The Liberal Majority and How To Win With It
One constant theme which needs dealing with is the idea that the country is more conservative than liberal and that centrists are needed to hold off horrible conservative things from happening.
More than that, this is an argument for oligarchy. What I see is that the majority of people, in poll after poll, want single payer. A huge majority want the public option, yet odds are decent you won't even get that.
When people talk of left-center coalitions the center part include a large number of Senators (like Diane Feinstein) who won't do what the majority of their constituents want them to do. At this point centrist = captured by monied interests.
Odds are if Obama wanted single payer, the House could pass it. It'd be close, but they could get it done. The House is the more representative body of the two bodies, the Senate is deliberately retrograde.
When I look at the US what I see is a banana republic, because it doesn't act like a democracy. I see people who think that the Senate, or even the House, actually does what the American people want. Again and again, Congress does things that the majority disagree with. In 2006 the Dems were elected to end the war in Iraq, for example, and refused to do so (though again, the House at least went through the motion, the Senate didn't even make an effort). Oh, Congress will sometimes do what the majority want—when that's what it was going to do anyway.
The plan to fix this is simple enough and always has been.
Obama was a right wing democrat and this was clear early. This was clear even in the primaries and certainly into the election. Once he was chosen as the nominee the best idea was to not to work for him or give him money, because he could win or lose without netroots or progressive support (it was a drop in the bucket compared to what he was getting elsewhere and was not decisive for him), and to instead take that time and money and spend it on electing progressive members of Congress, where that amount of money and volunteers could be decisive.
People who hold progressive and liberal policy views are a much larger proportion of the population than the right wing crazies are, they are in fact a majority of the population, though you'd never know it from listening to the gnashing of teeth of some folks.
If the right wing crazies could capture the Republican party, liberals and progressives, who already make up the largest block in the House, and who massively outnumber Blue Dogs, can certainly do the same to the Democratic party.
If, of course, they stop telling themselves self-excusing lies about how the country doesn't agree with them on basic issues like healthcare, when, in fact, the country does. Americans may not call themselves liberals, but when you look at their actual policy positions they are more liberal on most (not all, but most) issues than they are conservative. That's a gap in self-perception it should be possible to jump.
It takes real work for the centrists and right wing to keep Liberals and Progressives down. Notice that almost all of Obama's whipping is towards the left, towards progressives, not to the right. The right wing of the Democratic party is more or less doing what he wants (forget the rhetoric, again, look at who he and Rahm whip), it's the left wing he's scared of, because if they got their act together they could stop him from passing anything. The Blue Dogs in the House do not currently have a veto, the Progressives, if they want to use it, do. And that's why they get the back side of Obama and Rahm's hand so often.
The left is the most dangerous force in American politics today. The entire resources of the lobbying industry and of centrist Democratic interests are required to keep it in check, not just during legislative season, but during elections, when the DCCC and the DSCC do their very best to make sure that progressives don't win primaries, and when they do, that they're starved of resources.
So time to spine up. If you're a left wing Democrat, you belong to the scariest force in American politics. The crazy right will have some good cycles yet to come, mainly due to Democratic establishment incompetence and preference for mushy middle candidates but demographics are against them. Don't write Republicans off yet, but they are failing. You—the left—is the rising force, and everyone in the center and the right, is doing everything they can to keep you down.
Don't let them, and don't believe lies about how you're some tiny minority whom the American people don't agree with.
Two liberals are like two Scotsmen debating, there are at least 3 points of view.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
thats when they are sober .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
Which happens only as often as they feel warm feelings for the English, and not because of their Scotch.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Liberals and progressives can stop buying products from these conservative funders of conservative Democrats.
Boycott Tyson Foods of Arkansas who gave Mike Ross D- Arkansas money for his campaigns. Call lobbyist for Tyson Foods Chuck Penry 202 393 3921 and tell him politely that you refuse to buy Tyson chicken until Mike Ross D-Arkansas the leader of the Blue Dogs on health care gets the entire house and senate conservative Democrats to help get HR 676 enacted into law. Tell others to call.
Boycott American Express who gave Max Baucus $50,000 for his campaigns. Call Joanna Lambert at 212 640 9668 and politely tell her you will not use any American Express cards until Max Baucus gets HR 676 enacted into law.
Would you like to?
they keep trying to walk around in each others shoes.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
hell yes its all part of the walk a mile in someelses shoes , and your a mile away from them and you have their shoes .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
The last time I walked in someones shoes I decided I liked them better than mine and just kept going.
Last time I walked in somebody's shoes I fell over
Dang stiletto heels.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
no joke ( ok it was ) .
ps forgot to put the " one " in someelses shoes my bad , glasses on , galsses off etc .
ysb try the pumps 1
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
... it is usually from the centrist/moderate on the sidelines who just want to undermine the whole thing.
You're talking about left and right ideologues claiming to be centrists. Real centrists want to see the country succeed and take the ideas that make the most sense to make it happen.
I been thinking about Ian's point and agree with most of what he said. Political hacks keep pushing this false ideal that the country prefers centrist solutions. That's bullshit. They hate pussies and cowards.
They want their leaders to show courage and conviction and they'll feed off of your bravery and follow you even if they don't completely agree with you. We're entering new territory that gives just concerns to those who travel little. The heartland folke won't follow a wavering fence sitting wanderer.
Were Progressive Liberals (there is a difference) a stronger force in Congress I guarantee you there'd be some real behind the scenes ass kicking and head cracking to find a solution to get the job done. Not the below the belt Rahm style fearmongering either.
If your mates know you're tough as iron and will stand by their side through thick and thin - nothing can stop you..
the last election doesn't mean the vast majority of Americans aren't staunch Republicans. I blame the The Price is Right rerun marathon that coincided with the election. That and the election was run for funzies and not keepsies.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
hahahahahahaha VAST majority - staunch Republicans hahahahahahaha
I guess that's why only 27% will call themselves Republican in polls?
You wait 'til they're over. Then watch the polls.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The left wing of the Democratic party.
Kucinich and…
wait. I will think of the other one…
wait…
I will think of it…
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
.
Grayson , Sanders , Franks , Franken
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
is Independent! And we Vermonters like it that way!
Franks and Franken are moderate centrists.
It is just a testament of how much to the right this country has shifted. In fact, I am sure plenty of posters in this site, who think of themselves as "liberal/leftist" would be in for a shock if they were to be exposed to political systems with "real" left... like most of Europe, Canada, et.
Edit: Terrible beat me to it, for what it is worth Feingold has his leftist moments every now and then.
Brad Sherman.
call Kucinich THAT far left.
I would call him dead center.
I am a socialist, I am for repealing capitalism.
PERIOD.
I was speaking only relative to the Democratic Party, which is a very forlorn outfit.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I agree with most everything you post.
I'm not as polite or sober as you.
Just a word of support: I like how you think.
best,
tweakerbelle
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Thank you, and I you…
I did let one rip down below that sounded somewhat less than peaceful. It was deleted. Just as well.
I have followed you since this comment here
I agree about the Marxists but some of the Oligarch's understand exactly what is coming, they are getting ready even as they press on the accelerator.
As neo feudalism. I am not optimistic. Peak oil, peak energy, peak everything, peak ecology and we are not prepared. We are not prepared to change.
You may not have seen my reply to that post on genetically modified food. That is ANOTHER channel of potentially complete catastrophe.
David Suzuki is not optimistic either:
David Suzuki, Environment and the Economy, October 30, 2008
here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
When people refer to 'the far left' in America, it's code referring to something that is not exclusive to American politics but to the entire political spectrum (communist). So let's use that standard.
When someone uses that far-left reference, you can tell them (or yourself if need be) 'There is no far-left in America.' For an American politician to be far-left, they are someone who must, by definition, run for office publicly stating that they want:
*All private businesses to be shut down and put under the control of Washington.
*To have all property turned over to the state and taken away from individuals
*All power to essentially be centralized in Washington and minimizing local control.
Find me that Democrat or liberal in this country with that agenda who is in office or running for it. Or a first, secondary, or tertiary pundit. In fact, can anyone here name any American socialist who wants that? When someone says 'that's what the 'far left wants' tell them that's crap and to send you the printed word of any left-leaning American politician or who thinks it's a good idea.
There is no far-left in America, and dammit, let people know it. There is no far-left, because they are always saying that in light of the entire political spectrum . That dog just don't hunt in our country. It doesn't hunt much in most socialist nations.
Now when it comes to the corporatist / fascist side of American politics, when you define fascism you can find many far-right wing examples that come verrrrrry close. Neo-corporatism of today is not that far from the essential corporatist examples of Italy and Spain.
And BTW, the center, if you look at all democratic nations world-wide, is socialism run under a parliamentary system. That is far and away the dominant government system in terms of the number of nations that fall under the definition democratic.
Even the more extreme examples of the average American way off to the left in our country is basically centrist along the entire spectrum. While I always argue that the center of politics is always a moving target, even those of us to the left of the (current, and not for long) center of American politics, are still essentially somewhat to the right of all free nations world-wide.
We will never have a liberal majority until we clearly define what is being said here, and clearly push back by defining what a neo-conservative is. Until neo-conservatism is understood to be neo-fascistic, we have a fail we won't overcome. Letting the neo-cons off the hook in the marketplace of ideas for what they are is like letting fascism off the hook.
... thank you.
You misunderstand several things.
Not the least of which is the relationship between the neo-conservative and neo-liberal.
The liberals are quite content with the continuation of capitalism. They are capitalism.
Neo-liberals are rampantly privatizing the public space.
Please read this piece by Chomsky on the two great world propaganda machines of the US and the USSR.
here
You are, I suspect, in the group that has fallen prey to the Capitalist propaganda about State Socialism.
The propaganda has been massive for nearly one hundred years. Consider the clips by Alex Carey in my comment here.
Socialism cannot be State Socialism. That was Lenin who came up with the notion there had to be a vanguard Party and that, somehow though it is never explained there is going to be freedom and justice. It never happens.
I would repeal Capitalism but I would not give more to a State than is justified in serving the commonweal.
There would be private ownership but no one could justify to me anywhere near the sort of economic disparity that we have now.
Corporations would be very limited in scope, they would not be selling stock in the rigged casino that we have today.
All economic activity would be judged according to its positive externalities. Something that the Capitalists cannot consider.
By definition, they cannot consider the positive externalities.
The Capitalists are destroying the Earth, we must learn the lesson before they finish.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
An American form of socialism would be like what we have now, the main difference would be the cooperative nature of ownership of businesses. I'm interested in Parecon.
I am for basically anything that gives us more democracy not less. The internet has been amazing for political discussion, it could be used for so much more like Parecon.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
I've had time to read the Chomsky article and I don't see where your disagreement is. Of these economic systems and attendant political systems that rise from them, in general, how would you define the spectrum the complete political spectrum that we see today, of governments as they actually govern? How would you define a far left on it, a middle, and a far right end of it? And where would you place America on that spectrum, and in particular, the average American liberal who might post here in relationship to the middle and the extremes?
There is nothing for me to add or detract from the Chomsky piece. He later on expresses more fully his thinking on propaganda as employed by the Corporations and that is useful to include.
It depends on the point they start from. After WWI Britain and France advanced with social democracy, Italy failed and ultimately so did Germany. The US also failed. Until the Depression when significant social advance was made.
The rest of the world has started further back so when egalitarian views are brought forward the conflict can be great and traumatic.
After WWII the Corporate powers in the US determined to take the country back for themselves and they did with the National Security Act, the Taft Hartley Act and a massive barrage of propaganda all aimed at convincing people a 'free market' was good for them, and that unionism was bad for them. Even more broadly that any sort of social thought, in other words having a government that worked for the public good was bad for them. The propaganda has worked, unfortunately.
The means of anti social propaganda are everywhere. Radio, television, movies, publications, everywhere and anywhere that the corporations do business or advertise the PR people go. Public relations is the sanitized word for propaganda. They sanitize the language so as to not let you know what they are up to.
What they are convincing you to do is to give up any claims to more than the little that you have, and even worse to give up your rights.
Simplistically speaking, the political spectrum runs from the Right where power and privilege is held by a few, once it was Kings, Popes and Bishops, later it was the Masters of Industry.
Holding the view that the powerful and privileged should maintain their dominance puts one at the right of the spectrum, Naturally since there are few of them they need to convince the masses of people that such an arrangement is also in THEIR interest.
On the face of it you wouldn't think that they would succeed but obviously they do.
It is done with propaganda. It is the same toolbox that is used to sell products that you don't need.
On the left is the view the social arrangement should be more egalitarian.
For some this can mean completely equal results, but for others there can remain disparity.
It is not a simple matter to determine the fairness of these things.
We established a democracy but it was not universal. To begin with it only included those male European descendent with property. That was clearly very much a minority.
After the Civil War it could have included African descendent males but it was a very sorry story, needless to say.
After WWI it finally included females.
Until the voting rights act of the '60s the universality was uneven.
With the advance of democracy and the potential for loss of status the corporations are in propaganda high gear.
The corporation and its illicit legal standing as a person is a shield for the powerful people behind the curtain.
Extending the personal protections of the constitution to the corporation is the greatest mistake we could have made. It means the loss of rights by the natural person.
That is the front line of the war.
In America the economic disparity is now the greatest since 1917. The more people understand the propaganda programs being used against them, how the government and political process has been subverted in favor of the corporations, the more clearly they will be able to judge their own interests and best to achieve them.
That is the issue. Where do people's sentiments lay? The more they know the more to the left they will be.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I also agree with you on the points you make. And one might state that in theory, the left would be complete freedom for the individual. Below, in my reply to euthyfro though, I simply point out that as things occurred, attempts at organizing an economy around that freedom so far have always met with similar authoritarian hijackings as we've seen on the right. When socialist agendas proceeded from some sort of parliamentarian system, often with some kind of strongly organized labor movement, working socialist systems emerged. But, again in practice, without that trying to simply 'organize the workers' has been a game of 3 card monte for the workers. As I described communism is not from the Marxist point of view, it is from what has mostly been the actual results. Again, there are variations of results between places like Cuba and Vietnam and Venezuela. But for the most part, they are sustainable but not particularly robust economies. And to one extent or another the state holds most of the peoples property and freedoms in escrow.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Classical political science uses a completely linear spectrum to describe both social & economic ideology. i.e.:
Left-----Centre-----Right
Usually described as:
Radical-Liberal-Centrist/Moderate-Conservative-Reactionary
Political & economic philosophies have evolved enormously since the 19th century, but far too many Political Science teachers have not modified their terminology or methodology in accordance with reality. Political terminology in the United States is used quite differently than in most other nations, and in ways that don't clearly accord with how political science is taught in most universities. Also, it's common practice for authoritarian political parties all over the world to disguise their real philosophy with progressive terminology.
Exhibit A: the word `communism' is used interchangeably with `socialism' in America, whereas they are distinctly different political/economic philosophies.
Exhibit B: What we call the NAZI Party was actually the NSDAP in Germany, which basically translates as the National Socialist Democratic Workers' Party. The NSDAP were nationalists, but they were neither social democrats nor democratic socialists. Similarly, the Peoples' Republic of China is not a republic by most commonly accepted definitions.
Add to that the ceaseless corporate propaganda campaign to convince ordinary citizens to act against their own interests (and instincts), and one can begin to understand why it's so difficult to discuss politics in America.
If we separate economic & social theory (for the purpose of clarity of discussion, NOT because they're unrelated), it becomes easier to understand the distinctions between ideologies.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
There are others sites that are much more in depth that political compass which makes nearly everyone who prefers freedom to be some sort of libertarian. While I do think there is a social sort of libertarianism that runs through the American left and economic sort that runs through the right, I don't think that libertarianism is truly the end game for unrestrained freedom. Some have suggested it is anarchy which might be closer to the truth. Considering that a society must have some rules we've never really seen any modern working examples of it. The closest real life example we have are probably the few hunter-gatherer societies which still exist.
However I'd also suggest that only now, in the age of the computer, there may someday be tools to allow people a new never-seen-before sort of freedom that still provides a heuristically organized social structure allowing necessary cooperation along with ever greater personal choices. At least it would for those who meet the basic bar of having and understanding the tools.
If you read the narrative explanation given by the creators of the compass, you see that their intent was to get beyond the over-simplification of the purely linear, left-right spectrum from classical Poli. Sci.
The Libertarian-Authoritarian axis describes the social aspect of the spectrum, whereas the Left-Right axis describes the economic aspect. Thus, the compass allows for those who are fiscally conservative & socially liberal as well as those who are fiscally liberal & socially conservative (and everything in-between).
The traditional Left-Right linear spectrum makes no allowance for these sorts of distinctions, which is at least partly to blame for the confusion of terminology found in the U.S. In America, "libertarian" is usually taken to describe someone who is affiliated with the right-wing of the spectrum, whereas in the rest of the world it doesn't carry that connotation. The NSDAP, for instance, were social authoritarians & fiscal liberals - a combination that seems to confound American political scientists.
I am a self-described anarcha-syndicalist, aka left-libertarian. I share a belief with libertarians in the primacy of individual liberty along with the view of democratic socialists that liberty is best maintained through the commonweal. I believe that the right to individual self-determination trumps the collective will of society, but that self-determination fully includes the right of individuals to organize collectively for the greater good.
This is precisely the sort of correspondence that leads, for example, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to ally themselves on issues like military interventionism and the so-called war on drugs, while completely disagreeing on social spending.
I never thought i'd see the day. When you stop and actually read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky you come away with something completely different than what you've been told "Communism" is all your life.
My favourite from Trotsky: "Like the human body that requires oxygen to function, Communism, to be worthy of the name, must be democratic."
Good Chomsky article, He's basically repeating what Trotsky wrote in The Revolution Betrayed back in 1936.
Stalinism is not Socialism.
Stalinsim is not socialism. In real life, democratic socialism is about the closest thing to Marxist theory that exists. However, again in real life, not theory, where have we ever seen communism given a chance to flourish and not be hijacked by an authoritarian government? In fact, where have we seen it flourish and become a truly robust economic system? Both Russia and China are moving, in different ways towards capitalist economies. Cuba is languishing in poverty for the most part, and I have little faith that Venezuela will be a sustainable situation when the day comes that oil markets are not what they used to be.
And Weiner
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
..............kicked to the curb by RAHMIEZIONISTWHORE. We will never be presented with a 'liberal' or 'progressive' because Rahmie has always been a ZIONISTWHORE, squashing all 'liberal' or 'progressive' people. I would dare to add Gore, Feingold, Dr. Howard Dean, Van Jones, you know the people Rahmie silences.
I think Rep. Lee deserves respect for being the lone (!) vote against the Afghanistan debacle.
As a radical who grew up in Western Canada, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Democratic Party is well to the right of what's usually considered the political centre. Corporate propagandizing has been very successful.
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
http://politicalcompass.org/canada2008
http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright
Primaries IS where a real difference CAN be made!
Get the criminals out vote against the incumbent no matter who it is.
Turn it back to what it was supposed to be ! People serving one term and going back home!
republicanism is a mental illness!
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is nothing but a Sellout with his cowardly Vote AGAINST the Joe Wilson Resolution. I do not give a rat's ass what rationalization Kucinch gives for his cowardice here. The action Kucinich took makes what Malcom X said about liberals ever more real. I am reminded of what Malcom X said after I heard the what the coward Dennis Kucinich did in NOT VOTING for the Resolution against Wilson.
The following is what Malcolm X said about liberals versus conservatives:
"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives."
Kucinich claimed to have been an ally of the Congressional Black Caucus and supposedly championed the things Wilson stands against. Here is a list of the other so-called Democratic Party "liberals" who could not bring themselves to do the right thing and vote in favor of the Resolution against Rep Wilson of South Carolina. The Twelve (12) Democrats who voted against the Wilson Resolution were:
Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona
Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts
Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Paul Hodes of New Hampshire
Harry Teague of New Mexico
Michael Arcuri of New York
Maurice Hinchey of New York
Dan Maffei of New York
Eric Massa of New York
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
Jim McDermott of Washington
Gwen Moore of Wisconsin
All these Democrats listed above are cowards as well by the way!
This is why we fail. We throw the baby out with the bath water. We cast those who deviate one iota as cowards.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
They are the ones who deviated. The ones who debiated are:
Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona
Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts
Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Paul Hodes of New Hampshire
Harry Teague of New Mexico
Michael Arcuri of New York
Maurice Hinchey of New York
Dan Maffei of New York
Eric Massa of New York
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
Jim McDermott of Washington
Gwen Moore of Wisconsin
The so-called "we fail" crap you claim happpens not because of what I point out, but, because these Democrats and so-called "liberals" deviate.
If anyone debiates here, it is the 12 members of the Democratic Party who voted alongside the Wilson camp.
That is why "we fail."
I think you are distorting reality here.
It seems that you in similar fashion want toi have it both ways. Too bad about it for ya!
there is freedom? Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable on the right? Less thinking is required.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I think you who are a right winger!!!
Your ridiculous accusations shows you to be a Joe Wilson apologist and a Kucinich apologist.
If you feel so brave, Call Joe Madison's radio Program Monday Morning and defend Kucinich to him....see if the majority of Black people share your deceitful view here.
to consult anyone like that when deciding what to think. I prefer to do my own thinking. You should try it. It is difficult at first but,with practice, becomes much easier.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I think for myself thank you and now you are just being condescending and patronizing on purpose. You are a very rude jerk!
I'll tell ya one thing--your politics suck! And your no friend to the fight for civil rights and justice with your shallow views.
LOL.
If Malcolm X were alive today would he be Malcolm NC-17?
(Besides, I thought he changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
then we have,at last, found some common ground on which to build a friendship.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I am sure you are kind to your dog and cat and mother....So not a total "jerk."
... now that is classy. I mean, you don't look like a hypocritical douche at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya13xD3c62M&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Gotta get that so-righteous anger out somehow.
"If you feel so brave, Call Joe Madison's radio Program Monday Morning and defend Kucinich to him....see if the majority of Black people share your deceitful view here."
What about the alleged "Illegal Aliens"? How do you think that particular genre would feel?
I've often made generalizations inadvertently and ended up with egg on my face. (Brown egg... not white) ;)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHqXBZFZ6OA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Gene Taylor may look like Robert Redford but he votes very conservative.
that these endless resolutions constituted political grandstanding that distracted from the proper business of congress. They were willing to make the first overture towards ending an idiotic practice. Maybe that was it. On the whole I believe I will refrain from calling for Mr Kucinich's head. Dennis is an admirable representative of his constituent's real interests.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
was something of an idiot.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Malcolm X was correct....and especially as I read your posts in here. Sure you are not a pro-Joe Wilson person yourself?
You seem to be one of those liberals that Malcolm X was talking about.
Just remember this--The Democrats would be NOTHING without the Black Vote....Nothing....a Total Minority Party if Blacks stop voting for the Dems...so you need to stop your crap here!!!!
When did Malcolm X use that quote? What year if you might know? Keeping in context that it was a different time when he said it.
....Bye
Like how many people of African American descent voted for Obama? Answer: approximately 7.7 million which is approximately 6% of the total vote for POTUS. 95% of the African American vote went to Obama. 5% to McCain. Now, if all Blacks stopped participating in elections, or approximately, 8,105,263 or approximately 6.6% of the total vote, there would still be 93.4% of the vote to split among Republicans and Democrats. Current voter registration is 36% Democrat, 27% Republican and 37% Independent. So, really the answer is that if Blacks didn't vote for the Democrats, they would lose 6% of the voting base. The real issue is What do Independents vote for? That is where the political operatives try to make their inroads because they have to split up that voting block to win. If Blacks stayed home in record numbers, the political strategy of the Dems would have to be more centrist in order to get the independents to vote for them. In the last election Obama garnered 48% of the Independent vote, McCain 52%. Obama garnered 53% of the total vote and McCain 46%. If Blacks had stayed home it would have been a dead heat at 46 to 46 (this is the popular vote). But the analysis here is cursory since the President is elected by the electoral college and a state by state analysis would have to be done in order to get the real picture.
I absolutely disagree with you there.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
But answering virulent racism with racism never much appealed to me. I'm more of an MLK fan.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Peter G,
To assume that black people despise Malcolm X is also ridiculous. Anyone who contributed to the cause of civil rights and racial equality is revered in the African-American community be it Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, Paul Robeson, etc.
Just because you say that you are an "MLK fan" means nothng and I mean nothing! Malcolm X was not a racist either by the way nor is pointing out those who want it both ways a sign of being racist.
Anyone who contributed to the cause of civil rights and racial equality is revered in the African-American community
How about the Democratic Party. I'm sure they had something to do with that one.
mean like us dirty hippies from Berkeley in the 60's , was there and did that .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
to tell any black person who they should lionize. I would expect the same courtesy.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Okay.....milk and cookies on order.....and your favorite blanket color is? All are on the way!
It's quite funny in here tonight.....somewhat typical though as well.
... so is this the part where you go off doing exactly what you were railing against other people for doing?
Talk about typical behavior...
Every post he's posted at C+L is the same way. At least the ones I went through. Hell, he even argued with Alice X and she was agreeing with him.
Thanks very much....
And to think I am a "clone" of someone else is too funny.....
I find Alice X to be quite intelligent. If I disagree with her, then, it is what it is....
.
WizardLeft1, in my opinion, your passion on the issue seems to mimic that of a fellow poster named LeftandLeft... or something like that.
To a point, I think your conviction and passion on the issue, is justified.
"Just remember this--The Democrats would be NOTHING without the Black Vote....Nothing....a Total Minority Party if Blacks stop voting for the Dems...so you need to stop your crap here!!!!"
Wow!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Phony "Liberals" and so-called "Socialists" here.....
By the way, I understand exactly what Malcolm was saying, and I agree with him. As he saw it at the time. It is still true for many but not all.
I live in what you would call a black district. In four square miles, there four rent to own loan shark outfits, there were six pawn shops but one has closed.
The hospital has closed, the post office has closed, the auto plant has closed, the UAW local building is vacant and for sale and the unemployment is sky high.
And there is one grocery store run by Arabs who are actually very nice people and now have competitive prices unlike the previous owners.
Other than that, things are swell.
But I don't hear this administration talking about conditions like these.
I have never heard them talking about conditions in the black community.
So if you are concerned about those things as I am, then you have your work cut for you with this administration.
I suggest you place your attention there and give up worrying about symbolism.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
... but you seem to be trying to reason and conduct an honest dialogue with someone who is not interested at all in such things.
I try to be very patient even when it wastes an enormous amount of my time.
Everything must be for the commonweal.
But I fear we will have no country before we have a country that learns that lesson.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the difficult issue of what constitutes the commonweal and who shall decide. I rather like constitutional protections myself.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The constitution gives us everything we need.
Unfortunately by extending those rights to Corporations, we the natural persons, we lose everything.
The commonweal can only concern natural persons.
If it were only the rights and concerns of naturals persons at issue, things would work out very much more fairly.
People compromise and work things out to live together in harmony.
Corporations do no such things, they are amoral. They are totalitarian regimes.
They are only concerned with their own growth. At the expense of all else.
By extending the rights of the constitution to corporations, the natural person loses their rights.
The outrageous propaganda ploy is the use of the term Corporate Socialism.
The Corporation is outside of the social realm.
In this country we have Crony Capitalism.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"Everything must be for the commonweal.
But I fear we will have no country before we have a country that learns that lesson."
Your actions and intentions, as I see them, are insurmountable here and now.
The vision, as perfect as it is, does not seem reasonable in our current global marketplace. Without being specific, I believe good things take time and are arrived at accordingly.
I support your endeavor in forging this pathway, although I believe doors will have to be opened and roadblocks cleared accordingly, to reach such a desirable state of affairs. If and when... hypothetically speaking, we reached this proverbial plateau, Then what? ;)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
All Politics Is Local... The best most of us can do is participate in all elections from school board to President so that we get educated, liberal voices into the system at the lowest levels of government. They always rise to the top at some point or they get out.
clueless1
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
There is considerable diversity of thought and belief here. That's why I like it. Oh and green. I really prefer green.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I absolutely disagree with you there.
You are another phony too I see!
You people are really showing and exposing your hypocrisy here...
Malcolm X is certainly correct about the so-called liberals in here tonight....
This will be my last post on the subject because it is going nowhere but I am sure you-Alice would not sing this stuff in front of black people.
To say the Dems would win without the black vote is ridiculous. Alice do you know anything about the Congress and the black votes in the major cities where white Democrats win in all the time? I guess not!
The X in her name is a subtle clue.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
subtle
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
I am not going to bring Malcolm X into this pointless discussion about Joe Wilson.
There is no need to call Malcolm X something of an idiot.
Joe Wilson is different matter, he is Republican from South Carolina. What more would anyone need to know about him.
I like Kucinich, he is a good moderate, there only a few. The rest of the Congress is a completely lost cause.
I don't know why he didn't vote for the resolution, but the resolution is not a reason to get your powder all waterlogged.
Worry about the big picture and corporate capture of the government.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
But if I respect your post, which I try to do, then, please also return the favor.....
I do not mean to offend, but, I have every damn right to express my views of how I see it.
I totally disagree with Kucinich and yes, it was cowardly of him not to vote for it.
Of course you have a right to express yourself.
But you go on and on.
Kucinich isn't the problem.
Censuring Joe Wilson is symbolism.
With only a few score of exceptions, the entire Congress should be run out of town on a rail.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
It was not a "censure" of Joe Wilson...it was actually a water-downed resolution.
Resolutiions and being censured are not the same thing.
Being censured carries penalties alongside it.
Maybe Kucinich would have voted for something stronger.
You make my point for me.
When comes to doing things for the people, this Congress is all window dressing.
When it comes to doing things for the Corporations, they are all business.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Kucinich said that since it was not binding, and Obama already accepted Wilson's apology, then it was nothing but a waste of time and effort. Doing this silly kabuki theatre where the Dems pretend to grow a spine for a couple of seconds is pointless. And I sort of agree with Kucinich, either do a real motion of censure... or get back to work to pass this healthcare bill in a proper fashion.
But then what would "concerned" people have to bitch about Kucinich, literally one of the few mildly liberals in the house?
anyone acts out on the right wing and GOP side, spare me your crocodile tears, okay?
Because your so-called "concern" and "outrage" is so fake!
Admit now---you have all taken the position of the right wingers on this issue....Admit it already!!!!
Be real now!
Admit that you opposed the Wilson Resolution just like Kucinich and thus you condone such behavior.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I think you are a phony and wannabe who actually is a nothing who claims to be so "intelligent."
I do not find you to be anything special and do not care what you think at this point.
.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Maybe he is off his meds?
... your projection is showing, I thought you should know.
BTW, Obama already accepted Wilson's apology, does that mean he condones such behavior too? LOL.
Who is to say that Obama opposed the Resolution? He is not going to come out and say anything either way about it.
I guarantee that many advisors in the White House supported the House Resolution to make an example out of Wilson's out of line behavior.
Yes, Obama accepted the apology....it is not just about Obama here but for the future as well.
other people, just a post earlier...
Are we supposed to take your whole "concern" act seriously?
Dude, admit it, you're Rush Limbaugh trying to look stupid. Go on. Admit it. You know you are. Admit it already.
I don't agree with a fucking thing Joe(which by the way is NOT his real name)Wilson says or does period. Just like I don't agree with a single thing you've done here. Give it a rest.
Floridafish,
Admit it that you are a FOX News Fan-Watcher who loves Glen Beck yourself. You are full of sh** too! You are a freakin phony as well. A big Phony.
I do not agree with anything you ever say in here. Get some help idiot!
You people are absurd and a bunch of "liberal" phonies. Alice would not know what a Socialist was if she saw any coming down the street.
Try me.
The only Lizard left
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Yeah., but I only watch Glenn Beck when he has the Grand Wizard on. Speaking of which. Intersting name there Wizard. Hmmm. Sure I haven't seen you some where before.
would not know what a socialist was if one coming down the street .
_________________________________________
and you would know anything , about nothing .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
than Fox News watcher? The next thing you know we'll all be accused of having cooties. Relax W. You persuade no one with insults. Of one thing I am tolerably sure, Alice X is a dyed in the wool socialist and proud of it. My grandmother would have loved her and though we often disagree I respect her. You should too.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
socialist :)
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj_xKA5C2vU
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzTTQmzxdps
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
quite telling...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x9PPtPmoy4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTSkVB9rJ2whtt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLo-gny54GM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpyKxpsadg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
or even disagreeing with your point of view that seems to be distressing. Get used to it. It's a big world.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Duh....Go watch your favorite channel---Fox News....already.....
All of your posts in here may as well be on right wing blogs.
if you have an 18" globe
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
of working for average people.
I voted for him in his successful bid for mayor of Cleveland many years ago.
He fought the utilities and kept electricity from being totally privatized in CLE.
He has been fighting for working people for decades.
If he needed to trade a vote for advantage on another issue, this was the way to do it.
One vote on a mickey-mouse issue does not a fascist make - especially when he was probably assured that the vote would carry anyway.
Do you know why Malcolm had an X, because he like everyone of African heritage in this land descended from slavery, had his family name stolen from him.
Obama is one who did not. My next door neighbor is another. There aren't many.
Malcolm choose an X instead of the family name of a slave owner.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
In all due respect, I like what Alice X - Choms... posts in here and also enjoy the back and forth in here.....
.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
sounds more like you like having your ass kicked
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
Just because these people have a D after their names doesn't make them liberal.
Someone from another country probably couldn't tell the difference between the members of the two political groups we have today. Very interchangable and very few true liberals.
Many of our D's would be conservatives in other countries. We've moved so far to the right that the left is still right. I suppose that's why we've been called the left of the left.
Our political system is completely broken. There is no We the People, it is all We the Corporation. Love it or leave it.
There is more to being in one of the two parties than that. Beyond skin color, the principles of liberals are what matter. Obama knows that, which is why he is a trans-formative figure. I'm glad he refuses to talk about race and stands above such discussions.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Funny thing is I have no idea how to define my ideology.
But I've taken tests online people have posted on this site, that according to them I was hard left.
But considering my Mormon/republican background, which had something of a late blooming Sir Kenelm Digby, Broadstone of Honor orientation, and Air Force enlistment/Top Secret Clearance to boot, and a wary attitude of come what may, I'm sure that's hard to believe.
But then I'm cool with that. If I ever found myself I'd probably try to lose myself again, like that pesky brother that insists on following you freaking everywhere you go.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
where we going now
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
to see which candidate I should vote for based on issues, and it said I was an anarchist at heart LOL
Do you like sex?
Given that only something like 1/4 of 1 per cent of the people, male and female, have no interest in sex, this question should bring all of you closer to reality.
There is an excellent book by Matt Ridley "The Red Queen" which answers a whole list of questions. It is extremely poorly edited but is definitely worth struggling through.
It will give you a lot of clues about the center of life. It will hopefully give all people a change in their thinking.
Like it or not, people, we are all on this mudball together and if we can't find ways to stop the artificial divisions of people, there is not going to be a human race for a lot longer.
Cooperate, you aren't back in kindergarten squabbling over the ball.
Discuss the points you can agree on.
All I see here is partisanship.
Be real, there are less than 5 per cent of the people on earth that should be taken out and shot.
Considering what i believe to be a time wasting exercise debating bout joe wilson's actions i wondered what americans thought when bush visited Australia and was confronted(or heckled depending on your view)while giving a speech in the Australian senate by one senator Bob Brown.
Personally a war criminal like bush should be heckled at every opportunity by any civic minded citizen but of course that would make leaders uncomfortably within reach of the general populace and governments have been good at seperating them for a long time..
I think that is correct, and I have a real-life example: my mother. By her actions and real-world opinions she's mostly liberal, but yet labels herself 'conservative'. What can I do to convince her?
I have a massive library of documentaries, and I've done my best to enlighten her. The problem is, she can watch/read/listen to stuff from Arundhati Roy, Adam Curtis, Naomi Klein, etc., say she agrees with their viewpoints, and yet still say she's conservative and liberals are evil and church/state separation is a bad idea. She says she's anti-abortion and that government should just butt out yet her solution is to make abortion illegal, apparently forgetting who enforces our laws.
What else can I do here?
What have the Republicans ever done for you?
Be sure to point out the tax thing when she asks.
My brother was a Republican for 20 years.
I simply asked him that question.
You should have seen the look on his face. Complete shock.
He admitted that they haven't done a thing for him.
I flipped him right there. Now he's a Dem and has been for 8 years.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
thoughtful post Ian. Labels are labels and nothing more and too many people get hung up on them. Lots and lots of people call themselves conservative, but in reality are not 100% conservative. Just like painting all Rethuglicans with the same brush, or Dems. It is unrealistic. Very good post indeed. Certainly makes the braincells work!
My main problem with Marxism is it can easily just form itself into another party, like in much of Europe, and where they form coalition governments between more than two parties can help confuse the elections schedules with new elections being suddenly called when the coalition seems to inevitably collapse.
But then it can go in the other direction too and become just another form of elites, like the party in the former USSR, with the party serving as the "Vanguard of the Revolution."
And Marxists often sound in their language like economics is the main, the only, and/or the proper interests of the population, and seems to dismiss others out of hand contemptuously.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The core philosophy of Marxism, as I've seen it, is the massive failure the state control of the means of production. That means there's only one store in town. If the government apparatchiks fail to plan accordingly that means there are no other stores you can go to for your basket of goods.
The solution in my mind is many smaller stores, with the government prepared to step in if one or more try to get too ruthless in their competition and the devouring of other stores, and to protect worker's rights which are essentially human rights, which would be rather Keynesian. That would also be Adam Smith's England as a country of shopkeepers, and antithetical to ubercorporatism (if I may use a term I coined on the spot just now, but I doubt if it's original), of transnational and multinational corporations, who in effect are trying to create a state of their own, with themselves in charge.
And of course bring back Unionism full strength, and have public financing of campaigns, and the Fairness Doctrine restored.
I know it's probably simplistic but I just woke up, and am eating breakfast, and my fingers keep sliding off the keys of my keyboard due to bacon grease.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I haven't read Das Kapital since I was a teenager, but in Marx's proposed meetings of the proletariats in running their country, would they be disrupted by tea baggers?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And for those of y'all who expect a video link from me (although I seem to be babbling to myself):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U2W28CUzb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIZ4nAprSSE
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Here's Jane Hamsher on The Rachel Maddow Show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Z5XO-I0oo
Every piece of legislation all the way up until reelection time.
The most reliable predictor of whether a state or district is blue or red is how densely populated it is. High concentrations of people mean blue, sparse populations mean red (the blue city I live in has a larger population than the entire population of a number of red states). The fact that highly populated states like California get the same number of Senators as Alaska and the fact that we use the electoral college are just a couple of reasons your typical confederate flag waving conservative has a much stronger vote or voice than you do. Crappy hand to be dealt, but the flip side is that since there ARE more of us, if a larger percentage of us got to writing letters and voting, we could make a much bigger splash.
You could try asking an actual centrist like myself.
All it means is that we like some ideas the left has and we like some ideas the right has. We take the stuff that makes the most sense and gather them together and want them implemented into policy.
The people you're talking about aren't centrists. They're ideologues posing as centrist.
I am a centrist and even though I will not benefit from a universal single payer health care - I support it. Hell I demand it. Need a reason why? Google : Deamonte Driver
I also support the 2nd Amendment, but I think that people should be licensed to carry just like we license people to drive cars. If you're not competent to responsibly own a weapon - you shouldn't have one. But I don't believe the left wing illusion that everyone who owns a gun is irresponsible and dangerous or that gun related deaths are somehow more horrifying than the almost half a million heart disease related deaths a year. I own a gun and I've never shot or robbed anyone. Restrictions on who can buy guns, by themselves do not prevent criminals from getting them. Licensing, background checks, intelligent laws, closed loopholes and prosecutions for those who break them will.
I think that religion is between a person and his god or lack thereof and has no plays in public schools. You want to teach your kid religion? Do it with your own time and money not mine. I don't think that religion should be in any way subsidized - including that bullshit 'Faith Based Initiatives' crap.
I believe that when the President, vice president, members of his cabinet or any other member of the government violates the law, he should be impeached, arrested and put in prison or otherwise punished for it.
I believe that the government should be responsible with it's spending and not just go on drunken spending benders like the Iraq War. However, the time to start counting pennies isn't when your country is mired in a depression like we are now. The only entity that can lift this country back out of the recession is the government.
I believe in a well regulated market just like i believe in well regulated streets. You don't just let anybody run around breaking windows and stealing and murdering and raping. Why the hell would you like big business go around doing anything they want with no consequences? It's idiotic and dangerous and history backs me up on that. Know why your round beef isn't mostly ground rat, human remains and fillers like sawdust? Government regulation and enforcement. Know what happens when you don't have proper regulation and enforcement? Ask Stewart Parnell.
Lastly I believe the people who are most favored by this nation should be pulling their weight and not resting on the backs of the middle class if we are all to survive and prosper as a nation. If that means they have to have a marginal 2% tax increase then so be it. If you're making 20 million a year you won't even notice an extra 2%. But if you're making 60k a year with a family to support an extra 2% might mean the difference between making your bills and being on the soup line.
I believe that global warming is real, that it is a very real threat, that it is caused by man and that we are allowing our legislators to create an extinction level event voluntarily to score a few extra bucks for corporations like Exxon that don't give a shit about us.
Lastly I believe anyone who claims that the Democrats in general or the President in particular is socialist, fascist, marxist, communist, alien, not an American, traitor, a terrorist sympathizer or the anti-Christ should be laughed out of the public square and soundly humiliated. The same should be said for anyone who thinks that Obama is anything other than a politician. He doesn't weep milk and hope. He doesn't heal the sick with a touch. He's just a guy and while he's better than the Launchpad McCain and Caribou Barbie playset that doesn't mean he's a demi-god. All of that nonsense is just a bunch of distractions and demagoguery. Real people are hurting here. Real people. Like you and me. People who deserve a functioning government that isn't just around to stroke each other's egos and take checks from lobbyists. We deserve a real news media keeping an eye on the government and keeping us informed, not Faux News. Not CNN (Sanchez excepted). Not MSNBC (still more fair and balanced than Faux). I'm tired of the freaking Teabaggers. I'm tired of Faux News. I'm tired of the lies.
I'm also tired of people center and left sitting on their asses in blogs, whining about thins and not taking action. If the Teabaggers can mobilized 70,000 people to march on DC where is the opposition march of 500,000? Why cant' the people who marched on NYC in February of 2003 to protest the war get some people together to descend on Washington? Why are only the wingnuts being represented?
What I want, as a centrist, and what all of us here should want is action. Action from the people we put in office and action from US. The people we put into office with our votes are more afraid of Republican voters calling them 'socialists' than they are about us not voting for them because they think they have us over a barrel. I mean who you gonna vote for? McCain?
Being a Centrist is simple. It's having the ability to see the big picture. To see that both sides of the equation have -some- valid points mixed in amongst the nuttery on both sides. Trying to lump actual centrists in with people like Diane Feinstein or Olympia Snowe is misguided at best.
It has been said by many philosophers that the Truth lay between lack and excess. That moderation in all things, even moderation is the key. That's what I practice. Giving in to Republicans when we know they're not going to play ball isn't centrism, populism or bipartisanship. So do not bill it as such.
Comments are closed on this entry