Gaming out a Community Strategy
There are a lot of folks talking about the next steps in a progressive political strategy going forward, beside the usual talk about who to vote for in the upcoming elections. Some folks who regularly inhabit the Evening Blues have put forward the idea that the time is ripe for a general community discussion about a community strategy for advancing the interests of the 99%. Outside of our community, there are lots of people and organizations thinking along the same lines.
Kshama Sawant recently made a compelling case for action:
We are entering what is possibly the most favorable moment in U.S. history to launch a new left party. Public trust is collapsing in both major parties, the establishment media, and all the key institutions propping up American capitalism. Eight years since the Great Recession, with most workers still suffering despite the recovery on Wall Street, all the built-up anger and discontent is expressing itself in a bitter revolt against establishment Democratic and Republican leaders. ...
Just a year ago, every self-respecting mainstream pundit was still peddling the myth that no candidate refusing corporate contributions could be electorally viable, much less a candidate calling themselves a socialist! That idea is now dead.
No one can deny the potential for building a nationally viable left political party, completely independent of corporate cash, putting forward unapologetically left, working class policies. The only remaining question is one of leadership: will Sanders take the initiative and, if not, will the forces behind him pull it together? ...
The stakes are simply too high to let this moment slip through our fingers. Capitalism is plunging humanity into a social and ecological catastrophe. Bernie’s campaign shows a viable fightback is possible. What’s missing is a strategy to sustain and grow our movement. Now is the time for bold action to build a fighting, working class political alternative – a party for the millions, not the millionaires.
Many folks on C99 currently seem to be a bit in limbo, waiting for a conclusive outcome of the Democratic primaries before really wanting to think about a strategy.
In this post, I'd like to offer folks an opportunity to think about all of the possible outcomes of the primaries and discuss strategies for dealing with all of the likely contingencies.
I'm not talking about how individuals will vote, but rather how we as a community that numbers in the thousands might work together to further the progressive agenda. It appears that progressives have some daunting organizational tasks ahead of them, replacing the Democratic party and finding means to supplant the mainstream media to get our message out. While we are not an enormous community, our numbers are not insubstantial and we are talented folks.
I've created this handy graphic to map the possible outcomes of the current cycle. If it is too small to read on your device, click on the graphic and you can look at it full-sized on flickr.
It seems to me that no matter which of these predictable (see, I just predicted them) outcomes occurs, progressives need to organize and do so outside of any existing party structures:
We can’t kid ourselves and think that just because some presidential candidates promise to address an issue that it will come to pass. If Barack Obama’s election taught us anything, it is that placing our hopes and dreams in the hands of a charismatic leader is not enough to bring about significant social change; to do that, we need organized people in the streets. We need powerful social movements.
The main critique of Sanders, a constant drumbeat in the mainstream media, is that he won’t be able to accomplish what he proposes, that he’s all vision with no plan of how to get there. But this critique misses the point. People force change and get things done, not politicians acting alone.
Sanders won’t be able to push through any major policy initiatives without mass movements in the streets.
So what could a community like ours do to further that effort?
Start a party? Create a platform? Write a new constitution? Become a media platform? Mount a counter-convention? Something else?
The floor is yours...
Comments
There are a number of possibilities
But in my mind they mostly fall into two categories: Change the broken Dem party from within or abandon it to its corporate sponsors and form a third party. Neither one would be easy to pull off successfully, and certainly not in the short term.
Brand New Congress, the site that seeks to elect more progressive Dems is one group that reflects the change from within option, but again, despite its merits, its major flaw is that it will take decades to show significant progress in my opinion. With the seniority system in Congress, and gerrymandered districts that favor incumbents, I don't know if it is a viable short term or long term approach.
As for a new progressive party you need infrastructure, and an organizational strategy and most of all money. Bernie's contributors and volunteers list, and his millions of supporters could provide the basis for that, but we still need several prominent figures including Bernie, himself, to step forward and make it happen. Most importantly we would need defections from prominent left wing Dems in Congress, progressive members willing to break away and join this new party. Unless we land a big fish (think, Elizabeth Warren) and show that the money will keep coming in month to month, year to year from millions of small donors, it will be difficult to get a viable third party off the ground in the next two years. Maybe by 2018 or 2020 if the current Dem party collapses from Clinton's failure as President and severe losses in Congress, but at best we can only lay the groundwork for one this year.
Whatever approach is taken, that approach will have to keep its supporters engaged both as volunteers and as a source of funding. It will require a new media strategy because the trad media will either ignore it or attack it depending on how much traction it gains.
Just spit balling some thoughts here. Good essay, Joe. One thing we know, we can't keep going down the path of the status quo. That way lies dragons and monsters, because it isn't sustainable. I expect a Depression within the next two to eight years. A Depression exacerbated by multiple refugee crises, wars and the effects of climate change. Yeats so poignantly wrote, in the early 2Oth century, a poem, The second coming, whose themes and words resonate with me today and are far more applicable to our current situation than his time:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
afternoon steven...
regarding brand new congress or other similar efforts to slowly take over the existing government structure from inside - isn't that pretty much what we've been trying for years with virtually no success?
efforts to "crash the gates" have yielded a party that is just as corrupt and tied to 1% apron strings as it has ever been. years of effort to elect "more and better" has left us with a party that pulls out every trick in the book (clean and dirty) to dispose of the candidacy of a genuine progressive and so far only one senator (despite the numbers that were supported by progressives) that will stand up and endorse a progressive presidential candidate.
my inclination is that we need to focus on outside strategies and independent parties whether existing or of our own creation.
regarding the money. one important thing that bernie sanders has demonstrated is that big money is not a necessity and that 1%ers can be competed with by clever 99%ers. on the other hand, another thing that his campaign has demonstrated is the absolute necessity of developing means outside of the corporate media to get our message out and communicate it to the average voter that generally doesn't pay much attention.
thanks for your thoughts!
Brand New Congress: Neither turtle nor hare
BNC is building on the movement that has developed since Bernie announced his candidacy. This is not a scattered, unfocused movement. I am participating in an orientation webinar, that I signed up for, this wednesday evening. After that I'm going to apply to be part of the data entry team. There are lots of more exciting teams to be part of, check them out.
I would love to be part of one of the more activist teams, but I am severely hearing impaired, so I'm willing to work where I can do good.
They are moving forward and their goals are not minor, either.
Is it different from DFA?
"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
Absolutely.
It was started by some of the people working for Bernie's campaign after their original assignments were over and Bernie cut back on staff in those already primaried states. So it's them plus Sanders supporters who want to continue the revolution by starting the 50-state strategy right now to elect progressive congress people in 2018. They have a dated agency for getting the organization up, fund-raising, looking for candidates. There's a link in my previous post. Check it out!
agency == agenda
agency== agendaBNC is Corbin Trent and Zack Exeley
Using the same tools that Bernie used. Learning the lessons from DFA, PDA and Bernie 2016.
Bernie 2016 gave powerful tools to the volunteer, at a level that FDA or MyBarackObama never did. Bernie 2016 has made good on the We are the campaign meme at an unprecedented level never before seen. These field operations tools allow organizers at the municipal or county level to actually run field operations.
BNC isn't planning on a decades effort, they are planning to flip congress in 2018. And IMHO they might do it.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I see one other outcome if Bernie loses in Philly
That is that he will formally endorse Clinton, but in terms that promote his agenda. He can continue campaigning around the country for down-ticket candidates, and continue to give his basic stump speech. The "endorsement" would be a throwaway which would not significantly affect his further actions or campaigning.
This primary season has shown me that the Democratic establishment will never let leftist insurgents win. They haven't for decades, and they damn well won't now. The Democratic party cannot be taken over, not unless it suffers a loss so catastrophic that it is left in smoking ruins.
Moving forward I think the new Left movement has to be built from outside party structures. Electoral efforts for movement candidates can be organized well in advance -- Brand New Congress may be a model for this, though it remains to be seen. The movement can't be built inside the Democratic party, and some new party structure will be needed eventually. Taking over the Greens, reinventing (for the third time) the People's Party, or pursuing some other structures are ways to do this. But I think the real growth will come from uniting various issues groups together in a Left Alliance: climate change activists, Fight for 15 folks, BLM and Dreamers, and labor unions not in thrall to Democratic party access. A new labor movement will probably have to be built for that matter, which Fight for 15 models.
A lot of people are much more attached to issues movements than to any party. If we can get a lot of leftist issues movements to ally, then the structure for a new party all but builds itself. Leaders in these movement will probably arise to build the alliance. We don't need to depend on opportunists from either major party. Bernie could help in the initial steps, but this process will shortly have to proceed without him.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I sure hope he doesn't endorse Clinton
He will discourage and drive away some of the fainter-hearted (or already overly wounded) of the movement if he does that.
I have faith that the core of the movement will remain regardless, but, of course, only if it organizes itself.
It would be easier if he didn't endorse her, that's for sure.
If he endorses her, I don't think it'll matter much who else he endorses or works for, down ballot or anywhere else.
"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 agree with you completely
Bernie has clearly chosen to play the inside game, running as a Democrat. I expect him to continue in that role at least through the election season, to avoid any Dolchstosslegende accusations from Clintonites, especially if she loses. Corporatist Dems are already preparing to paint Sanders as the new Nader, and use him as a scapegoat if Hillary completes her faceplant in the general election, as already is looking increasingly possible.
Most Sanders supporters I talk to and read understand that if Sanders endorses Clinton it will be rhetorical and tactical. Some may regard him as a sellout, but I think they'll be in a minority. Of course, if Bernie goes around the country painting Hillary as the second coming of Emma Goldman, the critics will have a much stronger case. I can't see him doing that, however. I strongly suspect he will carry on campaigning for his issues and the movement he's helping to build.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Here's the problem--
After AZ, NY, and NV, and the widespread belief amongst Sanders supporters that Hillary is committing election fraud via voter purges and other means, all those old bets are off. They already believed she was corrupt--now they see HOW corrupt she is--to the extent of cheating herself into the Presidency like George W. Bush. To the extent that entire blocks of Brooklyn were purged off the voter rolls. To endorse her after AZ, NY, and NV--people might forgive Bernie if they think a gun of some kind (metaphorical) is pointed at his head, but most won't *follow* him or take his advice. Some will. I think it'll be a minority.
Many will ask how he can continue to campaign for his issues--corruption and democracy, a political revolution--if he endorses someone who won the nomination via voter purges and bullying. And I think the core of the movement will re-organize itself somewhere else, not around him. Unless it disperses altogether, a worst-case scenario that I don't think will happen.
As far as avoiding Naderite accusations, it's far too late for that. They will blame him, and us, if she loses, no matter what. That was assured as soon as they realized he was campaigning in earnest, to win. They won't forgive that. Besides, the role of the left to a Clinton is to be a scapegoat/explanation for any Clinton failures or losses.
"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 know that is how I would view his endorsement
An endorsement of HRC by Bernie would mean that he is ok with all of the shenanigans that have been pulled by her inevitableness, and it would mean he was giving up his legal challenges to the vote tampering and, of course, the despicable Nevada convention.
I'm not leaving the movement, but Bernie cannot endorse Hillary when she is so clearly against everything he has so courageously stood for in this primary!
I just hope he has a better plan, like joining with the Greens and running in the GE.
Any stained glass afficionados? Please check out my website: www.masterpieceglass.net
I suppose it's possible he will endorse her
in a lukewarm way, and make it clear he's leaving it to the conscience of his supporters whether to join him in support of her or not. That might keep his supporters on board with him. But it sure won't placate the Dems or Hillary any.
"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
That's exactly what I expect
I do expect a pro forma endorsement, probably larded with lots of expectations of adhering to a Sanders-like platform to give him the out he will need to avoid campaigning for her in earnest. He will be endorsing the issues he's campaigned on to a much greater extent, and his "endorsement" of Hillary will be more of a challenge to her to avoid moving Right in the general election. I don't expect Hillary or her party to be placated much, but it will give them a little paper to cover the ongoing split in the party. The split will not be in any way narrowed or healed, however. I don't see Bernie having much interest in that.
Please help support caucus99percent!
DD, you have so much insight and awareness of these things,
but I have to ask whether we or Bernie should or would care if the Nader comparison or label is to be applied now or in the future.
If a known bully or bad actor calls someone a name which shouldn't apply, is it a valid label? No.
They have tried a lot of crappy stuff and it hasn't stuck so far, slowed the Sander's campaign down at times, but not stuck. Going forward, it looks similar to me.
The shrillness, victim role, Bill as the shadow president, is only going to go so far. I really think people across the spectrum are sick of all this programming, and are waiting for a new option.
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
I don't have any special knowledge or insight
The pushback against the movement by both parties is going to be strong, sustained, and completely dishonest. I think the key to the movement weathering the counterrevolutionary backlash is having a strong, clear story. The party establishments have to discredit themselves in the process of their attacks. The more the movement gives the establishment a plausible story to sell in their attacks, the more likely those attacks are to be successful.
It is a foregone conclusion that the establishments of the parties will lie about us. The key to us winning is making sure their lies are obvious enough that average voters can see it.
Please help support caucus99percent!
evening dallasdoc...
i agree that the most fertile area for progress is probably outside electoral politics. in fact. building a movement that is able to disrupt electoral politics as blm managed to do (for a brief time), but is also able to put people on the streets, create events that the media cannot ignore and challenge the authority of institutions outside of the electoral process is key to the success of an outsider movement.
being able to get your demands on the agenda of politicians, the courts, police and other institutions without being assimilated by a party and mired in the party's internal processes is what is needed. all sorts of groups that have associated with the democratic party - labor, african-americans, latinos, lgbt folks, etc. - have all been put on the democratic party's "waiting list," waiting until it's "their turn" for the democratic party to "reward" their support with tangible government actions.
that crap has to stop.
the movement needs to coalesce outside of electoral politics and create the ability to force these chumps that think that we have nowhere else to go to do the right thing. we need to mutually support each other with protests of all sorts (from pestering politicians to putting feet in the streets), boycotts, general strikes or getting on the lawns of politicians and captains of industry.
there have been some promising alliances between some of the prominent left orgs creating turnout for protests over the past year and i hope that we'll see more of that sort of thing, it's something that needs to be fostered.
The Veal Pen
That was Jane Hamsher's term for the corralling of the Left in small sidepens of the Democratic party. It has been a very effective tactic in emasculating any leftist political movements -- bring them into the party and tell them to fall into line. The usefulness of that tactic is breaking down, though, and I think the Sanders movement has brought its utility almost to an end. The frantic efforts of the party to corral the left now that so many have burst from the veal pen only show how important it is to the Democratic party, and how poorly they're succeeding.
An effective coalition built outside party constraints can bring its power to bear in elections by endorsing and running candidates separate from any party. They could run as Democrats, Greens, Working Family party candidates, or independents. But the branding of the movement would be the important matter. It would be somewhat analogous to the Tea Party in this respect, at least in terms of its effect on electoral politics. But the grassroots nature and decentralized funding and the issues focus of the movement would act as protection against co-optation. The downside of this approach is that it is vulnerable to schism, particularly by efforts of the inevitable agents provocateurs it would confront.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I'm impatient.
I'm for organizing to burn it down. I want to create the catastrophic losses we need to either make gains from within or weaken them for a third party. I want to take a page from Grover Norquist and the TeaPot's playbook. Down ticket is of little interest to me. Where is help for Bernie and progressives from Sherrod Brown, Warren and Franken? Nowhere. Strategies solely from within or without put all of our eggs in one basket and require a long term persistence and dedication that doesn't exist in this instant gratification, multi-tasking society.
I say burn it down and the formulate a Plan B based on how successful Plan A is. I'm probably a minority, but it is what I think.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
There is value in what you say
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I feel the same way
The Republican Party establishment is in disarray. If Trump wins (which I don't want, nor will I help), it just might do them in. And if Trump wins, the Clintons lose, and the DLC is toast. We won't get another chance like this in our lifetimes, I don't think.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I wonder if he WILL formerly "endorse" her or...
If he will use his time, at the convention, to indict a rigged $$d system and ask His supporters to "do everything they can to help keep trump out of the WH without ever actually saying the words "I endorse HRC "
I think the party establishment is worried that he won't either... Good!
(Smile)
Orwell was an optimist
I'd be careful about which establishment people
I let in, especially as leaders.
I don't really trust Warren at this point.
"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
big egos flock to where they think power lies
I believe if we were to start a new party and if we had some success, that some marginal political types would declare that they, too, were part of the new movement and that name recognition would give them leadership.
And that's not good. I also don't trust Warren. From the first time I saw her on Jon Stewart's show I felt she was progressive-lite. But she's not who worries me. There are all sorts of slimier politicians who'd come out of the woodwork. If our new party looked like a winner we'd get inundated with the Schumers of the world.
Which is why I don't know if a new party is the answer. I prefer the breakup of the country into its proper regions. Smaller countries would work better for the people in them with better representation. That means some of you would have to move!
How would this get done? I believe they've made it illegal to do anything about it. Something about the Civil War. Still, we talk about breaking up the too big to fail banks...because they're too big! and crooked! I want Cascadia!
What you're calling for is the corporatists end game
That's been their end game all along. Break us up into smaller nations that they can dominate even more easily.
United we stand, divided we fall.
heh...
the corporatists game is to dominate.
the institutions of the corporatists have grown so large and powerful that it doesn't really matter what size a state is, they have means to deal with it. look at what has happened to greece, for example. the banking corporations primarily (and some other institutions like the military industrial complex) have been able to play nations off against each other in order to impose austerity on a sovereign state and begin the process of stripping the state of its assets.
what we are seeing now with the corrupt purchase of politicians by corporations is the arrangement of trade agreements with anti-democratic (isds) features that allow corporations to do whatever they damned well please beyond the reach of the citizens of a state.
at one time, national governments were necessary to support corporations, but corporations have transnational reach now and the economies of some large corporations are larger than many of the nations of the world.
governments, having successfully incubated a generation of monsters are now being supplanted by corporations.
big state, little state - doesn't really matter. when the corporations own your politicians, they get what they want.
I agree. I would really like to see SMALLER than regions.
Watersheds.
The people that live within one would have natural reasons to preserve and protect them...right now they don't even know where they are.
International corporations just need to go. Revoke their charter. If they no longer provide a public good, why do we provide them a charter. End them.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Yeah I read in another thread
It's called the "Politicians Credo.
"Oh look, the people are marching. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Great point, *CStS/SLMD! I have no personal
bone to pick with Warren, but a couple years ago I stumbled across a couple of pieces that pointed out that she was heavily wooed by Reid, Schumer, and Patty Murray (behind the scenes).
IOW, the progressive community was led to believe that they drafted Warren, when, in reality, the Democratic Party Leadership recruited her to run against Scott Brown.
(This was partly because Schumer couldn't strike a deal with Scott Brown on an issue.)
Here's the TPM piece link and excerpt, below.
(I'll post the lengthy NYT Magazine piece that quotes leadership aides about the recruitment process for Warren, when we get back in later this evening.)
Which is not to say that she doesn't have many excellent attributes--just that I'd think twice about her leading an anti-Establishment movement.
*BTW, I thought that I'd add SLMD to ensure that former Kossacks know who you are, since many of them weren't here when we initially launched. I'll drop it soon.
Mollie
In Tribute To 'Barabas'
Please Visit Save Our Street Dogs [SOSD]
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks for this excellent and thought provoking essay, Joe! I
vote for working outside the Party. I'll lay out my reasoning when we get back this evening.
I do think that it's important that we look ahead. Realistically, as we've seen the past weeks, the Establishment Dems will do everything that they can to eliminate the possibility of a takeover of the Party (by insurgents).
Mollie
In Tribute: 'Barabas The Brave'
Please Visit Us At Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I see absolutely zero reason in that article
to distrust Elizabeth Warren.
They tried to roll back Citizens United. They got rid of a Repug. They replaced him with Warren.
Why are you trying to smear Warren? I smell an agenda and it isn't a nice smell.
Here's my reason which might be different than hers.
I think Warren has been intimidated by the Clinton machine. Her agency was directly threatened by Clinton's attack dog, DWS. Immediately after that, she began engaging in a highly-publicized Twitter war with Donald Trump, acting as if Bernie and the primary don't exist.
People who challenge Trump and act like Bernie doesn't exist are engaging in a Clinton campaign strategy. In Warren's case, I don't think it's exactly by choice. I don't think she's malicious. I think she's been threatened, via her "baby" which is the CFPB. If Clinton decides to make use of her to co-opt progressivism (by giving her a powerless VP spot), which will have the effect of confusing and dividing the progressive movement, it won't be b/c Warren is a bad person; it will be b/c Warren has effectively had her arm twisted.
However, I think that's not the direction they're going to go. I think they're going to pick a Cory Booker type--a POC with right wing, pro-plutocrat views who's good on camera.
"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
You don't distrust someone because they're good at diplomacy
or political strategy. You distrust them because of their policies. Warrens policies I think, are supported wholeheartedly by the progressive community. that she is a shrewd politician is a good thing. I'll believe she's sold us out when I see she's sold us out.
Nobody will be happier than me to find out that's true.
But meanwhile, I'm not interested in having Warren be a leader in a new party. Which is a good thing, b/c she's probably not interested in that either!
"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
Warren is ONLY "progressive" when it comes to bank and
consumer issues-where, I'll grant, she does a magnificent job. BUT she is as much, if not more, of a neocon-loving warhawk as Hillary.
https://theintercept.com/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-s...
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=39405
Especially since Hillary's health might be an issue.
The VP spot is only powerless until it isn't, and I don't think they want the chance of a Warren Presidency.
"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
(Updated) No agenda, but the truth, Scott. As I mentioned,
in my previous comment,
I'll post a link to the piece, at least by tomorrow--had a minor personal emergency crop up, which is why I didn't take the time to search for the piece, earlier. My apologies.
[Update/Edit: Here's the link to the piece.]
Here's an excerpt from that article, though--which I saved to a thumbnail drive from an earlier post. It addresses the point that I was trying to make.
As I stated earlier, Warren does have many positive attributes.
My point was that since Warren was recruited by the Dem Party Leadership, I'm not certain that she would be the person that I would chose to lead a revolt against the Party.
Hey, have a good one!
Mollie
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive."
----Gilda Radner, Comedienne
A Tribute: 'Lily, Keeping The Promise Alive,' National Mill Dog Rescue
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Stop.
As one of the moderators for this site, I am asking you to not make personal accusations that you have zero proof for. This is NOT DailyKos. Your comment is outside the bounds of civil discourse.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thank you, DK. EOM
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Hi there, what does SLMD stand for? Acronyms are killing me.
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
Hi, LCH! SLMD = Southern Liberal MD (Maryland) at DKos. EOM
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I don't see no
future in trying to save the democratic party. It's tainted too bad. I'd like to see a 3rd party consisting of real progressives. A party strictly for the poor and middle class. Well crap, a party that like the dem party used to be except cut out the big money boys. Can you imagine how fast the Dems in congress would swing left if we had a party such as this. Kinda like what the t-baggers did to the republicans...
Bernie Or Bust...
Time is not its only flaw
Working from within is subject very much to appropriation and silencing by the powers that be. The best outcome trying the change from within tactic will achieve is to force the powers that be to expend resources in a fight for control. The risk is that people involved in the movement will become discouraged when (not if) those powers win.
I continue to believe that our best path forward is to further erode the party system enitrely. We need consistent action to get state laws changed that eliminate as much as possible the quasi-governmental nature of parties. This includes (certainly not limited to) initiatives and referenda to make all elections consist of a non-partisan and top-N runoff (e.g. top-3 or top-4) style elections and to enact multi-member districts.
We need to go beyond Bernie's vision.
To me, it would be a huge mistake -- even YUGE -- to try to replicate what Sanders has done, taking it to a third party status. At least if we don't go beyond him. Why? Because, essentially, Sanders is pushing for an updated New Deal, and while this is much better than what is currently on tap from the Dems or the Republicans, it still is woefully shy of the real "revolution" needed. That revolution must include the replacement of capitalism itself, over time. It must be, at the very least, a goal for the new left-populist party.
For instance: His Single Payer is a great idea, and we need this, but it's not nearly enough to radically reduce the power of corporations when it comes to health care delivery. It does make health care insurance far less costly, because it would now be non-profit, and it does cover everyone, but addressing the skyrocketing costs of delivery are not sufficiently tackled. We need to pair non-profit, universal insurance with true "socialized medicine" and make both non-profit.
That $15 dollar minimum wage is also a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough. A much better idea is to establish a living wage as a floor, then push for a cap on the ratio of ownership to bottom level work. Make that the law. I think a 4 to 1 ratio should be the max, but Orwell's 10 to 1 would at least be a good start . . . at least as we work toward public ownership of the means of production where all of that would be democratically fixed anyway. But until we get to that point, we should, by law, establish a max ratio for what ownership and executives can make versus their rank and file.
Taxes: Bernie is better on that than his peers, but he's still going in the wrong direction, IMO. He wants to increase taxes on the middle class and working poor as well, along with the rich, and there is just no reason for this. The 1% alone brings in roughly 3 trillion a year -- that we know about -- so all tax increases could easily be applied to them only. They've seen the lion's share of tax cuts for more than 50 years, so this is beyond "fair."
Will add more thoughts on the above in a blog post later. But, basically, wanted to respond to your (righteous) calls for a new party, cheer that on, but say that we need a broader vision than the one Sanders has called for -- and I say that as a Sanders supporter.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
afternoon diomedes...
i absolutely agree that we need to go well beyond bernie sanders' vision, which to me, at least, is a socialism-lite program. i view bernie sanders platform as shifting the overton window back a few steps to the left from the far right place that the dlc/third way/clintonista corpodems have pushed it.
we should certainly be developing a more robust set of demands that what sanders has put forward, especially in matters of foreign policy, war and imperialism.
i don't know if sanders' success can be translated to a third party, but it appears to me that the democratic party is utterly hostile territory for progressives and exhibits a general impermeability to reforms from within.
at least until we can develop a party structure that can triumph over one of the corrupt, corporate bipartisan monopoly parties, we should probably look to increasing our ability to pressure the current system.
Good comment. And I should have included war and empire, etc.
That's really huge for me. I want a party that pushes for an end to empire. We don't need it. It's destructive. And we should be investing in other things instead of endless wars, surveillance at home and abroad, or the promotion of capitalism, regardless of its deadly impact.
So not just those domestic programs/changes I mentioned, but a brand new worldview that puts world peace, health, environmentalism, etc. etc. above all else. Puts the needs of humanity and the planet always first and foremost, never profit or the dollar, etc.
I honestly think the nation -- and the world -- is ready for this and would embrace it. Who wouldn't be in favor of a shift from trillions spent on war and empire to trillions spent on free education, cradle to grave, free health care, a green and democratic economy, cultural access for all, parks and recreation aplenty? Who wouldn't favor a massive transfer of wealth, income, power and access away from plutocrats and oligarchs, except for plutocrats and oligarchs? And, obviously, their numbers are so few, we should be able to make this happen.
It just takes solidarity.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I believe people want an end to it, too.
The empire has got to go. One issue is that some folks are making loads of money on our security. They are not taking kindly to losing that income. That's what we need to fear. They are the terrorists, to me. We have to change this.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
They won't go quietly, to be sure.
Which is why we need to work now to do as much as we possibly can do democratically, within the system, while at the same time, building up alternative forms. And every possible way we can come up with to hurt plutocrats and oligarchs where they live, economically, should be utilized.
This is perhaps the toughest sell of all. To convince enough Americans they should stop being distracted by the shiny baubles capitalism produces to keep us docile and detached from one another. I have no idea regarding the best way to do that convincing, but I have thought a ton about how things should function once we get there. We need contributions from myriad skill sets along the way, etc. etc. And, solidarity, most of all.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I agree with you, especially,
I agree with you, especially, given that concessions and negotiated ground will need be part of growing the field of support. I support Bernie wholeheartedly. I also believe that perpetual growth is still part of his larger picture, although he wants greater equity baked into the system. I think we need to re-localize and focus on values that address how we live on this planet in symbiosis with all living things, if we are to survive. Because I believe that Bernie truly cares for the poor and middle class, the environment, health, infrastructure and peace, he would come around to healthier foreign policy positions, as well. Bernie's movement has helped people to see how important relationships are and the need to explore ways for us to see that we are all in this together. We need a strong commitment and vigilance to not fall for the divide and conquer divisions that are a relentless form of violence perpetrated against us.
I worry about how to sustain the money contributions for many congressional battles over the long haul so we need to somehow get money out of politics. One way we have power, which we often overlook is with our pocketbooks, not only through contributions to candidates of our choice, but with purchase power. We don't organize around that enough and it would work. Many of these corporations still depend on our financial support. Banks still want us to take out mortgages or buy their financial products or use their advisors. We should all be switching over to the best credit unions in our areas. We need to stop buying Monsanto products. We need to live our values, not just around these elections, but in how we spend our dollars and in how we live our lives each day. We need to get involved with our neighbors. As we have lost our identity as citizens - we don't even learn about civics in school anymore (by design, I might add) - and become consumers only to the oligarchy, we have forgotten our connection to the greater community, to the people we see, marginally each day, who touch our lives on the periphery, but who add value and meaning to our lives, if we open to the possibility. These is a loneliness to living as consumers and forgetting our humanity. Bernie's campaign has awoken those connections again. We can not afford to lose sight of it. It is our biggest asset and our biggest threat to the establishment. I could say much more. It is part of my dissertation writing.
I'm hoping the People's Summit
will come up with something.
Unfortunately, it is too late in many states for a third party to register and get on the ballot this November. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access
The requirements for an independent candidate are much more lenient. It's possible for such an individual to get on the ballot in a majority of the states by starting in June. https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access [long page, pertinent information about halfway down the page]
Certainly such an individual could benefit from the efforts of effed-off Bernie supporters to get the necessary signatures. A couple of states require a fee instead of signatures. This could be crowd sources.
And certainly the participants of the People's Summit could persuade an individual to run as an indy and promise to do a lot of the leg work.
But it takes one to two years for a newly formed party to get recognized by a majority of the states.
That doesn't mean that I can't join the new party.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
afternoon featheredsprite...
it is probably too late to mount a campaign as a new party in this cycle (other than perhaps a write-in campaign) though it is an excellent time to build support for one. it's hard to imagine that there will ever be a time when (assuming that the dnc triumphs over sanders) there will be two less acceptable major party candidates - which should add to the vast numbers of people who have already ditched the two major parties and registered indie. (the membership of each of the two major parties is now smaller than the number of independents.)
we should, though, be looking beyond this cycle as we start to build structure though. this is going to be a long fight against the 1% that is not going to be settled in just one election cycle.
Dammit joe ...
I just don't know. As you may remember, I believe in electoral politics. I'm too old, and to chicken, to man the barricades. For now I'm sticking with the Party and I'm getting ready to "pivot," (I'm starting to hate that word.) and work for progressive House candidates within the existing Dem structure. I'll be interested to see what others are thinking.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
You don't have to man the barricades.
You could help build a new indie media. You could help in sustainable local food production. You could help with education of the young. There's a million ways to kneel and kiss the ground, as Rumi says.
As someone who poured my energy, heart and soul, into the Dems, I know where that leads to.
I'm not telling you to give up on electoral politics--hell, I'm not *telling* you to do anything--but I hate to see people of good will pouring their energy out into an abusive organization.
"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'm in a different situation here in Tucson.
We have a real, honest-to-God Progressive here in the person of Raul Grijalva. He still runs as a Dem. I don't live in Raul's district, I got re-districted, but we have a Dem primary in my district and one of the candidates has Grijalva's endorsement. If running as a Dem is good enough for Sanders and Grijalva, and Canova in Florida, I've got no qualms about joining a Democratic insurgency.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
afternoon azazello...
if you can inject worthy progressives into the system, more power to you. presumably, they will play well with other independent progressives or those from a third party.
Oh, Grijalva is the real deal.
No idea how he's managed to stay that way.
"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
Simple ...
He doesn't need their damn money. He runs a people-powered campaign and has roots in the Hispanic community going back forever. He could run with no Party support at all if he had too.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Those are the kind of communities,
and Representatives, that we need. He's my next-door district too. Love the guy. I think he would cooperate with whatever team we come up with.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
OK, so you hit on a point here,
and one I've been asked to work on by a seperate group of progressives who are Bernie or Busters. I am not really ready to release it yet, but I've been working on it as an independent news site, which will highlight Progressive Candidates in an easy to find format. Bold Progressives is a great site, once you get past all their own hype. I wanted a location that you could easily find what you're looking for, and we'll drill it down to the local levels. We'll also work on actual news from a progressive stance rather the MSM stance (of which I gotta find writers!) and start working on things from that angle. We have AlterNet, who is beginning to be taken more seriously now, but a lot of liberal sites are seen as "liberal" and not taken as seriously as they need to be.
I love this place, as much as I loved DKos, but removing the personal theme to it and reporting news and progressives is another way to really be seen and spread the word.
If you have any suggestions or feedback this would be a great time to do so since I'm still in early stages of it: Unite 4 Change.
I really am hoping we'll see Bernie spearhead a new movement outside the Dems. Changing it from within is never going to happen so long as the DLC has it's fingers all over it.
Hey Joe
I would like to see some kind of PeoplesPAC. Like a SuperPAC that we can control who it targets and supports based on our input. I would love to be able to contribute and have a vote in where/who to support, etc. If all of Bernie's donors would give a portion of that after the election, we would have strength in the mids to put up progressives against unopposed Republicans (and Democrats) and take the party back or else be able to support non-affiliated candidates (ala Sanders prior to this primary)
.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
That's a good start
but, as I'm sure you know, the party establishments will not go gently into that good night. Nor will their corporate bosses and hostage media platforms.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Hostage media platforms...
I think one of the key changes we need to make is in demonizing corporate media in general. Fox News used to be the exception, now they're more the rule. MSHRC is really no better or more honest than Fox.
This is pushing on an open door. Most people have a lot of well-earned cynicism about the media, and I think one of the most important steps in building an alternative media structure is in demonizing and invalidating the old one. This will be an effort that will be much easier with younger people, but they will influence their elders as they grow more sophisticated and confident in decentralized information sources.
Please help support caucus99percent!
You only believed they were the exception
because they were less subtle.
1979: Reagan hasn't even won the Republican nomination yet. What does a famous magazine show on its cover, put right on the checkout lines in every grocery store as a subliminal message to the voting public?
Reagan running a race. Smiling. No sweat on his brow, he's in first place. Carter is behind him, sweating and a grimace. Anderson is way back, stumbling over a hurdle.
My friend in poli-sci pointed out that his instructor taught him this was manufacturing in the voters mind the impression that Reagan would win the election, Carter second and Anderson a distant third. The point being, if the voters believed in Carter and thought Carter was going to win and then Reagan won, they'd know the elections were fixed.
Also, it showed that the Republican primaries were a farce and Reagan had already been decided by the elites to be our next president.
That was mainstream media, using advanced propaganda techniques against the American populace in 1979.
Along comes Fox News decades later and they feel so in control of the publics minds they don't even put up the facade or make the attempt to be subtle or use any subliminal messaging.
I grew up during the Cold War
... and remember A-bomb drills hiding under my (wooden) desk. Americans were ruthlessly propagandized back then. We were the Land of the Free, and we were too smart to fall for government propaganda like those Commies over in the Soviet Union.
Didn't take much reflection to see what a crock that was, especially once the Land of the Free saw ruthless police state suppression of protests against an unpopular war too many of us were forced to fight. This has been going on a lot longer than since 1979.
Please help support caucus99percent!
It got exciting around 1983.
This guy's doing some great journalism on the CIA and Murdoch helping Reagan propagandize the American public. I believe a liaison btw the CIA and the Reagan Administration was actually created as a new governmental position. They did that part of it right out in the open.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/05/rupert-murdoch-propaganda-recruit/
"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
Fascinating story!
Thanks for pointing it out. I'll be reading more from Mr. Parry.
Please help support caucus99percent!
parry is well worth reading...
he was the reporter who did the very best reporting on iran-contra and broke a lot of stories about it. his website, consortiumnews.com is a regular stop for me.
I think it was you who originally pointed me to it, Joe.
I'd forgotten that till now. Mea culpa!
"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
Thanks, will be checking that out in my stops now.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
You're welcome!
"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
afternoon kharma...
that sounds like a viable plan.
perhaps the pac could develop an agreed upon platform that candidates have to agree to to be funded. it might also be good to couple it with some sort of education effort to help people who have never run for office before how to run a successful campaign.
My thought is media
Thanks for this discussion Joe. And thanks for your daily work on the Blues bringing us all alternate sources of information.
I'm no techie, but one thing that might not be too difficult is a youtube channel that functions much like your evening blues...a clearing house of good progressive media. The load could be shared ... person x pulls the Democracy Now pieces, person y TYT clips, the real news, and so on. You have to search for good media. Another media concept might be a daily pod cast.
I have a few well educated friends (surprising in Alabama... I know) who after a lifetime with MSM have been brainwashed. I was trained as a scientist. The first step is to observe and gather data. If the data is corrupt and misleading, the conclusions are inherently incorrect. Providing a public platform for people to become politically educated would be an important step in a sustainable revolution.
The country seems poised at this moment to move forward. That happens with many small steps... a single march, protest, boycott, occupation, sit-in, etc. doesn't changes things, but collectively they do move things forward. There seem many actions taking place -
https://www.breakingthroughpower.org/ starts tomorrow and runs through Thursday live streaming on therealnews.com
http://www.thepeoplessummit.org/ next month in Chicago
http://brandnewcongress.org/home currently organizing
http://www.unitedprogressiveparty.org/ a new progressive party trying to organize
I'm sure most people here are aware of some of these efforts, but how many among this progressive crowd knew about all these programs?
So how does the left hand know what the other lefties are doing? Cruise the internet? Seems to me, media is a missing piece of the puzzle. Tuesday is the day where they discuss media at Nader's meeting in DC. I hope to listen to some of that discussion. M. Moore and other indies will be there. I'll try to share what I learn.
And Joe once again I appreciate all you share with the rest of us here at c99!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
afternoon lookout...
the media platform does seem like something that we could pull off if folks are interested. we have people (correspondents?) all over the us and in several other countries that participate here - that could be the basis for a network.
it would be good to see if we can pull together information from the various organizing efforts going on. if anybody from c99 is going to participate in any of the events you listed it'd be great if they could report back for folks here.
BestoftheLeft is an excellent podcast that does this.
You can check out the BestOfTheLeft podcast here.
TYT is really breaking ground in challenging the old outdated dumbed-down, forced and stiffed MSM. And Democracy Now has practically been a lone stalwart for years. We must all keep supporting these outlets with donations and
Greenwald, Scahill, Taibbii (though he hasn't lately taken down the fraud of Hillary and the elephant in the room of voter suppression/corruption enough to my liking, as much as he just did the Republican party with yet another amazing takedown, but left the counterpart Dems alone though they're ripe for the same slamming). Counterpunch, Dissent, Truthdig, Common Dreams, In These Times, all do great Progressive reporting. The Nation usually has a lot of good stuff too.
I think it's a great idea to cull sources from all of these trusted outlets in one place. Sort of like what Reader Supported News does, but in a website blog format.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
Goal? What's the goal or goals?
I think that's important relative to the strategy. Strategy for what? If the goal is to try to gain a greater voice for a certain percentage of the population then I could see a third party attempt. Problem with that is the libertarians are doing the same thing as well as some on the right. Then you have the Greens, etc. So not only what is the goal but how is that strategy going to play out? If there are multiple third party attempts that will fragment the population into smaller parties, how would that play out in Congress, how long would it take to have an impact, etc. As the Greens have shown, this is a decades long project. While the wars continue, while the wealth inequality increases, while the shit hits the fan.
If the goal is to create a new political system to replace this corrupted representative system, then that would require a totally different strategy outside of the electoral process.
If the goal is to "revitalize" the democratic party like Sanders is advocating, the good luck with that.
The fragmentation should be easy enough to counter
By uniting all efforts into an anti-corruption no-confidence party (or coalition).
I regularly have civil conversations with libertarians and even disillusioned religious conservatives, of all people, who agree w/me on nothing except the idea that the people should be in control of their government and laws--and that corruption is rife in both parties, and despicable. Ditto the corruption in the mainstream "press."
All of us in those discussions agree that we can get back to fighting about capitalism and religion once our views are no longer being regularly thrown on the garbage heap of history.
"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.e, do we want democracy or not.
Right now we do not live in a democracy, we all know it and studies have even proven it. The system was never set up to be real democracy.
A question I've been asking for years.
Exactly.
Now, the conservatives might not want what I would call real democracy--they often say they want a republic instead.
But the fact is, this is now no more a republic than it is a democracy. There's not a vestige of representation about this system. Or of truth, for that matter.
"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 they even know why they want a Republic
They think it MUST be better, because it is the root of 'Republican'.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Agree with you there
Corruption is an issue I regard as close to an Unified Field Theory of American politics: it brings everything together into one coherent, comprehensible explanatory framework. Just about everybody knows how corrupt our politics and our government are. Most people are at least dimly aware how corrupt the media are too. The howling that came from the Clintonites when Sanders made his relatively mild remarks about Hillary's deep corruption is proof enough that the issue is potent and effective. As I wrote in an essay over there last January, the best way to fight political corruption is to weaponize it: point it out, name names and kick asses. You can't do this if you want one party to win, and tiptoe around their corruption. You can't do it if you're corrupt yourself. But citizen journalists and advocates can and should shout about corruption from the rooftops 24/7/365.
The rot at the heart of our political economy has to be exposed and seen by everybody before we can start healing from it. Neither party, and no major media conglomerate, is going to come off well in that process. All the more vital that we citizens take on the job.
Please help support caucus99percent!
In re Green Party
What would be the impact of Sandernistas flooding the Green Party? Is it possible to get the Green Party on the ballot in all 50 states by 2020?
If we can't raise the political coverage of Greens from 20 to 50 states by 2020 what chance does a brand new political party have?
What are the consequences of going Green en mass? Are there any fundamental problem with the platform and goals of The Green Party?
Is there an option that provides a more viable outcome than merging with the Greens?
Just a few questions I would like to see fleshed out.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
If all the Sanders supporters
voted Green this year, they would get a plurality. How that turned out in the end would be hard to say...probably the House choosing a President. But they would be on the ballot in 2020. Or 2018.
Even if just the Bernie or Bust crowd all went for the Greens, it would qualify them to be on the next ballot...and would be enough motivated people to push that through if there was any question.
Their platform is basically Democracy, Social Justice, Sustainable Ecology, Sustainable Economy...not against anything we want, I don't think. A huge influx of membership would add to it some new ideas, no doubt. Structure-wise, they are a confederation of State Parties. Bottom up rather than Top down. That will have positive aspects, as well as pitfalls.
Green Party platform: http://www.gp.org/platform
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
afternoon al...
i have decided not to be too specific about goals, so that people can debate that and come to consensus. i'm not going to state a very specific set of goals and ask everybody to fall in line behind that.
for the sake of this discussion, the goal is to move a progressive agenda forward that builds on what bernie sanders has put forward and improves on it. in the essay above if you click on the link that says "platform," you will see a start that i made in that direction which people could cannibalize and use as a start towards creating such an agenda.
how that agenda is to be moved forward is also up for debate.
the real question is what do the people of this community want to do?
Sew like the wind!
My rough view based on comments and diaries here is most either want to do the Berniecrat thing or the New Congress or whatever it is, or a third party attempt, either a new one or merging some out there.
As an outlier, I'll have to pass on that. But I'll still do my best to spread the truth where truth is needed (there's no need to fear, underdog is here, da da da).
I've got my eyes on new 2016 Boycott I saw on lot I passed the other day. And maybe a new 2016 Global Revolution with four wheel drive.
Actually I think there will be some attempt at an independent movement outside the electoral process so I'd be interested in how that proceeds. The People's Summit is out, too infested with dem party affiliates and professional enablers. Ralph Nadar's thing might be something but all I saw on that site was just about all suits and ties and lilly white to boot. Probably a lot of stuff going to pop up pretty quick now that we should keep our eyes on. No sense in having a thousand different efforts with no coordination.
Hi Joe and everyone participating, thanks for this.
Has anyone revisited the Congressional Progressive Caucus? They had a reasonable platform a couple of years ago.
I don't know how much matches up to your platform, but worth looking at. For theirs to work would have required what may commenters are saying can't happen: reform of the Democratic Party.
Is the United Progressive Party on any state ballots?
The word "Independent" or some form of it seems to carry a lot of emotional impact. It would seem that may be the linchpin for a name or part of a name.
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
There are still a few good people in the Prog Caucus
And then there's people like Jared Polis, whose reason for being there appears to be that he's LGBT and he thinks LGBT people shouldn't be treated worse than I would treat a dog. On everything else, including economics--especially economics--he might as well be a moderate Republican, ca 1985.
I don't trust any existing DC institution to do the right thing.
"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
afternoon lch...
i used to follow the cpc for its annual budget proposal (generally ignored by the media), which was always better than the one that got passed through congress.
on the other hand, only one member of the cpc has endorsed bernie sanders (raul grijalva) and 45 have endorsed hillary.
i dont' know much about the united independent party. i think that it is only organized and on the ballot in massachussets. it only crossed my dashboard because of a controversy over independents voting in massachussets signing up for the uip when they thought they were registering as independents and thus able to vote in the democratic primary.
Agreed
If there is a more viable option than Going Green I am on board.
We need to examine the costs and benefits of each option. My personal opinion is that it would be beneficial to have The Green Party on the ballot in all 50 states.
Is it theoretically possible to get The Green Party on the ballot in all 50 states?
How would being on the ballot in all 50 states affect the electoral college in 2020?
Just wondering.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
it's kinda
hard to strategize, though, without knowing what is the goal. ; )
I'm thinking that maybe people don't want parties any more. The galvanizing candidates this presidential cycle are not of parties: Sanders is an independent democratic socialist, who for purposes of this election slipped into a Democratic Party skin-suit; Trump is a freelance Thanatos froot-loop, who for purposes of this election slithered into a Republican Party skin-suit. Perhaps the increasing number of people identifying as independents does not reflect just dissatisfaction with the Democratic and Republican parties, but instead wholesale rejection of parties as legitimate entities.
I don't know that people are much interested in agendas, or platforms, either.
I think they want to be free human beings, alive on this earth.
Amen,
Freedom.
Now we're talking.
Pages