On voting and not voting
I want to address some misconceptions, and hopefully clear the air about a few things.
First all I want to say - I get it. I understand why someone wouldn't want to vote.
The system is rigged. It's obvious. By giving it your vote you are giving it legitimacy.
Why would you want to do that?
It's like gambling in a card game that you know is rigged ahead of time. It's throwing away time and money.
To many that's a full stop. There's no need to go further.
It makes perfect sense not to play.
So if I understand that, why do I support voting?
For three reasons:
1) It's not totally rigged. It's more like a Vegas casino, where the House wins 60% of the time. Not 100% of the time.
2) Not voting won't change anything. Just look at other nations where the opposition party calls a boycott of the elections. Lots of people still vote, and (here's the important part) the establishment, the media, and the majority of the public accepts the results in every single case. Legitimacy is simply assumed.
3) The establishment wants you to vote for a major party. But if you don't do that, they want you to disengage and not vote. The one thing they don't want you to do is vote third party and be politically involved/active.
Now if those three reasons aren't good enough for you, I can understand. I won't hold it against anyone that does the "full stop" on a rigged system.
But don't hold it against me for thinking otherwise.
The second thing I want to address is the Dems and I.
I would think that the dozens of essays I wrote denouncing the Democratic establishment would have been enough, yet I'm still accused of gaslighting for the Dems.
I think that accusation is hilarious! I honestly can't take it seriously.
Not only have I not voted Democrat since 1996, but I got banned from the GOS for essentially being insufficiently loyal.
If anyone on GOS still remembers me, your accusation of me gaslighting for the Dems would be met with stunned confusion.
Also, I made a statement that there are individuals in the Democratic Party worth voting for.
That statement was challenged, but it shouldn't have been. There are always exceptions to the rule, and this year there are more exceptions than normal.
For starters, there are the DSA candidates, who have won roughly 20 seats so far and counting.
They run as Democrats, despite having nothing in common with mainstream Dems.
Then there is the growing number of working class Dem candidates. This is a good, inspirational article about them.
Finally, we may indeed be past the point of no return. The system may be too corrupt to save.
We will find out if that is true one day.
But I also have read about the first Progressive Movement 1890-1920. It had to overcome very similar levels of corruption and wealth concentration (not to mention institutional violence).
To a certain extent, it made remarkable progress despite everything against it. There were countless stories of individual, working class heroics.
We are seeing a growing grassroots movement, very similar to the first Progressive Movement.
Are they doomed? Maybe. But I think it's an enormous disrespect to throw shade on them.
I have every intention of being a cheerleader for them. Please do me a favor and tolerate my cheerleading for these individuals, and don't make the silly and nonsensical mistake of thinking that my supporting their fight against the Democratic establishment makes me a supporter of the Democratic Party.
I support policies and values, not party. If the Repubs had similar policies and values, I'd be talking about them.
Comments
Now if those three reasons
Now if those three reasons aren't good enough for you, I can understand. I won't hold it against anyone that does the "full stop" on a rigged system.
But don't hold it against me for thinking otherwise.
Who is holding it against you for thinking otherwise? Seems to me that you are one of the site's main voices. Also--in what sense are you having it held against you?
"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 was one of the questions
That went through my mind too. Except it was posed to me personally as a question of being respectful of others belief in the agency of their vote. I'm not sure how I was being disrespectful of their belief?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz Plenty of room is
Plenty of room is given to those who want to reform the Democratic party, their essays are highly trafficked and sometimes front-paged, and there is no site policy to suppress them or their beliefs. That leads me to believe that Democratic reformers are respected on this site. I don't pay close enough attention to the site to track every comment toward every member, so I have no way of knowing if there have been a bunch of ad hominem attacks directed at people who hold these views, but it seems to me that in general, this site has a lot fewer such attacks than most places on the tubes.
If large numbers of such attacks have been made on gjohnsit or others who agree with him, I have a problem with that and we should deal with it tout suite. Otherwise, I'm not sure what kind of disrespect we're talking about.
"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 the disrespect they are talking about
Along with the request to tolerate their views, is an opaque/polite way of saying they would rather not have pointed dissent in their essays about voting during the upcoming election season. Although the comment about disrespecting the voting view which I received actually referred to the contents of my own essay here, so perhaps that request extends to the entire site overall?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz Well, I've already
Well, I've already been asked not to comment in their essays in such a way, many moons ago, and I agreed. It's fine with me if they want to keep their essays on elections and politicians just for themselves and other reformists, and don't want to talk to those of us who have given up on reform in that context.
However, if somebody did go into their essays and criticize voting, I wouldn't automatically assume that that person was disrespecting them or telling them what to do. It would depend on what was said.
"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
@Anja Geitz It seems it's a
It seems it's a request for the site overall, which basically would make this site a site for those wishing to reform the Democratic party. I think that would be a shame.
"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 word "disrepect" in the essay
seems to refer to efforts of "good guy" candidates.
as to "ad hominem attacks" I remember this from Bringing Back Civics-
imo,fwiw,ymmv.
@irishking That's an ad
That's an ad hominem attack because of the use of the term "sheep-dogging." It may have been intentional or inadvertent, I don't know. The question is whether it was an isolated incident, or if there are DKos-style organized pile-ons. If it's the former, then it should be dealt with specifically with that individual at the time. If the latter, we have a serious problem, and we should all address it. I'm just not seeing the latter. I'm willing to see it if people have evidence of such.
"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 am not sure about voting.
apparently some here have definite opinions.
don't really see that bad feelings must follow.
time to rock.
edit.
Carlos Santana - guitar, vocals, maracas, cowbell.
Gregg Rolie - vocals, keyboards, maracas, tambourine, jingle bells.
Jose "Chepito" Areas - percussion, trumpet.
Mike Carabello - congas.
Michael Shrieve - drums.
David Brown - bass.
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal For that matter, you got
For that matter, you got 57 recs for this essay (so far), so who is disrespecting you?
"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
Someone accused you of gaslighting?
"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
Yes, just the other day
It's why I made this essay.
Oh, I see.
Please do me a favor and tolerate my cheerleading for these individuals, and don't make the silly and nonsensical mistake of thinking that my supporting their fight against the Democratic establishment makes me a supporter of the Democratic Party.
A couple of things.
First, if you support the people fighting against the Democratic party leadership (which you do), but want them to reform the Democratic Party (which you do), you oppose those who run the party, but support the party. It's a fine distinction, but one we all here should be able to make.
So no, you're not a Clinton supporter or a supporter of any of the people currently in power. You are, however a supporter of the Democratic party--otherwise you wouldn't be invested in its reform.
Furthermore, a sizable minority of our community here thinks exactly as you do, so I don't see what the problem is with having reformist supporters of the Democratic party on the site--we've had that since our inception. We've also had people who think that the entire system is f*cked on the site since our inception.
Our site is not in agreement on this issue, and it never has been. We don't have unity. As somebody who isn't interested in unity as a concept, seeing as how it often goes hand-in-hand with authoritarianism or minority rule, that's fine with me. I think it's fine with everybody here, or they would have gone somewhere else.
That said, I'm not sure what "tolerating" your cheerleading would consist of. That's not a shitty comment, but an honest question. In what way aren't you tolerated? More than tolerated, in fact--you are clearly an important part of this community.
"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
Yes and no
If I heard about a popular uprising against a dictator in some far off land tomorrow, I would be a supporter of the uprising, but would I really be invested in that far off land?
@gjohnsit If you talked about
If you talked about that far-off land publicly many times a week, yes, probably.
"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 write about Trump a lot too
Does that make me a Trump supporter?
Disingenuous question I think
You may write about Trump, but you are NOT framing your argument to REFORM him, so in that way, NO, it does not make you a "supporter" of Trump.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I criticize Trump
I criticize the Dems.
The only difference is that I think the Dems have an outside chance at redemption.
If that is "support" to you then your definition of support is extremely generous.
You criticize the corruption
That masquerades as the "Democratic" party. But you clearly still believe in the idea of a "better" Democratic Party. So, yes, you do SUPPORT the ideals of a progressive version of the Democratic Party.
Not sure how that is a "generous" interpretation of every essay you've written about here on reforming the Democratic Party.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Interesting wording
Yes, the way you worded that is indeed true.
It's also significantly different from the accusation that started this thread.
Reforming the Democratic Party
As that subject is featured in your many essays here, implies that constituents VOTE to make that happen. So remind me what the original "accusation" was again? Because I thought that was the entire raison d'état in your support for reforming the Democratic Party?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@gjohnsit You think
You think the Democratic Party is redeemable and you are deeply invested in that outcome. Others think that the Democratic Party is a time and resource sink, essentially a high-level political form of trolling. You believe in investing time and energy in the Democratic Party. Those who disagree with you don't. That's why those who disagree with you say that you "support" the Democratic Party. That's what they mean. You believe in putting time, energy, and resources into the Democratic Party. They don't.
It really shouldn't be a big deal, but apparently Bringing Back Civics and the BS things s/he said in that other diary make it so.
"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
Trump is unreformable
Without huge amounts of therapy, which isn't going to happen. I see good politicians who are in the Democratic party, like for instance Barabara Lee, who I just voted for again, and the whole DSA thing. I think there is an American tradition of judging the individual first and the party they belong to, second, unlike countries with parliamentary systems. Today I voted for the candidates who I thought were best. Partisan hacks who try to pigeonhole and classify people solely on they party for which they vote would render me a Democrat/PeaceAndFreedom/GreenParty person who will vote for a sincere reformist Republican (if one came about). The World does not hinge on DNC corruption.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Respectfully
You missed the point in my argument.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Sorry if I did that
I guess I was rushing through the posts because I'm getting a sense that people here want to toss off my right to vote and I don't want to give up that right without a huge fight. I would particulary fight those who would kill or render meaningless the various amendments in the Constitution designed to protect my right to vote. I think I care a bit more about those amendments than about the second amendment for which so many people seem prepared to die.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I'm not sure how my not participating
in a corrupt electoral system that cannot safeguard my vote translates into suppressing your free will to exercise your right to vote in how you see fit???
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Also, I made a statement that
Also, I made a statement that there are individuals in the Democratic Party worth voting for.
That statement has two parts.
1)individuals are worth voting for
2)voting is worth doing
If you don't believe the second, the first is likely to elicit a nod and a shrug.
"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
OK, now JtC has brought me up to speed
This is all a reaction to something that happened in one of gjohnsit's Trump diaries.
It all seems to have been set off by somebody who believe that Donald Trump might be OK, might actually drain the swamp, etc.
Anybody who believes this is a question of how good or bad some elected individual is is missing the point altogether, in my view; it doesn't matter how many "good" politicians we send into this trap. The entrenched shitheads are ready for them. Even if Trump were a great anti-corruption advocate (snort), he'd have no chance to drain the swamp.
Looks like there was a moderate-sized flame war breaking down along the main difference that divides people on this site, which might be characterized as reformist vs radical perspectives.
Regardless of how that all shakes down, you might want to know that, to somebody who wasn't in on the flame war, this looks like something pretty close to what Big Al said it was. Again, I know better, because I know the people on this site pretty well, including those who run it. Even so, I had a moment of feeling profoundly unwelcome.
Gjohnsit, you may not vote for the Democrats, but clearly you are quite invested in changing them for the better, and believe that that is possible. Much of what you post is from the standpoint of supporting the progressives who are trying to wrest control of the Democratic Party from the Clintons. It's not difficult to see how people might think you support the Democratic Party--just not its current incarnation. That's different from believing that you are a professional or even an amateur sheepdog.
Dealing with the individuals who specifically crossed the line into ad hominem attacks and shitty behavior in your Trump diary would have been infinitely preferable, in my view, to asking the site as a whole to respect you, when most of the site obviously does respect you already, and you occupy a prominent position here. Hell, when divineorder asked me to stop bringing my critiques of voting into your essays, I stopped. That's respect and more, in my view.
Rather than simply making a case for how people ought to treat one another on this site, we have conflated supporting reform with treating people with respect, and radical dissent with disrespectfully telling people what to do. Given the flamewar, I guess that's not surprising, but it seems fairly crappy to take the actions of two or three people and generalize to everyone who shares their views. It's not the views that are the problem, and nor, in my opinion, is it the fact that people think you support the Democratic Party. You do support that organization, in the sense that you believe it is redeemable and you ardently wish for its reform.
The problem with what I just read in that Trump diary was lack of civility, plain and simple, and lack of civility does not belong exclusively to either side of this debate.
"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 am deeply disappointed to hear this
As someone who values and looks forward to your thoughtful parsing of various topics here, I feel many of us are being acutely deprived of your voice for reasons I am less than convinced are for the benefit of the site as a whole.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
This touches on the one thing that truly bothered me
In the original essay.
@gjohnsit, you say:
And I say, "Why not?"
What's the point of healthy debate if not to challenge one another? How do we each learn, and grow, and develop a nuanced understanding of the state we're in, without the ability to express, or read, dissenting viewpoints? What's truly behind your desire not to be challenged, if not to silence those who may not agree?
If @CStMS and others cease to participate in specific topics of conversation because it's been discouraged, if members like @BigAl leave because their opinions aren't welcomed, then this site loses much of its value. And I truly don't understand the appeal of creating another echo chamber -- regardless of who or what the cheerleading is for. IMHO, it seems to me that that sort of exercise should happen in a different place, on a different site. (In this particular example, a site devoted to reforming the Democratic party from within). Isn't the goal of this one to rally the 99% -- whom we know comprise a diversity of experiences, opinions, and viewpoints -- around issues that affect us all? And because we comprise a diversity of experiences, opinions, and viewpoints, we should be able to express them without fear of being silenced.
This of course includes gjohnsit's essays, and the tactics he advocates for. But what it shouldn't include is a prohibition against differing opinions.
I can't speak for others
But I believe the impetus behind discouraging CStMS's pointed dissent is that it clashes with the purported goal of those who need people to vote to accomplish what they believe will reform the Democratic Party.
It's subtle, and it's being couched in conciliatory language, but to discourage voices like CSTMS who are very persuasive in their views about the corrupted electoral infrastructure along with the entrenched and pervasive blackmail and intimidation tactics employed at the top against any legislator advocating reform, may be seen as persuasive enough, that over time, some people may make up their mind to expend their energies elsewhere instead of working fruitlessly inside a corrupted political infrastructure.
And that would not help the goals of prominent essayists here, or those who support them in their belief in electoral and political reform, would it?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz I appreciate your
I appreciate your comments about me, zoebear. However, I do feel that, because of my own lack of energy and depression, I haven't been writing enough about what positive things we can do. In other words, I've been cursing the darkness without lighting a candle. I hate to see people believe things that aren't true and can't be defended in fact, and it's easier to keep pointing that out where it happens than to try to build something. So I don't write a lot.
I guess there may be a few people here who'd like me to shut up, but I don't think it's the majority, and it's not why I write so little overall. I write so little overall because, like most people, I'm demoralized by the crap I see.
In the specific case of gjohnsit's electoral diaries, like I said above, I had no problem with being asked to refrain from criticism--inside his essays. I knew I could criticize plenty in other essays. There's lots of room on this site. I only brought it up because I felt that the categorical criticism of people with my views as pushy and disrespectful was wrong. What I did in relation to gjohnsit was perfectly civil and not pushy or disrespectful at all. My guess is there's plenty of people with my views who have been similarly civil. That's the point I was making.
"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
@WaterLily Well, like I said, I
Well, like I said, I don't have a problem with somebody asking me not to make certain kinds of comments within their essays, because I can always publish my own essay expressing my thoughts. This is especially true in essays that are focused on some kind of action (for reasons I go into above). I don't want to be the person who constantly bursts into the meeting blowing raspberries. On the other hand, saying that one's statements shouldn't be challenged is problematic, unless you're making a statement so obvious and generally accepted that challenging it is a form of trolling (nobody should challenge the idea that the Earth goes around the sun, that gravity is a thing, that Reagan had Alzheimer's, that there actually was a Holocaust, etc.) Apart from deeply established fact, however, I'd say every statement should be challenged--or at least should be challenge-able.
"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
@Anja Geitz Actually this touches
Actually this touches on the history of caucus99 in an interesting way.
One of the reasons Caucus99 began was that I asked Markos Moulitsas to allow a different kind of diary on his site--a "caucus" diary--for the purposes of letting people who agreed in principle debate strategies and tactics. We weren't able to do that in the ordinary diaries, because of the constant flaming and trolling. So I asked Markos to allow a "caucus" diary in which only people who agreed on basic principles would enter the diary and talk. To illustrate my point, I said that if the Blue Dog Caucus was meeting on Capitol Hill, I wouldn't be allowed to sashay in and do an interpretive dance representing the relationship of GDP to wages in the middle of their meeting. Constant disruption means that there will never be discussion of tactics or actions--in fact, it's a recipe for constant flamewar. Markos, of course, told me no, in a fairly condescending way.
So I actually believe that it's fine for any author to ask that someone voluntarily refrain from criticism in their essay. It's fine because anybody can post their own essay promoting their own point of view and criticizing any position held by any poster on the site. There's plenty of room for free speech. It doesn't have to be inside the diary of somebody trying to get something done.
If there's people who want to work on supporting progressive candidates in their attempt to take over the Dems, they should be able to work on that. If they ask me not to keep coming into their essays and attacking their basic principles, I can always publish my views on the rest of the site. That's not hard. In fact, that's one way civility and free speech can go hand in hand. So I'm not likely to refuse such a request.
Here's the thing, though: if I voluntarily accede to such a request, I sure as hell don't want to be told that everybody with my views is disrespectful and pushy.
"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 is an interesting bit of history about c99
Thank you for taking the time to elucidate your thinking on the subject. It's always helpful to have guidelines in how we can all respectfully honor each other's essays.
Regretfully though, between my work, my personal projects, my responsibilities within my community, not to mention family and friends, I just don't have the time I wish I did to write more to at least counterbalance the prolific writing and message of one blogger here. And that's a shame because the lack of other voices on this topic contributes to the unfortunate notion that there is a prominent message here.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
For the first time since 1992 I voted for a couple Dems
3 of them.
They are Berniecrats and they are running against Pelosi and Feinstein.
So I guess the accusation that I am somewhat invested in reforming the Dems finally does apply.
You should write an essay about that
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
The importance of the views of the "radical" Left & of C99
I have occasionally posted on this site and used to check it daily -- partly for the purpose of maintaining my own sanity. When I came to this site, the first posts I looked for were always those of Can't Stop the Macedonian Signal and Gulf Gal's. This is not because I have any prior connections with any of these posters -- I'm an old radical who lives in Pennsylvania and have not shared many of the experiences that others on the site have.
Like Can't Stop the Macedonian Signal, I found it harder and harder to write, because of feeling depressed and somewhat hopeless about the current situation. My depression comes both from finding that many of my relatives are Trump-ites (and actually understanding how that could come to be) and, more importantly, from concluding that the flood of pressure to support Hillary was sick and destructive.
The Clintons (and their backers) bought the party, controlled its members,subverted the primary and threatened anyone who got in their way. After that, for anyone to tell me that I had to vote for Her to avoid Trump was deeply disturbing (not merely because Trump was also created by the Clintons in their Pied Piper strategy). Etc, etc.
People that I know -- and who had worked together honestly for years to make things better -- posted on Facebook that any of us who didn't vote for Hillary were evil ego-maniacs. They took great pride in things like wearing pants suits and safety pins.
I must admit that I have felt that same uncomfortable sense of "flooding" against radical positions due to the frequency and length of GJohnsit's postings -- not only on this site but on various Reddit boards. He was everywhere -- all the time. I said to myself, well perhaps he cares more than I do. But I also said, even when working only part-time, it's impossible to write that often and post so many words unless one is either being paid to do so -- or is independently wealthy. For most of us, the cares of the day and the emptiness left by the complete subversion of any democracy that may have remained, simply get in the way.
I began to wonder whether the failing spirits of some of the brightest voices on C99 had led to some sort of informal support or subsidy for a single writer to try to keep the board alive when so many were sinking.
At some point I stopped checking the C99 site, because seeing a long essay of GJohnsit's and some links to jazz just weren't enough. I didn't open GJohnsit's posts on other sites either, because I found his essays feeling a bit like the flood waters rushing at those who didn't support Hillary and the perverse "reform" movement her forces have engendered. It wasn't any single argument or essay -- just a general sense of lack of alignment with his posts and wondering where they were coming from.
When I would check on C99, I would see an essay every day from GJohnsit and fewer and fewer posts by the radicals that were my sole (and soul) reason for reading and participating.
So @Can't Stop the Macedonian Signal, if you felt unsupported because of the number of people agreeing or disagreeing with GJohnsit, I confess that I haven't been signed on to C99 to vote for your positions nor to extend them. They seemed to have been so crowded out as to have nearly disappeared.
This experience is not dissimilar to that of continuing to try do activist work locally -- and to find that most people have bought -- hook, line and sinker -- into the notion that we must work within the Democratic party -- or worse, those who seem like plants in meetings to subvert any more leftward discussion.
I write this not to throw gasoline on a fire that should not be stoked, but merely as an explanation of my own reaction to what is being debated. The tolerance for radical Left views is almost non-existent. I would hope those voices would not continue to be dampened on a site like C99. There are lots of places and forums for those who want to reform the Democratic party -- those opportunities are abounding and dominate the national media, local political activities and the mindsets of many whom the Clintonistas have bullied.
Those of us on the radical left need a place to converse and find common cause -- without feeling like we are drowning in the constant flow of babble from those who believe in identity politics and who refuse to understand how much the lack of integrity in the voting system has to do with results.
^^^^This^^^^
My sentiments exactly. But perhaps even a few of our own essays might help counterbalance the false impression that there is a "central" message here. If you and I feel this way maybe others do too? And together we can take turns posting essays in response to the "central" message of electoral reform of the Democrats? I'm spitballing here but your comment motivated me to reply that I do feel as you do.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Pages