Why the left will forever be left out.

[Joe Fields]

I grew up during the 1950' and 60's. Those days the Democratic party was still the party of Franklin Roosevelt. My parents were great admirers of Roosevelt, whose administrations they had grown up with and had helped to shape their world view. I would say that they were typical mainstream democrats, ones who didn't mind too much paying taxes, if the taxes went toward making a better society. I know that they, and millions of other democrats appreciated the fact that FDR understood that the government needed to create institutions that would raise society up and allow dignity for most, if not yet all Americans, especially those in need. The democratic party was Roosevelt. Roosevelt, though long dead was still the democratic party. The ideals that our party stood for are the ideals that I grew up with. I had always considered them to be mainstream ideals and American values.

It's clear to me that I was wrong. The party has shifted direction and has passed me and a whole lot of liberal democrats (you know, the ones that Dr. Dean talks about?) right on by, without so much as even a dismissive wave of the hand. I have found myself questioning how this happened and why, and where I fit into all of this, if at all.

Jealousy and a quest for ultimate power has shifted us from being the party of Roosevelt to the party that goes after the same power elite as the opposition party. People like Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel and Al From despise populism and social programs. In short, they have more in common with who I grew up calling republicans than with democrats. It seems as though for the past twenty years the mainstream of the democratic party has been squeezed by both republicans and by the DLC. I think that the rate of marginalization increased with the eradication of the Fairness Doctrine. After that, it didn't take long for "liberalism" to become a dirty word. Within a few short years, really, the very ideals and values that I have steadfastly stood by throughout my life have been so thoroughly ridiculed and scorned by right wing media, that most of what I believe in is said to be "quaint" or "old school."

To be fair, we liberals have done a bang up job of marginalizing ourselves, for we are:

Wholly unable to organize.

We are purists.

We are unwilling to compromise

We are unwilling to morph into a different part of our party, like the Clintons were able to do. (By the way, just a quick disclaimer, because I don't like hate mail; I thought Bill Clinton did a lot for this country.. I cannot stand where he has led this party, that's all.)

Most importantly,(at least in the eyes of the party leadership) there aren't many liberals with a whole lot of money and influence. The liberal base is working class, and although, collectively, we can generate a lot of campaign money, singularly, very few liberals are wealthy and influential. As this is who our party leaders are going after, then that leaves us further out in the cold. And why should party leaders listen to us? Why should Obama, who is post-baby boom, and did his own to cement our marginalization within the party, throw us a bone? We aren't organized, we have no money or influence.

I shake my head in wonder a lot these days. I can't for the life of me understand how, at one of the most critical points in our history, when we should be focusing our attention and our resources and our help on human beings, we have leadership who decide that it is much more important to help preserve the power elite. Our party leadership has drifted in that direction and it deeply saddens me. It saddens me because I know that in my lifetime, I have seen our party rise to greatness and seize the moment, I have seen greatness and the great promise of the future snatched away by the pull of a trigger. Not once, but three times. I have seen my generation rise to greatness, only to let the moment slip away, and I have seen the sellout of a nation. I don't think we can get back what we once had. Corporations, the media and our party leadership will see to that. To be honest, if we are to remain liberals and continue to fight, we need to realize that we are fighting a two front battle. Be sure to eat your Wheaties.

[Joe the Liberal]

1. Obama just became president.....

How are we being left out if Obama (who I consider to be left wing) just became president?

[Joe Fields]

3. I don't mean to be nasty, but it's not my job to educate you.

Do your homework.

[Joe the Liberal]

7. I don't mean to be nasty either but.....

you just typed all that in an attempt to educate us here at DU general forum on the topic of "Why the left will forever be left out" :shrug:

[Joe Fields]

8. what part of what I typed don't you understand? I'll clarify for you.

[Truth2Tell]

You know the bar has moved way to the far right in America

when people actually consider Obama to be "left wing."

He didn't run as left wing.

[Truth2Tell]

18. dupe

[nichomachus]

30. Obama is slightly to the right of Richard Nixon

Nixon was a turd and quite possibly a traitor, but policy-wise he was to the left of most Democrats on the national stage today.

[cali]

162. baloney. he went along with the Congress because he was focused

on foreign policy. For the love of reason, this is the guy that appointed wingnut Rehnquist to the SCOTUS, and yeah, Rehnquist was absolutely known to be far to the right.

You really think Obama will appoint right wing judges and justices?

revisionist tripe.

[Bandit]

47. What aspect of Obama's philosophy do you consider "left wing"?

I consider the middle today to be far right from the middle of 1960 and yet I consider Obama to be almost center right. I know of no bone yet he has thrown to the left wingers in this nation. His Health Care Plan is just more of the same with a few exceptions. He still wants the Insurance Company to be the decider and he wants to force everyone to get insurance. He was willing in a heart beat to give billions to Brokerage houses and Insurance Companies but is balking at giving a loan small in comparison to the Auto Makers. He wants to continue the "War on Terror" by beefing up forces in Afghanistan and allow incursions into Pakistan, a sovereign nation. I don't get the "Liberal" aspect of Obama at all. He wants to try and Unite America, which is good IMO but not necessarily a "Liberal" position. Remember Bush* ran as a "Uniter". I think the Left is going to be terribly disappointed, but I also feel America is going to be a better place and headed back toward a center that is not right leaning as it is today..

[truedelphi]

125. You had me, right until your last sentence

If America does end up being a better place, it is because all of us feel encouraged to have gotten the fascists out. Thus we will work very hard to see that people like Obama start to realize that most Americans who voted for him want real change. It will be a process, but it is necessary to have it happen.

Examine these issues:
Change on HealthCare - everyone I know wants this, except the Talking Heads on TV. Even the RW jerks who are married to friends of mine, or the right wing brother in law, or the neighbor - Michael Moore did such a good job of educating the whole country that I am hoping that obama will have to heed the average person's need to repalce what wehave iwith Universal Single Payer.
Rather than allowing the execs at top of the insurance business stay in charge.

Restructure the tax code - while we sort out the insurance situation, modify the tax code so that if you are forced to use your 401 K or other retirement plans for a needed healthcare operation or procedure or even plain old medication - that those monies are tax deductions and not penalties. Give the REAL middle class a break - many of us have forever lost the mortgage deduction due to house prices inflating so severely. IMHO, no one making 30 K or less should even be paying income taxes - it costs that much just to exist, expecially given that right now, you have to pay your ownhealth insurance, your own college expenses, etc. My dad paid a paltry amount on the the 4 or 5 K he made in the fifties - and yet we lived the high life - vacationed every single year, paid cash for the new car every third or fourth, nice place to live in a beautiful and safe community. Food took seven or eight per cent of our budget. The doctor made house calls for 5 bucks. (the last time I was part of an HMO, I only paid five dollars to see a doctor, but such an appointment might involve a six week wait.)

[LWolf]

77. Obama is not anywhere close to "left wing."

He distanced himself from the left a long time ago. When he spoke so eloquently about "bringing people together," he meant bringing centrist democrats and republicans together. He doesn't have a place at the table for the left.

He's made that abundantly clear all along, and I'm sorry you weren't looking closely enough to notice. :(

You certainly aren't the only American to make this mistake. I've heard it from Democrats who should know better, and republicans who are afraid he's a marxist as well as a muslim.

Underneath all of that, if you listen to him, read his policy papers, and study his record in Congress, it's quite clear.

There is nothing "Left" about him.

[NashVegas]

82. How Could Anyone Notice

When any post on DU that was critical of Obama was turned into an all out flame fest, once Edwards was out of the race?

[LWolf]

89. The only way to notice

was to not have a dog in the fight. To step outside the fray and examine both choices through a realistic lens.

I had nobody I felt any inclination to support after the first 2 primaries and caucuses, when there were only 2 candidates left standing, both of them too centrist/corporatist/3rd way/"new" dem to ever inspire me.

Without meaning to fuel any more flames, I have to say that I never thought Obama's speeches, eloquent speaker though he is, offered up that realistic look at what his policies were all about.

Preachers and politicians count on stirring up emotion, on triggering the buttons of their listeners, so that they no longer see clearly.

[JDPriestly]

123. Even when Edwards was in the race, the intolerance was horrible.

DUers could not have a reasonable conversation about anyone other than Obama or Hillary. No one wanted to hear any criticism of either of those candidates. It was just awful. The Obama supporters were especially fanatical. And most of them seemed to think that he agreed with whatever opinion they had. A lot of people did not listen to what Obama was really saying. It's as if they just looked at him and since he looked different from the other candidates assumed he would bring change.

Well, I voted for Obama and campaigned for him, and I'm sure he will be better than Bush, but I haven't seen any indication that he is making any real changes yet. There is still time, and I am ready to allow him the time to adjust. I like the fact that he appointed Daschle to HHS, but the rest of his appointments look like compromises with Hillary and she is definitely DLC through and through. He may be uniting the country, but I'm not sure that he is going to help the country. We will just have to wait and see. I'm not ready to say I'm disappointed because I haven't seen all of Obama's choices, but so far I don't see any change.

I think of all the poor people, hard working people with very little money who donated generously money they did not have to Obama. So far I do not see a single appointment that represents their interests.

[Why Syzygy]

85. You have been right all along. nt

[tomp]

115. another one gets it! thank you. nt

[NeedleCast]

83. There's a pretty large group on DU who believe that Obama is right-center

It's the group that wont be happy until Dennis Kucinich is president (which will never happen). Even then, as soon as DK mentioned speaking to a Republican on friendly terms about something they'd start hand-wringing about it.

[LWolf]

127. Obama is certainly right=of-center.

I, for one, will not be happy until the issues on the left are appropriately addressed. No matter who is president. I appreciate and support DK because he's right on the issues. Period. He speaks to republicans all the time, and has worked across the aisle with them. I've never "wrung my hands" about that, because he is able to do so with integrity: he doesn't back down from the issues.

It's not about who is president. It's about the issues. It matters nothing who is in the oval office, if the American Left has no voice. It also matters nothing who moves the issues, as long as they move.

[TBF]

94. Your mistake is thinking Obama is left wing. He is center at best, I'd argue

right of center.

[amborin]

103. the right tried to smear Obama as socialist of leftist, but O's center right

or even further to the right

unfortunately, our country's culture is heavily influenced by rampant materialism, and advocacy of rampant, out of control 'development for the sake of development'. these values characterize the neo-liberal right wing, but they've seeped into the national psyche.

Americans, as a whole, disdain unions, endorse free market business policies, embrace status-seeking endless consumerism and competitive individualism

[rhett o rick]

116. Obama supported the FISA bill, don't consider that left wingy. If you consider Obama left wingish

then what is John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich? And Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel is not the choice of a left winger.
Don't get me wrong, I supported and worked for Obama, and will be patient but I do not expect him to be left wingish. I wish it, but do not expect it.

[JDPriestly]

122. If you consider Obama left wing, I disagree. Obama is a centrist

and he is surrounding himself with advisers who are corporatists, i.e. more toward the right.

[Hannah Bell]

2. "there aren't many liberals with a whole lot of money and influence."

there's the crux of it. FDR "succeeded" because there was support from the bottom & middle & a sufficient amount of support at the top.

I imagine the presence of opposition overseas played into it too (whether you conceive of the opposition as the russkies, nazis, rival capitalist powers...)

These days the ruling class seems pretty united over the program of reducing living conditions in the developed world (& not increasing them so much in the less developed world).

I'm not sure why that is, but the same squeeze on the working class is occurring in Europe & Japan too. One-third of the Japanese workforce is now "casual," i.e. low to no benefits, no job security.

Yet there's been no translation into wide-spread prosperity in China, India, etc.

[alarimer]

4. He succeeded because the left forced him to do those thing.

He was on record as asking them to do so. We must do the same thing to Obama, if people can get off their asses and take to the streets by the million

[Hannah Bell]

34. who was the left and how did it force him?

[moodforaday]

37. "Go out there and make me do it"

This is what FDR supposedly said to workers who demanded - ahem - change. I've seen this quote around a lot, but don't know if it's apocryphal, distorted, misattributed, or actually true. I'd love to find out. If true, FDR was basically telling people to hit the streets and make waves, so that he could go to the power elites and show them the pressure for change was real and they had to bulge. Makes sense today as much as it did then.

Maybe the quote from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" applies here: "It's true even if it didn't happen".

[clear eye]

46. Agreed

I still carry enough of my anti-Viet Nam War past to be surprised that there was no call for a General Strike after the vastly unpopular, unregulated bailout bill passed. I guess people were afraid their neighbors would be convinced that they were in favor of economic collapse, and union leadership were terrified of being red-baited and losing their influence w/Dems or worse. Since even our Congress won't stand up for us by impeaching an administration that does whatever it wants to us, and to whistleblowers w/i its agencies, it's not surprising we fear for our well-being if we protest. Another unacknowledged consequence of failure to impeach for glaring crimes against the Constitution.

The gov't got away with extreme persecution of basically peaceful demonstrators and witnesses in St. Paul during the convention. See this article in readnomore's journal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4290650&mesg_id=4290650 . Most people still don't know it happened. Can it be that the media is afraid of physical danger if they call out this administration since our Congress won't use its power to stop them, no matter what Bushco does? If you say Congress would do something if someone is murdered, remember, to do that they'd have to first investigate.

[NashVegas]

80. I Think There Are Plenty of Liberals With Money ... It's the Influence Part ...

In order to have influence with the masses, one must embrace them. Most of the liberals I know, with money, are tired of being demonized by those masses. It's a two way street :(

[Joe Fields]

88. You know a lot of liberals with George Soros type of money?

[JDPriestly]

124. Lots of liberals with money in California and New York, lots of them.

Lots of them are in the entertainment industry. Many of them are where they are because of their talent and their compassion and human qualities. They are not the old money types who tend to be conservative. I know people who are very successful in entertainment who grew up in cheap neighborhoods in Hollywood or even on the L.A. Eastside.

[NashVegas]

129. And More Than You'd Think

In Nashville.

[dflprincess]

5. "We are unwilling to compromise"

Then why do we keep voting for these centrist and right of center candidates? If we were purists, we wouldn't settle for the lesser of evils again and again.

I will agree that we are unable to organize and that's why the Democratic party takes us for granted. They know we'll stick with them rather than moving en masse to the Greens or the Socialists.

[Joe Fields]

6. I'll tell you why. It's because there are a whole lot of young

people running around calling themselves "liberal" and "progressive" and don't have a fucking clue. THEY are the ones who elected Obama in record numbers. I would make an educated guess that the percentage of liberals, I mean real liberals on this site is probably 50 percent. Less than half that number do their homework.

[girl gone mad]

12. I think the young people DO have a clue.

The young people that I talk to for the most part: hate corporations, want to end poverty, hate the for-profit health industry, think the Government is controlled by corrupt elites, want to decriminalize drugs, support equal rights for gays, are disappointed with the opportunities they have.

In my experience, boomers and older Dems take the opposite stance on most of these issues. They grew up in a vastly different America and are more likely to have a Reaganistic attitude that poor people are just lazy, all drug use leads to crime and depravity, opportunities abound for all, gays are not quite equal, large corporations help America prosper.

[Joe Fields]

16. excuse me. I didn't say all young people, or even most..I said

a whole lot of young people didn't have a clue. I see it every day, right here on this discussion board alone, not counting other venues.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. LOL!

You just gotta love the irony of that post, don't you?? I'm still chuckling.

[Stardust]

23. From an older boomer Dem, thanks for the insult.

[Faux pas]

25. Sheesh, what world are you living in?

"hate corporations, want to end poverty, hate the for-profit health industry, think the Government is controlled by corrupt elites, want to decriminalize drugs, support equal rights for gays". Uh kid, I was doing those things probably before you were born. Better get a better handle on what 'boomers and older Dems' are really about.

[illuminaughty]

27. I can't even post how far left this 53 yr. old Dem is

I mean, I was never "yuppieized". I've lived in socialized countries and my fiance and friends were with the Communist party...so, uh, WOW. I think I become more radical with age.:hippie:

[Stardust]

84. I'm astonished when I hear people disparage socialism as if it's the scariest form of society

there is. I want scream at them, Go to Sweden, man! Fucking paradise. Even Cuba, despite its crushing poverty due largely to the US embargo, is paradise compared to here.

[illuminaughty]

114. We've been sold the lie for so long.

I mostly traveled alone, so I never was restricted to the tourist's view of the world. I'd end up making friends and seeing things from the citizen's viewpoint of whatever country I was in. It was shocking at first to learn that America is not what we're told it is.

It would be nice to have a massive foreign exchange student type program. If every teenager got a taste of what it's like, if they could get away from this propaganda in the big bubble, they might really fight for change. My country is now a nightmare.

[Stardust]

118. Great idea about the student exchange program. My son spent a year

overseas on an exchange program then lived with us while we were stationed overseas. He is very open-minded and tolerant of others.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. Not this boomer and older Democrat, but nice try. Broad brush much?

:eyes:

[Irishonly]

97. This boomer has never been anything but liberal

My cousins call me a socialist and too old to still be a hippie. The more conservative they have become the more liberal I have become.

[tpsbmam]

41. You're kidding, right? Boomer here -- you just described my Republican friends...

(and it wasn't terribly accurate even for them) because your take on boomers doesn't describe one boomer I know, me included.

[clear eye]

50. Ignorance of youth

Look at photos of the huge Feb, 2003 anti-war demonstration in NYC to see what the age of most of the protestors were. I'd like to know what your "experience" entails--calling rightwing radio shows? Look up the lists of demands the vast majority of us signed on to when we joined the anti-Viet Nam War protests. They included every issue you mentioned and more.

We were alienated when so many of the people who came of age ten - twenty years after us reinterpreted history, called us a bunch of losers for focusing on the public good, and spent their energies getting MBAs and working on Wall St. or as close to it as they could get, or went totally apolitical. But I still wouldn't say that that describes all that group. There were the disarmament activists, the grassroots progressive Democrats, and more amongst them.

And still we tried, organizing locally or in DC around individual issues. Who do you think started and runs the groups you get most of your info from like Global Trade Watch, Physicians for a National Health Program, DFA, even NORML, etc.??

I have enough "experience" not to blame all young people for your offensive assumptions.

[qwlauren35]

58. On the drug issue...

Can you name a drug besides marijuana that does not lead to crime and/or depravity?

FYI: my biggest objection to marijuana, and it's a HUGE one, is that it stinks to high heaven. No pun intended. Oh, and the contact high. I would only sanction it in well controlled environments, and never in public. We fought too hard to restrict tobacco to have open season on marijuana.

My second biggest objection is that it's illegal, and I hate seeing the risk that people take when they use it. Even if you eliminated the second, I would fight like crazy over the first one.

My third objection is that there are certain tasks and jobs that should never be done while under the influence of marijuana, and I would want employers and safety experts to have the right to ban its use during work in the same way that alcohol is banned.

But I honestly cannot think of any other drug that I would be willing to lift restrictions on.

[Greyhound]

62. Leaving depravity aside, since it is based on morality and the argument over what

is/is not moral is endless, crime related to drug use is caused by the illegality, not the drugs themselves.

There is a very consistent, very small, percentage of the population that is attracted to excessive use of drugs. IOW, the vast majority of negative effects of drug on a societal level is due to their legal status, there is nothing inherent in the drugs themselves.

Getting good numbers on this is nearly impossible thanks to decades of propaganda and innumerable "studies" where the desired conclusion precedes the investigation (just look at the latest crop of anti-marijuana propaganda). The definition of bad science.

The causes of drug abuse are varied and we can draw no specific conclusions other than to say there are a variety of components that lead to it, societal, cultural, and probably genetic. What we can see is that when living conditions are good, drug abuse declines. This is what we can address to minimize the occurrence of drug abuse.

Look at it this way; Are you an addict? If not and Heroin were legal, would you use it?

[RedCappedBandit]

70. The crime is a result of the legal status of such substances

and the depravity is not due to the drugs, but underlying mental issues facing those who suffer through addiction.

Regardless, throwing people in jail for getting high solves absolutely nothing. Neither does forcing them into rehab. People who need help should be given the opportunity to receive it; we shouldn't just take away their freedoms in the name of "protecting" them.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. What do you mean by depravity?

Is that like some 18th century thing like dipsomania or is it code for things you liketh not? People you liketh not?
Depravity? Define please.

[Asgaya Dihi]

99. Willing to lift restrictions on, why?

That's the big question those debates seem to miss. It's just assumed that those who want to lift restrictions would like to see more freedom of use. Assuming it to be so doesn't make it so. What if there were better reasons, do you think that would change the debate any?

Our problem is as simple as education. We assume that in some way the drug war prevents damage so we think we're supposed to support it even though our assumption is false.

Death rates for cocaine have climbed by SEVEN times since we started keeping records. CLIMBED.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/cocaine-yr.htm">CDC Mortality Query Results, Cocaine

Death rates for heroin have seen a similar climb over the same time period.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/opiates-yr.htm">CDC Mortality Query Results, Heroin

Where much of it used to be diverted from medical use now it's all unregulated and unclean from start to finish, where they used to know you needed a babysitter and experienced guidance the first few times at least now they try it alone and die alone. Between contaminants, unknown purity and the increased fear which leaves them afraid to ask for help beforehand and afraid to call medical help after the fact we've been killing our own at a rate several times what we had when we first started this mess. The drug war hasn't saved lives, it's cost them, and a lot of them.

At the same time as that's been happening we went from an average nation in these terms to the single most imprisoned nation in the world, both per capita and in raw numbers, and that with a racial imbalance in our justice system that makes South Africa under apartheid look reasonable.

Racial balance
http://www.prisonsucks.com/">PrisonSucks.com

Overall stats, select totals or rates from the dropdown menu.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php">ICPS :School of Law :King's College London : World Prison Brief : King's College London

And just for perspective this one is from 2003 so a bit out of date but shows (page 2) the rate of prison/jail growth through the drug war, fairly stable in line with population growth for decades then explosive growth with the drug war that hasn't stopped yet.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_comparative_intl.pdf">Comparative International Rates of Incarceration:An Examination of Causes and Trends

That's just brushing over the surface, looking deeper doesn't make it look any better. Avoidable deaths because we refuse needle exchanges, families ruined, and so on. Look at those racial stats again and consider it in context of some of the problems the black community has. Do you think one young man in eight between 25-29 being behind bars today might contribute to those problems a bit? Again, and again, and again, some of the most major problems we deal with in this nation come back to a single source. Self inflicted wounds. The drug war is responsible for a lot of them, more than it seems on first glance.

It might be time for another look at the issue. What we do today not only doesn't work but damage is WORSE now than it was when we started. If prohibition were a policy instead of a religion we'd have adjusted by now. We take it on faith though that this is what we should be doing, or at least we have so far. And we never even ask about the results. Maybe we should.

[Blue_In_AK]

65. girl gone mad, I mean no offense,

but you don't know what you're talking about.

[clear eye]

72. What some people say is that during the primaries, the college students

believed in a bunch of progressive ideals, but didn't do their homework on the candidates' records and instead started giving money en masse, thus an enormous PR boost, to the one who had the coolest website, the most impressive college background, and was the best orator, but not a record in line with their beliefs. And your wiser elders, having seen the previous 2 Presidential elections won by too-small, fudgeable margins because young people weren't mobilized and didn't vote, crossed our fingers, willed ourselves to believe against our better judgement, and went along because we needed you to come out this time. We also hoped the same Obama talent that got you on board would also bring along other alienated non-voters. With college students and other young people actually voting, Dems could get a large enough margin to be declared winners. We also hoped that if we got a fairly progressive Congress and any Democratic President, we could reduce U.S. military adventurism and avoid financial ruin. (Some of us also still wonder if Edwards got a raw deal with the unverifiable voting machines in the primaries.)

Most of us haven't said anything about this, believing that we got the best outcome possible under the prevailing circumstances. I don't recall seeing any other thread on DU, and I wouldn't have mentioned it but for the disagreement between you and the earlier poster. We don't blame young people for being young and leading with their hearts instead of their heads. We may well have done the same in our youth. And you were a large part of the McCain defeat.

We will have to link arms again across the age boundaries, and work together to make our government as responsive to the citizenry as we can. So, we both have to stop accusing each other of not knowing what's what.

[nini]

81. yes. old Dems are just fucking ol' bigots

Let me tell you something little one.. we were the folks out there fighting for civil rights in the 60s, protesting wars when it was not popular to do so, fighting for women's rights and much, much more. Just because we may have gray hair and slowed down a bit does not mean we still don't know what is important and what has to be fought for. You benefit from our battles to build unions, our giving women more equality, and many other things.

So before you decide a whole generation that fought the good fight has sold out I suggest you step back a bit and do not confuse all oder people as having the same mindset. If your experience tells you that then you need to branch out a bit.

Oh, and grow up a bit if you are going to work on fixing problems - that attitude won't get your very far.

[Chulanowa]

100. I gotta say, it's pretty funny...

How many folks are taking umbrage at your post, and not piping up at Joe Fields above you calling young'uns like myself who voted for Obama "fucking clueless"

I guess they must not like a whippersnapper gettin' all uppity and whatnot.

[nini]

101. Please point out where he said that

'young'uns like myself who voted for Obama "fucking clueless"'


It seems he is blaming older folks and everyone in general, for losing sight of core values.

[Chulanowa]

139. It's right there in the title and first line of the post:

"It's because there are a whole lot of young people running around calling themselves "liberal" and "progressive" and don't have a fucking clue. THEY are the ones who elected Obama in record numbers."

But hey, go on and keep on being up in arms, and outraged, and shocked, that someone pointed out the flaws of the Useless Generation.

[nini]

144. I see it now.. I was looking at the original post

However, I will remain up in arms and outraged at what I see to be bullshit though - thank you very much.

Because the OP said that (and he is as wrong as yourself) that does not justify the broad brush from the your generation either. Perhaps when you grow up a bit you'll realize there are good and bad in every generation. But for now if you need to believe all of the 'useless generation' fucked you over - please do so, but I will remind you there are plenty in my generation who fought to stop all this crap too.

There are plenty in your generation who are college republicans or macho military guy creeps - shall I blame your entire generation for them?

Same ol' shit - different generation.

[Chulanowa]

145. Yes, when I grow up a bit

When I put away the zwieback and turn off the power rangers, right? I suppose prune juice and depends are the key to enlightenment? :eyes:

Of course there's good and bad in every generation. And while we're even using the term "generation" don't snivel about "broad-brushing" because we all know that yes, there are exceptions to every rule, and no, we're not going to sit here and count them all off.

At the very least, the college republican sorts are actively trying to get something done. I sure as hell don't agree with 'em, but it's better than the baby boomers and their "sitting it out" for nearly twenty damn years, only to come to their senses and then vote for Reagan in droves... then blame it on their kids when it went to hell in the 80's.

[Joe Fields]

146. Naturally, I have hurt your feelings. But what I said was true.

All one has to do is wade through the GDP archives from during the primaries to get a taste. Cult of personality? Just a little.

[Chulanowa]

149. You haven't hurt my feelings

And what you said may be true to your own perceptions. If you're going to base your opinions purely off what you see in DU, then you're going to have a pretty weird perception of reality. Truthfully if your argument in favor of what you said is "I saw it on the internet!" then you have no space at all to state someone doesn't have a fucking clue.

[dflprincess]

104. Count me in as another insulted Boomer.

Several years ago two of us Boomers and a twenty-something individual who called herself a Democrat were discussing a T.V. show that had been on the night before. The show in question had mentioned that Jonas Salk had refused to patent the polio vacine because he wanted as much of it made as quickly and cheaply as was possible. Our little 20-something thought he was "stupid" to do that because he could have made so much money. She couldn't get her head around someone passing up riches for the sake of humanity. This same kid also came to work outraged one day because her friend had set her up on a date with a carpenter and that is just "soooo blue collar".

We never did figure out why she thought she was a Democrat.

[illuminaughty]

26. They definitely didn't do their homework.

Our candidate's voting record in the Senate speaks volumes, not to mention his backers. I gave my money to the candidate with the "hot" wife. He speaks my language and by the crowd's reactions in the debates, he really spoke their's too. But, sigh.

We are a corporatacracy at this point and I don't know what it will take to turn this around. I wish Obama really was implementing socialism or some form of it, but I don't see that happening. A friend told me almost a year ago that it WOULD be Obama and that would be followed by the biggest smackdown disappointment for voters who believe this is a liberal/progressive candidate. Thus lulling everyone (especially the new voters) into a hyper cynical view of the process in general.

[RedCappedBandit]

69. As a young person who (imo) does have a clue

I agree with you. Most of my peers don't know what the hell is going on.

[Joe Fields]

93. Thank you. The puzzling part is that it doesn't require much effort

to find what is really going on in the world and behind the American political scene. It never ceases to amaze me how lazy people are, and I include a large percentage of people my age and older also.

[TBF]

96. I grew up in the 70s/80s - with Reagan as the president when

I was in high school & college. I'm 42 now. Anyone younger than me probably doesn't even remember Carter in office (and he was the last liberal we had). Half the country grew up with Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush - conservatives all.

[Two Americas]

22. tactics and strategy

I agree with Joe IF he means that we are inflexible on tactics and strategy, and if he means that "personal choice" and "personal values" have replaced mass political action and coalition building.

On principles and ideals, however, we seem to have an endless capacity for compromising there.

That is all exactly backward.

[LWolf]

78. I think a mass movement would be good.

Good for the left, for the country, and for the Democratic Party. They'd have to put up or quit taking our votes for granted.

That's just me.

[tomp]

117. a mass movement would be essential.

we are assuredly going to hell in a handbasket without one.

[magellan]

9. You sound so much like me

I can't disagree with anything you said, except perhaps to take exception at the "purist" and "unwilling to compromise" parts. I think we've done plenty of compromising over the years, and look what it's got us: a party we hardly recognize anymore because it's moved so far to the corporatist right. I don't equate feeling left behind as being a "purist"; I'd simply like to see some compromise in OUR direction rather than the opposite. That isn't purist, IMO. It's legitimate anger.

My grandmother was an FDR Dem. She practically raised me and sang his praises for as long as I can remember. She was a fighter who wasn't afraid to state her views or act on them, and was the sweetest, most caring and sincere person you could hope to meet -- truly one of those 'shirt off the back' kind of people, both in word and deed. She died in the mid-80s. I know she'd be as dismayed as I am by what the Dems have allowed themselves to become since her death.

FWIW, I'm not waiting any longer for the Dems to compromise with liberals. They disdain us for our opposition to their New Direction and have said they can take our votes for granted. Perhaps other liberals will keep voting for them, but not me. Not anymore. I'll continue to be who I am in spite of them. Maybe I'll live to see the day they're forced to recognize the error of their ways, and maybe not. But it will happen because the long-term direction of the human race is toward progress, not oppression, no matter how they gussy up the shackles. And that's enough for me.

[Joe Fields]

11. My grandparents and parents were the same way.

The were as kind as anyone I've known. My father used to well up with tears when he talked about FDR. I get that way when I talk about RFK.

[magellan]

14. Unfortunately I was way too young to appreciate JFK or RFK

...before they were taken from us. The only true liberals I've had the pleasure of watching in action are Kucinich and Wellstone, whom we know met a similar fate.

By blowing the definition of 'socialism' and 'liberalism' out of all proportion to reality, the elite see to it that no one ascends to power anymore who could prevent times like we're seeing again. It's not in their interest to avert financial crises and war; this is how they control us while amassing their personal riches.

[clear eye]

51. When was Kucinich assassinated??! ;-)

[magellan]

87. LOL - heaven forbid!!

I knew I should have fixed that sentence but I was too tired.

[madfloridian]

10. Good post, but I do disagree about the "purists" and lack of compromise.

I think we do compromise much more than they do. Not purists, just want to be noticed.

But I agree we are out for now unless someone starts a more liberal party. They won't need us again for four years.

[Life Long Dem]

13. Well, I'm hoping change is still why we voted for Obama.

And we will still be seeing this. As long as we keep the rumors as what they are - just rumors, and don't see any selling out or caving-in by Obama to Corporations or the media and their big bullying tactics to choose who they choose.

I'd be surprised id Obama did this, and I think I'd give up the last hope for change I'll ever see in my life time, and I would call it quits and pack it allin to say my goodbyes. Yes if Obama chooses Hillary, you won;t see me anymore.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton,

Gates (probably) and the Wall Street Welfare Bailout . . . the change would be where again?

[qwlauren35]

59. The really awkward thing about Obama, for me...

Is that in order for us to "own" him, we have to finance his transition team.

And I don't think any of us were prepared for it.

[readmoreoften]

15. Since the end of communism there has been zero reason to treat the working class with respect

They used to fear that the rabble would go communist. Now they know working people have nowhere to go. The "left" in America means: don't completely crush the working class--they'll do your bidding if you use the stick AND the carrot. The 'right' in American means what it means everywhere: stick, stick, stick.

[Cleita]

17. The sixties happened because there was a draft and everybody had to go

to war, well almost everyone. That made the message of the left relevant. It got the college students active. They knew they were the next to go. Today, the middle class doesn't give much of a damn because still no one is bleeding except the underclasses. I don't want to see the draft come back but if you want some liberalism to perk up again, you'd better find something to fire those college kids up again.

[nichomachus]

29. That's a gross oversimplification of "the sixties"

There were a lot more things going on than just the draft -- or Vietnam for that matter. They were in the mix, but there was a lot more happening in the world.

[Cleita]

42. This is a simple post not a tome.

Sorry I couldn't get it all in there for you but basically the whole thing happened because college students were afraid of being drafted and being sent to 'Nam. Once in that state of rebellion, they started examining everything like civil rights and every other social wrong that was evident to them that their parents had accepted. I know I was part of that awakening.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Yep. When the Draft was stopped, the unity of the Left evaporated...

into a plethora of "causes" (Woman's Rights, the Environment, etc. etc.) that soon gave way to the 80s Yuppies. Once Big Labor collapsed, the Right had completely clear sailing.

[ContinentalOp]

153. Yep. The "Me Generation." When their ass was on the line they got political...

otherwise, not so much. I'm not sure how the generation that brought us Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush can still claim any kind of liberal purity. :shrug:

But of course it was those damn slacker young kids who supported Obama as opposed to...what alternative exactly? What viable candidate was to the left of Obama?

The Obama supporters have been vindicated. We said he could win and he did. And now the bitter Clinton supporters are trying to paint Obama as some sort of right wing corporatist mole, as though Bill Clinton was somehow the savior of the left. Give me a fucking break.

[Truth2Tell]

19. K&R

I think it's largely the media. TeeVeee defines how Americans think almost entirely. We live in a culture with the most subtle and effective propaganda machine in the history of humanity. Regardless of the issue, you can bet the prevailing view has been deliberately engineered by those who control the mass message. Our population is utterly enslaved to the box.

[magellan]

21. I think you're right

My husband and I started discussing this tonight while watching America's Most Wanted. After watching John Walsh gun off in his speedboat for the second time before a commercial break, I mentioned how I really detested all the machismo on that show. You know: John Walsh rides shotgun in a patrol car; John Walsh joins the ATF for a bust; John Walsh rides with the sheriffs off into the sunset...It does nothing for me. My husband said the same thing but added that they wouldn't do it if it didn't impress most of their audience.

Which really made me stop and think. What kind of people like kick-ass, blow shit up kind of crap interwoven into a show about criminals that need to be caught? Most Americans, I guess. Pretentious displays of macho hard-ass "get them before they get you" mentality, the same thing the Repubs and many Dems sell these days, is apparently normal and even expected. My husband says it's a good indicator of the dumbing down that's occurred in this country since we were young.

Bread and circuses. Yep, we're going the way of the Roman Empire. :thumbsdown:

[ContinentalOp]

156. And yet you were watching it? -nt-

[illuminaughty]

28. Yes, you're right.

We live in a oversized dumb bubble. Even with the internet you have to WANT to look beyond the main message to get to a little truth telling.

[clear eye]

20. Must be our fault. Couldn't possibly be that our opposition is the leadership of

the mega-corporations who don't have to organize to make an impact whenever they want w/ a huge donation, and also easily monopolize the media, even going to the lengths of strangling Air America radio to death with an advertiser boycott.

There aren't two fronts. It's progressivism vs. corporatism (taken to the neo-con extreme the latter is aka fascism), well-being of most vs. concentration of all resources for a few. It's just that too many elected Democrats often walk over to the other side.

The weird thing is that sharing the wealth doesn't make the elite poorer--wealth expands the more the rest of us have decent paying jobs. It only makes most of us less desperate, so the elite wield less power. The impulse at the top behind corporatism is not money; it's power.

So how about dropping the self-hate? And the surprise that whenever they are threatened, the "power elite" use their control over resources to get their way. The majority of people who would rather be productive in ways other than ruthlessly scheming to acquire more power 24/7, always are at some disadvantage. Right now fear of losing what comfort we still have, and a scarcity of free time with which to organize, has kept us from taking obvious actions like a general strike when the unregulated bailout bill passed. As human nature is unlikely to change, the tug-of-war will always continue. We can only continue to do our best to push for measures that structurally empower the many. That is why impeachment means so much--it restores the authority of the Constitution that in this place and time is the most important source of general empowerment. Ditto election integrity. And restoring integrity to the DOJ. And deterring a repetition of those losses by punishing the top perpetrators. We can only speak out and organize to the best of our abilities, so the truth can't be buried. Some of us are especially talented and can take actions that get a point of view noticed. The rest of need to help amplify such messages. And we must not waste energy with undeserved recriminations.

If it makes you feel any better, it looks an awful lot like some on the Obama team have found a way of reining in Paulson (probably by threatening to make his complicity in the creation of the "credit crisis" public) so that he is going to leave almost half the bailout money for other kinds of economic rescue.

[Kaleko]

73. Well said. You've chosen a good name for yourself.

[clear eye]

112. Gee, thanks.

Seeing patterns comes from being around a lot longer than I like to admit. Wish my writing were better, though.

[ContinentalOp]

157. Yep, it's the history of the world in my opinion.

The people vs. the people with power. It's a neverending and eternal struggle. As much as those four quadrant political compass calculators are interesting, there is a pretty clear cut divide throughout history between the interests of the majority of people and the interests of a privileged few who hold onto positions of power.

[Horse with no Name]

24. History makes us all (willing or unwilling)participants of politics

and it shapes us in different ways.
Many "Democrats" despise Reagan...yet support candidates who have similar platforms simply because they are Democrats.
I'm a purist so that means there are very few candidates who support my views.
It means I am invisible.
I just hope someday the progressive wing can have a party that supports our views too.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. I am a baby boomer (just turnued 57) and agree with you except for the part

"we are not willing to compromise"

Compromise is what brought the Democratic party to the right. I have often said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had.

There are so many "liberals/progressives" here on DU that expect Obama to be their great hope and already grumblings of disappointment is starting. One only had to review his record and listen to his words to know that he is a centrist. I knew it when he voted to recommend Rice as Secretary of State. When he voted to pass FISA I heard the nails in the Liberal coffin being firmly hammered into place.

[BeFree]

32. Now Joe

You forgot to mention that the left is a minority. That the left is always pushing against the grain and drawing fire from all quarters.

And you seem to dismiss all the great things the left has accomplished. Things that were hated by our opponents and fought to the bloody end. But we've won, time and again. It's always been a two sometimes three front battle.

Remember, we are on the correct side and we will overcome.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. K & R

Excellent post. I foresee a permanent split in the Republican Party -- there's a deep schism now -- wherein the fundies form their own Evangelical Party leaving the more traditional conservatives to the Republican Party. THAT would be the time for progressives to break off from the Corporate Dems and form a Progressive Party.

[treestar]

40. The main problem is not convincing most of the populace

A majority of the populace needs to be convinced. We still have 46% willing to vote for repukes. That means we are not persuasive. Granted the media does all it can to go against us. Still with truth on our side, we should be able to do a better job.

You can bet that the Religious Right feels the same way, though. From our view we think they've had their way for 8 years - but look at things, and they haven't. Gay marriage is even thought of. Abortion is still legal. So they probably feel just the same.

[clear eye]

54. That MEANS that we do not have a media platform.

"That means we are not persuasive."

As the playing field get tilted more and more against us, I get more and more tired of self-hating progressives blaming our whole group for the advantages of the opposition. IT IS AN ENORMOUS WASTE OF ENERGY. Put your anger where it belongs, into doing all you can to back whoever has been able to create a crack in the media blackout and the persecutions arrayed against us.

[leftchick]

43. very well stated Joe

I believe Liberals will never again have a voice of any significance in the new completely corporate owned democratic party. We can not possibly compete with the DLC money and power machine. Where do we go?

[tjwash]

44. Actually liberals organize quite well thank you...

...it's democrats that are unable to organize worth a shit.

[Peace Patriot]

45. I agree that the left (the true majority) is left out, in the corpo/fascist 'news' monopoly

portrayal of America, and in the halls of power. But I think you need to dig deeper into the causes, and not so easily fall prey to despair. I think that your despair--and the despair of many other members of the great leftist majority--is deliberately induced with non-stop brainwashing in the corpo/fascist 'news.'

Let me give you an example. The left is thriving in South America--the REAL left, democracy from the ground up. The two keys to that success have been, 1) transparent elections, and 2) social movements, grass roots organization. By these two means, the South Americans have been able to overcome the brainwashing and lies and demoralization of the corpo/fascist media (which is as bad there as it is, and sometimes worse). The corpo/fascists who control most of the media in Venezuela, for instance, rail against Hugo Chavez 24/7, but the people just keep re-electing him. Key one: transparent vote counting. Key two: strong social movements, and also maybe the poor there are really poor and have less access to corpo/fascist media, and thus are less influenced by it and less demoralized by it. We here are addicted to the mass media, which has gained the power over us to define us as a nation, as a people. Thus, in the leadup to the Iraq War, nearly 60% of the American people opposed the war (Feb 03, all polls), but most of us were somehow convinced that the majority of OTHER Americans had gone mad and were goosestepping to Bush.

When the Bush-backed fascist coup was perpetrated in Venezuela in 2002, RCTV backed the fascist coupsters, and actively colluded with them to broadcast the lie that Hugo Chavez had resigned. The poor people of Caracas simply didn't believe it, and they were proved right. They emerged from their hovels, in the tens of thousands, surrounded Miraflores Palace and demanded the return of, a) Constitutional government!, and b) their kidnapped president. At that point, a segment of the military defected to the people, and the coup collapsed.

Power has a lot to do with perception. If you feel powerful, you are powerful--you give off powerful vibes, you take action. And if you are depressed and demoralized, and feeling powerless, more and more power can be taken away from you. Contrary to the corpo/fascist American myth--of all-powerful Amerika--the American people are actually a very demoralized lot. The American Dream has turned to ashes under the Bush Junta, but the ravaging of that dream started back in the Reagan era, on through the Clinton years--when a few got rich but many suffered, and the corporate predators gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Thus, to Bush, and the thorough-going looting of the U.S. and active destruction of the rule of law and democracy, and of the legacy of progressive government from the FDR "New Deal" era.

Many of us who became active for Obama--after better candidates were destroyed by the corpo/fascist media (Dean, Kucinich) or Diebolded out of the primaries (Edwards)--thought we were joining a leftist movement to unseat the corpo/fascist servants among our party leadership: the Rahm Emmanuels, the Clintons, the Eric Holders, the Gregory Craigs--only to find them, now, in the top positions in the Obama administration.

"Yikes!" we are thinking. Is THIS what I voted for? Is THIS what I worked so hard to achieve? Yet another Clinton regime? The first Clinton regime could arguably be seen as laying the ground work for Bush and Cheney--in Iraq, in 'neoliberal'/'free trade' policy and in other ways. We should recall that the Seattle '99 protests against the World Trade Organization were aimed at Clinton. It was Clinton who sold our sovereignty as a people to global corporate predators. And now they're back in charge--in appears, from Obama's early appointments--with whole new levels of tyrannical power to impose the global corporate predator agenda upon us.

The "leftist" aspect of the Obama campaign seems to have been more in our hearts and minds--among the activists and supporters--than in Obama policy or intention. I paid rather close attention to what Obama was actually saying--and I was especially attuned to Latin American policy, and election reform--and I've tried to warn other Obama supporters that we ARE going to be DISAPPOINTED. There was no question about it, in my mind. Among other things, he is simply going to move the Forever War from Iraq to Afghanistan, and he is going to enact a sneaky sort of military Draft--making student loans and aid contingent upon compulsory national service, in the military, in the Peace Corps or domestic. And since the military is hurting for more cannon fodder, you know that the rules are going to favor military service. He also may bring to a head the Oil War that the Bushwhacks have been trying to set up in South America. We may see our sons and daughters dying in the jungles of the Amazon or the Andes mountains, for Exxon Mobil, before the decade is out. At the least, he intends continued economic warfare, and 'divide and conquer' efforts, against the many leftist democracies and the poor people of the south.

However, I didn't expect such an overwhelming DLC/corpo/fascist coup to form around Obama so quickly (with three of the main appointees so far--Clinton, Holder and Craig--on the wrong side--the bad side, the brutal side, the fascist/corporate side--on Latin American policy). And I'm not sure what to think about it. Were we totally duped into thinking that Obama was an insurgent candidate, challenging the DLC regime in our party, and getting his early start in the non-Diebold-counted caucus states? Or, is Obama just a very clever leader, pulling in the talent and experience he needs, but with the intention of controlling policy, a la FDR?

We, of the leftist majority, have been deprived of any real choices for president (and for Congress members, as well) since at least 1968, when RFK was assassinated (and beginning in 1963, when JFK was assassinated). At that time--1968--Hubert Humphrey was inflicted upon us, who supported LBJ's war profiteering slaughter in Vietnam. And our country has been ruled by corpo/fascists ever since--with the only interruption to it being Jimmy Carter, whom the oil companies and the Reaganites drummed out of office after one term (they withheld gas, causing long lines at the pumps, and the Reaganites made a traitorous deal with Iran to hold onto U.S. hostages until after the 1980 election). And the downward slide of progressive values in government--on taxation and everything else--has steepened with every president since Nixon, until we are hanging right over the cliff of complete destruction of our democracy, right now.

And again, we had no choice but to support Obama. McCain was not a choice--and I simply don't believe his vote count, not with the corpo/fascists now in total 'TRADE SECRET' code control of the vote counting in half the voting systems in the country, and in near total control in the other half. I think Obama, who has some leftist background and instincts, had his mandate significantly and fraudulently shaved, to keep him under control. I do think that the corpo/fascists chose to let him win. I think he made a deal with them, back around the time he picked Joe Biden for VP. (Biden is the Senator from the state, DE, that rubber-stamps corporate charters, and he is very tied to the war profiteers.) And that's where we are, pretty much, in my thinking. No real leftist--no real representative of the people, of the FDR brand--will ever be permitted near the White House--unless and until we rid ourselves of the corpo/fascist voting machines (or achieve 100% auditing of all of their results).

There are many things wrong with our election system. That is the worse. That is the final blockade to reform. And unless we peel that back--NON-TRANSPARENT, 'TRADE SECRET,' FASCIST CORPORATE VOTE COUNTING--we cannot get traction on any other significant reform. We won't be able to reform the media, the tax system, the war budget, the bailouts or anything else. One way to put it: The current 'Democratic' Congress has a 10% approval rating. The Diebold III Congress may earn a 20% approval rating, with Obama has president. That's an improvement. It is not real reform.

Obama has bought into the American Imperium. He was running for emperor, not president. I said he has SOME leftist background and instincts, and I think that's true. But what are your leftist beliefs worth if you are barred from power? And I think this is where he is at. He has set his leftist beliefs and roots aside, in order to gain power. And we will see if this was intelligent, and clever, and wise of him, or not.

But what we are experiencing is NOT democracy. It is a highly manipulated see-saw of power, among servants of the global corporate predators who rule over us--servants with varying degrees of attachment to the American people and our democratic traditions (Bush/Cheney, not at all; Obama/Biden possibly more than Bill and Hillary Clinton, who really cannot be called Democrats). For one reason or another, the corpo/fascists have swung it to a somewhat more people-friendly bunch of technocrats. It could be swung back, easily--EASILY--toward an outright nazi state, with their control of the vote counting. And it could be that the Obama administration is designed to fail--to take all the blame for the Bush/Cheney looting (capped by this mindboggling Financial 9/11 they just pulled off), and to be ousted by the corpo/fascists' favorite nazi in 2012.

We are in very great danger of such a scenario unless we regain public control of vote counting. That is the first essential step toward reclaiming our democracy. Currently, neither Obama nor any member of Congress--and hardly any public official in the entire country--can prove that he or she was actually elected. Bizarre, but true. And the corporations counting all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code are not neutral--they are far rightwing corporations.

My advice to you is not to complain about the powerlessness of the left (the majority), as if the corpo/fascists will hear you, and somehow let the people rule. They are quite deaf to us, and even the best of our leaders--Obama, for instance--are half deaf (or more). Analyze the mechanisms of power, and figure out ways to address them, and join with others to regain power for the people. First and foremost, in my view, is our basic power of the vote, by which we grant power to representatives. It has been royally messed with. We need to restore vote counting to the PUBLIC venue.

[Joe Fields]

52. Thank you for that very rational and lucid post.

I do agree with much of what you wrote. It does seem as though leftist movements gain momentum during harsh economic times. I don't wish another depression,(some say one may already be upon us, or that it's too late, that it will inevitably happen. I wouldn't argue against them either way) but if the left is to gain enough influence for greater societal change, then it will most likely take such dire circumstances. Even then, the corpo/fascist media will still be crafting a different message to the people.

[clear eye]

55. Amen

I hope you added this post to your journal. I want to be able to refer to it in the future.

[Peace Patriot]

63. Done! nt

[leftchick]

56. ' Were we totally duped into thinking that Obama was an insurgent candidate'

yes we were. I totally get your point about making our elections honest but honestly, how does that happen when the 'democrats' in congress choose to completely ignore the problem? Wexler from FL is the only rep. I can think of who has voiced concern.

[Peace Patriot]

68. The most hopeful venue for true election reform is the local/state jurisdictions,

which still have control over election systems, and where ordinary people still have some influence. There is quite a strong election reform movement rolling at that level. See
www.electiondefensealliance.org

Your local county registrar--or county supe who appoints same--may live right down the street from you. Go picket his/her house--and take your neighbors with you. It is easier to pressure and to dislodge bad officials at the local/state level.

The question is, can we beat Congress and get it done, before they federalize and centralize the system, and mandate privately controlled electronic voting nationwide with zero or inadequate audit controls? (Electronic voting is not now required; they accomplished this coup via corruption, big contracts, lavish lobbying, etc.) I fear what Congress may do. Be very wary of it, if any election reform bill is proposed.

The Democratic Party line--which is the corpo/fascist fallback position--is that optiscans--which use a ballot--make it all okay. But even the best of states only do a 1% audit of the ballots. 99% of the ballots are still not counted. According to experts whom I respect, a 10% audit is the minimum needed to detect fraud.

Venezuela, which has an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated (unlike our 'TRADE SECRET' code system--in which not even our sec's of states are permitted to review the code)--nevertheless conducts a whopping 55% audit, to check for machine fraud and error. Why didn't we require an adequate audit? The fact that the Anthrax Congress didn't include any audit requirement at all--let alone a proper audit--in their $3.9 electronic voting boondoggle (the heh-heh 'Help America Vote for Bush Act'), tells you a lot about their intentions. Non-transparent e-voting was needed, and it was needed fast, to keep the war boondoggle going, given that nearly 60% of the American people opposed the Iraq war.* 2004 was totally stolen--and not just in Ohio, all over the country. Ohio was just the icing on the cake for Rove & cabal--the joy of suppressing black voters.

Anyway, what it is feasible to do, on an emergency basis, is: a) get a ballot for every vote, and b) get a 10% audit of every election. We may not be able to pry our corrupt election officials' fingers from the fat corporate contracts they now control, but we might be able to get a 10% audit. In CA, the new Sec of State has required a 10% automatic audit in cases where the race is within 0.05%. That's not good enough. But we can build on that.

We SHOULD be doing a 100% audit--and should have been doing this from the beginning of this e-voting plague. Now we have to work backwards and UNDO the damage. Half the voting systems in the country have no auditability at all. They are totally non-transparent, 'TRADE SECRET' code systems that cannot be audited or recounted. (That's one reason that they are having a runoff election in Georgia--their system cannot do a recount.) The optiscan systems suffer from inadequate auditing, and also unaudited central tabulators.

Everything should as local as possible. Audits should take place at the precinct--just like vote counting used to--with results of the audit posted at the precinct level, before any votes are turned into electrons and totted up by the secret code, or any ballots are transported anywhere.

The best system is handcounted paper ballots, with results posted at the precinct level. Canada does it. Germany does it. They do it efficiently, quickly and PUBLICLY. But now that we're stuck with these expensive systems, we may have to go for a proper audit before we can get rid of the machines.

The Bushwhacks sued New York--the last holdout--to force them to abandon their already long-ago paid for, old, reliable, and virtually unriggable lever voting machines. It will be a tragedy if New York falls for this extremely expensive, complicated, highly riggable, e-voting claptrap. Maybe the Bushwhacks' Financial 9/11 will sober election officials up. Here in CA, they are starting to charge parents money for bussing their kids to public schools. What are they spending billions of dollars on these riggable voting systems for, with the squeeze on local government and services? It is nuts in every conceivable way.

That is a good argument to use--one of many. These systems require on-going maintenance--patches, upgrades, trouble-shooting, and the presence of private contractor personnel on voting premises, etc.--the cost in unending.

But short of dumping the machines into 'Boston Harbor'--where they belong--we need to demand and get at least the minimum audit needed of all vote counts--10%.

-----

*(The Iraq War Resolution and the 'Help America Vote for Bush Act' were passed in the same month, Oct 02.)

[varelse]

60. sure wish I could rec a reply

And I agree that this is where we need to start

First and foremost, in my view, is our basic power of the vote, by which we grant power to representatives. It has been royally messed with. We need to restore vote counting to the PUBLIC venue.

[leftofthedial]

48. the phony "democrats" can't win elections without us.

The system is not only broken, it is dead.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. K and R

however, Oats are better for you ;) :D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The "left" is a movement, not a political party, and shouldn't attach itself to one.

The Democratic Party thrives by using the "lesser of two evils", "not as bad", mantra to snare left wing voters who end up voting for their candidates because we are told that we have no place to go.

We wield no power and are regularly sold out because we consistently vote for them and are counted on to do so.

It just makes sense for the Democratic politicians to go after the "middle" because the middle will vote against the Democrats if they aren't pandered to.

We get suckered every election.

[Joe Fields]

61. What is a political party, if not a movement?

What is considered today's left is what was once the mainstream of the party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Mainstream? Only for a very brief period in the early '70s.

Since then, the party has moved steadily to the right under the banner of "practical politics". aka: triangulation.

The Democratic Party is hardly a "left" movement.

[Joe Fields]

67. Not so. The party was made up of people just like my parents.

They were the party. That philosophy has been marginalized into what is now today's left. It was not just for a brief time in the seventies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. My father was a socialist and cursed FDR for thwarting the revolution.

So, "the left" is determined by where you're standing on the political spectrum. I certainly don't consider a centrist (at best) Democratic Party representative of the left.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

154. Not just were you stand

on a manufactured spectrum but where your interests lie.

[Joe Fields]

160. You have misunderstood me.

I never said that a centrist Democratic party is representative of the left. I said the opposite. What used to be mainstream is now what is considered to be what's left of the left, or the liberal wing of the party. Big difference.

[qwlauren35]

57. Doesn't Obama's Job Stimulus Plan Count for Something?

Doesn't universal health care count?

The protection of Social Security? That's the Democratic Party... only.

Protection of Medicaid and Medicare?

I have to admit that I believe that there should be a limit on cash handouts.

But we still have foodstamps.

I think of FDR as the president of safety nets. And a lot of them are still in place. No American is forced to go hungry, except because of their own pride and/or lack of common sense. (Selling food stamps for drugs strikes me as lack of common sense.)

I personally would love to see Obama take on the prison industry. But I think it's about as impossible as the weapons industry.

Maybe someday, someone will point out that we have slavery in this country, and we'll be shamed into eliminating the prison workforce.

[Greyhound]

66. The man isn't even in office yet so I'm withholding judgment, but on the UHC

front, the Obama-Biden plan is not universal health care, it is mandated insurance, big difference.

Directly from
THE BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE
Barack Obama’s Plan for America

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
(1) Obama’s Plan to Cover Uninsured
Obama will make available a new national health plan so all Americans, including the self-employed and
small businesses, can buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of
Congress.
The Obama Plan will have the Following Features:
• Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN
because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
• Comprehensive Benefits: The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan
will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
• Affordable Premiums, Co-Pays and Deductibles.
• Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public
plan or purchase a private health care plan.
• Simplified Paperwork and Reined in Health Costs.
• Easy Enrollment: The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to
coverage.
• Portability and Choice: Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance
Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing
their health care coverage.
• Quality and Efficiency: Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be
required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and
administration are being met.

This does not address the insurance industry's stranglehold on (the lack of) delivery, nor profit driven decision making process, nor the steady dismantling of capacity to create scarcity.

[LWolf]

79. Obama doesn't have universal health care on his agenda.

He could, of course, lobby for HR 676, but I don't see that happening.

[dflprincess]

105. I assume by "safety nets" you mean government programs

set up to help people. Unfortunately, what we have is inadequate - if there was a safety net to protect someone from going hungry, we churhes and other community groups wouldn't have to run food shelves. If we had a safety net, children would not be homeless.

There are plenty of Democrats who claim want to protect Social Security and Medicaid - but they never give us the details. The deal they like to brag about making with Reagan to save it actually cut Social Security benefits to some groups. Until I see what they have in mind, I won't start cheering any Democratic plans.

And universal health care? Too many of them, including Obama, are talking about universal health insurance. They seem more concerned with protecting the insurance companies' (especially those like Clinton who think insurance be mandated) profits than in seeing to it that people actually have access to healthcare.

If you want to see what societies with real safety nets look like take a look at Scandinavia.

[TBF]

107. Universal health care? You really think you're going to get Obama to do that?

That will pass if, and only if, the American corporations pressure him to do it so they can better compete against other multi-nationals who don't have to factor health care into their cost of labor. Even during the primaries he talked about everyone "paying" for coverage. That is not universal health care.

[Miss Chybil]

74. I'm going to wait to see what Obama does before I start crying about it.

In the meantime, I'm damn happy he is my president.

[Breeze54]

75. I didn't see any tears in the OP but I did see a lot

of snarkiness and condescending sarcasm from you. :puke:

Get off your high horse.

BTW? Joe is right.

[TBF]

108. I've seen plenty just with his appointments announced thus far, starting with Rahm Emanuel.

What more do you need to see to understand where this man is coming from? Clue: it's not the left in any way shape or form.

[BlooInBloo]

76. We're doomed.

[Joe Fields]

95. I just have to ask you....

How old are you?

[BlooInBloo]

111. It doesn't much matter, as I strongly suspect that whatever number I put forth...

You'll say it ain't old enough.

[Reterr]

102. Shades of grey, nuance, dialog

None of those are compatible with the 12 yo boy on the internet syndrome that afflicts some people here who can't see beyond crude, idiotic sloganeering or "neener neener neener" :eyes:
What a worthless, puerile and singularly unintelligent post...

I don't even agree with the op but I think this is a classic example of the kind of stuff that kills intelligent, adult discussion on this board The other is the vitriolic rudeness with which some posters chronically address everyone who deviates an iota from their exact positions "You are pig ignorant dear", "shut up cupcake" etc. You can disagree with someone while still sounding like an adult. I presume that was the original idea behind the establishment of civility rules in this forum.

[BlooInBloo]

110. "the kind of stuff that kills intelligent, adult discussion (blahblahblah snipped)"....

Nah. It was DOA as soon as OP typed the word "forever".

EDIT: Bah - fine - explanation. It is, I suppose, theoretically possible that heroic measures could have been taken to resuscitate the OP - along the lines of dialysis, iron lung, and so forth. But even on the 1% chance that those uber-heroic measures succeeded, we'd still be left with a low-functioning, largely brain-dead thread. And since internet forum threads are not actually people, it's much better just to put the thread out of it's - and our - misery. Try, try again.

[NashVegas]

86. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Of the Ayn Rand variety. Maybe it always was that self-interest ruled, and I never saw it, or maybe it raised its head sometime in the late 1970s. That's for the right.

For the left, we cast our own self-fulfilling prophecies. Keep telling yourself that we'll never win one, then we never will. Really, a third party is the only option for lefties at this point, IMO.

All that said, I voted for Obama because it's so absolutely crucial to sweep out the Justice department of Bush-appointed political ops, many of which would undoubtedly have returned with McCain.

[roamer65]

90. There really should be 4 major political parties in America.

1. Hard core democratic socialist (much like Canada's NDP or Britain's LibDems)
2. Centrists (DLC'ers and moderate Rethugs)
3. Hard core conservatards.
4. Religious Jeebus whack job party.

This country is in dire need of multi-party representative democracy.

[Orsino]

91. Wrong reasons. Almost completely wrong.

The Left is left out because Big Money rules America. Big Money is the opposite of the Left, and is the chief organizing force of the Right. It pulls everything right, until most of us lose track of where the center is.

That's it. The other factors you listed would apply equally to the Right, were Big Money not standing in the way of progress.

[Joe Fields]

161. I disagree. The factors I listed are important. So, you really think

that we are either, as organized as the right wing republicans, or not as organized, but, which ever way it is, they are equal to us?


I don't know where you've been, but they have been WAAAAAAY ahead of us on the organizational department for decades. We are, however trying to catch up.

[sendero]

98. I think....

... that as the impending economic debacle descends over the nation you will see a sharp turn to the left just like the 30s.

Joe Six Pack, currently in disdain of "socialism", will be begging for socialism when he cannot feed his family.

The pendulum has just started swinging from its right apex. We may not have a leftist at the helm, but it be a long time before we have another Republican.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

106. Until we have more people who agree w/us we will be marginalized.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Joe the FDR your parents remember WAS NOT the FDR elected

in 1932

He was a centrist.... and if you bother to read the 1932 platform you will NOT find any inkling of what happened next

Not saying that Obama will follow the same road... after all Labor is not as well organized... but I will not be too shocked either

And yes FDR WAS a centrist...

Here's to hoping, but we need to organize and keep the pressure

Problem is too many people expect this to happen almost by magic

Oh and FDR's USSC was as conservative as the current court, actually more...

And FDR came in after also 25 years of Republican, trickle down, ahem centrist, rule

[Joe Fields]

119. Nadin, need I say more than this, really?

Time-line: FDR’s 100-day Legislative Campaign

March 4th 1933 FDR Inauguration

March 6th Bank Holiday

March 9th Emergency Session of Congress. Passage of Emergency Banking Act.

March 10th Economy Act sent to Congress

March 12th First Fireside Chat

March 13th Banks begin to reopen

March 16th Farm Bill sent to congress to remedy lack of purchasing power of farmers. This includes the measures against over-production which by October result in 6 million pigs being slaughtered and the meat thrown out as waste, and cotton crops plowed under.

March 20th Economy Act Passed into Law. This Act cut Veterans benefits by 50%. Veterans benefits made up 25% of the budget. The whole budget was $3.6 billion. Therefore, pre cuts, the benefits were $900 million, afterwards $450 million.

March 21st Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) bill sent to Congress.

March 22nd Beer-wine revenue bill sent to Congress.

March 27th Farm Credit Administration created by Executive Order merger of 9 separate agencies. Farm Mortgage Relief Act proposed. Half of farmers threatened with foreclosure. Banks foreclosing on farm mortgages at rate of 20,000 per year by February 1933.

March 31st CCC passed into law. Initially designed to create 250,000 jobs among unemployed young adults. Created more than 2 million by the end of the program in 1942. The CCC was empowered to employ these youth for flood control, reforestation, suppression of tree disease, clearing fire breaks, building fire observation towers, creating parks, protecting endangered species (Whooping Crane). Over the life of the program 4 million trees were thinned, one billion fish stocked and 30,000 wildlife shelters built.

April 3rd Farm Mortgage Relief proposal was sent to Congress and attached to the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

April 5th Farm Mortgage Relief reported out of committee and passed into law.

April 7th Beer sales were legal for the first time since Prohibition began in 1920. Tax revenues flow into government.

April 10th Congress sent legislative proposal for Tennessee Valley Authority.

April 18th US$ slumps. Treasury refuses to license more gold exports. Evening White House meeting: FDR, Moley, Bullitt, Warburg, Feis, Senator Pittman. Decision to leave gold standard announced. Credit creation features of Agricultural Adjustment Act, Thomas Amendment, accepted.

April 19th FDR takes the US$ off the gold standard. Press conference, later in the day, FDR announces intent to get the world as a whole back on the gold standard.

May 7th Second Fireside Chat. Reviews progress after 60 days.

May 12th Federal Emergency Relief Act creates FERA, with $500 million, ½ directed to the states, ½ available as matching funds for state programs in the ratio of 1:3. Harry Hopkins in charge. Intended to relieve unemployment.

Agricultural Adjustment Act and Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, to reduce $200 million worth of surplus production, through plough unders, acreage set asides and livestock and poultry slaughters.

During this April to May period Congress, through such members as Hugo Black, and LaFollette in the Senate, initiated legislation for a 30-hour work week, intended to create 6 million jobs for the 14 million unemployed, and for $6 billion funding for relief projects. FDR thought Black’s 30-hr week would result in pay cuts all round and opposed it as unconstitutional restraint of trade etc. He opposed LaFollette’s $6 billion on grounds of fiscal orthodoxy, too much money.

May 18th Passage of TVA: 650 mile navigable water way to be built from Knoxville TN to Paducah KY, with construction of dams, power plants, fertilizer production, intended for direct economic benefit on 7 state area affected, and much wider effects. The TVA was a challenge to Commonwealth and Southern, the utility which, under the leadership of Wendell Wilkie, was picking up the surviving pieces of the collapsed empire of Samuel Insull.

May 27th Federal Securities Act passed, established the Securities and Exchange Commission headed by “to catch a thief” Joseph Kennedy. Intended to “restore some old fashioned standards of rectitude” as FDR put it in his signing statement.

June 5th Senate and House by Joint Resolution abrogate the gold clause in private and public contracts, and back paper currency as legal tender.

June 6th National Employment Service created. Intended to help coordinate job searches between Federal and state governments.

June 13th Homeowners’ Loan Corporation enacted, empowered to refinance mortgages, make loans, and advance cash for tax payments and repairs.

June 16th

1) Banking Act of 1933, aka “Glass-Steagall” Act passed into law. This legislation created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and protected bank deposits up to $5,000, separated commercial from investment banking, forced banks to get out of the business of financial investment, banned the use of bank deposits in speculation.

2) Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, attempted to smooth out operating duplications and inefficiencies in then existing railroad network.

3) National Industrial Recovery Act, including Title 2 creating the Public Works Administration. This act was said to be FDR’s response to Hugo Black’s 30-hr work week proposal. The NIRA was established in 3 parts. Title I suspended the provisions of anti-trust legislation on price fixing, and a enacted a tremendous boost to industrial trade unions by promoting collective bargaining.

Title II allocated $3.3 billion for public works, to build and repair Federal buildings, roads, bridges, and dams. It gave employment to around 2 million. Buried here, in an indication of things to come, was money for the US Navy to build 2 heavy cruisers.

Title III was made up of Congressional wish-lists, proposals to end the depression, and other means employed to widen the political support the measure might enjoy.

FDR thought that between the CCC, the TVA and the WPA 4.5 million, or roughly 30% of the 14 million unemployed, might be put to work.

4) Farm Credit Act. Legislation which brought to completion the process launched with the Executive Order forming the Farm Credit Administration. This provided easier refinancing of farm mortgages, and brought foreclosures to a halt.

[anonymous171]

141. I don't see any civil rights legislation. FDR was a DLC sell out.

[Joe Fields]

142. Try and sell that line of thinking to the millions of people his

programs provided jobs for, and allowed people to keep their homes from being foreclosed on.

[anonymous171]

143. Doesn't matter. A true progressive would have supported more civil rights legislation.

[Joe Fields]

147. That's the first laugh out loud moment I've had all day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Regular comedian aren't you?

Given that the DLC was not even a gleam in any body's eyes in 1932

First problem with this logic

That said, you are right... FDR was a son of a bitch in some respects... see the Holocaust and some of his ahem distrust of some minorities, never mind he had the first jew in a cabinet post.

But overall that is too much inside baseball and as much as this is the kind of history discovered after much was declassified after the war ended and on to fifty year mark, he still was the best president his era could produce and his policies helped a lot of people.

Civil Rights, in the way we understand them these days would have to wait for GI colored troops to come back from Europe and go back to a racist country... and for that to fester for a generation or so.

By the way... I guess Thomas Jefferson should have kept all the language against Slavery in the Declaration of Independence as well... I mean he was not a good progressive either...

There are days...

[anonymous171]

158. Ah you found me out. Some of these purists can get irritating sometimes.

Compromise and political coalition building are, apparently, not progressive principles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. Show me ANY of this in his party platform

then we can talk

[ooglymoogly]

121. You are sadly misinformed and if you choose you can

find literature to match just about any persuasion about FDR. The real proof is in the pudding. Look at the wonder he created for every citizen in the US. Even if you only consider Social Security amongst the many good works he put into effect. You can not call this even slightly centrist in what is today called centrist which is nothing but right wing claptrap. History has been rewritten over and over by the right wingers about this most amazing period of our history to discredit the success of FDR which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt their philosophy is humbug and nothing more than a license to steal the floors from under us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. And we have seen any of the REAL work done by the

Obama administration exactly when? Or was he sworn in and I somehow missed it?

I mean Obama has spoken far more about his plans, in the mold of the New Deal, than FDR did throughout the political campaign of 1931-32 and THAT is the point.

Now if you can show to me ANY action taken by FDR matching any of his campaign lit and rhetoric, I will be highly impressed, though you may want to search for the days close to the national election. Just like Obama's that is when they started taking a definite populist bent... even if not as much as the Obama campaign.

Now I am hoping, not holding my breath, just hoping, that Obama's record will even approach that and he just may... for the same damn structural reasons

Now tell me... was the USSC court in 1932 a liberal court? NO

Did the Republican try to take much of this legislation later passed before the court? You betcha... and I am willing to lay money that they will do this once again...

Now, I suggest you go research the Democratic Party Platform of 1932 and educate yourself before you go and accuse people of being ignorant...

[KoKo]

113. Our loss of a "fair media" or take over of the Press by RW Think Tanks and Special Interests

is very much to blame for the fracturing of American Values that came out of the Roosevelt Era and lessons of the Great Depression. Thank you for mentioning that. It's amazing that Bill Clinton who was so much a victim of that along with his new DLC allowed a further erosion of the media even when it threatened his own Presidency early on before Monica.

I will hold judgement on Obama until I see the head of his FCC and where he intends to go in bringing some balance back into the "public" airwaves. Last I heard he was thinking about Rep Jim Clyburn's daughter whose claim to fame is "head" of South Carolina's Public Transit System. In SC that means she handles buses and bridge traffic. :eyes: I wonder what she knows about FCC

[ooglymoogly]

120. These are for the most part truisms to me.

However the OP and the posts reek of defeatism. It was us who made Obama and put him in office. It was us with the gazillion small donations that swelled his coffers. It was us who phone banked and beat the streets for him. We have a right to call fowl his appointment of Rahm and his embrace of FISA just a little dishonorable, his embrace of the traitor Lieberman less than honorable. We Have major power if we choose to use it and that has been shown by his election. If we continue to be organized we can hold his feet to the fire and demand to be listened to and surprisingly, many on the left have money and choose to use it honorably and wisely for the good of this country.

[Joe Fields]

126. Just telling it like it is.

I didn't mean to leave you with the impression that we liberals have no value within the party. We are used every four years to do the heavy lifting for the party, then we are ignored, until they need us again to organize their campaigns.

[theboss]

128. You are conflating "liberal" with "working class"

There is a big difference there.

[Joe Fields]

132. You've either missed my thesis or disagree.

But I stand by what I say. I've lived it.

[mondo joe]

130. I don't even know that there's a concensus on what it would mean to be *Liberal* in this context.

Do you?

[ooglymoogly]

135. For me Liberal means fairness and common decency, plain and simple.

Economies do not and never have worked from the top down. Amongst others Ford proved this by forcing the economy up by simply paying his assembly line workers enough to buy his product. FDR proved it by the incredible things he did out side the box that again were based on fairness and common decency. These folks have been at war with conservatives and have won each of their battles. You would never know this by the rewriting of history by the right with the fairy tale that they alone hold the golden key to the American dream. That blather is nothing but fools gold blown into a cloud of smoke and mirrors and is their license to steal....yet they are able to fool a lot of people far too much of the time.

[mondo joe]

136. But if you want to talk about real people, which notable elected persons would get

the consensus stamp of LIBERAL applied?

[ooglymoogly]

137. Several of the Kennedy's for a start. nt

[mondo joe]

138. I dunno. I think there are hardly any real people you could put forth that

wouldn't get a noteworthy response on DU as being not liberal enough.

A few maybe, but not many.

[ooglymoogly]

169. When I have commented on Obama lately...

it is not about right of center; It is about the decisions he has made; Lieberman, FISA, slopping the pigs on wall st, Rahm, and a few others. It isn't about a label because labels have been so far propagandized toward a bunch of retarded lunatics called the GOP by our intrepid media, they no longer have any meaning. It is about fair and smart decisions based on the protection of the constitution and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; Free from government spying and interference for religious or any other ideological reason; It is not about just a few good ol' boys with power and connections.
So am I elated that O was elected because of our grassroots efforts? Hell Yes. That does not mean we should jump on board any strange decision that he makes for what can only be short term gain to make any sense. We have just gone through the hell of 8 years of instant gratification for the good ol' boys and we just about lost our country.

[JCMach1]

131. I think we fail because of something different: a perpetual 'White Knight' syndrome

We're always waiting for the next person (President) who is going to save us and put things right. Of course those in power have mothballed Dr. Dean... he believed in what really needs to be done: organize... organize... organize from the bottom up.

Obama is not going to save us... Hell, he most likely isn't even liberal or progressive.

So, we need to do what the Christian Right did and keep the organization coming. Obama, so far, has completely ignored those that brought him to power... However,so far on our side all I have heard is a little grumbling. That won't work. That only gets us the back of the bus.

Maybe it's time to kick the transition in the ass!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

133. Very different things

Yes of course hard to get a grip on definitions but The Left and Liberalism are very different things. There has been much confusion about this and clearing away this debris can lead to an understanding as to why we on The Left are so easily thrown under the bus by The Party Machinery. Their interests and ours are at odds to put it mildly.

[blindpig]

140. Indeed, let's clarify this;

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LIBERAL AND A LEFTIST

I offer this a starting point.

A Leftist says that the fundamental organization of our society is intolerable because it leads directly to war, poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction. The Leftist argues that a new and different framework is necessary.

A Liberal says that the basic organization of our society is reasonably good, and should therefore be accepted, and that any efforts at further improving society should come from working within the already-established framework. IOW, the liberal wants slight modifications to what already exists, believing that its basic structure is reasonably sound.

Liberal- will blithely be assimilated.

Leftist- will likely be assassinated.

Liberal- possesses a quaint notion that one can reform hierarchical power structures.

Leftist- desires to completely unravel and eliminate the functions and forms of hierarchy.

Liberal- wishes to reform The Bank into The People's Credit Union.

Leftist- sees the need to turn the tables of the moneychangers and smash the marketplace.

Liberal- says "Living Wage".

Leftist- says "Solidarity".

Liberal- willingly shells out $4 for a glass of carrot juice.

Leftist- sees Root Vegetables as sustenance and metaphor.

Liberal- outside the coffee shop talks about the need for the Cappuccino Revolution but balks at acting out for fear this would endanger his/her daily cappuccino.

Leftist- reuses the same coffee filter, paper towels or odd socks when all other options have been exhausted in an attempt to squeeze one more cup from yesterday's grounds.

Liberal- wants to 'get out the vote'.

Leftist- recognizes voting as a nominal form of political activity meant to validate the Democratic State and convince the political consumer that they are a participant in governance.

Liberal- can often be seen mouthing the "education is the answer" mantra particularly in the rarified atmosphere of the Citadels of Expertise. Revels in being near theory or people 'doing theory' in the academy.

Leftist- sees education as social engineering and cultural imperialism. Education Academies seen as the proving grounds for the future ruling class.

Liberal- users of 'all natural' deodorant. The armpits are fresh particularly during commercial breaks.

Leftists- recognize deodorant as one of the essential pillars of Empire. Will often raise their armpits in tight quarters due to quixotic impulses.

Liberal- writes lengthy position papers on the plusses of developing more efficient killing machines (See Amory Lovins for more details).

Leftist- sees the Techno Warfare State as one of the great life destroying mechanisms in the history of Mankind and understands the relationship between war and oppression. The "Health of the State" being that which kills everything else.

Liberal- true believers in the New Economy and Seattle (the city) home of Microsoft, Boeing and Starbucks.

Leftist- acknowledge a different Seattle (the Amerindian prophet)

Liberals- have recently been experiencing a population explosion which seems to have been caused by a grey form of technocratic inbreeding. Liberalism is now a major growth industry much like Cancer. Much of this exponential proliferation of this well-groomed disease seems to emanate directly from Academia.

Leftists- an endangered species. Said to be only 723 remaining in the contiguous 48 states of the United States of America. For years they have been scooped up and exiled to the Periphery. To date all efforts to exhume the spirit of Eugene Debs have fallen on deaf ears.

______________________________________________

Both liberals and socialists empathize with the suffering of society's weaker members, and are sensitive to "man's inhumanity to man." However, the liberal is basically at peace with the socioeconomic system that produces this suffering, while the socialist recognizes that the system itself is a core cause of the suffering.

A liberal might get upset by militarism, but happily invests in Martin Marietta Corp, and rejoices when it increases its dividend. Liberals are also often susceptible to nationalist propaganda appeals, & thus can easily be persuaded to support wars like the NATO war in Kosovo, simply because it was cleverly marketed as a "humanitarian intervention." A socialist would never fall for this sort of ploy.

A liberal might be properly horrified by pollution, waste, hyper commercialism, and many of the ills of modern society, but pays little conscious attention to the underlying issue of corporate power that allows such things to dominate our lives. A liberal will vote for Democrats, despite the obvious fact that these contemptible worms are nothing but bought servants of corporate monopolies or oligopolies. The liberal sleeps easily, figuring, "Well, at least the Dems are better than Bush!" as though this really implies some sort of resistance to rampant corporatism.

Basically, the liberal tut-tuts disapprovingly at some of the blatantly horrible end-effects of policies, politicians, and economic philosophies that, for the most part, he accepts. A socialist, on the other hand, is conscious of where the roots of these disasters lie....

INTERMISSION:

Now is a good time to cue up some Phil Ochs:

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[Joe Fields]

148. Give me a break. You don't really believe that garbage, do you?

I read that crap on another forum a few months back. Only an anarchist would think that way.

[blindpig]

159. As a matter of fact, yes, I do.

Tho' not just anarchists but any clear thinking leftists, which is to say, socialists. Liberals, while affecting to give a damn are more interested in feeling good about themselves than in solving the deep problems of society. This is because they see their vested interests to be tied to the status quo. I mean, gee, they'd like things to be better for other folks, but they'll not chance anything that might affect their economic or social status. Thus, they will side with the ruling class on all crucial issues, they are an impediment to economic and social justice.

What we see so far from the Obama team, the general agreement with the Paulson prescription, the dire pronouncements, the composition of the economic team, fully supports this analysis.

Which side are you on?

[Joe Fields]

163. I think you could scour the country and not come up with a dozen people

who feel the way you do. You need to find your own little island to live on.

[blindpig]

168. Dream on.

There are thousands of anarchists, socialists and communists in this country. There are millions inclined in that direction, their inclinations will become concrete as all of this 'hope' and 'change' nonsense is shown to be a sham.

[datasuspect]

164. holiday in cambodia:

So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car
Thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type dont crawl

Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin' that you know
How the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul

Its time to taste what you most fear
Right guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear

Its a holiday in cambodia
Its tough, kid, but its life
Its a holiday in cambodia
Dont forget to pack a wife

Youre a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leech
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you

Well you'll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake

Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son.

Is a holiday in cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in cambodia
Where you'll kiss ass or crack

Pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, etc.

And its a holiday in cambodia
Where you'll do what you're told
A holiday in cambodia
Where the slums got so much soul

[nini]

134. I don't think the party itself has changed as much as we've been on the defensive for decades

The well organized republican machine has managed to brainwash the average joe that if you love this country you must be a republican, you must be against everything that would help you.

This did not happen over night and will not be turned back around over night either. Before you make a final decision on what Obama will end up doing why not wait to see what he does once president? Why not see if the bipartisan approach will finally get our government working as a team again instead of eating each other alive for the sake of their party.

Obama is a brilliant organizer and has put some control back in the party to fight to breakdown what Reagan, Gringrich and others have done to this country. If he can organize both party members willing to work to put his country back together we will finally get back on track.

We're not going to go all the way back to FDR is one quick step as much as we'd all like to. You say we are the Democratic Party - yes we are and Obama's campaign allowed us to remember that which is why there is more hope than there's been since JFK wss taken from us.

[agent007]

155. recommended

Great insightful post.

[tekisui]

165. Great thread.

It is an informative read from start to finish. I was for Kucinich in 2004 and Kucinich in 2008. I felt he really found his voice this year. When he asked his supporters to goo to Obama over Edwards in Iowa, I was confused at first. I trust Kucinich, and so I looked harder at Obama.

What I saw was a Democrat, albeit a centrist, that could win. That is where my support went. I never had any illusions that Obama has a progressive. But, I did see that he could "stop the bleeding". We needed a Democrat in the WH to facilitate and be receptive to the true progressives in the House and Senate. It was strategic to get Obama in the WH.

I still think that although he is centrist, and his policies are not very far removed from Clintons, that he will be more receptive to progressive legislation.

What we need is a strong progressive representation in the Congress. You say some 50% on this board are centrists, I would suggest that percentage holds for our representative in DC. We need to keep building the progressive representation, and of course the only viable way to do that(at this time) is within the Democratic Party.

It is my dream that the progressives can strengthen and take over the party and essentially relegate all centrist to the opposition party.

[conscious evolution]

166. Bush destroyed the Republican party

Now it is time for Obama to destroy the Democratic Party.
Those of us on the left just need to wait it out.Then we shall have our day.

[PassingFair]

167. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Great OP and thread.

We knew Obama was no Howard Dean, but
he did seem to be an alternative to
the DLC THUGS that have taken over the
democratic party and acted as enablers
over the past 8 years.

Rahm Emanuel as COS was a BAD sign.

But then, we didn't really have much
of a choice....between the republican,
the known DLCer and the possible DLCer.

We did the best we could.

:hi: