|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 An Unconventional ConventionPosted on Aug 28, 2008By David Sirota When I first heard about the Democratic convention coming to my hometown of Denver, I wasn’t all that excited. For many reasons, in fact, I was pretty unhappy with the whole idea. As a transplant who moved from the overpopulated East Coast to the more manageable Rocky Mountain West, I was not looking forward to huge crowds taking over what is usually a pretty quiet town. As a D.C.-hater who fled Washington’s career-climbers, I was annoyed that Beltway parasites would be infesting my backyard. And as an activist who has spent a career attacking—and trying to halt—the influence of money on politicians, I was nauseated that a corporate-funded bonanza draped in Democratic Party bunting would take place just a few miles from my house. Now that the convention is over, I can report that all of what I feared, in fact, took place. Denver’s downtown became a perpetual throng, insufferable Washington hacks from my past were unavoidable, and corporate money was so ubiquitous that even my ticket holder was emblazoned with a Qwest logo. That said, I can also report that this spectacle actually had value, beyond the free booze and celebrity sightings. Conventions, I discovered, can be building blocks of social change—and if this year’s Democratic convention ends up with any historical legacy beyond nominating Barack Obama, it will probably be remembered as one of many events that helped forge a contemporary progressive movement. Just outside the convention hall, the disparate threads of progressivism were brought together under one tent—literally. On an empty parking lot, progressive nonprofit organizations built a two-story pavilion out of tarp and beams. The Big Tent, as it was called, housed the grass-roots groups and new media outlets that are pressuring the Democratic Party to stay true to its progressive base. Meanwhile, new independent films like “Battle In Seattle”—which indict both parties’ economic orthodoxies and are often ignored by major film distributors—found enthusiastic audiences at a nearby movie theater. Advertisement The tables of live-broadcast radio shows teemed not merely with right-wing loudmouths, but also with new left-leaning voices (and news of movement progressive Rachel Maddow getting her own MSNBC show was the hot topic among delegates). Labor leaders celebrated their success in amending the Democratic Party platform with language demanding a reform of Bill Clinton’s NAFTA policies. And the two most talked-about speeches—one an emotional oratory by “liberal lion” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the other a populist battle cry by Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-Mont.)—drove home the convention’s overarching theme: The progressive movement is on the ascent, overtaking the business-backed triangulators that have been running the Democratic Party—and the country—into the ground. But perhaps the convention’s value was most pronounced at the interpersonal level, where liberal activists kibitzed with campaign operatives, bloggers met politicians, and—as I saw firsthand—potential Obama administration officials began dialoguing with Congress’ most committed progressive leaders. Standing in the hot sun on the convention’s third day, I happened to be arguing trade policy with Austan Goolsbee, the moderate University of Chicago professor who is Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser. In the corner of my eye, I saw an old Capitol Hill acquaintance, Rep. Peter DeFazio—the progressive champion from Oregon. I introduced the two, and within minutes they were finding points of agreement on economic issues. Watching these very different Democrats briefly go back and forth, I considered how many similar bridge-building conversations were happening all week. I remembered that while conventions are usually television shows and business-sponsored cocktail parties, they can, at moments, be something more. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.  TAGS:
|
Greenland’s Great Melt Is Pinned on Climate Change
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By KDelphi, August 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
I would love to be so excited about Obama, and to believe he could “build a broad progressive coalition”—how will he do that when he is a centrist? I, too, would love to be happy about Bush’s coming demise—I just find it hard.There were so many of the old, liberals tha I admired involved in the convention, the pdamerica, and the newer “progressive” groups. I watched as they spent more $$ than has ever been spenton a conveniton in the history of the world. I read blogs about lopbbying (the chicken on a pick was great), pandering and privilege on full display (in the variosu tents) and saw AT&T;tote bags—what were they thinking?? I saw protestors caged, sexism rampant, and, it seemed to me, that, everybody kindve sold out!No, they really did! NOt a word in Obama’s speech about the new “poverty” and the disparate incomes—not a word about the community.If you guys are trying to fight the “liberal elite” label, this sure isnt working!
Report thisBy SCJ, August 30, 2008 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Will some one please explain, why with McCain it will be worse? Lets not forget Obama’s voting record of, yeh, passing the new current bankruptsy laws he wants to now over haul, coming from Delaware Biden can help with that. Giving tons of leverage to the credit card co. only a few months back voting , neh to putting a 30% interest rate cap on credit card industry. Voting , yeh to immunity to the telecomunnication industry for spying on americans, voting yeh, to nearly every Bush bill on the war, even though he said he was against Iraq. This last year he and Hilary voted no on one war bill, it should be noted they waited to cast thier vote until last to make sure they would not be the deciding votes, because their was strong oposition to it. As far as the progressive movement, of which many org. are funded by Soros foundations, along with the problem causing soft color revolutions in X soviet states that installed questionable democratically held elections to get them into NATO at some future date. Good bad, as long as the corporations get to move in? Do we care? As far as McCain being worse, dispite people being fed up with the repugs, please do not insult my intelligence. Not that either party will get my vote
Report thisBy Gloria Picchetti, August 29, 2008 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear David,
Report thisI have much in my heart that I will not share on line about the DNC convention. Wait until I Swiftboat McCain’s VP nomination! Her voting record indicates just forget the environmnet.
However when you said, “progressive nonprofit organizations built a two-story pavilion out of tarp and beams.”, I have serious issues. In Chicago we had two disasters. One was the E 2 nightclub where many people died by crushing when the club was evacuated. The other was a three story-Satuday night party-porch collapse where not only has the owner still has not been prosecuted but the victims were blamed.
I realize you look to the future of our country. Did the nonprofits look to the safety of the participants or did they barely get out of “two-story pavilion out of tarp and beams.” alive?
Another disaster that comes to my mind is the annual burning at one of the TX universities where the structure burned and then fell over many of the students.
Everyone wants to win but when do we pay attention to code and license? I suppose those are liberal issues in view of the deregulation disaster that the Reagon/Bush/Bush adminitstrations have lead us into where you should be safe as long as you are insured if can pay for it. Let us pay no mind to how you survive even if insurance pays it’s claims. Good luck on that!
I am sorry the DNC convention was inconvenient to you. I face a similar inconvience when Chicago “wins” to host the Olympics.
By SCJ, August 29, 2008 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Progessive movement in the democratic party needs to hold their feet to the fire. What a joke. Since the 06 election they have not responded to the pressure. They are corupt to the core. They will betray the puplics interest for the corporations as thier record of voting has shown. Making a choice between the two evils is our only choice is just pure propaganda. The two party system needs to be broken and exposed for the high paid juggling act it is. They banter against one another holding a few human rights issues, and a couple of tax cuts at our throats. We know next to nothing of what solutions they offer to fight for, except the continued, it won’t be another like the last 4-8. REALLY. McCain will be more of Bush, are they identical twins in body and soul. A solid break from both parties needs to be shown, in the numbers, even if a third party dose not win. Why because these two are both fear monguring and invading war parties, it will matter little which of the two wins. So use your last chance to voice your self, with your free speech, and vote accordingly. Vote a 3rd party ticket
Report thisBy rylly, August 29, 2008 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment
Obama did say he would rework the bankruptcy bill, go line by line to eliminate programs that aren’t working…etc.
Report thisAs a Constitutional scholar, he really can’t avoid doing some, hopefully a lot, restoration or everyone will be on his back.
I don’t have that great gloom and doom sense about his coming administration…but I do tire of this endless yeah-butting and not-gonna-happen chorus.
So what if a broken clock is right twice a day, after a few years you toss it and make room for new…like toss the old negative attitude and change it into a positive action.
You’re as responsible for the state of this country as the rest of us.
By SCJ, August 29, 2008 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama’s platform is calling for just under 100,000 (NEW MILITARY TROOPS). Some one please explain to me what, “bring the (combat) troops home and end the war means ?” Whether Bin Laudin is dead or not, let us not forget Bin Laudins statement for blowing up the 3 or 2 buildings in New York, was because of our hypocracy around the world and out foriegn military occupations, ex. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, proping up dictators. Ending the war dose not mean ending the 14 military bases occupation in Iraq, nor the worlds largest US embassey, nor the 750+ in other foriegn countries. One must also argue if our occupation in Afganistan is an illegal one? With either party it will be total war and foriegn occupation. I noticed Obama said everyone is intitled to affordable higher education after giving service to their country??? The people in both these parties want our young to sacrifice more with more war. Truley sad that the first black president will betray his own people and place them in harms way, as he will eventually be more direct and push for giving up more for your country by enlisting. They are as big at war making as the repugs, even more decietful about it. Guising and building it on the backs of the progressive movement and the hopes and asperations of the poor ethnic minorities of this country.
Report thisBy Aegrus, August 29, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
I agree the mild saber rattling almost ruined the speech for me too, Fadel. We really shouldn’t be sponsoring such ideology; however, a lot of folks still want his blood. I don’t really know the right road to resolution, but do prefer a platform against fear rhetoric.
Still, David Sirota is spot on when he talks about new progressive ascent in the Democratic party. It’s one of the reasons I am so offended when people mark off the party as a corporate institution. Yeah, they lost their way, but between the decline of lobbyist money and the huge progressive base banging on their doors… the Democrats are returning to their platform in small steps. It’s our responsibility to hold their feet to the fire.
Report thisBy Fadel Abdallah, August 29, 2008 at 5:25 am Link to this comment
Yes we can, in four days of high political theater, pin point what is wrong with America and what needs to be fixed. However, it remains to be seen that in the next four years whether we will see even 25-50% of all this high political rhetoric materialize into actual positive change and real accomplishments.
One low point in Barack Obama’s speech was that he found it necessary to invoke the name of Osama bin Laden as a symbol of what America needs to fear. He should have known better, by now, that the idea of Bin Laden was created and exaggerated by the Bush Administration as a fear-mongering technique. He also should have known that the real Osama bin Laden has died some time ago.
Another low point in Obama’s speech is that he found it necessary to invoke the security of the ever-spoiled client state of Israel from among all the other countries of the world that need special attention because of their strategic importance to long-term interests of the US. On these two points, Obama is no different than the 8-years of neocons disaster. This is business as usual a la Washington political establishment!
And despite my criticism, I still hang on to a little hope that an Obama administration might be a 25-50% improvement on what we had for eight long years!
Report thisBy KISS, August 29, 2008 at 5:12 am Link to this comment
David, me thinks you have become intoxicated with the perfume of political rhetoric. When the sobering period occurs, you will find it is the same ol’, same ol’. With Biden and Obama you get the strength of the financial corporations once more in charge of the new land called Amerika. A few crumbs will be tossed to satisfy the masses, but the Bill of Rights will not be given back to us. Giving up turf and power does not happen.
Report thisWith McCain it will be worse.