Rehab or New Construction?
The burning question of the day remains whether to try to reform the Democratic Party from within or to give up on them as a lost cause and build new from the ground up.
My current view of Democrats is that they provided an umbrella under which to huddle while I congratulated myself for belonging to the Party that most closely espoused my values and priorities. Of recent years, like say the last eight, I realized that while they espoused my values, they did next to nothing to further them when given the opportunity. So, do I, and others like me, continue to huddle under that umbrella, or do I risk the potential of temporarily becoming a soaking wet outsider under no umbrella while I busy myself with others in constructing a more permanent structure under which to shelter?
That is the basic question discussed in this article by Kim Moody from Jacobin
From Realignment to Reinforcement
In a nutshell, Moody posits that change from within the Party has always been difficult and never more so than now; he very effectively describes the transformation of the Party over time as one whose incumbents and power base are comprised of 1%ers or those who aspire to become 1% who are responsive to their big donors and paymasters and who have become, in his words, “Commercialized and Unaccountable”:
The growth of the Democratic Party’s business-funded bureaucracy over the past half century, the soaring role of money in elections, and the downgrading of grassroots organization in favor of purchased campaign methods has changed this capitalist party, as well as its rival, and the whole political process.
The party’s commercialized campaigning and unaccountable structure has allowed it to impose austerity while fending off the sorts of challenges mounted by the realigners of the 1970s, the Rainbow Coalition of the 1980s, and the Bernie Sanders campaign last year. Unfortunately, Bernie veterans looking to create the party anew will come up against the same roadblocks.
The article is ultimately a pessimistic outlook for the potential of liberal reformers for fomenting and creating real, actual, long term reconstruction within the Party when every single detail of its embedded top-down power structure, history, and current leadership argues against success.
Obviously, there are those who disagree with this view, most notably Bernie Sanders himself with his Our Revolution construct which chooses to work primarily under the Democratic umbrella as does Cenk Uygur’s new concept of Justice Democrats:
Progressives Launch 'Justice Democrats' to Counter Party's 'Corporate' Legislators
In reading that article we discover that the first immediate goal of the Justice Democrats will be to oust the 13 Democratic Senators who voted against the Bernie Sanders amendment that would have allowed drug re-importation from Canada.(As a reminder, the 13 Democratic Senators who voted against the amendment were: Booker (NJ), Bennet (CO), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Coons (DE), Donnelly (IN), Heinrich (NM), Heitkamp (ND), Menendez (NJ), Murray (WA), Tester (MT), Warner (VA))
.
While I admire and support Uygur’s and the Justice Democrats' goal of ousting these 13 Dem incumbent Senators, I would have to predict that at best it is likely to offer up Pyrrhic victories if any at all. The Party machinery will engage to protect the incumbent, a stated goal, and as past history has shown us, the incumbent will most likely prevail( Teachout v Cuomo, Wasserman-Schultz v Canova, etc). If the Justice Democrats are serious about getting rid of Blue Dogs, which I have no reason to doubt, some number of them will probably not show up at the polls and the seat may be lost to a Republican and then Justice Democrats will be blamed for the loss by "damaging" the candidate causing poor turnout.
If the incumbent does win, that win will be seen as yet another rejection of liberal Dems; the party bigwigs will see it as more justification for triangulation to obtain the always unobtainable, only-in-their-dreams, moderate Republican vote and to tack further right.
IF the long-shot Justice Democrat candidate should make it into the Senate, they will be whipped mercilessly by the control Democrats and the machine to fall into line with the majority status quo, incremental, pragmatic Democrats. In the article from the WP about Uygur’s effort, I found it ironic that he cited existing membership in the Progressive Caucus as being an inoculation against primarying when the Progressive Caucus, despite being the largest caucus, has been the most feckless in wielding its power, subjugating itself time and time again to “embracing the suck”, any evidence of rejecting neo-liberalism being far rarer than falling in line with it.
What liberal/progressives don’t seem to get is that half the Party and almost all of the leadership, have no desire to be more liberal or progressive beyond the traditional lip service they are bound to give as ritual tribute to the leftier wing during an election which will be put back on the shelf when it comes time to legislate.
I would cite as further evidence for the Democratic Party as whole being “irredeemable” to use Hillary Clinton’s words, is that in their current upper level soul searching, no one anywhere has found any evidence of a soul to be saved. Their internal discussions to date have had a focus on “poor messaging” and technical difficulties with their turnout operations and polling, while excoriating external sources like Russians and Comey for the public’s lack of understanding of why Democrats are the better of two options. What is ironic beyond belief is their lack of self-awareness that it is not the public’s lack of understanding about Democrats, it’s their understanding of Democrats that is the problem, i.e. that Democrats are expedient, glib, insincere, reactive, self-serving and non-visionary. They are incapable of delivering on large goals without knee-capping themselves in advance by fencing themselves into little boxes of what is “possible” or “achievable”. What the rest of us have learned is that the power who defines the parameters of possibility are their corporate donors, and not what is best for the masses of the citizenry.
Nowhere was this lesson better exemplified than when left to their own devices, Democrats constructed a wreck of a healthcare system that maintained the dominance and maintenance of provably immoral and unethical industries as its core, whose profits were of greater concern to our legislators than the health and welfare of the masses or their fiduciary responsibilities to be wise stewards of public dollars. How is it that only now, long after the horse left the barn, that Democrats are talking about negotiating drugs in Medicare or re-importing drugs from Canada when those were two basic planks of President Obama’s bait and switch health platform in the first place? Do they understand that in their venality of serving their industry donors, they have pretty much sacrificed any credibility they might have once had on the topic? But now they get it? Now they’ll take it seriously? Right . . . .
This leads me back to the article in Jacobin that I led off this essay with and what I said was its pessimistic outlook towards reform from within of the Democratic Party. While that may be true, it’s no reason for liberal Democrats or Progressives or 99%ers to be pessimistic in general about eventually gaining traction for their views and goals, many of which are shared by the electorate, just not expressed within our current two party framework/prison.
In his article Moody concluded compellingly:
It’s time for socialists to build an alternative. The base is there in cities of all sizes. It is there among thousands of Sanderistas with no place to go. It is there in militant unions and among union insurgents fighting to change their unions — many of whom supported Sanders — as well as among activists from Black Lives Matter, Fight for 15, immigrants’ rights groups, and workers’ centers. It is there among the millions of working-class African Americans and Latinos who have seen both major parties let their neighborhoods deteriorate. And it is even to be found among those “left behind” white workers who voted for Trump.
In this debate, I come down on the side of Moody and not on that of Uygur or Sanders. How about you?
Comments
I'm with you Phoebe
The Democratic Party exists solely to provide the illusion of choice, of democracy.
It has value only to those who fund it, not to the people to whose votes it lays claim. Yes, claim, because it is your fault if you didn't vote for them (they claim), not their fault if they didn't do anything to earn your vote. Any organization that demands loyalty running in only one direction (from the bottom up, never from the top down) is not worth saving.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Steven, you're spot on about them providing the illusion of
choice. Well, at least tons of people finally recognize how they've been played over the years, there is that.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Would you make a cake using
Moldy flour crawling with worms, rotten eggs, rancid butter and sour milk? The Dems like things the way they are, especially the entrenched Clinton wing which rules with an iron fist, voting fraud, and MSM control of voter perception via propaganda. Even if non-fake progressive candidates can be found within, they will be stopped (see Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign). It is no longer a burning question; either coalesce around a progressive-independent party or give up and learn to love Republicans.
I see most of the effort going into building new veal pens
Sanders, Uygur's Justice Democrats, etc. I agree with your cake analogy. I think these reform and take-over efforts are just time wasters and people who want real change should stop trying to impose it on a Party that doesn't really want anything to do with them or their goals.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I've been explaining the veal pen a lot
I've had any number of conversations with shell-shocked folks eager to become politically active, but not knowing what to do. The former militant Clintonistas are the most lost: they don't see sticking with the Clintons as a route forward, and don't see a party leader worth falling in behind. A lot of people are scared, wanting to do something, but they've no idea what.
I'm working on paring down an elevator speech on the worthlessness of working within the Democratic party, citing trade deals, the abandonment of the public option and the Catfood Commission as examples of Democratic perfidy. I explain that Democrats are losing because fewer people believe them anymore, and they have no vision for the country. Even the Clintonistas don't argue with that.
I cite unions whose leaders endorsed Clinton while taking incoming fire from their rank and file who wanted Bernie. The Clinton campaign's avowed outreach to Republican women, and their spurning of young Sanders supporters. The veal pen concept is new to most people, but it's not hard to explain once you've laid a little groundwork.
Once the relentless cheating to stop Bernie Sanders' primary campaign came to light, I was confirmed in my suspicion that the only way to change politics was to maintain distance from the Democratic party. Liberals, or progressives, or socialists, or whatever the new movement will call itself, will have to build an independent power base without ties to the Democratic party. Democrats must come to it as supplicants, and must see rejection after rejection before they stop trying to co-opt the movement. The Democratic party can follow in the wake of the movement, or it can wither and die. The one thing we can't let happen is for the corporate Democratic party to once again co-opt and strangle leftist activist movements. We've seen that movie too many times to have any illusion how it ends.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Why continue beating one's head against the Dem. Party wall?
They only tolerate progressives out of expediency and they're always looking for ways to either keep us in line by diminishing expectations or, alternately, by trying to use us in some kind of voter hostage exchange where they give up what is important to us and think that somehow for each one of us they give up,they will gain an illusory moderate Republican. It's madness. We need to forget about them and stop being chess pieces in their game.
I'm so frustrated. I feel like running ads saying, "Cats Desiring Herd", apply within. I'm simply sick to death of Democrats. In one of their "where have we gone wrong" panels going on I read about people like Harold Ford and David Brock and the head of the Third Way(!),pontificating about how to get out of the woods, when their brand of politics is what led us into the woods in the first place. I want to leave them there, and pick up every bread crumb behind me, so I never have to in inadvertently associate with them ever again.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
The Soviet Union would still exist had they been smart
enough to realize that to have a long term one party system you have to give the illusion that there are two parties competing for control.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I agree, Phoebe
A dead donkey is still a dead donkey. No new ideas for the 99%. Off with their heads!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
The same power structure is in place
Pelosi, Schumer, Third Way, Brazile, Clinton machine, David Brock, Big Money. When they are so focused on "bad messaging" what they are admitting to is being bad spokespeople who failed to "sell" their product. It has nothing to do with actual policies or philosophies that they care about, because they don't actually have any aside from winning and retaining or attaining power.
In theater there's an expression when the wing set pieces aren't positioned correctly and the backstage area is exposed so the audience can see actors waiting for their cues, the stage crew, someone getting a prop ready, etc. It's said to break the "fourth wall" and disrupts the willing suspension of reality necessary for the audience to buy into the artificial world of the production. I think that's what's happened with the Democratic Party - they broke that fourth wall and now we all see them as the shams they are.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Breaking the fourth wall
In a post-mortem after the 2014 election at TOP, I wrote an essay and began with a quote:
That was my reply to the "improve our messaging" bleat Democrats always pull out after they get creamed. When your product sucks, messaging won't improve it. I see no willingness in the party after the Clinton meteor strike to reassess what the party is or what it should be. No recognition that the current leadership is responsible for catastrophe after catastrophe, or that the big-donor suckup business model is anything but a complete failure. Allying with today's Democratic party is like hiring Typhoid Mary as your cook. They just proved in the primary season that they're deathly allergic to new ideas or outside enthusiasm, and flee from it like a vampire from the light.
I even wrote a valedictory diary over there to prove to the dead-enders that they didn't have a clue what to do next. They met my expectation admirably.
Please help support caucus99percent!
And they are STILL going to rely on demographics and identity
politics on the next go-rounds! They have learned nothing. They think the Hillary defeat is some Black Swan event or Perfect Storm and don't see her rejection as having any relevance as to WHO SHE IS and her track record aside from being the person whose turn it was to become THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.
Why does anyone want to hitch themselves to a Party that is displaying Invincible Ignorance at every single turn?
And the next go-round will still be NOT TRUMP. And it might work. A real winner for me would be NOT TRUMP and NOT A DEMOCRAT.
As for Daily Kos, I look at them as being some old neighborhood gang I used to hang out with, but now I've moved out of the neighborhood and just don't have anything in common with them anymore. I go over once in a while just to see if there's anything worth reading based on something other than "she won the popular vote" scab picking or "Trump is insane", both facts of which I am well aware, and the search comes up empty. The there's the occasional Kos screed trying to recover his lost relevance and credibility.
I may have said this before, but the whole experience reminds me of when you go back to visit your old elementary school and the place looks like it shrunk, when it was massive in a previous time. You look at the little desks and wonder "gee, how did I ever fit into that?" When it comes right down to it, Daily Kos was just another veal pen.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
There is a difference....
Justice Democrats don't give a damn if they are spoilers. Unity is not their problem. They don't plan to live on corporate cash. Are they "the" answer? Don't know. Given a choice between Bernie and Green, I'll take Bernie.
For those who are certain reform from within cannot happen, where is the alternative? The Green Party? WFP? pfft. If there is no hope for a third party and no hope for reform from within, wtf are we talking about? Seriously - there is no solution and no place to run and no place to hide?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Who said there was no hope for a third Party?
In fact, I specifically concluded that I agreed with Moody that core constituency for a new Third Party is already in existence - it's the two last paragraphs of this essay.
I personally think that trying to reform or take over a Party where one half of it, which just happens to be the half in complete control of the levers, doesn't think it needs any reform at all is a foreseeable fool's errand. The Democratic Party has made it more than clear on any number of occasions that they aren't really that into the left wing of their base, most notably when Schumer publicly said that they would gladly trade a Dem blue collar vote for 2 suburban Republican moderate ones - and he's our current Minority leader!
I think the time and energy are better spent in a new construct which starts with shared visions and goals that are not in dispute from the getgo, than in continuing in long term fruitless internecine warfare.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Wishful thinking
I see no evidence that a third party can win in this country. I see no evidence that Bernie's base can be brought together without a Bernie. He was unique, and he created a unique and perhaps non-replicable in a lifetime opportunity. He also ran as a Democrat for pragmatic reasons. If we think he got zero coverage now, imagine if he had been third party. The Tea Party is evidence that parties can be co-opted from within- bigly.
As I said, I am for what works. I am open and will support the effort with the greatest demonstrated success. I want a transfer of power from the corporations and 1% to the 99%, and I'll take it any way I can get it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I saw Bernie building his momentum without any help from the
media or the Party - he essentially established that a work around based on social networking and small donors could work. The only tangible benefit he gained from running as a Democrat IMO was the very limited debate opportunities the Party grudgingly provided.
I think he gave us a good tune up and practice run as to how to subvert TPTB. I honestly think that someone with an already established media presence such as Cenk Uygur already has is foolish to squander it within the frame of the Democratic Party. Not to mention that he is simply duplicating the efforts of Our Revolution and Brand New Congress. Someone has to be the leader in building something completely new and he could be that person except he's already thrown in with Democrats. Which then leads to the conclusion he isn't the right person, because the right person would have never thrown in with democrats in the first place.
I feel like the Screw the Establishment experiment has just begun, so my takeaway from all this is emphatically NOT "we can only have success within the existing framework". Additionally the Democrats were so insanely self-destructive and awful in their war against their own left flank that lots of lefties finally got the message and have left for good permanently. They won't be returning. The Dems made it personal with their false attacks of racism and sexism and now a lot of people don't want to have anything to do with them in the future.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Whatever he got from the media and/or the party
was negligible and he got grudgingly. Still it was leaps and bounds above anything received by any third party.
Democrats suck. The whole party needs to be gutted. It is what the Tea Party and Grover Norquist did to the GOP.
We can build our own or do a fixer upper. It is what your title says. Whichever approach gives the 99% power is the one I want.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@Phoebe Loosinhouse Worse than that..
Worse than that...they portrayed us as dangerous thugs. A sitting Senator claimed to have been "afraid for her life" because of angry Bernie supporters. Lies were spread in all major media about the non-incident: false allegations of violence, chair throwing, storming the stage. And people understood, very quickly, what that kind of character assassination means: you only portray someone (falsely) as a thug if you want to make it OK to hurt them later.
POC know all about this.
This is currently the wallpaper on my desktop. It's there to remind me every day what the Democratic Party is.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Imagine.
If Sanders had run as a third-party candidate, we'd have something to build upon now. In the real world, there is in fact nobody to turn to, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and nothing of importance to organize. I'm not even convinced that "Justice Democrats" exist, and even if there were people out there who claimed to be "Justice Democrats," they would merely be Democrats who endorsed a slightly-less-unjust version of the Democratic Party that gave us expensive health insurance we can't afford to use, who gave us the sequester and the TPP and the TTIP and NAFTA and the WTO and the Crime Bill and the Welfare Bill and government by banksters and prosecution of whistleblowers and the Obama extension of Dick Cheney's war on the world. The Democrats have endorsed injustice for so long that they don't stand for anything else. I'm at a loss to understand why we should expect ANYTHING from them. "Vote for me! I'll advocate for a couple of nice things until I sell out" is apparently the best the Democrats can do.
The first thing the Democrats would have to do IMHO is to issue an ADMISSION OF GUILT -- but instead you've got folks who don't really see at all why there was anything wrong with their disastrous Hillary Clinton bandwagon and who can't be bothered with sense or logic because blaming the Russians is so much easier.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
@Cassiodorus There's everything
There's everything of importance to organize, but we probably aren't going to.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This situation is not comparable to the Tea Party
takeover of the Republican Party. Tea Partiers were recruited, welcomed, pandered to. Mainstream Republicans were aghast when they realized this bunch actually held some power.
The Democratic Party does NOT welcome true liberals or progressives. They insulted us, ignored us and spat on us. We can't infiltrate like the Tea Party. Not at all. We have been dumped.
@dkmich I see no evidence
I see no evidence that the Democratic party can be reformed or taken over.
I'm not sure a third party is the way to go either, but there must be some form of organization if we want to accomplish anything. My feeling is that we're not to the point of a third party yet, but that's not the issue at hand; the issue at hand is whether the Democratic party is an irredeemable waste of time.
If we are going to work through the Democratic party somehow, logic would dictate, Captain, that we figure out why that hasn't worked before and rectify those conditions so that we have a chance of winning. In other words, we have to look at the catalog of ways Hillary Clinton successfully cheated Bernie Sanders and figure out reasonable countermeasures for each. Just off the top of my head, we have to be able to get a critical mass of the American public disentangled from the mainstream media, so that when the media tell them Hillary Clinton already won the nomination, they don't respond by believing them and staying home from the polls. That's just one example of what we'd have to deal with from the corporate media (again); I'm sure you can come up with plenty of others. More difficult would be getting an accurate vote count at all, countering the voter suppression and the various forms of electoral fraud, which, IMO, would require finding election officials who have integrity, if there still are any, and persuading those people that they should stand up to the abusive power of the Clintons and the Bushes and their respective political machines and the money behind them. Of course, we probably will have to do that if we work through a third party, too. None of the organizations that have sprung up in the wake of last year's travesty have addressed any of this, and when adherents of those organizations have been questioned about the flaws in their strategy, so far, they have responded with various forms of character attacks: Isn't it a shame Bernie's base is deserting him? How can Bernie do anything if he can't count on your loyalty? or We just need to work harder. Nothing will get done if you sit on the sidelines, or, my favorite, Well, what's YOUR plan, then?
, as if anybody has "the plan" to successfully remove a fascist government with the world's largest military and 21st-century surveillance technology, just waiting in their back pocket like Pikachu.
That's why Cenk's effort here, like Bernie's Our Revolution and BNC, is pointless, and, in fact, I wonder if he's actually serious or just tasked by the PTB with managing the children. Someone as smart as Cenk--and he is quite smart--would know that you obviously have to find a way to get around election fraud if you want to pursue an electoral solution. I'm sad that Cenk is taking this tack, because wedding an indie media network to our political efforts is a great idea and would be an incredible help, if the rest of the strategy were sound. But he's not even asking the right questions.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@dkmich I'm not interested in
I'm not interested in belonging to an organization unless I trust the people running it. Been burned that way too many times.
I would need to see the plan to break Clinton Democrats' control of the party in moving pictures. And "primary the bastards!" doesn't cut it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well They Did This Year...
-
I'm not at all convinced that the Justice Democrats will be apathetic spoilers when TSHTF. They were not this election. What tells us they will be in the next?
I love the idea, but not sure if they are detached enough to not give their dog a cookie "because they're cute".
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Activists (by definition) Act.
But in the current political environment I think it may be better NOT to act. Let them come to us.
If the Dems want to resurrect their moribund party, let them do it themselves. Get rid of the leadership, start legitimately supporting Progressive ideals and grass roots candidates, stop taking corporate cash, and start really fighting instead of insulting our intelligences with more of the same, lame kabuki opposition.
Until then, here I'll sit: no more volunteering, no donations, no nothing until the Dems or somebody else gives me a real reason to reengage.
Boycotts worked for the MLK in reforming the worst of the Democratic Party. I think it's long past time they had another lesson in the power of non-engagement.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I think the current environement will cement all their worst
instincts. They will believe even more that simply not being the Party of Trump will be enough. Instead of them moving leftward to attract their disaffected left, I think they will continue to be drift rightward, misinterpreting the core of Trumpism as conservatism rather than nihilism and despair brought on by their own dissolute stewardship and practices.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
and as a result…
They will continue to lose elections until somebody figures it out.
But hey, that's not my problem. If they continue selling a crappy product, I won't buy it, no matter how much they dress up it up with pretty progressive wrapping paper.
I just wish more people felt the same way I do. Perhaps if more people did nothing then we might actually get something accomplished.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Their paychecks are dependent on them not figuring it out
or at least pretending they haven't figured it out.
We all know the body count on seats lost in the states and the statehouses during the last eight years. Isn't it odd that there was so little concern about that issue at the national level? Or that the Democrats are the only political party on the face of the earth that tamps down legislative aspirations/expectations even before the first whistle is blown? or that they water down and dilute their own legislation in search of bi-partisan republican votes they never succeed in getting? Or that a Dem President would front for Republicans not taking the fall for sequester or would be the first to put Social security cuts into budget negotiations?
It's all so . . . . strange. Almost like they are Democrats in name only.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Obama covered up a lot of the rot.
Like a shiny new paint job on a termite ridden house.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger The danger here is
The danger here is that people will be so passionate against Trump that the fact of the Democratic party's perfidy (and complicity in bringing us Trump) will be lost altogether.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Not just the danger...
It's basically the plan.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
That's Not the Danger... That's the Strategy! nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc Now I'm sure the
Now I'm sure the Democrats would never resort to such disingenuous folderol, and that well-meaning liberals would never be dumb enough to fall for it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Not Henry Kissinger Here I am....and here I
Here I am....and here I will stay!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
heh.
I like the way you think.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I think we'll need to act, but not as or with Democrats
The Trump Republicans are already careening around like drunken sailors, doing their best to wreck the country and grab all the money. As Abe Lincoln said about his first Navy Secretary, "He'd steal anything but a hot stove." I still think the best bet about the Trump years is that it will revive the 1960's. The anti-war and civil rights movements achieved their goals by specifically not aligning with either political party, but criticizing both when they failed to deliver. We need to remember that model, as well as the slow suicide of the union movement once it chained itself to the Democratic party and died by being taken for granted.
Politics will need action in the years to come, but not anywhere near the Democratic party. We ignore them and work on what's important to us. They either come around or go the way of the Whigs.
Please help support caucus99percent!
The 60s with Omniscient Surveillance... Not Sure It's Such a
fair fight this time, .
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I don't think that taking it to the streets is a valid tactic
in this day and age. Better to use social networks and have organizational meetings in your homes initially and then in larger public spaces you hire or have permitted access to later. There's nothing to hide. People have been let down by the two current political parties and they want something new and better, just as they always have done throughout our entire history. We need some leaders, is what we need.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
We find those leaders
in the streets. n/t
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
@Phoebe Loosinhouse For once, I
For once, I disagree with you. There is some need for discretion. There is a stage in the formation of any idea when the ideas themselves are not realized and not even fully conceived, when people are still trying to work out what to do. That's a vulnerable time, and it's really easy to break things up before they've even started, if you've got the power to do that. I'd say flying beneath the radar for the first stage of things--conception--might be very much to our benefit.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't think there's any disagreement, really
because I consider working through social media and by networking first in small groups as forms of flying under the radar.
Starting anything with other people is really hard in the beginning, because personality conflicts, power struggles and cliques are pretty inevitable.You really need a core group who are able to keep their eyes on the end goals without being sidetracked by the predictable foibles of human nature. I once worked in a management group that modeled the behavior of an incredibly excellent chief executive who simply did not allow oneupsmanship or backstabbing or cliques or back channels to invade her upper management tier. It was a great experience because it proves that such a thing is possible.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
@Phoebe Loosinhouse You know how to
You know how to do that?
FFS, Phoebe, you need to be teaching that shit, and not just to the corporation honchos for pay.
I didn't know anybody here knew how to do that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Phoebe Loosinhouse That's an
That's an incredible skill, and one of the sources of my despair, lately; if I can't get people to work together even on the smallest scale, then I'm next to useless as an activist.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The executive I admired so much led by example
She was an admirable person due to her admirable actions.
I'll give just one example - when I was a fairly new hire I thought another more senior manager was doing something I considered to be questionable and after much internal hemming and hawing I went to my boss about it. I did not address the other manager myself, which would have been the better course of action than the one I took, but to be frank, I was too much of a wimp to confront the person directly. My boss looked at me and said "No, I wouldn't approve that - let's ask him about it." To my horror, she picked up the phone right in front of me, called him up, and said "X, I have Phoebe with me now and she's concerned about ____________. Did she misunderstand? Explain to me what happened. I'm putting you on speaker phone."
So I learned from her in short order:
*She would never listen to one side of a story without the other
*She would not act as a go-between or interpreter and would always involve any parties in a conflict in a direct communication.(A weaker leader would have talked to X later and cloaked who had given her the information she was asking about so that people would feel comfortable in coming to her as being "confidential". There was no "confidential" with her. You either had the strength to publicly say what you were saying or you didn't say it).
*She would waste no time and not let things fester
*She always believed the best in people (she thought my concerns were valid and not motivated by a need to stir shit and she thought that the other person probably had a good explanation we didn't know - both of which were true)
So what I learned was to have the strength to simply ask people directly if something seemed abnormal and not to rely on someone else to act on my apprehensions if I wasn't willing to act on them myself. She literally made me a better person and a better manager, because I modeled her behavior to those beneath me.
She was also very Socratic - why do you think that happened? why do you think they did that? what is the advantage of doing it that way? etc.
In one of our management retreats we read Lee on Leadership (I know, I was skeptical too but it's a very worthwhile read) and I think the through line of that book is that character determines actions, which if you think about it, is what underlies most of Shakespeare and Aesop's fables as well.
While unquestionably Lee fought for the wrong cause, he inspired immense devotion from those under him and great respect from those who opposed. My greatest takeways were that a great leader is confident, and is unafraid of those under them surpassing them, they take joy in the success of others, they don't care if their own ideas credited to others, they are truly humble (i.e humility being the antidote to hubris)
Leadership is hard and true leaders rare. Who would be considered a Leader among us now? Whose army would we join? What Bernie accomplished in his brief time in the spotlight was amazing and inspirational in proving that it can still be done, even in this day and age.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
@Phoebe Loosinhouse I learned a
I learned a lot just from that one example you gave. Because I would have done the weaker thing in that moment-- talk to the other person, keep everything confidential.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
So would most people
So would I before I met her. But when you think about it, that would be the way to sow insecurity and mistrust among your own group. Because that really boils down to going to someone and saying "Another person in our circle (and I won't tell you who) said something that is not to your credit and now I am giving you a chance to clear the record."
Great. What is established in that scenario is:
People you don't know are talking to me about you and the onus is on you to defend yourself. Which builds walls and layers of mistrust between any and all participants and anyone else who ends up being caught in the web of intrigue that will ultimately develop and opposing cliques will form and various power struggles will ensue. She short circuited all of that.
Life is so interesting.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
@Phoebe Loosinhouse Lee was
Lee was actually an excellent leader. Just on the wrong side. He made the wrong decision (and by all accounts it was an extremely difficult decision for him). My read of him is that he let his heart overrule his head. Just couldn't bear to fight against Virginia. This is something that's been entirely lost from our culture, so people don't really understand it anymore, but your loyalty to your state was greater than your loyalty to the nation, back then. Your state was home. You'd say "I'm from Virginia," not "I'm an American."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
If you haven't read Lee on Leadership
I highly recommend it. It's the only book on management and leadership that ever stuck with me and we had to read almost the entire oeuvre over time, Effective Habits of Effective People, Good to Great, Who Moved My Cheese, blah, blah, blah.
Most of them could be written by a writing program - set goals, don't make a crappy product, act like you care about your customers, stay in touch!, tell your story, build customers for life, yada yada.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Politico
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
Think this is one of the most important things I learned about the Clintons.
They lost the election, by about 10,000 votes in MI.
Spent most of their time in CA & NY to build up the "popular vote" - for their bragging rights. Once again, and again, Clintons refused to listen. Tragic. But still would rather have President Trump then even think of the Clintons back in the WH.
If anyone forgets how blatantly dishonest they are, remember that first press conference when she was at the UN - refusing to even consider releasing any of the emails from her private server - which we know they created to avoid FOIA, and to co-ordinate Clinton SOS work with Doug Band and others at CGF to maximize their monetary gain.
Leave the DemocRATS to David Brock, Donna Brazille, Pelosi, and all those moldy dead weights. We need to start over, or give up - haven't decided myself yet!!!!
A combination of complacency, hubris and incompetence
has been the standard HRC patented losing formula . In 2008 Mark Penn didn't understand the mechanics of caucus states and their importance in the primary. In 2016 her team took the Blue Wall of the rust belt for granted even after they ignored and insulted them and then were surprised when they lost those states. Who woulda thunk it?
I've gone from being a fervent Kool-aid drinking straight ticket Democrat for decades to someone who can barely stand to see them or hear them speak, because I think their core dishonesty and gross disingenuity is so blatant. I've always abhorred Republicans strictly based on policy, but I no longer see Democrats as anything close to the antidote. If Republicans hadn't been so absurdly obstructionist and had they played along with Obama, they would be seeing like the rest of us, a largely moderate Republican legislative agenda fully enacted, with entitlement cuts and austerity in full bloom.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Clintons lost popular vote in Michigan by 10,000? Well -
-Sort of. I'm sure they were using the same kind of election fraud that worked so well in the Primaries, but Trump's team was also. Republicans used a program called CrossCheck to identify people with similar ethnic and minority names in neighboring states, and then used that as "proof" that these were one person trying to vote twice, and got them removed from the voter rolls. Basically, both sides of the Duopoly cheated, but Trump's team cheated better. In the three "blue firewall" states that "went over" to Trump, the number of people disenfranchised by CrossCheck was many times the margin of "victory".
A brief and accurate explanation: http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/ Palast has been following this issue since at least 2004, and has been careful and conservative in his claims. I have no doubt that things are worse than he thinks.
So, yeah, Trump "won" Michigan, but only in the sense that Clinton "won" California in the Primary. It's a sham. If we were a foreign nation with attractive natural resources, our State Department would already have declared this a fraudulent election. But heaven forbid that we should ever apply that same yardstick to OURSELVES. NO, NO, NO! It was all Rooshins!
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
@AnotherPeasant What's really weird
What's really weird about all this is that both of them committing fraud kind of cancelled each other out and gave us a result that closely mirrored the favorables/unfavorables of each candidate. Trump was at 58% unfavorables on election day; Hillary at 60%. And Trump barely edged out Hillary.
Of course, looking at the details of various fraud tends to obscure the fact that even having the last two candidates standing be people that *nearly 60% of the electorate despises* basically means that the system for electing representative government is shattered.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"New Messaging"
Anytime you hear "we just have to message better" means "how do we lie better?".
I think you're right, Phoebe.
Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that the Left is ready to do much. So far all I've seen are people who don't seem to understand what is going on. So many on the left are still "with her" and are denying the Democrats' corruption. I have seen groups putting out manifestos with all sorts of high minded social goals which always seem to miss that the biggest problem is that the oligarchs are robbing us blind. Remember Bill Clinton's mantra of "it's the money stupid." I detest the man, but he was right. Until we fix the economy we are doomed. At least Uyger seems to understand that. But his bow to the "progressive caucus" is simply stupid. Can I please have a pitchfork. It seems more direct and satisfying than a torch.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
What an excellent essay
and I haven't even finished it yet.
Hammer, meet nail: What the rest of us have learned is that the power who defines the parameters of possibility are their corporate donors, and not what is best for the masses of the citizenry.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Moody.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Heard the phrases
I've heard the dozen of phrases.
"No spine."
"Weak"
"Why aren't they listening?"
"How could they not see it?"
Folks, they see it. They know what they are doing. They know why they are doing it. They don't need courage. Or a spine or any of that nonsense.
They are paid, quite handsomely mind you, to act this way.
We always get bipartisan legislation for stuff that is terrible, but suddenly when something comes up that might be helpful, the stage props come out.
Dems win because 1) Duopoly, "where else are they going to go?", 2) With Repubs, help silence other voices, 3) bring in slicker conmen (Bill Clinton, Obama). Why did Clinton lose? Cause who was going to believe her? People were dazzled by jazz man and and young black orator.
Do we think that Dems don't know about single payer? Of course they do. They are paid not to care.
Negotiate drug prices? Of course they do. Paid not to care.
Easiest way to look at it is just to realize that they aren't paid to govern. They are paid to act. Some (like Obama) are far greater actors than others (Hillary).
Ding Ding Ding!
Yup. Moody does a fine job in this piece, but that, right there, is the money quote.
Those hundreds of millions of dollars Bernie took in from the masses? It all wound up in Big Corporate Media coffers and the hands of political businesses and consultants. This is completely counter productive. You can't give an institution $150M dollars and mount a successful fight against it.
We have to sidestep the money changing propagandists and their pay to play loudspeakers instead of feeding them our wealth.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc I actually really like
I actually really like the fact that we CAN raise that kind of money. But your observation is intriguing, and I'm annoyed I didn't think of it myself!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Sanders Would Have More Power If He Did Everything the Same
but kind of flipped out and went 3rd party after the election results and the shoes dropped.
If he had went 3rd party and gave us Drumpf, he would have been burnt in effigy by every tearstained Hillary supporter. It would have been a disaster.
He still could do that, and he should. I don't think he can be legit while having taken all those low blows from the Establishment that cost so many so much.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc I get what you're saying
I get what you're saying about the Nader spoiler narrative, but the Nader spoiler narrative was deployed anyway. It was less successful than it would have been had he gone third party, but ultimately, I think we need to assume that the MSM will be deploying character assassinations, on movements, organizations and tactics as well as on individuals, regardless of what we do.
The worst thing, so far, has been that despite the "Bernie Would Have Won" talking point, which is powerful, millions of people seem willing to abandon all their worries about corruption and the Dems to put on pink hats because Trump is the apocalypse.
What a weird response to the apocalypse, to knit a representation of your own genitals and put them on your head.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
California badly needs a tear-down and rebuild
Thanks for this essay. This state is about to hit bottom I hope, no lower.
A Conversation with California's Legislative Leadership
I call Opposite Day! Because I didn't know which is D and which is R, I am NPP (No Party Preferred, a.k.a Decline to State, a.k.a. Unaffiliated, a.k.a. phew!) since years, it's all one big plutocracy to me. One head starts talking like he is not really proud of the reality: "... lived my whole life in California with one party in charge and we have the highest poverty rate in the nation." rAmen brother neither am I! In fact I have been listening to politicians talk about transportation and housing for decades, blah blah blah. The female head talker made sense too, if you wanna go all gender about it.
Shockingly, it is the Rs who have some clue on poverty in this video, in the first half hour anyway. California progressives could think about taking over the R party it might be easier. Modern day Hiram Johnson? lol (my grandpa worked as his Senate aide as he was working up through the ranks).
More Californians voted for Trump in 2016 then Brown (or any D that ran) in 2014? (at ~26m18s) Huh! Well there you go it is already happening. Purge Clintons now before it is too late, that's what I think. Get real.
Peace
Getting back to Cenk ...
He is a Corey Booker wannabe but without political experience. His claim to fame is that he was fired by MSNBC for failing to tow the corporate line but ... before he was a "liberal" he was a young ultra conservative. Most people don't know that about him. After founding The Young Turks and making it into a cash cow, he became a Clinton apologist and faithfully broadcast the DNC propaganda in a seemingly-balanced manner, using the same skill set as Obama. I think that he's a corporate Dem who has overwheening ambition and loves money. In other words, slippery as a snake and willing to take on any talking point that will advance his career and pad his bank accounts.
@Writerinres He's Markos 2.0. Which
He's Markos 2.0. Which is really sad, because he's really smart and talented, much more so than Markos was.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They [The DP] can go to hell.
@LaFeminista One of the things I like
One of the things I like about you, LaFem, is that in your hatred of everything Trump stands for, you never forget who brought us Trump. Good on ya.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Democratic Party Takeover
Several years ago I registered as a Democrat, for a few months, so that I could oppose Hillary Clinton at the local caucus site. We overran the tiny venue, much to the chagrin of the stalwart party members. This last time around I again registered as a Democrat, for a few weeks, so that I could help organize the caucus and participate as we overran a very large venue, with very few of the stalwart party present.
This supports a long time observation:
The Nebraska Democratic Party is filled with petulant dilettantes. Wow, I could stop there, as that sums up the situation quite well · · · However, I won't stop there · · ·
The Nebraska Democratic Party is filled with petulant dilettantes. Taking over the Nebraska Democratic Party would be trivial, if we chose to do so. However, such a move would be, I think, a waste of time. It is not clear that the democratic party has any real influence in this hyper-republican environment. However, on the other hand, Nebraska has a deep history of progressive populism (we do have the only statewide public power system) and many principled social activists amongst our population.
So maybe, as a demonstration, it would be interesting to see how the political landscape of Nebraska would be effected if its democratic party suddenly became a real party of the people, AKA the party of the 99%.
@PriceRip What would be crucial
What would be crucial here to understand is that if you did that, the DNC would hit you/the Nebraska Dems with reprisals of some kind, including almost certainly character assassinations/hatchet jobs on whoever you put into leadership. Legal challenges too, if they could figure any out that were remotely possible. Probably also cut the money off. The question to answer before you do it is: what are you, in particular your leadership, going to do if there are reprisals? Imagine/find out what the Dems could do in response, and plan your response before you make your first move.
Also, what are you going to get out of having the Nebraska Dems organization as your own? What are you aiming for? Imagine that you have the Neb Dems but without any support from the national party. What resources does that give you?
I'm giving examples of questions I think would be good to ask, but I'm also asking them, because I don't know the answers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Perhaps this will be helpful.
This last time we essentially took over the county caucus committees. The old guard made a token appearance. We were told the state would provide refreshments at the caucus, but such "support" did not materialize. Inference: If we took over the entire state apparatus the national organization would do the equivalent many times over. There is no question in my mind that democratic national committee money and staff support would be withheld.
Self-funded political actions are the norm (for us progressive types) here, so the mechanics of running a state organization without a central national committee would not be a problem. As for potential legal action, there are plenty of lawyers on our side to deal with that. I actually think (if we had thought about it) that we could have done it using the Bernie campaign as motivation.
Thanks for the slow pitch, whack!, and over the fence it goes.
As for the "outcomes" analysis. The only thing I can really say is that we could change things locally, as in, in the state of Nebraska.
These are just a few of the projects with which I have intimate knowledge.
As for, "How a Nebraska Democratic Party as a real party of the people could have any national effect?" That is an interesting question · · · I would really like to see that experiment play out. The fact is: Nebraskans are resourceful, very good at building coalitions, and mostly not progressive. But if they are motivated to do a thing, that thing will likely get done.
Full Disclosure
I did not attend the county committee meeting this evening. I opted out because I have scheduled a truck to arrive in two weeks to haul my household items to my home in Oregon. For all I know they are plotting to take over the NDP as I am typing this very comment. I have know idea of how many progressives will show up for this meeting given recent events, sigh.
If it would be so easy, why not go ahead and do it?
and then create an ongoing essay here about what ensues. Maybe a you tube diary as well
It would be fascinating. You're smart, funny and with it - who knows, maybe you're our undiscovered leader.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I would really like to do this . . .
but soon, I will be in Oregon · · · if all goes well.
I hope to make my new home into a demonstration solar energy project with all kinds of instrumentation. I hope to get involved with the small homes project serving various "disadvantage" (read society's throwaway) individuals in the Bear Creek Valley.
These projects will (I hope) provide the foundation of classes I plan to teach at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute until the day I expire.
Any hope for the Green Party?
While we were stewing over Bernie being cheated, there was much talk about building up the Greens into an effective party. I still like a lot of what Jill Stein says.
Beware the bullshit factories.
The Greens have their own issues, and their own hierarchy.
I've posted this observation before, but I came off of a 12-hour shift, back before the election, and got on the Net, hoping to be of help to the Greens with my limited free time. I tried to find a site to join online, and the Green's website told me there weren't any Greens in my town of roughly 80,000. -Which is statistically bloody unlikely, but the site told me to find two other Greens, and I could start a chapter. And I thought: "I have to go on Craigslist or Facebook or somewhere else I NEVER go, surf until I find two other LOCAL Greens, and then agree to form a group, just so I can join your Party? SERIOUSLY?"
Am I the only one that thinks their grasp of strategy and organization is lacking? Actually, no I'm not. Check out Cassiodorus' posts here, touching on the Greens. He has been an actual member and has many doubts of his own, and far more working knowledge of things Green than I.
I personally think we need a clean slate. Start fresh. Build something better.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes