Can Kerry break the mold and excite us all?

[Armstead]

As a disappointed Dean supporter whose heart is with DK, I have to admit I am not a happy camper that Kerry is the nominee.

Sure, I support him in the GE, and I appreciate his attributes. He'd probably make a fine president.

But I am dispopointed that all of the positive airing of differences and the ferment to break the stranglehold of the DLC "neo-centrists" on the left side of politics seems to have come to naught.

I use the term "neo-centrist" because what the DLC crowd is pushing is not really the center. It is the center-right, where moderate Republicans used to be.

Actually it is not really about left and right. It's more about whether we will accept the complete distortion of money and power that has occurred over the last 30 years. The takeover of the economy, government and society and morality by the Corporate Elite. And the resulting destruction of basic democracy, healthcare, safety net, media, etc. in favor of privatization and deegulation...And the economic polarization it has brought.

The conservative GOP is expected to push this agenda. That's their role, and if they have been effective at it, that is because they have done a better job at pushing their agenda, and defending it.

But it is also because our side has failed. In the 80's and 90's up to today, the Democratic Party as an entity has also enabled this agenda by failing to challenge the basic principles of right-wing free-market fundamentalism. They failed for years to even flash a warnoing light during the long process of mergers, deregulation, "free trade" and other steps that have led us to this sorry point.

Some of the Democratic support of the corporate conservative agenda has been cowardice. Some of it is that some Democrats have similar views as Republicans in terms of these issues of power and money.

In the last few years, though, this ice jam has fonally started to melt. There has been a wave of progressive populisn building. Despite their small votes individually, the candidacies of Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton and even Edwards and Clark collectively showed that their is a hunger for a change in the Corporate and Beltway status quo.

Alas, Kerry epitomizes the more tepid centrism. He is being branded as a "liberal" by the GOP, but in reality he has been a neo-centrist on the key issues of money and power. He even runs away from the liberal label, like someone said he had leprosy.
However, Kerry could be a positive catalyst in this campaign, and really lead a multi-factional charge that includes enthusiastic progressives and liberals. Not just those motivatd by ABB, but those who Kerry could inspire in a positive way.In otehr words Kerrey has an opportunity to break the mold, and loosen the straightjacket the DLC Corporate Elite types want to impose yet again.

But to do that he's got to break his own mold, and really come out on the fundamentals of the issues, beyond the stale "It's all GW's fault." Bush is just a symptom, as an example of what the system supported by both Republicans and Democrat Neo-Centrists endorse.

For example, it isn't a matter of "jobs." There is a much bigger dynamic that is much more important than where this month's unemployment figures are. Kerry should raise this as an issue.

What about media concentrattion? What about Healthcare. Is he willing to take on the insurence companies to ensure that healthcare is truly universal and affordable for evveryone? Or will he simply say "please pretty please Mr. Insurance conglomerate" and offer to give them corporate welfare to prop up a failing system?

If Kerry really stands up and challenges the status quo -- and offer a positive truly progressive and populist agenda and message -- I believe he could reenergize the Democrats and others on the left side and many swing voters into a winning and united coalition.

But if he just gives us mushy neo-centrist platitudes, then a golden opportunity will be lost. And possibly an election.

[molly]

1. Well, he already excited the majority of DEM voters,

[tom_paine]

6. But these are valid questions, molly

WILL he address media concentraion (almost certainly not, IMHO)

What about Healthcare. Is he willing to take on the insurence companies to ensure that healthcare is truly universal and affordable for evveryone? (maybe, probably not)

Or will he simply say "please pretty please Mr. Insurance conglomerate" and offer to give them corporate welfare to prop up a failing system? (maybe, possibly so)

There are a host of other issues here that similar questions can be asked.

I know you support Kerry. So do I. And so, incidentally, is the poster who started this thread.

But these are legitimate questions and shouldn't be answered with a dissmissive platitude.

[Armstead]

16. There's a hole in the middle of it

Watching what was basically Kerry's nomination acceptance speech the otehr night I felt a void in what he was talking about.

It was fine as far as it went, but it didn't go very far.

Using "jobs" as an issue really rankles me. It's not like GW came in and deliberatly eliminated millions of jobs. or that the Democrats will magically create new jobs for everyone.

The real issue is what is happening to the workforce and their relationship to the Investor and Menagerial Class. They have deliberatly had the slats knocked out from under them since the early 80's. THAT's what we should be talking about.

It's similar on other issues. Kerry seems to scratch the surface, instad of really putting it out there.

I believe clear-eyed honesty would win over many truly centrist voters. A lot of people sense that something basic is wrong, and it's bigger than partisanship. But it's vague and nebulous, because it isn't being articulated in "mainstream" politics by eitehr party. with exceptions like Kucinich, Dean and other honest liberals and progressives.

We need to fill in that hole in the message, and mean it, IMO.

[tom_paine]

22. I am in complete agreement

It all falls under the rubric of what I like to call "challenging the Matrix", which both Dean and Clark did (and no one else).

It doesn't just include economy, it also includes a certain way of dealing with issues. It is not anger-related, as Pravda would like us to believe, but understanding just what got us here wouild tend to put a fire inthe belly of most.

Again, I agree, Armstead, but I would be interested to hear Molly's take on it.

[molly]

33. Some of us just get so sick and tired of reiterating the

same things over and over and over and over and over.....

this thread from yesterday eventually got locked - there is a lot of info here..........do you want answers or aggravation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=428703&mesg_id=428703&page=

[tom_paine]

44. Answers. Thanks, molly. I will read it.

:hi: :toast:

[Carolina]

69. excited????

Dem primary voter support does not translate into GE voter support. Too many Dems fell for the electability mantra. And on that, the judgment is still out.

Since the aim of the DNC was to wrap up the process prematurely so that the fight could move against Bush early and since we knew Bush was going to unveil ads yesterday, at least one Dem issue ad and maybe even Kerry ad should have been outed too. In a GE against a Bush, PRE-EMPTIVE is good; in fact, it's crucial. Offensive beats defensive.

Now Bush has taken front and center again, and we're back to being on the defensive.

[Forkboy]

79. You're right

but registered Dems in this country are around 33% right now.A majority of Dems wont be enough.

[quinnox]

2. I'm so pumped right now due to Kerry's success

Frankly, I am somewhat puzzled at those who don't have excitement over Kerry!

[sangh0]

3. I doubt it

Exciting *all* the voters is impossible, and every position a candidate takes not only gains them some votes, it also loses them some votes. That's why campaign typically seek to blur a candidates positions, in order to avoid offending those who wouldn't support the candidate is they knew the details of the candidates positions.

Furthermore, it's a bit naive to expect elections to bring about any sort of change in the fundamentals. The Framers designed a system in the hopes that it would last. They didn't include elections in order that they fundamentally change the status quo. The Framers included elections in order to insure the maintainance of the system they devised. Elections are not revolutions.

[Armstead]

4. There already was a revolution

The balance was overturned by the Reagan Revolution and all it led to in the 80's and 90's and 00's.

What we need now is a counter-revolution to restore the system that was overturned.

[sangh0]

5. That was an election

and while balance may have been affected, the political order still remains. We still have three seperate branches of govt, with all of the checks and balances.

[Armstead]

7. I'm talking about an election

[sangh0]

15. Well, you said "revolution"

I don't read minds. I went by what you wrote.

[tom_paine]

10. Man, WHERE have you been for 3 years?

You think the System of Checks and Balances is strong and healthy?

Why then, the now Orwellian double-standard regarding media coverage and prosecution of Democratic criminality vs. Bushevik criminality?

You think the 3 branches of government are still seperate, with Stalinist-style front groups such as the Federalist Society (how I dearly would love to see a study on the correlation of Fed. Soc. members tossing verdicts to Fed. Soc. plaintiffs or defendants -- not that we ever will because the numbers would be overwhelming, IMHO)? With the Felonious Five and the Judicial Arm of the Coup?

You think the Press is vigorous, free and independant, as the Founding Fathers envisioned?

Is our Electoral System vigorous, well-policed, and produces trustworthy verdicts? Will Touchscreen Voting make it more so? If this is true, why is it that there are only a handful of competetive House districts left? How can people achieve change through the system if the system has been Market-Tested in such a way that so few Congressperson fears being thrown out by the electorate?

Man, just what nation have you been living in, these past 3 years? The system is weakeneing and winding down. Your denial only contributes to the problem, in my honest opinion.

[sangh0]

23. Tom, in the same country you've been

and yes, our system of checks and balances is STILL intact. Slightly weakened (particularly when it comes to the internment of accused terrorists and illegal aliens, and black box voting) but still intact.

Why then, the now Orwellian double-standard regarding media coverage and prosecution of Democratic criminality vs. Bushevik criminality?

Because the media is corrupt. However, the media is not a part of the govt, and is not a part of the checks and balances I referred to.

You think the 3 branches of government are still seperate, with Stalinist-style front groups such as the Federalist Society (how I dearly would love to see a study on the correlation of Fed. Soc. members tossing verdicts to Fed. Soc. plaintiffs or defendants -- not that we ever will because the numbers would be overwhelming, IMHO)? With the Felonious Five and the Judicial Arm of the Coup?

There have always been abuses of the system, and inequities perpetrated by agents of our govt. However, the mechanisms for remedying those abuses are still intact. WRT the two issues I mentioned above (ie internment without charges and BBV) it's notable that the courts and the media are paying attention to them, and it may very well turn out that these abuses are remedied in a way we will find satisfactory.

You think the Press is vigorous, free and independant, as the Founding Fathers envisioned?

You might want to read up on the how the press operated in the early says of our republic. It was even worse back then, than it is today. Newspapers not only often repeated the party line, they were often owned and run by politicians, or those incredibly close to a politician.

This nation has seen many terrible abuses like the interning of Japanese-Americans, civil war, etc and we have managed to get past them, and ending up with an even stronger and fairer govt.

[tom_paine]

29. Some good points, but a couple counter-points

Perhaps I was unclear, but when I said "prosecution" of Bushevik crimes I was referring not to the media but to Congress.

i.e. Whitewater vs. Harken One a trumped up charge and one a very real charge for 3X the money that 2 ADAs with a $2,000 budget could prosecute, if someone had the will. Or perhaps the collusion involved in the Brooks Brothers Mob...surely that;s a RICO violation if nothing else.

Which ties into my other point that you avoided addressing, which is the uses of advanced sciences (that did not exist except for the last 50 years) of marketing and psychomanipulation to not only dupe people in ways never before tried but to create so many "safe" districts that "throw the bums out" has become almost laughably impossible.

This, too, contributes to the weakening of the system by altering it's intended scope and function. If marketing science creates too many "safe districts" then the House has little to no fear of pissing off constituents because prior methods of repercussions are no longer operative.

You are correct about the fact that there have always been abuses of the system, and that the Press seems to be reverting from it's lofty post WWII position to global laughingstock (which may have well been what it was during the Hearst Era and before), but it's the reversion that is disturbing.

Combine it with the other happenings and the mix is very troubling.

We will have to agree to disagree then. You believe the system is healthy and can be fixed. I maintain that it has been eaten away both purposefully by the Busheviks (exactly how did Ken Starr get to smash so many precedents but for a corrupted Federalist-dominated "Three-Man panel" which gave him evberything he asked for, no matter how absurd) and unintentionally by things like Corproate Consoldiation.

And finally, (and I am sorry for being so blunt) but you are clearly unaware of what the vast majority of the Founding Fathers felt about the Free Press and it's role as the "Fourth Branch of Government" (you know, that name was not deigned in a focus-tested marketing group).

Allow me to provide some of the many examples:

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
--Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
--Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

"The most effectual engines for are the public papers... government always a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."
--Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

My God, Jefferson predicted Faux "News"!

I rest my case.

You are wrong, sangh0. And if Jefferson were here he'd tell you himself.

[sangh0]

34. Your fears are justified

however, they have not come to pass. WRT Bush* crimes, there have been crimes just as bad, or worse, and our system of govt has survived them. Right after the American Revolution, political ethics were at such a low standard that it was not considered unethical for a politician to profit from his political decisions. A Senator could vote for a govt expenditure in the morning, and then go and sign a contract with the govt to perform the service in the afternoon.

When the USG set up a national bank to assume the debts the US has accumulated fighting the British, Alexander Hamilton told his friends about the impending decision (without similarly informing the public) so that they could go out and buy the notes for pennies on the dollar from citizens who did not have the insider info, and who assumed that their notes were worthless. In current dollar terms, this crime was as big as any of the BFEE's

WRT to the role of the press, it bears remembering that the same person you quote started his own newspapers (through intermediaries) and used them to print some of the most viscious and partisan diatribes in all of our history as a nation. The Framers did not think that individual papers would abandon their partisan passions; They believed that the truth would be revealed by the diverse opinions expressed. They believed that the few that told the truth would outweight the (inevitable) many who had no interest in the truth.

IOW, Jefferson was an over-rated hypocrit and a third-rate political philosopher, which is why the Repukes love him so much.

And while our system of govt is being threatened, it has yet to fall.

[tom_paine]

43. Total disagreement on Jefferson

If you haven't noticed, sangh0, being a hypocrite is as human a condition as walking upright and having lungs.

Hypocrisy, in the strictest sense is nearly impossible to avoid at least a handful of times in life. But there are 2 ways to handle it (and I am not making a dig at you but making a general statement about the human condition)

1) Recognize that EVERYONE is hypocritical soemtimes. Understand it and try to avoid it as much as possible or do the right things even when forced to be hypocritical.

2) Ignore the fact that EVERYONE is a hypocrite sometimes. Say to one's self "I am NEVER hypocritical. Due to my high standards, it is impossible." and either hate all hypocrites "while ignoring the plank in thine own eye" or just do it over and over like a Bushevik, secure in the knowledge that "a person as good as me could NEVER be inconsistent" or rationalize lies and hypocrisies in some way which exonerates one's self.

Think what you will about Jefferson. Yes, the Old Republic has yet to fully fall. But that was not my assertion. I assert that not only is the American Experiment threatened, it is also very weakened on the way to making good on that "threat".

Further, you are correct about your historical data on corruption. I would add that you are partially right if this would be considered in a vacuum, but the observation of the trend which threatens to leave the "oscillating sine wave" or "pendulum" that characterizes Free nations. Look at what is going on NOW as it relates to what has come recently before. After all, looking at events in a vacuum would lead one to say that things like police policy towards African-Americans is OK because look at what they had to endure before 1865.

(which is a specious argument, as is yours IMHO...partially true but missing the overarching issues of trend and recent history)

And the Busheviks love Jefferson the icon while reviling his actual words, if they ever bothered to read them. Which goes back to Option #2.

[sangh0]

67. Jefferson's hypocrisy is more than merely human

and extends throughout his philosophy. There is not one fundamental precept that he hasn't abandoned for political expediency.

As far as the state of our political system goes, it is under threat, and it has been weakened, but the basic structures that protect it, and us, are still intact. True, the pendulum seems to lurching towards tyranny, but it may very well be reaching the end of this swing, and about to head in the opposite direction. At the risk of mixing metaphors, I'll point out that it always seems to be darkest just before the dawn.

[tom_paine]

70. Not only do we disagree, but again you missed my point

You never once sacrificed a principle for expediency?

I know, what a foolish question for me to ask.

I'd ask you for examples regarding Jefferson, but I can guess what they'd be and to be quite honest I see no reason to continue this, given your Option #2 position.

Bye.

:hi:

[sangh0]

76. At times. As you said, we're all human

My point about Jefferson is that he sacrificed every single one of his principles. And even Jefferson admitted that his principles were inappropriate for an industrialized society such as we have today. According to Jefferson, his ideas on governance would only work for an agrarian society. He predicted that his philosophies would be irrelevant once the continent was settled from coast to coast.

You are concentrating on my hypocrisy charge to the exclusion of the 2nd-rate philosopher charge. The reason why Jefferson had to sacrifice his principles was because his principles were unrealistic.

[IrateCitizen]

78. Looking at this from a different perspective...

Could this mean that the idea of political freedom was doomed as the country was settled from coast to coast? Does it mean that in nations as large and populated as the United States, that rule by groups of elites and the illusion of political freedom for the masses really IS the best-case scenario? Are we destined to live under the yoke of concentrated power so long as the US survives in its current form and composition?

[sangh0]

82. I don't think so

I think it means that Jefferson's idea of political freedom were doomed. And Jefferson had no problem with elites ruling the country. In fact, as one of the elitists that helped rule the nation, he approved of it.

[IrateCitizen]

83. I'm well aware of Jefferson's elitism, sangh0

What I am talking about here is his "2nd rate philosophy" regarding democracy. While he might have endorsed the government of a ruling class, in the context of the time even THAT was a revolutionary idea. There was NOTHING like it anywhere else on EARTH.

Likewise, his views came in staunch opposition to those of Madison ("The role of government is to protect the opulent minority from the majority."), John Jay ("Those who own the country ought to govern it.") and Alexander Hamilton (who wanted to install Washington as King and advocated a strong federal government).

You spoke above of the "pendulum of history". I think you need to apply the same approach to what you're now saying. For all the bluster you've given against Jefferson in this thread, the fact remains that he was one of the foremost speakers against concentration of power in a strong central government for many of the reasons that have become reality over the years.

Furthermore, since I brought up the subject of "political freedom" which you have limited to Jefferson's version, I would ask you what you consider to be true political freedom? Personally, I consider it as a citizen's ability to interact directly in the administration of public affairs. If you believe that true political freedom is expressed through elections, then it could be said that we have wonderful political freedom. If, however, your definition falls closer to mine, then a case could be made that political freedom is sorely lacking.

[sangh0]

84. Right. Jefferson's 2nd rate philosophy regarding govt

was, in his own words, inapplicable to any situation besides an agrarian nation. Jefferson didn't believe in an genetic aristocracy, but he did believe in a meritocratic aristocracy. Now granted, the idea of a govt of the people, by the people, and for the people *was* truly revolutionary, that was not Jefferson's idea.

You spoke above of the "pendulum of history". I think you need to apply the same approach to what you're now saying. For all the bluster you've given against Jefferson in this thread, the fact remains that he was one of the foremost speakers against concentration of power in a strong central government for many of the reasons that have become reality over the years.

You hit on the one thing I do give credit to Jefferson for. He was brilliant with words. He knew how to express ideas. He just didn't know how to form ideas. However, Jefferson rarely spoke out against monied interests, or corporate power, or any other form of concentrated power aside from that of monarchs.

Finally, I haven't limited the subject of political freedom to Jefferson's version. I just commented on Jefferson's version, which I'm not too crazy about. I think you have misinterpreted what I've written.

And I dont believe that political freedom consists solely of the ability to vote. You seem to be arguing with things you assume I believe. I don't know where you got this idea that I think political freedom is voting.

[IrateCitizen]

86. I'm not trying to assign beliefs to you, sangh0

I'm simply speaking in the context of what the popular belief is -- that we have elections in the United States, therefore we have political freedom.

Personally, I believe we have very limited political freedom here in the US, and much of that is by design. It's also a big motivator for me to focus on grassroots reform rather than adopting the "savior complex" of expecting politicians to solve it all for us. Based on my readings of Chomsky, I'm also very convinced that centralized power is anathema to the very idea of participatory democracy and political freedom, and that furthers my mistrust of it.

The questions that I would really like to entertain are not about the p's and q's of Jefferson's philosophy, but what a system of true political freedom might look like in this country, and also how we can organize and develop grassroots centers of power to achieve it.

[sangh0]

87. Thanks

ANd I am sympathetic to those ideas. However, when I look at history, I don't see a choice between "powerful central govt" and "political freedom". I see a dialogue between two different visions of political freedom, one of which sees a strong central govt as a defender (against the state govts and the passions of the majority) of the people's rights and the other which sees the various states as the real defenders of the people's rights.

I lean toward the former. Our history shows that states will abuse our rights just as quickly as the Fed govt would. Furthermore, the electoral process at the state level is easier to corrupt than it is at the Federal level.

And I am 100% with you when it comes to the saviour complex. I just really loathe that. It reeks of learned helplessness.

The questions that I would really like to entertain are not about the p's and q's of Jefferson's philosophy, but what a system of true political freedom might look like in this country, and also how we can organize and develop grassroots centers of power to achieve it.

Of course you would. You've got a good head on your shoulders.

[IrateCitizen]

88. On the two visions...

However, when I look at history, I don't see a choice between "powerful central govt" and "political freedom". I see a dialogue between two different visions of political freedom, one of which sees a strong central govt as a defender (against the state govts and the passions of the majority) of the people's rights and the other which sees the various states as the real defenders of the people's rights.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the key lies then in NOT limiting our choices to the dictates of history. 217 years ago, the idea of a representative constitutional democracy had no real basis in history -- but some people still managed to come up with it. What if rather than assume that our choices are limited to what has been tried before, we were to instead shed that assumption and dare to consider that which has NEVER yet been tried.

Of course I realize that you have to base your current courses of action on past history -- I'm not a big enough fool to advocate otherwise. But at the same time it might serve us well to dare to dream a little bit on these questions as well.

[sangh0]

91. Process vs results

Though I have no problem thinking about possible alternatives, I do put a good deal of faith in achieving them by way of the political process and system that we now have. It has proven itself proficient at absorbing progress and it does allow itself to be changed through a well-defined process.

And no matter what form of govt you seek, there will be decisions dealing with the strength of the central govt relative to it's subordinate structures (ie state govts) and the people. No matter what form of govt you prefer (with the possible exception of anarchy) you will have to settle questions about the division of power. The dialectic I described above are not limited to our democratic republic. Communists, Nazis, etc all have to make decisions about how power is going to be shared and put to use.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. I think it will have to come from the bottom up

just as the ultra-right Republicans took over their party by pushing people up the ladder starting with municipal, county, and state offices.

I won't be excited about Kerry, except for the idea of replacing Bushboy. However, I am pleased to see that he's pretty media savvy, and he handled the attempted Dukakis-style ambush question about capital punishment perfectly.

I have never seen him in person, and my experience with the Kucinich campaign has taught me that seeing a candidate on TV and seeing that same candidate in person can be totally different experiences. Maybe he can rally the masses in personal appearances. I shall wait and see.

[sangh0]

11. I have to agree

At the Federal level, it takes a lot of votes and a strong organization to sway policy. That sort of power nad organization doesn't just appear. It takes grass roots organizing, one person at a time.

[Armstead]

20. I agree but this is not starting from scratch

The progressives have been trying to make inroads on many levels for years, both within the Democratic Party and in otehr venues and non-political activity.

The problem is when they are being contradicted and/or ignored and marginalized by the top, it can lead to alienation and thus weakening and factionalizing the political system.

I hate to mention the "N" word, but if the Democrat Neo-Centrists had not been so rigid and stubborn and closed for so long, Nader might well be an ardent Democrat today. Instrad he was ignored and marganilized by the DLC types, and thus went away and created his own sandbox to be heard.

The grass roots progressives need to be invited and encouraged to participate and have real input, not called irrelevant "leftists" and other slurs.

[IrateCitizen]

50. Almost there, Armstead...

The grass roots progressives need to be invited and encouraged to participate and have real input, not called irrelevant "leftists" and other slurs.

Close, but not quite. What those of us in the grassroots need to do is to develop strategies in order to organize participation and input. When we generate the numbers, THAT is when we will get invited to the table -- or take it over, if need be.

So many of us on the "left" get caught up in traps of our own self-righteousness, and I am at least as guilty of this as anyone else here, if not more so. What we fail to realize is that being "right" will not get us anywhere unless we can convince OTHERS that we are right. And part of that involves hearing THEIR concerns and working to address them.

In short, by becoming less involved and concerned with OUR causes, the more power we will gain to actually be able to address them.

What we need to do is to seriously re-evaluate what we're all doing. If it's working, keep up with it. But if it isn't, then by all means take a step back and try something new. But whatever you do, do stubbornly continue down a path that ISN'T working, because you will only help to further disillusionment and cynicism rather than accomplishing anything positive.

In the military, we have a thing called an after-action review, or AAR for short, that we do after every mission or exercise. What it is is a self-evaluation in which we identify positives, negatives, things to continue, and things to work on or change. We also use it to brainstorm new strategies on the things to change. Perhaps we, as progressives, need to take a similar approach to out OWN efforts, if they aren't working well right now?

[Armstead]

63. This was intended as an AAR

One phase of the current election cycle is over. We are now moving to the next where it is necessary to figure out how different factions can unite to defeat a common nemisis -- the GOP.

I am saying, in a nutshell, if Kerry and the DLC at least open up those who have concerns that were expressed as support for otehr candidates it would be more effective and propductive than disregarding us all.

[blm]

9. You supported a centrist before and now worry about a REAL liberal?

Really, Armstead, we have liberals like Kerry to thank for preventing the rightwingers at the DLCl (like certain centrist governors) from taking over the entire Dem agenda.

Kerry was the furthest LEFT of the DLC. Without his input and those like him providing balance to center right politicians, it would be so much worse.

[Armstead]

18. If you're referring to Dean

He is a moderate but he is also honest and open about the core of the problem.

[tom_paine]

25. Exactly. Dean might have been more cetrist but he was strong and

honest and he "challenged the Matrix" whioch may well be the most important aspect of this upcoming election.

Kerry, sadly, has done little to no "thinking outside the box" in this regard.

Which is why Clark was my #1, Dean was my #2 and Kerry was my #3 choice instead of #1 as by all rights he should have been.

Nothing is more important than exposing the Party-Loyal Sub-Media and restoring some freedom and independence to the remaining media through restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, etc.

Nothing is more important than challenging the incestuous and corrupt links binding the Imperials together, the Federalist Society as Stalinst-type front group and all the rest of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (even if you call it something else).

On so many fronts, Kerry is playing it safe. A little better than Gore with regard to answering challenges (weak answers ae better than none), but largely still following the Conventional Wisdom.

And we all know that, in Imperial Amerika perhaps more than at any other time in our history, "perception management" and inncouclation of Bushevik Lies into becoming "Conventional Wisdom" is at an Orwellian, almost Soviet height.

And on all of these fronts, Kerry seems to be weak. Hopefully he will be strong against the PATRIOT ACT, at least.

[blm]

51. Not the way I read history and the way both governed in their positions.

Kerry is the toughest, the smartest, most progressive and most comprehensive.

I doubt many of you thoroughly examined their past records, what they did with the power they had, and their current policies.

[AP]

12. Kerry's going to have some problems he'll need to overcome.

And the biggest one is going to be class, and the second biggest will be charisma.

[elsiesummers]

95. Yep. You nailed it. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Neo-centrist platitudes.

I hope I'm wrong but anticipate center-right status quo with a few meatless bones tossed to public. I predict no meaningful healthcare reform. No meaningful media restraint. No meaningful change in the tax code. No meaningful campaign finance reform. Troops in Iraq throughout his potential presidency. Sustenance of the corporate plutocracy.

What meaningful signals has he sent that suggests otherwise (in the last ten years)?

He was against Clinton's healthcare plan.
He was for the Tel-Com Act.
He's against repealing the tax cuts.
He wants 2 more divisions in Iraq.



Maybe I'm missing something. :shrug:

[Frank_Person]

14. Kerry... not so exciting.

First off- I am most interested in winning this election than anything else. That said, I find Kerry to be a "politician"- kind of the opposite of Kucinich and to a lesser extent Dean. He's got that classic politician delivery- impersonal, distant, kind of pompous, tends to skirt issues from time to time -but- I have on occasion (especially after Dean showed strength and bravery is a GOOD thing)seen Kerry actually dig right in.

All in all, he's no Clinton but he's definitely a savvy politician.

[bif]

17. And they thought Gore was stiff and wooden

Sheesh. All this guy does is orate. Does he ever show any emotion? Does he have a sense of humor? Sure couldn't tell from his speeches.

[damnyankee2601]

27. Since when is oration a handicap?

He delivers speeches with much more emotion than Gore. That is a candidates primary job. And Bush sucks at it. What's the problem?

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

19. My hatred for Bush is all that will

excite me into actively campaigning for Kerry. Our environment, economy, education system, and supreme court appointments cannot sustain four more years of Duh-bya...so this is enough to excite me to work for the nominee. The excitement does not stem from Kerry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. This thread cracks me up for the obvious contradictions

You think the guy that handed his state over to private energy interests, and the guy that voted for DOMA and to limit women's rights over their body, but then change tack to the left when they campaign nationally are not part of the problem and are NOT beltway insiders even though one was governer for several terms and one shows up for work in the same DC building as Kerry.

DOn't get me wrong...I accepted their responses to WHY THEY had a change of heart.

BUT...the acceptance of THEIR change of heart from the CENTER RIGHT back to left when there is no LEFT track record (but for civil unions) is a joke.

I posted a rather LONG thread about the courts...if one is looking to break the media death grip, the courts will be quite instrumental in the interpretation of MONOPOLY.

If one runs a campaign in the media, then campaigning AGAINST them is signing one's own death warrant. It isn't a matter of what is right...I think it's possible to know in one's heart what is right and STILL KNOW given how the game is rigged (with mostly REPUBLICAN commentators on election night)that it would be asking for a nail in one's coffin to bring it up.

Furthermore, this thread is BEGGING for a politician to SEDUCE the author....the last time that happened in the Democratic party, the SEDUCER was Bill Clinton...the guy that GAVE you media concentration at an all new level...the guy that GAVE you defense contracts in exchange for defense industry PAC money drooling into the Democratic coffers.


BTW, Bush is not JUST a symptom.....he is the disease..you need to look no further than the corporate ties to damn near everyone in his administration.

[Armstead]

24. Glad I provided you with amusement, NSMA. But.....

First I have no illusions about Howard Dean. I live next to his state, and I have been hearing about him for years, both his warts and his strengths. So I didn't get "sucked into" the hype about him.

And one thing about Howard Dean is that he is not a bullshitter. He's as opportuinitstic as any politician, but he has always been known for speaking his mind in a straightforward way, even when he'd be better off being more "politically discreet." So I believe him when he says that he has altered his centrist DLC views when he went out and started campaigning and hearing the opinions of a broad cross section of people. I give him credit for changing his opinion.

On a strategic level, I disagree with notions like the media will bury you if you challenge their monopolies. That endless toning down is why the media helps the GOP to perpetuate the stereotype of Democrats as ineffectual and opportunistic....I actually think if a Democratic candidate who stands a chance of winning like Kerry served warning to the media, they might even kiss his butt a bit so that he doesn't exact revenge if elected.

I believe that applies to many issues. Straight talk can be good politics IMO. Especially if, instead of being confined to "maverick" candidates, it started coming out of a candidate with the full backing of the Democratic Establishment.

It doesn't have to be radical anarchism. But just being open about what has been happenbing, and what will continue to happen if it is allowed to continue.

A classic example of Kerry unwillingness to engage on that basis was the Suinday debate when he was asked about being liberal. he squirmed and hekped to perpetuate the right-wing position by getting angry at even being called a liberal. IMO he would have been a lot stronger if he'd said "I've always stood for mainstream values. If you want to call that liberal, then I'm a liberal. But I prefer to call it moderate in the face of the extremism of George Bush and the right wing assault on mainstream values."

When asked a similar question Dean said (paraphrased) "Call me what you want. I'm believe I'm liberal and proigressive on social issues and I'm a fiscal conservative in terms of making sure government acts responsibly in terms of its budget."

I just want some damn clarity this year, and not want to feel like throwing my shoe hearing evasions of the real issues.

[damnyankee2601]

26. He has already excited me.

I watched his victory speech on Tuesday and found myself cheering at the TV. He nailed every point that I am pissed off about.

Now, keep in mind that until the Shrub, I was a rabid Midwestern Moderate, and people like me are ususlly called "swing voters." So if Kerry excites swing voters, he is in good shape.

It seems to me that the DUers he doesn't excite are the rabid leftists, to which I say: TFB. Get over your egotistical sense of moral superiority and get down here in the trenches with the rest of us to defeat the fascist scourge on our country.

[Armstead]

28. Rabid leftists, eh?

This isn't a matter of "egotistical moral superiority." If it is then you atre exhibiting it from a different perspective.

I actually consider myself a moderate progressive. I'm not looking for someone to create the Soviet Socialist Republic of the US. I just want democracy and economic fairness restored.

You aren't paying attention if you believe there is no connection between the ease with which Shrub took over the controls and turned in a radical right direction and everything that went on before that, which was condoned and supported by too many centrist Democrats.

[damnyankee2601]

30. Did I hit a nerve?

OK, so maybe you're not a leftist. A minor detail.

In my pragmatic view, you have 2 choices: Support Kerry or submit to Bush. I've never been big on submission.

[Armstead]

31. No there are two different choices

Since I am rabidly ABB, we can eliminate choice 2 of submission to Bush.

But here's the choices beyond that for people who care about more than just changing the nameplate on the Oval Office door.

1)be able to support Kerry with enthusiasm and hope because he actually addresses the core issues with passion and honesty

or 2)Get frustrated and depressed being subjected to a Velveeta campaign with a V-Chip issues and a focus on this month's unemployment rate while the causes continue to be ignored. Having to vote for the purely negative incentive of trying to oust Bush but having the sinking feeling that underlying problems will not change.

[damnyankee2601]

35. Your choice #2 is a waste of time

You want positive? Contribute positive energy to the campaign. You want a negative campaign? Sit around and whine about it.

[sangh0]

37. Where have you been, Armstead?

Kerry has spoken out about AWOL, Chickenhawks, jobs, the deficit, Iraq, gay marriage, health care and a number of other important issues. If you think that's Velveeta, I suggest you spend more time reading the papers, and less on creating cute phrases to describe things that aren't happening.

IMO, your complaint is based on nothing more than style. Kerry IS speaking out bout many of the issues that you are concerned with. The main problem is you prefer to have it done in a more confrontational manner, like Dean did. Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats are deciding they want something more like Kerry.

You may get frustrated and depressed with the Dem candidate, but the overwhelming majority of Dems are pumped over the upcoming elections. It's unreasonable to expect a candidate to reject the stylistic preferences of the majority in order to please a small minority

[CWebster]

38. yeah Armstead

Kerry spoke out about AWOL and chickenhawks and stuff. Where ya been? The overwhelming majority jumped on the bandwagon and are pumped. Get with the program!

[sangh0]

39. Democracy's a bitch, huh?

.

[CWebster]

41. yupper

like when we elected Bush into office, right?

[Armstead]

40. It's got to be more than "Blame Bush"

Sangh0 (or is it sangha?),
I've been listening and paying attention. It's not just style.

And please note this was originally started with the idea of here's what Kerry can do in a positive sense. It wasn;t just "bashing." And I acknoeldeged that he's a fine guy and I'll support him.

But I can't listen to peopel like Dean and Kucinich talk about what is at the root of a lot of this stuff, and compare their clarity with Kerry's obfuscations without feeling like we're blowing it yet again. It is like real food versus Velveeta. There's a lack of a core there when I hear Kerry.

For example, rather than bringing back power to people and reining in the power of corproations, many of his solutions involve rewarding corporations -- giving them subsidies and hoping they'll do the right thing.

I'm not against rewards for good behavior, but you can't give subsidies to health insurance conglomerates and just hope the effect will trickle down to consumers. We also need to reassert the principle of common values, and that requires kicking their butts too. And, if necessary, shifting to a single-payer system.

I just would prefer that he acknowledge the real peoblems in an honest way, and propose real solutions instead of band-aids.

[sangh0]

48. I didn't say you were bashing

You are criticizing, and though I disagree with your complaints, I don't see them as illegitimate or invalid or bashing. So let's concentrate on the issues you raise:

Though I can understand your displeasure with Kerry's campaigning style as compared to those of DK and HD's, your feeling "like we're blowing it yet again" is contradicted by the votes (of people) Kerry is receiving and the passions exhibited by the primary voters, some of which have seen their turnouts triple.

I also take issue with your mischaracterization of Kerry's job policies as "giving them subsidies and hoping they'll do the right thing". It seems hard to understand his clear policies, which grant the subsidies ONLY IF the corp. performs the qualifying actions. Also, his proposals have a number of penalties for those corps that don't help on jobs. Your description is contradicted by the reality.

You seem to want Kerry to address core issues, but you seem unwilling to examine Kerry's actual policies to see if they do so or not. Instead, you've just assumed they don't.

For one example, Kerry wants to eliminate tax breaks for corps that move offshore to avoid taxes. How is that a subsidy? How could that be described as "giving them subsidies and hoping they'll do the right thing"?

We also need to reassert the principle of common values, and that requires kicking their butts too.

I agree with that one, but my experiences suggest that a political campaign is not the best place to persuade people to change principles and values.

I just would prefer that he acknowledge the real peoblems in an honest way, and propose real solutions instead of band-aids.

Many, if not most Dems, would disagree that Kerry is not addressing real problem or that he is doing so in a dishonest way, or is not proposing real solutions. You are begging the question by constantly misportraying Kerry's positions and policies without actually addressing what those policies are.

Kerry has a wide-ranging energy policy, and over the years he has spoken out on numerous occassions on how a sound energy plan would benefit us environmentally, economically, technologically, militarily, and politically, not to mention the benefits to our health. If any one policy area is critical to the future of politics and the future of humanity, it's energy.

[CWebster]

32. LOL

Oh, the irony.

[damnyankee2601]

36. It's not irony.

It's double-entendre.

I swear, you should have to get a liscense to use the word "irony."

[IrateCitizen]

42. That's not the choice you're offering, damnyankee2601...

The choice you are actually offering is submit to Kerry or submit to Bush. To support means to align one's self with -- but not to abandon any criticism or disagreement. What you are proposing is not support -- it is submission, plain and simple.

That is not the formula for a long-term winning strategy. It might win you a short-term battle victory -- but will only help contribute to your eventual defeat in the war.

The issues that Armstead is discussing all boil down to one common denominator -- centralization and consolidation of power. That's it, in a nutshell. Now, given that assumption, we are then confronted with a simple choice -- we can either submit to the perpetuation of that phenomenon, or we can do something to counter it.

I'd like to thank tom_paine for the Jefferson quotes above, as they are quite illuminating. The thing that I believe Jefferson (and to a lesser extent, Franklin) understood better than any of the other founding fathers was that power HAD to be diffused throughout the society in order for democracy to function. That was the reason that Jefferson fought so vigorously against the efforts of Madison, Jay, Hamilton, et. al. to install a centralized federal government -- he recognized the slippery slope that a strong federal government would represent.

If only our forebears had had the wisdom to heed his warnings.

Every step toward centralization and consolidation is a step toward tyranny, plain and simple. It may not seem like it is at the time, if the people doing the consolidating have benevolent reasons for doing so (as in FDR's New Deal) -- but once those benevolent forces have given up the machinations of power to more malevolent ones, that slide becomes painfully clear. Sangh0 is arguing above that the old system of checks and balances has remained intact. I would vigorously disagree. We have seen our former three equal branches transformed into a system ruled by the imperial presidency, with all else submitting to that higher power. The War Powers Act and all that followed it is an excellent example of this soft slide to tyranny. A more immediate point can be made by the abuse of Executive Order by the current administration, largely unchallenged by the other two branches.

There is only one way to stop this slide, and simply electing John Kerry will not do it. Electing Kerry will quite obviously be a significant improvement in the short term, because the forces in charge will become decidedly more benevolent. But so long as the centralization of political, economic and social power remains so concentrated in the hands of the federal government, real change will not come about. As soon as we trade a more benevolent ruler for a malevolent one, the slope will simply get steeper and our slide gain speed.

Lydia Leftcoast posted some interesting observations regarding grassroots organizing for the Kucinich campaign in MN. She said that with almost no budget but an army of volunteers, they were able to garner 18% of the vote. Now, when confronted with Bush's $200 million war chest, keep this in mind. Extensive grassroots organizing CAN and DOES make a significant difference. John Kerry would be wise to make such efforts a significant part of his campaign -- and the volunteers for other candidates would be well-served to join in this fight.

But perhaps the most important thing to come out of such an effort is that it would help to diffuse power. Kerry is a savvy politician -- if he gets elected with substantial grassroots efforts, he will realize that a good portion of his continued political success will be dependent on those grassroots. This might in turn embolden him to do a little more than simply nibble around the edges on these problems. He might actually take a bite in one or two. If that happens, then it can only result in a little MORE diffusion of power, because the centralized power will be weakened slightly.

I realize that a lot of this is kind of on the abstract, but I think it presents a pretty compelling alternative to the current cycle of disillusionment. Hell, just the fact that the current approach isn't really working all that well should compel us to be willing to try something different, just out of the realization that it really can't result in anything any WORSE over the long haul!

Thoughts or comments?

[damnyankee2601]

92. OK, I give up.

Y'all just sit up on your moral high ground and pontificate.

I'm getting out of this cyber-den of self-righteousness navel-gazing and going to volunteer for Kerry.

Skinner: Don't ask me for any more money. I'm spending it where it will do some good, and DU ain't it.

[IrateCitizen]

100. You're the only one pontificating here, sir

What I did was attempt to raise some serious questions regarding what I saw as an overly simplistic statement that ignores some core problems -- kind of like the concerns that Armstead was expressing in starting this thread.

To essentially give the reply, "I'm taking my ball and going home!" says to me that you have no willingness to discuss these issues -- even OUTSIDE of a context of conventional electoral politics.

And that is what's really sad -- because to delude yourself that a Kerry presidency will just make all of our problems go away is dangerously foolhardy. It's the same kind of attitude that prevailed under Clinton, and resulted in a decline of the Democratic Party as a whole, IMHO. Ideas and forward vision were largely replaced by fundraising and idol-worship of the cult of personality surrounding Bill Clinton.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to pontificate than discuss, then by all means don't let the door hit ya on your way out....

[IrateCitizen]

45. It's not entirely up to Kerry -- it's up to US!

The issues that Armstead is discussing all boil down to one common denominator -- centralization and consolidation of power. That's it, in a nutshell. Now, given that assumption, we are then confronted with a simple choice -- we can either submit to the perpetuation of that phenomenon, or we can do something to counter it.

I'd like to thank tom_paine for the Jefferson quotes above, as they are quite illuminating. The thing that I believe Jefferson (and to a lesser extent, Franklin) understood better than any of the other founding fathers was that power HAD to be diffused throughout the society in order for democracy to function. That was the reason that Jefferson fought so vigorously against the efforts of Madison, Jay, Hamilton, et. al. to install a centralized federal government -- he recognized the slippery slope that a strong federal government would represent.

If only our forebears had had the wisdom to heed his warnings.

Every step toward centralization and consolidation is a step toward tyranny, plain and simple. It may not seem like it is at the time, if the people doing the consolidating have benevolent reasons for doing so (as in FDR's New Deal) -- but once those benevolent forces have given up the machinations of power to more malevolent ones, that slide becomes painfully clear. Sangh0 is arguing above that the old system of checks and balances has remained intact. I would vigorously disagree. We have seen our former three equal branches transformed into a system ruled by the imperial presidency, with all else submitting to that higher power. The War Powers Act and all that followed it is an excellent example of this soft slide to tyranny. A more immediate point can be made by the abuse of Executive Order by the current administration, largely unchallenged by the other two branches.

There is only one way to stop this slide, and simply electing John Kerry will not do it. Electing Kerry will quite obviously be a significant improvement in the short term, because the forces in charge will become decidedly more benevolent. But so long as the centralization of political, economic and social power remains so concentrated in the hands of the federal government, real change will not come about. As soon as we trade a more benevolent ruler for a malevolent one, the slope will simply get steeper and our slide gain speed.

Lydia Leftcoast posted some interesting observations regarding grassroots organizing for the Kucinich campaign in MN. She said that with almost no budget but an army of volunteers, they were able to garner 18% of the vote. Now, when confronted with Bush's $200 million war chest, keep this in mind. Extensive grassroots organizing CAN and DOES make a significant difference. John Kerry would be wise to make such efforts a significant part of his campaign -- and the volunteers for other candidates would be well-served to join in this fight.

But perhaps the most important thing to come out of such an effort is that it would help to diffuse power. Kerry is a savvy politician -- if he gets elected with substantial grassroots efforts, he will realize that a good portion of his continued political success will be dependent on those grassroots. This might in turn embolden him to do a little more than simply nibble around the edges on these problems. He might actually take a bite in one or two. If that happens, then it can only result in a little MORE diffusion of power, because the centralized power will be weakened slightly.

I realize that a lot of this is kind of on the abstract, but I think it presents a pretty compelling alternative to the current cycle of disillusionment. Hell, just the fact that the current approach isn't really working all that well should compel us to be willing to try something different, just out of the realization that it really can't result in anything any WORSE over the long haul!

Thoughts or comments?

[Armstead]

49. Centralization and democracy

One of the reasons I can identify more with the progressive populist movement than with Kerry style liberalism is that basic paradigm.

IMO the right-wing has capitalized on people's inherent distaste towards centralized power by blaming it on "the government." They tied liberals to Big Government, and associated liberalism with all of the abuses and inefficiencies that massive bureaucracies bring.

The problem is that the right wing also successfully blinded people to the equal dangers of Big Business. They came up with great reasons for people to overlook the consolidation of the economy and the perversion of the free market without government.

So today, the real problem is Big Business, while the natural balance of government is being weakened.

What's missing in the Neo-Centrist position of DLC Democrats is that they fail to acknoweldge that core reality. Instead they too often reflect the same framework as the Corporate Right Wing.

The problem with Kerry in that context (IMO of course) is that by ignoring that too, he is also perpetuating the wrong message. He is allowing it to be painted as a false choice, by not standing his ground.

Progressive populists, IMO, see the necessary role of government, but they also see the goal as decentralization of power, wealth and decision making to bring it closer to the people who are affected. Kucinich, for example, advocates government power, but he also advocates that it be used to foster and support the grass roots.

That, if a mainstream Democratic candidate truly articulated it, could resonate with "swing voters" and even with conservatives,m because it really is just textbook high-school civics put into practice.

That's how I see it anyway.

[IrateCitizen]

52. You're still attacking the problem from the wrong end!!!

IMO the right-wing has capitalized on people's inherent distaste towards centralized power by blaming it on "the government." They tied liberals to Big Government, and associated liberalism with all of the abuses and inefficiencies that massive bureaucracies bring.

Yes, you're right. But it's important to remember that nothing in the RW playbook was about empowering the masses. Everything they did was coordinated from the top down. And while they made overtures of "smaller government", it really meant no more than slashing social programs. The centralization of power within the federal government STILL continued apace under these "reduce government" Republicans.

Just look at the massive increases in spending and deficits under Bush. You can't tell me that he and his administration have done anything to reduce the influence of government. On the contrary, they've sought to consolidate the state's power even MORE.

That, if a mainstream Democratic candidate truly articulated it, could resonate with "swing voters" and even with conservatives,m because it really is just textbook high-school civics put into practice.

It's not up to a "mainstream Democratic candidate" to articulate it, because if you're depending on him or her to make that change, then it isn't really a change at all. At the very heart of it is the need for popular empowerment, which is something that has to flow from the BOTTOM-UP if it is truly to be effective. A Democratic candidate can certainly capitalize on such a movement and help to further it, but at no time can it be captive to any singular personality or elite group. At all times it must remain the domain of the PEOPLE if it is to truly take root.

[Armstead]

55. No IC, you're taking it out of context

The subject here is the presidential race. That is what I addressed. I do not expect any candidate to solve eveerything.

I agree 100 percent with what you said. It does ultimately depend on what happens at the grass-roots level. (Most of my professional work has been within that context, so I'm not just naively spouting shit here.)

Anytime you want to discuss the larger context, I'm always interested, and I basically agree with most of your observations and perepcetives.

However, the subject here is national politics and presidential campaign. What I am saying is that if Kerry would open up more and help to set a framework to support a progressive message, it would be very helpful, and would be politically effective too.

Anotehr way of saying it is that change comes from both directions. The grassroots is a primary source. But peopel on the ground level also need the support of the party and politicians that supposedly supports the same goals onb a national level. That framework is also necessary to help people also connect to something larger, rather than feeling isolated and small....That's one of the purposes of politics.

(As for the GOP, I know their anti-government message is a smokescreen and an illusion. But you can;t deny it has also been effective in getting people to support things that are not in their interest.)

[IrateCitizen]

61. OK. Sorry about that.

You're right that I'm in a grouchy mood today, and it has nothing to do with any of you here, so I shouldn't be taking it out on you. I sincerely apologize.

I agree with you that all of these things have a national context, and that the parameters of that context do deserve discussion. But the question is, to what extent?

In the end, we need to concentrate on what we can control -- and that is the grassroots. I don't imagine that too many of us have a direct line to John Kerry where he will give us an hour of face time to discuss these issues. Therefore, endless analysis of things on the national stage eventually turn into paralysis, and nothing gets accomplished.

We have a wonderful tool here on DU, a forum in which we can share organizing strategies and news from across the country and the world. But too often (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone) we end up focusing on the 10-20% (or less) upon which we disagree that it ends up becoming just an internet debate forum where we're more concerned with being "right" than actually using it to make a real difference.

[RichM]

68. While I'm with you on many of the general ideas, here, there's a tone of

hopefulness about some specific parts of the process that I'd like to believe in, but (unfortunately) don't. My jaded age & cynicism, you know! ;-)

To wit: the effectiveness of grassroots organizing, & the chances of Kerry's feeling indebted to the progressive grassroots component of his support.

- About grassroots: I read Lydia's thread, & tried to comment there that we in the Oakland-Berkeley-SF Kucinich campaign DID ALL THAT GREAT GRASSROOTS STUFF too - yet had vastly more meager results. The fact that Minnesota has caucuses is a structural difference between MN & many other states; this may have had a lot to do with their fantastic success up there.

- About Kerry potentially feeling indebted to progressive grassroots-ers: I just don't share this optimistic a view of him. I read the text of his LA speech last week & found it terrifying. In some places he was actually attacking Bush from the right, saying Bush hadn't really "made us safer," implying that he would do more, he'd be tougher with N Korea, etc, & that the Bush premise that we all must live in fear of terrorists & other swarthy enemies is basically pretty on-target. The best I can say about him is that he disgusts me less than Bush does. He may once have been an antiwar person but he gives little evidence of remembering that stage of his life. He wants to replace "unilateral imperialism & militarism" with a "multilateral" version. His constant chest & medal-thumping gives me the creeps. He seems to hate antiwar protestors. I have trouble believing that such a guy will embrace the parts of the population who mobilized for Dennis Kucinich. That is to say - the parts of the population I most admire & identify with.

[CWebster]

71. Hey, I am older than you teenybopper

and have suffered far far more than you young whippersnappers. Only Armstead is older and I imagine him as having a long white beard.

Let it be knownst.

[RichM]

75. Are not. Are not. Have not, either.

Armstead is a spring chicken, compared to me. I am about 4 years older than he is, & have just finished combing the drool out of my medium-length whitish beard.

[CWebster]

80. Still combing it yet?

sooner or later it is hardly worth it to bother. Ain't like anyone's looking anymore.

[IrateCitizen]

81. You two old farts are beyond pathetic

Next thing I'm waiting to hear are some competing "back in my day" stories. :eyes:

[Armstead]

89. I don't have a long white beard

Actually, I get mistaken often for being in my 30's rather that my real age (52).

Maybe it's the snowman icon, but rather than Moses think of Tom Petty or a less good-looking version of John Edwards and you'll get a better idea.

Just want to clear that up so I'm not made ancient before my time. :hippie:

[IrateCitizen]

72. OK, expanding a bit further...

While I'm with you on many of the general ideas, here, there's a tone of hopefulness about some specific parts of the process that I'd like to believe in, but (unfortunately) don't. My jaded age & cynicism, you know!

I'm hardly a paragon of hopefulness -- I actually am a bit bipolar in that respect, alternating between extreme hope and extreme dispair, and little in between. ;-)

About grassroots: I read Lydia's thread, & tried to comment there that we in the Oakland-Berkeley-SF Kucinich campaign DID ALL THAT GREAT GRASSROOTS STUFF too - yet had vastly more meager results. The fact that Minnesota has caucuses is a structural difference between MN & many other states; this may have had a lot to do with their fantastic success up there.

I agree with the structural differences with a caucus as opposed to a primary. But perhaps there might be a deeper analysis of exactly WHAT the organizers in MN did as opposed to CA. Just summing it up as "grassroots stuff" is a little overgeneralized. This is what I'm talking about with an "after action review" of grassroots techniques and strategies, so that we can better hone our organizing efforts and skills.

About Kerry potentially feeling indebted to progressive grassroots-ers: I just don't share this optimistic a view of him.

If you notice, I did not talk just about grassroots groups as they currently ARE, but rather as a huge force in GOTV efforts in the upcoming election. I'm talking about us being more than a blip on the radar, and also maintaining some kind of viable organization AFTER the election. Just because Kerry might not WANT to pay attention to the grassroots doesn't mean that he would do something that goes directly against political savvy in order to ignore them.

The best I can say about him is that he disgusts me less than Bush does.

As much as I wish things were better, unfortunately this is the current state of electoral politics. Rather than choosing the candidate who is most likely to help us implement our ideals, we are forced to choose the one who is the lesser impediment to efforts of reform and change. As disheartening as such an approach might be, in the choice between Bush and Kerry, the choice is clearly Kerry. A third party candidate will not be able to get in, so whether or not they WOULD help us is immaterial -- simply because they will not be in a position to do so.

I have trouble believing that such a guy will embrace the parts of the population who mobilized for Dennis Kucinich. That is to say - the parts of the population I most admire & identify with.

Embracing them by choice? I wholly agree with you. Embracing them by necessity? He absolutely would, because he's definitely not stupid.

Perhaps this line of thought I started wasn't best suited for this thread, because it's dealing with issues and strategies well outside of the context of the current election. It's about long-term efforts to diffuse power and create a more democratic, egalitarian, just society. Such efforts only fit in with the immediate election peripherally. The hope is to make them a central factor in elections to come.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. If I may elaborate on the "grassroots" campaign

one of the most impressive things about it was the involvement of people from all walks of life. There was an outer suburban family from Central Casting who did amazing amounts of work. There were some blue collar types who leafletted every Twins and Vikings game. There were elderly people and high school students. Every imaginable occupation. Some were Greens or Marxists, but others, if you'd look at them, you'd assume that they were Republicans. Nearly all of us leafletted at the State Fair. We had campaign materials in the language of every local immigrant community, including Somali and Hmong. You can't just campaign among the usual leftist suspects, although we certainly did that, too.

This grassroots campaign did three important things that are usually overlooked: it badgered the media into providing coverage, it didn't neglect the non-urban areas, and it actually brought Dennis to the state three times.

Until the weekend before the primary, Dennis was the only candidate who appeared in public at gatherings that didn't require a contribution.

As for the part about caucus states, the Minnesota caucuses begin with a binding presidential preference poll that allows none of the bargaining for supporters that occurred in Iowa. At my caucus, one of the DFL stalwarts tried to tell everyone that it was useless to vote for anyone but Kerry or Edwards, since a vote for someone who couldn't make 15% was wasted. I raised my hand and said that we had no way of knowing who other people would vote for and that we should vote our conscience. That was the only electioneering that took place before the ballots were collected.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Thanks for the elaboration, Lydia. A couple of questions....

1. What was your sense of the previous involvement of these people in politics? Were many of them newcomers, old stalwarts, or a good mix between the two.

2. You give the impression that this group was quite far from monolithic in its political views. If they were as diverse a group as you lead me to believe, can you give any first-hand responses as to why some of the less "radical" people said they got involved with a "fringe candidacy" like Kucinich's?

3. What was the motivation of these people to get involved? Was it because of one candidate's message, a personal outrage over the current state of affairs, or something in the middle? The reason I ask is because if it tends more toward the second choice, then it presents a great opportunity to extend such an organization past just one particular candidacy and cultivate a good grassroots network.

4. Were there any records kept by people in smaller groups as far as rosters, contact lists, etc. for future grassroots efforts outside of the campaign?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. No simple answers

1. What was your sense of the previous involvement of these people in politics? Were many of them newcomers, old stalwarts, or a good mix between the two.

It ran the entire range. Some (like DU's own no name no slogan) had volunteered for Wellstone and other progressive candidates. Others, like myself, had never volunteered for a presidential campaign before.

2. You give the impression that this group was quite far from monolithic in its political views. If they were as diverse a group as you lead me to believe, can you give any first-hand responses as to why some of the less "radical" people said they got involved with a "fringe candidacy" like Kucinich's?

This, too, ran the entire range. My impression is that most people originally got involved because of a specific issue, such as the Iraq War or health care or labor rights and gradually came to realize that they supported Dennis' other issues, too. Others were invited to one of the personal appearances and came away convinced to support Dennis. If you've attended one of his speeches, you know that he's unexpectedly charismatic in person.

3. What was the motivation of these people to get involved? Was it because of one candidate's message, a personal outrage over the current state of affairs, or something in the middle? The reason I ask is because if it tends more toward the second choice, then it presents a great opportunity to extend such an organization past just one particular candidacy and cultivate a good grassroots network.

Both of the above. Judging from the record attendance at the caucuses, there's a lot of outrage over the current state of affairs. Personally, I've been outraged for over 20 years, and when I went to hear Dennis in August--out of a determination that I was going to see all the candidates who came to town--I was overwhelmed to hear a candidate saying what I'd been saying for all that time. I didn't talk to everyone about their motivations, but my impression was that a lot of people responded to the presence of a man of obvious integrity proudly proclaiming the thoughts that have been considered almost treasonous in the past two decades.

On the whole, I found the DK supporters to be really well-informed on the issues, both the issues in general and DK's specific positions on them.

4. Were there any records kept by people in smaller groups as far as rosters, contact lists, etc. for future grassroots efforts outside of the campaign?

There's a listserv with several hundred people on it, and we certainly kept rosters of volunteers. We're having a debriefing session next Tuesday, and I'm going to suggest talking about what to do with our energy from now on.

[RichM]

46. There is zero chance of this. Kerry represents hiding some blemishes &

making a few cosmetic alterations. He PERSONIFIES the status quo, and they've already won. There will be no more Dean blurting out uncomfortable truths; & probably not much more Kucinich systematically hammering away at fundamental questions, either (in the sense that the debates are probably finished, now).

As the rightwing columnist & PNAC member Robt Kagan gloated Tuesday in the Washington Post, Kerry's nomination "takes the war off the table as an issue."

Media concentration - Kerry won't even touch this. Healthcare - he won't touch the fundamental grip of insurance & pharma & HMO companies, but will hide this by using phrases like "I propose a comprehensive plan to provide almost all Americans with healthcare access..." Yet one may be sure that his plan will miraculously avoid harming a hair on the heads of those corporate players.

You key phrase was "...complete distortion of money and power that has occurred over the last 30 years." Kerry is not even going to recognize the existence of this phenomenon at all. He's been relatively quiet as it's all unfolded through these years; he is not now, after proving his solid reliability to the system, going to start challenging it in the manner of an inspired populist.

The discussion of EVERY issue in the campaign will be analogous to the handling of the war issue. Kerry's only criticisms will be that our allies were not on board, Bush broke his promise about "exhausting all possibilities short of war," & there was no good plan for "winning the peace." This leaves out ALMOST EVERYTHING of importance -- ie, that the WMD thing was a deliberate lie, that it was really for oil and global domination; that the US has been doing stuff like this for 100 years (but merely less blatantly), that the needs of the MIC determine our policy, etc.

Look at these paragraphs from today's WSWS editorial, & see if there isn't a great deal of truth in them:

*********************

US political elite engineers a Kerry-Bush election


...None of the urgent needs of working families can be met without a far-reaching redistribution of social resources and a direct attack on entrenched wealth and privilege, something Kerry and the Democrats oppose no less than Bush and the Republicans.

There are critical lessons to be drawn from this experience. The Democratic and Republican parties are both political instruments of the American ruling elite, which has more than a century of experience in using the Democrats to influence, capture and ultimately destroy mass social movements that might threaten its interests.

From the populists of the 1890s, to the mass industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights and antiwar struggles of the 1960s, movements of social opposition have been lined up behind the Democratic Party, and thereby eviscerated. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the financial aristocracy, blocking the development of any effective challenge to the profit system.

The 2004 Democratic primary campaign has demonstrated that the existing political structures are a trap for masses of people seeking an alternative. The development of a movement against imperialist war, poverty and social inequality requires a break from this political straitjacket..."

[IrateCitizen]

47. Stop your g**damn defeatism, RichM! See my post #45 above.

nt

[CWebster]

53. Yeah RichM

You communist socialist pinko Dean (Kucinich who?) crybaby. Quit your whining sourgrapes and negative bashing, you liberal pantywaist!

Kerry, the alpha male is gonna lead us into the promised land! There will be a chicken in every post! Prosperity is right around the corner! Oh, the deeds yet untold! Listen to Mr. Armstead, who will draw you a beautiful scene of wistful hopes and dreams--don't listen to such naysayers as myself, who will toll the bell with the grim tidings:

It is constitutionally impossible for Kerry to fulfil the noble images in Armstead's hopeful vision. It simply is beyond the realm of probability. One can not get blood from a stone.

Now buck up and scramble for the generous crumbs and thank your lucky stars and, good grief, don't worry, be happy!

[IrateCitizen]

56. How typical...

If you had bothered to read my post #45, instead of simply giving a smart-assed reply, you may have noticed that I said that Kerry really didn't have a goddamned thing to do with this, other than the fact that he will be, barring unforeseen catastrophe, the Democratic nominee come August.

I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, but I am trying to offer forth some ideas. While not expecting you to have all the answers either, any ideas you might be able to contribute would be more than welcome.

But if you just want to whine/complain/ridicule, then I'm afraid I don't have time to waste on you. Complaining never accomplishes anything other than disillusionment and cynicism.

But maybe I'm just not old enough or experienced enough to have figured out the massive accomplishments that can be brought about by the fine art of complaint.

[CWebster]

62. LOL IC!

chill--I was joking.

[IrateCitizen]

64. Sorry, I'm just a bit touchy today...

And it's not due to anything that anybody here said, but rather some personal issues.

And forgive me for misinterpreting your post, but after our PM exchange I thought you were being sarcastic at my expense. If that was not the case, please accept my apologies.

[CWebster]

66. don't be silly

You're my fave! Otherwise I would pretend that you don't exist.

[RichM]

58. I apologize, CWeb. I really see the light now. Honest I do. No more

whining for me! No sirree Bob.

No, now I see the error of my ways. I apologize to anyone my regrettable doubting may have offended. As the great line from "Cool Hand Luke" has it - "I got my head straight now, Boss!!"

I love Kerry now. I believe in him. I believe in the Democratic Party -- hey, after all, it's the party of the people, right? I am smiling right now because I am so happy!

I hope (if I am on good behavior for a while) we can start instituting purges and 2-minute Hate Sessions for all the unrepentant commie pinkos.

Thank you for helping me see the light! :-) (Me happy now!) :-)

[RichM]

54. Aw gee, IC.

Though I almost always see things very much the way you do, I don't agree that what I wrote can properly be called "defeatism." My considered position is that (as expressed in that WSWS article) the 2-party system is entirely a tool of the US corporate oligarchy, & that the Democratic faction of it is not a trustworthy or viable instrument for meaningful change. Rather, the Dem Party exists to function as a safety valve for social tensions, & to channel potential mass desire for change into various dead-ends.

I know you are thoroughly familiar with this line of thought, so there's no need to repeat it here. // I'll take a look at your post #45 & try to respond to it in that subthread.

[Armstead]

57. IC seems to be in a grouchy mood today

Look at how he singed me above.:)

[RichM]

60. Where? Which post? I missed that one...

[IrateCitizen]

59. I'm sorry I snapped at you, RichM -- I shouldn't have

But when confronted by the continual naysaying and complaining from so many of my fellow progressives and leftists, I'm just tired of hearing the same things over and over again.

We all know that the system, as it currently is, is totally fucked. The question we need to be asking then, is, what in the hell can we do about it that will make a difference. I have just been getting a little impatient when I see people continuing to "vent" when what we really need to be doing is catching fire -- because we've got mountains of ice before us to melt!

Please accept my sincere apologies for a tongue lashing, as that rarely accomplishes anything productive, either.

[RichM]

74. No problem-o, IC. You're one of the handful of reasons I come here at all

-- you'd have to do far far worse, for a long time, to seriously perturb me. Your account with me is in hugely positive balance, so to speak!

I see in a post above that you mentioned having some personal issues, today. I'm sorry to hear that - but it strikes me that even were there not special things going on for you today, what's really happening this week of Super Tuesday is that it's sinking in, now, for all of us, that Kerry is really going to be the nominee.

This realization is bound to have an impact on all of us. For me, it's very sobering. I feel that what I'm seeing this week is the concretely limited nature of what the Democratic Party is able to achieve, & what the media-plus-Dem-Establishment forces will allow. It's really not too heartening, in view of how dangerous the overall situation is. I feel that Dem voters chose the option that was least imaginative and least bold. Seeing this unfold before our eyes leaves an emotional residue; it's serious, somewhat grim, not at all uplifting.

[IrateCitizen]

77. Thanks, Rich. My response.

This realization is bound to have an impact on all of us. For me, it's very sobering. I feel that what I'm seeing this week is the concretely limited nature of what the Democratic Party is able to achieve, & what the media-plus-Dem-Establishment forces will allow. It's really not too heartening, in view of how dangerous the overall situation is. I feel that Dem voters chose the option that was least imaginative and least bold. Seeing this unfold before our eyes leaves an emotional residue; it's serious, somewhat grim, not at all uplifting.

I'm not going to disagree with anything you say here, because I feel it as well. However, what I am stressing is the need to find a way to get AROUND the media-plus-Dem-Establishment and form an alternative power structure. The current structure only occupies as much power as WE give it. Without us giving up that power, their structure has no power.

Now, such a line of thought can easily turn to "I'm going to take away their power by not giving them my vote." The problem with this line of thought is that it doesn't actually do anything to help you or others realize your OWN power potential. It is, sadly, essentially protest without any true purpose. The key lies in discovering ways that contribute to POPULAR empowerment while at the same time taking power away from elite/establishment sources. THIS is the way in which we will truly be able to lose the kind of disheartenment that you are currently feeling, and instead obtain some true vestige of political freedom rather than living only under the illusion of such.

I wish I had some more concrete ideas right now, but at the very least I think it's important to talk about these kinds of approaches in the abstract -- if only for the simple purpose of at least identifying the true source of the problem and in what general direction we need to proceed.

[KoKo]

94. I think Move On.org and our new "Center for Progressive Policy" Think Tank

are good starts. If MoveOn can do it's own ads (and I believe they are left of center, not DLC) and "The Center"...can become organized for the Left then we have more than we did with Gore or with Clinton.

With the decline of the Labor Unions there's a huge void which could be filled with "GrassRoots" activism. It won't be "instant" gratification but then the RWing didn't get "instant gratification" when they started.

It will be hard work, but I think Dean/Kucinich gave us a great start.

[IrateCitizen]

102. I'd agree with you on MoveOn. The CPP is another matter.

The reviews I've read on the "Center" are far from glowing. Despite its vast funding apparatus, it has thus far failed to articulate any kind of bold vision (a la Heritage on the right), and instead opted for a more "moderate" approach.

IMHO, there is a huge problem with this, because think tanks are where BOLD ideas are supposed to originate. They're not saddled with the baggage of "electability" and therefore are free to think outside the box -- with the main goal being the stretching of the box to contain their point of view.

If the Center of Progressive Policy isn't going to be bold, then they really aren't capturing the essence of progressivism -- and will end up being just a big waste of money and time. While Heritage is working overtime to drag us further to the right, the "Center" will be trying to pull us only back to the center -- while that center keeps shifting further and further to the right.

[Armstead]

103. I agre abiut the Center for Progressive Policy

Like many so-called "progressive centrists," I think their motives are good -- to find new answers beyond the Big Government Liberalism.
However, in so doing they are also tossing out the baby with the bathwater, and just tweaking bad systems instead of really looking for answers.

On health-care, for example, they seem to advocate making the inherently screwed-up current model of private, for-profit employer-based coverage "kinder and gentler" by providing "market incentives" to insurers and tax breaks to consumers.

Sounds nice in theory, but they also gloss over the fact that this still leaves peopel at the mercies of market forces in healthcare. Seems like the options ought to be broader than that.

[IrateCitizen]

104. They're abandoning their true role in shaping policy

They are adopting the role of compromise before the first political salvo is even fired -- which ties in with the "moving center" theory I spoke of above. Their role as a progressive think tank needs to be to fire that salvo from an UNCOMPROMISING position. Compromises will be made within the framework of electoral politics -- they don't need to be made prior to an idea even GETTING there.

If they wanted to make a real difference, they'd truly become the "anti-Heritage" they are making themselves out to be. WRT the healthcare debate, there is no reason why they cannot propose a government-run (whether administered at the federal or state level is not a big deal) single-payer system and lay out lots of data to back up their claim. Then, they go about educating various groups on their proposal, starting the lobbying chain reaction, and hoping to institute their BOLD vision eventually as policy.

[Katha]

65. I'm not looking for 'exciting'

in Senator Kerry. I'm looking for an intelligent candidate who has the best interests of the American people -- and the rest of the world -- at heart. I believe he embodies those characteristics.

He doesn't have to be exciting to beat Bush. He only has to be the better choice (like that's difficult!), and to make that quality clear to America. I have every faith that he'll exceed our expectations.

[jonnyblitz]

73. same here. "exciting" not required!

At this point I am tired of the infighting I just want to rally around somebody and get Bush the HELL out and that is all the excitement I require. I happen to be quite fond of Massachusetts liberals anyway...

[Armstead]

90. There's a difference between excitement and enthusiasm

Rock and Roll are exciting. So are action movies.

Being able to generate enthusiasm isn;t the same as being personally exciting.

Kerry could be as dull as dishwater, as long as he conveys things that can generate enthusiasm in people.

[Pastiche423]

85. Nope

[KoKo]

93. An Excellent post, Armstead. I saved it to savor after wading through

attacks on those who want our Democratic Party to grow stronger here on DU today. I knew if I waited to read this post I would hear reason, sanity and I would post: I agree. If the post had headed to "Archive" I would have kicked, and you didn't need it.

Many thanks for saying this so well. There are a few of us still left in this forum who "get it." And, it's good to see you back posting and speaking up.

:toast:

[KoKo]

96. And......a Kick for the "Night Crowd" it's well worth the read!

:kick:

[scarletwoman]

98. Wow! This is the BEST thread I've seen around here in ages!

Armstead, RichM, IC -- the intelligence and depth of your perceptions, and the dexterity with which you articulate your arguments, have made reading this thread a balm to my weary spirit.

An evening of reading through the threads in this forum is enough to drive one to despair at the shallowness, vapidity and coarsenss of what passes as political dialogue around here these days.

I haven't the wit to add anything of substance to the points you three have already so ably expressed. I just wanted to convey my profound appreciation that such minds as yours still grace this venue.

Many thanks,
sw

[Forkboy]

99. They broke the mold when they made him!

Sadly,he was still in it :shrug: