Are Liberals Useless?

[babylonsister]

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/07/are-liberals-useless/

Are Liberals Useless?
By: Blue Texan Monday December 7, 2009 10:40 am


Chris Hedges thinks so, and doesn’t care much for the President, either.

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? <..> I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election. The idea that Gore and Bush were pretty much the same was a common meme in lefty circles, and it turned out to be deeply misguided, to say the least.

Does Hedges really believe the country would look no different today if the Supreme Court hadn’t appointed Bush in 2000? Because I think he’s wrong.

Similarly, does anyone think John McCain would have overturned the Bush policy on stem cells, acknowledged the seriousness of climate change, spent a huge amount of political capital trying to reform health care, reversed Bush’s policies on labor, on the environment, or endangered species? Does anyone think John McCain would’ve nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court or signed the stimulus bill?

This is not to suggest that Obama’s unwillingness to confront the Pentagon and Wall Street haven’t been a disappointment. They have.

Just don’t tell me that a vote for Nader in ‘08, which was a vote for Palin, was the way to get a more progressive country.

Hedges' article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=501186&mesg_id=501186

[emulatorloo]

1. bookmarking and rec n/t

[leftstreet]

2. If McCain had won could they have bailed out WStreet, escalated War

without a MASSIVE protest and pushback from the people?

I mean, seriously.

The worst crap tends to happen under Democratic administrations because we've been taught to believe it's the party of the people.

[nemo137]

3. Define "worst crap?"

The worst I can think of is the Clinton Welfare Reform bill. As opposed to the massive fuckery of the Reagan and Bush II administrations, that seems like a walk in the park.

[tsuki]

16. NAFTA, Media Consolidation, ignoring COP3, regulatory repeal, just

to mention a few.

[nemo137]

24. Fair enough. What's COP3, if you don't mind me asking?

The welfare bill was my first big political memory, so got kind of lost, and media consolidation and regulatory repeal got glossed over in the news.

[tsuki]

25. Congress of the Party of the 3rd Part, Kyoto. Gore went there and

negotiated a treaty and brought it back. Clinton threw it down and would not discuss it. It should have been brought up then. I watched because in my writings, I had ran across the whitening of the Irushi Reefs which was being reported in the Asahi Shimbun. Long story, but the world was already discussing global warming.

A lot of people feel that Gore broke with Clinton over Monica, I think it was global warming.

[nemo137]

31. Thanks.

I had not come across that acronym before.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. GREAT article. Hedges was on with Thom Hartmann today and they dicussed this.

The article is also at CommonDreams and TruthDig

[babylonsister]

6. The article in the OP is disputing Hedges. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

7. So much for my speed reading abilities....

:blush:

[anonymous171]

5. We live in a representative democracy. I vote for whoever represents my views

Sorry if that offends some of Obama's diehard fans. :shrug:

[Chulanowa]

10. It doesn't offend me, but it is rather ignorant

We aren't in a parliamentary system with a wide variety of parties where the government is divided according to the votes. We work on a system where the winner basically takes all. In this sort of system, voting on a third-tier candidate in a general election might as well be a write-in for "my dick, lol" or something.

You're of course free to vote your conscience. Thing is, the person you're voting for has no real chance of getting elected, and honestly, nobody in the first tier is going to go "This Green Party dude got seven votes! We'd better swing to his platform!" - it doesn't put your guy in office, and it doesn't send a message.

Of course, what you do in the primaries can have totally different results. But in general elections? Well, now you know how it works

[followthemoney]

23. Doesn't anyone here get angry that in this corrupt electoral system

we can't vote for people we want to represent us without giving advantage to the people who are most unlike us. The U.S. is an undemocratic government because our government wants it that way and dictates that it will not be changed. In Afghanistan you need to get 50% plus one to win an election, so why not here?

Don't let the Nader haters forget that 300,000 dumb ass registered Florida Democrats voted for George Bush in 2000. All Gore needed was a couple of hundred of those dumb asses to vote for him and then ...no Bush presidency.

Pay attention, dumb asses, and see who tells you this system can't be changed. Changing the system looks too much like a revolution for Liberals to even think about.

Illegitimate undemocratic election systems spawn illegitimate governments.

[bobbolink]

27. You're not "offended", but anyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant"....?

And, you use that tactic when talking with potential voters, do you?

[Chulanowa]

33. Did you make that straw man all by yourself?

Or did your parents help?

First off, ignorant simply means that the person is uneducated about the matter at hand. This is clearly demonstrated by expressing a lack of knowledge. Stupid is an insult, ignorant isn't.

Second, it's not "anyone who disagrees with me" it's people who believe that writing in "Bugs Bunny" is going to change something in our system. it's not, whether you're really voting for Bugs, or some third-tier candidate who's really running.

[mike_c]

19. agreed, 100 percent....

+1

[Hatchling]

8. It was bad enough when "liberal" became a bad word,

and we went to the label "progressives". But now to hear the word "progressives" sneered at from Dem and Pub alike is just starting to rile me up.
:grr:

On one hand I hear that we progressives didn't get Obama elected and on the other hand I hear that we progressives screwed over Al Gore.
:shrug:

At this point I'm beginning to see that no matter what Democrat I vote for the country isn't going to move to a more progressive stance. Hell, they don't even abide by the party platform which sounds pretty damn good.
:eyes:

All I can see is that from now I am going to have to vote my heart, not my fears. I will only vote for progressive Democrats from now on. If that means more Pubs get in office, well that's the Democratic Party's fault for not throwing the Progressives a few scraps, not my fault. Why should I vote for someone who doesn't represent my interests?
:nopity:

[LooseWilly]

18. Cheers. +23.45

If the scraps are all gonna be tossed to the republican leaning independents anyway, what is there to lose?

[bobbolink]

30. Abiding by the party platform?

There's no percentage in that.

AND, no lobbyist goodies, either.

[Marr]

9. All this hand wringing about votes lost to Nader, or sticking

together and electing corporate Democrats because that's the best we can get... it's silly.

The fact is that until the population of this country is extremely uncomfortable, they will not demand things change. Until they demand change (and are willing to suffer through the physical push-back their government will give them), they aren't going to get it. By "demanding", I don't mean holding a parade, either-- I mean causing actual problems for the system, whether that's massive labor strikes, tying up transit, whatever.

Personally, I think being a loyal party member in this climate is only prolonging the inevitable. Yes, the middle class and poor are chewed up at a slightly slower rate under corporate Democrats than they are under Conservative Republicans-- but they're chewed up nonetheless. Yes, a corporate Democrat will toss you the occasional, usually symbolic bone-- generally on the same issues that right-wing politicians use to placate their own base. If you're happy with a 16-year game of see-saw balanced on issues like abortion and stem cell research, then fine. Party loyalty is just what the doctor ordered. But do understand that other people may not share your priorities, and their opinions are perfectly valid.

[leftstreet]

13. +1

:applause:

[readmoreoften]

28. +2

Thank you. I said Obama would be the last national Dem candidate I'd vote for until they change their platform--no wait, I mean get a platform. I'll still vote for local Dems because my locals are very progressive and I live in a red state.

[Atticus]

11. Agree with your premise. Mr. Hedges' consistent negativity simply gives conservatives "tar"

with which to paint the entire liberal community. There is a place for both pragmatism and "lines in the sand" on the Left.

[Kablooie]

12. Liberals sure seem useless. All Gov decisions seem to be kowtowing to conservatives.

[diane in sf]

14. I just read Chris Hedge's book, Empire of Illusion, it is very good, but I think he is

profoundly pessimistic. We have a lot of money forces (carbon based power, old media, resource extraction) that are trying to centralize their control over the economy, but we also have a lot of rising new technologies such as the web and solar power that will have the effect of localizing control of money and resources. I think we should look to the movements in South America as a model of where we want to go.

[branders seine]

15. what a load of shite

[glitch]

17. Ah jeez, there I go clicking on what I expect to be a safe link and there is Gidget Goes to Alaska

No disrespect intended for Sally Fields or Sandra Dee, professionals that I truly admire.

[bridgit]

20. "Obama’s unwillingness to confront the Pentagon and Wall Street"

I like to see any 10-12 people, or for that matter DUer's or for *that* matter a group including Hedges himself and run on up in there, as a group, to either the Pentagon or Wall Street kick up a fuss and *demand* an end to all war & capitalism and see just how far they get if anyone here thinks it's that easy - see if they can make any further head-way convincing them to cease & desist their activities - that just sounds like a Youtube moment :thumbsup:

[beyond cynical]

21. The problem with most liberals is that they are not liberal.

[tabasco]

22. I'm starting to think so.

They couldn't get along and handed Germany over to the nazis.

They'll probably turn America over to some nutbucket, too.

[readmoreoften]

29. You hit that nail on the head. And the "liberals" in the SPD assassinated their far left.

I'm not against liberals--I think most people who call themselves liberal (this site excepted) are actually further to the left than they know. But "liberal" is moving further right every season. Soon we'll get an Ebert-style nationalist.

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

26. So, you have it in for Thom Hartmann, eh?

He voted for Nader, ya know.

So, now Hartmann is on your shit list too, huh?

[R. P. McMurphy]

32. k & r n/t