The Progressive Democrats of America have formed. The question that I have grappled with for around the last 15 years is are the Democrats worth it? I have answered no consistantly since my brush with the Matt Flynn for Senate campaign back in the late 1980's.
The party for me reperesents everything that is timid in this country. They lose not because they stand for nothing, which many of their candidates consistantly put forward as a program, not the Republicans, but because of what they do stand for. The Democratic Party stands for war, inequality, and an economic system that is ravaging the world like a tsunami. They get money from the same bankers, war industries, medical companies and other ill gotten gainers that call the USA headquarters. The Carter and Clinton administrations in program was Thatcherism and Reaganism; deregulation, expansion of US power, austerity, etc..., but somehow we are supposed to believe that just because they were Democrats we lived in a golden age. It ain't so. And if people continue to support the likes of Carter, Clinton and Kerry we will end up without any Social Security, pensions, and labor unions.
We need to advicate what we believe in not some luke warm neo-Republican program. Let's start with card check for organizing unions, a national pension and health care system, a foreign policy that supports like minded progressives around the world not torturers and plutocrats, a truely green approach to organizing our space that encourages city living and planning not endless sprawl, political reform that takes all money out of campaigns and ends the concentration of power in the Senate and the Supreme Court.
Now there's a program I'll get behind, I wonder if the PDA's will? I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
All I can say is, you musta had a really bad time with Matt Flynn! My problem with this site's frequent Dem-bashing is that the portrait you paint of Democrats bears no resemblance to the Dems I know personally. "War, inequality, and an economic system that is ravaging the world like a tsunami" ???
Well, that's a powerful phrase, but I doubt many who voted for Kerry would say they were on board with that agenda.
And I simply don't buy that Kerry, Clinton or any other Dem would work to end SS, pensions and labor unions. Those constiuencies are their voters.
The goals you list are fine with me and I suspect most Dem voters. I want to be on record as being "anti-economic tsunami."
First let's take war, please, two minor wars say Korea and Vietnam, Democratic initiatives. We seem to forget these things if they are past the last election cycle. Or say Kosovo. The most cowardly position of the Democrats lately however has been how they have as an institution supported the war. Not just politically but they have voted to pay for the thing.
Kerry's position was more troops, some antiwar position?!
Inequlaity-how have the Democrats tried to change the world economy one iota in the last 50 years? The World Bank, IMF, GATT, NAFTA? Please this is the easiest of points to make. If they wanted to get rid of inequality there are lots of models for that around the world particularly in Northern Europe. It's not on their agenda. They support the current economic system that thrives on inequlaity.
Privatize SS?, Clintons panel advocated it. Robert Rubin was Wall Street's man in the White House. The boom during the Clinton years was partly due to the mana they gave them by gutting Glass-Steagal and other nuggets of largesse particularly in the tax code.
Labor has declined steadily in the last 40 years. The Democrats have talked and talked how they need to support labor but the labor law in this country is the most backward in the industrialized world. The Dems controlled Congress for most of this time.
Democratic voters may be for them but I have not heard one Democratic or Bernie Sanders for that matter utter anything close to the program I put forward.
Q: is the Democratic Party today the same as the one in Kennedy's day? In Eisenhower's or Truman's? They certainly were the party in power when the US got invovled in those two wars, but the world was a very different place then. You want us to remember history, that's fair and wise, but to attack Dems today as war-mongering because Kennedy's advisors believed in the Domino effect is to ignore how we have changed with history. (Maybe your point is that we haven't. That would be something we disagree on. Sort of.)
I supported the war in Kosovo. I don't think we should stand aside in the face of genocide or near-genocide, and I don't think we should have ignored Rawanda or be ignoring Darfor (sp?) today. I doubt that the way Clinton handled it was ideal, but it was better than averting our eyes from ethnic cleansing. I suppose one can take the position that no war is justified. I'm not quite there yet.
Your points on economic history are, as you say, easy to make, if you assume the worst about free trade, capitalism, etc. I am less educated than you on these things, but my feeling is that Dems have done more to work for enlightened and progressive policies than you give them credit for.
I could be wrong.
As I understand it, Clinton advocated a kind of private account that would not gut the current system the way Bush's wants to. In simple terms, it would add private accounts on top of the current system, taking its funding from the general account, not from SS payroll taxes. Not sure if this was a good idea, but it seems quite different than what Bush proposes.
No real argument with your Labor point, except to point out that although Dems have controlled congress at times, three of the last 10 presidential administrations have been Republican.
And it's all Nader's fault!! (joke)
Your first point is historical, is the Democratic Party the same party of the 40's-60's?, the answer is obviously no. But even at that time there were anti-war forces in the Democratic Party, and the Republican Part also I might add. The question for me is what role does the Democratic Party play in foreign adventurism. Unfortunately the anti-war forces, probably at their apex of power in the middle 1970's do not have enough influence to push an agenda. The pro-war forces, I include Kerry, Clinton, Liberman, et al, people who try to be hawkish on "defense" to cover their flank, are in the driver seat. When the critics of intervention have become vocal the party establishment has squashed them, Dean and McGovern for example. Just read the Washington Post and the NY Times, two leading voices of the Democratic Party, during the run up to war in Iraq. Their position wasn't anti-war it was a more sophisticated war, starve and strategically bomb, not outright invasion, the Clinton/Bush I position. The difference is tactical not strategic.
I am not a pacificist, I think the when the Soviets smashed the NAZIS this was a good thing. I also think that sometimes people need to defend themselves militarily, like say, the British colonists or the Nicaraguans in the 1970's or the Iraqis today.
So you have at least two more wars for the US, Sudan and Rwanda. Well here's a question for you, why do you think these "humanitarian" interventions did not happen? I think the answer to this question might change your views on the Democrats. I'll answer it for you, because Rwanda and Southern Sudan are not strategic areas for the US planners. The slogan, if Iraq grew brocolli there would be no invasion, is exacltly correct. They don't go to war for human rights, do you remember that Saddam was a US ally, that the Saudi's, Turks, and Israelis are the number 1 allies in the region, the three biggest violators of human rights in the region? This is to say nothing of Uzbekistan, Pakistan (nuclear weapon dealer), need I go on?
Like the great racist interventionist Woodrow Wilson, their rhetoric is wonderful but their policies are just as rapacious as the other party. They have to be because the Republicans have the same interests at heart, make the world safe for corporate plunder, but have the outright imperialists in their camp. The Democrats have a dilema because they have a poorer, smarter, and darker contituency than the Republicans. These people know that war is a nsty and brutish business. By the way they, the US elite in general, prefer not to invade, that's very messy. They would much rather have the IMF/World Bank or trade agreements do the job. But sometimes the war profiteers need to spend some of the stockpiles and find some new enemies.
Today's Bush budget increases "defense" by around 5%. Do you think the Democratic Party will take this increse on? NO. This is at a time when the US is in its strogest position ever. The US has not retreated at this historic moment however, they have actually gone on an offensive invading Iraq, surrounding Russia, invading Afghanistan, establishing bases in many parts of the world that historically have been out of US reach, Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakstan.
The Democratic Party has been in favor of these offensive moves just as they have been in Columbia, where the US funds a governement that has been at war with its people for 50 years.
Clinton's SS proposals, like many of his policies and proposals, are classic trojan horses. He wanted to "end big government" because this got him votes in the suburbs, where fiscal responsibilty sells. He advocated private accounts becasue this allows the well healed more tax shelters and assures Wall Street a constant flow.
If CLinton was serious about Social Security he would have advocated a national pension, funded by employers, kept in trust by the government, that would be progessively funded, and available to all. That was not his proposal. He did the opposite. He said we need to depend more on markets because government bad.
Um, last I heard, Dean was about to become the Chair of the DNC. Doesn't seem too squashed. My point is that this characterization of Dems as war-mongering proponents of some capitalist-militarist conspiracy is simplistic and wrong. Kerry voted against the first Gulf war, because of his experience in Vietnam. He tried to finesse his vote on the Iraqi invasion because of the politics of running for prez. The fact is, that post-9-11, there was more support for this kind of military action, no matter how wrong-headed. So if you criticize him for playing politics with Iraq, I would agree. If you criticize him for being a war-monger, I would disagree. In my mind, there is a distinction. Does that make me a war-monger? I fear your answer.
If the Dems don't go to war for human rights, what was Kosovo, exactly? No oil there that I know of.
True, the US is inconsistant. True, military solutions often cause more problems than they solve. But although I had misgivings about Kosovo, I found more reasons to support it than oppose it. And it seems to have "worked" in that it stopped the ethnic cleansing. Maybe you disagree, but to me this seems like not a bad outcome.
As a journalist, I find your description of the Post and Times as voices of the Democratic Party to be insulting. Not to mention puzzling, since I've heard tons of criticism for both papers from Dems during the past few years. I also am dismayed to find you sound like Rush Limbaugh. What's up with that?
Re: Clinton and SS. I disagree with your reading of Clinton. Would ending social security, via trojan horse (and how his proposal would serve as that is a mystery to me) or any other way, get him votes in the suburbs? Or anywhere else? SS is the most popular social program in US history. And due entirely to those bad, bad Democrats.
There's lots in your post that I find interesting and worth discussing, but I should not take too much more time on this. You're right that the US is at a strong position militarily. Isn't it interesting then, that the mood of the country is so insecure? I'm sure there's an interesting discussion of media and politics there, but it will have to wait.
On Dean: most of the rank and file of the party activists are from the labor, feminist, environmental and civil rights movements of this country. Most of the money for the party comes from large corporations, particularly for incumbents, and extremely wealthy individuals who tend to be socially liberal (abortion, gay rights, secular) and want their individual industry, insurance, litigation, entertainment, currency trading, stock trading, defended. The rank and file tend to be more progressive than those who pay the bill. Dean wa seen as someone who would talk straight and speak truth to power, particularly on the war. This was appealing to the rank and file but not to the party hacks like Terry Mac, DNC chair, who wanted a nice pro-war, mild mannered candidate, who wouldn't say things like the Democratic Party is a tool of corporations or the war in Iraq is about oil. Dean may get the job because of the defeat of Kerry, the DNC strategy is not working. But this does not mean that the power structure of the party has embraced him. By the way Dean is a fairly conservative when it comes to fiscal policy and reform. He really isn't that much of a threat but our politics have become so right wing and discourse on the left so timid that the centrist Governor from Vermont is now seen as a radical.
One method of discrediting one's opponent in debate, and free speech I might add, is to call them a conspiracy theorist. The Democratic Party's position on war is well documented and the reasons for war in my book I feel are well researched. I'll say this as a general statement however, the Iraq war was pursued by Republicans and Democrats alike for three primary reasons. 1)Strategic interests, the US wants to have control over the most importnt region in the world when it comes to energy. 2) Political reasons, Bush announced his coming war on the anniversary of 9/11 2002, he made this the central issue in the midterm elections which his party won (an oddity in political history I might add given the Presidents party rarely does well in midterm elections). 3) War and oil industries benefit handsomely from war. Bush represents these interests well. He and they will benefit from this for many years to come. If you see this as conspiracy mongering so be it. This gives you an idea of my analysis. If you want footnotes I can provide them.
Too be continued....I have to indoctrinate the youth!
You say there was more support for the war in Iraq in the post 9/11 environment. I would counter with the incredible and historic fact that there was a larger portion of the US opposed to this war at its outset then at anytime in the post-war perio to say nothing of the overwhelming oppostion internationaly.
The Democratic Party is now weak, and I think this will address your Rush Limbaugh crack above, because they fail to take advantage of such opportunities. There was a significant portion of the population that was opposed to the war (an aside in NY where the 9/11 attacks took place the anti-war sentiment hovered around 65%). They refused to take on the issue because the leadership wants to defend traditional US values like clobbering countries that don't follow dictats. Again, the "soft" war against Iraq was pursued by Clinton and Bush I. The party loses because they fail to stand on principle. Instead they pick around the edges and are seen as nagging not visionary. The lie of most Democratic strategists that stridency and hard nose politics loses elections is disproven by the success of the right. The reason they are on the majority party now in power on all levels is because they are ruthless in politics and stand for big ideas. The Democratics lack this type of leadership and they lose accordingly. And this occurs because they don't want to offend their donors who for the most part are well heeled and like the current economic system.
War monger? Well most people who think war is bad don't go. I'll never understand the befuddleing position of liberals like Oliver Stone, John Kerry, and Al Gore who volunteered for a war that they supposedly opposed. I think it comes from a twisted liberal guilt that is diturbing to say the least.
There was a strategic interest in US involvement in Kosovo. It was the survival of NATO as an organization. More later if you are interested. It was not about human rights otherwise we would have invaded Sudan by know.
More later.
The Post and the Times are pratically organs of the Democratic Party. I don't see how this is a controversial statement. They have endorsed Democrats for the last 100 years. They have a liberal social editorial board and have supported US adventurism around the world. On the latter point they might haggle about how the power is exercised but they never reject the fundamental idea that the US has some right to intervene just about everywhere and the US economic and political system is the model that should be re-produced internationally, OR ELSE. Tactics they squabble about, strategy they don't.
Clinton's SS program was a departure and trojan horse because deregulation and privatization is on the agenda and he wanted to further that agenda for his own political ends. Trojan horse-get things in the door and wreck it. Clinton, Shroeder, and Blair are all on the cutting edge of this strategy-campaign as social democrats and push through the austerity plan.
Rush knows how to get people excited about politics, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry don't. That's why they win. I do seem to be a littel portly these days.
Hi Anton,
Let me just say that in most respects, there is no danger of anyone confusing you with Limbaugh. It’s just this gross misunderstanding of the media that seems to afflict people on both the left and right that bothers me. More on that in a minute.
You’re quite right that one way to discredit (or attempt to discredit) someone who disagrees with you is to call them a "conspiracy theorist." I apologize if my comments seem to suggest that you are a crackpot. I don’t believe that for a moment. However, as I understand it, you do take the position that political elites on both the left and right in this country are engaged in a tacit strategy to dominate the world both economically and militarily. I hope you’ll understand when I say that philosophy certainly walks like a duck.
Another rhetorical approach that I have seen political junkies on both sides take is to use any evidence at hand to prove their point, even if on its face it completely contradicts their point. So as the NYTimes and the Washington Post have been roundly criticized by the left for seeming to be more conservative, you take this as evidence that the Democratic Party is essentially in agreement with Bush’s foreign policy, since after all it is a given that those two papers are mouthpieces for the Dems.
I don’t see that at all. Newspapers, like corporations and academic institutions, have cultures that change over time. The two papers in questions just happen to be going through a time when they are tilting more to the right, for a variety of reasons. But I do not see the hands of the Democratic Party overlords in this. (oops, I’m doing it again. Sorry)
For years, the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel was regarded as a liberal mouthpiece by those on the right. Then it went and endorsed George W. Bush. Now we can discuss the reasons for that at length, but the fact is that newspapers can and do change their editorial cultures, and to my mind this proves at least some degree of independence from the established parties. I think a free and independent press is essential to this country in pursuing its democratic (small d) ideals. There are those who call for and "advocacy press," but as the Jeff Gannon incident shows, there are problems with that approach.
"the party loses because they fail to stand on principle."
There's something we can agree on.
On conspiracy: People like Teddy Roosevelt, A. Mahan, Woodrow Wilson, George Kennan, Dean Rusk, Henry Morgenthau, the Dulles brothers, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, etc... have made very clear that they think the world should look like the US with a private economy and a liberal democratic political system. They have pursued this through carrots and sticks throughout the last 100 years or so. They have been very successful. Are they conspiring so that the US political and economic system dominates the world, yes.
Of course all institutions evolve and have autonomy. Even the state does. The Times and Post however, as well as the Democratic Party have consistantly supported US adventures around the world, with very few exceptions. They support a liberal economic and political order. They differ over tactics with the Republicans who have two wings; an isolationist wing (Pat Buchanan types/America Firsters) and globalists (Bush I and a new variant the Neo-cons).
Post a Comment