The Left Has Lost Its Way, Chris Hedges

[Echo In Light]

The Left Has Lost Its Way
By Chris Hedges

This column was originally published by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The failure of the American left is a failure of nerve. It has been neutralized and rendered ineffectual as a political force because of its refusal to hold fast on core issues, from universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans, to the steadfast protection of workers’ rights, to an immediate withdrawal from the failed occupation of Iraq to a fight against a militarized economy that is hollowing the country out from the inside.

Let the politicians compromise. This is their job. It is not ours. If the left wants to regain influence in the nation’s political life, it must be willing to walk away from the Democratic Party, even if Barack Obama is the nominee, and back progressive, third-party candidates until the Democrats feel enough heat to adopt our agenda. We must be willing to say no. If not, we become slaves.

Political and social change, as the radical Christian right and the array of corporate-funded neocon think tanks have demonstrated, are created by the building of movements. This is a lesson American progressives have forgotten. The object of a movement is not to achieve political power at any price. It is to create pressure and mobilize citizens around core issues of justice. It is to force politicians and parties to respond to our demands. It is about rewarding, through support and votes, those who champion progressive ideals and punishing those who refuse. And the current Democratic Party, as any worker in a former manufacturing town in Pennsylvania can tell you, has betrayed us.

“The mistake of the former left-wingers, from Tom Hayden to Todd Gitlin, is that they want to be players in the Democratic Party and academia,” said John R. MacArthur, the publisher of Harper’s magazine, speaking of two prominent 1960s activists. “This is not what the left is supposed to be. The left is supposed to be outside the system. The attempt by the left to take control of the Democratic Party failed with McCarthy and George McGovern. The left, at that point, should have gone back to organizing, street protests, building labor unions, and the mobilization of grassroots activists. Instead, it went for respectability.”

The rise of a corporate state, and by that I mean a state that no longer works on behalf of its citizens but the corporations, is as much a part of the Democratic agenda as the Republican agenda. Sure, every four years Democratic candidates pay lip service to the old values of the party, but then they head off to Washington and do things such as ram NAFTA down our throats, throw 10 million people off welfare, and peddle health-care proposals acceptable to the HMOs, huge pharmaceutical giants, and for-profit health-care providers who are, after all, the very sources of our health-care crisis. What we as citizens need and work for in a corporate state is irrelevant.

Continued:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080421_the_left_has_lost_its_way/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[mdmc]

2. we had a way?

:shrug:

[eridani]

3. The left did that in 1972

Hey, how did that work out for us? :sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Politics is a means. Not an end.

And, has been shown by our successive governments, both Democrat and Republican, not a very good means.

[Hydra]

5. This is what I've been saying

We "compromise" and our enemies get everything they want. We have to take a hard line and stick to our values...which actually WORK, unlike the "compromises" we are asked to accept.

"Free market"- dismal failure except for the 1%ers
Tax cuts for the rich- Ya, that worked well, didn't it?
HMO Healthcare and for profit insurance- The gift that keeps on giving
Big oil- Don't get me started
Offshoring- If it works for Haliburton...speaking of which:
Pre-emptive war- That's illegal in the civilized world, I do believe
"Contractors"- Don't we have our own army for that?
Breaking the wall between church and state- "Praise Jesus and launch the nukes!"

I could keep going. Basically, none of their s*** works...but they get to call us loonies? We have a lot of work to do.

[malaise]

18. Bingo n/t

[Individualist]

6. K&R

[El Pinko]

7. What left? There is no American left. Just a right and a center.

There hasn't been a real left since the 60s, or maybe even the 30s.

[Hydra]

8. Not with a voice

But we're here. Continually shouted down by "good democrats," but still here.

[Winterblues]

9. "Organize, Educate, Agitate" ... let that be our "war cry"

Why is this so hard to understand????

[Mountainman]

10. If the left backs third party candidates there won't be a left anymore.

If we split the left vote the right wins period end of story. You have to work withing the Democratic party to change it.

[LWolf]

46. Sure there would be.

The Democratic Party would just have to actually work to earn those votes.

Either that, or we could do away with the current 2 party system.

[Truth2Tell]

11. And the current Democratic Party...

...has betrayed us.

But we own it. We can take it back.

We can play within AND without the Party at the same time. Reward some, oppose some. Participation and non-participation are not mutually exclusive. Ironically.

Oh, Recommended also. :)

[iamthebandfanman]

63. i agree

i dont think the party is lost...

although i think once again the left is being shelved in the election process. weve never been catered to like the republican do the right and their base.

i just wish people like ralph nader would try a different approach that wasnt so self defeating when it comes to getting liberal ideals out there. you know, to work from within and help the party change instead of always trying to oppose it and talk badly of it.

[eridani]

64. Yes. The good ol' inside/outside strategy

PDA and DFA approve.

[Ohio Joe]

12. I can't right now

It sounds real good in concept but I cannot do it for this election, no way. This election is way to important to let the Republicans win just to show our politicians they are not left enough.

No way, no how, not this election.

[Indenturedebtor]

13. Change starts with a conversation

Convince everyone you can of the necessity of leftist policies, and the evils of RW bullshit. Do it respectfully and methodically. Our voices are drowned out in the din of Corporate Media bullshit.

[electropop]

14. I'm struggling with this every day: vote Dem for survival or Nader on principle.

Flame away!

[Ohio Joe]

15. I have no struggle at all

Supreme Court Justices. We cannot let this election get away from us.

[leftchick]

50. sadly

Hillary would nominate a pro-business, anti-anyones' rights justice as easily as mccain.

[lonestarnot]

16. LOL. That Nader vote will sure help things.

:rofl:

[Orsino]

17. This is the triumph of the New Right.

America has been trained not to ask the tough questions anymore. We stare slack-jawed at the TV and nod our heads as the pundits feed us manufactured outrage, and vote against our interests time and time again.

Big Money owns us now, and we richly deserve our fates.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Hedges is absolutely correct...and offers no plan or blueprint to achieve his goals.

Sounds familiar...right, I did a lot of that myself.

K'.

1. 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad...14th Amendment rights given to corporations, blessing these faceless non-things with the same rights as you and I.

Hedges needs to explain how to undo that.

2. Buckley v. Valeo, 1976...campaign donations are ruled to be free speech, thus birthging the legalized wholesale bribery of everyone in government down to the guy who waters the grass. This isn't really any sort of controlling law nowadays, because a) there are nine others far worse and far harder to regulate; 2) even if there was a perfect campaign finance reform law passed today, 30 years of corporations using their 14th amendment rights to buy politicians by the long ton using big green expressions of free speech. The deal went down when Reagan still knew what an MX missile looked like.

Fix?

3. Truman Doctrine + 1947 "Permanent Wartime Economic Footing" bill that gave us the DoD and so much else, thanks to Kennan's long telegram from Moscow that basically used 8,000 well-crafted words to say "Stalin is fucking crazy and his army is huge." I'm too goddam tired to go back and nitpick Cold War decisions. The fact remains that containment, whatever merits it had back then, became it's own reason for being well before they laid Jack low for daring to upset the applecart (which is true even if you think Oswald did it, everyone with a grudge against JFK was dancing to the Cold War beat, it was basically the gravity that held it all together...and paid the bills, and kept citizens scared, which made them easy to manage, etc.)

So, Eisenhower tried to warn us and became Cassandra with General's stars, and the containment policy pushed 60 cents of every dollar into the coffers of defense companies, who became powerful enough to not just buy politicians with their 14th amendment and 1st amendment privileges, but became the revolving-door staffing firm for the Pentagon...work for Boeing/United Defense/GE/etc. while the other party has the Oval, become an assistant undersecretary to whatever if your guy wins, and spend all your energies making sure your once and future employers get a piece of as many contracts as can be found...go back to Boeing or whatever if your guy gets defeated or if you just want another Jag in the driveway...pass the torch to the next eager beaver. It's been this way for more than sixty years.

Now, the economy depends upon the preparation for and waging of wars...of course, push it too far and you wind up creating the current mess, expensive gas and food shortages and all that, but whatever. I'll bet every dollar I have now and will ever make in my life that the people who put this deal together, the Iraq alchemists specifically but the whole defense/war crew in general also, I'll bet with total confidence they wouldn't know hunger or deprivation or fiscal doom if all three stood on their shoulders and pissed in their ears.

So.

If someone decided by fiat to undo the laws behind the concept of corporate personhood today, it would pretty firmly shatter the entire global economy, cause mass starvation and worldwide chaos, and would do so before the sun came up tomorrow.

Besides, nobody's going to make it go away. We have to get a case before the supreme court to get it fixed. Which means we need to win elections to make sure there aren't any nutbag crazy people on the court. That means we have to do unsavory things like vote for shitass Democrats and congressional candidates who have the D but are pro-life or anti-environment or whatever fillth some of them drag with them...because that one shitbag congressmen means majority rule, which lays the groundworl for the next elections, and undoing GOP redistricting, and maybe we can get the judges we need.

#2 is a SCOTUS ISSUE, too. Look up.

#3. Heh. The beast of the bunch. Hold on tight, this is the short version.

There are maybe 5000 people in America who think Vietnam was fucking great, just a magical time, the best of days. Are they insane? Debatable, but far more important is the fact that they are the 5000 who profited each and every day of that 20-year war. That was the payday, the "fuck off" to Kennedy and his Peace Corps shit, the "fuck off" to Johnson's Great Society, it was two decades of looting the Treasury for every dime and dollar they could find. Thousands of helicopters shot down? Someone got paid when the government bought them. Sixty zillion bullets? Ditto. Grenades, planes, jeeps, uniforms, rifles, food, boats, bandages, plasma, morphine, REMF headquarters, radios, napalm, agent orange...all that shit cost money, and the defense boys were happy to cash the checks.

For twenty years. Imagine getting a paycheck every day for two decades. That's exactly 7,300 paychecks...and you don't make what these guys were making.

They took that money and bought congress, adopted a nitwit president with a talent for speech delivery, they made him think Star Wars was feasible, and...oh yeah, couldja deregulate all those rules about media ownership when you get a sec?

Cool. Trifecta. The former General Electric spokesman spent trillions building missiles to defend us against a threat that no longer existed, a little fact we didn't know at the time, spent trillions more building giant laser space frisbees that still make even the most dour astrophysicist at JPL giggle like a titmouse every time he hears the words...Can't even watch the movies anymore, because the title on the box is enough to get him going...

...and spent thirty seconds on the phone with Congressman Inthebag to get going on the deregulation of media ownership, courtesy of his man in the FCC...and then it was magic time.

The nation has been braced for war since 1941...and the cost of that rigid preparedness has begun to make itself known as neighborhoods rot and schools crumble and FDR's policies slowly fade away...

...and that isn't a sustainable situation, because Americans are generally good and moral and know enough to understand when they're getting fucked over...


...so we have to keep their eyes on the ball...we have to make sure they believe we are always on the edge of annihilation...

TV stations. Radio stations. Buy the news outlets, and buy the news. By the time Bill Clinton got to DC, the deal had gone down. He might as well have jumped into a shark tank with a pork chop tied around his neck.

The long version is more than I can deal with, but trust me: it sucks about forty billion times more than this stuff.

Thus...I agree with Hedges entirely, and have no interest in posturing and polemics. I did that shit for a log time, because it is important, because people need to know the score, because preaching to the goddam choir is the only way to get the goddam choir to sing.

But polemics won't settle up with corporate personhood and what it means down to the very DNA of the country.

Won't settle up with hand-dog congresspeople bought off by the above invisible personages who have rights like I do.

And won't untangle war from the foundations of the economy, won't de-zombify three generations of fear-hammered obedience from the citizens we need to win the argument.

Won't let the seven monolothic TV news outlets stop being owned by corporations that turn a galactic profit by making us stupid and afraid, which lets them do things like profiteer for five years in Iraq (see: Vietnam, the other payday), so they make us stupid and afraid by way of TV, which everyone watches, and hats over the windmill boys, someone's getting rich today!

Buying out the media was the masterstroke.

So yeah, I dig Hedges, and have probably written five dozen essays like this one, and it won't fix a damned thing.

We gotta dig in, and win slow, and prepare for the fact that most of us won't live long enough to see any of this fixed to any significant degree.

I don't expect to, even if I live to be 123.

Don't care. I don't matter. The rule of law and the idea that is America deserve nothing less. If I can do something, I will do it, and there it is. If that's a failure of nerve, I don't want to know what nerve is. Adlai Stevenson described partriotism as not some flailing energized shouting hysterical noise, not rhetoric and short-term goals, but instead as "the long, steady, patient dedication of a lifetime."

Good words...cuz that's how long it will take. For openers.

Lion in Winter. Good movie. Richard and the boys are about to be executed. Richard tells the others to stand up with pride and dignity when the axe falls.

One of his boys says, you fool, what does it matter how a man falls down.

"When the fall is all that's left," Richard replied, "it matters a great deal."

[Truth2Tell]

39. Can't speak for Hedges

but here's a swat at those items...

1. First step toward undoing Santa Clara would be a lifting of the apparent moratorium on discussion of the issue by leaders of our own Party. As long as the only public voices on the issue are the likes of Dennis K, Ron P and Will Pitt we will be hard pressed to move toward any change. And I'm pretty sure that more "shitass" corporate Dems aren't going to help much with that one. Nor do shitass type Dems seem to provide much protection from the delivery of nutbag crazy people to the Court.

And please, expand on your assertion that undoing corporate personhood by fiat would "firmly shatter the entire global economy, cause mass starvation and worldwide chaos..." That seems to contradict your own strategery above about how to achieve exactly that. Confused I am.

2. On Buckley: Public financing. It has proven to be surprisingly effective in a number of states and foreign countries, without any limiting of political speech.

and 3. Untangling war-making from the foundations of the economy and all that entails in relation to business, Congress, media and fear-hemmed public zombiedom. Yep, that's the big one and as usual you sum it up as eloquently as anyone. And you're likely correct that we have to dig in and win slow. But the crux of that is the "win" part. If voting for shitass Dems doesn't move the ball forward, then we're not winning slowly with our votes, just conceding slowing. I agree that polemics alone will not do the trick - but a discerning progressive strategy that weeds pro-corporate, pro-military-machine, pro-American-suicide Dems from the herd is imperative.

The shitasses will not save us Will. Only the truth.

[WilliamPitt]

41. Well said. But there is another truth to deal with...

Shit's gonna take a long time, a lot of patience, and a lot of squatting with the turds to get it done. As for truth, I agree...but that and a dollar won't get you coffee at starbucks. Truth is Cheney isn't part of the executive, subpoenas are for other people, they found the wmd, nobody could have anticipated, Pentagon "experts" wouldn't lie on TV, congress caused the recession, it's about freedom, the wiretaps were legal, snowy egrets love kerosene byproduct, ANWR will solve everything, the media is not to blame for letting Bush lie us into war, Plame wasn't covert, the Cheney energy meetings were totally above-board, Islamofascism is the enemy, all Muslims want to kill me, taxes are bad, universal health care is communism on a band-aid, vetoing funds for researching MS cures is morally correct, infinitesimal dots in a beaker are snowflake babies who are more valuable than fifty million diabetics and anyone with bone cancer...and that's off the top of my head.

You're right, and the biggest victory will be when we gain back the definition for truth, and the means to set that definition in stone, just truth, period.

Cheers. See you in the geriatric ward. ;)

[Truth2Tell]

43. In which case

rants like yours and Hodges' DO indeed help in tiny ways to redefine that truth. Baby step polemics. All the way to the geriatric ward... or the funny farm. cheers. :)

[WilliamPitt]

49. "Baby step polemics"

The soundtrack to the last 2,500 days of my life. Give or take.

:toast:

:hug:

:toast: again.

Each one teach one.

[LSK]

20. Thom Hartmann says we should take over the Democratic Party

He challenges people to attend local party meetings and take over at the grassroots level. That has been happening.

When you abandon the Democratic party, all thats left is the GOP and they will destroy everything else that is worth having by the time you get a 3rd party any power.

[WilliamPitt]

21. November 19, 2001

That's when I said the same exact thing:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1119-08.htm

Eight. Years. Ago.

Now what?

[LSK]

23. you keep saying it, because people like Chris Hedges are saying to leave it

And people will keep leaving it and voting Nader and allowing people like Bush to lead us. Because for some its easier to vote Green party then to hold your nose and vote Dem when the perfect candidate does not come out of the Dem party.

The very people who are leaving the party are the ones who should be leading the party or fighting to take control of it.

The reality is that no 3rd party will be viable for many many years. We are stuck with 2 choices.

I choose not to live in some fantasyland where Dennis Kucinich can win the Presidency and populate Congress in mass, so I will live in the real world and support good Dems in the primaries and then hold my nose and vote D in the General.

Finally, what is harder? Starting a new party from scratch or taking over one that already exists?

[WilliamPitt]

24. I'll tell you exactly when I will join the Green Party.

When the come to Massachusetts and play to win.

When they think long-term.

When they play the game smart enough to keep from getting played...and if they do it right, they get to be players themselves.

Reader's Digest Version Of My Plan To Make The Green Party Relevant, If Not Ascendant, While Simultaneously Making Sure Ralph Nader Goes Away With His Dignity Intact And With The Honor He Earned...For Good.

1. Any Green party official, party member, volunteer, and/or whoever might just be wearing something green that day, if heard to say anything remotely like "Let's run for president again," shall be immediately strapped to the nearest table and flogged with wet organic noodles until whoever is doing the flogging gets bored and stops...and boo hoo if they were merely wearing green pants, this is serious, so there.

(kidding)

2. Move the entire goddam apparatus of the party to Massachusetts.

3. Avail themselves of our nifty campaign finance system which makes it WAY easier to run with something approximating a campaign warchest. Jill Stein ran for governor as a Green a few years back, got outspent by Mitt, but man she was awesome. And she's still here.

4. Spend the next ten years running for and winning offices all over MA.

5. When the time is ripe, run a candidate for president...BUT FOCUS EVERYTHING ON MASSACHUSETTS ONLY.

6. (a little luck will be needed here) Win Massachusetts in the general election, and take posession of 12 Electoral College votes.

...here's where the luck comes in...

7. Watch as the the two bigwig party candidates deadlock short of 270, understand that your 12 will make the nut...

8. MAKE YOUR LIST OF DEMANDS, SIGNED IN BLOOD, WHICH MUST BE AGREED TO IF THE 12 VOTES ARE GOING ANYWHERE BESIDES YOUR HIP POCKET.

List the reforms...starting with runoff voting that lets third parties come in and play. Imagine a few others.

Until they do this, or something like it, I'm not interested.

Politics isn't a venue for your personal convictions, it isn't where you show your righeousness.

Politics is where you win or die...or actually, win or others die.

Win first.

:toast:

[DinahMoeHum]

45. As it is, right now, the GREEN Party ain't nothin' but an acronym. . .

Getting Republicans Elected Every November.

:evilfrown:


In addition to your proposals for reversing certain legal decisions, some other bad shit has to happen to the bad guys - and unfortunately it is not fit to be mentioned here.

:evilfrown:

[WilliamPitt]

57. How's this for subversive

YUSUFALI: Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.

PICKTHAL: And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.

SHAKIR: And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.

- Sura 8:30, The Koran

[DinahMoeHum]

74. Heh heh

:thumbsup:

[eridani]

65. When they decide that they need precinct committee officers

When they decide to talk to their neighbors instead of each other.

[Two Americas]

25. which is harder?

"Finally, what is harder? Starting a new party from scratch or taking over one that already exists?"

Starting from scratch would be far easier, and far more likely to succeed and much faster.

Taking over the one that already exists is probably impossible, especially the way people imagine doing that.

People's insistence on working within the system is the main thing that keeps the system propped up, and it is the system that is the problem.

[LSK]

28. if it was so easy, why hasnt it happened yet?

How many seats in Congress are 3rd party?

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

30. Good question

I don't know aside from Bernie Sanders. Is Jeffords still serving or did he flee DC after 2002? I'm pretty sure I remember him leaving.

[LSK]

32. Sanders is a caucas of one right now

So he is caucasing with the Dems. If you counted Joementum as Independent, there is no way he would caucas with Sanders.

John Sununu took Jeffords seat I think.

Not sure about the House Independent members but its not a significant number.

[Two Americas]

33. fear

Fear, cowardice, confusion. We say "it is impossible" or set it up in our minds in a way that makes it very difficult - "it will take decades" - before any serious consideration or discussion happens. We say that so that no serious consideration or discussion can happen. Watch what happens on this thread - people will pound it into the ground so that it cannot be discussed, by spreading fear and doubt and confusion.

Voting, and elections and seats are all effects, not causes. We short-circuit that process by the way we talk about it by reversing cause and effect.

Even by saying "third party" we are handicapping ourselves. "Third parties never work." That is true. Why? Because when a third party works we don't call it a third party, we call it a new party. And sometimes, the new party forms out of the ashes of a collapsed party and retains the name of one of the existing parties. But the name and the thing are not the same, are they? We say "but it hardly ever happens, and when it did that was a long time ago." That is true. About once every 80 years the time is right. We are now at that point in the cycle.

[WilliamPitt]

29. The country is hard-wired for a two-party system.

My dad has worked pretty much every presidential campaign since RFK, often at pretty high levels, and I'm going to shame his wisdom by blowing this reply.

Several years back, roundabout when he saw that I was writing for a third-party website (DarkHorse2000.com, baby), and over the course of a long drive from Montgomery to Decatur, he explained in detail all the ways this system isn't just uncomfortable with third parties, but downright hostile.

I cannot remember the details, so you'll have to take this for what it's worth.

One thing I do remember: every county and ward and precinct needs a party member in charge of shit, in all 50 states. There aren't enough competent Green party officials available (and I say "competent" with respect, it's serious work I'd probably fail at). That's one.

230 years of two party dealings, back to Jefferson and Jackson and Adams, laid the wiring for the machine. Lincoln was a Whig, and then Whigs went down. Then he was a National Unity party member, said party lived for maybe 4 seconds after the race was called in 1864, and then he was a Republican again. TR was a Bull Moose, and lost. Ross Perot stands as the single most successful third party candidate in history, due to his decision to sustain his Fledgling Total Batshit Gibberish Stockton For VP Was Brilliant party with several dozen million dollars of his own money, which was earned back through his account interest in about three minutes flat.

I'm not doing my father's lesson any justice, but he's amazingly smart and wildly experienced, overwhelmingly well-read and not so averse to the idea of third parties that he'd have bullshitted me.

So. Curtain #2.

[Two Americas]

35. the country was once "hard-wired" for many things

The country was once "hard-wired" for many things, including slavery.

The result of the political process has always been that we wind up with two parties. But that is a very small part of the entire political drama, and it is an effect, not a cause. The reason that we always wind up with two parties is because there are in fact always and inevitably two sets of interests at war with one another - the wealthy and powerful, and the working people. Over time, both parties become corrupted by the wealthy and powerful, and when that happens revolutions occur. These revolutions sometimes take the form of an overhaul of an existing party, or the forming of a new party that retains the name of one of the existing parties, or a completely new party with a new name.

Once the opposition party, the party that had been responsive to the needs of the everyday people at one time, that had fought back against the people with entrenched power and wealth in the past, becomes a weak and ineffective force - and that is so clearly true today if it ever was - the time is right for a drastic overhaul. This cannot be done "within the system" or by "taking back the party" because you cannot reform a rigged game by playing the game.

We should not excuse our lack of imagination and courage and clarity by saying that "this is the way things are."

[Inside Scoop]

34. This makes more sense

From my point of view, people like Ralph Nader have done nothing but siphon off a few thousand swing votes from the Democrats. It doesn't help that he took money from rightwingers clearly using him as a stalking horse.

I wrote this back in February:

You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to know that Ralph Nader is the best hope that McCain has for winning the election

I don't know whether this megalomaniac, funded almost entirely now by the Republican Party, actually supports George Bush or just likes to see his name in the press. I do know he's the Republican Party's greatest ally. Maybe he's funded by COINTELPRO?

It's one thing to believe in transferring wealth from the poor and middle class to the superrich, creating a theocracy in America, supporting the deaths of millions in an endless war against a country that never attacked us, destroying the environment, creating a massive debt giving our country away to China and Saudi Arabia, licking the boots of oil company CEOs, and taking away the civil rights of gay people and Black people and Latinos. If you do, then you're a Conservative. I don't like it, but at least you know what you stand for.

But to claim to be a "progressive" and then devote your entire life to pleasing Karl Rove and Dick Cheney is disgusting....truly disgusting.

I dislike George W. Bush's policies. I loathe Ralph Nader.
http://radioinsidescoop.com/mt-posts-archive/000935.html

[Better Believe It]

37. Hillary Is The Best Hope That McCain Has For Beating Obama In 2008

"Ralph Nader is the best hope that McCain has for winning the election"

I don't think so.

And Gore's selection of Joseph Leiberman sure didn't help in 2000!

If Gore and the Democratic party had campaigned effectively in 2000 he would have easily won the election.

But, it's a lot easier to scapegoat Ralph Nader and his supporters like Michael Moore.

[Inside Scoop]

44. There are lots of factors....

...of course. But this doesn't help much does it:

The move intensifies the war between Republicans and Democrats over Mr Nader's candidacy, a conflict fuelled by the maverick's willingness to accept funds and help from some of George Bush's most ardent supporters.

Republicans are eager to see Mr Nader do well - not because of his stand on the environment or Iraq - but in the hope that he will tip the balance towards Mr Bush in the race against John Kerry, the Democratic challenger. But the Democrats have stood their ground, with activists harrying Mr Nader's effort to get on the ballot in several states.

In the Pennsylvania lawsuits Democrats accused the Nader campaign of falsifying thousands of names on petitions endorsing his candidacy in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas. His campaign was also accused of failing to pay the contractors who organised the petition and who allegedly paid homeless people a dollar for each signature.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/10/uselections2004.usa

This isn't news, of course, but what angers me is that Nader is a fraud...he's convincing people to vote for him under false pretenses. He may not have the impact he had in 2000, but it still wastes the time and energy of Dem. activists. And ask yourself, why would this be true:

However, among Mr Nader's new supporters this election is the billionaire Richard Egan, who was appointed ambassador to Ireland after raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Bush. Campaign monitors say other big Republican donors have contributed as well. In Oregon, also poised for a tight contest, two conservative groups admitted telephoning supporters to help put Mr Nader on the ticket.

if Mr. Egan and those like him didn't think it would provide an advantage?

More on Egan:

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=98

[Better Believe It]

48. It Was Hard To Tell Who The Democratic Party Was Opposing

for President in 2004. Was it Nader or Bush?

If the Democratic Party had spent as much money and used the same resources to win the Presidential election in 2004 that they had used to prevent people from voting for Nader they might have won the election! Besides using corporate lawyers did the Kerry campaign use corporate donations to throw Camejo and Nader off election ballots and to set up front-group websites to engage in a relentness and massive swift-boat type smear campaign against Peter Camjeo and Ralph Nader? We do know that Republican party attorneys were used to keep Nader off the ballot in several states.

There is a whole lot more in the way of actual facts that you probably are not aware of. This is really a subject matter for an entire new string.

Do you really think that Peter Camejo, one of the most respective radical leaders in California and the nation, was a tool of the Republican Party? I assume you know who Camejo is and know something about his political credentials .... perhaps you don't.

I don't know anyone who is politically serious, and not just engaging in mud-slinging, that believes such nonsense unless you think everything is a conspiracy.

Did the Republicans constantly whine about Ross Perot enabling for Clinton's election in 1992 and 1996?

Not that I'm aware of. People can vote for whoever they want be they Democrat, Republican, Green, socialist, independent, Libertarian or whatever. No one is entitled to votes. You have to earn them. The only person who "stole" the election in 2000 was George W. Bush with help from the Supreme Court. Gore won! So don't let Bush and the Supreme Court off the hook by blaming Nader.

Thousands of registered Democrats in Florida did vote for Nader. But 250,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for George W. Bush! Now whose fault is that?

[Inside Scoop]

60. They had to oppose both

That's the point. Wasted time and resources.

I don't know what you expect me to say about Camejo. He is a millionaire businessman who endorsed the Gray Davis recall helping to pave the way for Arnold. And he and Nader accepted the Reform Party spot on the 2004 ticket. If you have any idea who the Reform Party is and was at that time, you'd have to change your characterization of Camejo. Hint: Pat Buchanan.

I'd be interested in this other information you say I'm not aware of as well as which states had Republican attorneys keeping Nader off the ballot. This was, I assume, because they worried he'd siphon off Republican votes?

Meanwhile, I'd also be interested to hear why you think Egan was funding Nader, if not for his potential as spoiler. I have been a lurker a long time but only now started posting, so I can't start a new topic, I think, but if you do, I will join in the discussion.

[alarimer]

22. So true.

No Democratic (Kucinich and Feingold excepted) is willing to run to the left. All the mainstream candidates run as hard to the right as they can. With all the war hawk talk they all sound pretty much alike. I would like to see one of them espouse true liberal positions. If you ask the right questions, most of this country hold "liberal" opinions on civil rights, health care, abortion, and the environment. But no Democrat has the guts to talk like that. They are too busy pandering the warlike and religiously insane.

[riverdeep]

26. If the left is 'supposed' to be outside the system,

then expect to have absolutely no power to actually get things done. Sure, hurling expletives at the passing limos in some demonstration might feel good, but the media doesn't cover it, so it didn't happen. All that happened is a few more protesters wound up on watch lists.

In the recent elections, about half the nation voted for our side. To give up and go with a third party is insane. It sucks that Pelosi and others sold us out, but that can be rectified at election time.

[Two Americas]

31. not true

All social change has happened because people had the courage to do exactly what you are telling us not to do. The Abolition movement, the fight for the vote for women, the Civil Rights movement, the labor movement.

We look at this backward. We start with our personal choices and preferences, then decide how to vote based on that from among those choices presented to us, then hope that will somehow change the party, then hope that will lead to a social movement, then hope that will lead to social change.

Were we to commit with determination and courage first to the desperately needed - and already broadly supported - social change, then build a movement based on that, that will force the parties to change, we will have better leaders, and we will have vastly more options and choices open up for us personally.

If we could get five - five people - committed to this, that could quickly become 50 million, and in 6-12 months the political conditions could be radically altered and transformed. But we cannot get five - we cannot get any five people to stand together on this. Why is that? Because we are "wounded in the house of our friends" - because, as FDR said, "the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them." It is a battle of words - politics always is - and when we say "it is impossible" that is what makes it impossible.

People say that this sort of social change, or success of a third party, are impossible. Saying that to a large extent is what makes it true. And it is rare - the circumstances only come around about every 80 years that are conducive to this because it takes a couple of generations to play out again: the 1770's, 1850's, 1930's, and again now.

Everything needed is now in place, other than our courage and our clarity of vision.

"But we are only a few, and were we not rejected when McGovern lost or when Kucinich was rejected?" No. Politics is always driven by small factions, each of which is competing for the public attention. Were we not trapped in the "working within the system" and "changing the party from within" shackles on our thinking, we could compete with and beat the other political factions.

[riverdeep]

38. The Libertarians have more of a third party hold than any left party.

And what they want is, in some ways, diametrically opposed to the left. They've got local and national candidates, and Ron Paul was as close as they came to a mainstream candidate, even though he wasn't officially a Libertarian.

Hey, I'm all for third parties, whether I agree with them or not. However, the game is rigged by the two parties. We need to get rid of the electoral college as well as go to a run-off system of elections. That's not going to happen by directing forces outside of the two party system.

Political change, especially social change, does indeed happen outside the party system. One definition of a smart politician is someone who sees a crowd going somewhere and says 'wait for me, I'm your leader!. But eventually all those movements had to take pragmatic actions in the existing political realm.

Also, and I'm not saying you are, but I seriously hope you're not suggesting backing one Ralph Nader as a solution.

[Two Americas]

42. the question answers itself

You are setting up the questions so that they have pre-determined and unavoidable answers. That is a trap. Calling a new movement a "third party" dictates a certain conclusion. By definition, anything called a "third party" will lose elections, or it would not still be called a "third party." The assumption that winning elections is the ultimate and only political action is flawed, as well. We don't call Jefferson's party a third party, nor Jackson's, nor the Republican party of Seward, Chase and Lincoln, nor the Democratic party of FDR, nor the Republican party of Reagan. All were political revolutions, whether they kept the name of an existing party or not. They are rare, and the conditions need to be right. The conditions are now right, if ever they were, and the time has come.

Politics is not about waiting for the right personal choice to come along. It is about changing the choices for all of us.

[Two Americas]

27. time for a fresh start

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends - those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work - who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now? - now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

Lincoln
"House Divided" speech
Springfield, Illinois
June 16, 1858

[Better Believe It]

36. So What's The Timetable For Progressives Taking Over Democratic Party?

Some pretty good people I know have been working at it since the 50's and 60's.

They are more discouraged and frustrated than ever!

And they seem to be farther from their goal of taking over the Democratic Party than ever!

So are we talking about perhaps another 20, 30 or 40 years?

We don't have that much time.

And I'd like to read a clear strategy on how we can drive the corporate interests out of the Democratic Party and turn the Democratic Party into a political party that does not claim to represent all of the people? How is that to be done. And how will new efforts be different from old methods which haven't accomplished that goal?

I'd like to see progressives who are involved in trying to transform the Democratic Party into a progressive and democratic organization be successful. But, so far they haven't shown me very much for their enormous efforts.

The government keeps moving to the right and has been for decades now!

Could we use a new non-corporate financed and controlled major political party.

Sure.

I bet most of us would support it.

But how could such a new political party that mainly represents working folks be organized?

[Two Americas]

40. 35 years and counting

It is never going to happen. We are farther away from it now then we were when we started.

I am talking 6 months with a fresh start. So much to gain, so little to lose.

[Canuckistanian]

47. Oh, yeah, the "New Atheists are as dangerous as the Fundies" guy

Yeah, some great insights there along with the same old tired rhetoric of the Right.

The "Left" isn't a "movement" with single goals. It's a varied response to the single-mined lunacy of the lock-step Conservatives. The Left is just "the rest of us".

I refuse to let myself be defined in such a way.

[EFerrari]

56. I sort of enjoyed his BookTV presentation but in it

he was talking about "new atheists" and fundies, not the left and fundies. :shrug:

[Echo In Light]

66. Hedges considers himself an existential Christian...

...not unlike myself. I lend more credence to the varied tenets of Gnosticism and existential views {rebellion against the orthodox} than any organized religion per se, which I haven't any faith in. The point being, it's easy for some to misinterpret/mischaracterize some of his points.

[Canuckistanian]

76. But it's a classical straw man scenario

First, you invent the term "New Atheist" and then name the only two prominent members of that group (Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins) and then go on to denounce them as worse than fundies (even though you denounce the fundies as being "bad enough").

And I've heard this guy interviewed on CBC Radio. He was roundly condemned by the listener mail reaction.

[EFerrari]

77. Chris Hitchens is no lefty, that's for sure. n/t

[ShaneGR]

51. This is the same logic that gave us George W Bush for 8 years....

Circular firing squad. Simple as that. The author says that its better to tear down the Democratic Party and elect third party candidates. The problem is that this has historically led to the election of right wing Republicans. The last 40 years have had a Republican President for 28 years. Four Years of Carter. Eight years of Clinton. Nixon, Ford, Reagon, Bush 1, and Bush 2 for eight long years. Carter and Clinton for the Democrats. That's it. The best thing that ever happened to the Republican party is the far left liberal that refuses to look at reality. That's a fact.

[klyon]

78. what gave us 8 years of Bush is cheating, cheating, cheating

control of the voting machines,
until this changes it doesn't matter,
vote who you want,
it won't count
McBush will beat Hillary and on we go
war war war greed greed greed
death of democracy
death of a planet
death

[mike_c]

52. agreed, 100 percent....

eom

[specimenfred1984]

53. Go ahead and "walk away", nobody's stopping you

As long as people won't put repukes in jail for life the U.S. will remain a fascist state whether the other party(s) are dem, green, indy, whatever.

[bonito]

54. K&R!

[EFerrari]

55. WTF? Where has Hedges been since 1968?

lol

[Rex]

58. The Left was never about making money.

Never about forming political empires, but let us talk about what the main sharks at the top of the food chain are about - get to the real heart of the matter. Fat cat elites? Never was about helping people or building communities. Why even involve the 'Left' in this?

Really want a culprit? Try The Industrial Revolution - brought about the ability for individuals to have wealth beyond measure. To live like the ancient Roman aristocracy, except even better.

Political parties?

Those are for the working poor and those fortunate enough to be able to buy basics like food and shelter. Maybe have a few 'indulgences' - cable TV, DSL a jacuzzi, whatever.

The Left never lost anything, corporatism took root and now all we are to certain individuals is corn, waiting to be processed for the material value. Nothing more.

[jasmine621]

59. Kucinich for the new third party. We need a name for the new Party.

Any ideas? I said this a long time ago. Obama is really more of the same with more appeal.

[Rex]

61. Obama won't make it. It will be between Hillary and McCain.

[WilliamPitt]

62. Doomed.

Sorry. I'm feeling somewhat morbid tonight.

How about the "What Works" party. Fuck the paymasters and the power brokers, break all that shit over your knee, fix the system, and focus on WHAT WORKS to get things back together.

I've bounced that off Dem and GOP friends alike, and everyone digs it. The party emblem could be a shovel.

I want to be Chairman of the Committee to Make Sure We Don't Have to Sit Through Fucking Committee Meetings.

That works.

;)

[Perry Logan]

67. If we've lost the electorate, someone needs to tell the electorate.

The dude seems to have completely forgotten the elections of 2006, record primary numbers, etc. Heaven forbid anything should stand in the way of a liberal trying to bum himself out!

[Echo In Light]

68. Those results occurred irrespective to what he's addressing re the left

[Perry Logan]

69. He said we were "neutralized and rendered ineffectual as a political force"--and he was wrong.

[Echo In Light]

70. Then why do so many honestly believe in Name Brand corporatist candidates?

[Perry Logan]

71. That would be media brainwashing, it seems to me. Certainly not a "failure" on our part.

I hasten to say, I'm not disagreeing entirely with the author's point. I'm not saying the left hasn't failed in any way.

[Echo In Light]

75. Understood..but what happens when the M$M-afflicted don't realize their own condition?

Which, of course, is the point of brainwashing.

[robcon]

72. What Hedges skips is that there are too few people on the left.

The left won't have much influence unless it can determine elections. It can't. It's a small part of the electorate.

[usrbs]

73. Right on target except for the atheism bashing

A soul and a strong set of beliefs does not have to include belief in a deity.