Pete Seeger didn't naysay and complain. He ORGANIZED and ACTED. (Read On)

[RBInMaine]

Gee, there is plenty of "progressive" naysaying and complaining these days out of the likes of the Huffingtoners, the Firedoggers, etc., but I don't see a whole lot of action. How about doing what Pete Seeger did: ORGANIZE and ACT the way he did to clean up he Hudson. All the great progressives in history would be ashamed of this griping. Jesus acted. Ghandi acted. MLK acted. Want single payer healthcare? Get out there, knock on doors, and convince huge majorities to support HR676 with massive congressional office visits, calls, letters, emails, faxes, millions of marchers in Washington, etc. Where is it? Don't like Dems? Put the masses on the streets in even the reddest of red districts and make them see the light. As a local Democratic Party officer and union member I have just completed yet another campaign having spent countless hours on the phones and plenty of time on the streets, so I can talk about my own record of activism. Jesse Jackson is spot on: "Stop complaining and start sweating." Paul Wellstone would be ashamed of all this griping. He would be out organizing. (At the same time, we also have to always remember that America is a huge, politically-diverse nation, and that our entire system of government is founded on compromise, which must happen if anything is going to get done. Which is why I stand with Bernie, Tom, Al, Sherrod, Anthony, Barbara, and Debbie in supporting the healthcare bill as a start.)

[saltpoint]

1. Indeed. Also I have a hard time picturing Seeger walking into

Grover Norquist's office trying to forge an alliance.

[RBInMaine]

2. Spot on point ! Thanks.

[TheWraith]

4. +1000. nt

[Armstead]

11. I can totally see him walking into the office of a conservative...

..if that conservative happened to, say, agree with him on Hudson River preservation.

Organizing doesn't mean you just work with the people you agree with on everything.

(I;m not defending Hamshire's alliance with Norquist, as I think it was kind of dumb. But I am equally offened that some people here want to use that as a c lub to bash everyone who is critical of this HCR bill or is not in total lockstep on the Obama Love Train.)

[saltpoint]

12. Seeger confronted certain folks when he needed to but generally

speaking let the music do the talking.

It was extremely effective.

Hamsher's flirtatious alliance with Norquist is manipulative and petty, inspired by spite not principle. You don't claim 'principle' and walk into Grover Norquist's sticky web.

Hamsher is a gifted, even underrated, film-maker. She sucks at politics.

[RBInMaine]

25. Horsecrap. "Progressives" are bashing Dems but can't elect their kind of candidates. It is a very

crappy thing to be doing. It is ok to have some civil disagreements within a party. But to constantly trash Dems and Obama (you just said "Obama love train") and there has been real trashing going on, when you FAIL to be able to stand on your own electoral legs is shameful. Kindly quit your pissing and moaning and ELECT more "progressives" if you are unhappy, if you can.

[noamnety]

38. "civil disagreements" ... "quit your pissing and moaning" (nt)

[Armstead]

39. It'sthe narrow minded blockheadedness of people like you that lead to third parties

I guaran-damn--tee that if progressives do form a third party, or challenge Obama in the primary or drag Ralph nader out of his cave for another run, you will be the first up there yelling "Traitors! You're electing the Republicans!"

You might be a lottle more constructive if you would try to convince people why you believe their position on health care or whatever other issue is wrong without making all of these accusations and assumptions about how progressives are all jackasses who do nothing.

[RBInMaine]

41. I never said "all do nothing." And only the very kind of "blockheadedness" YOU are

displaying would lead a person to go such directed and personal namecalling. I described behavior as "bitching," but I didn't get into downright namecalling. Mine is a larger point about naysaying and complaining versus organizing and electing the people that will somehow finally make some "progressives" happy. Sorry if you can't handle it. As to starting a third party, go for it.
Call me when you've taken back some red districts as the Dem Party has been able to do.

Yeah, go ahead and run Nader again. See if you can get him elected. You'll be right up there as successful as the Lyndon LaRouche crowd, nice and marginalized. But please, go ahead and try.
I actually welcome it. The Teabaggers will be running their own too. It's a wash.

[saltpoint]

54. Nader, per se, is not even the issue. He might prefer to be, something like

Romney would prefer to be, but neither is. Romney does have a shot at the Puke nom; Nader has no chance at the presidency. I'm dealing in both men's pure arithmetic, not setting an analogy for the election. The election becomes sideshow to the overwhelming arithmetic of percentages.

The third party effort that stands the best percentage chance, IMO, is the one that might be led by Michael Bloomberg. I don't especially care to see Bloomberg run for the presidency, but to date he has not consulted me in his political career and no call is expected. That said, he has more money than God and in essence, not much else to do. He's on borrowed time from democracy as a third-term NYC mayor and I think the Eagle Scout he used to be when he was a youngun is going to whisper in his blood that he belongs in the White House.

He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an independent. He may think of that latter category as "Independent," with a VERY capital 'I'.

He could bankroll a political organization in 50 states and territories within a very short period of time. Advertising would be accessible and entirely affordable. Billboards and bumperstickers by the score along major arteries and in air media and print media.

Disgruntled voters of many stripes would take notice. Not all would buy, but certainly the potential for a significant paradigm-shifting election.

If Obama does not look beatable in pragmatic analysis, the impulse to challenge him will be weak within the Democratic Party and by Bloomberg or anyone else. Were the President perceived as more vulnerable than he is now, Bloomberg, given his wealth and political waywardness, is the best positioned to mount a third party, to fund the effort, and to make it a sustainable entity in U.Sl political history.

[TheWraith]

3. Kicked and recommended.

To look around here, you would think people assumed complaining is a form of activism.

[noamnety]

5. I'm not sure about this post.

You are posting on the internet.
I am posting on the internet.

You are assuming I'm not an activist - like Ghandi, or MLK, or Jesus, and then you are telling us that you, on the other hand, ARE like Ghandi or MLK, or Jesus (because you talked on the phone and knocked on doors?).

Give us the same benefit of the doubt you expect us to give to you - we assume you do something other than post on a message board, yes. And don't tell us we aren't living up to the standards of Jesus while implying you are, because it makes you look like you have an inflated sense of self-importance.

[RBInMaine]

7. I am CITING Jesus et. als. and not comparing myself to them. You miss the larger point which is

that incessant bitching and trashing Dems and Obama, especially in the absence of alternative political action and possession of elective office, does nothing whatsoever to further the progressive cause. Political reality is that we are a huge politically-diverse nation, and getting anywhere requires joining coalitions and organized political action efforts. Not happy with Obama and Dems? Then prove you can WIN elections WITHOUT Dem political organization and resources. Go out there and flip those deep southern and western red districts. C'mon, go do it. Go get millions to march on Washington for single payer. Where is the action? Where is the tidal wave of progressive political power and offices held at every level in every district nationwide?

And as to me, I note that I have worked the streets, the offices, the phones, the rallies...on MANY campaigns simply to show I'm no hypocrite about acting. You have too? Great. But don't trash Dems if you and yours can't sweep large majorities without the power, numbers, and resources of the Democratic Party. Again, not happy with Dems and Obama? Quit bitching and start organizing. And that means in RED districts too, not just in blue.

[noamnety]

9. The problem here

is that you think one set of opinions (yours) is appropriate to post online.

And you presume that those with the opposing opinion are NOT activists, and you are basically saying they have less right than you to post their opinions online, because when THEY post their opinions, they are being hypocrites.

That's a bunch of rot, sorry. If it's okay for you to take time out of your day to spread your opinions on the internet, it's equally valid for those further left of you to do the same.

[RBInMaine]

19. Wrong wrong and wrong again. Of course I know many "progressives" out in the world are politically

active. At the same time, there are plenty who are not, and even those who are need to be challenged to do the kind of organizing and persuading of hearts and minds that garners them broad national political power and influence in their own right. They have no business trashing Dems and Obama for not being "progressive" enough when they can't win on their own. Nader is not President. Kucinich is not President. They ran. They lost. We DO have Obama, and we DO have a Dem majority. Not happy enough with that? Quit the bitching, organize, and elect a national majority of the kind of "progressives" you want.

[noamnety]

21. "They ran. They lost. ... Quit the bitching"

Deja Vu.

What would you say to people who lost the 2004 election, were upset that Bush won, and joined DU in the year following that to post online? Would you have told people who registered in 2005 to log off and "quit their bitching"?

Or was that different?

[RBInMaine]

28. Having worked hard to elect Kerry (and we carried Maine by a healthy margin) I will tell you that

Kerry defeated HIMSELF with a shitty campaign and I said so. Plenty of us saw this plain reality and didn't piss and moan about it. Shortly after the election I wrote a long post here explaining what I thought the party needed to do to re-take the national majority. We succeeded. Now some "progressives" need to bemoan all that effort because some Dems and Obama are just not as far to the left as they'd like. Well boo hoo. Still not happy with all that we Dems have accomplished? Then organize and go get your own people elected on their own right. Can't do that? Then count your blessings with the Dems and train your fire on the RePUKES. Christ, don't they give you enough to complain about?

[LooseWilly]

47. I think you misunderstand the word "coalition".

It doesn't mean that someone like Obama says stuff to people/constituencies, gets their votes, and afterward those people/constituencies are required to shut up and "follow the leader".

This isn't "Simon Says". This isn't the fucking Hokey Pokey...

"Political reality is that we are a huge politically-diverse nation, and getting anywhere requires joining coalitions and organized political action efforts." This is true... but it's not just progressives joining centrist "coalitions"... it's also centrists joining progressive "coalitions". That's what a coalition is- it's when the two groups join together... but if the leader of the "coalition" then can't be bothered to take action regarding the interests of a part of the coalition- then what you have isn't a coalition, it's closer in analogy to a hostage situation.

If Obama and his team of flaming centrists want to stop hearing complaints from the progressives, then how about negotiating with the progressives? They're certainly willing to negotiate with the conservatives. They seem almost eager to negotiate away the interests of the progressives, in fact.

It is that eagerness that is eroding the coalition. It is the doing of Obama's administration that is "causing" all the "bitching" that you are bitching about. So how about this thought: If you want a stop to the "bitching" that is bothering you, why don't you quit bitching and do some organizing?

In the meantime, when progressives bitch, or even take action and do something like negotiating with Norquist (Why is it that it is only Emmanuel and Obama that can negotiate with the Right?)... or the Progressive Caucus threatens to kill a bill with no public option... that is precisely the nature of activity within the frame of a coalition. You have a problem with any of that... why don't you quit your bitching and do something about it? You can start by electing some Democrats, preferably progressive Democrats, in Maine- instead of the Republicans there now.

In the meantime, you can shut your pie hole about the activities of those in states/districts that are already voting for better HCR bills than this piece of shite that we're all facing now.

[Armstead]

8. Bingo

I guess if you're not a politician in Washington you're "not doing anything."

[tblue]

32. Ouch. I know the OP means well, but

listen, I have worked on every presidential campaign since Dukakis. I spent almost a month in NH, on my own dime, in the freezing cold (I'm a CA girl), making phone calls to people who screamed bloody murder at me till I couldn't take it anymore. And still I came home and cold-called voters in Tennessee and elsewhere. I've registered voters, donated money I barely had, and recruited volunteers. I still write letters and make phone calls to Congress. I went to the local town hall health care meeting and faced the teabaggers.. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

I have literally been there AND done that. I don't need to be told that I'm not enough like Jesus or Ghandi. I never said I was. Or that I shouldn't complain when the people I worked to put into office act like traitors. I'd be a damned fool if I didn't.

I do the best I can with what I've got. My party's leaders have shown me that it's not enough no matter what I do. They're still gonna do what they're gonna do. I can go to a march on Washington (done that before, too) if I have to, but when was the last tthat's marchmade the president and Congress do anything for the people? There are a handful of dedicated progressives in Washington. That's who I'm supporting from now on. Maybe they're not listening to me either, but at least they usually do the right thing. Other than that -- what?

If I as an activist stomp my foot and Washingtom doesn't act, did I make any noise? And is it my fault, because I'm not Jesus?

[RBInMaine]

40. You are getting a hell of a lot more with Obama/Dems than with RePUKES. A blind person could see

that plain fact. Though he knows it falls far short of single payer, Bernie Sanders still supports the health bill. Does that mean nothing to you?

[Autonomy]

6. I'm offended!!!

Okay, I'm not really. I just wanna feel like I am a part of DU.

Good points in your post, btw.

[Armstead]

10. Um, this is a discussion board. It has no bearng on what people do or don'tt do otherwise

Just because people post on here, doesn't mean they aren't doing anything otherwise. Doesn;t mean they are, but doesn't mean they aren't. It isn a collection of individuals.

I think what you object to is that some people don't think exactly like you do. I don;t see you browbeating people who share your opinions.

[RBInMaine]

15. Yup, so we are "discussing" action vs. bitching. Your reply is awash in circular reasoning.

[Armstead]

30. Circular reasoning? Sounds to me like you're doing the bitching.

Which is fine. This is a discussion board, and bitching it part of the fuel that makes it run.

But your assumption is basically faulty. This is a collection of individuals, who each have their own level of action, and their own method of contributing to things in the real world.
A lot of the people who are "bitching" on here are also activists or at least engaged citizens.

But the piint is that the amount and nature of anyone's contribution in the world doesn;t have anything to do with their presence or opinions here.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. So when are you going to ORGANIZE and ACT against Lieberman, Stupak, and Nelson.

They, after all, are people who had actual power to kill the bill and threatened to do just that for spurious reasons.

Hmm?

[RBInMaine]

14. They are Dems who got elected in THEIR districts. Better to have them than RePUKES. Not happy with

them? Activate your "progressives" in those districts who can also BEAT Republicans. Once again, you are passing the buck.

[IndianaGreen]

17. There is no difference between them and the GOP

They both side with the corporations against the working class.

[RBInMaine]

20. Then go and elect "progressives" there instead. Or can you?

[IndianaGreen]

24. I am working for, and voting, for my progressive congressperson. I am not voting for Evan Bayh

Skipping the Senate part of the ballot, and voting for local officials.

[RBInMaine]

29. Bayh is better than an Indiana RePUKE. The better of "two evils" is still better.

[IndianaGreen]

43. The better of two evils gave us Stupak, Nelson, and the rest of the blue dogs

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[RBInMaine]

45. But it is lesser. They are still better than RePUKES from those districts. Not happy, then get your

"progressives" elected there. Can't? Then that doesn't leave a lot of room to complain.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Lesser? As in Italian fascists were better than German nazis, or

Spanish fascists were better than Italian fascists.

[saltpoint]

22. In Indiana Lugar ran unopposed by any Democratic nominee. His is arguably

the safest Republican seat in the U.S. Senate.

The Libertarian line drew some support but it was marginal compared with Lugar's juggernaut win.

If you want to advance a more-left third party agenda in Indiana you tell me what you think your odds for success might be.

I am not seeing it.

[IndianaGreen]

26. The Indiana Democratic Party didn't get one dime from the national to field a candidate

This is why there was no Lugar challenge, who I thought was vulnerable. The Indiana Democratic Party was kept hanging high and dry.

[saltpoint]

27. The Democratic Party in Indiana has Bayh, and that's about it.

There is money in the coffers of county organizations to field and support a statewide ballot. There were many Democrats on that statewide ballot. But no Senate candidate.

One could have been fielded. And supported.

Lugar would have prevailed, almost certainly, but a dialogue could have been established.

My point is that in a climate where the will to challenge an entrenched Republican like Lugar is almost non-existent, a third party agenda is suffocated.

[RBInMaine]

36. So just give up? Don't even try? And then trash Bayh and Dems? How childish.

[saltpoint]

59. The county chairs would have come through, as they always do,

for the Democrats in Indiana to promote a Senate candidate against Lugar.

A lot of the Libertarian line voting was support for the ghost Democrat.

Some state party building would not hurt -- in Indiana and elsewhere.

[RBInMaine]

35. That wouldn't have stopped Wellstone from at least trying. No excuses for not trying.

[RBInMaine]

31. No excuses. None. Wellstone would try. Dean would try. Go and at least try.

[saltpoint]

56. Agree. A Party that does not challenge an old warhorse like Lugar

cannot also claim to represent its members. I understand that Lugar is very popular and would likely prevail against all comers. But I would have liked to see a Democratic challenger who makes him work to win.

The late basketball coach Jack Rohan used to tell his players when they were faced with an obviously formidable opponent, "They may beat you this afterroon, but make them run their best game."

[DrToast]

16. Huh? The Firedoggers are acting.

I don't necessarily agree with them, but they're actually trying to do something.

[saltpoint]

18. True, but that's a bit like saying the

Underwear Bomber was acting, only he wound up setting his wiener on fire.

[noamnety]

23. Apparently they aren't allowed to use the internet to organize. :)

When centrists use the internet to organize and share ideas, it's because they are smart. When lefties do it, it's because they are bitching. ;)

[RBInMaine]

33. Well, the bitching part is there. Where is the organizing part?

[Armstead]

34. That's a very reasonable response.

I don't necessarily agree with strategy of the firedoggers (or maybe it's just her) either, but at least they are doing what the OP said prohgressives shoukld be doing -- taking action against something they don't agree with.

[RBInMaine]

37. What action?

[truedelphi]

51. I give them points for that also.

Politics have always made for strange bed fellows. And these are very strange times, so one can only imagine that the bed fellows will be more and more strange as this era progresses.

[LWolf]

42. Why do you assume that one precludes the other? nt

[RBInMaine]

44. You're reading too much into it. I know plenty of progressives are politically active. The point

is: If you can't get your own elected, don't trash the Dems. If you aren't happy on an issue, go out and win over huge numbers of hearts and minds. Too much bemoaning and not enough action on balance.

[LWolf]

48. I don't think you are able to measure that accurately. nt

[JamesA1102]

46. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Pete is not dead. He can and does speak for himself.

Have you so much as met the man you use as a puppet to voice your own opinions?

[saltpoint]

60. We're free to invoke public figures. It's one of the main things about

them in the first place -- they're public.

I see no puppeteering. For Puppeteering, I would redirect those interested to Jim Inhofe's office. You really can't outdo Jim Inhofe in that category, no matter what.

There is a great power that Seeger and other folk singers hold through their music. They have the natural advantage of conveying songs to audiences who need to hear the songs and to hear their own voices rise from a union meeting floor or some coffee shop in unison with the songleader.

Another terrific benefit is that Seeger laid claim to songs that were not played on the hit radio stations much (some never) and he brought them from venue to venue to venue until they were re-claimed in the public consciousness. Armed with a guitar, among the deadliest of weapons.

[truedelphi]

50. thank you RBin Maine.

I have a post over in my journal (opening entry) that talks about the same thing.

There is so much to learn from those involved in the struggle, who came and fought and sang and organized long before most of us were even born.

[Hekate]

52. KnR! Get out the VOTE in 2010!

:dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick:

[ima_sinnic]

55. when are you going to ORGANIZE and ACT to get rid of Collins & Snowe?

[closeupready]

57. Who says people aren't doing anything? Sheez. We ARE.

Just because we may not share every little thing we do here on DU doesn't mean we don't have time to come here and commiserate with other liberal Democrats.

[Bjorn Against]

58. As an activist myself I have very mixed feelings about this post.

I have been involved in an enormous amount of political activism, I have been involved in about one hundred demonstrations in the past year alone and I have helped plan a number of actions. People may not agree with what I do, but no one who knows me would ever claim that I spend all my time complaining on the internet. At the same time however I realize that "complaining on the internet", or in other words blogging is crucial to getting your message out there. A post on DU has the potential to reach thousands of people and educate others about what is happening in the streets. For activism to be effective it not only needs to be seen, but people need to understand the issues involved.

We do not get nearly enough people who are willing to take a public stand, and I applaud the part of your post which encourages more people to get out there and get active. What I don't like, and what I don't think Pete Seeger would like either is your dismissal of people who speak out on progressive issues. Pete Seeger is not a partisan, he is a leftist activist who has been willing to stand up and speak out against members of both parties.

While you may have some activism under your belt, the fact is most people don't. If you were to do a demographic study however I am sure that you would see that progressives are generally far more more active than those who describe themselves as centrists, although that is not saying a lot because most progressives still do not do nearly enough. While I am willing to acknowledge that however, the fact is that people who you agree with are not all active either so you can hardly point your finger at progressives and ignore the fact that most the Obama partisans on this site are hardly activists either.

As an activist myself there is nothing I want more than to get people to get out there and make a stand, I appreciate your call to get people out there to fight for their beliefs but I wish you would use a more productive tone in making that call.

[Armstead]

62. good post

[jgraz]

61. Why is it those who dismiss internet posters are also the ones who complain the most about them?

If the posts are so inconsequential and worthless, why do you spend so much time trying to knock them down?

This seems like yet another attempt to tamp down online dissent. What, exactly, are you worried about?

[TheKentuckian]

63. I don't recall Pete calling for support of corporate power in Washington

because he couldn't get his type of pols elected either. I sure as hell don't remember him saying suck it, like it, or prove you can do better but for sure STFU and don't rock the boat or the Confederates will take over.

[RepublicanElephant]

64. k&r nt