I pray to God that the ultra lefties would get a clue

The recurring thread in here complainging about the dire consequences of Kerry ignoring the liberal base is just getting old.


You think they are going to stay at home after what they did to Gore in 2000? No Sir..I agree He can't ignore them...but to suggest that the liberal base is going to leave if Kerry does not genuflect at the shrine to Kucinich and Kennedy is just idiotic.

If the Liberal base was so god awful powerful. DK would be leading the delegate count by now. He has gotten what 2% of the vote?

The only thing that is important is getting Bush out of office.

Liberals running to Nader will have no one to blame but themselves if they abandon the nominee because there guy did not win or did not run.

Grow Up. swallow your idealism and help beat Bush.

Irv is not necessarily the best possibility, but it is better than what we have now.

I knew from long ago that vanilla IRV promotes tactical voting and can produce unintended results, but I still thought it was the best game in town. Reading up on C w/SSD/RP I find that it allegedly solves a lot of the fairness and unintended-consequence problems that plague vanilla irp. Here's an explanation:

http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=9910&group_id=48126

but one that can be done in rural areas still using paper and pencil.

Just plain old IRV has the ballot counters up in arms here in Maine, because they can't stand the thought of recounts. But you know, we have to drop this microwave cooking mentality of "I want waht I want when I want it." The speed of the system is important, but should it be more impoartant the the integrity of said system?

So the odds of getting "fancier" ballots of any kind statewide would be unlikely. So we might want to focus on those cities with voting machines. Get them verifiable, then give them a top-notch algorithm that allows for the most fairness in voting.

But there's no overwhelming reason why it has to be human-scorable, is there? Or isn't that what you meant?

so counting ballots is still done by hand. And it's those ladies (you know who they are, the ones who look like retired librarians, complete with reading glasses sliding down their noses) who are up in arms against making the system so that it is more work for them.

As if it is some billiant piece of political/philosphical insight that is going to shake the foundations of American democracy. All I see is someone enamored with an analogy and carrying it way too far. Deltas and Rhos and painting toenails. Sorry, but the analogy broke down about the time the mob rushed in with nail polish thinner.

The solution that makes the most sense to me, given the historical context in which we find ourselves, is for the extremists on the left to try to move the party at least a little bit in the leftward direction. You say it can't be done? Look at how the far right has moved the Repukelican Party.

Bake

or contribute ideas on what their party should do?

I guess that applies to the government at large then. Tell moveon to wrap it up. No point in contacting Senators and Reps with all those pesky little issues.

Heck, let's cancel the elections while we're at it. After wll, they are a form of voicing one's opinions.

(Mind you, I am not saying we should vote for Nader, just that I think people have a right to voice their opinions.)

Focus their energies on the platform and getting Democrats or Greens or Indies even to replace Congressional Republicans.

What they should not be doing is whining about running a candidate that is arguably the most progresive Democrat that we've put in the GE since McGovern.

On the one hand saying that Kerry should not forget the left...but on the other whining about his politics and threatening to sit out..

This is the Democratic Underground...If you are not for the the Party's nominee.....Why are you on the site?

I sweare some of the ultra lefties are as egomaniacal as Nader himself.

There have been some insightful comments posted, but all the responses are just dismissive... and worse. Doesn't reflect too well on your candidate.

If this is the way you go about recruiting new people to your cause, then I question just how successful you will be. The very first rule of campaigning is to actually *LISTEN* to constituents.

Yes, once again.... the "right" tells the "left" to just keep quiet.

Remind you of anything?

Maybe *someday* you'll realize that those of us you dismiss as "ultra lefties", (with the hint that we're nothing but a bunch of troublemakers) have the deepest needs of this country at heart, and the citizens who are the ones most left out.

To use your words..."I pray" that someday you'll see that, and be glad for the work we have been doing.

Peace......

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

It is the ainine view that the nominee---not my candidate-- must kowtow to the agenda of a group of idealogugues who could not muster 2% of the primary vote. ANd failing that, those who do not see him bending over enough frontwards, are going to vote third party or sit out.

John Kerry is not the enemy...the DLC nor the DNC is not the Enemy. If those who do not like the outcome of the results thus far choose to opt out...It is they who imperil our democracy.

you should word this better...a lot of us ULTRA LEFTIES will work and donate to Kerry...

There needs to be more of a distinction between a small, semi-organized group of WSWP vultures and the true "ultra left," which believes that progress is marked by numerous small victories, and not in divisive complaining about everyone but their own narrow group.

The democratic party is being idealistic when they believe that they should face no competition, even when they are not supporting the interests of the people.

The DNC have tried to use fear tactics to force their constiuency to chose a candidate who lacks principles, who is pro-Nafta, pro-WTO, voted for the Patriot Act and IWR and leads the life of a multimillionaire. The DNC front-loaded the election, pushed a candidate who wasn't "controversial", made the party ABB dittoheads, and allowing unfair media practices, instead of giving people a choice. They used techniques that were authoritarian and language that was facist. And then, the party expects no resentment? It expects people to support that Party that does not support them? It expects people to find them a better alternative to Bush?

This sort of poltics of fear is a dead end. It offers nothing, and it can raise no momentum. If the Party wants to abandon the left, the left have every right to find new representation. That's how politics works.

I hate my party. If you run a centrist the lefties whine and give Nader 6%. IF a leftist runs you get: Paul Tsongas, I'll get rid of the tax-cuts Walter Mondale, 110% pure liberal I failed to win a single state Walter Mondale, and of course the charismatic equivalent to Al Gore: I ran for president twice and lost Adlai Stevenson.

"even when they are not supporting the interests of the people."

What part of winning 27/30 Democratic primaries with better than 50-60% of the vote in a field that had 9 candidates to start, don't you understand? There was plenty of choices for the people to consider. They chose Kerry.

But keep pushing the tired elitist meme that the DNC and corporate media scared sheeple Democrats into choosing Kerry. You couldn't be more wrong, but don't let that stop you from kneecapping our candidate to beat Bush in November.

out, so they *really* won't have any competition. The dem message right now is so uninspiring, and the messenger is just as bad. The DNC types in this party have no clue of the two basic fundamentals of success in business and politics, i.e., product + marketing. First, you should have a good product, then you have to get out there and sell it effectively. The dem strategy right now appears to be to offer a crappy product, and market it with threats and scare tactics. And then they have the nerve to blame dem losses on Nader and "ultra-lefties!"

and tell us why they need to "get a clue". Can people no longer vote their conscience? Why worry about them anyway. Kerry is electable, the most electable Democrat ever if you listen to the echo chamber at DU, so why worry?

The last time I was called an "Ultra, ultra-liberal", it was
when I was running for School Board and the people calling me
that were clearly not Democrats.

Atlant

They're over-represented here by a factor of about 10 or 20. Out in the real world, Democrats support the Democratic Kerry.

every issue doesn't matter well if we don't try winning without us. remember Gore "lost" by only a few hundred votes if you don't want those who don't follow the DLC line then this party won't win any election. Remember this the democrats have lost every election the DLC has been in charge of. The reason is not that we aren't expanding the base it's because we can't hold the base without standing for something. As of now the DLC and it's followers are running with great slogan "we aren't Bush" if that's all you have to offer you will die on the vine.

and we'll leave you behind.

Bashing the Left is hardly how to keep them from leaving the Party.

The Establishment within the Democratic Party has only itself to blame for the continued loss of some of its finest activists who feel betrayed over and over again...and worse, not even welcome.

The Party should co-opt their issues, rather then tell them to "grow up".

Here's the latest national poll and why it is something worth pondering:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_president

isn't that what the candidate is to run on?

if the ink is dry ... there should be a copy available ... why else seek Delegates to the "Convention" if it's a done deal (but, of course, that is the goal ... get to the Convention to help bring ideas to the table) ...

... personally, I hope common sense prevails, and that it is reflected in a platform which sets forth a partnership with other Nations; which addresses reform of corporate america, plus worker rights; which establishes the progress we need to make to our infrastructure ... our society's floorboards ... in order for us to be 21st century sustainable; and, hopefully beyond (and, if there are Americans who don't understand what is at stake; they should know come election day) ...


Excerpt from the Democratic Platform of 1936

The Issue

The issue in this election is plain. The American people are called upon to choose between a Republican administration that has and would again regiment them in the service of privileged groups and a Democratic administration dedicated to the establishment of equal economic opportunity for all our people.

We have faith in the destiny of our nation. We are sufficiently endowed with natural resources and with productive capacity to provide for all a quality of life that meets the standards of real Americanism.

Dedicated to a government of liberal American principles, we are determined to oppose equally, the despotism of Communism and the menace of concealed Fascism.

We hold this final truth to be self-evident—that the interests, the security and the happiness of the people of the United States of America can be perpetuated only under democratic government as conceived by the founders of our nation.



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/doc_platforms.php?platindex=D1936

some things never change.

like only 2%. Yes, I think that they should go behind Kerry-the most liberal of the Democratic candidates since God-knows-when. But...if they can't get past their whining, and instead, voice that they want Nader or something, then who needs them? Why waste the time?

to be a right winger join the repugs.

we're trying to reach out to them, but they refuse. That's where I ask "why waste the time?"

Lots of lefties on this board appear to be ready to back the dem candidate in order to flush $hrub out of the WH.

I think you might feel positive about that.

I would think that they "might feel positive about that", too.

that Texan hiney back to Crawford.

He just better not steal the election again. Mark my words, he cannot pull it off twice.

that the Democratic Party has made any attempt whatsoever to substantiate that "we're trying to reach out to them". The last three years prove otherwise.

You ask, "why waste the time"? Because the 6% will soon be 7%.

Look at the last mayoral election in San Francisco.

This is a huge problem for the Democratic Party. Putting one's head in the sand or disparaging these great activists will only make the problem worse.

The solution is "to reach out", but not in words, but deeds.

The name-calling here at the DU directed at supporters of Kucinich, Dean, Greens and Socialists who are ACTUALLY here and engaged at an predominately Democratic Website should show you clearly who it is that is...reaching out.

And for the record, for the most part, the typical Green and and American Socialist that I know and meet are far more versed in the issues of the day and the facts that surround them than are the average Democrat. Disdain them at our collective peril. We need them.

(But don't say we didn't warn you.)

Atlant

arrogance and dismissiveness. It's so childish and on the whole, rather sad.

Let's kick people out of the party whilst the support for our candidate is still, oh so soft. Yeah, right. Bye lefties. :eyes:

so why do people go crazy when Kerry utters a moderate stance? Follow his voting record, not his words. You guys are trying to make him blow his cover. It's like the typical scene in a movie where two guys are undercover, and the first guy (analogous to Kerry) states his made-up identity and the other guy, who's an idiot, get confused and says "what, that's not your name" and ruins it for both of them.

Let him say what he needs to in order to get elected. It's what he does after being elected that counts. The task of beating Bush is tough enough without us nagging him, let him do that.

and make sure he "wink-winks" as a signal that of course we all know that he couldn't get elected on the issues he believes in. Then, once he gets in, work on passing those issues incrementally. It's perfect, we just need to help him out by standing by him no matter what. And we also need to prepare ourselves to switch quickly on any individual item so we don't unnecessarily slow him down.

And I've supported Kerry since day one. Quit the broad brushing, man.

Far lefty I am too.

I mean if I could support Howard Dean (HARDLY a leftie) earlier I sure as hell can be supporting Kerry now with no major qualms.

Well I got a question. Who did ya vote for in your state primary?
:hi:

its been awhile..he's the nominee isn't he? Did you think I was going to support Bush or a third party candidate? I voted for Dean in the primary , I knew Kerry had it in the bag here in CT. I am getting the Kerry bumperstickers and the Kerry knit beanie soon. Does all of this shock you?

Of course not Jonny. Hey youre a near commie, you could have supported a third party candiate. Sorry. Hes the nominee IMO but in name yes.

I think it is the ultra righties. I look at it kind of like a circle - if you go too very far left - you end up being right. It's kind of like the old theory of falling off the earth because you went too far.

These people are idealists - they cannot live in a REAL world. Maybe they haven't had to yet - maybe they've had to and it's been just too much to deal with. These people are looking for answers in all the wrong places. A lot of times - for all the wrong reasons.

but we do live in "the real world." If no one holds on to their dreams of what the world can be, we are all sunk.

I praise liberalism, that cares about and works for all people. I don't want to imagine a world without.

Or perhaps you have a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychiatry? BS in Psychology?

How insulting. How arrogant. And how foolish, considering where the 'far left idealists' on this board would register on the political spectrum of a country that... say... has universal health care.

But hey, even if it's DU, this is American politics, so I shouldn't be surprised.

or these single issue idiots. if the candidate OESN'T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.
HELLO???
if you don't vote for the dem. we might get the chimp and HIS PARTY WANTS TO MAKE THIS A THEOCRACY. so no gay marriages OR ANY RIGHTS.

WAKE UP!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

more snarky posts like this will win them over, Perky. This has to be at least the 12th today. Surely all the browbeating will hasten the transformation.

and you wait until you see what we look like in a few years. We will put old fading Steroid Auhhhhnold to shame!

That's what we are doing. You must deal with it. Because we are Democrats and we are part of the Party, even if we are the "New Left Liberal Democrats."

Idealism swallowed.

illegal wars of aggression.

My, how the world has changed.

that alienating, attacking and ignoring the base while running to the right is no way to win votes and elections.

Get some ideals, some real thoughts and some strength of convictions. First goal is indeed beating Bush, but being an asshole gets you nowhere towards achieving that goal

they want to opt out or vote green.

The victory they seek is purel pyrric. They are seeming more interest in liberalism then they are in keeping the country out of the hands of the theocrats.
Everyone is entitles to support whoever they wish...but when your guy can't win and you continue to decry our savage president... but refuse to do the one thing that helps defeat him....you are whining.

If you really believe that * is evil then you opting out is nothing short of treasonous.
My guy did not win eiother. I will nonetheless give my full throated support to the Party's nomine because it is more important that we drive the idiotback to Crawford than it is to not vote for the only person capable of seeing that through.


A vote for Green is a vote for Bush.

Firstly, Green's aren't running anyone, Nader is running as an independent. Secondly, There is a reason that those people feel the need to vote that way, instead of attacking them perhaps it would benefit you, me, them and the whole world to find out what that is and fix it.

and Nader probably won't even make it on the ballot in a lot of places, why all the hysterical ranting?

from both the right and the center-left

That's understandable. They are trying to establish their scapegoats now, so that if Kerry loses to Bush, they will seem prophetic or at least won't have to look far to find the boogey- men/women. We need to stop all of this bitching about why leftists won't lobotomize themselves and start talking about how to beat Bush - that's what the "ultra-leftists" are talking about. Not bashing Kerry - but how not to let Bush win. You see there is a split in opinion about how to beat Bush; the centrists and the right think you beat Bush by being a better Bush; the left and ultra-left (whatever that is) think you beat Bush by being something completely different. Everyone wants to beat Bush - we just think the way to do it is different from the way the center/right does.
They may blame us if Kerry loses in the fall, but we will blame them - so what will that accomplish?

And they can more than compensate for the vocal minority that is the ultra lefties

Being a leftist requires a serious examination of political theory, much thoughtful review of history, and - in our society - an unusual capacity for enduring taunts & malicious ridicule. It's not easy to be a leftist - it's asking to always be in a tiny minority, & to have your beliefs disparaged by people who don't understand the first thing about them.

By contrast, to be a Democrat, the main requirements are being born, and watching TV. Most Democrats, like most Americans generally, have scarcely had a serious political thought in their entire lives. They look at politics much as they look at football - basically as a matter of rooting for your team, & trying to kick the other guy's ass.

Which of these two groups is more likely to understand the historical significance of the ascension of someone like Bush to world power?

Leftists know about historical forces, & the processes of social change. Democrats, by contrast, mainly know about selling out, making feeble excuses, and going down to their knees in front of Republicans.

The leftist wants serious examination of fundamental questions of militarism, imperialism, the distribution of wealth, & the structure of society. The Democrat wants all such questions pushed under the rug, hysterically bleating that addressing those questions would mean we can't beat Bush. There is no principle - even against waging unjust wars based on pure lies - that the Democrat is not happy to abandon, in his desperate lunge for a share of power.

If I were a Democrat, I would be asking nicely & respectfully for the help & friendship of those wiser than me, in matters of political consciousness.

So smart that they have not won an election sunce ummm well er ummmm.....never.


Nothing like the arrogance of the unellectable.

it aint about the guy its about the policies and yes we have won battles in the ongoing war of social injustice

"If I were a Democrat, I would be asking nicely & respectfully for the help & friendship of those wiser than me, in matters of political consciousness."

not selling out.

PS the Leftists have been our (democratic party) greatest leaders.
PPS What have the centrists won us? Loses in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000 AND 2002.

terms.

will surely win us over. You are a real persuasive charmer.

... suddenly I feel that a war of aggression could be a good thing if done the right way.

No, I'm not quite there yet. Maybe some more personal attacks will do it.

The various studies you impute, not always inaccurately, to the more committed leftists, have so far failed to disclose to them how to win at electoral politics. This is the real crux of the matter. Strategic thought is useless if the thinker has no tactical method to solve the problem of breaking the enemy position: the trench-war stalemate of the Great War is an excellent illustration of such a failing, for all the offensives were strategically sound and informed, but there was no real thought given to how the lines might be broken in a manner that could be exploited, and the result was calamatous and predictable failure. The general remedy urged was more fighting spirit, more commitment to the offensive, rather than new tactics or mechanical innovations. These calls for moral armament proved of use only to the enemy.

In attempting to influence the Democratic Party, the leftists of whom you speak show great similarities to these old generals. They urge only a repetition of the headlong charge, and reject anyone who will not go over the top with them. But the headlong charge has only failed, and will only continue to fail. The great mass of the people view the left as being composed of people who do not much like their country, who feel its people are deluded fools, and who take for their principal method of operation the moral lecture. All of these things are roundly despised by the people, and they therefore reject the very idea of associating themselves with the left. It does not matter that, on an issue by issue basis, a great many people would support the same policies the left would provide: they do not like leftists, because they are convinced leftists do not like them, and look down on them, and that leftists do not love the country.

Therefore, the left has only a very limited potential, as it presently expresses itself, in electoral politics. It cannot move great numbers of people in its direction, and sends a great number of people moving firmly in the other direction, when it raises its voice. It has only a certain negative power in own right, namely, the capability of destroying the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party, by absenting itself from a Popular Front against the worst elements of reaction in our polity, grouped under the banner of the Republican Party. These latter are the sole real beneficiaries of any exercise by the left of that limited and negative power. The further triumph of these reptiles cannot bring the slightest benefit to the left, nor to the people, and therefore it is nihilistic in the extreme for the left to undertake any such action.

"Go into the street and give the first man you meet a lecture on moral improvement, and the second a shilling, and see which will call himself your friend."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

endeavor to respond as best I can, to several of those you raise.

Re: your point that leftists have so far failed "to win at electoral politics."
- First, leftist thought ORIGINATED to provide a conceptual framework aimed at freeing the working masses from virtual bondage to society's most powerful sections. In other words, this was a case - if ever there was one - of starting out with a tremendous handicap. Though the goal of elevating the lot of the many & reducing the advantages of the powerful few may be noble, it's not a project one should expect to meet with quick & easy success. It's intrinsic to the project, that considerable & lengthy struggle shall be required.

Yet: if the thought & leadership of a Spartacus or a Nat Turner did not lead to a relatively prompt overthrow of the respective tyrannies they opposed, would one want to take the position of mocking all their efforts?

Second: there have been several left-inspired efforts that met with some degree of electoral success. Nicaragua in 1980, Chile in 1971, & Guatemala in 1954 come to mind. These societies might well have gone on to achieve significant social gains, especially by comparison to what had preceded them -- were it not for the violent &/or illegal interventions of the US government. In each of these cases, the left had taken power via peaceful election.

Re: your point that leftists seem not to "much like their own country."
- One can love the mountains, coasts, apple pie, baseball, achievement, & much of the music of America; many of its people; the finer sentiments of its founding documents, & so on - while harboring the greatest distaste for its rulers, its militarism, its consumerism, its dishonesty & profound abuse of power, & the fact that millions of its citizens lack the basic elements of a decent existence. IOW, "the country" consists of many components; one can hardly subsume all these diverse facets under one facile rubric. Credit where credit is due; criticism where it is due.

Re: that leftists take for their principal method of operation the moral lecture."
- Please recall that I wrote what I did in response to the top post of this thread - which is titled "I pray to God that the ultra lefties would get a clue" & which includes the admonition "Grow up." This sounds a bit finger-wagging & lecturing itself!

Re: leftists feel America's people "are deluded fools"
- Even our own shamefully supine media acknowledge that shocking numbers of Americans don't know basic facts of geography; don't know such features of history as, for example, the fact that the US was allied with the USSR in WWII; believe that Saddam played a role in 9-11, etc. High quality left analysis, such as Chomsky-Zinn-Herman-Parenti, argues persuasively that we live inside an omnipresent propaganda system; yet the system is such that most citizens are largely unaware of it. And note: generally speaking, many or most Americans have supported the Bush wars.

It's difficult for me to see how one can put together such observations as these, without concluding that unfortunately, many Americans are frightfully ignorant, both in terms of historical knowledge, & in terms of understanding how their own society works. I believe, moreover, that it is very much a purpose of American education and culture, to keep most people in precisely such states of ignorance, because they are easier to manage this way. // I'd venture to say that if leftists were in charge of the high school civics & history curriculum, or had control of CBS News, we wouldn't be spending any $400 billion a year on the Pentagon!

.

excellent rebuttal & explanation!!
:hughfive:

Peace & hope
DR

And worth some close engagement on the ground you have chosen, Sir.

While figures such as Spartacus and Mr. Turner may be more properly ascribed to the pre-history of the left, you have touched on one important matter that does lie at the heart of much of the heated discussion here. What might be properly called leftism originated in the early nineteenth century, and as a revolutionary, not an electoral, movement. The most profound split in leftism that occured in the mid and late nineteenth century was that between those who, in countries where there was a genuine electoral process, differed over whether or not elections ought to take the place of armed revolution as the means by which the working class could exert the power of its numbers to take over the engine of the state. Those who held to the revolutionary doctrine denounced those who pursued the electoral path as collaborators, and frequently urged workers to boycott elections, in part to prevent the election of "collaborationist" figures. Those who did achieve office frequently found the exercise of power a sobering experience, and became enemies of the revolutionists, on the the grounds that these were a danger to improvement of the lot of the workers, by diluting their potential electoral power, and by acting in ways that provoked reprisal, and hardened resistance to reforms.

It seems to me that we can see here, in a somewhat diluted form, this same old quarrel. It is somewhat vitiated, of course, by the fact that there is no reasonable prospect of revolution here today, which even the most romantic among us must understand, and so there is no real alternative to the electoral process if any progress is to be made at all. The question is how this process is to be used to achieve progress; whether the priority is to be the defeat of the worst elements of reaction, regardless of whether this results in any immediate achievement of radical goals, or whether the priority is to be the immediate establishment of a radical party, however small its numbers, and whatever the immediate consequences of the attempt might be by way of increased success for the most reactionary elements of our polity. My view is the former course is the best, because the harm done by the worst elements of reaction is clear, and their defeat is possible with unity in a Popular Front, while the latter course cannot bring any immediate benefit, and might easily never bring any benefit, due to the continued grip on power by the worst elements of reaction that pursuing it likely to assist.

It was not my point, Sir, that leftists do not like their country, but that they are perceived as not liking their country by the great mass of the people who leftists must contrive to reach if they are to have electoral success. Whether that sentiment is well founded or ill founded is beside the point: it exists, and must be dealt with. It is all very well to denounce consumerism, and leaders, for example, but most people eagerly consume, and desire to consume more, and most people identify with the rulers as the embodiment of the country, and consider criticisms of them, at least criticisms which differ from those they make themselves, as criticisms of the country itself. There is no easy answer for this, as many of the criticisms made by the left are quite accurate, and ought to be sustained, but the problem of communication must be faced, and solved, if there is to be any progress had for the left and progressive agenda.

The ignorance of the people is certainly a factor, but it proceeds not so much from propagandas as from simple disinterest. A person who follows sports teams assiduously would find my ignorance of the prospects of the home team next year a little disquieting, but the thing simply does not interest me, and that person's ignorance of Oriental history or Spanish Anarchism proceeds from a similar source: he does not find these things interesting and engaging to his mind. His tastes are different from mine, and for that there is no real cure. People pay attention to what they have to deal with to get through their days, and this includes keeping themselves amused. Those who do not find politics amusing accordingly do not pay much heed to it. When political matters reach a pitch that forces them on the notice of all as a part of what they need to pay heed to to get through their days, you are generally in a situation featuring corpses in the streets, and matters will have passed far beyond elections.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Let me immediately focus on the 2nd of your 4 eminently sensible paragraphs, as I see but meager scope for dissent in the others. Your limning of the "communication problem" in para #3, & of the late 19th century split between orthodox & revisionist leftism in #1, hew closely to my own conceptions of these matters.

I raise a modest objection, however, to your framing of the crucial question before us. You have posed it as a choice between primarily prioritizing defeat of the worst elements of reaction, vs the immediate establishment of a radical party. This is indeed one way to divide the pie of possibilities. However, just as in slicing a pie, one may obtain somewhat different results simply by rotating the angle of incision by a few degrees.

We can agree that defeating the reactionaries is the top priority. We can agree that there's not sufficient time for establishment of a radical party, before next November's fateful decision of our future course. What we may not agree on, is the optimal stance for the existing "opposition party" to adopt, in the short time remaining to us before that rendez-vous with fate.

To "rotate the angle of pie-incision by a few degrees" would mean for the Democratic team to campaign sounding more like Dennis Kucinich and less like party "moderates." This is not revolution, nor is it the establishment of a radical party. Speaking the truth about the war in Iraq; about the dangers of US militarism & imperialism; & focusing attention on the distribution of wealth, & on the practical significance of obscene Pentagon spending to the quality of American life -- such truth-telling may prove tonic to efforts at establishing a Popular Front.

The lack of such truth-telling, by contrast, may serve to confirm to the 50% of non-voting eligible voters that their lack of participation in the process is eminently justified, & will reduce the enthusiasm of the highly-motivated progressive faction of the populace, such as yours truly, who will not lift a finger to promote a duplicitous war-enabler like Mr. Kerry, even if we grudgingly consent to vote for him in states where the battle seems close.

You generously conceded in your para #3 that "many of the criticisms made by the left are quite accurate, and ought to be sustained, but the problem of communication must be faced..." The season upon us is one where this problem of communication can be constructively faced, precisely by the Democratic Party choosing to articulate more of the left's accurate criticisms. Many of these important truths have been admirably & courageously expressed by Mr. Kucinich, who, however, is no revolutionist. A complete rejection of his analysis & program by the power centers of the Democratic Party must, I fear, be interpreted as a contemptuous lack of interest in the formation of a Popular Front.

or is it the People's Front of Judea?

I'm still waiting for the leftist ideologues who are convinced that they are the vanguard of the revolution to look over their shoulders and notice that no one is following them.

If I want purity I'll join the People's Temple. At least they have tasty kool aid.

As Magistrate is pointing out: what's the real road map towards the Utopian paradise that the leftists preach about?

How the flying fuck is it going to be done by them? I have yet to hear a cogent, articulate plan based upon an objective assessment of the known societal, cultural, and economic facts that drive American politics.

Stating goals is easy, anyone can do it. Climbing that mountain takes more than sanctimonious bleatings from the fringe.

Yet I hear them pointing out how bad the world is and how bad people are not to believe in their causes for a Utopian world. I do not ever hear from them about how things are actually going to be accomplished.

so, here is my plan:

Elected governments do not usually address issues of grave concern to people immediately. There is, as in any system, a level of inertia that must be overcome before action is forthcoming from government, and it is only when individuals man such a system that are sympathetic to a cause that action occurs.

I see no reason why progressives (especially members of the Green Party) cannot do with the Democratic Party what the right wing and religious right have done with the GOP. It will take a concerted effort, over many years time to run progressives for local political offices and such candidates will necessarily be those who are active communitarians beforehand and are known locally in the community as volunteers and “good people” who serve the community.

Such backgrounds for individuals running on progressive ideals helps insulate them from accusations of “socialist” or “commie bastard.” And it is only these people who can get elected and affect change.

Until those with progressive credentials work and volunteer locally to improve their communities then their opponents will always accuse them of being outsiders and troublemakers when they get on their soap boxes.

It is wise to consider the enemy’s tactics if they are successful, and we progressives might want to re-read Sinclair Lewis’ “Babbit” to see that active participation in community social organizations like the Rotary Club, the Shriners, the local Chamber of Commerce, and others leads to local power. I recognize that most progressives are by nature independent and usually are not “joiners,” but I believe that such a methodical positioning of progressives in these places of public influence is the most rational and effective long term way to move our agendas to the forefront of public discussion.

Mao’s march was a Long March to victory, it was not a walk around the block.

I recall vividly the answer Barry Goldwater gave to a question in 1984 when asked if the Reagan landslide that November proved the power of conservatives. He replied that one often finds the seed of their victory in a prior defeat, and conversely the one can find the seeds of their future defeat in the blossom of a current victory.

The far right and religious right have taught us how to obtain profound influence over public policy. We must not dismiss this lesson. We must, as Goldwater mentioned, use the example of the success of the Right in these situations as the seeds for their own defeat by following their course of infiltration of local poltical structures for our own progressive ends.

That means using effectively the available tools of the political process, girding our loins, and recognizing that we are in for a long, twilight struggle where our ultimate victory may not occur in our own lifetimes.....now where have I heard that before?

"I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land."
MLK

:thumbsup:

he's on the phone with Mel right now.

Bush 46
Kerry 45
Nader 6

Nader gets 6%? What are people fucking crazy? If we lose another election because of that thick skulled jackass... grrrr... I guess he is a hypocrite because he can't honestly believe in what he says he stands for if he is purposely enabling Bush to get re-elected.

Rp

calm down
remeber its still March...the beginning of March, 8 months
One Percent difference isn't big
Nader will not get on enough ballots to get 6%
Last time he got 2.7% and that was with a lot of press and an ambivalent public.
They may flirt with Nader, but they will come home, especially as Bush starts to remind about his "Record" and he and Kerry go one-on-one.

I know the Poll is a tad unfair because it doesn't account for where he will or won't be on the ballots but it just ticks me off that he must care so little about his issues that he would endanger everybody that ever supported his causes by interjecting his stubborn ass into this election.

At what point does he realize that he is irrelevant to the national platform and his message is pointless if his only role in the election is to fuck over his own people?

At some point lefties that support Nader have to stop considering him some form of political martyr and start considering him as a traitor whose own arrogance helped him to enable the greatest enemy to his causes and to damage the lives of the people that have supported him for decades.

Rp

and in the meantime oh well. Let him run and democracy runs his course to completion.

If he doesn't resonate he will fall flat on his face. If he begins to resonate, its a problem and a good bellweather for Kerry to stay slightly toward the left.

Look, we are possibly in the minority(though in some areas that's debatable), however we're a large minority. You want our vote, you're going to have to offer up something besides fearmongering and bully boy tactics. Take the current 6% rating Nader is getting as a shot across the bow. If you don't want lots of progressives going Green, Nader or staying home, give us something to vote for instead of simply voting against Bush.

If the Dems would co-opt two or three planks from the Green party platform, got serious about them, made them their own, I would guarantee that the Nader and other liberal third party vote would be negligble. Libs are pragmatic folk too, with the bulk of them made up of former Dems. If you simply addressed a couple of their concerns in a meaningful way, they would come swarming back to the party.

Likewise with those voters who stay at home. A great many of those voters who are so poor and powerless they have come to the realization that it doesn't matter who is in office, they're still going to get screwed. Give them something to vote for, something that would improve their life in a significant way, they would come out in droves. Say something like universal health care, something the poor, downtrodden and the rest of us really need in the country. If you offered that up as a serious plank in the Dem platform, I would imagine that you could pull in twenty-twenty five percent of the non voting public. Gee, think of that, another 12 million votes nationwide. There's your election victory right there.

But don't think it will be handed to you on a silver platter. You Kerry folks and ABBers keep talking about compromise, that you can't get everything you want. Well, that's a two way street we're traveling on, and it is time for you to ante up. Your choice is clear, acknowledge the Democratic base with a couple of planks tailored to their wishes and win in the fall. Or continue with the same ol' same ol and suffer a loss, just like in '00 and '02. Fear mongering and bully boy tactics don't bother us any more. What we're looking for is some real meat on the table, not just a ham sandwich.

Your clue (and many others) came through loud and clear.
I should take my views, stick 'em where the sun don't shine,
sit down, shut up, and vote for the annointed Democratic
candidate no matter how he reviles my views (and he does,
in quote a few ways).

Nope. Did that for, oh, at least the last 2-1/2 Presidential
Elections and won't do it any more. The "lesser of two evils"
is still evil.

Atlant

Why can't you have just a teeny weeny bit of sympathy with those who can't take any more marginalization and browbeating? Nader isn't going to lose you the election. But you might lose a lot of potential supporters and friends with this kind of shit.

Not voting for Kerry is wrong, but its completely understandable -some people just can't take this shit any more. Except I forgot, big boys don't cry, right?

V

Vladamir - and they start about 20 of them a day. I know I'm really caving in to the relentless browbeating and insults.

NOT.

It is so refreshing to run across a thoughtful poster who wants to do something besides harangue. Sadly, hectoring drowns them out by at least a 20-1 margin.

equate being an "ultra lefty", as you did in your first two lines?

I hate to break the news to you, honey, but being a liberal is no sin. And liberals who advocate for civil/women's rights, the environment, peace, and the working class ARE the main members of the Democratic base.

If you think anything else, you have no idea what the political term "base" means.

Hmmm, sound like a Rush/Hannity term of endearment...

and telling potential Democratic voters to Grow Up realy helps a lot.

Thanks...

p.s. I'm not an "ultra-lefty..."

as an "ultra-lefty" who is working hard for the Democratic Party and the presumptive nominee to beat Bush you can suck my ass. Every "ultra-lefty" I know is doing the same.

I had to put up with Chimp-boy for 2 terms as my governor before he became pretzeldent and I've been working against him and members of his family my entire political life.

I don't need your lecture honey. And you might want to consider not painting with such a wide brush.

that the mushy middle stops condescending and brow beating.

While Kucinich is one of the most liberal members of Congress, his voting record does not reflect that. Americans for Democratic Action have rated Kerry as being more consistantly liberal than Kucinich. Both Catholics, Kerry has displayed the one characteristic of consistancy that Kucinich has not. That is keeping his religious ideas separate from his political ones, and it is Kerry who has been threatened with excommunication from the church, as well as having been denied to recieve that church's sacrements, not Kucinich. While I have the greatest respect for Kucinich amd his platform, it is action that counts, not platforms. His past platform on right to life has yet to be tested in the highest of offices, and it is still not certain what course he will take in that area.

In the end, it is Kerry who has the political record that is most consistant with his presidential platform. And the American voter has shown that it is aware of that consistancy. No other candidate, who has held political office has a record that is as closely matched by their presidential campaign. As Governor, Dean performance was one of largely opposeing the very ideas he was putting forth in his race for the nomination. Kucincich has the same burden on his record.

Dennis is fully committed to Choice after going through a conversion of belief on the matter.

such disinformation its hard to believe

George McGovern in 1972 would be considered "anti-Choice" today because he didn't support abortion on demand.

You can point out all the ADA ratings you wish, but they still don't change the fact that Dennis Kucinich has indeed changed his position on the abortion issue, as can be documented by his voting history.

Also, DK is the only Democratic candidate who has pledged to use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for the appointment of SCOTUS justices.

And if you still need "action", look at the bills DK has introduced into congress: universal, single-payer healthcare (a Democratic platform staple since the 1960s), a cabinet-level Department of Peace, and the non-militarisation of space.

(Keep in mind too that ADA was cofounded by Hubert H. Humphrey, one of the most notorious red-baiters of the 40s and 50s. I'd hardly call that a "proud" liberal tradition.)

For the Democrats difficulties...I am a Kucinich die hard and I do not judge candidates on some kind of liberal litmus test.
yes,I am proud of the liberal label but I do not judge candidates of some such definition..As I have posted, Studs Terkel suggests we get away from liberal rhetoric..
You have been victimized by Reagan's pr guys who want to cause the American public to falsely associate liberalism with child porn advocates, defenders of mass murderers, and church bombers. We must fight such mud slinging.
I say the so called liberals is not what will mobilize the Democratic base, but they instead will get out the 52% who do not vote; who thinks no one will deliver on medical insurance reform and stemming job losses.
Now, many here say the media will soon attack Kerry's persona like they did Dean and Kucinich.
You want some one who will get out the 52% - Kucinich is the person. The 52% of Non voters are not effected by media lies and will respond to health care and jobs. That is what I think..
Kerry is not 100% convincing when he suggests he can bring us health care or end the job drain.

you wrote:
"but to suggest that the liberal base is going to leave if Kerry does not genuflect at the shrine to Kucinich and Kennedy is just idiotic."

It becomes even more absurd when you realize that Kennedy has been campaigning for Kerry; I believe that is the main reason Kerry did so well in the Iowa caucuses, which led to his quick emergence as the front-runner. Kennedy is strongly behind Kerry, and Kennedy is a persuasive guy: I wouldn't worry about Kennedy Dems abandoning Kerry.