Why a strong Far Left is needed.

[white_wolf]

A lot of the more moderate posters on this board get very angry at those who call themselves socialists, or even those progressives who get angry with the President and the current Democratic Party, however they forget something very important. It was people on the "Far Left" that helped push FDR to the Left to enact some of his best polices. Some of FDR's most progressive polices such as Social Security were inspired by Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party's platform. Without a strong Left to keep pressure on them, the Democratic Party has became the current corporatist party we see today. We need a strong left if for no other reason than to push the mainstream Democrats to the Left.

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

Open the borders, bring the socialist revolution up norte!

[bobbolink]

2. Ah, yes.. but you see, they don't want to be "pushed".

Sad to say, the only "pushing" the conservadems want is to push us out of the party.

[white_wolf]

3. No, they want us in the party as long as we keep quiet and

donate our time and money,and don't question our leaders.

[bobbolink]

5. Just our votes. Other than that, we are not wanted nor needed.

Some of us are saying "Fuck that shit!"

[Harmony Blue]

4. Having the opportunity

to live in Europe, and visit frequently, it is clear that the left in this country needs to hold onto its ideals as treasures that can't be bargained away. If you choose to bargain away your ideals, you are a fool that is left with nothing.

[bobbolink]

10. And, sadly, that is pretty much what it is coming to.

The "left" here doesn't know how to reach out and work together, and mostly leaves out poor folk, which weakens them.

[Little Star]

45. + 10000000000000000000

[whathehell]

59. Damned right, Harmony Blue!...n/t

[humbled_opinion]

111. That is exactly why we elected Obama.

but sadly he did not stand by his principles and here we are...

[txlibdem]

114. You mean the guy who made dozens of speeches that made him sound like FDR 2.0?

and then turned into Bush lite after inauguration day? I'm not sure he ever had any principles aside from "I'm gonna git mine and to hell with all of you."

[TMED]

129. What far sadder is, realizing that Obama betrayed them...

there is still no widespread organizing going on in the Left to oppose Obama and his corporatist agenda.

Yeah, Obama is to be blamed for misrepresenting himself. If you've been paying attention, you'd know that was the case over 2 years ago.

What of lefties that know of Obama's betrayals, but don't bother organizing to overcome those betrayals? Or even being outspoken about those betrayals, to an audience that doesn't normally hear criticism of Obama from the Left ?

This last is not Obama's fault, it's the fault of such lefties. Complaining and arguing is easier than organizing, so I'm guessing that such lefties are following the path of least resistance.

Unfortunately, lefties are getting betrayed by left institutions. Read up on the "veal pen" at FirdDogLakes. Also, Chris Hedges writes about broken Left institutions often.

[Logical]

6. +1

[MNBrewer]

7. +1 also

[sabrina 1]

8. Everything good about this country came from the left.

We definitely need a really far left now to counter the radical right and the swing by the this party to the right. There IS a left in this country, in fact polls show that there is huge support for leftwing programs, but there is no organization of it. The right has organized for years and the leadership of the Dem Party now resembles what used to be the Republican party.

So, yes, it's time to start building a real 'far left' wing of this party in order to save and improve on what was the best of the Democratic Party before it was taken over by Reagan/Dems/Repubs ~

[defendandprotect]

155. Agree --

Right wing has used it's money for political violence -- propagnada of lies --

stolen elections --

and most of all FAKE movements --

It's a Hollywood Soundstage that we need to break thru --

:hi:

[heppcatt]

9. Some one pointed this out to me a few days ago...

From Lawrence O'Donnell's wiki...

O'Donnell calls himself a practical European socialist in a Newsmaker Interview dated November 11, 2005. On November 6, 2010, O'Donnell re-declared himself a socialist on the Morning Joe show. The MSNBC host stated, unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell

For me personally I always thought the Democratic Party was the left. Now they seem almost center right and ignore the elected progressives in their party. You could call it being a pragmatist, or maybe they just really do not believe in left wing ideas?

[ProSense]

11. Why is the

"strong Far Left" so defensive and afraid of people supporting the President?

Case in point:

<...>

That pragmatism, by the way, is a joke. It's a loser attitude, the idea that you should push for what's reasonable instead of what you want. Give up on your ideals, they tell us, they're not realistic with Congress being Republican controlled. Obama is just a man, so overlook the repeated insults and dismissals of who we are and what we stand for. So what's our reasonable demand? What have WE gotten in the budget compromises? That list of things Obama has done for progressives is disingenuous, neatly sidestepping all of the things that were taken away from us and touting minor concessions as major accomplishments.

It's not just that progressives must stand up to the president. It's that progressives must stand up to those who are supposedly on our side. When the Republicans get nine concessions to our one, there was no compromise. We didn't win that one thing. We lost nine, but the apologists gloss over that. That was the reasonable thing to accomplish without control of the House, they say. Well no, it wasn't. Not until you came along and told everyone: We the Left are willing to give up.

<...>

The apologists defend themselves as pragmatists, but they're not. That is a critical mistake, particularly in a world where compromise is necessary. Listen very carefully. You are not being pragmatic. You are not being reasonable. It is not pragmatic to destroy our ability to fight. It is not reasonable to kneecap us at the very beginning of the race. It is not pragmatic to give the entire debate over to the Right.

Seriously, want a strong far left: go for it. Stop hiding behind a strawman argument that other people's opinions are inhibiting your ability to fight. That's absurd.

Excellent response here: What lunacy

Since when did the words "reasonable" and "pragmatic" become curses?

In the 1960's, the greatest lasting progressive legislative achievements came about due to a pairing of two disparate forces: the civil rights/progressive movement led by figures such as MLK and the tough-minded Democratic politicos led by President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

LBJ was head of a Democratic coalition that included a Democratic legislative majority based on southern Democrats. Many of these southern Democrats were progressive on some issues, but hostile to MLK and civil rights issues. They were the remnants of the old New Deal coalition (where FDR presided also over an alliance that included southern segregationists).

Notwithstanding, the Great Society alliance held together long enough to give us Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, etc. All during a very trying time when the nation was falling apart due to the Vietnam War.

Obama presides over what should be a much more unified coalition. The old southern segregationists are no more, since the southern Democratic Party largely went over and became the new southern GOP. However, in its stead we have solid black political participation which, as 2008 showed, while not enough to swing the majority of the old Confederacy, was enough to elect the nation's first black President.

And now people want to splinter into various ideological crusades? This is what happened in 1968, when a solid Democrat named Hubert Humphrey was very narrowly defeated by Richard Nixon. I had numerous relatives at that time who threw their votes away because "Humphrey and Nixon are the same." They voted for Dick Gregory, Donald Duck, etc. Talk to them today and they turn red with embarrassment at what fools they were.

Fast forward to 1980. Same thing. Jimmy Carter gets gutted by progressive opponents who celebrate Ted Kennedy and refuse to be reconciled in a general election that puts Reagan in the White House.

Fast forward again to 2000. Progressives belabor Al Gore as being "the same as Bush." Naderites and others splinter off to the extent that the GOP regains the White House under George W. Bush.

The same mentality, it seems, is alive and well. The mentality of the great noble defeat, the lost cause, the grand gesture that maintains one's ostensible purity at the cost of actual achievement.

I did not support Obama in 2008 - I was a Clinton supporter. But I am with him now, 100 percent, to the end. That is because you measure results and he has achieved results. Health care. Foreign policy, where he is managing the end of two wars he inherited. Revitalizing civil rights enforcement. Revitalizing environmental enforcement. Ensuring that the great social programs are protected.

If Obama loses in 2012, it will not be because the other side put up a better candidate with better ideas. It will be because he was abandoned by his own. Just like Carter and Gore were.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Carter lost because the far left didn't vote for him?

Ya might want to check out the 1980 data a bit more closely.

[Safetykitten]

37. Why yes, that's a fact. Didn't you know that amazing bit of history?

[kenfrequed]

72. Indeed

The Kennedy primary voters went with Carter in the general election.

The Anderson candidacy was not one that attracted the left at all. The six percent of the vote that went to him were primarily from Republicans (those that ran from Reagan after he won the primary.) His candidacy attracted moderate republicans that Carter leached away eventually.

Reagan did actually win democrats of the non-liberal variety so oddly we weren't to blame for that. As a matter of fact the Reagan presidency created a whole class of so-called 'Reagan Democrats' which actually spawned the very DLC which has become the consternation to progressives and the very force that sold out and compromised on existing compromises in order to negotiate still more compromises. The DLC Blue Dog faction sold us out at every turn and resulted in such a milquetoast democratic record where that there wasn't a solid accomplishment to run on.

[provis99]

98. quit trying to reach the Blue Dogs on this board.

They lie just as much as the republicans, and are as equally delusional. No point in trying to reach them.

[defendandprotect]

157. Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

[defendandprotect]

156. Carter lost because of "October Surprise" and being under constant attack from CIA and MIC --

Failure of the desert rescue missions?

They were headed up by Ollie North -- with Secord second in command!

Why did the helicopters go down one after another?

Because they didn't have the attachment required to keep sand out of the engines!!

Guess no one noticed it was a desert mission!!



Keep in mind that GATES played a primary role in the October Surprise!


This simply repeated Nixon's duplicitous behind the scene efforts to keep the

Vietnam peace talks from going forward after LBY stopped the bombing!

In both cases -- this was TREASON -- !!

[white_wolf]

13. Why should a president be guaranteed another nomination?

He should have to EARN our support.

[ProSense]

29. " We should have to EARN his support." I see your point

We should be able to move the goal post regardless of what the President does, and then bail before the election. If the Republican wins so what?

[white_wolf]

33. If the president won't fight for polices that people support

than why should those people support him? If he can't earn their vote, than he shouldn't get it. Votes have to be earned, not given.

[Search4Justice]

43. I agree 1000% .

I owe no one my vote or support. If they don't earn it, they won't get it.

[emilyg]

109. No D gets my vote automatically anymore.

[txlibdem]

118. You must be talking about unimportant things

like the fact that 66% of Americans wanted Single Payer health care... so Obama dropped that before negotiation even started.

Or like the fact that most Americans were against extending the tax cuts for millionaires... so... you know what happened. Pres. Obama vetoed the sh*t outta that bill. Right? He got on the TeeVee and yelled and screamed that this is wrong for the country and will destroy the economy. Or? Am I wrong about that?

[Fuddnik]

99. You got the quotation wrong.

HE should have to earn our support.

Anything less is begging on our part.

[white_wolf]

103. That was my fault, I typed it wrong last night and edited when it was pointed out to me.

[white_wolf]

100. Did not Obama campaign on closing Gitmo,

fighting for a public option at the least, ending the Bush tax cuts, ending the two wars? He has done none of those things, we are judging him based of his goal post.

[rpannier]

131. ending the two wars

No. He didn't.
He didn't campaign on ending Afghanistan

[white_wolf]

132. Well he hasn't ended that one, has he?

In fact he has escalated it and started a third.

[rpannier]

135. I'm not disputing that he campaigned on getting out of Iraq

And he hasn't completely gotten out I agree
I'm just not sure where people got the impression that he promised to get us out of Afghanistan
As to Libya, Obama has never said he is opposed to the use of the military in certain circumstances. He said so in 2002 (maybe it was '03).

I agree very much with your original thread which is the US needs a stronger and more visible far left. The question is, "Does the Left (not just the far left) have the will to go to the mat?"
The answer (for the last two, two-and-a-half decades)is no. There are many well educated people on the left who have a vested stake in protecting the status quo (media personalities, businessmen, entertainers, etc).
In addition, I have run into people with Masters and Doctorate degrees who find nasty, bare-knuckled politics to be low. They want mythological politics where people all play nice and in the end good wins out because people are basically good.

The most disturbing part of what has/is going on is how easily people on the left (including people here) are willing to cut unions loose. There have been countless people here at DU that have said, "FDR didn't support public unions." Which is not true.
I keep hearing people say, "Unions are what are killing the auto industry." Which I reply, "It was the unions that decided in the early 70's to not go with fuel efficient cars?"

In this climate I doubt there will be a "Grapes of Wrath" style movie. There will be no pictures of the nobility of the suffering masses to capture the imagination. No songs like "Brother can you spare a dime."

Washington and the media have been failing us for thrity years now. They change the words and phrases to make them seem less foreboding -- Great Recession, Budget Fix, Revamp of Social Security. etc.
I disagree with people who say they are doing it to please their corporate masters. They're doing it because it benefits their stock portfolios. They are the recipients of privatization.

[white_wolf]

139. Per FDR on public unions, I could be wrong but didn't

the only thing he opposed was the right to strike?

[rpannier]

143. That's my understanding as well

[defendandprotect]

159. If there is any "moving of the goal posts" it is by Obama -- not liberals --

When Obama makes back room deals with Big Pharma and private H/C industry and

then Rahm "crows" about it -- that's moving the goal posts.

76% and more of Americans wanted single-payer/government run health care - -

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- that was simple betrayal of the public.

And betrayal of the nation and our economy --

Lack of health care is bankrutping many citizens -- has a great deal to do with

the millions of foreclosures on homes -- and homelessness, of course.

Universal health care would have saved America money -- and provided 2.3 million new

jobs.

And that's just ONE of the goal posts moved by Obama!!

[defendandprotect]

158. Exactly -- and so should the VP ... Biden has been calling for Israel to attack Iran!!

Is that really what we want?

The '06 vote and the '08 votes were for ending the war --

Biden has been saying for more than a year now -- "Israel would be justified in attacking Iran!"

Enough of MIC and warmongers in the Whtie House --

We need a humanist in the White House --

two strong anti-war democrats -- from outside the party, preferably --

who can run on a Dem ticket!!

Wm. Greider -- Tom Hayden --

Bernie Sanders --

Would be nice not only to have a Democrat in the White House -- but a team

we could identify as Democratic rather than Wall St/Goldman Sachs!

[socialist_n_TN]

20. Well why did people abandon those candidates?

Was it because OTHER candidates were closer in line with their beliefs? That's one thing I've noticed. Supporters of the status quo always complain about the voters and never the candidates. Don't the candidates have an obligation to the voter? Or is it ONLY the voter that has an obligation to vote for the candidate?

I mean it should be a no brainer. The polls show almost OVERWHELMING support for SOLIDLY leftist positions BUT THERE'S NO CANDIDATE OUT THERE THAT'S ADVOCATING FOR THOSE POSITIONS. Why the fuck IS that? Unless it's because the candidates don't believe in those positions themselves

[ProSense]

30. Because

Carter was worse/no different from Reagan and Gore = Bush.

[whathehell]

61. You put Reagan and Gore on the same page, so to speak?

Whoa.

Not a huge fan of Gore, politically, but he was a hell of a lot better than Ronnie.

Also, Carter WAS better than Bush and Reagan. For one thing, unlike Ronnie,

he stopped funding the El Salvador government when

the nuns and church women were murdered, those killings looking

very much like the work of the RW military.

Carter lost, basically because he couldn't get the hostages in Iran back.

[kenfrequed]

73. No.

That is historical revisionism and does not do justice to the historical record in any way shape or form. Each of those situations had quite a lot going on and to suggest they are all the same and that it is somehow the 'progressive purity patrol' is absurd.

[Plucketeer]

74. LOL!

This is supposed to be a serious discussion.

[MissDeeds]

81. You ought to be ashamed

Coming to DU spewing that kind of tripe.

[ThomCat]

38. The president isn't giving the left any reasons to support him.

If you bother to pay attention you would see that he mostly pushes Republican themes, bills and goals.

He mostly attacks the left. He mostly accepts the framing of issues that the Republicans insist upon, and then defends it. And then after giving the Republicans what they want he insists that doing so was the most liberal possible outcome even when everyone on the left says that simply isn't so, and options on the left were never considered or offered as options.

Over and over again we are seeing these same patterns. If the left was giving good liberal and progressive programs to support, or even strong efforts to try to attain liberal and progressive programs, then the left would be there with support. But the left isn't going to support republican efforts.

Claiming that the left is failing Obama is looking at this backwards. Obama is failing the left. Obama is working from the right, and achieving great success for his corporate backers and for moderate republicans.

Obama's move to the right is an excellent example of why the whole party needs to support a move to the left again. Our party has become too used to supporting moves to the right, and too used to quietly rationalizing it and justifying it whenever it happens.

[MessiahRp]

48. The tiny fraction of people that went to Nader did NOT cost Gore the election.

Gore's feeble team in Florida along with Bush team shenanigans and a bought and paid for Supreme Court was the reason Gore lost.

Sad that you hate Democracy so much that you think it's wrong for people to get outside the two corporate party structure and find a candidate that actually cares about their interests or values and if they do it's always their fault that the complete garbage candidate in your party wasn't good enough to beat the complete garbage candidate in the other party.

Look to your own house. If Obama was so awesome, did so many of the things he said he would do and not without caving to the GOP or corporate interests at every turn, we wouldn't even have to have this discussion would we? It would be landslide all the way.

Obama and Washington Corporatist Dems made their OWN bed. Now we're supposed to take the blame for not being rah-rah 100% behind the man who lied to us repeatedly the last time around? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... unless you have no shame, right?

Rp

[JoeyT]

54. +1

The left didn't vote for Bush. If the "sensible" people want someone to gripe at over that one, they can go pester all those fucking moderates that thought he sounded like a reasonable person they'd like to have a beer with.

The vote was that close because of the useless people that will automatically look at both sides of a debate and step smartly to the center of the stated positions because they think it makes them look wise when it really just makes them look like they're too stupid to analyze positions and too afraid to stand for anything at all.

[kenfrequed]

75. It wasn't all Obama's fault

Evan Bayh hamstrung him with his damnable senate Blue Dogs. They basically organized to smash and oppose increases to taxation and progressive reform. Their membership is essentially responsible for killing the public option in favor of insurance bucks. It worked sooo well for them.

[MessiahRp]

120. Obama never even wanted to attempt a Public Option, let alone to go further left on HCR

Pinning it on the Blue Dogs is convenient but Obama was right there with them in agreement.

Rp

[kenfrequed]

154. Maybe

I think it is hard to say. The Blue Dogs arranged for themselves to gain significant power over the process. Why else would they even announce their formation before Obama took office. It was a symbol and a warning to him.

[creeksneakers2]

115. Al Gore was not a garbage candidate

He may not have been as far left as you'd like but he was as far left as you could ever hope to get elected.

[MessiahRp]

119. It was more a general statement...

I did not mean Gore so much as I mean every time someone wants to primary Obama or address his anti-Progressivism from a third party perspective everyone blames the left for trying to cater to the greater evil and wanting Republicans to win because they can't fathom the concept that their guy lost these votes legitimately and deserves to not have our support.

[defendandprotect]

160. +1000% -- and any differences between the parties are FADING FAST ... !!

[rhett o rick]

65. And thanks to those like you, what you consider "reasonable" is literally killing people.

Maybe you can live with that, but I cant. We are fighting terrorists. We give an inch and they demand a mile. You are willing to settle for only giving them 3/4 of a mile. But they come back again demanding another mile and you are willing to be "reasonable".

YOU CANT COMPROMISE WITH TERRORISTS.

[sulphurdunn]

104. "What Lunacy" indeed!

The Democratic Party sold out liberalism 50 years ago. All social change can be gauged by how much the ruling class fears armed revolution. That was true in the 30s. It was true in the 60s. And it's true today. The problem is that Wall Street isn't afraid of the American people today. It needs to be. Forming a radical socialist party is the way to do that. It is not an option. It is the only chance we have to save the Republic and perhaps the civilization we've been building for 10,000 years and the natural environment needed to sustain it. Capitalism, its faux two party political system and it's insatiable avarice is killing us all. Fighting back is what is pragmatic. Refusing to be a fool is pragmatic.

[HankyDubs]

113. strawmen

"Stop hiding behind a strawman argument that other people's opinions are inhibiting your ability to fight. That's absurd."

Never heard that argument made by anyone. Who here has said that differing opinions inhibit other peoples' ability to fight?

Strawman bullshit. Heal thyself, Doc.

[walldude]

191. Stop hiding behind a strawman

that other people's opinions are inhibiting your ability to fight. That's absurd.

You are right. We can fight without you. But we can't win. So you go on calling people names and making fun of their wish for a decent life, and we'll continue to fight on your behalf, even thought you don't really think we should be fighting at all.


15 cents please.

[Dappleganger]

14. +100000

We will not be moved.

[BklynThirtyThree]

15. Proud Socialist Democract here

+1

[white_wolf]

16. People talk about the gains made by European Social-Democracies, but they forget one thing

Those gains were not made by people fighting for Social-Democracy,they were made because people were fighting for Socialism/Communism and the ruling powers instituted reforms to save themselves. That is how change is made, you must fight as hard as you can for what you want most and if you fight hard enough, they will give you a lot of what you want, if not all of it.

[heppcatt]

18. I think that is the point that some people miss.

Just like the HCR law, the starting point was exchanges with a public option and we all know the result was a recycled GOP plan from 93, that the GOP now reject.

The starting point should have been nationalized health care or single payer, then work toward the center from there.

[kenfrequed]

78. Agreed +100000

I told people at the time that single payer was being tossed away that it was a bad idea to take away your own bargaining posture before kick off. I was told that this was some kind of wild chess and that by abandoning this position, and later by giving up on the public option, that we would get a much better healthcare system.

Oddly that turned out to be wrong.

[creeksneakers2]

116. The opposition only compromises

when there is a credible threat. Single payer had no chance of passing. It would have turned the public even more against Democrats than they were in the last election, which was a disaster.

[bobbolink]

85. Which brings up the question... how do you get people to support a *minority* need/goal

that isn't popular?

Specifically, we poor people don't have the strength or leadership to launch the kind of fight you are speaking of.

So, how do we make it "sexy" for the far left to take this up as an important issue?

[white_wolf]

88. If you mean the Far Left as in Socialists/Communists.

Their fight is against capitalism itself, once that is gone poverty will be eliminated. However, I do think we should focus on the symptoms(poverty) as well as the disease(capitalism)

[bobbolink]

94. If you actually want to reach people and have them involved, yes, that reaching out is

of paramount importance.

[defendandprotect]

161. Can only trust that poverty and homelessness is in our hearts -- Dem Party dropped these issues--!!

How often do we hear Obama talk about poor or homelessness --

It's disgraceful that he has let the tax cuts for the rich go on --

They are issues which should be primary in any liberal or left campaign!!

[rpannier]

140. Social Security and Civil Rights Legislation passed for the same reasons

The elite were scared

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. To me, what's needed is and "out and proud" far left.

My honest opinion is that the far left is already here, but its been hiding itself, not standing proudly for what its for. Even the right sees it, and the reason the Glenn Beck gained currency was because the right could sense a left that was there, but not talking. It made them nervous.

I'm glad you mentioned FDR, because to me he is the American core of the left: A man with a disability who proudly advocated for others that had them, for everybody knocked down in all the ways that life knocks us down...Advocating with his words and life that ALL people have something great to give. His cause wasn't intellectual, it was moral. And to me, advocating for the poor is as moral as the sermon on the mount, as spiritual. But somehow we've bought the propaganda about ourselves, that we aren't the moralists, we are the lawless crowd, the intellectuals, the elite. I was thinking about it the other night when I remembered a line from a song I like: "I'm sick of running with that lawless crowd while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud". We need to come out and be PROUD about feeling compassion for people with less than us. Let's say who we are, put it out there!

[white_wolf]

19. It has been hiding itself for years now.

Personally all the Cold War propaganda is a huge reason for that. I mean things to McCarthy you couldn't even call yourself a socialist/communist without fear of being brought before the Committee of Un-American Activities, and that McCarthy era mindset is still strong among the Right and even some moderates in this country. These see socialism/communism as the great evil to be fought and destroyed without even knowing what they are fighting.

[napoleon_in_rags]

34. Tell me about it. I just saw the documentary on Truman today, and I have to rant.

The "American Experience" series from PBS on Netflix. The FDR story moved me, then Truman came along and started the cold war. He only got re-elected because he started acting like FDR, only to let them down with more conflict with communists, and end his term with lower approval ratings than Nixon when he left.

I know I may sound boring, but watching these documentaries really took me into the depths of the para-politics of the times. FDR used WWII to demonstrate what could be achieved when we all united in a common purpose, strengthening the new deal. Not-as-bright Truman got sucked into a trap battling with unions and crossing the line in Korea, which put him against MacAthur who needed honorable exit from a war he couldn't win. His bumbling led to rank military insubordination, which is what this was about, testing of secret craft over the Whitehouse that left him scrambling for words, as well as MacArthur not saluting him, and ultimately writing letters to the opposition leaders denouncing Truman which led to MacArthurs recall. The military/Republican collaboration led to General Eisenhower's election, and an all around bad direction for everything. IT was only in Eisenhower's parting speech that he could denounce this new military industrial complex that he saw this collaboration leading to.

But the bottom line is, people took all the wrong lessons from FDR, believing that the powerful common purpose need be a war, a foreign foe. So commies became the new boogie man. And after the fall of the USSR, terrorists became the new boogie man. And things are failing miserably because the real lessons of those times have been lost, but still they search in desperation for new boogie men, some evil foe that will turn eyes away from the centers of power.

I am truncating a longer post here to make a point: When all these false boogie men run out, we will be faced with the fundamental inequalities that create our suffering, and we will be back to square one, the realization that a moral struggle is called for to overcome these inequalities and bring back a decent standard of living. At that point, names won't be relevant, only the great and fundamental desire in the human heart to be part of something greater than our own individual, mortal aspirations will matter, and timeless ideals will guide us once more.

[sabrina 1]

112. You're not boring at all. That is an excellent post.

[defendandprotect]

163. Truman was a liberal by standards today -- but he was moving things to the right ....

That's why Henry Wallace was moved out four months before FDR died --

They were not about to have an even bigger FDR in the White House!!

Best they could do at the time was HST --

The lies of the Cold War continue on today -- still hiding what went on

behind it. But that it was used as well to preserve the MIC can't be denied.

[defendandprotect]

164. Absolutely true -- and insanely so !!!

And agree with you re capitalism --

it's a system intended to move the wealth and natural resources from the many

to the few --

and it is suicidal in its exploitation of nature and natural resources --

animal-life -- and even human beings according to various myths of inferiority --!!

[dreamnightwind]

40. Left Out - eom

[bobbolink]

46. When the "Left" comes out strongly for poor people, THEN you will see it OUT and PROUD!

The Gift of the Poor
The people with the best sense of what is essential to a community, of what gives and maintains its spirit, are often doing very humble, manual tasks. It is often the poorest person - the one who has a handicap or who is ill or old - who is the most prophetic. People who carry responsibility must be close to them and know what they think, because it is often they who are free enough to see with the greatest clarity the needs, beauty and pain of the community.
- Jean Vanier, Community and Growth, p. 262

[tnlefty]

21. Well as a 50 something, who way back when was considered

a moderate democrat, then now a far left fringe democrat...

Shouldn't part of this be slung back on the repugs? Theodore Roosevelt took on the corparists in his day, as did Eisenhower, with his warning about the MIC, and his response to his brother regarding the estate tax..As much as I despised Nixon for his Constitutional abuses, he established Title X, the EPA, etc., which the current crop of repukes want to kill.

As much as I agree with you, I find it valid to point out to the crazy repukes around me the presidents that they've left as road kill.

And no, I'm not singing the praises of repub presidents, as they each did some really nasty shit, but the current crop of repukes disowns them, and I enjoy pointing that out to them.

[white_wolf]

23. Doesn't that prove my point though?

The crazy reactionary teaparty is pretty much demanding libertarian or in some cases theocratic positions and the Republicans are giving them a lot of what they want, and the Dems with no strong left to pressure them are going along with barely a fight.

[tnlefty]

32. Take it as you will, but i don't view the teabaggers as any

different from your average southern republican. They're one is the same as far as I'm concerned, except the teabaggers are just louder and noisier.

Libertarians, from what I've observed, are spoiled brats who have been sucking at the gubmint teat, but don't want anyone else to have any sort of a safety net...as I mentioned...cut them off.

Yes, a left needs to fight back, but when the head of the party doesn't, it's fun to toy with them on a smaller basis. I totally understand your point, and I'm not disagreeing with you, but from my perspective in red state hell...

fuck with their heads and never let them know if you're armed or not. The armed or not is something my Dad stressed to me from when I was a young girl. I won't tell you or any of my fuckwit neighbors.

[BobbyBoring]

82. That's the whole ball of wax right there.

There are NO moderate republicans. The few that could have been considered moderate are either gone or fighting for their seats. The whole country is being steam rolled by total lunatics bent on taking us back to the dark ages.

That said, there are now very few moderate dems. They've moved right. Anyone claiming Obama is a socialist or a liberal has no idea what those words mean. We need to take a hard left turn fast or we're doomed a a nation.

[tnlefty]

190. Yes, years ago I was considered by today's standards a

conservative/moderate democrat. Here I'm considered part of the despised 'far left wing fringe'. I still find it amusing to point out to those around me how they've left their presidents as so much road kill.

I enjoy messing with them. I think we agree, but maybe I enjoy taunting republicans more than you do. I do enjoy it, btw. And for some it jars them into how much what they liked/thought about the republican party is now gone. They're not voting for the lunatics on the right anymore, and they now find themselves outnumbered. Whether by voting machines in GA or the DRE's in my state, they're angry and outnumbered, and thankfully, the ones that I know despise the teabaggers.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. If they would consistently vote for (D)s instead of always bailing for 3rd

party candidates, throwing the elections to the (R)s, I would be fine with that.


Unfortunately some people want to run before they can walk.

Democratic politicians need to play to the middle because the far left almost always abandons them. Unlike Republican politicians who seem to have an endless bounty of for right wackos who will vote for anyone who is against abortion, or same sex marriage, or reasonable tax rates, or whatever the outage of the moment is.


When the "strong far left" has spent230 years showing up and voting for democratic candidates we won't need to have this conversation. Politicians will be able to play to the left and still win.

[white_wolf]

25. A lot of the Left does support Democrats.

In face the Communist Party of the USA even tell its members to support Democrats. You can't get much more Left than the Communist Party.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Ahh, the old if you guys will just tolerate whatever and dutifully donate, canvas, phone bank, and

vote for 230 years then Democrats will reward us canard.

Do you not get how stupid that is? Why after 230 years of rubberstamping is anyone going to care what you want or indeed after 230 years even remember?

Who the fuck has been dependable for 230 years anyway? Hell, the "centrists"/Reagan DINOcraps bolt all the time by the millions and are played to almost exclusively.

You guys are always trying to rig the game so the politicians have no accountability to the people and a frame where the people are abused because they haven't been loyal enough. If that is all you got then welcome to the Fourth Reich.

[white_wolf]

31. To be honest there isn't enough difference

between the two parties anymore to motivate the Left to vote, this lesser of two evils nonsense is just a ploy to keep people voting for the dems.

[socialist_n_TN]

67. Man! That 3rd paragraph is ON THE MONEY.........

The "...centrists/Reagan DINOcrats botl all the time by the millions and are played to almost exclusively." Why the fucK IS that? IF anybody has been a reliable vote for Dems over the last 30+ years it IS the far left. Yet the "centrists" will bolt for any Republican pretty face that winks at them. Watch, if Pawlenty or Romney is nominated, you'll see the fucking "centrists" falling all over themselves to let us know how non "Republican" they are.

[upi402]

24. 81% say 'Raise taxes on Millionaires' - WSJ/NBC News poll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZi8p7HUH_w

So ask; why would Dems take so much off the table without even saying it's a starting point.

Who are we electing, practical representative Democrats or corporatists with an agenda different from the vast majority us?

[rdking647]

36. a 50% hike

in taxes on the top 1% would reduce the current 1.5T deficit by only 3.3%
spending,even on things liek medicare is going to have to be cut

[TheKentuckian]

42. All the Bush tax cuts need to go. Any working class relief would have to come from increases up the

line, we must shut down Pax Americana or be able to levy taxes globally, and we must control health care costs.

[crickets]

26. K&R

[markpkessinger]

27. I'd even settle for a strong center left ....

... But Democrats have now placed themselves squarely in the center-right of the historical spectrum.

[rdking647]

35. since the far left

even when motivated managed to lose in wisconsin theres not much hope for the far left

[TBF]

51. Well you cleaned us out good in the 1920's and 1950's -

and damned if I don't see it happening again with the Obama administration arresting anti-war activists, but if you think people are just going to lay down and die I think you are very mistaken.

The only problem the far left has right now is that there is little organization, and many workers are identifying with the republican party. That will change as more and more is cut (including social security).

[creeksneakers2]

126. Radicals can't organize

The defining characteristics of a radical are refusal to compromise and refusal to see nuance. Coalition building requires those two things of members so that everybody can get along and work together.

Radicals spend almost all their time fighting with each other or trying to sabotage those who would be their allies some of the time.

To top that off, radicals are also impotent because they value sensational but impractical symbols, like impeaching George W. Bush, over actual progress. So what radicals produce to promote their causes is usually crazy looking and counter productive.

The tea party crowd, as dumb as they are, were effective in moving their party because they got involved at the primary level with their own candidates. The far left will never do that though, because they secretly know they can't work together and also know that their philosophy is very unpopular and even frightening to most.

So the far left dreams about uprisings and inconsequentially tries to blackmail moderates by threatening to withhold support. Nobody cares because radicals aren't dependable supporting voters anyway.

Nothing will change until radicals change, but they never will, because when you get down to what its really about for them is pretending they are heroic fighters who are pure as freshly fallen snow. What actually happens when, say for instance, radicals withhold support from moderate candidates, doesn't concern the radicals one bit. That's why radicals refuse to compromise or see nuance and create absurd gestures.

[white_wolf]

133. Wait, radicals can't organize?

Ever hear of the Russian Revolution? I don't care what you think of Lenin, Trotsky, and those who fought alongside them, but that took a lot of organization. As to your second point, if we are so unimportant then why do you all insist on blaming us for Gore's loss? Either we matter or we don't. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

[TBF]

144. Not to mention the French Revolution ...

which I like to bring up just to remind them where we're headed if they don't shape up.

[creeksneakers2]

168. We need 51%

They are 2%. Without them, we lose. But they are too small to allow them to control the other 49%. We'd lose the 49%.

[rpannier]

142. Radicals can't organize

The rest of your post failed from that statement alone

[Cherchez la Femme]

182. Mingia, that's dumb

you've got some hella twisted thinking

[donheld]

39. The "Center Right" seems to be sliding farther right at a stunningly rapid pace.

[loudsue]

41. Reagan made being "liberal" a really dirty word. I remember in the 80's

sitting in a restaurant w/ a dem friend of mine, and we were WHISPERING because we were AFRAID of what might happen if people heard what we were talking about. That's in Raleigh, NC. It hasn't changed much.

[defendandprotect]

167. Right ... while behind the scenes his campaign was commiting TREASON ....

with the "October Surprise" --

not unlike what Nixon did in pursuing back channels to keep the

Vietnam peace talks from going forward -- after LBJ stopped the bombing

to bring both sides to the peace table.

They worked their asses off to confuse the public re Vietnam -- but those

being drafted understood it very well -- we were a long way, however, from

understanding the right wing's need for 'PERPETUAL WAR' --

Not even sure that everyone has woken up to that, even now?

[Starry Messenger]

44. Cold war liberals helped the right eliminate the left wing

Then they wonder in shock as their former conservative collaborators turn around and do the same thing to them. The need to protect capitalism by this class has led to much illogical foolishness. They need us but they don't want us.

[socialist_n_TN]

147. Yes they did. I actually remember this happening........

As a socialist, I don't really trust liberals all that much. The old SDS saying keeps coming back when talking about liberals. That they'll cry over your grave when the fascists shoot you. Pretty useless in a hot class war.

[Starry Messenger]

152. I've been reading about it. It's very eye-opening.

I'm only 40 so I missed a lot of background on all of this, reading Jessica Mitford's "A Fine Old Conflict" where she pointed to events where liberals actively worked to smear the commies was very interesting. I'm curious how liberalism got the laurels of being "the left" in the post-60's political arena. I guess there weren't enough socialists remaining to carry on the historical record in the public sphere, but I'd love to hear your take on that if you have time.

[socialist_n_TN]

162. Hey starry, I've got a take on EVERYTHING.......

:rofl: But actually your take is what happened. In the late 50s/early 60s there WEREN'T very many avowed socialists/communists left and there were NONE in ANY positions of any sort of influence. McCarthy took care of most of that in the early 50s. The Red Scare scared EVERYBODY. Commies and socialists were purged by the unions, especially the CIO which was then merged with the much more conservative AFL. They were blacklisted in the entertainment business, fired from teaching jobs and in a lot of cases arrested. In general they were neutered.

By the time McCarthy was stopped, he'd already run through the REAL left. In addition, he had also run through his usefulness to the capitalists. You'll notice he was only stopped AFTER he had razed the communists and militant socialists to the ground. Ergo, all that was left to carry out any sort of left leaning advocacy were the liberals.

The PTBs didn't (and don't) mind the liberals because they were easy to control and had a stake in the system itself, so they weren't a credible threat to them. But the Liberals did allow for the illusion of some sort of multi party viewpoints to show the world for propaganda purposes.

What it boils down to is that liberals are not MILITANT in their defense of the working class. Their defense is half hearted at best because they are, when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road, on the side of the exploiters.

Things did change back a little in the late 60s/early 70s. There was a resurgence of socialism with the "New Left", but they were mostly kids playing at revolution. Mostly. But some of us at least learned some history about the REAL left.

[defendandprotect]

170. Thank you -- and I think you've explained here the Q I was asking above ....

What it boils down to is that liberals are not MILITANT in their defense of the working class. Their defense is half hearted at best because they are, when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road, on the side of the exploiters.

Things did change back a little in the late 60s/early 70s. There was a resurgence of socialism with the "New Left", but they were mostly kids playing at revolution. Mostly. But some of us at least learned some history about the REAL left.



Howard Zinn also said something like that in this message to us all --

"Sentimentalism -- without action -- is meaningless" -- !!


Anyone who truly understands the "exploiters," however, understands fascism --

As I see it, the difference between what "Katie" knew and was willing to act against --

and what Robert Redford refused to act on -- !! "The Way We Were" --

There wasn't the necessary dialogue supplied in most of their political conflicts --

but, did he have a point -- as Humphrey Bogart may have been forced to recognize -- that

the power had already shifted to the right and political resistance wasn't going to work --

at least not unless the entire nation woke up!! ??


I'd just add that the rudest awakening I've had was when I asked someone close to those

who know something about our government/MIC why there was no reaction/push re the Tunnheim

Panel saying, "Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments and

probably also for the FBI" -- ?

And he said, because no one has the POWER to do anything about it!

That was chilling, indeed!!

[white_wolf]

173. "New Left." I've heard the term, but honestly I havent't studied it very much

all I know was that the author of "Prophet Armed" played a large role in Britain's New Left, at least intellectually. Would you mind giving an overview?

[socialist_n_TN]

178. The New Left in 60s terminology was us kids..........

mostly anti war, pro civil rights, liberationists, etc. The term was coined (and I don't remember by whom) to distinguish us from the old Stalinist USSR left of the 50s.

Mostly it was kids playing at revolution, but we did learn some stuff. The biggest difference as I recall was that we were more libertarian in PERSONAL beliefs than the old left. Actually, we probably had more in common with the EARLY 20th Century left than with the ossified bureaucracy left over from Stalin. More flexible in outlook.

Anyway that was part of it. This is apropos to your OP, because we did push the dialog in the country leftward even though the radical New Left never was more than a small fraction of even the YOUNG people of the country. We were just loud and we didn't mind being arrested. :)

[defendandprotect]

169. I consider myself a liberal -- and interested in what you are saying --

that I would have the potential to be a huge coward, I well know ---

but can you elaborate on this a bit -- how exactly you mean what you are saying.

And how you might draw a line - in your opinion -- between liberals and socialists.



Just as an aside, but weren't Jews considered some of the strongest liberals everywhere?

Wasn't that why they were thought to be such a pain in the ass everywhere?

But, rather, the concept of the wealthy Jew seems to predominate?

Am I wrong, historically?

[socialist_n_TN]

172. I tried to explain it a little further in #162..........

What it boils down to, (IMO of course) is that liberals aren't militant in their defense of the working class/poor and socialists ARE. And mostly it's because liberals have a stake in keeping the bourgeosie in power because that's what most liberal are, bourgeosie. Most socialists (especially of the Marxist variety) are wanting to overthrow the bourgeosie and institute the road to socialism.

It's a generalization of course, but in my experience it has some truth. Enough truth so that I have a hard time trusting liberals to REALLY want a massive overhaul of the current system.

BTW, defend I don't really think of you as a liberal. You seem pretty militant to me from your posts. :) I think a lot of people consider themselves "liberal" because, as I said in post 162, for DECADES (longer than most of us have been alive) "liberal" was the only game in town if you had a left outlook on politics and economics. Ergo, if you weren't conservative, you must be a liberal. IOW, those were your only choices.

[defendandprotect]

181. Well, I've found your thoughts helpful -- thank you --

keep on tellin' it -- !!!

[socialist_n_TN]

188. You're welcome. That's one thing I REALLY like about DU.........

I always learn stuff. Even if it's just a different way to frame what I believe in, it's still learning.

[BOG PERSON]

47. if there were a strong left

wouldn't it be independent and start poaching support away from the democrats? instead of clinging to the democratic party's apron strings the way it does now and the way it will do forever?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

49. I agree, however....

There is a difference between "strong" and "unrealistic".

By all means, push for the "right" solution. But if the majority of the public disagrees with you (note: tax cutting has been very popular with the public over the past 40 years), don't go getting all pissy that party moderates push for a measure that does only half of what you want.

Yes indeed, the "far left" got FDR to put in Social Security. But it wasn't what they really wanted. They wanted the Townsend plan. Still, they did pretty well for themselves in not only getting Social Security passed, but FDR reelected so that it would continue to improve.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[TBF]

50. On being "realistic" -

I'll address your "crumbs" argument head on. You are arguing for "incrementalism" - or as I call it "crumbs". We stick within electoral politics, try to elect people who will vote for more "progressive" policies, and wait for the crumbs to trickle down.

Guess what? There isn't even a trickle anymore! The wealthy in this country barely even pay taxes anymore and the corporations damned well don't. We have a democratic president who is referring to Social Security (which WE funded) as an "entitlement", and is suggesting "cuts" to it. Most of us are barely keeping our households going, while someone like Bill Gates has more money than most of us combined.

How much more do we take?

We are past the time to get in the streets - we are being stolen from left and right (I mean that literally as well figuratively). We are past the time for electoral politics ... way past.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

64. Again, this is a matter of perception...

Talk to a Republican, and he'll tell you American corporations are dying under the highest maximum tax rate in the world. Talk to you, and you believe corporations damned well don't pay taxes.

Can I venture to say that you're both wrong? Certainly tax rate appears high, but it is filled with loopholes which make it so that the percentage of overall revenue the U.S. gets from corporations in the U.S. is about half that of other major industrialized nations. Still, that's far from nothing. Subtract out both FICA taxes and expenditures (Social Security), and it's about 7% of overall US revenue.

Again, I would say that the best argument that leftists have is that the public is so clueless, they don't know whether their tax rates have gone up or down. They just vote for whoever makes them feel good. So you might as well do the right thing.

But the problem with this is that it is far too easy to use procedural tactics to stonewall. We may love it in Wisconsin, but it's also the reason we don't have the public option. So often the best way isn't to be a partisan warrior, but to gently nudge people in the right direction.

You may consider this "crumbs", if you want. Maybe you consider Social Security crumbs. But get enough crumbs and you can make crumb cake.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[TBF]

66. No - it's a matter of fact and being able to read

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: March 24, 2011

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

[socialist_n_TN]

68. And may I add Bank of America made $4+ BILLION dollars

in PROFIT last year and got an almost $2 BILLION dollar REFUND! The list goes on and on.

[BobbyBoring]

87. Republicans say corps are buried by taxation

because like the countless other falsehoods they believe, that's what they're told to believe. If they were burdened by our tax rates, why would they offshore so many of our jobs? Because our tax structure makes it even easier to avoid the burden they don't have. They don't pay FICA or social security on Indian and Chinese labor do they?

It's the same old shit on steroids now.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

93. Again, people, I'm not necessarily disagreeing on the direction...

I agree with you that it would be better for the U.S. if the nation's corporate tax rate was adjusted a bit upwards.

But you are simply not going to get that to happen by yelling about "evil companies". Bad old nameless "corporations". Most Americans like the companies they work for. So it doesn't do too much good to alienate them.

A much batter way to approach this is in a positive manner, adding information as you do so. Ask what *should* the corporate tax rate be? They will likely answer something considerably higher than it is presently, and then you start to convince people.

Of course that requires that you go on down to your local county democratic party and sign up to man tables at the local county fair. Persuasion happens one person at a time, usually spiced with plenty of facts. Typing flames in a website visited largely by people who entirely agree with you just doesn't do it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[TBF]

145. LOL @ your incrementalism -

which is working for whom? Only the top 3-4% who control most of the wealth in this country. We are past "manning tables at the county fair" - you're going to have to come up with something a lot better than that.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

179. Actually, I don't have to "come up with something" at all

I'm not nearly as upset as you are. I have a Democratic President I believe in, a Democratic Senate, and while things could be better with the GOP throwing their constant tantrum, I figure it's going to turn out all right. The American people are often wrong, but they usually end up getting it right in the end.

Let me also gently explain to you that I'm just telling you what works. Portland's reputation aside, my state is filled to the brim with conservative Democrats, Independents, and hard core Republicans. The only reason we win is that every single year we convince just enough to vote our way. You do that by talking to people. It's called retail politics. This is why Democrats basically won in Oregon in 2010, when just about every other State turned bright red.

But it's also hard work. Unlike the slactivism of posting outraged comments on a website where the only argument is whether someone agrees with you 100% or 5000%!!!!111, giving up your weekends to engage people to change GOP-clouded minds isn't easy.

But again, that's the difference between being effective and not being effective. One person at a county fair doesn't do much. But thousands of actual activists, each phonebanking, canvassing, and tabling, do plenty.

And your alternative of typing words in extreme anger (punctuated with plenty of LOLs!) does nothing. I haven't yet seen a post on a website substantially change anyone's mind, much less a "gated-community" political website like this one. So rather than curse the darkness, I suggest you light a candle and get out there, wherever you live.

Politics is not spectator sport. Not if you want to actually do something.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[TBF]

186. How dare you -

how dare you accuse me of being a "spectator" when I was part of the Obama campaign - I was a precinct captain for Precinct 58 here in Brazoria County. I walked door to door, phone-banked, and manned the primary elections (during the day and the caucus).

And look what it got us - Obama elected and absolutely fucking NOTHING has changed for the poor.

So you can shove your incrementalism, participation tips, and condescending bullshit.

Those of us who realize we are working class have nothing to lose by fighting back - and our fight includes pretentious assholes who happen to call themselves democrats. In fact, it is probably the more important part of our fight because they are the ones obscuring the fact that absolutely nothing is being done.

[white_wolf]

187. I'm sure a lot of the most frustated people are those who fought harders for Obama.

The are frustrated because their efforts were rewarded with betrayal to corporate interests.

[creeksneakers2]

127. Nearly universal health care is not a crumb

And the rich pay a sizable portion of federal income tax receipts.

There is nothing wrong with calling Social Security an entitlement. That's what it is considered by the law.

[defendandprotect]

171. +1000% -- Hartmann talked about "government by gangsters" today ... !!! Agree!!

[socialist_n_TN]

70. "tax cutting has been very popular over the past......

40 years." Then why do almost 80% of the public when polled want a tax INCREASE on the wealthy? And there was a SOLID minority that wanted ALL the Bush tax breaks recinded, EVEN THE ONES THAT BENEFITTED THEMSELVES.

Your user name is ConservativeDemocrat so I'll take you at your word that that's what you actually are. The problem with conservatives of any sort in the Democratic Party is that they don't MIND that the left is left out. It suits their ideology. But to cater to this ideology when the public over and over again polls for out and out LEFTIST positions, when people who are already left are self identifying as socialists more and more, and when even most moderates actually hold leftist positions is FIGHTING THE LAST WAR. The Dems no longer have to be in Reagan Era "survival" mode. In fact it's conterproductive for them to hold on to Reagan Era DINO values.

What it will boil down to at some point in the relatively near future is that SOME party will grab onto the lead on ALL of these positions that the PUBLIC says they want and they will leave the Dems in the dust. UNLESS the DEMS are the one to grab these positions.

[TBF]

79. Yup, and I see Silly Sarah leading the charge on that -

I keep telling folks that ... at some point here republicans are going to start sounding downright populist in order to win the next election. Huck and Sarah are the best at that.

[socialist_n_TN]

83. That's a scary thought, but..........

I could see that happen. I wonder how they would finesse the support for the capitalists though. Any ideas?

[white_wolf]

84. I'm not sure they could do it.

Populism sounds too much like socialism to their base.

[TBF]

102. The capitalists are going to vote for whichever party promises the least taxes -

and delivers on that. The democrats could become the status quo party while republicans go populist (in effect changing places). To the folks at the very top does it really matter - they just want to keep the charade of a two-party system going (while keeping as much money for themselves as they can).

[socialist_n_TN]

105. Also true. I'm just not sure how they could pull this off..........

with ANY sort of credibility. The Dem part of it, OK, they've been toeing the corporate line at the national level for a WHILE now. But how do they credibly switch the Republicans from batshit crazy to populist? Especially if it's Huckabee and Palin.

I'm inclined to think that they'll leave this alone in the short term and this part of the electorate will be ignored for the next few cycles.

[TBF]

123. Maybe so -

but "batshit crazy" is a lot of folks if the moderates are switching to Obama. You're left with super wealthy and batshit crazy. Wouldn't want to be in charge of that campaign =)

[socialist_n_TN]

149. Yeah I know. That's why I go back to that part of ......

the electorate that's in a majority (positionwise) and is being ignored. SOMEBODY'S is going to pick up on it at some point in time. I'm sure the exploiter's marketing directors are racking thier brains trying to find the solution to this conundrum. I personally just don't see how they do it.

The Nazis did it with extreme nationalism based on resentment of the Versaille Treaty that ended WWI, so that doesn't apply here. They're trying to do it with a rebirth of racism, but that doesn't seem to be working for anybody, BUT the batshit crazies.

I'm thinking (hoping?) it will be the left that picks up the banner of this underrepresented majority, but the question is when.

[white_wolf]

153. Well, how did Debbs and Norman Thomas do it?

The got enough people interested in Socialism to be a threat to the capitalists, we need to learn from them.

[socialist_n_TN]

166. They did it by getting involved in the unions mostly..........

and organizing unions. Organize, educate, and agitate. Get involved on a local level doing what you can.

[defendandprotect]

175. Agree -- but ....

just want to ask you about your last paragraph --

What it will boil down to at some point in the relatively near future is that SOME party will grab onto the lead on ALL of these positions that the PUBLIC says they want and they will leave the Dems in the dust. UNLESS the DEMS are the one to grab these positions.

It was rather hilarious -- sadly so -- to hear Pelosi pre the 2010 election talk about

smearing the GOP with the reality of their having "poo on their shoe" -- honest to god, that's

what she said! -- re campaign contributions!

In 2010 GOP got $7 for every $1 Dems got -- but thought it was ironic.

Granted a move in the right direction -- but she was obviously out there alone.

Now who would settle for odds like those except unless the victims are actual collaborators?

That can also be said re the Dem Party's lack of interest, curiosity - or action -- re the

GOP controlled voting computers! And, yet they are the victims!

While I hope what you are saying is true -- I think it can lead to complacency among liberals

who might sit back waiting for it to happen without their doing anything to make it happen!

I'm pessimistic about it because I think really our people's government has been taken from

us -- long ago -- and the avenues upon which we would conduct democracy have been blown up.

It's a huge power shift as I see it to the right -- based on political violence.

I don't see this as simply a need for a political shift -- this is going to require a revolution.

Even if we look at simpler battles -- like Italy's with the Mafia -- it might give some idea

of what I am saying.

[defendandprotect]

174. And sometimes being realistic leads to being weak and cowardly ....

By all means, push for the "right" solution. But if the majority of the public disagrees with you (note: tax cutting has been very popular with the public over the past 40 years), don't go getting all pissy that party moderates push for a measure that does only half of what you want.

The public has been so propagandized by the right wing over decades that it's amazing that they

actually understand what's going on -- and what they want is TAXING OF THE RICH!!

We don't have "party moderates" in office -- we have gangsters in office, doing the dirty work

for elites.


Still, they did pretty well for themselves in not only getting Social Security passed, but FDR reelected so that it would continue to improve.

Social Security was the greatest stimulus program this nation has ever seen!



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[goodnews]

52. K&R. nt

[JoeyT]

53. Oh there aren't enough of us to matter anyway.

Until some incompetent candidate they wanted loses due to a combination of fraud and godawful messaging. Then we're apparently 90% of the electorate and they'll scream and cry for practically forever. The record so far is a nearly a decade and still going.

[David__77]

55. It's the fault of wacko "New Leftism" and postmodernism, not "regular Democrats."

The so-called, pathetic Left destroyed itself. This reached its zenith in the late 1960s, the emergence of the SDS and similar formations. People full of high ideals came in one end, and got spit out as burned-out counterculturals and crazies on the other.

The old left - the CPUSA and SPUSA, mainly - also destroyed itself through its slavishness toward the Soviet Union in the former case, and its capitulation to liberalism in the latter.

I understand your point, and have thought the exact same thing. But before this arguments really means anything in the real world, there must actually BE a viable, if very small, left in existence. It will take discipline, setting aside many points of disagreement, and probably changed international conditions, for a left revitalization to occur. When it does happen, I suspect there'd be many in the Democratic Party who would be sympathetic or at least responsive.

[Hawkowl]

56. I have been a Socialist since 1988

I almost always vote Democratic, but will not be voting for Obama again.

[goobergoober01]

57. i love the FAR LEFT.... but at election time, how about JUMP ABOARD and-----

help get the "middle-left" into office...

they are a lot easier to bargain with

they actaully do SOME of the things we can only DREAM of

and..... it makes the Far Left look a lot more rational to understand that in the end, SOME is better than NONE (even with a good intent)


BY THE WAY wouldn't it be better to get everyone out to vote, rather than to have to do recalls... can you see the misspent effort

[white_wolf]

58. A lot of the left did jump aboard last election and elected Obama.

Now after 3 years he hasn't really delivered on his promises and has promoted a lot of center-right policies, can you blame people for being disillusioned at this point?

[EFerrari]

76. How do you think Obama was elected?

And the left is probably the most rational segment of our politics. Irrational is continuing policies that hurt most Americans like wars and tax breaks for the rich and letting people die from preventable diseases.

Btw, the left turned out just fine in 2010, as the good results for progressives and the decimation of the Blue Dog caucus demonstrated.

Hello? McFly?

[BulletproofLandshark]

80. "How about JUMP ABOARD"

How about "no."

[Blue_In_AK]

60. Hear, hear!

I've been arguing this point with someone else on this board for about 12 hours now.

[no limit]

62. Great post white_wolf, K&R

[madrchsod]

63. i`m a socialist and proud of it...

obama is a perfect example of a liberal republican of the 50`s and early 60`s before the party was taken over by the hard right corporatists....

[bobbolink]

86. You are right. Obama is actually to the right of Nixon.

:( :grr:

[miscsoc]

185. wayyyyy to the right

Can you imagine Obama proposing any sort of minimum income? Or imposing price controls?

[bobbolink]

189. And I remember celebrating when Nixon left. O, how far we have sunk!

:cry:

[florida08]

69. I agree but that was during a depression

This great recession hasn't hit everyone equally. Half this country doesn't vote. They're the feel good crowd that wants us to all get along. The half that does is split between two groups. Corporate America and the working class. This country will not wake up until it hits all the working class. You see how they've pitted the private sector against unions. It's all those teachers fault why we have a bad economy. It's all those pension funds why cities/states are going broke.

Until everyone is in the same boat people will stay confused and vote emotionally. The disinformation out here is at stages I have never seen before. The republicans as always are masters at forming the message. Does anyone think that the cut that was made to SS payments in payroll taxes will actually be put back? Why Obama allowed that makes me cringe.

They have marginalized those of us who are moderate/left I'm afraid.

[dionysus]

71. there's a big difference between pushing the party left, and sayin "obama's a gop mole and the dems

suck, and i'm not going to vote anymore" which get's said a lot around here.

[Change Happens]

110. Thank you!

[felix_numinous]

77. Checks and balances

If the RW are extreme, they require an equal and opposite force to balance the equation. Simple, really.

But opposite also means sane, ethical, and non violent--THAT makes it a true counter balance :)

[M_A]

89. I used to call myself a democratic socialist

I dropped the "democratic" part several years ago when I watched the liberal party (Dems) move so far right they made Nixon look like a lefty. I won't vote for the centrist democrat, I'd rather get screwed by my true enemy (the republicans) than by my supposed friend the (faux democrat). Voting as far left as possible in every election, and I'm not alone, no matter what letter is behind the candidate's name.

[Shagbark Hickory]

91. What country are you in?

[M_A]

96. probably in the same one as you.

[Shagbark Hickory]

108. You know I guess I had to re-read your post a couple hours later for the penny to drop.

It's monday afterall.

I read "liberal party" literally as in the liberal party.

[NoodleyAppendage]

137. I'm with you. The Dems lost my 2012 vote months ago. n/t

J

[Shagbark Hickory]

90. Great but there's no way to get them elected without money and money comes from rich ppl and corps.

And rich ppl and corps want socialism or communism like they want an aneurysm.

Find a way to get them elected then we'll have something to talk about.
Til then it's a daydream. And I typically unrec daydreams but I'm making an exception in this case.

[fredamae]

92. Does anybody else remember

when candidate Obama stated as president you might have to "Make me do it"?

The reference to FDR reminded me of that as he was speaking of FDR at the time.

We have got to get out pen and paper, phones and emails and Everyday Bend our sens/reps along with the president. Pressure Every damned day! Unrelenting! Clearly WE have to "Make Them Do What WE, the majority in this country, Want. Period!

We need to Listen to Weiner and Sanders and allow Them to inspire us. So far, neither of these 2 men have Lied about the direction the pubs are dragging us and the means they use to take us there!

Lets get "feisty", folks! Otherwise are we any better than the "milquetoast dems" wee bitch about?

[Norrin Radd]

95. The "far" left isn't far. It is the true left. The right has

gone off the cliff, and the far or extreme center is the new right.

[Dappleganger]

97. If being an FDR democrat means that I'm a socialist...

and you think that makes me an extremist, there's something horribly wrong with you.

[russspeakeasy]

107. I'm o.k. with that.

[mcollins]

101. K&R!

[DirkGently]

106. We need a Far Left to remind people that basic social needs aren't "A radical leftwing agenda."

[Scuba]

117. K&R

[txlibdem]

121. Agreed

You have it exactly right. None of the big gains by FDR would have happened in the corporate-owned "One Party with Two Heads" America of today. Only the growing popularity of Socialism and Communism in America at that time forced the Democrats to budge.

Today, after they've succeeded in making socialism and communism the two most-hated words in the English language, the Dems don't have to do a damn thing for the people.

[livefreest]

122. couldn't agree more

[Hotler]

124. Fucking a! n/t

[ejbr]

125. k & r n/t

[RedCloud]

128. I am sick of this "left in form, right in essence" crappola we see daily.

[creeksneakers2]

130. Plenty came out of Democrats that wasn't "corporatist."

[Weird Liberal Head]

134. Very true.

[treestar]

136. I'm not sure that thesis would stand

That the "far left" should get that credit. Not debating, but saying I would not accept it as unquestioned.

[cyberpj]

138. It may be the only way to make them listen. It's how the Tea Party got it's power, by breaking up

the bigger Republican party in a way that made them afraid to lose their votes.

A new leftist party would do the same to the bigger Dem party.

[creon]

141. I agree

The country would benefit from a strong socialist left. Many of the goodideasthat would benefit the USA comes from the left.

I would like to see a strong party in the USA like the german SPD or the UK Labour Party.

[white_wolf]

146. Hasn't Labour gone the way of the Democratic Party here?

I've heard that under Blair they embraced Neo-liberalism. I could be wrong, though.

[creon]

184. sort of

Some people say that. I am not sure how much I agree.

Blair made the gross blunder of going into Iraq with GWB. That is most serious quarrel with him.

No party really "won" the last election in the UK.

Labour has to regroup now that they are out of power.

[rhett o rick]

148. I agree with you desire, but wonder how the left can "push" Pres Obama?

What leverage does the left have? Is the left going to threaten to vote third party and hope to destroy Pres Obama chance for reelection? What does the left have to bargain with?

[white_wolf]

151. Honestly, I'm not totally sure.

The great threat of the Left during FDR's day was the combination of the success of Norman Thomas and Eugene Debb's Socialist Party, and the very real potential for revolution among the working class.

[defendandprotect]

176. You need leverage over elected officials -- only corporations have that ...

and as long as we are voting on GOP computers I'm doubtful that we have anything!

What we certainly have -- as Thom Hartmann called it today -- is "government by gangsters" --

[white_wolf]

177. Thom always speaks truth to power.

As he says "we have the best government money can buy."

[bongo_x]

150. I keep moving left….

I absolutely agree we need a far left and have been trying for a while to find ways to become involved in that, but everything I can find seems to be small groups that bicker with each other over trivialities.

Years ago I considered myself center-right but since Bush have been steadily moving left. Nowadays I’m still to the right of Che, but just barely.

I’m very disappointed in Obama, and angry, but I will vote for him again and anyone else with a D next to their name.
A big win for Dems in the next election will send a signal and push them to the left. And even further in the next election.
I’m all for more varieties of political parties, but I’m not going to let Mike Huckabee be president just to prove my point.
I’m stil pissed at people who didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry, and always will be.
That’s what happened with the Republicans. Our politicians just look to see which way the wind is blowing, they don’t lead.
The country is not as right wing as our politicians, not even close, but they think that’s the way the momentum is. They’re stupid and listen to stupid people.
We need push back.

I need to get more involved.

[Pryderi]

165. have you read Chris Hedges, "Death of the Liberal Class"?

[Zorra]

180. The fascism I saw at DU earlier today really freaked me out.

I got hit over the head with just how far the Democratic party has moved to the right, much farther right than I had previously thought. It freaked me so bad I actually joined the ACLU again.

Now I definitely no longer believe that the mainstream Dems can be pushed to the left. It seems their corporatist agenda has moved forward to the point where they no longer really care, whatsoever, what progressives/labor wants. They have that element of the centrist vote that doesn't swing republican, and hostage voters like me, hard core liberals/progressives that only vote Dem anymore in most cases to at least slow down the growth of fascist control of the US a little. I now believe we need a strong left to organize and take more direct (non-violent) action to try to stop the fascists. And when I say fascists, I mean the term in the context of the definition below, which is the precise definition that defines the undeniable condition of the government of the US today:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." FDR

I think Marcos got it pretty right on when he wrote this essay:

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . ."

http://struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[vroomvroom]

183. K&R