Also, read the same book myself (McChesney’s). I thought it was pretty good. He was blasted by Glenn Beck relatively recently as being some kind of socialist. Didn’t seem that extreme in the book to me though.

mdgr:

I’ve made endless lists in the past of what I’ve asserted about Hedges, and I’ve done it many times.  Don’t believe my assessment of him. I don’t expect you to. Just read his article and see if what I say makes sense. Do you see it yourself?

Mostly notice that in article after article, he makes the same points he made before, like it was a Republican Party talking points speech.

Use your own judgment.  Just because I “like” someone doesn’t mean I won’t trash bad writing (Eugene Robinson laid a real stinker on us recently, and I usually really like him)

ITW,

Examples?

Or rather, if you’ll indulge me, let’s look at a few of my favorite CH examples:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/retribution_for_a_world_lost_in_screens_20100927/

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bp_and_the_little_eichmanns_20100517/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWUbPN4ooM

I’d love it if you tied you examples to these any or all of these three pieces.

Now, “rant” is a somewhat loaded word.

Now, granted CH’s presentation is emotionally laden, but I don’t see that as a problem. Quite the contrary. I see a much bigger problem arising when we try and talk of important issues as Henry Kissinger would, without authentic emotional inflection and without any feeling whatsoever.

So, mine was pawn to K-4. It’s your move.

mdgr:
I appreciate the long and thoughtful post, but what I see about Hedges is different.

If you read his articles you’ll notice he frequently bends facts and ignores ones that disprove his POV, sometimes blatantly.  In fact, he’s one of the sloppiest analysts at TD. I may disagree with Pfaff or Scheer, but if their facts are wrong, at least it’s for a good reason.

Then CH draws conclusions from his already suspect facts that simply aren’t implicit, something Scheer and Pfaff are careful to avoid.

Finally, CH will devolve into a rant, without any suggested solution, other than creating a socialist state.

This is a repeated pattern of Hedges, that occurs about every 2 weeks or so.  Once in a while he posts a sharp, incisive article and I do comment when he does so.

I guess I’m not really up on when socialism is Socialism, marxism is Marxism, communism is Communism or conservativism is Conservativism.

ITW,

Thanks. Ardee may well-agree. Sounds like you do too.

On the Hedges issue, however, I seem to disagree with your read. I noticed you capitalized “socialist” several times in this thread. I’d capitalize the Wall Street Journal or Glenn Beck, but not socialism, communism nor socialism. Nor good. Nor evil.

I don’t even know what that “ism” is as a monolithic thing it itself. I hear Rico speak of “progressivism,” but at least he doesn’t capitalize it. Catholicism is capitalized. The Pope too. But an amorphous political approach that is as wide as the oceans?

Hedges recently said that he joined the socialist-something party without even knowing anything about it, just to make a point about our two-party system. He laughed at it and at himself. That’s hardly the hallmark of political rigidity.

The dichotomies in place today (socialist/capitalist) seem very jejune and two dimensional. They’re little more than sound bytes, really.

In that context—a dirty word for you perhaps, but we’ll cross that bridge in a moment—I see Hedges mostly as a student of history and I think he asks the right questions.

Nothing opens to anyone—not even a book—until they begin with the questions, you know. Then, rightly or wrongly, answers begin to float up. Context begins to appear.

I noted a previous response you made to Rico suggesting that “the argument itself”—seemingly divorced from contextual insight—should, as it were, stand alone.

I am not sure I understand the context of that remark (bad pun, I know), but I probably couldn’t disagree more.

Hedges’s view of things is fully contextualized, but not within some traditional polemically socialist framework. It may sound corny, but when Pilate asks, “What is truth?,” I imagine Hedges decking him. If a herd of elephants was about to stampede and run right over you, Hedges might try and pull you to one side.

I see him, if any “ism” is to be invoked, as one of the most authentic political existentialists I have ever heard.

I say heard, because this is a guy whose voice resonates through and through with the kind of emotional authenticity our culture is mostly unprepared for.

Ours is a culture of emotional and existential denial. In that context, Hedges ruffles people’s intellectual feathers because he doesn’t hide his indignation. But I see his rage more as a luminous and authentic offshoot of his connection with what’s happening today, not arising from a pathological need to vent.

EAR CONDEN AND OTHER SOCIALIST BROTHERS IN CHRIST, MARX, MARTIN LUTHER KING, GEORGE CARLIN, STEWART ALEXANDER (SOCIALIST PARTY USA CANDIDATE), AMY GOODMAN, ALAN MAASS, BOB AVAKIAN, HUGO CHAVEZ AND CHIEF SITTING BULL WHO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE EATING FROM FOOD BANKS, SHOPPING FROM THRIFTY STORES AND POORESTS OF AMERICA LIKE THE UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL CITIZENS, THE HOMELESS, THE AMERICAN INDIANS, THE POORS AND THE PRISONERS WHO SHOULD ALL BE FREE OUT OF JAILS.

The solution for USA is here: http://www.masspartyoflabor.org/

Obama and Republicans only care about the rich upper classes (About those yuppies and ‘haves’ you see driving Volvos, Lexus shiny SUVs). What we the poor need is a United Socialist Front which would install a revolutionary socialist dictatorship (temporarily) with a red-terror police dictatorship expropiating the wealth, and corporations of those yuppies you see eating at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, shopping at Sears, JC Penney and Luxury 5 star restaurants.

Those Democrat Party and Republican Party self absorved assholes you see shopping at Target, Sams stores, Best Buy Stores, eating at Charlies Restaurants, and living the life of their time, and the time of their lives do not care about the other United States.  The United States that buys clothes from Thrifty Stores, and who eat from Food Banks. 

That United States needs to unite into a Marxist-Leninist Socialist United Front with a lot of anger, and rage willing to overthrow the United States of The Republican Party who killed JFK, Luther King and needs to be overthrown and repressed under a revolutionary socialist dictatorship

.

.

Chavez does not control the Venezuelan media; most of it is owned by the opposition, white right wing oligarchial interests.

mdgr, Ok, I agree with the majority of what you’ve said, thanks for that.  I also strongly agree with what Sirota said in his article—those DLC insider people make me sick, as does any suggestion that the democratic party has somehow been too far left for the past two years.  It hasn’t, not at all; and unfortunately the progessive caucus has a record of caving thus far; on that note, I saw no rebellious streak whatsoever on Rahul Grahalva’s (sp?) interview on Democracy Now! last night. 

We most definitely need an alternative, and not an astroturf “movement” like the tea partiers or obamabots.  It isn’t easy to build that, and that probably isn’t the work for a journalist to do, really.

Watch this great 1 hour and 40 minutes documentary about one of the greatest revolutionary socialist rock bands Rage Against The Machine.  The USA and other nations need more revolutionary socialist rock bands like this in order to wake the masses, to increase revolutionary anger in the masses, and remember that The Paradise can only exist at the shadows of the swords

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOFAKiNSK4&ob=av2n

Arguably the most provocative band of the last 20 years, Rage Against The Machine have since their explosive debut, been the group most associated with the American protest movement. This film dissects the work and career of RATM and looks at their place in this always fascinating lineage of artists and performers who have spoken out on behalf of, and drawn attention to, the world’s marginalised, downtrodden and oppressed.

Picking up the flame from a linear musical tradition going back to the War Of Independence, with the best known protagonists coming up during the 1950s and 60s civil rights movement via artists such as Pete Segar and the young Bob Dylan, the anger remained as brutal as ever during the final decade of the 20th Century in Rage and contemporaries like Public Enemy.

FEATURING: Brand new interviews with; renowned Rage producer and engineer, Garth Richardson; RATM Biographer, Colin Devenish; the band’s live sound engineer, Dave ‘Rat’ Levine and the man who signed them Michael Goldstone. With further contributions from folk-protest singer and author Jerry Silverman, ex-‘Rolling Stone’ editor Joe Levy, and Professor of American Studies and English at Washington State University, T.V. Reed.

.

Rico says: ‘Let’s control the media, a la Hugo Chavez. That way we can be sure that only the correct message, the progressive message, reaches the tender ears of the benighted electorate, so the proper results can guarantee “democracy”.”

You have your answer from ChaviztaKing (if it IS ChaviztaKing??):  “rico suave: Hello my friend, by your picture, i can tell you are a pilot or work in an Airline. We need an economic system of nationalizations of major airlines and corporations, where major airlines like American Airlines and Delta are owned by pilots, and workers. Thru the system of workers’ control, worker’s ownership.  That way the wealth generated by businesses wouldn’t stay in 1 hand but would be spread to workers, and since there are more workers than business-owners, that system is naturally more democratically and just than our obsolete system of companies being owned by 1 fat cat, and workers are just slaves.”
 
It’s all very simple.  All we have to do is shut down our kindheartedness, charity and common sense and open up the floodgates of Unreason, political certitude and irresponsible blame and namecalling.
Now all we need is a little bit of f+#^**ing gutter talk, and we got ‘er made!

Saarcasm is dangerous because it misfires more than half the time and hits people who don’t “get” it.

Untangling the emotional baggage of this unique exchange would be quite a project.

Moral:  Be careful what you believe—and why.

What is strange about spending 3 billion on advertising, is tht most went to commercial tv and radio whose ratings have been dropping for decades.
The internet is where the action is, so one has to ask are MSM now going to bury the Internet, by using the money to fill it up with mindless webisodes. The problem with new media is that unlike TV it is free and uncontrollable. I wonder if that was the real purpose of this pointless spending, to shutdown any channels of opposition. It certainly wasn’t about reaching the voters

MARXISM IS FREE, YOU DON’T HAVE TO GO TO WAL MART OR TO ANY STORE BUY MARXISM OR EVEN BUY MARXIST BOOKS.  MARXISM IS THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR USA, AND ITS TOTALLY FREE, AVAILABLE AT:

http://www.marxists.org
http://www.marxist.com
http://www.wsws.org
http://www.socialistworker.org
http://www.workers.org
http://www.bobavakian.org
http://www.trotsky.org http://www.venezuelanalysis.com http://www.socialistaction.org http://www.socialistalternative.org http://www.socialist.net
http://www.trotsky.net

.

rico suave: Hello my friend, by your picture, i can tell you are a pilot or work in an Airline. We need an economic system of nationalizations of major airlines and corporations, where major airlines like American Airlines and Delta are owned by pilots, and workers. Thru the system of workers’ control, worker’s ownership.  That way the wealth generated by businesses wouldn’t stay in 1 hand but would be spread to workers, and since there are more workers than business-owners, that system is naturally more democratically and just than our obsolete system of companies being owned by 1 fat cat, and workers are just slaves.

Thanks

DEAR SOCIALIST BROTHERS IN CHRIST, MARX, MARTIN LUTHER KING, GEORGE CARLIN, STEWART ALEXANDER (SOCIALIST PARTY USA CANDIDATE), AMY GOODMAN, ALAN MAASS, BOB AVAKIAN, HUGO CHAVEZ AND CHIEF SITTING BULL WHO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE EATING FROM FOOD BANKS, SHOPPING FROM THRIFTY STORES AND POORESTS OF AMERICA LIKE THE UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL CITIZENS, THE HOMELESS, THE AMERICAN INDIANS, THE POORS AND THE PRISONERS WHO SHOULD ALL BE FREE OUT OF JAILS.

http://www.masspartyoflabor.org/

Obama and Republicans only care about the rich upper classes (About those yuppies and ‘haves’ you see driving Volvos, Lexus shiny SUVs). What we the poor need is a United Socialist Front which would install a revolutionary socialist dictatorship (temporarily) with a red-terror police dictatorship expropiating the wealth, and corporations of those yuppies you see eating at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, shopping at Sears, JC Penney and Luxury 5 star restaurants.

Those Republican Party self absorved assholes you see shopping at Target, Sams stores, Best Buy Stores, eating at Charlies Restaurants, and living the life of their time, and the time of their lives do not care about the other United States.  The United States that buys clothes from Thrifty Stores, and who eat from Food Banks. 

That United States needs to unite into a Marxist-Leninist Socialist United Front with a lot of anger, and rage willing to overthrow the United States of The Republican Party who killed JFK, Luther King and needs to be overthrown and repressed under a revolutionary socialist dictatorship

.

.

As for the Greens:

For all their talk, the Greens are not at all in touch with reality. My earlier instinct was right. “Don’t let them get that magic 5% of the vote because then they would split a real third party of progressives, and that would be that.” I am glad they did not make it this election.
******************

Uh-oh…you’ve just described Ardee’s professed POV to a Tee. I’m sure he’ll now come down on you.  That has been what I’ve argued for about a year and the result has been a torrent of invective.  Expect it.

I cannot agree with you about Hedges. Sure, he’s angry, but his solution is a Socialist state, like that EVER worked! He recycles the same argument again and again but never seems to actually upgrade it…remember Einstein’s definition of insanity?

Rico, suave—

“Meters in the bedroom” as in a reference in a well-known Leonard Cohen song.

I characterized that as right wing, however, not conservative. I agree with ITW that there are few conservatives these days, and that most right wingers are anything but that.

Finally, I do not think it will be constructive to discuss what is or is not characteristic of progressives or conservatives, nor debate their respective arguments.

I did that for six months with a very educated physician who sent me at least one WSJ article every day. I read them dutifully. I sent him items that represented the “left.”

We respectively found each other’s offerings so much tripe. We’re friends, however, and though the dialogue turned brittle at times, we always kept it civil. But his opinions haven’t changed at all, nor have mine.

I did appreciate the “view from the other side” (Noonan, et al), but it felt more and more toxic, not unlike reading Ayn Rand or listening to Glenn Beck or Fox News. I’m sure he had a similar response.

I think we don’t need to do that, you and I.

That wasn’t what I hoped for anyway. I asked for you to critique the meme I laid out. Otherwise it may gain traction.

Pretty much all you’ve said thus far is that it’s unattainable because it will need a lot of heavy lifters. You also spoke of entropy and things, but I disagreed vigorously with both your logic and your inferences.

As for the Greens:

Glad you asked. I finally decided to maybe vote Green this election. Silly me. I couldn’t because they had their heads so far up their ass they hadn’t bothered to develop a Senate candidate (WA State, which was pivotal) and their website was substandard. Social Darwinists they aren’t, nor do they care about winning. They are entrenched in a kind of self-fulfilling “victim/martyr” script wherein they nominate unelectable candidates and feel heroic about losing.

I’m sure that you would suggest that this is the “progressive” trajectory writ large, but I emphatically disagree. It was nonetheless embarrassing.

For all their talk, the Greens are not at all in touch with reality. My earlier instinct was right. “Don’t let them get that magic 5% of the vote because then they would split a real third party of progressives, and that would be that.” I am glad they did not make it this election.

I think that one’s approach to the Dems, Count Dracula and the Greens requires both a string of garlic and the usual sacred sacraments. A wooden stake would be nice.

Anticipating your rejoinder, I will agree that the liberal trajectory IS shrouded in a kind of similar self-pity and darkness.

But I am not a liberal.

The thing I like about Chris Hedges is not just his clarity, but his general luminosity of voice. He, more than any other progressive/lefty writer I know (including Gore Vidal and others of that ilk) has actually integrated this thing we call anger.

It is not an artifact, nor is it pathological. It gives his voice wings, and it tells him who he is (and who he is not).

His cerebral powers are unparalleled, but he does not live in his head. He speaks from his heart and there is fire in his belly.

He is grounded too in reality. It is informed with a kind of elemental Fire, and at this point his voice turns prophetic.

There is little Fire, as such, in the Left. The Jews had Isaiah, the Christians had John, but the exponents of the “liberal” POV mostly seem to come from Leviticus—which has got to be one of the most dry and tedious books in the Bible.

Hedges represents, for me, someone who doesn’t just speak truth to power, but someone who gets down in the trenches with reality.

I’m sure your sense of reality is different, however, and I don’t begrudge you that. Now, it’s your turn.

And, please, tell me what’s flawed in my analysis. Otherwise, people might begin to believe it has merit.

Rico,

My point was and is: If a few yelp about something insane it’s news because it’s “Man Bites Dog”—odd and therefore interesting.  But if millions yelp about it, it’s a political movement.  Example: in 1964 an anti-Viet Nam War rally in Washington that got 10,000 people was considered a success, but STILL was laughed at by the nation.  In 1970 and 1971 when the rallies pulled in 100,000, or 200,000 people, they weren’t laughing anymore.  It was serious.  I know. I was there.

There are approximately 3/4 billion Arab Muslims in the world.  19 attacked us on 9/11.  There were less than 300,000,000 Americans when 2 Americans attacked us in Oklahoma City.  Your logic is that in the first case it’s fair to fear all Arabs who are Muslim.  But to fear all Americans because of the 2nd case is clearly absurd.  Yet McVeigh and Nichols, Eric Rudolph, and the DC snipers were ALL home-grown terrorists.  Should we connect McVeigh, Nichols and Rudolph to Pat Robertson or, while he was alive, Jerry Falwell (Both of whom said we DESERVED the attack of 9/11)?  Of course not!

It’s a very powerful tool of analysis, removing context from a situation and retaining the broad actions. It identifies biases, bigotry, and faulty logic.

mdgr:

I have one quick critic, then I must walk the dog and go to bed-

NO- “the right wing” is NOT ALWAYS screaming about homosexuality! (Meters in the bedroom? Didn’t catch your meaning on that one.) O’Donnell is NOT emblematic of “the right wing”! O’Donnell was an aberration of the Delaware Republican primary system.

How would you like it if I used Pol Pot and Stalin as shorthand for “the progressive movement”? Completely gratuitous and off the mark. Your cartoon caricature of “the right wing” is beneath you.

I was saying that “conservatism” is more entropic than “progressivism”.

Let’s spend some time agreeing what “progressivism” is so we can be sure we’re talking about the same thing. You go first.

Rico, suave—

Agree on the heavy-lifting issue. Never say never however. I think that history may help us and that the the progressive caucus, if it bolts, may win the admiration and respect of a lot of voters.

Of course, it’s a Janus-faced option. Rove (as a style, not a person) would frame it in the most invidious light, and everything would depend on the publicists.

Your entropy riff is predicated on certain assumptions.

First of all, and I say this gently, I don’t even know what “progressivism” is. You’re defining it somewhat tautologically wherein the conclusion supports your premise. Is it really that anal?

I mean, why is the **right wing** is always screaming about homosexuality’s being a sin or why we need to put a meter in our bedrooms? O’Donnell wanted to ban masturbation, for goodness sake—albeit after putting a spell on people. Cheney’s roots are characterologically fascist. You call that entropic, messy and disordered? IMO it’s akin to having a stick up one’s ass.

I do think the execution of my notion is a bit like pushing rope uphill, however. Or downhill, depending on the perfect storms that are favoring us.

We will see. Awaiting round #2 of any critique you might have.

Conden,

Borrowing a line from rico, suave, I would like to offer an apology. I was too vitriolic, as I well-know that Amy Goodman’s heart and your heart are in the right place.

At issue, however, is the navel.

I mean, yes I agree with Amy’s characterization of the MSM, and I am grateful beyond words for her courage and investigative reporting. She deserves all the awards she has won. But she is still a moralist. And as most liberals are, she also seems to be rather more comfortable than I would like in the role of victim.

We can propose a multi-partied option till the cows come home, but there is no rule in the Constitution about a two party system. Nor is the left going to break-out of that box by blogging or investigative reporting. It will, as it were, be like preaching to the choir.

I realize that Amy Goodman is probably no less radical as me, or Chris Hedges (whom I like). By that, I only mean to say that she sees to the root of things, and she is committed to doing that.

Still, I doubt that she is going to get anywhere with these insightful analytics. That is why, at this late stage in America’s dialogue with Death (I just saw “7th Seal” again, so please bear with me), I rather liken it to “navel-gazing.” Actually, I am reminded that navel-gazing is what “liberals” also excel in, using that term in the Chris Hedges sense.

And as far as “Democracy Now” goes, what a nice notion. Is what we have in America any better than what we have in Afghanistan in terms of the “democracy” fiction, however? The title of that trope is virtually wrapped in an American flag, albeit an invisible one, though I’m sure that wasn’t Ms. Goodman’s intent.

Here’s what I’d respectfully suggest.

Please take a look at the Sirota post somewhere on TD’s home page. Sirota just told conservative Dems to “fuck off,” quite literally.

I’d go much further than Mr. Sirota, and I articulate what I am thinking in
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/david_sirota_tells_conservative_
democrats_to_go_fuck_themselves_20101104/#364476.

You have great respect for Amy Goodman and, who knows, you may even have her ear. If you think what was said in this link has merit, do let her know if you can. Naomi Klein recently stated in an interview that she too saw the emergence of a monster-sized third party of lefties and indies. What I’m suggesting in this link purports to connect the Velcro so that we may actually make that happen.

But as rico-suave correctly notes below, there’s a lot of heavy-lifting to do and the progressive movement isn’t known for doing much lifting at all. I’d rate the likelihood of the progressive caucus resigning from the Democratic Party in, say, the single digits.

More analytics on the MSM, etc., will not improve those odds. Amy Goodman herself might, however.

As would Michael Moore (who is still a liberal Democrat), Robert Scheer, and Arianna Huffington. There are many other personalities who could actually be helpful here. What it will take is a PR person, and frankly I don’t know any.

Anyway, please read the link and if you think it’s of interest, let’s collaborate further.
.
In any event, I wish you well. I hope that my clarifications here have been not only more moderate but also more mannerly and balanced.

mdgr, what you say against Amy Goodman is quite ridiculous.  She supports grassroots movements, and democracy now! is the only independant left daily news show in the country; liberals are mainstream right wing democrats, not her.  As for top-down things, I find a lot of people on the internet like to spend all of their time posting attacks on people like amy goodman, noam chomsky, naomi klein…and they do this instead of getting on the ground and doing good things themselves.  Michael Moore also says it is possible that 2012 could end up with four viable presidential candidates, and the one on the left could win.  However, such shots in hell will never be as good as a movement to change the rules of our democracy so there can be as many parties as we want, and all of them viable and represented.

ITW:

Ok, let me wind this up.

“Press” for the birthers is not at proxy for their number, it’s only a proxy for their lunacy. There weren’t any stories saying, “Holy shit, they’re everywhere!” It was more like, “Holy shit, these people are nuts!” OJ Simpson got a lot of press.

Farther down in your post you throw out “20 million” apropos of nothing in particular, but, for the casual reader, attaches psychologically to the birther comments above. Fine use of an ancient rhetorical trick my friend!

As for Saddam and 9/11. While the connection is wrong, it’s not really that far from the realm of possibility- It doesn’t take an irrational flight of fantasy, a la the birther and truther lunacies, to entertain the possibility that he was involved. I mean, we WERE attacked by Arab Muslims, not Swedish Lutherans. You’re right, it’s not the same as the truthers.

I can make up a list of insanities the left believe in too, like

a) Karl Rove is a psychopath.
b) 9/11 was a CIA/Mossad caper.
c) AIG and Goldman Sachs cut their own throats just to spite poor people
**********************

Rico:  I don’t believe those things, either.  But the “birthers” got about a zillion times more press than the 9/11 tin-foil hatters.  I would guess because there are 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more of them.  We even had congresscritters calling for the President to produce his ORIGINAL birth certificate. (I can’t even do that—I had to get certified
re-issued ones from my home town).

If 60 people believe a comet is an alien space ship that’s a bunch of eccentrics.

But if 20 million believe it, it’s a political force to be reckoned with, despite the fact that it’s bullshit.

Remember: at one point something 57% of all Americans actively believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.  That’s not that same as the few nut-cases running around TD posting they can “prove” the destruction of the WTC was an inside job.

Think about it.

Using the media to dispense lies, in this case, fashioned by the White House
Director of Management and Budget.

Peter Orszag, in the NYTimes, November 3 2010 edition, OpEd section, tells us:

“There are four ways to contain health care costs (intones the White House
Director):

by reducing payments to providers and suppliers;
by rationing services;
by having consumers pay a greater share; and
by giving providers incentives to be more efficient.”

That is a lie, plainly and simply, a lie.

The non-reform of health care was/is essentially a windfall for insurers, with
hundreds of thousands of new “customers” (if a ‘mandated customer’ is a
“customer”), with premiums subsidized or paid for directly by taxpayers, and
with 20% of the premium available to insurers to use for what ever they want.

That’s right: Insurers only need to spend 80% of the premium paid by you and
by me directly or through our taxes on health care for you and for me. The rest
they can spend any way they want, including bonuses, sitting on Boards to raise
rates and decide who gets covered and who doesn’t, contributions to
‘sympathetic’ candidates – those who will let them keep even more of your and
my money.

The White House’s Director of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, in the
NYT November 3 2010 tells us: “There are four ways to contain health care
costs: by reducing payments to providers and suppliers; by rationing services;
by having consumers pay a greater share; and by giving providers incentives to
be more efficient.”

A savings of 15% or more can be achieved through a government-administered
plan like Medicare - for everyone. (And by the way, a CBS/New York Times poll
June 2009 showed that 72% of Americans favored this approach.)

The quickest and easiest and sane way to save is move to a single payer system.
Advocates for such a system were blocked from speaking by Senator Max
Baucus last year; but the facts are the facts.

When the President of the United States allows his White House Director of
Management and Budget to lie about such a fundamental reality, it reflects very
poorly on the President and his leadership.

President Obama does not need people working for him who lie to the
American people. Whether it’s “Heck of a Job Brownie”,  “Heck of a Job Timmy”
or Peter Orszag, people are tired of being lied to.

If President Obama does not have the courage to stop his own staff from lying
to the American people, he is no leader.

Note to White House: Best way to retain your constituency is to not lie to them.
Best way to gain a constituency is to establish yourself as a credible person.

mdgr:

You’ve given me a lot to chew on. This may come in bits and pieces and may not form a coherent whole, so bear with me.

This is NOT an opinion on the validity of your political philosophy: But I just do not believe there are enough day-in-day-out citizens in this country engaged enough in politics to do the heavy lifting required to understand the benefits of progressivism. This may be very frustrating to you, I know.

The reason I say this is because, at first (and second, and third) blush, progressivism is so counterintuitive economically and socially. It requires unnatural material and social sacrifices. If you expect entropy, progressivism isn’t the prescription. Progressive structures require too much order and so require government power to manipulate and guarantee them.

Freedeom and liberty on the other hand, are entropic concepts: They are messy and disordered.

A breakaway Progressive Congressional caucus would, in my view, and fairly or not, be seen as a elitist enterprise, brought together without real reference to the existence, or lack thereof, of grassroots support necessary to grow it to critical mass. Don’t take this the wrong way, but there just aren’t enough people in this country smart enough to know what’s good for other people; they only know what’s good for themselves. Plus, it would give the Tea Party a much clearer target, something you might not want right this minute. Like them or not, right or wrong, the TP owns the ball.

Why hasn’t the Green Party gotten purchase, or why didn’t Dennis Kucinich have any luck parlaying his fifteen minutes into a real Progressive awakening? I believe that the degree that benefits of progressivism have to be explained, or “sold” is inversely proportional to the popularity such progressivism will enjoy.

Rico, suave—

On the Karl Rove thing, I’ve already called you out—and provided the appropriate links—though in another thread.

I don’t know what the left believes in because the “left” as a homogeneous group is largely a fiction. I tie my own definitions to that of Chris Hedges who is probably closer to my heart than most other writers on the subject.

ITW:

All of your questions are valid, but I don’t know the answers. You tell me. I can answer them about myself, but that’s it.

I can make up a list of insanities the left believe in too, like

a) Karl Rove is a psychopath.
b) 9/11 was a CIA/Mossad caper.
c) AIG and Goldman Sachs cut their own throats just to spite poor people

etc, etc.

But until I prove that even a small minority of liberals believe those things, it’s only a list which says and proves nothing about liberals generally.

Just because some nutcase in Idaho thinks Obama is a Kenyan, don’t think I do or Karl Rove does, or 99% of the conservatives out there do. You can’t generalize like that. I try not to, and when I do I expect you to call me out on it.

But, like a good progressive, you assume the great unwashed masses don’t know how to operate their bullshit detectors.
*******************

Assume? Or can demonstrate?

How many of the Boob-oisie think Obama is:
a) Not born in the US, therefore not eligible to be President (neither was McCain-born in the Canal Zone)
b) Not a US citizen but a Kenyan
c) Not a Christian but a Muslim
d) Either a Socialist (to TP) or a DINO, Bush III (to TD “progressives”)?

How many think a single incident involving a virtual non-entity, “The New Black Panther Party” is actually the REAL Black Panthers intimidating voters all over the US?

How many don’t know that TARP and Stimulus are entirely separate things?

How many realize that TARP and Cap-and-Trade are BOTH Republican initiatives, not Democratic ones?

How many believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
How many STILL believe he was a major support of Al Qaeda?

How many believe that Barney Frank is totally the cause of the mortgage collapse, even though the House was under Republican control when he supposedly was doing it?

How many believe you can cut taxes, therefore cutting revenue, and cut the deficit at the same time, without cutting the military, SocSec or Medicare?

How many people actively spout and believe the hard right wing bullshit that doesn’t even BEGIN to hold up to scrutiny?

How many TRUE Conservatives like you actually exist or hold office?

How many realize that TRUE Conservatism doesn’t even begin to parallel what has become the “Teaparty” mantra?

You don’t have to be an elitist “progressive” to ask these questions.  They are valid questions about beliefs that don’t stand up to factual scrutiny.

The coup by conservative forces is complete. The changes in our infrastructure, including our media, our (their) government, our air, and our tributaries, they have paid for have made democracy that much harder to maintain.

Rico, suave—

“A Meme for its Time”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-dolan/buck-up-progressives-we-w_b_778274.html

Obama’s entire tenure has been predicated on some very venal and self-serving assumptions, but in having been the chief apologist for the Dems—whom I succinctly denote by the term Vichy, or party of collaborators—this was almost inevitable.

His is the endpoint of a typically “liberal” view, by which I mean to point to the very worst associations with that term as used by people like Chris Hedges.

As the link above shows, however, the bottom line is that much of the dead weight—for which Rahm Emanuel sold his soul—is essentially gone and the progressive caucus is virtually undiminished.

Now, I have a little proposal. It’s strategic, however, and as finely honed as a surgical scalpel.

As a hypothetical, what would it net the progressive cause if many of that same caucus publicly resigned their Democratic-Vichy-linked affiliation, especially now that President Obama has vowed to make nice with the Republican Party even more than her already has?

They have just been re-elected, so their election isn’t immediately at stake. If they resigned from the Democratic Party in the next few months and endorsed the creation of an emergent third party made up of lefties and indies, wouldn’t that suddenly give the new party a HUGE amount of gravitas and influence?

Not unlike the Tea Party, except for the money.

To coin a phrase, these defectors could assume the mantle of “thought leaders” over their Congressional delegation, unhampered by the Obama and the Dems.

They could also help articulate and channel the rage of the left, as well as the indies who simply didn’t vote or who voted Dem but felt slightly nauseous doing so.

It would be good for their egos, good for that third party (no longer marginal with many of the Progressive Caucus behind it) and good for the country.

It would be very, very bad for the remaining Democrats, but they’re known to be impotent anyway. I see a real possibility of that third party’s influence ascending in direct proportion to Vichy’s precipitous decline.

At this point, big money would begin to follow. The reason why is because of the threat of the Tea Party in 2012. That may please business in the short term—they’re generally greedy, true—but not every captain of industry is stupid.

Remember, it is to no one’s advantage (with the exception of Murdoch and the Koch Brothers) to give Palin or Secretary of Defense Limbaud the nuclear codes, and people like Bill Gates, Buffett and Soros know that all too well.

Strategically speaking, I believe that this can provide an “engine” through which we may be able to do what is necessary between now and 2012.

Rico, Suave:

Not sure what your point was (in reference to your post that says it still stands). Suggest again that you re-read my post:

“Reality is upon us. Very soon, I think, Israel will have had enough. It is more than itching to unleash the dogs of war, Amy Goodman notwithstanding. At that time, which is likely to be shortly before or immediately after the inauguration, Obama’s polls may be very, very low. The street credibility of the Democrats in Congress will be equally low, I should think.

“Obama will support Israel, of course, and probably many a progressive in Congress will as well—initially. But the war will lead to the complete undoing of America because (1) we can neither win it nor (2) sustain the pretense. It will also hurt us directly, here at home. I consider that a goodness in the long run, and by 2012, America’s military and economic hegemony is likely to be in tatters. Much worse than it is now.

“This issue alone (never mind AIPAC) is likely in the long run to drive a wedge a mile wide between the progressive delegation in Congress and their Democratic base. I am not saying it will. I am merely pointing to probabilities, as I see them.

“I am guessing once again (see earlier post in this thread) that if the progressives in Congress can be induced (or cajoled) to bolt from/repudiate the Democratic Party, the momentum of that event will be enough to propel a third party (and its funding) into being. It would be politically equivalent to a major earthquake along the San Andreas.

“This won’t spring up from debating campaign reform nor from contemplating our navel, ad nauseum. It will arise more likely from a growing feeling of “enough is enough,” and that feeling is already gaining a huge degree of currency in the collective consciousness.”

Note too that it was tied to earlier postings that Flummox and others liked. It laid out a strategic plan for creating enough momentum to propel a viable and huge third party of progressives into being.

It didn’t rely on polemics or a lot of wishful thinking. It relied on events that even now are beginning to unfold. A war with Israel might only exacerbate them. That argument is again presented immediately above.

I’ve explicitly invited you to take a shot at my analysis, noting too that while it in fact may be very silly, no one else on the left seems to have any strategy at all. Grandiosity aside, if indeed it has any merit, it is also seminal in nature.

So here I am, once again inviting an open-debate with you. I think we’re both formidable—I can probably play hard ball as well as you—and we come from very different sides of the political spectrum. 

For clarification’s sake, note too that I am not necessarily expecting this particular event to which I referred to unfold. I think that the left, for the most part, will click its tongue and kvetch, or more likely, bury our posts in a plethora of sound-offs.

Liberals like to do that, which is one of the reasons why Chris Hedges and I despise them. They’re wedded to this self-victimization schtick, which is probably why Democrats (Vichy, in my trope) shoot themselves in the foot.

The one thing I do expect is entropy and war. I am also saying that if the progressive caucus bolts, the birth of a viable third party on the left is likely and, moreover, it could result in a political sea change, as described above.

kerryrose:

Manipulation can work both ways. Amy’s mad because the Dems got outmanipulated this time. “Democracy” is none the worse for wear. We all got to vote if we wanted to. No one was disenfranchized by the content of some over-the-top attack ad. But, like a good progressive, you assume the great unwashed masses don’t know how to operate their bullshit detectors.

I don’t think anyone would object to free airtime, especially candidates! But how do you decide who gets it? You know as well as I do, that that catnip would draw wackos from all over the place unless there was some way to regulate… oops… back to square one.

rico

Don’t get down on Amy Goodman.  ‘Democracy’ means ‘by and for the people.’  The airwaves belong to the people.  Yet, they are being sold to manipulate us by all candidates.

She is advocating free and determined airtime for candidates as a public service to us (who own the airwaves).

The same can be said for our waters.  We own them, and corporations who pollute our water should pay reparations to us, the people.

knute:  A key question!  “Is our pathetic media even studying that aspect, ie. money from corporations into politics.

I want to encourage you, yourself, to do some research on the subject and let us know what you find. We need not leave it up wo “pathetic media” or anyone else.  In fact, that’s our weakness—depending on others to do the work and then cursing them because they do not.

Democratic responsibility never ends—unless we decide we don’t want democracy bad enough to work for it ourselves. Sorry for the preachy tone, but it needs to be said plainly.

racetoinfinity:  I have a wild-eyed hairball theory about why the Green Party is so easily ignored (in addition to the fact that all Third Parties are largely ignored as a general principle). 

“Green” is not the most appealing word in the English language.  It has associations not so much of “the environment” (which was intended) but as “inexperienced,” hence not knowledgeable enough to run a complicated apparatus, untrained, lacking in know-how, etc. etc.  Also naive, a bit gullible, unsophisticated etc. 
  All these connotations rate negative in the context of politics.  I don’t know who chose the name, or how it came about, but it wasn’t the smartest choice.

Democracy:

“You can only choose your Master, you can not choose to not be a slave”

- Stefan Molyneux

mdgr:

Sorry. I should have said “Israel” or “AIPAC”, not “Jews”. Sorry. But my point remains the same- deflection from the point.

ITW:

You’re correct. I don’t know the breakdown. I was repeating totals I had heard from the MSM, totals which indicated the Dems outspent Reps. I don’t know whether those totals included outside money, or whether they were “total totals” or just inhouse totals.

Obama will support Israel, of course, and probably many a progressive in Congress will as well—initially. But the war will lead to the complete undoing of America because (1) we can neither win it nor (2) sustain the pretense. It will also hurt us directly, here at home. I consider that a goodness in the long run, and by 2012, America’s military and economic hegemony is likely to be in tatters. Much worse than it is now.

This issue alone (never mind AIPAC) is likely in the long run to drive a wedge a mile wide between the progressive delegation in Congress and their Democratic base. I am not saying it will. I am merely pointing to probabilities, as I see them.
***********************

Don’t come down so hard on Rico—too many posters start from such a position as yours and end with calling for the end to any and all support for Israel, and not just until they get rid of their current right-wing regime beholden to an Orthodox “Taliban”. They then lace into Jews in America as if all of us are AIPAC ditto-heads. Rico is not a hard-core supporter of Israel at any cost (and we have some of the ditto-heads posting here from time to time), but neither does he advocate abandoning that ally.  Neither do I.

But I DO wish our government would put its foot on Netanyahu’s neck and tell him that without ceasing the expansion of settlements as required by international law, US aid will be suspended until they comply—as WE define it, not them.

The biggest loser: democracyfreedom.

All of the TV ads are meaningless. It’s like stopping at a red light and seeing 6 or 7 signs in a row on the side of the road for one candidate and between each sign, is a sign for the other candidate. Meaningless.

Capitalism has not destroyed democracy, statism has. The unlimited power of the state has destroyed freedom. When the state has the power to do anything it wants, whenever it wants, and people have to ask “permission” to do what they want, freedom is dead. All that remains is an illusion. We have lost the ability to control the government, and in return, the government now controls us. What proof do you need? Do you really think electing a few progressives to Congress will change anything? Progressivism relies on state control. More control for a system that already has complete control, is meaningless. The desire to be in control of that power has destroyed freedom. There is no left or right, liberal or conservative. There is only freedom or control. Individualism or collectivism. How many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice for the good of the country? How many are you not willing to sacrifice? What happens when they “ask” you to sacrifice that which you are not willing to sacrifice? You will obey or pay the consequences.

Here’s a comment I have been circulating. I haven’t received any replies after posting on liberal, conservative, and libertarian blogs.

So, the Republicans “won”. Does it really make any difference? Arguably, the two most principled members of Congress are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They are on opposite sides of the aisle, but have come together to work on a few basic issues.

1) Ending the wars (Peace)
2) Auditing the Federal Reserve (Transparency in banking)
3) Repealing the Patriot Act (Restoring civil liberties)

These are three very basic issues which most Americans can agree on. But yet they are both treated like ugly stepchildren by their respective parties, and portrayed as extremists or wackos by the news media. As a result, they have gained very little ground on these three very basic issues. So, I ask you again, does it really matter if Republicans or Democrats are elected?

Here’s Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich together on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch. What more proof do you need???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2MzoawIhy8

Our Republic is dead. Face it. It can’t, or won’t respond to the people. It controls the people.

Here’s Stefan Molyneux:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTa2w6nn7Ic&feature=share

@ mgdr

You wrote:  “I am guessing once again (see earlier post in this thread) that if the progressives in Congress can be induced (or cajoled) to bolt from/repudiate the Democratic Party, the momentum of that event will be enough to propel a third party (and its funding) into being.”

Why is The Green Party always ignored in discussions of a viable third party?  Will someone please answer that?  Thanks.

Rico-Suave: 

In your effort to be inflammatory, you’re hallucinating once again.

The Jews? I never mentioned the Jews. I myself am Jewish, so please get off your high horse.

I mentioned Israel, and what I said stands. I could have excoriated it—not the Jews, but AIPAC and the racist regime it’s become—but I didn’t.  It simply wasn’t relevant to my point. I didn’t even suggest it, although when hunting for bear, trolls can and do infer anything. Your obsession with conspiracy theorists is in fact very telling. You substantiate your points with rhetoric out of either Lyndon LaRouche or the Tea Party. Or perhaps it’s the NSA, since one wonders what you;re doing on Truthdig in the first place. Which is it, then?

All I said was that Israel is probably ready to attack Iran. Do you seriously disagree with that?

Do my utterances threaten you that much? If so, I suppose I should be flattered.

My opinion of your utterances, however, is rapidly deflating. I thought you were intelligent. Now, I think it’s mostly just a smoke and mirrors act.

I do not care to debate with you whether I think something is possible. Yes, I think it is, and thanks for offering to be a sacrificial foil on this issue.

Cheers.

Rico,
You know I’m usually sympathetic to you, even if I don’t agree with you.

But it is disingenuous to say the Dems outspent the GOP.  True on the actual candidate races they did,  but how much was spent on outside groups on attack ads?

Follow the logic.  There were attack ads by the candidates.  Let’s put them aside—they came fast and furious from both sides.

Then there were the attack ads sponsored by outside groups. 
How much money did they have? We don’t know.  The USSC says we have no right to know. 
Who did they get their money from? The USSC says we have no right to know EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FOREIGN DONORS TRYING TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION!
What are the limits of spending by these outside groups? The USSC says there are none.

Now the big question: Who did the VAST majority of these groups support? Hint: It wasn’t the Democrats.

There were blizzards, even tsunamis of attack ads by outside groups, almost exclusively against Democrats.  We can only guess how much they were funded by how much TV time costs. We’ve seen only SOME hints about who’s funding them—and we should all be very, very scared.

So when you say Democrats outspent Republicans, it’s only true if you don’t count the outside groups.

But since the outside groups spent clearly hundreds of millions, even billions on attack ads, all against Dems, and ALL UNACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE, to ignore them and pretend they don’t exist is beneath you.

mdgr:

Oh, Jesus. If it’s not race, it’s the Jews!

Will you please entertain the distinct possibility that liberal progressive politics is not going to cut it in the United States? Your scapegoating is desperate and pathetic.

Remember. Fox News is the only conservative outlet in the MSM. Liberals own the rest, and they still couldn’t stop the TP. You’ll need a mighty elaborate conspiracy theory to explain Tuesday’s results in order to maintain the fiction that progressivism is alive and well in the US and only lacks a messiah.

Conden:

I would not lump Ms. Goodman in with progressives. I would lump her in with the term “liberal,” as defined by Mr. Hedges.

She is still reaching for solutions that are, in point of fact, pie in the sky. Sure we need the kind of reforms she has mentioned, but she expects those approaches to be magically implemented from above, even as we continue waiting for Godot. Speak of her in whatever solemn tone of voice you like, but she is as sanctimonious, intellectually dessicated and theoretical as any liberal I have seen. I did not mean that merely as an insult, but as an all-encompassing dismissal.

This isn’t time for “wag the dog” and I am really not interested in polemical masturbation emanating from the liberal contingent. Reality is upon us. Very soon, I think, Israel will have had enough. It is more than itching to unleash the dogs of war, Amy Goodman notwithstanding. At that time, which is likely to be shortly before or immediately after the inauguration, Obama’s polls may be very, very low. The street credibility of the Democrats in Congress will be equally low, I should think.

Obama will support Israel, of course, and probably many a progressive in Congress will as well—initially. But the war will lead to the complete undoing of America because (1) we can neither win it nor (2) sustain the pretense. It will also hurt us directly, here at home. I consider that a goodness in the long run, and by 2012, America’s military and economic hegemony is likely to be in tatters. Much worse than it is now.

This issue alone (never mind AIPAC) is likely in the long run to drive a wedge a mile wide between the progressive delegation in Congress and their Democratic base. I am not saying it will. I am merely pointing to probabilities, as I see them.

I am guessing once again (see earlier post in this thread) that if the progressives in Congress can be induced (or cajoled) to bolt from/repudiate the Democratic Party, the momentum of that event will be enough to propel a third party (and its funding) into being. It would be politically equivalent to a major earthquake along the San Andreas.

This won’t spring up from debating campaign reform nor from contemplating our navel, ad nauseum. It will arise more likely from a growing feeling of “enough is enough,” and that feeling is already gaining a huge degree of currency in the collective consciousness.

Amy Goodman is on the independent left; she is not a democrat, and is not associated with the right wing senators of the democratic party.  Lumping her and them together as “progressives” is an insult.  The independent left didn’t get a change of status, either ‘loss’ or ‘win’ from this media charade called an election. 

More than just campaign finance reform, we need a program to radically alter our level of democracy and election system; to full public financing for all elections; to short primaries, no advertising, mandated equal time to all candidates and open debates, proportional representation in congress…this could energize people of all political stripes, including the 60% who stayed home yesterday; and then we would have a very different country; single payer healthcare, no wars, environmental regulations, full employment.

By gerard, November 3 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

Not rage for the sake of rage, but an outlet for rage.  Better yet, a focus for organizing that will make the goal “irresistable.” Without reasonalb goals, rage quickly disintegrates into violence.

“Now we know what doesn’t work.”  Or, what does work—that is, pour money from the coffers of the rich into the politics of the rich.

Campaign financing reform as a first focus for organizing?  How could that focus be made “irresistable”? What would attract lots of people (from various constituencies) to it?
Is campaign finance reform more “viable” since the midterms?  Yes, because more people than at any other time had a chance to see the preponderance of ads favoring candidates who were “bought” and “sold” in the ads. A kind of human trafficking

Tools?  Information (or lack) regarding how much to whom for what, plus secrecy as counter-democratic, plus “follow the money” into legislation or lack of legislation. Get information and get it out in every possible way. Don’t just let the midterms drop out of sight; use them: (“You remember how that happened ...... and after that .... happened?  Well, here’s why ... (dirty ads, misconstructioins, no way to fight against it .. unfair, etc.) There will be plenty of evidence.  Don’t sell democracy down the river, etc. )

Obviously the left needs to come to grips with getting organized—something they still show no signs of wanting to do.  No leadership plus little actual planning talk. Getting unions, progressive ngos, progressive churches and interracial orgs together.  Working from the grassroots up.

Now is the time for .... reconstituting a democratic, pro-working stiff organization that, once coping with one issue will have experience to cope with the next—for example, next save social security which will likely be the absolutely most vital issue for the future—that, and maintaining and improving universal health insurance.

Onward!

mrfreeze:

1. I’m thinking that having been the majority has backfired on the Dems.

2. Yeah, that’s a problem I’m not disputing.

3. I have never complained about the “failure of democracy.” Complaining about policy is not the same thing as complaining about the loss of democracy. Unless you’re a progressive.

rico, suave - Your (typical, child’s sand-box) comment:

“Why is that… Amy? Because your side lost? Is “democracy” only validated if progressives win…Amy?”

#1) Progressives lost? Really? Please explain what lose means….Looks as if the Senate is still “progressive.” And, becoming the majority has a tendency to backfire on Republicans.
#2) Our local radio stations were openly crowing about all the money they were making from the political ads. Sounds as if politics is controlling the Media. Not exactly a “healthy” situation.
#3) And yes, conservative commentators were and still are whining to this day that Obama has stolen our democracy. You yourself complain in all of your posts about how terrible Obama and libs are (that we’re ruining this “great land).

sgt doom:

“Because Bush had failed to deliver N.A.F.T.A., and the banksters were annoyed.  H. Ross Perot, heavily indebted to the banksters for funding, and extremely heavily indebted to the Texas democratic political machine ... answered the call.”

Perot HATED NAFTA. Remember that famous “gaint sucking sound” phrase.

Why would anyone want to read your post further? At that level of thinking you’ll never get a commission.

mdgr:

The Tea Party had obvious traction apart from the Republicans. Do you really think that a progressiive version, apart from the Democrats, could successfully sell themselves to the ignorant, American Idol drugged hoi poloi?

Rico

Democracy just took it’s next logical step in a nation that prays at the altar of capitalism, it is for sale, and it was just purchased.

I can’t wait for 2012, to see if exxon and wal-mart just have their own canditdate, instead of buying one off the rack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-dolan/buck-up-progressives-we-w_b_778274.html

Amy Goodman’s analysis looks at the glass being half empty. That’s a typically “liberal” view, by which I mean to point to the very worst associations with that term as used by people like Chris Hedges.

As the link above shows, however, the bottom line is that much of the dead weight—for which Rahm Emanuel sold his soul—is essentially gone and the progressive caucus is virtually undiminished.

Now, I have a little proposal. It’s strategic, however, and as finely honed as a surgical scalpel.

As a hypothetical, what would it net the progressive cause if many of that same caucus publicly resigned their Democratic-Vichy-linked affiliation, especially now that President Obama has vowed to make nice with the Republican Party even more than her already has?

They have just been re-elected, so their election isn’t immediately at stake. If they resigned from the Democratic Party in the next few months and endorsed the creation of an emergent third party made up of lefties and indies, wouldn’t that suddenly give the new party a HUGE amount of gravitas and influence?

Not unlike the Tea Party, except for the money.

To coin a phrase, these defectors could assume the mantle of “thought leaders” over their Congressional delegation, unhampered by the Obama and the Dems.

They could also help articulate and channel the rage of the left, as well as the indies who simply didn’t vote or who voted Dem but felt slightly nauseous doing so.

It would be good for their egos, good for that third party (no longer marginal with many of the Progressive Caucus behind it) and good for the country.

It would be very, very bad for the remaining Democrats, but they’re known to be impotent anyway. I see a real possibility of the influence of the third party’s influence ascending in direct proportion to Vichy’s precipitous decline.

At this point, big money would begin to follow. The reason why is because of the threat of the Tea Party in 2012. That may please business in the short term—they’re generally greedy, true—but not every captain of industry is stupid.

Remember, it is to no one’s advantage (with the exception of Murdoch and the Koch Brothers) to give Palin or Secretary of Defense Limbaud the nuclear codes, and people like Bill Gates, Buffett and Soros know that all too well.

Strategically speaking, I believe that this can provide an “engine” through which we may be able to do what is necessary between now and 2012.

“The biggest loser: democracy.”

Why is that… Amy? Because your side lost? Is “democracy” only validated if progressives win…Amy?

You lay the blame on the commercialization of politics and campaigning via big media.

I see. But the Dems spent more on big media than the Reps, yet the results betrayed the paradigm. Bummer.

Let’s control the media, a la Hugo Chavez. That way we can be sure that only the correct message, the progressive message, reaches the tender ears of the benighted electorate, so the proper results can guarantee “democracy”.

When Obama won in 2008, was there ANY Republican or rightwing commentator who bemoaned the “failure of democracy” for that result…Amy? I didn’t think so.

Your philosophy lost. Not “democracy”. Get over it.

Deconstructing American Political Theater

Please allow us to look behind the curtain for a brief moment, and see what really goes on there.

When Bill Clinton was elected president the first time back in 1992, he was elected with a minority of the vote (only 40 percent, or thereabouts), thanks to the spoiler Ross Perot, who entered the campaign to draw away votes from President George H.W. Bush.

Why was this?  Because Bush had failed to deliver N.A.F.T.A., and the banksters were annoyed.  H. Ross Perot, heavily indebted to the banksters for funding, and extremely heavily indebted to the Texas democratic political machine for his education (nomination to the Naval Academy), his early out from his military obligation, and his fortune thanks to sweetheart government contracts, answered the call.

It is crucial to explain that Perot’s brother-in-law happens to be Ramsey Clark, President Johnson’s former attorney general and a member of the highly influential Clark family of Texas, a multi-generational political family not unlike the Bush family, but to a lesser degree.

Next the republicans take over the House and Senate in the next national election, so logically, they should put forth their strongest candidate against Clinton during his re-election campaign, but that isn’t the plan.

The plan was to keep their man Clinton in as president, therefore the weakest candidate, Bob Dole, is run against him and loses handily.

Now one cannot blame the economy on President Obama; the American economy was dismantled over the preceding 35 years, but Obama has resolutely continued the economic policies of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan, while in reality what America required was a super-F.D.R. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) in the White House.

Now their obvious plan is to continue with Obama for a second term, thereby realizing their economic program of control fraud.  President Obama was a majority-elected president (unlike the weaker Clinton), and in a much stronger position for a second term.

The only way to circumvent their plan is to replace Obama with an authentic democrat and an authentic progressive.

To present an idea of the ease of their manipulation of the American airwaves:  a typical “news interview” show features speakers from Peter G. Peterson’s Peterson Institute, or
Peterson’s Fiscal Times, or Peterson’s Concord Coalition, or Peterson’s America Speaks, or Peterson’s Peterson Foundation.

Also featured would be speakers from David Koch’s Cato Institute, or Koch’s Heritage Foundation, or Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, or Koch’s American Enterprise Institute or the jointly financed (Koch and Peterson) Aspen Institute.

This is a loose approximation of what passes for the American corporate media today.

This political theater, just as the ancient Roman circuses and gladiator games, is for the benefit of the manipulation of the masses, and the economic elites laugh at their little enterprise and the wasted energy it consumes.

[For those who cling to Santa Claus and their fractured fables, they can rest assured that the health insurance legislation (oddly referred to as “healthcare reform”) will be subtly disassembled, leaving in place only those passages which strengthen the control and power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Further free trade agreements will be passed, hastening those remaining jobs being offshored and the continuing demise of what remains of the American economy.

Also, the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission has done remarkable work in uncovering widespread criminal malfeasance and should any justice prevail in the USA, their findings would cause members of the former Bush administration, and present Obama administration, to do jail time.  But this recent election will almost certainly negate that event.]