Books About Building a Better Progressive Movement And/Or Democratic Party?

[Bpelta]

In recent years, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salaam, David Frum, and Michael Gerson have written books about how the GOP needs to change course. I was wondering what some good parallels on the left are (whether reflecting on changes the Dems need to make or progressives need to make); there's Rebuild the Dream by Van Jones...any others?

[Sam A. Robrin]

Shea and Wilson's classic Illuminatus!

[gamerunknown]

I can't think of any Democratic examples, but there's Hopes and Prospects by Chomsky. There's also this by Eric Hobsbawm, but I don't know of any book (on this specific topic) by him.

[BrainGlutton]

Try The Next American Nation by Michael Lind.

[Wesley Clark]

Markos Moulitsas has written some books on the subject.

The reality is I don't think that progressives can compete in a citizens united society with regards to money. Progressives do not have the kind of bankrolled support that conservatives are going to, because progressives run on raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy if not outright hostility to them.

A good book on progressive capital funding of political movements is called the blueprint about how various wealthy individuals with progressive tendencies (most were gay and got rich in IT) funded an alliance that brought together trial attorneys, organized labor, environmental rights, civil rights, minority groups, etc into an umbrella organization to improve productivity and prevent duplication of efforts in politics. Supposedly it helped them turn Colorado from a pretty red state to a pretty blue state. One of the founder millionaires is a congressman now, at least he was (no idea if he is still in office after 2010).

But meh. Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers will end up spending $300 million or so during this single election cycle. Tim Gill, one of the wealthier founders of the democracy alliance, has a net worth total of $400 million (so his entire net worth is about what the GOP billionaires will spend in one cycle). $400 million is nothing to sneeze at, but nowhere near the $100 billion or so that Adelson and the Koch brothers have.

Building a labor movement again would be a good idea since labor provides money and volunteers, plus it moves the overton window to the left (white working class people who aren't in unions tend to vote GOP, those who are tend to vote dem). So would expanding the voter base as much as possible via things like automatic registration, same day registration, making election day a national holiday, funding registration drives. etc. Democrats tend to do better among the disadvantaged class (poor people, the disabled, etc) who are the most sidetracked by voting roadblocks.

It is not a coincidence that the GOP has taken a course of doing the exact opposite (decimating unions and making it harder to vote). Strong unions and making it easy to vote strongly help democrats and by proxy progressives.

[adaher]

I think that's where liberals go wrong, thinking it's all about organizing people who already support you and raising money from people who already support you. That's not how conservatives became dominant since 1980. The only way to win in the long run is by persuasion and winning the independent vote. And constantly trying to change the party from within to adjust to new realities.

When Republicans lose, they figure out why and start getting rid of those responsible. Almost all of the leadership from the 2001-2008 period is gone. Frist, Hastert, Delay, outta here. Meanwhile, the Democrats have made no changes since their huge defeat in 2010 and aren't likely to change course if they lose in 2012 either.

[gamerunknown]

You know, I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to even challenge the SuperPAC money. Why not just invest directly in land and achieve autonomy by reducing the endemic form of rent? I can think of one example of a progressive movement (Union, in this case) attempting to purchase a factory which was denied by the owners, but if that could be achieved, I could see it spreading.

[foolsguinea]

Laura Flanders's Blue Grit comes to mind. She makes the point that it's year-round institutions staffed by Democrats that win elections, not just pop-up campaign outfits. The GOP have their churches, which are constantly there pushing an identity that conveniently leaves the reins of power to the elite. What do the Dems have?

[adaher]

If the media is on your side, that's worth much more than even a $1 billion ad campaign.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by adaher

If the media is on your side, that's worth much more than even a $1 billion ad campaign.

It would be. But the media is not on anyone's side. Certain elements of the media are. FOX and MSNBC take sides, although the former claims to be a news channel while the latter bills itself as opinion. And certain newspapers, like the Murdoch run New York Post and Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times are also on one side, in that case the right. The left does not have an equivalent, no matter how often The New York Times, the last paper to do real news, is falsely accused of it. There are small but influential magazines of both the right and left but no national magazine is very influential these days. Websites can be found in every flavor. The one that drives the most viewers is the right-wing Drudge Report.

I don't know if you are implying that the mainstream media is leftest, although that's the line that is heard most often. I hope not. Saying so is merely a talking point, and talking points are by definition lies.

[adaher]

No, I'm just saying that the concern over Super PACs is overrated. Fox News is worth a thousand Super PACs. And the media was very pro-Obama in 2008, they got caught up in the euphoria over him and did very little vetting of him, much less than an average candidate would have gotten, like Bill Clinton, where the media went over every story with a fine tooth comb. Obama could have been outraised by McCain 10-1, and that kid gloves media treatment would have won him the race.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by adaher

No, I'm just saying that the concern over Super PACs is overrated. Fox News is worth a thousand Super PACs. And the media was very pro-Obama in 2008, they got caught up in the euphoria over him and did very little vetting of him, much less than an average candidate would have gotten, like Bill Clinton, where the media went over every story with a fine tooth comb. Obama could have been outraised by McCain 10-1, and that kid gloves media treatment would have won him the race.

To my mind every statement in this post is wrong.

[Beware of Doug]

I offer a cynic's view - probably not totally accurate, but influenced by my gloss on the facts:

The left coalition should probably embrace the idea of elites. What!?, you say. No, not money elites or intellectual elites, at least not the upper-upper of either group. I'm talking about the x percent of society today that is far enough above average in education, social conscience, political awareness, cosmopolitan ethos, and intellectual abilities to really be able to have a meaningful and constructive conversation about the nation: what's good, what's bad, what needs help now, what we ought to wait on. People who are tuned in to something besides partisanship, fearmongering, trend-following, gamesmanship and aggrandizement.

Cynically speaking, that information elite would probably include
• a chunk of the commentariat (people like Flanders, Moulitsas, Joan Walsh, et al.);
• a slice of academe (poli sci, soc, econ, environment sciences, cultural studies);
• a disproportionate % of certain social outgroups (gays, Jews) as well as certain ingroups (coastal urbanites, the graduate-level educated).

People like this just seem to be the broadest, most fertile seedbed for the kind of discourse I'm talking about. Everything else is probably up for grabs. People in international industries or nonprofits, small business/local food/energy advocates, just everyday fed-up good citizens and veterans and teachers and such, all could play their roles.

The difference here is that like the conservative movements, everybody knows who's in charge - in a looser way, of course; more like what kind of people are in charge. People who are good at discourse will be good at airing problems, gaining input, and proposing action. It won't be the cacophony of idealistic mee-meeing that left coalitions often turn out to be, because people will recognize the value of my information elite once it starts to get things happening.

[adaher]

that model already exists in the blogosphere. The lefty blogosphere is dominated by a few bloggers, while the righty blogosphere is more diverse and has no clear leaders like Moulitsas.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by adaher

that model already exists in the blogosphere. The lefty blogosphere is dominated by a few bloggers, while the righty blogosphere is more diverse and has no clear leaders like Moulitsas.

Can you back this claim up?

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by adaher

that model already exists in the blogosphere.

An effective information elite could (and ought to) extend well beyond the blogosphere.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by adaher

No, I'm just saying that the concern over Super PACs is overrated. Fox News is worth a thousand Super PACs. And the media was very pro-Obama in 2008, they got caught up in the euphoria over him and did very little vetting of him, much less than an average candidate would have gotten, like Bill Clinton, where the media went over every story with a fine tooth comb. Obama could have been outraised by McCain 10-1, and that kid gloves media treatment would have won him the race.

EVERYBODY who was not a die-hard Republican in 2008 was in favor Obama. Dubya was HATED, DETESTED, and so any Republican candidate was doomed. Sad thing is, Obama is just a Reagan Republican. I go with Chris Hedges, the parties don't make a damn bit of difference at this point, it's getting to the point where street demonstrations and similar efforts, up to an including violent revolution, are the only answer. I hope he's wrong about that. I am afraid he is not.

Those who exploit do so through layers of deceit. They hire charming and eloquent interlocutors. How many more times do you want to be lied to by Barack Obama? What is this penchant for self-delusion that makes us unable to see that we are being sold into bondage? Why do we trust those who do not deserve our trust? Why are we repeatedly seduced? The promised closure of Guantanamo. The public option in health care. Reforming the Patriot Act. Environmental protection. Restoring habeas corpus. Regulating Wall Street. Ending the wars. Jobs. Defending labor rights. I could go on.

From here.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by adaher

No, I'm just saying that the concern over Super PACs is overrated. Fox News is worth a thousand Super PACs. And the media was very pro-Obama in 2008, they got caught up in the euphoria over him and did very little vetting of him, much less than an average candidate would have gotten, like Bill Clinton, where the media went over every story with a fine tooth comb. Obama could have been outraised by McCain 10-1, and that kid gloves media treatment would have won him the race.

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

To my mind every statement in this post is wrong.

I was going to quibble that the part about Fox News is mere hyperbole, but I think that even that's wrong. No one watches Fox News who doesn't already agree with their stance, whereas there are plenty of non-political TV viewers who can see Super PAC ads on sports shows or drama shows. It coudl influence them, people who may not already have made up their mind, or at least get them so riled up that they actually vote.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Can you back this claim up?

Not sure how, it's just my own personal observation. Do you disagree that Markos Moulitsas occupies a commanding height on the liberal side of the blogosphere that has no right-wing equivalent? As for the right-wing side being more diffuse, small liberal bloggers are always complaining about how they don't get linked to by the big liberal blogs, whereas bloggers like Glenn Reynolds liberally share the eyeballs.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I was going to quibble that the part about Fox News is mere hyperbole, but I think that even that's wrong. No one watches Fox News who doesn't already agree with their stance, whereas there are plenty of non-political TV viewers who can see Super PAC ads on sports shows or drama shows. It coudl influence them, people who may not already have made up their mind, or at least get them so riled up that they actually vote.

Fox News pushes narratives that are then picked up on by the other channels. That's not something 30-second ads can usually accomplish, no matter how much money is backing them.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by adaher

small liberal bloggers are always complaining about how they don't get linked to by the big liberal blogs, whereas bloggers like Glenn Reynolds liberally share the eyeballs.

Hmm. So maybe an effective information elite demands care and feeding of the grassroots. Why wouldn't liberal blogs do this? Too many particularistic voices to deal with?

That's why we would need to get behind the idea of an information elite...perhaps convince enough identity-based groups that they can have a say in the bigger picture as long as they make common cause with others. It would take a sizable conceptual leap - the idea that group self-obsession isn't much better for anyone or everyone than individual self-obsession - but that leap could be made somehow. It sure ought to be.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

EVERYBODY who was not a die-hard Republican in 2008 was in favor Obama. Dubya was HATED, DETESTED, and so any Republican candidate was doomed. Sad thing is, Obama is just a Reagan Republican. I go with Chris Hedges, the parties don't make a damn bit of difference at this point, it's getting to the point where street demonstrations and similar efforts, up to an including violent revolution, are the only answer. I hope he's wrong about that. I am afraid he is not.

People were saying the same thing in 1932 and in 1900. At any rate, countries with the English tradition of reformism do not suffer violent French-style revolutions with barricades and all that jazz.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

To respond point by point:

The promised closure of Guantanamo.

Waterboarding has ended

The public option in health care.

Which was only abandoned because it was politically impossible.

Reforming the Patriot Act.

Please elaborate.

Environmental protection.

I think we have plenty of that already.

Restoring habeas corpus.

Please elaborate.

Regulating Wall Street.

See Dodd-Frank.

Ending the wars.

We withdrew from Iraq in 2010 and Afghanistan is winding down.

Jobs.

He attempted that in the Stimulus Package.

Defending labor rights.

In other words, maintaining closed shops and listening to union demands on ever higher pay and benefits even with massive deficits.

I've skimmed through Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class and he genuinely thinks America might become a fascist state (which generally shows ignorance of fascism since it isn't just "right-wing authoritarians") and seems to think there is a fundamental conflict between businessmen and other professionals (like academics, artists, and clergy) and that the former can't really be a liberal force in society.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by adaher

I think that's where liberals go wrong, thinking it's all about organizing people who already support you and raising money from people who already support you. That's not how conservatives became dominant since 1980. The only way to win in the long run is by persuasion and winning the independent vote. And constantly trying to change the party from within to adjust to new realities.

When Republicans lose, they figure out why and start getting rid of those responsible. Almost all of the leadership from the 2001-2008 period is gone. Frist, Hastert, Delay, outta here. Meanwhile, the Democrats have made no changes since their huge defeat in 2010 and aren't likely to change course if they lose in 2012 either.

The democratic defeat in 2010 was about turnout. About 90 million people showed up to vote, 50 million GOPers and 40 million democrats in 2010. Compare that to 2008 when about 57 million GOPers voted and about 65 million democrats voted. Seven million GOPers stayed home vs 25 million democrats. That is assuming all the McCain voters voted GOP and Obama voters voted dem. I have no idea how valid that is, but the tea party (which was a major factor in 2010) is a movement where 90% of people are either republicans or independents who lean GOP. I believe tea party people made up 2/3 of all GOP voters in 2010. Either way, the number of dem who stayed home in 2010 was far higher than the number of GOPers. The party needs to address that.

So the problem is motivation. The dems won big in 2008 and it donned on people that the dems couldn't use their supermajority very well, so why bother voting again in 2010. Of course doing that led to GOP takeovers on state levels and tons of laws passed on that level.

Also I don't think introspection is a big strength of the GOP. No matter what happens they seem to believe moving to the right is the solution. The GOP seems to realize they are in a demographic bind, they are alienating non-whites, single women and young people all at the same time while these groups make up a bigger and bigger slice of the electorate (I have heard single women be referred to as a potential counterweight to evangelicals, they lean dem 2-1 and are about 20-25% of the electorate, a counterweight to evangelicals who are 2-1 GOP and about 20-25% of the electorate). The solution of the GOP isn't to change policies to win support among these groups, it is to support voter suppression efforts to make it harder for them to vote. That shows an awareness of the problem, but it isn't an introspective solution where people change the party.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I've skimmed through Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class and he genuinely thinks America might become a fascist state (which generally shows ignorance of fascism since it isn't just "right-wing authoritarians") and seems to think there is a fundamental conflict between businessmen and other professionals (like academics, artists, and clergy) and that the former can't really be a liberal force in society.

I've been skimming it too, and at least in the first few chapters, Hedges doesn't set much store by those other professionals either. They've been coopted by just having to get by in a corporatist society.

Hedges' profile of the veteran activist suggests the only hope is the least privileged and the least educated among us. He may even be insinuating that such people aren't going to have much use for civil discourse, or for those who practice it. We may well be left with a choice of servitude to an untouchable money/power elite, or thrown to the mercies of a new authoritarian left that believes only in violence and will no doubt be met with violence.

Does he think we're really that far gone?

[foolsguinea]

I think the threat of such a violent authoritarian left is probably necessary to make moderate social democracy look attractive to elites. Higher taxes and worker's rights as an alternative to civil war.

But in a militarized right-wing state, can a leftist revolution have that kind of effect, or will it simply be stomped out in the name of order and conservative values? Maybe they'll decide a long drawn-out civil war is preferable; they certainly did in Latin America, so why not in "Middle America"?

To have a credible threat, the left may have to become strong enough to not only threaten some of the elite, but to defeat them as a class, militarily. And if the violent authoritarian left is strong enough to do that, then it may not need a negotiating table.

Maybe peace through parity is the unusual outcome. Maybe the more usual, more normal, course of human civilization is victory through total domination.

So pick your fascist, strap on your boots, and kick in some teeth for totalitarianism. Is there really another choice?
_

Well, yes, of course there is. You educate people, and you do your best to keep the political process honest. Two things we're failing to do right now.

[foolsguinea]

We need to force debates. Go into churches, demand debates with business leaders, and make your case. Expect to be called satanist, communist, madman, and the rest. Remember, so long as they haven't burned you at the stake, you're ahead of Jan Hus.

Put together a corps, not just a core. We need election monitors who will stop the holy warriors of the right from stealing elections for God and Capital. Understand that we are up against end-justifies-the-means crusaders, some of them are in position to count the votes, and they have to be watched like hawks.

And prove as best you can that you're the good guys, day to day. Be the party of living wages, affordable (or even free) health care, and so forth.

I think I saw a recent political cartoon where Obama got a laurel for being the gay rights President, but personifications of environmental and economic causes were left looking at each other, holding the laurels for those causes, just left out.

Even if it looks like the GOP is the conservative white party, We can't just be the gay, black, liberal, multi-culti party. We have to be the "good for America" party.

That means caring about the well-being of all Americans, not just the ones who already have jobs. Be more than the "job protection" party. We have an opportunity here for a non-means-tested basic income guarantee, and I don't think anyone in the party has noticed.

That means not just being an echo of Reagan on economics and foreign policy. Understand that the movements for ending the wars and holding the Bush-Cheney team accountable got the Democrats in office in 2006 & 2008, and then we were ignored. Give us a choice, not an echo, and spare us the twaddle about, "Politics stops at the water's edge."

And that means having the courage to stand up and call out those on the other side that are liars. Rest assured they say it about you, constantly and without provocation. Because they're liars, so they don't care if it's true so long as it wins for them.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Also I don't think introspection is a big strength of the GOP. No matter what happens they seem to believe moving to the right is the solution. The GOP seems to realize they are in a demographic bind, they are alienating non-whites, single women and young people all at the same time while these groups make up a bigger and bigger slice of the electorate (I have heard single women be referred to as a potential counterweight to evangelicals, they lean dem 2-1 and are about 20-25% of the electorate, a counterweight to evangelicals who are 2-1 GOP and about 20-25% of the electorate). The solution of the GOP isn't to change policies to win support among these groups, it is to support voter suppression efforts to make it harder for them to vote. That shows an awareness of the problem, but it isn't an introspective solution where people change the party.

Well, it's sometimes the wrong conclusion, but it is introspection. I saw absolutely none after the 2010 defeat, or the 1994 defeat, or the 1980 defeat for that matter on the part of Democrats. Nor have I seen much of an attempt to actually persuade voters on the issues. Mainly they just try to motivate their interest groups. Or pray for a demographic bailout, which I don't believe is actually forthcoming.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Even if it looks like the GOP is the conservative white party, We can't just be the gay, black, liberal, multi-culti party. We have to be the "good for America" party.

This will be very difficult now that the party - hell, the whole left of center political spectrum - has been purged so enthusiastically of working-to-middle-class White "Middle" Americans.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if you are a hardworking person with "character" and "values," you live in a mental gated community. You think only of your family, your neighborhood, and your God, and to hell with the society that makes it possible for you and impossible for others.

[Evil Captor]

Well the point I wanted to raise referring to Hedges was, does it make sense to build a better Democratic party? As we all know, the Democrats have either ignored or been totally ineffective at advancing progressive agendas. I think in large part this is because Democratic leaders have decided that they have already captured the votes of progressives. And because they are now as owned by Wall Street as Republicans, thanks to the realities of campaign finance. I think the right wing as now constituted would respond to the threat of violent revolution with violence. All the security apparatus developed by the Homeland Security State would be used against leftists. Drones would attack Americans on American soil. I don't think this is actually ATTRACTIVE to anyone except those on the fringes of the right. But it could happen.

Maybe a strong progressive third party would jar the Democrats from their complacency, I dunno. It might just weaken the Democrats and further cement the plutocrats' stranglehold on our government. I think trying to build a strong progressive party might be a productive alternative to violent revolution. I don't know of any books that might be helpful to that end.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Go into churches

Like Chomsky when he was giving talks on the Vietnam war?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

We need to force debates. Go into churches, demand debates with business leaders, and make your case. Expect to be called satanist, communist, madman, and the rest. Remember, so long as they haven't burned you at the stake, you're ahead of Jan Hus.

Put together a corps, not just a core. We need election monitors who will stop the holy warriors of the right from stealing elections for God and Capital. Understand that we are up against end-justifies-the-means crusaders, some of them are in position to count the votes, and they have to be watched like hawks.

And prove as best you can that you're the good guys, day to day. Be the party of living wages, affordable (or even free) health care, and so forth.

I think I saw a recent political cartoon where Obama got a laurel for being the gay rights President, but personifications of environmental and economic causes were left looking at each other, holding the laurels for those causes, just left out.

Even if it looks like the GOP is the conservative white party, We can't just be the gay, black, liberal, multi-culti party. We have to be the "good for America" party.

That means caring about the well-being of all Americans, not just the ones who already have jobs. Be more than the "job protection" party. We have an opportunity here for a non-means-tested basic income guarantee, and I don't think anyone in the party has noticed.

That means not just being an echo of Reagan on economics and foreign policy. Understand that the movements for ending the wars and holding the Bush-Cheney team accountable got the Democrats in office in 2006 & 2008, and then we were ignored. Give us a choice, not an echo, and spare us the twaddle about, "Politics stops at the water's edge."

And that means having the courage to stand up and call out those on the other side that are liars. Rest assured they say it about you, constantly and without provocation. Because they're liars, so they don't care if it's true so long as it wins for them.

Some of these ideas are very good were I a progressive Democrat. Some more thoughts:

-Progressives need to adopt the rhetoric of nationalism and argue that social democracy/progressivism are compatible with patriotism. The Socialist International style movements are mostly a pipe dream and NWOish neo-liberal advocates of free trade, EU, NATO, interventionism etc. are all policies opposed by progressives, so be the nationalist party.
-Make a "Popular Front" with the Old Right (Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul types) who are isolationist and very suspicious of modern conservatives
-Stop self-righteous rhetoric and use arguments that will appeal to Americans, for example when talking about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don't say "The evil American soldiers are slaughtering innocent civilians in illegal wars" but rather "Are you sure you want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to attempt to civilize and "democratize" a bunch of fanatical peasents in some Godforsaken corner of the world who'll revert to stoning adulterers and mutilating girls anyways"
-Appeal to fundamentalists and Evangelicals not just liberal Christians (which as the NYT's op-ed points out is dying without a strong base). Many of the great figures in Church history like Charles Spurgeon and J Gresham Machen for example were opposed interventionist foreign policy and imperialism. Steer the Christians from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's modern Religious Right

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Parliament of Whores, by P.J. O'Rourke is a giggle, if not on [this] topic.

[foolsguinea]

Qin, we are not going to do some myopic variation on, "socialism in one country," and succeed. Nationalistic labor-union types who hold workers in Asia and Latin America in contempt will continue to lose their jobs to those foreigners, as they have been. Nationalistic center-leftism has been tried in this country; it gave us a régime where migrant workers can't get visas.

The future of the left more probably goes through making common cause with workers in Latin America.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

To respond point by point:

I will respond breifly, but none of these directly relate to the OP, and have been entire threads at times, so don't want to hijack.

Waterboarding has ended

But not Gitmo.

Which was only abandoned because it was politically impossible.]

I don't think his heart was in it. Or to be more specific, I found that the made concessions to the Republicans far too early on and that the concessions were far too great. He did not fight for the public option the way a real progressive, or for that matter, a person genuinely concerned with reducing the cost of health care, would have.

Please elaborate.

We still have an elaborate spying infrastructure set up on the American people. Plus, strangers feel our genitals at airports. And not the one's we'd pick to feel our genitals!

I think we have plenty of that already.

Bully for you! Hot enough fer ya?

Please elaborate.

So far as I know, Obama has not rejected the notion that we are allowed to imprison without trial persons that some govt. official identifies as a "terrorist." Have you different information?

See Dodd-Frank.

Toothless. See J.P. Morgan.

We withdrew from Iraq in 2010 and Afghanistan is winding down.

I'll give you that one, though Obama does not seem to be making any sort of unseemly haste in leaving Afghanistan.

He attempted that in the Stimulus Package.

Yes, how much money was spent to help regular people in foreclosures? About $3 billion, I have heard. How much was spent to help banks out? I can't remember EXACTLY, but I remember the word "trillion." He has little or no interest in helping out the middle class. He is better than Romney only because Romney and the Republicans want to continue PLUNDERING the middle class.

In other words, maintaining closed shops and listening to union demands on ever higher pay and benefits even with massive deficits.

Labor rights does not apply just to unions. Safety, decent hours, decent pay ... it would be nice for American workers to enjoy those benefits.

I've skimmed through Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class and he genuinely thinks America might become a fascist state (which generally shows ignorance of fascism since it isn't just "right-wing authoritarians") and seems to think there is a fundamental conflict between businessmen and other professionals (like academics, artists, and clergy) and that the former can't really be a liberal force in society.

I think he sees America's wealthy elite as being much like wealthy elites in places like the Middle East, out solely for themselves.

Now let us return to the subject at hand.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Qin, we are not going to do some myopic variation on, "socialism in one country," and succeed. Nationalistic labor-union types who hold workers in Asia and Latin America in contempt will continue to lose their jobs to those foreigners, as they have been. Nationalistic center-leftism has been tried in this country; it gave us a régime where migrant workers can't get visas.

The future of the left more probably goes through making common cause with workers in Latin America.

I don't mean nationalistic in pursuing autarchy or xenophobic but using nationalistic rhetoric to push progressive policies and make it look "American as apple pie". Even more important than making common cause with foreign workers, IMO, is making common cause with workers outside of inner city minorities-the type who voted for Santorum-who in this forum often tend to get dismissed as "rednecks" or "fundies".

Without continuing a massive hijack...

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

We still have an elaborate spying infrastructure set up on the American people. Plus, strangers feel our genitals at airports. And not the one's we'd pick to feel our genitals!

Yes, how much money was spent to help regular people in foreclosures? About $3 billion, I have heard. How much was spent to help banks out? I can't remember EXACTLY, but I remember the word "trillion." He has little or no interest in helping out the middle class. He is better than Romney only because Romney and the Republicans want to continue PLUNDERING the middle class.

Incidentally the Tea Party doesn't much like the TSA either and they violenty opposed the idea of bailing out the banks (which is why Orrin Hatch got primaried). So these ideas aren't marginalized to a few Progressives.

Labor rights does not apply just to unions. Safety, decent hours, decent pay ... it would be nice for American workers to enjoy those benefits.

Such laws currently exist, the main question is one of degree.

[BigAppleBucky]

Tremendous lecture (just under an hour)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM


http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Ele...=George+Lakoff

Don't Think Of An Elephant!/ How Democrats And Progressives Can Win: Know Your Values And Frame The Debate: The Essential Guide For Progressives

And more:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...=George+Lakoff

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

It would be. But the media is not on anyone's side.
...

I don't know if you are implying that the mainstream media is leftest, although that's the line that is heard most often. I hope not. Saying so is merely a talking point, and talking points are by definition lies.

Don't kid yourself for a minute that the mainstream media isn't biased left. Read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. It will open your eyes.

And your statement about talking points is hogwash.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Don't kid yourself for a minute that the mainstream media isn't biased left. Read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. It will open your eyes.

And your statement about talking points is hogwash.

Bernard Goldberg is hardly a neutral observer who can be cited in this context.

And talking points are, at best, half truths. Even half truths are defined as lies. This is true for all talking points on all sides.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Don't kid yourself for a minute that the mainstream media isn't biased left. Read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. It will open your eyes.

And your statement about talking points is hogwash.

Bullshit, the mainstream media is OWNED by the plutocrats, just like the right wing media. Watch the Youtube media like the Young Turks and The Alyona Show on Russia Television (RT), they cover the stories the mainstream media won't touch and say the obvious things the mainstream commentators won't say ... such as that Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are fucking American heroes!