FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

OCCUPY BERNIE SANDERS

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Progressives Fiercest Critics of Obama's War Policy

CommonDreams.org

by Mike Lillis

As President Obama struggles to sell a contentious Libya strategy to a skeptical Congress, Capitol Hill's most liberal voices have emerged as some of the fiercest critics.

"In two years we have moved from President [George W.] Bush's doctrine of preventive war to President Obama's assertion of the right to go to war without even the pretext of a threat to our nation," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal, said Thursday during a House floor speech. "This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution. Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war -- and only Congress can declare war." (UPI Photo/Kevin Dietsch) Liberal Democrats — the heart and soul of Obama's meteoric rise to the White House — are using floor speeches, op-eds, committee hearings and even legislation to condemn the administration's decision to send U.S. forces to help Libyan rebels oust longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

The lawmakers have questioned the timing, cost, wisdom and constitutionality of the White House endeavor, stealing headlines from Democratic supporters of the policy and practically drowning out the condemnations from Obama's more traditional conservative critics. Less then 30 months after Obama ascended to commander in chief with a message disdainful of unilateral military operations, the liberal detractors are all but charging him with hypocrisy.

"In two years, we have moved from President Bush’s doctrine of preventive war to President Obama’s assertion of the right to go to war without even the pretext of a threat to our nation," Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), an anti-war liberal, said Thursday during a 40-minute broadside fired from the House floor.

"This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution," he added. "Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war — and only Congress can declare war."

Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, agrees. Conyers conceded that Congress and the White House "have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war." But, he added, "the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance."

"That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make," Conyers said last week, "and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the president."

With Gadhafi threatening to attack even civilians critical of his regime, international forces — led by the United States — launched air and missile strikes in March to establish a no-fly zone over the beleaguered North African nation. The United States on Sunday handed over control of the operations to NATO.

Obama went on national television Monday to explain his decision, which he said was based largely on humanitarian grounds.

"In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," Obama said. "We had a unique ability to stop that violence."

The message was embraced by a number Democrats, but did little to appease the early liberal critics of the operations. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) characterized Obama's speech as "more eloquent than persuasive," while Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) accused the president of sidestepping Congress by waiting until lawmakers left town to launch the attacks.

"How premeditated, and how irresponsible, I believe the current course of events to be," Kaptur said.

Wednesday's classified briefing from administration officials — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates — also didn't alleviate liberal concerns over how the intervention was initiated.

"It still needs authorization," Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) told The Hill as he emerged from the briefing.

These concerns are aired as the Pentagon and the White House are reportedly at odds over the scope and pace of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Those reports are sure to exacerbate the concerns of lawmakers already wondering about Obama's exit strategy in Libya.

On Thursday, White House officials made the rounds on Capitol Hill yet again, appearing before four committees — two in each chamber — on the Libya situation. Skeptical lawmakers on both sides of the aisle voiced four primary concerns:

— Did the administration have the legal authority to enter Libya without congressional approval?

— Who will pay for the conflict?

— Who exactly are the Libyan rebels the U.S. is protecting?

— How can the United States and NATO ensure Gadhafi is bumped from power without sending ground troops to knock him off ourselves?

Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), a liberal Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, didn't let the opportunity to lash out at the White House go to waste.

Sherman went after the witness, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, for using taxpayer dollars to fund the Libyan operation rather than tapping Libya's own enormous resources — largely derived from oil — to cover the tab. The California Democrat also accused the White House of neglecting to ensure the rebel forces don't include those with a history of fighting against Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sherman said he asked about extraditions of such rebels during Wednesday's classified briefing with Clinton and Gates, but didn't get a response. "I'm sure if you give me another classified briefing, I'll still get no answer," he said.

Steinberg noted that President Ronald Reagan launched an air and missile attack on Libya in 1986 without congressional approval. "The test is when the action is limited in scope and duration," Sternberg said.

"Each case," he added later, "has to be taken on its own terms."

Some liberal Democrats are lining up behind legislation to push back against the administration's approach to Libya. A GOP bill to defund the intervention until Congress authorizes it already has as many Democratic co-sponsors as Republicans. Three Democrats — Reps. Kucinich, Pete Stark (Calif.) and Michael Capuano (Mass.) — endorsed the bill this week.

Some Senate liberals want more conditions applied to the White House's Libya policy, as well. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged the administration Thursday to provide support to the Libyan rebels only if they agree to hand over Libyan national Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was the only person convicted in the 1998 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The blast killed 281 people, including all 270 aboard the plane. Scottish authorities released al-Megrahi in 2009 citing his poor health — a deal reportedly influenced by Britain's desire to secure an oil contract with Libya.

"This should be straightforward and simple: If you get our support, we get al-Megrahi," Schumer said. "It makes perfect sense to insist that support for their cause is conditioned upon sending al-Megrahi back to prison where he belongs."

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Today's Social Security Propaganda Rebuttal Post

Campaign for America's Future

Today's Social Security Propaganda Rebuttal Post


Dave Johnson's picture

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments

Daily Kos

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments By Lolligolli and HoundDog


We believe our noble Democratic Party has strong core principles, values, and historic commitments to highly valued constituent voters such as woman, people of color, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, retired, those without basic health care, veterans, and underdogs in our political system such as immigrants, and the gay, lesbian, transgendered communities.

The Democratic and Republican parties have been locked and a five decades long battle between what rights are sacrosanct to the individual -- and what powers can be exercised by the state. And what is the role of the Government in protecting individual rights and the common good.

The Democratic party has staked out the moral high ground in our commitments to the constitutionally based principles of the separation of church and state, the right to privacy, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the principles of full equality and protections of individual rights.

Our Proud Democratic History

We are pround of our party's consistent efforts to protect the individual and the minority underdogs against our society's tendency to concentrate both economic and political power in the hands of a few, and in the abstractions and unconsciousness of the majority not yet always aware of certain injustices that might incur to the disadvantage through traditional but sometimes prejudicial ways of thinking.

Our struggles have revolved around our consistent interpretation of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and more specifically, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in favor of protecting the sacrosanct respect our Constitution places on the rights of the individual.

Also, although not directly mentioned in the constitution, the Democratic party has been a champion of the working man, fair wages, fair trade agreements that protect America jobs, worker safety, OSHA protections, environmental protection, and the respect for international law and the Geneva conventions in foreign policy, as well as respect for the multi-lateral rights of other nations, Just War theory and a more cautious approach to unilateral military interventions in the affairs of other nations.

Core Democratic Principles

Let's first focus on the origins and foundations for what many of us call the "progressive social issues" or agenda. We have banded together to fight and win on these issues and changed the definition of our party by remembering the advice of our founders "We either hang together or hang separately."

For woman, people of color, the disabled, gays, lesbians, the bisexual, transgendered, religious and ethnic minorities, and others who were inspired by the great words of Martin Luther King Jr., solidarity around these issues in the face of oppression became a matter of survival. And our winning formula and strategy for almost five decades of elections.

These principles and associated political philosophies define what it means to be a Democrat and what our party stands for. These principles and truths we hold to be self evident, noble, and still inspire the aspirations of people around the world.

There is no going back now.

Looking Forward and Looking Backwards

Republicans are the party of the past. Their backwards looking vision does not inspire the aspirations of others around the world yearning for freedom, equality, and democracy. This is the source of the terms regressive and progressive. Because progressives believe in progress that will lead to a better future for all individuals. By overcoming superstition, prejudice, discrimination, and injustice implied in unexamined assumptions of the past.

It is the progressive principled Democrats who represent the ideals and hopes of the future. Because we committed ourselves to stands on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments that have proven to be the historically correct. Now the rest of society is catching up with us. And the Republicans who bet on the wrong side of these historic charges are in collapse and disarray.

Perhaps, there is a lesson here? When in doubt, going with the wonderful Constitution of the United States of America is our safest bet. But now after an incredible, noble, painful, bloody, and expensive series of battles, and bets on the future that we got right, it would be unwise and tragically sad, to throw out our hard won badges of honor. And betraying our core and loyal constituent voting blocks, would be an insult the memories of the many who like Martin Luther King Jr.,died and paid with their lives to put us where we are today.

We Stand On the Shoulders of Giants

We should be proud and honored that our Democratic Party has taken such noble, courageous, and principled stands on these challenging issues. But we must not become frightened our distracted and return our gaze the past. But need to keeping facing forward.

Let us continue to lead the way to a brighter future for all Americans and people around the world. Many whom have still not yet tasted the fruits of Martin Luther Kings Jr's inspiring dream.

Support for 14th Amendment Rights of full Equality and Individual Rights For All Americans

I think most might agree that full support for civil rights and equality for woman and people of color is a such a party commitment. And a fortunate one, although we paid a big price in the short term for driving the George Wallace "Democrats" out of the party. The sexism and racism that were common and tolerated just decades ago are now anathema

But does our unqualified support of the 14th amendment rights of equal protection extend to full equality and rights for the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community with regard to marriage equality and civil unions? I believe it should. And it would be philosophically inconsistent and even hypocritical if we did not carry out the logical conclusions to "The Dream."

Our Right To Privacy

The constitutional right to privacy that is the basis for Roe versus Wade, protects a woman's right to choose. And contrary to what we hear from Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the Supreme Court of the United States keeps re-affirming this right. Most recently in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence versus Texas (2003), The SCOTUS struck down all remaining state laws banning sodomy that were the basis of making homosexuality illegal in many states. Anton Scalia wrote the minority decision and is strongly opposed to this right.

But even many Democrats are strongly and even religiously opposed to abortion at a personal level. This is okay and not inconsistent with our party's philosophy. What unites the Democratic party is the Constitutional principle, that this decision belongs to the individual woman. It is every American woman's right to control her own body in whatever consultation she wishes to make with her doctor, family, and religious advisors. And it is our proposition that this support for a woman's right to choose has become a minimum irrevocable commitment for all future Democratic Presidential candidates regardless of their personal opinions. And is a valid criteria for discussing the suitability of all future nominations to the Supreme Court.

The Rule of Law Not Of Men Versus Right Makes Right

We propose that another core element of our commonly held Democratic beliefs is the respect for the rule of law, both at home and abroad. Just about the exact opposite of all the basic principles of the Neocons, who were explicitly trying to lead our nation away from our relatively successful and traditional Democratic foreign policy positions, as advocated by John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry.

So our respect for our signatures on the Geneva Conventions, and the 1945 United Nations Charter should not require "focus groups" or poll approvals for support from most Democrats.

The Neocon Philosophy Of Might Makes Right, and the Preemptive- Unilateral, Projection of Military Power Is Opposite Of the Democratic Philosophy Which Favors Respect For International Law, Multi-lateralism, and the Use Of War And Military Power Only As A Last Resort

The Neocon's led the Republicans over the cliffs of short term political opportunism, by advocating unilateral projection of US Imperial Military power as a first choice in opposition to the Democratic principle of respect for international law, multi-lateralism, and Just War theory which allows initiating war only as a last resort, and negotiation among regional powers to settle disputes.

We must continue our support for the international rule of law, Geneva Conventions, 1945 U.N. Charter, Just War Theory, and opposition of the Neocon philosophy of pre-emptive first strike, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Muslim populations.

Progressives and other Democrats Need To Reunite And Defend Our Principles

The Democratic party cannot start treating loyalty to our foundational commitments as sort an optional Constitutional smorgasbord. If we do this, no one can feel safe. If we stand by, without protest, as one minority group after another is thrown overboard in the "triangulation theory of the day," it will only be a matter time, before we have lost every victory we have fought so hard and so consistently to achieve over the last 5 decades. And now, we face new encroachments from a creeping Patriot Act and President Bush's attempts to bypass FISA courts and Congressional Oversight.

The principles of separation of church and state, the right of privacy, protection against warrantless search and seizure as well as warrantless wiretaps which is in effect search and seizure as well as violations of our right to privacy or our personal information, support for full equality (equal protection under the law) and support full individual rights for all citizens are no longer optional for Democrats.

And supporters of this indivisible set of core Democratic principles and this holistic and integrated political philosophy are not examples of single issue extremists.

We are the mainstream of the progressive Democrats. And represent the trend of American mainstream values. And we are going to reunite, in vigorous and loud support for continuation of the 5 decades long coalition that has successfully got us here today and advanced our society in the right direction on what are now considered modern American centrist values.

Conclusion

The Democratic Party is committed to a powerful and noble set of progressive principles and a political philosophy that distinguishes us from the Republicans.

This philosophy, and these principles and values, form one set of interconnected and indivisible foundational principles that recognize and uphold the sanctity of the individual as the cornerstone of American society. We have successfully united a broad coalition of voters to gain power against the Republicans.

Only by basing our party's definition on real progressive principles, and standing on the shoulders of our founding mothers and fathers, and all the great visionary leaders supporting the sanctity and primacy of individual rights and our voluntary social contract to use government to affect our common good, will we continue to build a powerful party for the future. And by re-committing ourselves to our noble Democratic traditions we will have the staying power to revitalize and sustain our great and historic party into this next century.

So the good news, for those asking if our Democratic Party should have common core principles, is that the answer is yes, and many of these principles have already been chosen and are well known, noble, and correct. True much work and discussion will always remain ahead of us, particularly with regard now to the challenging topics of immigration, and free versus fair trade, and fiscal and budgetary responsibility.

And it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge the vast gap that remains between knowing what the principles are and being able to figure out how to implement them in specific real time circumstances. For example, the time that knowing that we believe in international law would have been most helpful was before we got involved in the Iraq war. It its not immediately clear how this helps us achieve graceful and effective exit from Iraq. Although, the principles of respect and negotiation between all the regional stakeholders can still yield opportunities for improvement.

Our purpose here as not been to advance a basket of abstractions too oversimplified to be useful, but rather to argue that the glass is half full not half empty. We have greater foundations of commonality to be proud of. And here "we" means not just progressives and all Democrats, but also all Americans, and increasingly in the future, all of our citizens of the world.

We believe as just one example, that Former Vice-President Al Gore is just one example, of a current day Democratic leader, who seems to us, to understand and exemplify all aspects of this Democratic Party ideal and integrated philosophy. And represents a new generation of American politician who can be as comfortable and potentialy respected at home or abroad. Al Gore fluency in global issues as well environmental issues, represents a fine example of all of these values, and Al Gore is an example of the kind of politician who is capable of successfully unifying a broad coalition of key loyal voters. Without leaving anyone out.

We believe many other progressive leaders such as Senators Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, General Wesley Clark, and many others embody these committments as well. We just want to offer these few examples, so as not to leave the impression that we are speaking of abstract impossible to acheive ideals, but the reality of out core party leaders and constituents.

We just have to continue to turn our heads from the past, and remove them from the dark places, and look forward into the light. And recommit ourselves to understand our historic progressive principles and require that our leaders understand and remain committed to them as well.

PostScript: We intend this essay as more an invitation to open more discussion towards the development of a broader consensus within our party rather than as a statement of any particular unique political insight. We are both relative newcomers to the world of blogging about the Democratic Party and progressive issues. So this common post is meant to be more of a progress report on our first year of blogging that arose out of a dinner conversation about lessons learned so far. And thought others may be curious to what these issues look like from the point of view of folks like ourselves. So we look forward to other different viewpoints with the same spirit of open mindedness and tolerance for diverse viewpoints as we hope this essay will be received.

And we have been tremendously encouraged and excited about the opportunity to join such a thoughtful and passionate community of progressive Democratics here at Daily Kos. We apologize in advance for any error of understanding or proposition we may have introduced into the discussion. And hope we have proven our willingness to here, respond to and incorporate appreciatively all opportunities for learning and improvement.

We are looking forward to doing every thing we can to help the Democratic party win as many seats in the House and Senate in 2006, and win back the White House in 2008. And we remain committed to supporting all of our Democratic candidates in all of these races whomever they should be.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin



February 23, 2011 at 23:12:57

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin





By Rob Kall (about the author)

opednews.com


There is chaos. There is danger. There is risk. There is much courageous, much bravado, much hubris. There is foolishness and arrogance and the possibility of success of failure.

Wisconsin could be a game changer. Let's make it one that falls our way.

Governor Walker is not looking good. He's looking like some of history's most malevolent people. So are Kasich, Scott and the other right wing Governors looking to fly when the election gave them room to walk.

There are immense opportunities here to trip these Republican governors up, to punk them and prank them and frame them so they look as bad as they are, only they look that way to independents and moderate republicans.

We can do this. Today, Walker was pranked by someone who pretended he was one of the Koch billionaire brothers-- the troglodytes at the stirring up the bottom of the right wing cesspool.

Wisconsin offers the left an opportunity to show the big middle how ugly, stupid and meanspirited the right is.

Wisconsin offers progressives an opportunity to show the real differences between populism and plutocratism.

We need to identify language, framing, memes, stories, narratives, new victims, new heroes who further the story of the ugly Republicans... or whatever language is used to paint them as undesirable.

Please talk about your ideas for language, framing, memes, stories, narratives, new victims, new heroes.

Let's crowdsource this.

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2



February 17, 2011 at 19:34:20

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2

By Beth Becker (about the author)

opednews.com


Three weeks ago, I posted this diary outlining the first steps toward the goal of building a long-needed "Progressive Echo Chamber". Since then, I'm thrilled to report, efforts have begun to crystallize and a path forward is taking shape. That path will combine effective framing for message creation with a carefully planned system of message delivery

In that first diary, I laid out a vision for creating message unity within the Progressive Community. Progressives in Washington are making an effort work together to craft messaging and build a community to work with to push forward a progressive agenda. Intrinsic to their vision is that this message must reach beyond the hill and beyond the Beltway; this is where you and I come in. So I often get emails from people I work with telling me I can share some of the messaging with others, which I do.

Today I'd like to focus on the blogosphere: What role do bloggers play in the Echo Chamber? And specifically, how can bloggers get involved?

Of all of the pieces of the Echo Chamber puzzle, bloggers have the most eyes that can then digest and further amplify the common messaging. Daily Kos alone gets millions of page views per month. A typical regional blog may get hundreds of thousands of page views per month and an individual local blog may get thousands. Those page views translate into people reading the message, hopefully from multiple bloggers, and then, in turn, writing and talking with that same message. That chain of message amplifcation is invaluable to our Progressive Community.

The second crucial role of bloggers is in message expansion. Let's face it, there are some things that an elected official just can't say. Bloggers, on the other hand, don't have those same constraints. So while a US Representative may take the messaging of say "the no jobs agenda of the GOP" and carefully couch their delivery to be powerful yet tactful, we bloggers can call individual members of the opposition out with more force. We can take a hashtag like #nojobs on Twitter and dominate it... if we do such things together.

So how do bloggers become involved in this Echo Chamber? First: join our email list. Do this by sending a request to me at progressiveechochamber at gmail dot com asking to be put added to the Echo Chamber list. When you receive those emails you can then take the messaging offered and use it in your conversations about the issues at hand. Most importantly, you can use that messaging as you blog about those issues.

Second: you can join us in the Daily Kos Progressive Messaging group. In that group we will be talking about how to best frame the messaging we are being told about and we will exchange ideas about how we can best expand and amplify Progressive messaging.

Third: when you have ideas about messaging, drop me a note that I can then forward to those involved in message creation.

Last: tell everyone you know what we're doing and invite them to become involved. The more people echoing each other, the louder we get.

In the past, we as progressives have not been known for our messaging unity and strength. Now is the time to show that things have changed...that we as a Progressive Community have changed.

This diary is a part of my new series on Progressive Messaging. Please note that my company, Progressive PST, works for Rep. Grijalva's legislative office as an independant consultant, assisting them with netroots outreach and social media strategy. I'm happy to say they understand the importance of this echo chamber building and are working to help unify our messaging but these diaries and my efforts are independent of anything they are doing.

http://www.progressivepst.com

I work as a social media strategist for campaigns and legislative offices. When I blog often I blog what I call "fluff" in an attempt to build community but I am now turning my writing efforts to an attempt to help unify Progressive messaging. I'm (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

The Shrinking Market for Progressive Groups and Websites



February 12, 2011 at 14:08:40

The Market for Progressive Groups and Websites


By Don Smith
(about the author)

opednews.com


Recent news items got me thinking about progressive media.

The sale of HuffPost to AOL raises questions about corporate ownership of progressive infrastructure.

House Republicans' efforts to defund NPR and CPB further threaten the Left's ability to get its message out.

Progressive Democrats of America plans to build a community communication website for progressives.

OpenLeft has closed down, due to lack of financial support.

So I ask:


How can the left build an effective media and political infrastructure outside the market system?

Progressives believe that markets are not the best and only way to provide services. For example, progressives believe in a strong public sector. Markets should be regulated and limited, and the People should join together, both nationally and locally, to cooperate on shared initiatives funded via taxation. Progressives believe that government can provide certain goods and services more efficiently and more equitably than can the private market system. Hence, progressives support public health care, public education, public pensions (Social Security), public transportation, public news media, and an ample safety net for the elderly, the poor, and the sick.

Government is the ultimate form of cooperative endeavor. But political parties and advocacy groups and blogs and even unions and corporations use cooperation to further shared goals.

But it's rather ironic: despite progressives' ambivalence towards markets, and despite their support of cooperation, there's an intense competitive market for progressive groups and websites. Progressive groups and websites compete for market share, struggling to gain funding, viewership, and support.

In contrast, the Right seems more united and better at cooperating. Perhaps that's because they share an immediate economic interest in avoiding taxes and regulation.

Can progressives and other leftists agree to support a common lefty advocacy group or political party? Or is progressivism doomed by the competitive conflict of egos and interests? In other words, will market competition doom progressives to powerlessness?

Ideally, the government, or at least, say, the Democratic Party, would represent the People's interests and would advocate progressive ideas. Since that's not the case, there's a market for progressive groups and websites. (Jim Dean of Democracy for America once made a similar point.) In fact, there are hundreds of national progressive groups: MoveOn, Common Cause, PDA, Bold Progressives, DFA, anti-war groups, health care groups, media reform groups, civil rights groups, environmental groups, women's rights groups, gun control groups, ... the list goes on and on. I can't keep track of all the emails in my inbox from lefty groups soliciting funds and signatures.

I sometimes wonder if the Left would be better off if all these lefty advocacy groups would dissolve and if all the activists would instead devote their energies to taking over the Democratic Party and pushing it leftwards -- the way religious conservatives and Tea Party activists took over the Republican Party and pushed it to the right.

But the Democratic Party is so compromised by "corporate interests" that many progressives feel that it's beyond redemption. Hence the proliferation of lefty advocacy groups.

These various groups compete for market share. To some extent this is natural and healthy. Even in a progressive society, you still want the skilled and effective people to lead. And you want to guard against concentration of power in unresponsive and unrepresentative groups and individuals. So you want a meritocracy and a democracy: a market system of ideas and people and services that compete for democratic support. And that's what progressive groups provide: a service. If you support us and donate money to us, we'll represent your interests: the progressive ideals you hold dear.

But because of the competition among advocacy groups, the Left is weak and inefficient. Nationally, corporations and the rich have effectively taken over the reins of power. On the left, power is too diffuse to be effective. There's duplication of infrastructure (e.g., websites), There's competition for funding. There's competition for readership at blogs and websites.

There's a trade-off between effectiveness and egalitarianism. A highly egalitarian movement is diffuse, with multiple foci of power. It's less corruptible, and people feel they have a say. Such a movement is likely to lack direction and leadership.

Sure, you don't want too much concentration of power in the hands of any one group. But you want some coordination and leadership. Likewise, nothing much gets done without charismatic leaders.

One often hears it said that organizing progressives is like herding cats -- that progressives are hesitant to follow leaders. But it's also true that progressives are looking for a strong leader. In 2008, Barack Obama filled the role of the charismatic leader (a pied piper) who inspired progressives with his talk of change. In 2004 it was Howard Dean that provided that leadership. In 2000 maybe it was Ralph Nader.

So progressives are like cats but they are also like sheep. They will follow effective, inspiring leaders.

Perhaps the Left should agree to concentrate power in fewer groups, even if this means that the movement is less democratic and more vulnerable to power-grabbing by the few.


Alternatively, perhaps leftists should encourage closer coordination among existing groups, so that they can be more effective and less dependent on corporations and on wealthy benefactors to fund their endeavors. (Consider the sale of HuffPost to AOL, which many progressives suspect is a sell-out analogous to the sellout-by Dick Gephardt.)

With concentrated power, there needs to be some form of democratic decision making. MoveOn, for example, polls its members to decide supposedly on which issues to work on. When groups get as large and as centralized as MoveOn, it's difficult to feel that one has much say, and often one finds oneself frustrated by the inaccessibility of the leadership.

PDA recently announced its intention to build a community website for lefties (See this article.). "We want to elevate the site so it becomes a community bulletin board for the entire progressive community." Good luck, one thinks. Every group wants to own the web. Websites such as OpEdNews, TruthOut, TruthDig, DailyKos, and HuffPost cross-post many articles but also compete for market share. And I see competition among lefty groups locally, as described here.

In short, my aim in this article has been to suggest an alternative to market-based progressive activism. I'm suggesting that out of self-interest, the left will come together and better organize and coordinate its (online) infrastructure. It needn't mean ceding power to a monolithic national organization. It just means to share links and some content. Everyone wants to own the web. That's not the way progressives should do things. They should cooperate. This is hard to do nationally, but perhaps it's easier to do locally. Hence my proposal for organizing Washington State leftists: How the Left can better market its message.

The key is that people need to be willing to share power and editorial control.

If things get bad enough, maybe people on the left will come together, out of necessity.

Perhaps this is all a quixotic fantasy and progressivism is doomed. Even if the Left coordinates better, will it ever be anything more than an echo chamber? And if it does gain market share and affect the wider public, as Huff Post did, perhaps it will end up being sold to a corporate interest.

DFA organizer, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, writer, and programmer. My op-ed pieces have appeared in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and elsewhere. See http://TruthSite.org for my writing, my musical creations, and my (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Beyond Barack Obama

In These Times

Features » January 27, 2011

Beyond Barack Obama

Lefty focusing on the president and his shortcomings distracts us from the work we need to do.

By Richard Flacks


If we spend a lot of our energy in anguish and attacks on Obama, our own cynicism may ruin the chance to spark new possibilities. (Photo by: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

To wish for The Leader and to cry when he seems to abandon us is childish, and it bespeaks impotence.

The growing progressive drumbeat about President Barack Obama’s failed presidency, coupled now with fantasies about opposing his re-nomination, or with anguished hand-wringing about his failure to communicate, to lead, etc. etc., dismays me. This hysteria is rooted in fear and anger over the intransigence of the corporate plutocracy we are up against. But the answer to corporate dictatorship and kleptocracy has to come from social movements—not the White House. History strongly suggests that grassroots disruption that threatens to unravel the social fabric is the fundamental impetus to real reform.

Yet the loudest voices on the left keep wishing that Obama would lead such a movement. It’s a natural wish—since the work of movement-building is hard, risky and costly for those who take it on. But to wish for The Leader and to cry when he seems to abandon us is childish, and it bespeaks impotence.

Let’s start by giving up a lot of BS about “principle.” There is no history of Democratic Party or liberal principle that Obama is betraying. FDR’s compromises to achieve Social Security and labor legislation abandoned African Americans with effects still strongly felt in our social order. No Democratic president was able to pass universal healthcare and all bargained away any chance of achieving it. It was FDR who gave J. Edgar Hoover the authority to spy on the Left, and JFK who gave him the same to spy on Martin Luther King. Bill Clinton’s abandonment of welfare and his other ‘triangulations’ were larger and more cynical betrayals than Obama’s (so far). Obama’s record of accomplishment, leadership and betrayal stacks up well against all his predecessors.

And let’s stop using ideological yardsticks to judge politicians. Is Obama “really” a progressive? Whatever he tells us he is, he must be a pragmatist in the real world he works in. And we should appreciate and even welcome that!

Ideology is a very poor predictor of integrity or action. Ideology is not what determines the political assessments that most Americans make. This is a big topic, but one advantage the Left has over the Right these days is that the latter is driven by narrow ideological thinking and therefore inevitably going to fail to connect with the American majority.

A big reason we aren’t yet in the midst of a movement on the Left has to do with the faults of the leadership in the national progressive organizational world. For example, it took months for the national organizations to call for a march on Washington for jobs. The One Nation event turned out to be a good start toward some kind of national agenda—and yet I don’t see much evidence of a concerted follow-up to it.

Many of the national leaders are now saying that they intend to be more assertive and independent. But even with a will to mobilize, strategies for effective action have to be grasped—and defining these is not an easy matter. Equally important, there is a loss of “vision”—an absence of articulate expression of how a better world might look.

Lefty focusing on Obama distracts us from the work we need to do.

What progressives have to try is to implement strategies that directly challenge corporate and financial domination. These have to include direct action that disrupts the institutional order. One essential theme: The costs and burdens of economic contraction and austerity must not be borne by the weakest and poorest.

The disgusting cycle, perpetuated by the Obama tax deal, that gives virtually all economic gain to the very top of the income pyramid has to be disrupted.

The wars, which hugely drain the public budget, have to be resisted.

Demands that might actually help people materially—and help the economy as well—need to be voiced and acted on—a massive mortgage write-down being one obvious example. Movement-based organizing on such issues needs to find targets that can be seen and addressed. For example, make locally accessible banks and their executives responsible for the mortgage crisis.

A final suggestion: Progressive organizations need to reinvest in college campus organizing. Instead of seeing students just as election time fodder, we need to consider that the campus is the primary space for generating deep, extensive discussion and debate about the social future. It’s also the place where human energy for bold and creative action can be generated. Back in the early 1960s, a few unions and older liberals more or less recognized their own political staleness, and put a little money and encouragement behind the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committeee and Students for a Democratic Society—even as these upstart groups made them nervous because they weren’t “disciplined.”

Once again, the progressive side needs activist energy that isn’t controlled by big organizational practices and perspectives—energy and thinking that can break molds and invent new modes. But if we spend a lot of our energy in anguish and attacks on Obama, our own cynicism may ruin the chance to spark new possibilities.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
  • Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!
Richard Flacks, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of Cultural Politics and Social Movements (co-editor, 1995); Beyond the Barricades: The '60s Generation Grows Up (1989); Making History: The American Left and the American Mind (1988), and many articles on social movements, left culture and strategy.

More information about Richard Flacks

5 Things Progressives Should Do—and Not Do


In These Times


Features » January 28, 2011
5 Things Progressives Should Do—and Not Do

By Barbara Ehrenreich


#1 Don’t talk, write or argue about Obama, who has proved himself irrelevant to the progressive project, no matter how narrowly that project is defined. Similarly, don’t conflate progressives with Democrats, since the latter category prominently includes Obama.

#2 Organize the unemployed of all collar colors—white, pink and blue. The unions aren’t doing it, or at least not very much of it, for the simple reason that the unemployed can’t pay dues. You can either support existing organizing efforts like the Unemployed and Anxiously Employed Workers Initiative, which can be found on Facebook, or you can start your own by getting together with other economically challenged folks for purposes of mutual support and advocacy.

#3 Do not “mount an unapologetic defense of government.” It doesn’t deserve it. What we need is a progressive attack on government in its various armed and coercive functions– including the criminal justice system, the war on drugs, ICE, and the TSA. The faux libertarianism of the right should also be challenged with a militant defense of abortion and gay rights.

#4 Organize for a collective defense against foreclosures and evictions. Every time a bank swoops down to snatch up a home, it should be met with a crowd of jeering, obstructive neighbors. And although this may be point 4.5, how about organizing a mass refusal to pay back student loans?

#5 Don’t talk about the need for a “narrative.” Outside of literary theory, that word has become synonymous with “lie.” We know what’s going on here, a no-holds-barred class war of the top 1 percent—augmented by what Tom Frank calls the snake-flag crowd—against the rest of us. That’s not a “story” or a clever new “framing.” It’s what’s happening. We either fight back or get pummeled into the dust.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
  • Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!
Barbara Ehrenreich, a journalist and author, first wrote for In These Times in 1977. Her recent books include Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, and Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War. She has been a regular contributor to The Progressive, Harper’s, Time and In These Times, where she is a contributing editor.

More information about Barbara Ehrenreich

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The True Progressive Voice

There is a split in the Democratic Party, that's for sure. The Health Care Bill has found some Democrats ready to settle for anything that will pass; others see the President's Bill as more benefits for the insurance companies.

Lots of so-called progressive talk show hosts have simply abandoned those principles to support a bad bill. They have devoted much air time to this.

IF you are a true progressive and you can help, please try and do so.

If you are merely a partisan and want to spew party-line rhetoric, please don't.

I/we don't need to hear it, and you'll just make yourself look the fool.

Doing what is correct always trumps ideology.

Thanks.


Progressive Voice:
An American Manifesto

by David Dvorkin

A cabal of right wing politicians and fundamentalist Christians has seized control of America. They have dishonored our founders and destroyed our good name. They have claimed ownership of our history and have tried to redefine what America means. They are un-American, they are anti-American, and we progressives, the true Americans, must now save America.

There will be quibbling on the left about what we should call ourselves. We worry too much about nomenclature. We waste time drawing fine distinctions between "progressive" and "liberal" and "left" and so on. At this grim time in American history, such quibbling is foolish and self-destructive. The movement will have the luxury of splintering after it has regained the ascendancy in America. Right now, we're in a war. Yes, a war. Not the so-called War on Terror, that excuse for the grasp for empire and the destruction of our civil liberties. The real war is a war for America's soul, a war to save America from the un-American cabal that has taken control of it. That cabal is reactionary, regressive, destroying the ideals of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers even while paying lip service to them. We, the progressives, are the true patriots, America's last hope, and we must focus on that war and not on labels.

We need to distinguish between a general, broad progressive movement and the Democratic Party. It may be that progressives will some day gain control of the Democratic Party. It may be that the Democratic Party, in continuing to try to hew to what it sees as the political center, will drift ever further to the right and will in fact become as indistinguishable from the Republican Party as some on the left have long insisted it is. For now, the aims of progressives and Democrats are sufficiently complementary that only the self-deluded progressives did not vote for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Nonetheless, the programs followed by the progressive movement and the Democratic Party are necessarily different. A political party must focus on winning elections and then on holding onto power. A movement focuses on communicating its philosophy and winning converts.

In particular, progressives today must work to change the public discourse and how America views itself. That's what the right started doing in Goldwater's era. In 1964, Goldwater called for the Republican party to become "A choice, not an echo." We laughed at him, but that was the beginning of the right-wing takeover. (We can stop to acknowledge the irony. Goldwater mellowed into a far better man than the curs who, thanks to his work, now control America.) Give the right wingers due credit: The country laughed at them, but they spoke out and stuck to their guns. They did not abandon their principles; they did not weaken or waver. It took the right wing decades, but they ended up defining what America means and stands for. We progressives must now do the same thing, but we must do it in a very few years. Because of the Internet, that's not an impossible task.

In this war, we must have the courage to speak out and to stick to our guns no matter what. We must not lose faith in the rightness of our cause. We must not change or compromise. We must be louder - yes, louder - and more forthright than ever. Right is on our side. American history is on our side. We are Americans in the grand tradition of this country, and our opponents are the enemies of that tradition. Always remember how small and weak they are, behind their facade. Like all bullies, in their hearts they fear they're wrong.

I said "enemy." That's not too strong. The right wing is the enemy of the Constitution and of the ideals on which America was founded. The enemy has learned the value of speaking loudly and in tones of command. He demands. He orders America about. He speaks in imperative voice. We will win back America by speaking in the progressive voice.

Here is what we must say, over and over, until our words penetrate the fog and change America's mind.

Class Warfare

The Republican Party has noble origins, but it abandoned its principles long ago. The party has fallen under the control of a gang of thugs whose beliefs and actions would make Lincoln weep. America and the Republican Party are now in the hands of a strange alliance of amoral corporate interests and religious crazies. The latter do have principles, but those consist of a collection of bizarre ideas utterly at odds with everything the founders of America worked for. No king but Jesus? Freedom is a gift from God? Every knee shall bow? What kind of principles are these for a free and sovereign people to espouse?

The principles of the religious fundamentalists are alien and primitive, better suited to being preached in a cathedral in Medieval Europe than in a church in modern America. Their corporate partners in rule are even more detestable. While they pay lip service to the wonders of the free market and its power to improve the lives of all Americans, they are actually bent on accumulation of wealth and power at the expense of everyone below them on the socioeconomic ladder. By means of tax cuts for the wealthy and government subordination to corporate interests, the wealth of America's population is steadily and rapidly being transferred into the pockets of a small class of greedy self-styled aristocrats.

So the enemy talks much about his principles, but he either has none or he has principles that are alien and evil. We are the ones with principles, and ours are the principles that motivated the men who founded the United States.

Class warfare is well under way in America and has been for a long time. We must not ignore that reality. Instead, we have to talk about it openly and condemn the right wing for pursuing it. Our nominally classless society has always been burdened with a group of the very rich who see themselves as inherently superior, as a natural aristocracy, lacking only the titles. They are clever enough not to award themselves titles and not to rule openly. We must be clever and brave enough to confront this reality, to talk about it, to fight against it. In this fight, most of America is our natural ally. It is our job to open their eyes to that reality.

The Media

Ah, the Fourth Estate! The fearless crusaders for truth, digging into dark corners, exposing corruption and malfeasance. Where would we be without them?

Well, we've been without them for a long time. The press is now an arm of corporate rule, each major media outlet a subsidiary of a huge, faceless business organization. The right wing has repeated the lie that the press is liberal until the public has come to believe it. In fact, the press has been a willing accomplice in convincing the American people to accept the stealing of the last two presidential elections. The press has dulled the public's sensitivity to lies from the White House and to war crimes committed by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does a memo from Republican party headquarters really circulate among America's press lords every morning, setting out the official line for the day? It might as well, judging by the results.

The situation isn't hopeless. Individual journalists may be sensible and on our side, but with very rare exceptions, they are unable to stand against the pro-Republican bias of their corporate masters. There is one factor that works in our favor: The real bias of those corporate masters isn't toward right-wing ideology but toward money. Allied to this is the spinelessness of those masters. Show them that continuing to support the right-wing-fundamentalist gang will in the long run threaten their revenue stream, and they will quickly reconsider their apparent allegiance. Convince them that proper journalistic balance will protect that revenue stream, and they will magically become more balanced. We saw hints of that as the election of 2004 approached and polls predicted a solid Kerry victory. The press only switched back to its habitual posture of licking the jackboots of the right when it became clear that the rigged voting machines were doing their job and that the Bush occupation of the White House would continue.

Write letters. When you see political bias displayed in news or entertainment, write a letter or e-mail to the appropriate media entity and advertiser(s) and say that you won't buy products that pay for such un-American bias. Use the word "boycott" freely. The right wing has been using this tactic effectively for years. Barrage them with mail. Let nothing pass. Do sweat the small stuff.

Obviously, it's important for progressives to support Web sites and other outlets that present our side. Let's go further. Imagine a free weekly or even daily newspaper, available in highly visible stands on street corners everywhere. It would carry reprinted articles from the great liberal/left newspapers of the world and new work from leftwing American reporters. If George Soros is reading this . . .

Religion

Respecting freedom of religious practice does not mean kowtowing to Christianity or giving in to the dangerous and unhistorical claim that America is a Christian country. It also doesn't mean going along with public reverence toward religion.

It is a scandal that in a nation founded in large part by freethinkers, the majority of our citizens say they would never vote for an atheist as president just because he is an atheist.

It is also a scandal that politicians feel pressured not only to declare that they are monotheists but even to inject religious rituals into every public act. Who doubts that if John Kerry had been declared the victor in the 2004 election, he would have followed shameful tradition and tacked a reference to God onto the end of the oath of office at his swearing in, or that he would have sworn that oath on a Bible? The presidential oath specified in the Constitution has no reference to God at all, but when will we have a president with the courage and understanding to use the original Constitutional oath?

The demolition of the Wall of Separation between church and state on which the hoodlums of the Bush administration are engaged was made possible because the Wall was already weakened. Every time a public official swears an official oath on a Bible or mentions God, every time an official meeting is opened with a prayer, every time a politician closes a speech with "God bless America," another brick is removed.

There can be no compromise on this issue. We cannot give an inch. We must once again publicly embrace the legacy of Jefferson and Madison and do so proudly. We must constantly remind our fellow citizens that America is not a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation, that it was not founded on Christian principles, that the Ten Commandments played no role in the formulation of our system of government, and that the Wall of Separation between church and state is one of the foundations of our freedom.

Progressives must never defer to preachers. We must deny them an elevated status and any cloak of authority. Preachers who are leftists have done much good, but even they claim authority and justification from a supernatural power, and this is fundamentally anti-democratic. In our system, all power comes from the people and is delegated by them to those in positions of authority. We the people are the masters. We acknowledge no king, no lord, whether mortal or imaginary. Those who say otherwise, no matter how good their intentions or elevated their natures, are not true democrats.

Preachers on the political right are a more dangerous matter. Like their leftwing brethren, they preach un-democratic submission to a supposed supernatural power. But what is even more sinister, they tend also to preach submission to Earthly power, to those supposedly appointed by God to rule over us. Right wing preachers are the dangerous heirs to the Medieval parish priest telling the peasants to serve the needs and obey the whims of the aristocracy and the king. Moreover, it is only on the right that one finds preachers who live high on the hog, scamming money from the gullible sick, poor, and old.

A free society cannot tolerate such leeches. It must not allow them to wear the cloak of authority and moral superiority. We must drive them out into the wasteland and reclaim our country.

Community

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is more than a description of a collection of individuals acting together to further a temporary common interest. Rather, the Preamble to the Constitution emphasizes that we are a community, a people. In this sense, the groundwork for the American Revolution was laid early in the 18th Century, when many of the colonists began to refer to themselves not as English colonists but as Americans. We cannot survive as a community unless we grant every American full community membership, full legal and social equality. The alternative is disintegration into numerous mutually hostile groups. If our enemy's divide-and-conquer tactic is allowed to succeed, then the work of generations of Americans will have been in vain.

Progressives must be steadfast in their support of gay rights, abortion rights, immigrant rights, etc. The issues here are inclusiveness and equality. We must be especially quick to challenge the right wing when they speak of "special rights." We must remind Americans that there are no special rights, just equal rights, that we are all created equal and are all entitled to the same civil liberties. We must challenge America to live up to its own ideals and to confront its prejudices and hatreds.

A community helps its members who need help. It guarantees medical care for all and minimum standards of living for even the poorest. "Every man for himself" is not a description of a modern, civilized society. Remember the rest of that saying: ". . . and Devil take the hindmost."

The wealthy man who lectures the poor to help themselves is a hypocrite. He is disguising callousness as tough-mindedness. Those at the top of the ladder may like to think they climbed there entirely under their own power, but in fact they have been sucking from the public teat all their lives. The wealth and power of the wealthiest Americans are a product of tax breaks for the rich and special privileges for corporations that have served to funnel public wealth into private accounts.

This is not a call for leveling, just for human decency. Those who achieve wealth honestly should be able to enjoy its privileges, but they must also remember that they, too, owe a debt to the society as a whole. Their success did not occur in isolation. It was made possible by our laws and institutions.

The Common Defense

Unjustified, aggressive wars are not new in America's history. Ask Mexico, Canada, Spain, and the American Indians. Invented justifications for such wars are also not new. Remember the Maine. There were always protestors, and they were always shouted down or intimidated into silence. While none of this is new, it will always be shameful. Aggressive, unjustified warfare is not a progressive value, and we must not let the scum now controlling our government enshrine it as an American one.

We must always speak out loudly against unjust wars. We must not let ourselves be cowed into supporting an evil war just because it is already under way. Otherwise, we surrender our right to protest. Should Germans have supported war and their troops once Hitler's invasions were under way because their troops were now in danger? Those who say yes are saying that even the most evil war becomes its own moral justification the instant it has started. Was a German who objected to Hitler's invasions of other countries a traitor? Isn't it clear to us today that such a German was the true patriot?

Yes, this is exactly the same as our current situation. No, citing Hitler and the Nazis is not a rhetorical surrender. We must not be cowed into pretending that the historical parallel isn't there. We must not be the good Germans - witnesses to evil, but afraid to speak out against it. If we let the current evil continue and say nothing, then we are giving Bush and the rest of the cabal our permission to continue to change America into this century's Nazi Germany.

Worship of the military and reverence for its institutions is one of the defining characteristics of a fascist state. Historically, it is not an American value. Americans used to deride an excessive love of uniforms and military rituals. Presidents, even those famous for their military careers, never wore uniforms when in office. How far the nation has fallen! Now America must endure a peacock in the White House who struts about in a padded flight suit. We are one step away from PerĂ³n, two from Hitler.

"Support the troops" is a rhetorical tool used to force people to support an evil government and its evil wars. The only meaningful way to support the troops is by ending our wars of aggression and bringing the troops back home. Support them by not sending them on dishonorable, disgraceful missions.

If we call for the troops to be brought back home, the right acts horrified and morally outraged. "Are you saying their deaths were pointless?" they ask, daring us to say yes. We must have the courage to say, "Yes! Their deaths were pointless for them and their families and pointless for the country and the cause of freedom." The only ones who gain from their deaths are our would-be ruling class, those scum of the earth masquerading as noblemen.

Cruel and Unusual

The death penalty is a shameful relic of a barbaric age. Its true face is that of George Bush giggling while signing Texas death warrants. Statistical evidence and widespread experience argue against it even on pragmatic grounds. Civilized peoples reject it. The right wing barbarians now in control of America are among the benighted few who support it. Progressives must speak out against this moral evil.

The same barbarians have played on public fears to push through mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws. The results - lives destroyed because of minor crimes or victimless crimes, shocking numbers of young black men behind bars - have been catastrophic for America. We have degraded our population and crippled our society with laws and penal institutions that shame us before the world and which do nothing to reduce the rate of real violent crime or of corporate crime. We must work to replace this unjust and destructive court and prison system with one worthy of a free and progressive society, one that protects society from genuine wrongdoers but does not destroy the innocent.

Fiscal Responsibility

The right wing has always liked to pretend that they are the fiscally responsible ones. The contrast between recent Democratic and Republican presidents shows how false this claim is. Progressives have always sought to balance fiscal responsibility and social obligations. We understand the complexity of ethical allocation of resources and the moral significance of the choices we are forced to make. Unlike the right wing, we are adults and we have a conscience. They have no sense of social responsibility, which is to say no hearts, and so their "fiscal responsibility" posturing is a sham, just a rhetorical device. They don't hesitate to bankrupt future generations because it's not their future generations being bankrupted. The children of the very rich will continue to be okay.

Counting Votes

They wrote these glorious words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And then they saddled us with the Electoral College, that abomination designed to keep the election of the president in the hands of the colonial ruling class and to maintain the disproportionate influence of the slave states. Slavery is gone and the ruling class no longer directly controls the choice of Electors, but the Electoral College still prevents the American people from electing their own president. This became clearer than ever when the Bush family used the machinery of the College to steal the White House in 2000.

All the arguments in favor of the Electoral College are so much wind. No other democracy would tolerate such an interference with its citizens' right to vote. Every vote must count equally, or we cannot call ourselves a democracy. Yet it is the essence of the Electoral College that votes for the presidency are not all equal. It is a scandal and a disgrace that the College still exists. Progressives must push for its abolition and for direct popular election of the president.

Progressives must also explore and champion other ideas that will ensure that all votes count equally, that everyone gets a chance to vote, and that all votes are counted: proportional representation; national elections spread out over a weekend or an entire week; restoration of the franchise to felons who have completed their sentences; allowing naturalized citizens to become president and vice-president; a truly independent commission to administer elections and count the votes.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. In our system, government officials are not our rulers but our employees. In our elections, we don't choose our leaders. Rather, we interview applicants for the job of running the machinery of government for us. Americans must reject any job applicant who doesn't understand this basic concept. Any politician who ascribes his authority to God or claims that freedom is a gift from God has proven himself disqualified to hold office in America. Indeed, he has proven himself unqualified to vote in America.

Growing Up and Facing Reality

America has been infantilized.

The vermin who seized power in 2000 proclaimed that the adults were now in charge. In fact, they are a gang of petulant, ill disciplined children. They have learned, however, to play on the fears of a timid country, on its desire for protection by a daddy figure, on its old preference for pretence over reality, on its reluctance to think for itself.

Like a child who doesn't want to be told that Santa Claus isn't real, America wants to believe that the second-string cheerleader posing as its president is a cowboy, a tough guy, a straight shooter. We must be insistent about the truth: George Bush is an impotent, effeminate wimp, a mentally befuddled fool, a greedy, spoiled brat, a pretend cowboy who cannot even ride a horse and lives on a former pig farm he calls his ranch, compelled to swagger and lie about his athleticism just as he lies about his intellectualism and knowledge of Spanish.

Bush and his puppet masters play upon childish pack behavior, inciting baseless resentment and hostility toward old friends such as France. In this way, they encourage obedience based on an us-against-them, circle-the-wagons mentality. They condemn the French for what is called ingratitude for our coming to their aid in two World Wars. Ah, America, how quickly you forget the sacred sword of Lafayette!

Our enemies preach disdain for the rest of the world. They will listen half-heartedly to those whom they consider allies - which means, in practice, those, like the increasingly pitiful Tony Blair, who have subordinated their own countries' best interests to the interests of the criminals who now control America. But even Blair's words are welcome only so long as they conform to our prejudices and intentions; otherwise, the advice even of our allies is ignored or openly scorned. The Founding Fathers felt otherwise: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, . . . a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our enemies like black-and-white language because it makes them seem straightforward and strong and because an infantilized populace responds to such language. They make fun of progressives for talking about shades of gray. But adult life is shades of gray. Learning that is one of the most difficult lessons children must master on the way to adulthood. We must challenge Americans to grow up. We must say to America: "The right wing wants to keep you childish and dependent. They want you to let them take control and be your stern father. They invoke bogeymen to terrify you so that you will beg them to protect you. And so you have handed over control of America to a rabble of greedy plutocrats, jingoistic madmen, and thuggish preachers. Where is your self-respect? Stand up! Think for yourselves and show some courage."

Our enemies have learned well from Joseph Goebbels: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." They lie about everything. They lie reflexively, even when it's not necessary. It seems to be ingrained in their nature. They are masters of packaging. They are a false front hiding greed and the lust for power and control. We have to point this out over and over. We have to respond to their big lie with the plain truth.

Monarchy or Democracy

Our enemies are without honor. Honorable people keep their word. In signing and ratifying a treaty, the United States pledges its word to the rest of the world. The fascist swine now controlling America have violated those pledges, such as the Geneva Convention, when the treaties are inconvenient. They have not just turned a blind eye to the violation of the treaties; they have even promulgated new doctrines under which violating the treaties is encouraged. In order to invade a small country which did nothing to us, they have lied to the American people and to the world. These men without honor have dishonored the United States and soiled our once good name in the world.

A treaty signed by the United States and ratified by Congress has the force of law. We are said to be a nation of laws, not of men. That is our true guarantee of security, both domestically and internationally. But our enemies care nothing for laws or treaties. Monarchists at heart, they feel free to govern by proclamation. They are anti-democratic and thus un-American by nature. Claiming power derived from God, they are working to undo hundreds of years of history and struggle and to subject us all to a tyranny derived from the most primitive parts of the Old Testament.

One of their most important tactics is the cult of personality, something to which Republicans have long been prone. By this means, they transform an elected office into one possessing supernatural authority, whose decrees no one dare question. They will elevate to sainthood - no, godhood - even the poorest material. Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush? Laughter, contempt, and derision should be our most important weapons here.

The Patriotic Pose

The right wing is rife with flabby wimps affecting macho poses and wild-eyed harridans pretending to be intellectuals. This is all contemptible but ultimately laughable. We must take more seriously their lie that they are patriotic and we are not.

These snakes would abandon America in an instant if it ceased giving them wealth, fame, and power. Those three things are the real focus of their loyalty, and they will follow them anywhere.

Their political allies, the fundamentalist crazies, are no different. Obsessed by the need to regulate the lives of everyone else, they go where they see a chance to rule. They are the heirs to the Puritans, who left England for the New World, seeking not religious freedom, but religious control. When these deranged creatures proclaim that the only commonwealth they acknowledge is one ruled by an imaginary creature in the sky, they mean it.

Thus their insistence on their loyalty and our supposed disloyalty is perhaps the filthiest lie of this filthy cabal. These are the slimy chickenhawks who attacked the wartime valor of John Kerry and Max Cleland. They tell any lies that will serve their cause, and they tell them over and over. The press repeats the lies uncritically, and eventually the lies assume the respectable appearance of well known and unquestioned truth. Ignoring the lies was Dukakis's fatal error during the election against the sleazy elder Bush, and it was Kerry's fatal error during the campaign against the execrable younger Bush. The only defense against these lies - against all of their lies - is an instant, loud response with the truth. The progressive left must never be silent and must never let an insult pass unchallenged, no matter how minor it may seem. When it comes to these major, outrageous lies and insults, we must roar the truth and counterattack ferociously. If they try to sully us, we must destroy them.

Reclaiming America

We are the true Americans, and we must reclaim America.

Our enemies are not American. They are alien to our history and our traditions. They are un-American and anti-democratic. They are a gang of insurgents who have captured the media and the machinery of government, Fifth Columnists working on behalf of the forces of aristocracy and reactionary fundamentalism. They have worked to conquer America so that they can undo not only the New Deal, but the American Revolution as well. They are reactionaries, remnants of the 16th Century and intent on remaking America in the image of those times. They have already made dangerous progress in that direction.

The enemy is a minority. Self-identified conservatives constitute only one-third of the population, and even that number includes those who are conservatives in an older sense, people who have little in common with the foaming-at-the-mouth wackos who infest the halls of government and spew their poison over rightwing talk radio and Fox television.

They are hypocrites, epitomized by Rush Limbaugh, a secret drug addict who called for tough treatment and no mercy for drug addicts, and Bill Bennett, preacher and writer about traditional virtues, who is a glutton and addicted to gambling and nicotine. And yet we have let these pigs own the language. This must end. We must take back words like virtue, family, and patriotism.

The irony is that their monarchical impulse has seduced them into imperial overreach. In destroying small countries, America is destroying itself. Empires decline and fall, and ours would have followed that inevitable path even if Bush had not been inserted into the White House. However, we would probably have remained the greatest of the great powers until the middle of the century. Thanks to Bush's destructive maladministration, we'll be lucky if we remain first among equals into the century's second decade.

We must say all of this loudly and often, but this means we must have the courage, the backbone, to keep speaking out despite the inevitable orchestrated sneers and slurs of the captive press. Our courage will come from remembering that we are the real Americans, the true heirs to the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers.

Always remember: They are the aliens, the outsiders, the corrupters, the betrayers of our history and ideals. We are the true Americans.