

8. I believe in morality in foreign policy. Too often, being pragmatic has turned to being opportunistic and bullying. In the end, we always pay for it. We have to frame our actions within the insititution of the UN and embrace our allies. We do not have to take a weak hats in our hand approach but that is not the same as being arrogant and unilateral in our actions. We have to have a policy that understand the role of diplomacy and action.

9. I believe in protecting the environment and this can be done without being proxies for industry and without destroying industry. Any progress toward a cleaner environment has to involve business interests as well as environmental groups. A balanced well thought out approach is the answer here. When the business interests work with government and play fair -- praise them (this is tough for some of us) but you have to give them the chance. This is the noose of a chance that every polluter will have the opportunity to hang themselves on. Play the game or pay big. Enforce the laws on the books with a vengence. Come up with a list of the best companies and the worst and make it a huge public affair. Take down the punks and praise those who try to do right.

10. Fiscal responsibility is key. We have to balance the budget. The borrow and spend Republicans are giving away the future for short term economic gains. We have to repeal the giveaways to the rich. We have to move the country forward toward the goal of a balanced budget. The tax cuts for the working and middle class were warranted but they were a smoke screen for other people in the highest tax brackets who did NOT want to pay their fair share. A total reform of the tax structure, simplification of the rules and the cutting of loopholes for the wealthy are needed immediately.

11. Gun safety laws need to be strengthened but a ban on firearms is not practical or workable. This is the kind of talk that soothes the hunters and brings out the harsh nuts and exposes them for the idiots they are.

12. Corporate welfare should end. It is not the government's job in a capitalist society to bail out or give aid to failing corporations. Target the worst of the pork belley giveaways to the richest corporations and make it a reform based media event. Plug this constantly along with the next point.

13. Small business initiatives that promote competition in a free market society is not the same thing as corporate welfare and should endure to promote the ideals of small business owners.

14. I believe in a military strong enough to defend the nation. A two-pronged approach to the military is needed. Weed out waste and give over better benefits to the men in the ranks. We all know there is waste in the current defense budget. This is the only way to cut down defense spending without looking weak. You highlight the cuts as unpatriotic wastes of the taxpayer dollars. You give back at least 50% of all the cuts back to the common soldiers and the vets that have given so much.

15. Independence from non-renewable energy sources should be a national goal with a set of real deadlines. A real energy policy that focuses on getting America away from the dependency on foreign oil and onto the path of using renewable resources is an idea who's time as come. We cannot simply give away more money to energy companies and destroy our national wildlife heritage. That is not the way. Initiatives and grants aimed at promoting new ideas and technologies is the real winning plan. These are the technologies that can put America businesses on top in the long term and preserve our nation's treasured resources.

16. I believe in a worker's right to organize and collectively bargain. Any law that would take away over-time benefits or prevent the rights of workers to collectively bargain must be stopped. The minimum wage must be expanded. Illegal union busting tactics must be stopped. The business of America is business but the core of business is built on the initiative, work, sweat and pride of the American worker.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Sounds fantastic, but according to some long-time posters

these positions make you a "loony leftist," irrespective of which candidate you support.

[ACK]

24. You joking right? Many would say the platform was too centrist.

Hell most of my points follow votes that Kerry the evil almost conservative Dem candidate (according to some here) has made in the past or positions he has taken.

Yes, I said most not all so others reading this thread please do not freak on me.

[sangh0]

32. She must be

I never imagined that things like strong military, and balanced budgets were hallmarks of the left. I thought the platform was fairly centrist myself.

[ACK]

35. Yep but it leans populist progressive...

You talk about a strong military and cut waste from the military budget while giving more to military families.

The only centrist policy I really 100% dug from the Clinton era was the balanced budget because it gave real relief to the economy.

It still has a number of issues that Dem centrists have run away from for awhile.

I like the idea of real energy independance -- Gephardt idea.

Who the hell really talks about eliminating corporate welfare? Nobody but us that is who.

Universal healthcare just came back on the radar and that is cool.

Reinforcing the social safety net? That is progressive because centrists will not touch the issue with a ten foot pole.

You got to mix the progressive and the centrists and pick the issues and language carefully to appeal to a truly populist tone.

[sangh0]

40. I agree with you completely

Some seem to think we need to be strridently leftist on every single issue. I'm not one of those.

[indigobusiness]

22. Broken News

Bush Restarts Economy With Imaginary Key


http://sludgereport.blogspot.com/

[RichM]

25. These are good questions, but would require a book to do justice to.

I don't have the energy to attempt the book, right now.

For starters, though, here's what you have to look at. The US is a capitalist society. This, by far, is its principal characteristic. The stuff about "democracy" is mainly an attractive facade, a method of gaining the masses' cooperation without appearing to be taking undue advantage of them.

Capitalist societies indoctrinate their populations, even while giving them the false notion that their society is "free" of indoctrination. The cleverest brainwashing of all is to brainwash people - and INCLUDE in the brainwashing the idea that their society is far above such nasty things as brainwashing. There is nothing so perfectly brainwashed as a population brainwashed to believe it is "free" (ie, that it ISN'T brainwashed).

The primary idea that a capitalist society wants to protect from conscious challenge is the right of a tiny sliver of the population to possess unbelievably disproportionate wealth and power. With such concentrations of wealth & power, the society is really run for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many. The propaganda trick needed to protect such a system is to make this truth about society virtually invisible to most people.

The way to do this is to 1) direct attention away from it, and 2) create the illusion that the prevailing social system is "fair."

Re #1: Every attempt to describe, imagine, or build a type of society that would be organized primarily to provide a better life for the many, is systematically ridiculed, blocked, discouraged, or otherwise destroyed, by capitalist societies. To take one example: many of Marx's ideas about capitalism are tremendously perceptive; if paid attention to, they help individuals see through the deceptions and exploitative nature of capitalist ideology. Therefore, from the POV of capitalist societies, all Marxist ideas must be discredited. Capitalist ideology is well aware that there are a lot of dangerous truths in Marxist analysis; therefore, part of our indoctrination is a systematic defamation & ridicule process. The word "Marxist" itself is made into a term of defamation and slander, equivalent in the public mind to "lunatic" and "violent extremist." This effectively eliminates from popular consciousness the most penetrating critique of our social system. A similar fate awaits any other ideas challenging the core of the capitalist world view.

In fact, for many practical purposes, US society DEFINES "Marxist" as ANYTHING that resists or opposes the interests of US capitalism. Villages in Central America where peasants didn't want to work for United Fruit for 2 cents a day, could be labelled as "Marxist" by the US government & media, even if they never fucking heard of Karl Marx. In the eyes of US capitalism, if you're against a big US company doing whatever it wants, you're a commie. (Even the idea that working people in a 3rd world country have a right to a better life - this idea is also "Marxist," because it may well militate against their wanting to be servants of US corporations, and having their natural resources belong to US corporations.)

Re #2: Here, a tremendous amount of energy is expended to create a favorable systematically self-serving view of our own society. Ideas that put the system in a good light are emphasized; those that put the system in a bad light are discouraged.

In particular, let's look at the notion of the 2-party system, & how it's presented to the public mind. We are indoctrinated to think that a "1-party system" is inherently evil and dangerous; it is the system of (what else?) commies. Everyone is real clear on how dangerous such a system is. But suppose you come up with the clever trick of giving people a "choice" between 2 parties, both of which are almost exactly alike, & whose candidates are chosen so that before they come to the public, they're vetted by the same set of capitalist elites. In essence, then, you've taken the nasty evil 1-party system, and replaced it by giving people a "choice" between 2 things that are A) almost the same, and B) both thoroughly acceptable to the same ruling castes. MOREOVER, you give people the impression that the entire range of possibility is expressed by the teensy range between 'R' and 'D.' (Anything outside that range can be called "commie," "extremist," "fringe," or "out of the mainstream.")

How much of an improvement is that over a 1-party system? The answer is: not much. Most of the "improvement" is that it's a useful technique for convincing the people that they really have a choice, when they really don't. IOW, the improvement is mostly in the PR aspect, & not so much in the substance.

Then the whole electoral system can be presented to the public, with great hullaballoo about "democracy at its finest" & glorifying every aspect of the ritual and spectacle of election campaigns, with the undertext being, "Aren't we a great country? We are so free, and so democratic." And any attempt to point out that a lot of this is sheer show-biz; that there's far less to it than meets the eye -- this is sternly frowned upon, by our cultural commissars.

IMO, these ideas furnish a starting point for approaching your questions. The specific reason why Kucinich lost is really a consequence of these basic ideas. That would be "Chapter 2."

[RichM]

60. Chapter 2: Why didn't Kucinich win our primary?, & related questions.

"Is it because voters aren't interested in leftist values, or is it because the system is stacked against leftist values?...Since leftist values are in the best interest of the majority, why do so few vote for Nader/Kucinich? ..."

(Mastering the material in Ch. 1 above is required, to properly understand this chapter. - Ed. )

Rep. Kucinich violated several of the cardinal rules of capitalist indoctrination (outlined in the preceding chapter).

First, his ideas shamelessly & openly suggested that alternative ways of organizing society are both conceivable and feasible. If, say, the topic of defense spending is put on the table for real public examination, a lot of very powerful toes are going to be stepped on. We simply can't have that. It is far better to create a docile unspoken acceptance of the defense budget. The subject must never be questioned or seriously examined. Anyone who dares talk about it (unless, of course, they favor increasing it) is obviously a commie; we can't have commies in high office. QED.

Moreover, Rep Kucinich repeatedly tried to point to an alleged CONNECTION between the amount of money spent on "defense" (including wars of aggression), and what kinds of services (education, health, infrastructure, housing) the public must forgo at home. Obviously, this kind of talk puts funny ideas in people's heads. We can't have people thinking they're giving up important things in their own lives, every time the Pentagon wants to spend a few billion of their dollars. So, Kucinich once again crossed the people who count, with this injudicious attempt at spreading the truth.

Second, please refer to the above text on the imperative of publicly casting everything about our system in a positive light. Rep. Kucinich violated this rule in several unacceptable ways. In our system, it is forbidden to imply that our armed forces ever commit wanton aggression. By definition, when the US Armed Forces perform an action, it is an action of self-defense, and in defense of freedom and democracy. We are not murderers, looters, or criminals (no matter if we murder, loot, or commit grotesque war crimes). Mr Kucinich, by stating accurately that the war on Iraq was basically a criminal action, a massive form of state looting, violated many basic rules of US capitalist indoctrination. One must simply not say such things, even if they're true. In fact, if they are true, saying such things is EVEN WORSE.

All Mr. Kucinich's other ideas, such as being on the side of the environment against polluters, being on the side of those without health care (against insurance & HMO & drug companies), being on the side of wage-earners against NAFTA & WTO, etc etc - all these things add up to a very troubling & consistent pattern: Mr Kucinich is on the side of the majority of the population, in the war being waged upon them by the elite 0.1% of the population. This pattern is so consistent that one must suspect Mr Kucinich has, at one time or another, read leftist literature. He probably knows what a "class war" is, he probably even knows that such a war is going on as we speak - and, what's even worse, if he was given some time to talk to a national audience, he (gasp!!) might even say as much.

Obviously, we can't have someone spreading such dangerous ideas around. He is a commie; he must be silenced. QED.

-----------------------------------------------

In your question, you used an interesting phrase, which, to my horror, indicates that you, too, may be a commie: you said "Since leftist values are in the best interest of the majority..."
- Now I don't know where you got such a crazy idea. That idea is downright subversive. You will have to be re-programmed. After your re-education, you will have forgotten that leftist values are indeed in the best interest of the majority. Instead, you will say, sneering in unison with Ann Coulter, that leftist values are for commie scum. Or you will say, sniffing in unison with many "moderates," that leftist values are "not at all mainstream," and you'll wisely leave it there.

The point is: once you train the population to instinctively hate commies, and you successfully identify any idea that challenges prevailing power with "leftism," you succeed in getting a population that growls like Pavlov's dog at ideas which are actually in their own best interests. It takes a lot of work to train the population to think like this - but if you control the school system and all the media, you can do it.

[info being]

88. Brilliant post. You have said what it seems cannot be said.

Your tone might be taken as sarcastic, but to the contrary it is as direct and true as can be.

[xchrom]

26. too many people are trying to answer this question

in a very contemporary context.
and i challenge the notion that the left is extreme. but that's for another time.
there are three patterns that come through historically.
the first is the union/robber baron wars of the 19th and early twentieth century. those wars taught corporate america to do it's best to control the message as much as possible.
the second is the cold war and the associations made by the staus quo that all things leftist were soviet -- a fairly obvious lie to most people who post here.
third is cultural, highlighted by the 60's and the beating that the establishment took at the hands of a very young, savvy counter culture at the time.
there are others here more eloquent than me at bringing these historical points in to focus but there they are.
i would add one last point -- one that has been cooking along quite nicely since reagan -- and that's the marriage of the corporate statists to the religous right.

[sangh0]

29. Propoganda began long before the robber barons

and corporatists (ie "moneyed interests") aligning with the religious right has been happening for millenia

[no name no slogan]

38. "Modern" propaganda began with WWI & Woodrow Wilson

Wilson hand-picked someone from Madison Avenue to craft a campaign that would turn America from an isolationist-leaning, peace-loving nation into a pack of rabid German-bashers in two years.

Wilson won in 1916 with the slogan "he kept us out of the war". He promised to stay out, too, despite the wishes of the powerful corporate interests at the time, who saw a HUGE opportunity to make a buck off the Great War.

Needless to say, Wilson changed his mind (with enough pressure), and the propaganda and war machines kicked into high gear, and the rest is history.

[sangh0]

41. Read about the Spanish-American War

See how Hearst whipped up a war years before WWI

[jpgray]

52. Further back, the Mexican War

Polk's nonsense about Mexico attacking the United States to justify that war was famously attacked by Lincoln both in speeches and in the 'spot' resolutions.

Further back, if you like, you can see the founding fathers hitting each other using opposing newspapers as their weapons. :D

Propaganda has been around as long as history--it isn't going to go away, but we should always do our best to at least expose it if not remove its influence entirely

[sangha]

68. Remember Christopher Columbus

The royals of Europe paid for expeditionary voyages in order to gain status....propoganda

Remember the East India Tea Company? Set up by the royal family to do the business while being able to maintain plausible deniability...propoganda

[jpgray]

79. Remember Lok? He got all the cavepainters to paint only his good side

:D

[sangh0]

84. Good one!!

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

[no name no slogan]

89. You are correct-- I misworded it.

I just heard a story on NPR last night that talked about this very issue. The word "propaganda" first entered our lexicon in the 15th century, and has religious connotations. Propaganda comes from the word "to propagate", IOW, preach the word of God to the heathen masses (Muslims in Spain, godless natives in the New World and Africa, etc.).

The first major governmental use of propaganda in the modern age was via the Creel Commission before WWI. The commission was set up by Wilson to provide "support" for entering what was mostly a European war at the time. Although propaganda had been used by private sources (like Hearst and his fellow "yellow journalists"), I believe this was the first time that such an undertaking was done with the full support of the US government.

Of course, I could be wrong too, but the Creel Commission sticks out as one of the first instances of this.

[sangh0]

99. I'm glad to hear you looked into this

And to be clear, I didn't raise that point just to be contentious or to show off my superior knowledge. I just think you are setting yourself up for failure if you draw an arbitrary line on the basis of misunderstanding.

The use of propoganda by the US govt is entirely consistent with how propoganda has been used throughout history. IOW, IMO there's nothing special about how our govt has used propoganda.

on edit: wrt to the subject of this thread, I think you're more on track when you discuss the role of corporations and how htey affect governmental policy and propoganda, which I suspect is why you suggested that specific period.

[no name no slogan]

102. Agreed-- I think it's more about the corporate control than anything

I'm a bit of a history buff myself (Spanish Civil War in particular)-- and it just so happened that not only had I remembered the Creel Commission story, but I heard it again last night on the radio as I was driving home from someplace. Coincidence? Or something more bizarre.... ;-)

I agree entirely about the Spanish-American War, though....it was Hearst who promoted the whole "Remember the Maine!" story, even though he probably knew it wasn't accurate. Oh well, any excuse for war profiteering I suppose.

[xchrom]

39. we need actual historical jumping off points

and in america for the sake of this thread -- union formation and corporate response to that formation is what's important.

[On the Road]

28. I Think People See Statist Countries

like the old Soviet Union and their Eastern European satellites and want to prevent a government with too much power and too much control over the economy.

The fears have some basis in fact. A command and control economy is not good. Neither is an omnipresent government which takes power and wealth out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But many people are unable to distinguish between positive and negative government action.

A lot of people are also put off by GOP scapegoats -- wasteful government spending, handouts to the undeserved, imposition of secular values, etc. You and I may not agree with these characterizations of liberalism, but they resonate with a lot of people. They have to be dealt with.

One thing Clinton did right was to create a different perception of the Democratic party. The DLC has some of the right ideas, althought I disagree with the way they're going about it.

The liberal vision of American society, and the principles on which it's based, have to be made clear and distinguished from statism, Soviet-style socialism, and other RW stereotypes.

[ACK]

30. Here is a key point... leftist themselves spent too much time

Defending tolitarian regimes in their writings. Whether it is the Soviet system, China, or even Cuba though I personally believe the difference between how we treat China and Cuba is horrid.

Insteading of lauding the European socialist model like you see in Scandanavian countries too many leftist intellectuals spent way too much time defending on different levels Tolitarian regimes with Statist economic systems.

At least most conservatives learned to distance themselves from the fascists after WWII.

_

[On the Road]

85. I Agree -- It Sets up a False Dichotomy

bewteen free prosperous America and totalitarian, poor communist countries. Once the debate is framed that way, there's no way to win.

Instead, Democrats need to present the difference between lessez-faire imperial American and the peaceful Democratic socialism of many European countries with a higher standard of living. Not in that way, of course -- most Americans don't want imitate the Europeans.

[ACK]

87. Thanks I thought I would get flamed for that remark

The intellectual drain on leftist intellectuals trying to rationalize abusive left/authoritarian governments instead of lauding the successes of european socialism is horrid.

I believe it is sapped the spirit of leftist intellectualism so hard it was easy for the extreme (borderline fascist) right to frame us and define us while we all stood around trying to explain why Stalin was not so bad and why Castro is such a nice guy.

[xchrom]

37. dlc = neoliberal = corporate facism

defending the corporate structure of the late twentieth century and on into the twenty-first is what the dlc is all about.
they are not as forward as bushco in their plans but they are the same.

[no name no slogan]

42. Yes-- they'll use a velvet glove when they rip your heart out

I would agree they're on the same continuum. One does it with a smile and a plattitude about "getting tough" on welfare cheats while it strangles you, while the other just tears your heart right out of your chest.

That's probably not the DLC's intention, I'm sure, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, too.

[On the Road]

86. I Think There's a Difference

between DLC'ers like Al Gore, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry on one hand, and people like Al From on the other.

The DLC was trying to throw off the mantle of liberalism that was losing elections in order for the party to return to power. They have by and large succeeded -- Mondale and Dukakis are no longer the image of the party. It's Clinton, Dean, Gore, and Kerry, which is a much better selection. It's led to eight years of the White House, and probably a return to power this November. I do not think that would have happened if the party ran Ted Kennedy or Dick Gephardt, bless them.

The DLC has been around at least 15 years, and has changed for the worse. I think it's time for it to declare political success and disband.

[no name no slogan]

90. Is it really better though?

Althouth Clinton won two Presidential terms, he did not have a majority of the vote for either of them. Gore only lost by a technicality, true, but it was close enough that it could be stolen by five guys in gowns in D.C.

OTOH, look at what has happened on the congressional and state level since the DLC has taken over. We lost the House, after nearly 40 years of control. We lost the senate-- not once, but twice. We've also lost governorships, state legislatures AND more local races since then, too.

And what have we gained? Greater voter apathy. A party so complacent that Ralph Nader could convince 5% of the electorate that there was "no real difference" between the Dems and GOP in 2000. A party long on promises that falls flat on its face when it comes to standing up for its loyal base.

These are not signs of a healthy party, or a healthy democracy for that matter. When both major parties move too far to one side of the continuum, a third party will eventually crop up to counterbalance them.

It almost happened in 2000. 9/11 is the only reason it won't happen in 2004. But if we continue the way we have for the last 12 years, we risk becoming as relevant as the Whigs.

[On the Road]

93. That's Why I Think Some of the More Progressive DLCers

have broken with the GOP-lite branch. I think the party has absorbed the positive lessons of the DLC initative and it's now a drag on the party.

On some issues, however, liberals and Republicans have always shared a lot of common ground. Foreign policy, for one -- Democrats used to be bigger hawks and imperialists than Republicans.

[salin]

43. Follow the lessons from the right... 20-30 years of organizing

of developing/delivering messages via quasi think tanks (that initially were not considered think tanks - back in the mid-eighties Heritage was perceived on the Hill to be a propoganda house... but by the nineties folks gave them and their propoganda legitimacy). They print and push their own books. They have PR firms that get their stable of intellectual before congressional committees and on ALL of the talk shows. They created rightwing talk radio.

Over time they did not just push public sentiment to the right... the ideas that by much of the public were viewed as shakey (think back to when Reagan first pushes "supply side economics", or the meme that ALL regulation is bad and absolute deregulation is needed, and that any good for corporations automatically trickled down to be good for the public)... over time became to be accepted as "givens" and factually sound. Time and time again - even here among progressives at DU - these ideas slip in as givens.

Twenty years ago Dennis Kucinich's ideas would have seemed a bit to the left. Now, even among progressives, he is perceived as "fringe" and "too far to the left to ever be accepted by the public." And in the current public psyche - it is correct.

So what to do?

Fight the hell back!

There have never been more active liberal progressive groups that have been mobilizing - be it for local campaigns to national campaigns. There are more voices on the left that have begun to - develop counter 'think tanks' (eg Podesta's group); that are promoting more progressive ideas (and some that are simply turning back and ridiculing the current prevaling reactionary republican ideas) - that are starting (slowly) to get air time. We have to view moving the public dialogue/discourse to a point where ideas on the left again get airing. Where the idea that liberals can't be elected, so we stop trying, is no longer real. This will not happen over night. This won't happen in a single election cycle. This will take years and years and years. But in my twenty years political awareness - I have never seen so much activity on the left. So much intentional organizing as has been going on - probably beginning visibly with MoveOn in the post impeachment wake... and just exploding now. Pick your issue - pick your group - pick your strategies... NOW is the time to stop staring at the navel.

Work within the system or without. But work to change the larger public discourse - and that will start having a huge impact (over time) on local elections, state level elections and federal elections. But we have to see it as a long-haul effort and work towards it.

[ulysses]

47. YES!

Work within the system or without. But work to change the larger public discourse - and that will start having a huge impact (over time) on local elections, state level elections and federal elections. But we have to see it as a long-haul effort and work towards it.

Not questions, but activism.

Amen, my friend. I know I've said it before, but you really do post far too rarely.

[salin]

56. Why thank you...

unfortunatly life caught up with me - and there is very little time these days - indeed I am supposed to be writing a grant right now - have a 2:30 pm deadline tomorrow.

:D

The thing is - there are many more effective activism organizations springing up or springing to life (the latter - older organizations getting revitalized by newer attention, support and participation) - as we bitch and moan about things there really is a great deal to be done - but for the first time in a very long time... there are many more voices joining in - and much more momentum - and even more money. If we can see the long haul and not get frustrated nor succumb to fatalism (there is nothing we can do....) - then I think that by the end of my lifetime (20-40 years?) things will be dramatically changed. Big Picture, big picture, big picture.

[Kanary]

66. Some of us may not be around for the "long haul"

I agree with all your are proposing, but need to interject that there's a reason why some of us feel a huge sense of urgency.....

Some of us are quite on the edge, and know that we can be snuffed out rather abruptly. Sadly, it is very dificult to get Dems to even listen.

I'm very glad that you are so involved, and working so hard, and plan to for a long time to come. I'd just like you to remember that some of us are facing shortened lifetimes because the Dems have let us fall by the wayside.

Kanary

[salin]

69. That is absolutely important and in need of the immediate fight

I just also want folks to keep the eye on the long - so not to let up in the face of shorter term victories or defeats. The short-term should focus on immediate needs - the areas which are crushing folks - and the needs/issues are critical. No time to deal with public discourse for these needs, besides I think that the public is more primed to be sympathetic now than they were just a few years ago - as more and more families have been touched in very adverse ways.

As always I hold you, and others, close to my heart. I never intend to diminish the dire situation faced in the present - as I preach for the need for the long haul fight. I think these efforts should not be mutually exclusive.

[jpgray]

51. What good is having a message if you can't get it out?

There it runs smack back into the system again, so it becomes necessary to elect at least sympathetic people to places in office. At this time, these people are not at all going to match a leftist's wish list, but I believe it is every leftist's interest to elect a Democrat whenever electing a like-minded leftist is impossible. Hardly any other leftists on DU share this opinion with me, it seems, but that's a crucial piece of the puzzle.

Nixon was scarcely any more to the right than Kerry. The debate has been bodily shifted to the right, and it began to happen when more and more Republicans came into office. The think-tanks play a seriously important role in influencing the grounds of the debate, but without people in office sympathetic to getting that message out, I think the picture is going to be incomplete.

edit: But so far as there is a 'right' answer, I think everyone knew it would be this.

[salin]

55. no - they got into office

because the discourse had been shifting already.

The Goldwater right did not really take hold in public discourse until Reagan (a great front man/spokesman) - but the work on public discourse began with the starting up of many thinktank type organizations throughout the 70s - that started paving the way.

[jpgray]

58. But was the discourse changed by the ideas alone...

or were persons who controlled the discourse sympathetic to the ideas to the point of changing the discourse to accomodate them? I think it's a two-way street--having a good message is one thing, but if your opponents are defining it for you, it is almost completely worthless.

If the work you mention involves getting people involved in controlling the discourse who are sympathetic to liberal ideas, then I agree--this could change the discourse even as the right has changed it. I don't believe that simply having a well-defined message matters much if you have a lack of control over how it gets portrayed to the public. The Spanish election was a very depressing example of how the media can alter things--several friends who are no dullards otherwise were taken in by the spin that it showed Spain was 'giving in' to terrorists.

The gap between the Socialists and the Popular Party before the blast was 38 to 42 percent, respectively. The election was won by the Socialists 43 to 38. Now, these differences are within the margin of error, and it is important to note how close things were and how marginal the change was. It is also important to note that the Socialists led the Popular Party when antiwar sentiment was high last year. This was never reported, to my knowledge, in any major media after the election. In fact, a few pundits claimed the Popular Party enjoyed a 'comfortable lead'. The Daily Howler did a good piece on it here.

So as long as these efforts you speak of will help to control how the message is portrayed as well as create it, then I fully agree with you.

[salin]

65. Agreed - which is why I am talking about long-term strategic efforts

working on multiple levels - including media and control of message. There will continue to be - to some extent - a profit motive in much of the media (with the exception of a few outlets that can be subsidized by other entities such as Moon's Washington Times)... as sentiment shifts - and more profit is seen moving slightly and/or much more to the left... some of the media will begin to shift with it.

I think the some of the problems in todays media comes from not a single factor (ala "corporate media) but a confluence of factors (one being the corporate consolidation of media ownership).

In addition to corporate consolidation:

-Laziness and insularness among those doing the reporting and those being covered which has led to a more snide, in the know attitude more apt to gossipy coverage of the mundane rather than "outraged" coverage that comes with more objective distance. Add to this the constant 'news cycle' that found additional fodder once it began to follow the "drudge" mode back in the later Arkansas Project days. Note, however, that at least a few attempts to smear Kerry (think "intern" story) was never even picked up by most major outlets until there was some verifiability (there wasn't). First time I recall in recent years that kind of broadscale restraint. Not sure what to attribute it to - and I don't see it as a big sign of change - but I do see it as somewhat hopeful.

-Responsiveness to a long-term barage (from the politicized religious right, mobilized in the mid-eighties on) of charges of "liberal bias" - tons of calls/letters/etc with the recurrent theme - to the point where "balance" has come to mean something rather warped (Alterman has a good discussion of this in his book - not necessarily the cause I point to - but the funky active media definition of "balance." These days the left is actively responding as well - and sometimes coverage that had been stifled for a period is starting to break through again.

-Perception by media that this reporting is "what the public wants" and the misperception that folks are more apt to follow right of center coverage. This was accenuated in the post 9-11 coverage when there was also fear (both direct fear, and fear of being perceived like...say.. bill maher.) It was about eight months before Dan Rather did his Mea Culpa on the air. Admitting that he had gone soft on coverage (esp of the admin) after 9-11 and that he appologized to the public ... Is it possible that more reporters who got into the field for the right reasons might own up to this as well? Outrage can be a funny thing. I think it depends on how much really spills out behind this administration. However a lot of newsfolks entered the business in this era - and this is how they now perceive the newsbusiness to be - that is not so easy to reverse.

-Stripping of newsbudgets (both television and print) - that makes reporting rely more and more on a limited number of wire services for news beyond the local. Thus those that deliver to newsources - fully documented stories (easy to write ) with a hook (easy to sell) are more likely to get their stories covered than others (but hey... we CAN play that particular game. Look, for example, at how far the bbv coverage has come - and public awareness... when initially there were only a few independent researchers/activists (initially not networked together)..) Again - this is harder to figure out how to address, especially as more of the public turns away from traditionally paid media (ala via subscription). Starting additional news organizations (local, cyber, etc.) is one rememdy. Or.. say.. a new radio network...

-Finally - the placement through heavy PR work - of conservative experts before congress, on television and on the radio. There are a gazillion dc and nyc based small rightwing think tanks that get their credibility through publishing their own books (see ... he's a published author...) and use PR firms to get those folks on the air - regularly. To the point where there is a perceived LARGE stable of conservative "experts" on any topic to be covered anywhere on the air - while there is not the same perception towards left leaning "talking heads" (so they recycle the same voices on a myriad of topics - regardless of whether there is any expertise). The thing is there are a myriad of well informed, articulate, left wing folks who can talk policy on any issue - problem is that many are teaching in Universities - no one is pushing their work - using a publicist to get them on the air, etc. I have long thought that our own "intelligensia" is very undertapped in this arena. Get a couple of leftwing organizations that solely identify, promote (publish?), different professors' work and do the publicity to place these folks on tv. With a little bit of backing this wouldn't be hard to do. Suddenly the size of the stables of those going on the air and shaping message - shifts dramatically.

All that said - I think there are - in the very long run - ways of getting at how messages are heard - and that public discourse is a part of it - but in a rather dynamic way (change discourse effects media coverage effects change discourse effects media coverage... etc.) Have to intentionally work all angles.

[jpgray]

67. Well, if you're like me, I don't want to give you a procrastination excuse

:D

But yes, you're exactly right, and you make some very good points above.

I do think there is some laziness in the left in regards to this kind of work, but worse I think it is actively encouraged--there is the implication that the system is the system and we can only wait until government officials make the people mad enough to see things our way before anything will get done. Translation: we shouldn't do any work. :(

Now there are millions of leftists who work very hard for their ideals, but many more are indoctrinated with the idea that this nation's politics is so flawed an institution that it is not possible or worthwhile to salvage it from within. The conservatives have no such compunction about using the organs of government and the media to promote their message within the system as well as without--we just don't do that as well, and sometimes we lack even the inclination to do so.

Maybe we are beginning to head in the right direction, though.

[salin]

70. look at me...

I am procrastinating again!

Just had to add - I do think that we are beginning to move in the right direction - which got to my original point. I can't remember so much concurrent forward momentum with so many outlets for folks to get active - and with quite a bit of organizing and organization behind them on the left. All of us bitching -now have more outlets in which to move our bitching into action - be they small or major.

Now back to writing for me!

[jpgray]

80. Good luck with your grant

And thanks for adding your thoughts here.

[Bill Todd]

44. Good discussion, so for what it's worth:

For a start, one should ask what portions of the established power bases in this country would benefit from a liberal (damn - someone please provide a capsule differentiation of 'liberal' from 'left': if the latter refers to differences in government type rather than just in government emphasis, you might have meant 'liberal') agenda.

Corporations? No way: even something like universal health care is a double-edged sword for them, since while it would relieve the burden of health benefits from their overheads (at least where they haven't already thrown off that burden themselves, voluntarily) it would also eliminate a very powerful means of control over their work force.

Media (to the degree that this is separable from 'corporations' above)? Probably not: those who control the media would without question lose at least relative and probably even absolute wealth with the passage of a generally liberal agenda (just as they, along with the rest of the upper few percent in this country, have radically gained ground in the concentration of wealth that has occurred over the past 2+ decades of significantly conservative agendas), and even their higher-level employees (the ones we all know and love from their prominent visibility) would as well.

Political parties (even ours)? Well, since a large portion of liberal thinking is based upon empowerment of the masses, the people who currently run the process might not be all that eager to embrace it (one need only look at the past year's experience in the Democratic race for an instructive example).

Unions? Same as political parties in this regard: their members might love it, but those currently in control of at least some unions (certainly not all) might well not, however much lip-service they might pay to it.

Liberalism is by no means a zero-sum game: a rising tide really can lift all boats. But by lifting the boats of the masses so significantly relative to at least the initial lift it would provide to the power structure (which could be temporarily, and possibly even permanently, slightly negatively affected), it threatens those in the best position to be able to oppose or subvert it.

And subvert it they have: the masses are easily distracted (nothing new here, of course), and where applicable actively misled (that's why 'liberal' has become a negative rather than a positive appellation over time). Without intending in any way to divert the focus of the original post, I'll therefore observe that the success of the Dean campaign in attracting truly significant grassroots support for quite a few traditionally liberal goals (reregulation of the media, increased progressivity in the tax structure, universal health care, albeit in stages, internationalism - yeah, he had to fudge up his toughness quotient in response to incessant attacks from the right, but his core position was clearly enunciated in his stance against imperialism in a summer, 2003 foreign policy speech, labor rights, modifications to NAFTA and WTO to require that free trade be accompanied by suitable labor and environmental standards - a position he was beginning to move toward in the late '90s from a less critical embrace earlier in the decade, other environmental issues, especially the big-picture ones, job creation and retention, increased minimum wage, education and child care, women's and gay rights, instant runoff voting, ...) might be useful to study.

While liberals were attracted to Howard disproportionately (possibly simply because liberals tend to be better informed, but that's speculation and/or prejudice speaking), there's no question that Howard himself is a centrist, at least to the degree that he's classifiable at all. So he didn't base his campaign on ideology, he based it on specifics. And he didn't at least overtly base it on ideals, he based it on pragmatism.

If conservatives have taken the high ground in ideology (as apparently has become the case), change the debate to specifics. If idealism has largely given way to self-interest, that's unfortunate in an idealistic sense but arguably makes the liberal agenda more attractive, because it meets the self-interest criterion superbly (that's the basis of Howard's 'Confederate flag' comments that his opponents managed to convert to a 'gaffe' in the public psyche). And if the country just doesn't embrace the arguably profligate 'tax and spend' deficit-producing policies of some liberals of the past, perhaps that's not such a bad thing - and it sure helps take the wind out of the sails of the opposition, especially an opposition as fiscally irresponsible as today's is.

People responded to that message in large numbers, and responded substantively (i.e., with financial and other forms of support). Even many liberals did, and while Howard may not have satisfied any kind of 'purity' test you didn't hear them talking about holding their noses: the ones most dissatisfied with him were those who got their information from the usual suspects rather than from actual contact with the campaign.

As a strategy, we could do worse. (Or perhaps you could: I consider myself a centrist rather than a liberal, but it's possible that my standard of measurement is somewhat out of date.)

- bill

[xchrom]

45. socialism still provides a form to fit the function

but one can't be shy about the message being carried.
here's where the flame war can start -- i vote democratic but with some exceptions the democratic party is a tool of the corporate statist party{there's only one}.
one must state quite plainly in language thata the masses can understand the extent to which they are now slaves or indentured servants.
it must become more head to head -- and that's where an air america can become important.
anyway there's a lot to chew on here and i'll get lost -- so i'll let others have it for a while.

[jpgray]

49. If you support Dean, by the general standard you are right of center

By our media standard, you are a radical liberal. These labels are meaningless, but when I say 'left', I mean 'left' in the internationally understood sense.

Howard Dean is more or less as bad as Kerry when it comes to the big issues. Dean had a lot of deals with corporations like IBM, and pursuant to that, many environmental failures in Vermont. He did have some victories on the environment, but overall his record on the environment/corporate responsibility is very spotty.

Dean also advocated unilateral invasion via Biden/Lugar and in general statements, though to his credit he consistently said the president had not made the case for unilateral war with regards to Iraq's WMD. Biden/Lugar was better than the Iraq resolution, but only marginally so--had Bush followed his exact steps we would be in the same place with Biden/Lugar, only a few reports would have been filed. Bush would have gotten his authorization with either bill, given he followed the same steps in each case. Biden/Lugar does specifically limit the authorization to Iraq, and if Bush uses the Iraq resolution to expand the conflict to other nations, then these differences become very important. That includes Dean, and it includes Kerry.

The important point here that is by no means limited to Dean is that major candidates will not challenge the power structure in any meaningful way. Nothing in Dean's record indicates that he would do so, and in fact his support of corporate power over the years cements the doubt. For example this recent bout of media consolidation, while very dangerous and important to fight, exacerbated an already bad situation--taking us back to the Clinton standards is not taking us back to the good ol' days.

Dean does not advocate cutting defense spending, true universal health care, or truly tough regulations on big business and media ownership. Grossly high defense spending filled with graft, private health care that works for the healthy and well-off while abandoning the poor and sick, and self-regulating corporations all represent outright thefts from the citizens of this country. No major candidate for the presidency has plans beyond patronizing cosmetic changes; no major candidate for the presidency will deal with any of it.

Edit: Of course I would vote for Dean as enthusiastically as I would vote for Kerry--both are pretty damn good for major candidates. I certainly don't expect much more than a really marginal shift. That marginal shift makes a big difference, however. And how better to set the stage for bigger shifts than to at least get things moving in the right direction?

[Bill Todd]

59. The most dramatic difference between Dean and Kerry

is that Dean can be trusted to make a very strong effort to live by his commitments, so what you see is actually what you'll get.

That's why he managed to get reelected 5 times in a row in a rather liberal state, despite being a definite centrist. And that's why he won the Vermont primary resoundingly several weeks after having ceased to be an active candidate: people there know who he is, rather than who the media and opposition portray him as.

Of course, the fact that Howard (and I) are centrists has nothing to do with the fact that he managed to put forth the relatively liberal positions that I listed in a manner that gained broad-spectrum support, which was why I suggested that his approach might well work for you as well. But since you brought up the subject, I'll continue to contrast his positions with those you've projected on him (and comment on the 'nuances' of the differences with Kerry):

Howard attempted to implement single-payer health care in Vermont in parallel with the Clinton efforts nationwide, in the early '90s. When he failed to get it through, instead of giving up (as Clinton did) he adopted an incremental approach which resulted in full coverage for children, and full coverage for adults up to 150% of poverty level, plus prescription benefits for seniors. Since he's a pragmatist, and having seen first-hand what happened to the giant-leap approach to universal coverage on both the state and national levels, he's proposed a similar incremental approach for the nation, and commented on the record that his attitude is first to get everyone covered, and then to work on moving toward an underlying single-payer mechanism: about the worst you can say is that his strategy for getting to the place you want to go differs from yours.

Howard's positions on large-scale environmental issues are pretty good: he's for aggressive development of non-fossil, non-nuclear energy sources, significant improvements in CAFE standards and other conservation measures, serious attempts to make the Kyoto treaty workable, ... hell, just go to http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_environment if you want to learn more. And he has a record in Vermont to back them up, at least to some degree. On local issues he's pragmatic: some trade-offs within the bounds of reasonable corporate responsibility are acceptable to him, which means that environmentalists in Vermont are split on supporting him - the pragmatists like him pretty well, the more radical ones don't (and wouldn't like any other likely governor, either).

I'm afraid that your contention that Howard advocated unilateral invasion is simply incorrect. He did support Biden/Luger as the resolution to pass if any was to be passed at all, and one of the 'few reports' that it would have required was a declaration to Congress describing the conditions that required a unilateral invasion - a document which would have clearly constituted an impeachable offense had it proven false. He also accepted that there could be conditions justifying a preemptive strike, as I suspect most people would (and this is in no way equivalent to buying into the far more aggressive 'Bush doctrine') - but clearly conditions far different from those which actually obtained. I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the details of his position in the speech which I mentioned in my previous post: you can find it at http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr , and you'll find it rather different from the DLC/PPI-style of muscular internationalism that Kerry appears to subscribe to.

If you don't believe that advocating media re-regulation 'challenge(s) the power structure in any meaningful way', try getting Kerry to embrace it publicly. For that matter, Dean's mere ability to by-pass that power structure in fund-raising clearly scared them silly: while he may not be a "smash the state" radical, neither is he beholden to them.

Howard's public refusal to cut defense spending immediately certainly had political benefits, but when examined his position has some reasonable substance: he advocated maintaing spending at current levels but shifting the use of the money toward increased salaries, a change in focus to address new threat profiles, and, of course, to fund the misadventure in Iraq (rather than continuing to fund it via special appropriations). That, plus his almost extreme dedication to balanced budgets, suggests strongly that defense spending would not have continued at high levels in a Dean administration.

In sum, I think you've sold Howard quite a bit too short, whether by comparison with Kerry or with the agenda you value. But again, that's not really the point of the post I made suggesting a strategy for advancing that agenda - unless you're dead-set on presenting it in one indigestible mass as an ideological revolution rather than getting to it in a more practical manner.

- bill

edits: shouldn't have used square brackets in text

[jpgray]

61. Electing people like Howard Dean is what I am all about

I do not disqualify people because they don't meet my exact specifications. I think having more folks like Dean in office is a good thing. Your contention that I am selling Dean short I do have a problem with. I thoroughly researched Dean, because I gave him $250 of my money.

For example here's a small bit of what I have on his environmental record--there are plenty more articles, if you are interested:

“’EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection,’ proclaims Annette Smith, the director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment. Smith is no stranger to Dean's environmental record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from the OMYA Corporation's mining to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse last week to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off emails to Vermont environmentalist calling for a protest of the event and wondering if they were ‘going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?’”
(Counter Punch, 2/22/03)

“ Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations. When Canada's Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. wanted to build a new manufacturing plant on 700 acres of Vermont farmland in the mid-90s, for instance, Dean greased the wheels. Husky obtained the necessary permits in near-record time. ‘He was very hands-on,’ says an appreciative Dirk Schlimm, the Husky executive in charge of the project. And when environmentalists tried to limit expansion of snowmaking at ski resorts, ‘Dean had to show his true colors, and he did -- by insisting on a solution that allowed expanding snowmaking,’ says Stenger.”
(Business Week, 8/11/03)

“ Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of Vermont's Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process under Dean become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she hardly thinks it's worth putting up a fight anymore. ‘Under Dean the Act 250 process (Vermont's primary development review law) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way,’ contends Kaplan. ‘Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers.’”
(Michael Colby, editor Wild Monthly, Counter Punch, 2/22/03)

“Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations. ... IBM, by far the state's largest private employer, says it got kid-gloves treatment. ‘We would meet privately with him three to four times a year to discuss our issues,’ says John O'Kane, manager for government relations at IBM's Essex Junction plant, ‘and his secretary of commerce would call me once a week just to see how things were going.’”
(Business Week, 8/11/03)

“ IBM's Essex Junction chip plant discharged the most of any Vermont company, releasing 213,446 pounds of chemicals, or 36 percent of the 591,790 pounds released in the state in 1999. … IBM released 170,000 pounds of nitrates in 1999. The chemical is discharged to the Winooski River with the company's wastewater. That discharge is up from the company's 1998 nitrate release of 140,000 pounds.
(Burlington Free Press, 4/13/01)

“ Former Gov. Howard Dean met with executives at IBM at least quarterly. His appointees were in touch with Vermont's largest employer even more regularly. During Dean's 11 years in office, jobs at IBM's Essex Junction plant fluctuated up and down. The company crossed paths with the state on a variety of other issues from transportation to environmental permits and utility rates. How much influence did the former governor have with Big Blue? Finding an answer in the records Dean left behind is arduous at best.”
(Burlington Free Press, 8/10/03)

I have Biden/Lugar's full text in front of me--would you mind telling me which section would have stopped the president from going to war?

Dean is better than Kerry on some things (Iraq) and worse on others (environment). These differences are marginal. This thread really isn't about debating the merits of any single candidate, and I admire and respect Dean as a politician. However I won't agree that he represents my views, or 'practical' views. He represents, as do the other major candidates, the 'acceptable' views.

Your belief that 'redistributing' the bloated defense budget will solve anything is something I can't agree with. When we outspend all our nearest competitors combined when it comes the military, something is seriously wrong--each superfluous dollar in that budget represents outright theft from the citizens of the country. His positions on NAFTA and the Patriot Act are similarly cosmetic and superficial--to try and 'fix' something that is fundamentally flawed to begin with seems to me a cop-out. How do you 'fix' something that is an open barrel of pork to investors? Change the barrel's shape? Environmental and labor protections are a great start, but it is only a start, and one that will likely never be put in place due to our reliance on cheap labor.

I have no problem accepting political reality--there are good reasons that Dean gives superficial solutions. If he didn't, he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected. I would happily vote for Dean--he is a much better speaker than Kerry, and is his superior on more than one issue, Iraq being the most noteworthy. But if you take every policy position Dean has advocated at face value (which no one should), it only represents the same marginal difference from Bush that Kerry does. This marginal difference is vitally important in practice, because it results in massive differences when magnified by the power of the executive branch.

Dean's a great candidate, but he does not seem good to me on practical or ideological levels--Kerry doesn't pass that test either. He does seem far better than Bush, and on a few things better (a few others worse) than Kerry. He won't challenge anything fundamental--he will work small superficial changes. The thing is, those changes are incredibly important, and any leftist ought to be happy to work hard for Howard Dean, and John Kerry as well, for those changes. They won't challenge the status quo, but they will make it that tiny bit easier for the next person to do so.

edit: I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to 'get' Dean or you. I just think where you see 'practical' I see 'superficial solution necessitated by the political realities'. :shrug: This DOESN'T mean Dean is bad, among the primary candidates he was one of the very best--one of only two major candidates I gave any money to.

edit2: Toned it down a little--I'm not right and you're not wrong here, and I don't want to give that impression.

[Bill Todd]

71. I appreciate both the toning-down and the explanation

so I'll try to respond with similar grace and at least attempted objectivity.

For all the paragraphs about the environment that you provided, you failed to cite a single instance in which Dean did something environmentally unsound. Helping business through tangled environmental regulations may be business-friendly (and Dean was very friendly, within suitable bounds, to businesses that brought good jobs to Vermont) but does not imply conspiracy to circumvent them. Nor does a listing of the pollution content of effluent imply that it was excessive: you need to evaluate it against the capacity of the river and the appropriate regulatory limits.

Finding ways for businesses to do what is beneficial for them within environmental guidelines is a good thing, all other considerations being equal. It's not necessary to be anti-business to be liberal: it's just necessary to be absolutely committed to regulating their behavior appropriately when regulation is called for.

As I said earlier, Vermont environmentalists split on Howard. The number who supported him makes assertions that he was a tool of the corporate establishment ludicrous. The important point in comparing him with Kerry (who indeed has a very good record in the Senate in this area) is that dealing with environmental issues as an administrator is significantly different from dealing with them as a legislator: Kerry may look as good or even slightly better on paper, but as president I have my doubts.

The relevant portion of Biden/Lugar was the one I already identified: the one requiring notification to the Congress of the reasons necessitating an invasion. Lying to Congress beyond any reasonable doubt constitutes an impeachable offense - a point apparently not lost on Bush when he dismissed Biden/Lugar and other variants that he claimed would 'tie his hands'.

I'm not sure how you can contend that folding something like the $1 billion/week that was the last figure I heard for special-appropriation military spending on Iraq into the normal military budget without commensurately increasing said budget constitutes anything but a very substantial effective cut. The diversion of current spending into increased salaries is significant as well. Howard's attitude toward military spending may not be as drastic as Dennis's, but it may well be substantially more drastic than Kerry's: as I noted, deficits really bug him, and there's no other feasible area with anything like that potential for savings.

Your comment that potential changes to NAFTA will "will likely never be put in place" is telling: I would expect that with Kerry far more than with Howard, and this once again highlights what should be a significant difference between them - even for someone looking rightward from a very left-of-center position. This is simply another aspect of which one of them would represent something greater than a 'marginal' change from Bush: they may both promise fairly similar agendas, but Howard is the one who would actually not rest until he got that agenda implemented, no matter what obstacles had to be circumvented, while Kerry is - well, Kerry.

That's the major clear difference I see. Neither agenda might meet your criteria for 'fundamental' change, but Howard's meets mine for 'real' change while Kerry's seems far less likely to in its actual implementation. And if Howard came through with the list of liberal positions I originally listed, I doubt that many people who call themselves liberals would be disappointed, even though there would doubtless be other areas where they'd still press for significantly greater progress (and which in some cases I might tend to oppose).

So if you were referring to a 'liberal' agenda rather than a 'left' (change-the-form-of-government) agenda in your original post, I think that Howard would likely perform notably better than Kerry would, and quite possibly to the satisfaction of at least some of those who characterize themselves as liberals (though probably not yourself). And I'm not sure that this distinction falls into the category of debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin: there's still time to try to influence the platform, and such distinctions can be made there even if we'll have to depend upon Kerry as the person to carry them out.

Apologies for having gone on at such length (I get motivated when I see what appear to be mischaracterizations of Howard's positions, because of how viciously they were mischaracterized during the primaries). I think my original point still stands (that you can get quite a way toward what you want simply by concentrating on specifics rather than ideology), and feel free not to bother responding to the rest without worrying that your silence will be taken for assent.

- bill

[jpgray]

78. Yes, we've built ourselves quite a scroll bar in this thread

But I agree with what almost all of what you say above, and I don't discount the differences you draw between Kerry and Dean. Just because they seem less significant to me doesn't mean they aren't there. The biggest trouble for me in this thread has been the labels, because they aren't anywhere near as definite as I want them to be.

I have already decided that one of the things I will do to advance my own ideals is to elect Democrats to office wherever and whenever I can. I may draw the line at some particularly odious types, but Democrats like Dean and Kerry do not fit that bill. I've made the argument for this many times on this board--without sympathetic voices in the system, liberals are going to be fighting at a terrible disadvantage.

[w4rma]

48. Nader and Kucinich really aren't very good spokespeople, imho. (nt)

[jpgray]

50. For this post, I'm more interested in the message than the messenger (nt)

[Ardee]

53. What a mess!!!

Ive been gone for a bit in a self imposed exile and first thing I note is a terrific question from JPGray.

The first think I thought of when pondering this thread was the statement by Michael Moore that, on the issues, most Americans are liberals. That they tend to vote against that definition has more to do with the great and tireless propaganda machinery that ceaselessly paints liberal agendas in as poor a light as possible than by any refutable evidence that they are not so liberal after all. Our national media has become a simple parroting of the views of those who have the power rather than an investigative body digging and searching for truths. Blame the power of the advertising dollar.

I firmly believe that to change this system it just has to continue to get worse and worse until the comfortable middle class can no longer hide behind their two car garages, wide screen TVs and the like. Perhaps in '08 when Jeb is running to replace his brother after two terms in office......gag! I do believe that Kerry has a shot at beating Bush, simply because the piles of lies, the evidence of malfeasance, the tragedies in Afghanistan ,Iraq and who knows where next continue to nag away at our consciences. But the simple and tragic truth is that a Kerry victory will do absolutely nothing to alter a sick system which has ceased any pretense at representing any of us.

[Nadienne]

92. I whole-heartedly agree with your first point

that Americans are more liberal than they believe they are. And it is the all-mighty dollar that's behind this problem.

And I fear that you are right about Kerry not being the solution to our real problems. I mean, c'mon, can I really trust an elitist to understand the problems that I and millions of others deal with?

But then, even if things do get worse, fingers will be pointed at all the wrong places, and once again, a solution won't be forth-coming.

And so I hope for a Kerry victory. And if he trips up and doesn't improve things, I hope he doesn't have the kind of blind apologists that Bush has.

[mzmolly]

54. The way I see it is most people actually believe in compromise and working

together.

I feel it's dangerous and undesirable to totally alienate a large segment of our population even though I disagree with many of them most of the time.

This is why people in the so called *middle* end up in the OO. However, GW has shown the nation he's *cough* not the compassionate conservative he claimed to be.

Now I will say some issues SHOULD NOT be compromised on, but generally speaking our Government should be representative of *the people* and that includes people I don't like or agree with.

Paul Wellstone said he *fought for the little guy* because the corporations had plenty of representation. He also said we need to be a Government of by and for the people.

The problem is that we have become a Govt of, by and for corporations and millionaires.

In order to try to address this issue, we have got to keep Dems/progressives in office. From the bottom up we need to take back our democracy.

This is another reason I feel Nader should run for lesser office before asking us to hand him the White House.

Sorry to ramble on....

[Skeptical Democrat]

57. I don't think people are against leftist values. I just think there are

more moderates and people willing to make some compromises in order to make any gains at all. That's what politics is all about is compromising.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Agreed, compromise is the only way that things get done...

Unfortunately, the neo-con Republicans support a fascist agenda that is damn near impossible to compromise with.

[Skeptical Democrat]

76. I would agree the last few years have been .... difficult

But I see that changing. I see some bipartisan revolt at times, and then I see some bipartisan crap at times as well.

I guess that is why I am so skeptical, but I am so by nature.

[NNadir]

62. I think it's because "leftists" or "progressives" or whatever lecture

rather than think in general. There are only glib assertions with very little demonstration of models that have succeeded, very little analysis of data, and very little willingness to consider the possibility that some pat "progressive" responses unchanged since the 1930's are in fact mere dogma.

Personally, I find the "progressive" "ideas" such as they are to be not only hypocritical but very simplistic. It is not true for instance that all of the world's environmental problems can be addressed by eliminating WTO. Neither is it true that all capitalists are evil incarnate and that every problem needs to be addressed by spitting the word "corporate" as a synonym for "shit." It actually happens that many human beings work in corporations, and very few of them are actually mindless automatons slaving in service of their CEO's junkets to Malta. Some of them work at their jobs trying to make a secure future not only for themselves, but for the planet as a whole.

Most liberals (as opposed to "progressives") are people who want justice, peace, economic growth, an end to racism, gay rights, women's rights etc. "Progressives" often feel totally justified in trashing liberals simply because they do not believe that either Kucinich or Nader offer a realistic plan for achieving these goals. I, for one, despise being told that I am a fascist or some other such nonsense by a member of the perennially 2% crowd just because I don't embrace some nonsense dribbling out of the mouth of Nader or Kucinich. I have yet to hear of an original idea from either of them. Indeed many of the things they say are simply untrue and absurd. (Think "there is no difference between Bush and Gore." Neither Kucinich nor Nader are original thinkers in any sense of the word. They are, in fact, demagogues. In Nader's case the demagoguery is very, very, very Bush like.

[jpgray]

63. That's not at all where I am coming from

I have posted several threads excoriating Nader--what inspired this thread was an urge to get people thinking about WHY we should elect the Democratic nominee. It apparently has backfired, or was misunderstood.

[NNadir]

96. Apparently, in true "progressive" tradition, you've been unclear.

My experience with "leftists" is wholly limited to what I've heard from Kucinich and Nader fans. I suspect the same is true of many others who lust for change from the horror of the last three years. It is therefore unrealistic for many of us to claim that being a leftist-progressive as being somehow distinct from Kucinichism and Naderism. This, of course, strikes exactly at the core of the leftist problem - disconnection with reality.

Why, for instance, has Kucinich not dropped out and endorsed Kerry? Is there any realistic probability that his campaign will change anything at this point other than the amount of fun Kucinich gets from having attention paid to him?

Why is Nader running? He says (and how crazy is this?) that he will take votes away from Republicans. It follows then, that he is a Republican. Yet we have "leftists" (if not you directly) screaming praises for him.

To answer your question here, why should we elect the Democratic nominee, there are many, many obvious answers, many being positive reasons having to do with the fine nominee we have selected. The over-riding and necessarily negative reason for a people who care about reality and actual (as opposed to imaginary) outcomes, the simplest and glaringly obvious reason is this and this alone: George W. Bush. Our country and our planet are dying because of this pig. This is no time to glory in one's own navel. We cannot afford it.

[Ardee]

98. limited experience tends toward limited understanding

You base an entire diatribe on an admittedly limited understanding of leftist thought. There is very little to say to one such as you who can write, in apparent sincerity:

"My experience with "leftists" is wholly limited to what I've heard from Kucinich and Nader fans. I suspect the same is true of many others who lust for change from the horror of the last three years. It is therefore unrealistic for many of us to claim that being a leftist-progressive as being somehow distinct from Kucinichism and Naderism. This, of course, strikes exactly at the core of the leftist problem - disconnection with reality. "

You live in a reality that apparently allows a judgment without knowledge, that is not my reality thank you very much.Talk about a disconnect......

Kucinich remains in the contest as a "conscience" ,if you will, of the democratic party.Good for him!

A political presidential debate with Nader included would be something very special to heed.......

[Ardee]

103. To late to edit so......

NNadir typed:

"To answer your question here, why should we elect the Democratic nominee, there are many, many obvious answers, many being positive reasons having to do with the fine nominee we have selected. The over-riding and necessarily negative reason for a people who care about reality and actual (as opposed to imaginary) outcomes, the simplest and glaringly obvious reason is this and this alone: George W. Bush. Our country and our planet are dying because of this pig. This is no time to glory in one's own navel. We cannot afford it."


Are you mixing reality with your own opinion? I think that you are indeed. While I'm certain that you might, if you tried, come up with some of those many,many reasons but, alas, you chose not to do so. Instead you elected to to again confuse your own views with some mythic standard of what is real and what is not. Many of us do this every day of course and my reference to your doing so is not meant as a condemnation or an insult, just an observation. What you call impossible others may call not only possible but necesary.......

You join many ,many in referencing Bush as some cartoon figure , some arch villain out of a Marvel comic and that is fine and dandy. It does ,however , make it so much easier to avoid understanding that Bush is not the real problem with this nation, that whoever sleeps in the WH and works in the Oval Office is beholden to the same powers as Georgie boy, perhaps not as willing a tool thereof but a tool nevertheless. Disregarding for a moment that any President needs congress to have an agenda succeed and that a Kerry in that Pennsylvania Avenue address is not the same as a superhero appearing before us all to save the world,sorry.

It seems to me that the real difference between you and a "progressive" or a "liberal" is that you refuse to stretch the bounds of the possible, calling liberalism a lack of reality. One might call liberalism bravery and honesty and your position simple lack of imagination or guts.

I tell you straight out that I am sick unto death of the path we are on here in America, sick to death of the empty promises of all politicians, whether GOP or Democrat, sick to death of a news media that simply reports what is said without fact finding and verification, and I realize that the Editors and Publishers must cater to the advertiser and abandon the truth. I am sick to death of politicians who promise the moon and kneel before the corporate donors waving large checks. I am at the end of my rope with foreign policies that result in the deaths of thousands to further enrich a few old white men.

I am tired of watching my vision of and for America become a nightmare. I am ill at the thought of seniors deciding between cat food and medication, I am trying to end a scenario wherein good hardworking Americans lose their jobs, their health care and their homes because it is more profitable to employ a Bangladeshi than an Iowan. I detest that children are undereducated here that this land of mine seems to care little for its own.

So I will not accept any longer your choice of which corporate stooge to vote for, and I will work, at the local level, within third parties or wherever I must to effect change and , if you have an ounce of clarity and a smidgen of honesty you will join me instead of diminishing me.

[Sparkly]

75. Thank you!

The only "ideas" I see from the "lefter-than-thou" that are different from Democrats' are "ideas" that will happen when the whole system of government is overturned and Congress no longer includes Republicans and the systems, processes, laws, rules, votes, etc. all disappear. And they're going to make that happen *how??* By bashing the only means of progress in government we've got, calling the party of Maxine Waters and Paul Wellstone and George McGovern "establishment" and making speeches about change?

It's like bashing teachers for failing to produce results, assuming they just "aren't trying hard enough" or "don't understand how important this is" or "don't have the right standards" blah blah blah... You can do better? Get in the classroom and go for it.

[NNadir]

97. You're welcome.

Thank you for getting it.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. America doesn't want socialism

The vast majority of Americans don't want socialism, myself included. Part of what America was founded on, was a free market economy. Add in the fact that the government spent 40 years scaring the living shit out of people with anti-soviet/anti-communist and socialist propaganda and you can see why America doesn't want a socialist candidate. Nader might not be an all out socialist but I've listened to the guy talk and he's pretty damn close. Then factor in the amount of propaganda that the right uses against liberals/leftists and you have the American public seeing Nader as a socialist if not a communist. I don't have anything against socialists but I disagree with their philosophy in many ways. Personally, I am proud to say that I am a liberal for Kerry and that my views are probably farther to the left than those of most Americans. Although there are those still left of me, I don't feel like I am a "sellout" or a "centrist" because I don't support Nader or Kucinich. I've liked John Kerry since the early stages of the primaries and I truly hope that he will become president not just to beat Bush but to change this country for the better.

[jpgray]

77. I shouldn't have included Nader and Kucinich in the post

This is about general liberal values--since I am voting for Kerry myself, and am enthusiastically supporting him, this is not a 'Kerry sucks don't vote for him' thread.

In fact, as I pointed out to someone else here, this thread was meant to ask the questions I asked myself for this election. These are the questions that led to my decision to endorse the nominee fully and completely, despite differences in our stances. I feel my own values have a better chance of getting aired in a climate where the Democrats are elected in great numbers.

I definitely didn't want to give the impression that 'everyone should support Kucinich or Nader'. I have blasted Nader on several occasions here for his hypocrisy, and Kucinich is not the perfect liberal candidate either, though he walks his talk more than Nader does.

[REP]

82. Heh

I have blasted Nader on several occasions here for his hypocrisy, and Kucinich is not the perfect liberal candidate either, though he walks his talk more than Nader does.

That's damning with faint praise. :)

I, too, will be voting for Kerry despite the feeling he's not the best candidate possible. As I said above, Democrats seem to select candidates based on 'it's his turn' and/or the candidate who appeals to the lowest common denominator. I felt that way about Clinton, and he surprised me by being a better President than I had expected. I hope Kerry surprises me, too.

[xchrom]

83. america doesn't want socialism

all western post industrialized countries exercise socialism.
the bare truth america doesn't want to hear -- that is the rationalist/humanist inheritance,
the problem is that corporations and their willing agents the religous right are attempting to do away with many of the things that support the most vulnerable elments in society, i.e. the environment, the poor, the elderly.
by privatizing a good many of these agendas they know that a good deal of damage will be done -- but the hope is they can make their buck and get out in good order. and they have an inherent belief in their own superiority -- but with greed or moral certainty as philosophical foundations they will deliver more pain than effective services.
socialist governments can be tough -- but they try for a neutrality. understanding there is no one perfect set of human to provide a structure for.

[nolabels]

94. Yes it is, so what you going to do about it?

The best revenge is success and you cannot possibly try to heal the world unless you can and are willing to heal yourself.

I can't acknowledge but often try to see why that there are too many that have so much of so many things that I don't really want or need, but I am working on trying to imagine that all of them things don't exist anyway. Thanks for your concern. :crazy: