The antiwar movement (the inside/outside approach) your thoughts...

[Kevin Spidel]

On edit: Inside/Outside defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside/outside

Lately we (PDA) have been getting a lot of email from the peace movement folks to denounce the Democratic Party and to begin work forming a third party. Well, to that extent I ask why form a third when we are still trying to build a second.

There are the Nader/Camejo/Zeese folks who feel that progressives need to fight as independents against the "two party system." Personally I feel it is a major distraction.

Case in point: Kevin Zeese in Maryland running as an Independent Senate candidate.

Why? When we have a perfectly qualified progressive pro-peace African-American running that has nearly identical platform as Zeese (Kwanse Mfume.) He is a former congress member and former President of the NAACP. To me that is cred enought for the progressive community. And it is within the Democratic Party. We need to support and build momentum behind such candidates versus divide the base and work against such candidates from Zeese's candidacy. What could be accomplished by Zeese's candidacy? What is there to gain? How does he measure success?

I recently posted this open letter from a peace-movement person: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=297x190

It paints the argument for PDA to leave the Dem party. To which my personal response is. I am here to stay. We are gaining much ground within the party. I am a Progressive DEMOCRAT. Always have been, always will be.

We still hold true to our progressive values and challege incumbant Democrats who we disagree with such as Jane Harmond who prides herself on being "The best Republican the Democratic Party has to offer." With folks like Marcy Winograd who is 100% in sync with PDA. This is a safe blue district and no need for a republican-lite Dem. We need to pick up a progressive seat. PDA is the only group working to do that. How is this"unproductive" in regards to the peace movement?

What are YOUR thoughts?

[stellanoir]

1. Though I appreciate greatly

what you are saying in terms of the fundamental desirable attributes of the Democratic principles, I think you've got to step back and see what's so troubling to John and Jane Q public. . .the ones of both parties who are paying the slightest attention that is.

The Democrats have caved on issue after issue after issue because they've essentially been systematically stripped of all of their power and are at least partially beholden to the will of the corporate powers that be, instead of their lowly constituents.

People are enormously frustrated with the status quo.

We live in what is a land of tremendous diversity that was once known as "the land of the lively discussion." It has now digressed to only two points of view which are hardly representative of the will of a measurable majority. That coupled with election fraud, has resulted in the disenfranchisement of all too many.

The problem of a two party system used to be gridlock but at least then there was room for compromise. That is no more.

Now with single party control of the three branches of government, the media, and the voting technology, our democracy is no longer recognizable as such.

The problem of a two party system is dualism, plain and simple.

If the Democratic Party wants to regain any traction whatsoever they'd better stop listening to their consultants who are all too often splitting hairs over relatively inane and inconsequential daily talking points (i.e gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, abortion, etc. and ad nauseum) pandering to the so called imagined "center." 'Scuse me but this is all bull compared to the suspension of our very Constitutional rights. That is the cornerstone of our very nation.

They could perhaps start addressing the primary problem through which our American dream has been eroded into this American nightmare. That would be three questionably compromised concurrent national elections and massive election fraud.

Silly me. Though I feel that a 12 party system would ideal and far more representative of our population but OTOH I certainly see and empathize with why folks are seeking a third alternate approach to our current seemingly intractable non functional and pathetic non progressive diviseness.

Far beyond that, there is more that unites most of us in terms of basic human kindness and decency. Yet we live in a culture that is infused with and overtly rewards greed and selfishness. We are kidding ourselves to think otherwise.

I've been writing incessantly for well over 6 months about the possibility of formation of a (purple:red + blue = purple) party that is determined to restore our Constitution, civil rights, peace and global reputation. Amazingly I've garnered droves of heartwarming response.

Until I hear more Democrats speaking of these things as well as election fraud, I will continue to relentlessly do so.

[DinahMoeHum]

2. Advice from Doris "Granny D" Haddock. . .

http://www.grannyd.com/speeches.php?id=14&action=list


(snip)
"Our victory strategy must be simple but thorough.

One. We must hold the left together, friend Ralph, and connect with the middle.

Two. We must split the right: driving a wedge between the neo-conservative radicals and the traditional conservatives -- who are our friends on many issues, including civil liberties and elder programs. We must do this door-to-door.

Three. We must widen our circle on the left and do so in many languages, connecting with all the people and groups who are being seriously damaged by the Bush social agenda, helping them connect the dots, helping them register, and helping them get to the polls, especially in the swing states, which are many.

Four. We have a very narrow media window, because so many networks and newspapers are now controlled by the neo-conservatives or by hapless corporate types who are missing all the big stories. So we must have a narrow message to fit this narrow window. We must replace the missing media with door-to-door work, and must recruit respected American voices of authority -- the Oprah Winfrey's and the Walter Cronkite's -- to join us in projecting our messages, such as the erosion of personal freedoms under Bush and the danger to our Social Security system and health programs.
(snip)
There are many among us who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue. Politics is about winning. For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about you and your precious political standards. It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way. When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely."
(snip)

:smoke:

IOW, IMO, too many on the antiwar-left adopt what I call the "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" Syndrome, going through the candidates stands on issues, their personalities, their bios, etc. with a fine tooth comb, and writing them off if they don't match up "perfectly". Frankly, this "perfect" is the enemy of the "good enough". If these "perfectionists" don't like it, well, fuck 'em; let's concentrate on getting the "independents" and "traditional conservatives" and the "center" to our side.

:kick: