Et Tu Chris Hedges

[iamthebandfanman]

Dunno if this had been posted yet, and not posting as an endorsement of the sentiment in the article.. just thought id bring it up for discussion seeing as mr hedges has been a pretty used source on DU in the past..


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_voting_green_20121029?fb_action_ids=4029289690467&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

"The November election is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is not a battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is a battle between the corporate state and us. And if we do not immediately engage in this battle we are finished, as climate scientists have made clear. I will defy corporate power in small and large ways. I will invest my energy now solely in acts of resistance, in civil disobedience and in defiance. Those who rebel are our only hope. And for this reason I will vote next month for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, although I could as easily vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. I will step outside the system. Voting for the “lesser evil”—or failing to vote at all—is part of the corporate agenda to crush what is left of our anemic democracy. And those who continue to participate in the vaudeville of a two-party process, who refuse to confront in every way possible the structures of corporate power, assure our mutual destruction."

[emulatorloo]

1. No surprise there. "Bring on the Republican Apocalypse."

[Enrique]

2. i know where he's coming from

but I voted for Obama this past Sunday.

[kysrsoze]

3. See my response on OpEdNews, to this steaming pile of opinion... Suck it, Chris Hedges.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-I-m-Voting-Green-by-Chris-Hedges-121029-755.html

If you vote third party for President, you're just flushing your vote down the toilet. The "Nader" option is a demonstrated failure, and the reason is b/c it's TOP-DOWN. The Green/independents don't have the money and influence to compete at the Presidential level, and it's foolish to even bother at this point.

The solution is so simple, even the simpleton Tea Party got it. Sure, they were just the party base, and too short-sighted/angry to notice they were co-opted by the Republican Party, but they understood that you start at the BOTTOM, grass-roots, and you don't sit around in tents. You run candidates at the local and state-level, where the races are cheap, and the candidates can get by on their public reputation.

The independents in Vermont also get it. They only run against weaker Democrats, where they are likely to win, and they work with Democrats when it's a good idea, in coalitions like in England and Israel. To count out all the local/state-level, and even national GOOD Dems is foolish. When you take over the populace, you gain real power. I hope people here start to understand that.

My Pops provided the response, "A respectful dissent." He writes some great articles there, and I'm proud of him. He's a REALIST.

[brush]

4. 3rd party voters = fifth column

We've all seen this movie before in 2000 and it ended with W Bush, the worse president in history getting in office as Nader syphoned off just enough votes to make it close enough that we were left with repugs on SCOTUS selecting the "winner." We know the repugs are intent on voter suppression so every vote for a third party candidate can take a vote away from President Obama. He is the first president that has invested in and will continue to champion green issues and perhaps move us away from having to pursue our invasive foreign policy direction towards, and let’s be clear, non-white countries' resources, as we will develop our own domestic alternative energy sources.

Other presidents to come could follow his lead, especially if repugs lose this one which will render them a regional party no longer able to elect a national ticket (that is unless they undergo wholesale changes to attract minorities, which is highly unlikely). Let's don't fall for this foolish, attention-seeking siren song. If third parties are serious they should build a base by running and winning local elections, statewide contests and then on to national elections. I'm all for other parties because our present system is broken (especially the Senate). Maybe we even should consider a parliamentary system.

But anyway, every four years these third parties with no base want equal treatment with the established parties. I say establish thyself with a hardworking, grassroots organization that is able to elect candidates on all levels and then we'll be that much closer to actually effecting much needed change in our representative system.

[eqfan592]

5. Except you and I both know that if there is one thing the GOP and the Democrats are in absolute...

...agreement on, it is the maintaining of the current two party system and the absolute exclusion of any third party. They've effectively set up as many road blocks as possible to ensure that almost no amount of hard work will ever lead to a strong third party arising again on the national level.

Thus the parliamentary system you think we should consider is basically dead before it can even get going.

EDIT for the person who is sure to alert on this post: No, I'm NOT speaking in favor of a third party here, I'm simply being a realist in recognizing the road blocks both we and the GOP have put into place for third parties in this country, for good or ill.

[brush]

6. But what's your opinion on 3rd party voters in this election? nt

[eqfan592]

9. Ya know, I understand where they are coming from. In fact, truth be told, I WAS one in 2004...

...(tho my state still went blue, so no blaming me for Bush's second term!). But the reality of the situation is that a third party vote in a presidential election is a wasted vote. No message is being sent other than the fact that you are too naive to realize that you are wasting your time.

I personally would rather stick with the party that I agree with on the most issues, and try to affect change from within. That being said, I think I would really like to see instant runoff voting come to the US, as I think it would make for far more interesting elections in general, and might break up the two party system just a tad more. And I don't think that would be a bad thing, because as it stands, the two party system as a whole is shifting in the wrong direction, and nothing we've done seems to have checked that rightward shift.

[brush]

13. Shorter is good

I too like the idea of shortening the process whether it be instant runoffs or a more compressed 2 or 3 month election season.

[BlueToTheBone]

51. To become a functioning national party

you have to begin at the local level (the old think global, act local) and pick up school boards, state houses and then the national scene is ready for you and it is more viable. But IMHO, most politically naive people only think of politics on the presidential scale and then only after the primaries.

I think worse than having no effect, 3rd parties have a spoiler effect...notably Ross Perot and Ralph Nadir.

[LiberalElite]

54. Oh but the Green Party is "acting local"

This link is a list of Green Party officeholders: http://www.gp.org/elections/officeholders/index.php
MSM only mentions the Green Party if they field a presidential candidate.
They don't go into hibernation and become active every 4 years.

[stevenleser]

82. When the Greens have 1/5th of the seats in congress and the senate, they can THINK about POTUS

Thats not a high bar to reach. If they dont get that, there is no point in running for President.

As soon as you have three or more people running who have a threat to obtain significant amounts of electoral votes, you are basically guaranteeing that a Presidential election will be thrown into the House of Representatives. If you dont have the votes in the House of Representatives and dont even have a significant minority to be a part of the negotiations once it gets there, there is no point running a candidate.

Not sure why third parties dont see this.

[RomneyLies]

64. Ther eis one way I would ever vote for a Green at any level

Only if there is no Democrat on the ticket, and probably not even then. I'd probably leave the line blank.

[Autumn]

29. You didn't ask me, but my opinion is that if a person

is not satisfied with either party they have every right to vote for whomever they chose. That one vote is theirs to do with what they want. Personally I consider a third party vote to be a waste. But it's their vote and I do not begrudge them their beliefs.

[geardaddy]

16. Until the Electoral College is gone, the two-party system will always win

for the Presidential election.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

7. Blah blah blah.

People like Hedges are always just so holier-than-thou and so sure of themselves while riding in on their white horse of obscurity along the edge of society, making no more of an impact on someone's day than a gnat in your line of vision.

[kysrsoze]

23. Brilliant description. Thanks.

[Blecht]

8. I strongly disagree with his plan

But the problem he talks about is real.

Confronting the "vaudeville of the two-party" process must be done, but doing it at this stage of the process would be the cruelest, most futile gesture anybody could make.

I have nothing but respect for Hedges, but he is dead wrong here.

Anything that would enable Republicans to retake control of our country's highest office would cause untold suffering among the most powerless members of our society while Hedges and others like him would remain mostly above the fray.

[TheKentuckian]

60. My question for you is when has it been different and when will it ever be different?

There will never be a "good" time to confront the process, there will always be hostages and fallout.

Every election is the most important election of our lifetimes and the Reich Wing always finds new ways to be extreme while Democrats edge more corporate and authoritarian while maintaining a similar amount of space between the opposition due to their ever increasing nutbaggery.

At what point will we not be faced with either Republicans taking control or their ideological successors under different names, including Democrats?

Those of us that admit that system is broken know it isn't very plausible that it will self repair and probably is in a loop that can only degrade but will do so over the longest time. I get how those that perceive that the binary choice as being between polar opposites see a least harm outcome but it is a hell of a lot tougher seeing the trainwreck stretch the decades.

I reckon there may well be a third school of thought that is shut up and get behind a more equitable vision of dystopia where Koch sisters will be equally able to perpetrate mass douchebaggery as brothers of the same ilk, where gay couples can sign into their day rent shelter as a family, an atheist can run the empire, and little children regardless of their race train for 60 years at Walmart side by side with an equal chance to be cart grabbers, cashiers, stock workers, or if they work hard maybe a manager based on their abilities and efforts.

[Blecht]

85. There are no easy answers

Finding a long-term solution to the horrible mess of our political system may not ever be possible. But I do know that opposing the modern Republican party is the right thing for me to do this week.

I would probably survive if Romney were elected. But I know for certain that a Romney presidency would harm or kill thousands of Americans who would not suffer as much under an Obama presidency, and I owe it to those people to do everything I can to keep Romney out of office.

[Odin2005]

10. Fuck you, Chris!

Hedges has been on my shit list ever since he bashed Atheists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Tsk. Tsk. Chris didn't sign the Loyalty Oath.

[cali]

41. that has nothing to do with it.

Hedges really is full of shit. He believes and he's espoused so many, many times, that there is ZERO difference between the democrats and republicans. We know that's not true. For women, for children, for the elderly and for the disabled, there's a big difference. His arrogance and eagerness for a total crash of the system- something else he constantly cheerleads for, are mind boggling. He really doesn't give a flying fuck about actual people actually suffering. He's nothing more but another apocalyptic nutbag- albeit of the secular flavor.

His callousness is disgusting.

[SidDithers]

12. Fuck Chris Hedges...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

66. vaht? vaz you shaying shumthin, about fuck the greens.. to meeee?

[AtomicKitten]

14. "Derp."

[moondust]

15. Siphoning off votes won't change the system.

Ask Al Gore.

[Ship of Fools]

17. this man seems more than willing

to sit in a comfy armchair surrounded by computers while
people like me take to the streets and shed blood.

viva la revolution, but please wipe your feet on the doormat...

just sayin'.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. He has been arrested IIRC more than once for direct action activism

and has also taken part in the lawsuit against the indefinite detention provision (section 1021) of the NDAA, signed by Obama last new years' eve. (A judge agreed with Hedges et. al. and struck it down as unConstitutional, but government lawyers had it reinstated despite that...!!!)

Solidarity to you for getting in the face of the system.

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. You do not seem to know anything about Hedges.

He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years (1990–2005).
In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He also received in 2002 the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

He also "has survived ambushes in Central America, imprisonment in Sudan, and a beating by Saudi military police. "
http://books.google.com/books/about/War_Is_a_Force_that_Gives_Us_Meaning.html?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C

[Ship of Fools]

28. obviously not. i stand corrected.

[dixiegrrrrl]

33. I appreciate that.

Hedges has not even been in the USA much over the last 20 years, and one of the only reasons he returned was because he had PTSD from all the wars/violence he had seen.
( he talks about this in an interview I saw)
He had, early on, attended Divinity School, but did not take the last step of becoming ordained.
( His father is a minister)

So there is quite an unusual combination of skills, background in this guy, plus he is extremely intelligent.

His writings, esp. anti war writings, are powerful, honest, and he does not mince words nor take fools lightly.

[Octafish]

68. Thank you for putting the picture into words, dixiegrrrrl.

Hedges tells it like he sees it, a true journalist.

[woo me with science]

92. Thank you. nt

[magical thyme]

18. I voted my conscience

and my conscience told me that serious parties start at the grass roots level and build their foundation there. They don't run fantasy campaigns at the national level, where they have not only zero chance of winning, but zero chance of influencing the dialog. The stunt in which Ms. Stein got herself arrested for trying to crash the debate backfired with me.

My expectation is different from 2008, however. During that inauguration, I cried with relief. This time, I believe our work will only be just beginning after Prez Obama is re-elected.

Sandy gives us the perfect opportunity to re-start the very serious dialog that Reagan shut down 30 years ago, and follow up with action. I expect to start the day after the election.

President Obama has set himself up to finally beat down the opposition, with the "fiscal cliff" that really gives him a sledge hammer to hold over their heads. It's up to us to make it clear that the #1 priority *must* be to aim for restructuring our society around climate change.

[progressivebydesign]

21. I wrote something similar just now, but nowhere near as elegantly as you have. ;) nt

[TheKentuckian]

45. This formula is based on what in America?

Democrats have essentially been around since the founding and Republicans sprung up from a regional nothing and took the Presidency in less than a generation.

I see every indication that one of the few actual acts of bipartisanship that exists is maintaining the present arrangement. Everyone likes a captive audience and options for the captives are strongly discouraged.

Neither party has earned shit, the phony bootstraps argument is phony. Both major parties predate anyone alive and were created in substantially different circumstances, neither did a damn thing to deserve special standing and de facto control of our nation's political process despite no constitutional role or even mention.

The current power share is not healthy for a people's self determination and the dialog too narrow and focused on the wrong areas to be of the people, for the people.

[magical thyme]

49. within just a few years, the Tea Party has driven the GOP

over a cliff. They've made a lot of headway, very quickly, in catalyzing change. Yes, they had funding from the Koch bros to get them started, but I can assure you my rabid teaparty sister is no 1%er. Yet there was a de facto tea party leader on the GOP ballot 4 years ago, and another one this year, and how many are in congress? And the tea party very nearly attained their objective of bringing down the government last summer when they forced us into losing our AAA rating.

Their primary news outlet, Fox, is still alive. Going down slowly, but hanging on. What's happening to Current these days?

What have the Greens accomplished so far? I live in the state of their founding yet did not have a single Green candidate to vote for last week, other than potentially writing in Jill Stein. If I had not gone looking for it, I wouldn't have known Jill Stein was a candidate until she got arrested for trying to force her way into the debates. I protested the war in Vietnam when I was all of 14, I agree with her platform, but trying to crash the debates to get arrested did not impress me.

Nobody running for any office here in my village under the Green banner that I'm aware of. I saw no Green op-eds or letters to the editor in our local papers, which would cost zip except somebody's time, effort and ability. No Green anything except one of the indies, Angus King, chose green signs. Oh, I think I did see a single Green candidate sign in my travels last week -- it had the "stenciled" look they used 4 years ago so I assume it was Green.

[TheKentuckian]

99. So, there is no such model. Teabaggers are Republicans

They are financed by Republicans.

They are organized by Republican heavy hitters and strategists.

The Republicans took over the Republican party and are doubling down on the shit the Republicans have been running on forever.
It makes not a bit of big picture sense in the world to join selling the bogus tea party narrative to make some throw away point to browbeat folks into accepting crap from Democrats and allowing our candidates political room to do what ever they please as long as they have a (D) next to their name or just to support an opinion that may or may not reflect reality because real world evidence just doesn't really exist either way.

I doubt either approach will work as far as winning goes, the system won't allow it unless one dies off or the majors don't fight them.

[magical thyme]

111. You may want to try getting a good night's sleep and rethinking what you wrote

Because I can't make heads or tails of it.

"The Republicans took over the Republican party..."

"It makes not a bit of big picture sense in the world to join selling the bogus tea party narrative to make some throw away point to browbeat folks "


Either the tea party took over the republican party, or the republican party took over the tea party, but the republican party most certainly did not take over the republican party...

I tend to think the republican party invited the tea party into their "big tent" and the tea party went on rampage and is doing a good job of wrecking a party that used to be reasonable. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not selling some bogus tea party narrative. My sister is a tea party member. She is not one of the 1%. She just found a place where she, and all the hatred she steeps in, could fit in and be accepted. Ranting, raging, rude, obnoxious and self-entitled behavior and all. The tea party people I know are well off, think their shit doesn't stink, and are unbelievably rude and/or vicious toward anybody who disagrees with them.

And please show me where I've "browbeaten" anybody into accepting anything. I've voiced my opinion, that is all.

And if you look around at my threads, you will see that in my opinion our work doesn't end on Nov. 7, our work begins on Nov. 7.

I believe that President Obama has positioned himself to be able to force some needed change in the next 4 years. I believe his so-called fiscal cliff is really a sledge hammer that he holds over the RW congress.

I believe that Sandy has given us the very unmistakable message at the perfect time to force climate change to front and center when the next president takes office. There was no point arguing climate change with people who deny its existence. Now that NYC has been brought to its knees, it becomes a lot harder to deny.

There will be a new President on Nov. 7 and not voting or voting for somebody who doesn't take the office seriously to mount a serious campaign for it will not change who takes that position.

I think it matters whether that person is named Obama or Romney. It mattered in 2000. It matters today.

That is all, obviously, my opinion. If you feel browbeaten by reading it, you may want to consider getting to sleep earlier and staying asleep for 8+ hours. Not always easy or possible, but important to physical and mental health.

[freshwest]

109. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. No surprise there - Hedges has been anti-Democrat for years

He was advocating voting for McKinney or Nader back in Sept 2008: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-4

[freshwest]

110. He has some great insight. But I'm voting for the person who change things on the ground.

[progressivebydesign]

20. purists like that are so divorced from reality.

There will NEVER EVER be a President that represents their little crowd. It won't happen. But as long as they are deluded into thinking that their voting for a 3rd party is going to change things, they'll keep getting people like Bush and Cheney in charge.

I don't want a hardcore liberal president, just like I don't want a hardcore republican, either. They are supposed to represent America, which is somewhere in the middle. Guys like him will never ever get a Jill Stein (former recycling board president) to lead the Country. But what they can do, which would actually be USEFUL to everyone, is support the viable candidate who most closely matches some of their wish list.

Their time would be better spent then, on electing State senators and local races, that have more impact on their daily lives. But we can't do jack shit if they keep siphoning off the vote so that people like Romney win. It's like they're willing to sacrifice your grandmother's social security because of their own tunnel vision and rigid beliefs. They'd rather see pell grants abolished, jobs shipped to china, the environment trashed, because the Democratic President didn't legalize pot. They're naive and selfish, and often have little life experience outside of their own thoughts and blogs.

Change happens from the inside, and with each Democrat elected, and as the Country gets more liberal, the major party Democrat candidate will get more liberal.. but it takes time. I'm sick of having to fucking rebuild every time a republican gets in office because of shit like this. We lose so much ground this way by people that thought "bush is no different than Gore." Geezus H. That was the FUCKING stupidest meme, ever. And they have not learned. Guess they're too wrapped up in themselves to hear the stories of the families whose sick children finally have health care after being denied for being born with a pre-existing condition. Or of the families that lost their homes under Bush's term, who are now working again and have a home.

[HiPointDem]

31. "... the major party Democrat candidate will get more liberal.. but it takes time..." is such bs.

it's been 30+ years since reagan, & the democratic party has done nothing but move steadily TO THE RIGHT.

[Fire Walk With Me]

22. "It is a battle between the corporate state and us."

Yes.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. Chris is correct.

We currently have The Corporate Party and The Corporate But Less Nasty Party. Every time O urps "clean coal" he is setting the record straight.

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. Indeed.

[woo me with science]

91. Absolutely correct. nt

[Union Scribe]

30. He's a fine writer who consistently brings up worthwhile topics

but this time I disagree. How hard is that, people? Are some of you so black/white you have to go all, "omg fuks this rmney nazi!11"?

[cali]

42. I think he's an erstwhile fine writer

the stuff he's written over the past decade is just an onslaught of verbiage; one hackneyed phrase after another- lousy polemics.

[Romulox]

55. Your issue is with his politics, not his choice of words. nt

[cali]

57. actually, it's with his secular apocalyptic bullshit, dear.

and his fucking awful writing. It's disturbing as hell to me that someone who once wrote cogently, can't do anything but spout end time dog shit

[DevonRex]

32. Short version of article - Chris Hedges: "I'm a fucking idiot."

I read it so nobody else would have to.

Fuck you, Chris Hedges.

[mmonk]

34. I understand where he is coming from. However, I had rather hit the wall

at 45 miles per hour under Obama than 80 miles an hour under Romney. It buys more time to fight to fight the right causes. At this point, we are too close to an horrendous future for me to vote Green (as much as I would like to lodge that protest vote). I currently see civil disobedience as the option to injustice as we are too far deep into self destruction.

[DevonRex]

37. Thank you. There is no denying that Romney

is a creature far worse than any we have seen before as a candidate. I think that's why this election season has been relatively calm.

I understand and share most of your issues even though we might have different ideas about how to achieve success in the long term.

[DevonRex]

35. Great. Now all our 3rd party DUers have come out to argue about Obama.

Just what we needed.

[dionysus]

67. imbeciles like hedges always bring out the resident moro- er, greens out of the woodwork. care for a

truffle? saphron and diamond sprinkles this time

[DevonRex]

84. Ooh sounds great! Do you think they're Greens?

I think they're Socialists. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[librechik]

36. he's right. However, there's no reason to abandon voting

just because the system is fucked. And the system is seriously fucked. We need to keep screaming about how fucked it is. That may be the only hope for an eventual fix, because a fix isn't in the cards with the system we currently have. A LOT of things have to change. It seems hopeless.

However, continuing to vote makes sure that the right isn't taken away completely. Which is where it is headed if we lose hope and stop.

[DevonRex]

38. He's voting Green Party. He's Dead Fucking Wrong. Nt

[librechik]

39. oh, yeah--that's screwed up--but he can vote however. I don't care. It's his right.

I don't condemn third parties or the dedicated people who think they are accomplishing something by voting third party. Advocating for other systems would almost require a Green Party Vote for some.

Not me. I just disagree that it helps at the moment. We might not ever be in a place where it can help.

[iamthebandfanman]

40. my personal feelings...

now that this thread has had some time for discussion..
ill give my two cents.

im perfectly fine with people voting for a third party. its youre right to vote for whomever you wish, and also your right to run for whatever office you wish to run for. theres nothing wrong with that. people who blame nader in 2000 kinda piss me off, given all the illegal activity that lead to the outcome of that election ( i think its stupid to blame someone exercising their rights when there were literally people stealing legit votes from americans ).
BUT
when you really stop and think about our current situation, its just not the smartest move in the world. trust me, 12 years ago i was right there with you guys... but things have changed since Bush...
we HAVE to find a way to get all this money out of politics and campaigning. that can only be done through the supreme court now because of the CU case.
we know for sure over the next 4-8 years that we will replace another justice, in most likelihood..
we know for a fact that a republican nominee will never ever ever ever ever be open to repealing it..
and until that money is out of the process... i can promise.. PROMISE.. that there will never ever ever ever ever EVER EVER be a viable third party.
it has nothing to do with with 'dont be a stupid purist' or 'dont waste your vote'...
its just a lil bit of common sense this time around and looking to wards the future of creating more than a two party system in this country.
the parties literally control all the debates.. everything that happens in the primaries... and now they can go crazy in the general with as much money as they want to tell as many lies as they want.
something has to give. most people would agree.
Again tho, Citizens United has F'd us all. until its repealed, this notion of voting green is just silly to me..

another democratic term and the potential to influence the SCOTUS to overturn CU is way way way too important to the viability and growth of other partys to ignore it. anyone whos unhappy with the two party system should take note that until CU is gone, REAL change in our politics is just a dream.

[RomneyLies]

43. Any asshole who advocates for a third party

Should be banned as source material on DemocraticUnderground.

[whatchamacallit]

44. How DARE this motherfucker

have an opinion, speak his mind, and exercise his rights! What country does this idiot think he's living in???

[Renew Deal]

47. At least you acknowledge he's an idiot

Because that's the bigger issue.

[whatchamacallit]

50. Far from it

No one (in their right mind) would argue Obama isn't infinitely superior to Romney, but let's get real; Sandy is only the beginning of a nightmare both parties are responsible for. While Obama is certain to do more about it than the Insane Cartoon the republicans are running, it's likely to be too little, too late. I won't be following Chris' lead, but he's right.

[Renew Deal]

52. No, he's wrong and there's proof.

[whatchamacallit]

58. Believe what you like

We're in deep shit. Partially, because deluded Americans still believe the winner of this Seasonal Charade is the answer to their problems.

[kath]

87. "Seasonal Charade" - I like that.

Speaks to a truth that so few are willing to see or acknowledge.

[whatchamacallit]

90. ;)

[treestar]

63. You can make the same defense of tea partiers then?

We have a right to disagree with him.

[whatchamacallit]

95. I defend the 1st Amendment, so yeah, I guess I can

Comparing Chris Hedges to the Tea Party is lame, and it underscores the problem with our binary, identity politics. If Hedges aimed solely at Romney he'd be an oft-quoted hero on DU.

[treestar]

96. It's a fine comparison, they are both extremists

The extremists have a lot in common - they are opposites in their positions but very similar in their approach and view of the rest of us.

[whatchamacallit]

98. Says you

Everything but the status quo is extreme to the mushy middle.

[Renew Deal]

46. Chris Hedges is a moron.

He thinks Obama is "evil." That tells you everything you need to know about Hedges.

[msanthrope]

48. I don't know why anyone posts this anti-atheist bigot. nt

[eqfan592]

53. Because atheists are one of the last groups out there that it is still "ok" to be bigoted towards.nt

[msanthrope]

62. "I Don't Believe in Atheists" is apparently

acceptable....

Perhaps he could write "I Don't Believe in Muslims" or "I Don't Believe in Catholics." I'd love to see that defended here.

[eqfan592]

77. You'd be lynched around here for saying anything even close to that.

Some of the things I've seen said over in the Religion forum about atheists just forces me to shake my head.

[Romulox]

56. Dissent is counter-revolutionary! nt

[grantcart]

59. lol If we hadn't seen how effectively Ralph Nader used this to undermine government in America

and hand us George Bush we might you consider you courageous.

Not voting for Obma is voting for Romney.

Romney is 10 times worse than Bush.

There are uneducated buffoons and some pretty well educated buffoons.

[upi402]

61. I voted for Obama *AND* I know Chris Hedges is right

First keep the lunatics out, then get our party back.

[amborin]

94. +1 same here; so many reasons to vote for Obama, this summarizes some:

".... however we judge the past four years, it is crucial that we lean into this election without ambivalence, knowing that while an Obama victory will not solve all or even most of our problems, defeat will be catastrophic for the progressive agenda and movement.

We confront a conservative movement that is apocalyptic in its worldview and revolutionary in its aspirations. It is not an exaggeration to say that this movement wants to roll back the great progressive gains of the twentieth century—from voting rights to women’s rights, from basic regulations on corporate behavior to progressive taxation, from the great pillars of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to the basic rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. After the emergence of the Tea Party, the 2010 elections, the extreme Paul Ryan budget proposal and the 2011 state legislative sessions (which featured voter suppression, nativism, attacks on reproductive rights and vicious anti-unionism), there can be no doubting the seriousness or the ferocity of our opponents. It is also important to note the deep racialized underpinnings of this movement, which seeks to entrench the power of an older, wealthier white constituency and prevent an emerging majority of color from finding its voice. The battles over the role and size of government, taxes, the safety net, immigration and voter suppression have become proxies for this underlying demographic tension. Should Obama lose this election, we can expect a ruthless effort to dismantle the social contract—including efforts to use state power to decimate sources of resistance by further restricting the franchise, destroying unions and attacking any remaining centers of power for communities of color and workers. All of this was clear even before, in a leaked video, Mitt Romney made plain his contempt for nearly half of the American people.

Immediately after the election, we will face one of the most important social policy debates of our generation. Before the end of this year, President Obama and Congress must confront the so-called fiscal cliff—the deep automatic cuts in defense and domestic spending that have been mandated by the last debt deal unless a new budget framework can be reached. This discussion of mounting debts and deficits will take place as the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire, setting the stage for a clash of ideologies from which the victor will enjoy the spoils for years to come. Winning the elections does not guarantee a progressive outcome to this debate—far from it—but losing certainly means that the dark politics of austerity will dominate the country, resulting in misery on a scale we can’t now imagine....."

http://www.thenation.com/article/170309/why-obama

[upi402]

120. Austerity... and another war

The cement -should Obama loose- would harden around disenfranchisement WRT voting fraud.
And the dismantling of entitlements we paid into for decades - the safety net. I agree 100%

Sorry for the delayed response to such an outstanding reply. I didn't read it, I studied it. Thank you for that!

[liberal_at_heart]

104. +1

I get so tired of liberals being treated like the red headed step child. There will come a time for a change. Either liberals will have to be let back into the tent or I will leave. Liberals will not stay forever. You think it is easy to vote democrat when we get berated and harrassed all the time by democrats. And they stand there like an abusive husband saying yeah you'll stay and you'll like your beating. Not much longer. I'm telling you. I cannot tell you how bad I wanted to vote 3rd party. I'm hanging on by a thread. I almost left this time, but you are right. First get the crazy right wing republicans out of office and then we will see what happens.

[dionysus]

65. he's always been an idiot.

[whatchamacallit]

69. So spake dionysus!

From Wikipedia

Christopher Lynn Hedges (born September 18, 1956) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and war correspondent specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies. Hedges is also known as the best-selling author of several books including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002)—a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction—I Don't Believe in Atheists (2008) and Death of the Liberal Class (2010).

Chris Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years (1990–2005).

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He also received in 2002 the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University and The University of Toronto. He writes a weekly column on Mondays for Truthdig and authored what The New York Times described as "a call to arms" for the first issue of The Occupied Wall Street Journal, the newspaper giving voice to the Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park, New York City.

Yes, "an idiot"
It's amazing the brazen lunacy internet anonymity inspires.

[dionysus]

70. by advocatingthrowing the election, he is an imbecile, yes.

i'm not surprised you're a fan

[whatchamacallit]

71. I'm a fan of

evaluating ideas and messages on their individual merit. I'm not a fan of people who thoughtlessly try to kill the messenger by lobbing dumb-bombs from the safety of their cliques.

[eqfan592]

79. Sorry, but anybody who claims they don't "believe in atheists" is an idiot.

And a bigoted idiot at that. Now that idiot might come up with a good idea from time to time, but that doesn't stop them from being an idiot.

[whatchamacallit]

80. Here's an interview that explains some of the thinking behind the book

http://www.salon.com/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/

The provocative title makes a perfect propaganda sound bite for DU's professional character assassins.

[eqfan592]

81. Oh, I understand what he was trying to say.

I think it's pure bullshit, and only underscores his idiocy, but I understand it. I think this cartoon sums up why I think his argument against "new atheists" is idiotic, thus making him an idiot in my book.

[whatchamacallit]

83. No, it eludes you

Sorry.

[eqfan592]

101. If by "eludes" you mean I'm able to see through its bullshit, then yes, it does.

He applies opinions to people in a very general way when it is clear that those same people do not share those opinions. He may have had a valid argument to make to some degree, but his attempt at doing so in this book was an abject failure.

[whatchamacallit]

116. No that's not what I mean, so

strike two.

[CrawlingChaos]

89. That was an excellent, important book

He explicitly exposed New Atheism as a repackaging of the neocon agenda, rife with bigotry, fearmongering, and war drums. It was not about atheists, it was about the New Atheist movement - as you must surely be aware.

I'm very grateful to him for writing it.

[eqfan592]

102. Actually, he used neocon tactics in an effort to deface the reputation of people...

...by applying opinions to them as if they are universally held in some way by all those who feel religion has been and continues to be detrimental in many ways to society.

EDIT: http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/newfound-anti-atheist-chris-hedges-doesnt-believe-in-coherent-arguments/

The sad reality is that, like many would-be voices of reason, Hedges doesn’t seem to have made even the most basic inquiry into the nature of non-belief: his “throw everything and the kitchen sink” style of accusation barely manages to be self-consistent, let alone even close to fair or accurate. Instead, he seems satisfied that if he can declare everyone but himself to be equally extreme that he can play the favored moderate without having to do any sort of heavy intellectual lifting to justify his particular positions.

What's funny for me is that I am friends with somebody on facebook that is very much like this, and it can drive me absolutely crazy sometimes.

[CrawlingChaos]

119. Nonsensical mischaracterization of his work, but I guess you had to try (n/t)

[MineralMan]

72. I can't see why anyone would be surprised at this.

Chris Hedges has never been on the side of Democrats.

[whatchamacallit]

74. Not sure what that really means

- Chris Hedges is on the side of justice and progress
- Chris Hedges is "not on the side of Democrats"

Therefore

- Democrats are not on the side of justice and progress?

[geek tragedy]

73. He's a purity troll. Whiny and irrelevant. Fuck him and all like him. nt

[whatchamacallit]

75. Loud and Proud

Yeehaaaaaaaaa!

[joshcryer]

76. I'm not particularly interested in the opinion of the highly privileged.

[whatchamacallit]

78. Hate those "elitist collage professors" do we?

What the hell happened to this place?

[Bonobo]

103. When people are suspended upside down outside a window...

They will vote to be pulled back in even knowing the building is on fire.

But that doesn't mean it is a good situation and sometimes you need someone from the outside to point out that we need to connect the fire hydrants to prevent the whole city from going up in flame.

[joshcryer]

106. Except the people connecting the fire hydrants aren't elites.

[Bonobo]

107. I think you don't get the point.

The point is that as circumstances get more and more desperate for people, they are more and more willing to lower their demands as they slide further up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Physiological needs need to be met first and when much is taken from you by the society, you will be more willing to compromise on the issues lower down the scale. That is what I meant by the person hanging upside down out the window.

Metaphorically speaking, others that have the wherewithal to worry about things lower down the ladder (the firefighters in my example) need to do so or the entire society can easily be pushed into accepting any sort of "savior" or "dictator" as long as they provide bread when you are starving. This is what bread and circuses are all about.

In your other thread, when you said that only the privileged talk about the "lesser of two evils" argument. You were partly right. People in desperate trouble ARE more likely to accept less. However, I was and am surprised to see that you advocate this tragic undermining of higher political discourse in the name of offering a slight improvement to the poor's physiological needs.

Yes, I suppose I am one of the privileged - a word you fairly spit with self-identified "former poor person" pride. I am privileged enough to be able to look beyond physiological base level bread tossed my way and to consider the deeper trouble we are in. And if it were not for such ability to think from a position of privilege, I suppose even more people would be forced over the barrel and placed in fear so that they are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Let's hope it doesn't get much worse, because from the way things appear to be going, we will continue, as a society to accept the smallest possible crumbs as an alternative to starvation.

[joshcryer]

108. Maslow's hierarchy is thourghouly discredited, by your own link.

In fact, surprisingly, needs are not seen hierarchically (thus validating my anarchist position on these subjects, that people choose what benefits them the most).

The whole "lower on the scale" metric is therefore not substantial.

There is no supposition about it, as an expat living in Japan none of the political realities that local Americans face applies to you. You would be the objective realization of someone who regards the lesser of two evils as a possibility. There is simply no possibility for you to be affected by domestic social policies whatsoever, your entire critique would have to be therefore externalized.

The way things are going is a positive direction, however. The teabaggers were the low point in American political life. You can't get much lower. The Democrats will move somewhat to the left, particularly after Obama is reelected. It will surprise a lot of people, but I predict that is what will happen. And rather than cheer or celebrate the move to the left I expect the opposite. Particularly from those who the move to the left won't affect. ie, the privileged.

[kath]

86. What if one lives in an extremely red state - one where Nate & others say Romney has a 100% chance

winning? (heck, or even an 85-90% chance) Is it wrong to vote one's conscience (be it Green, Socialist or whatever) in that situation?

Corporate One Party Rule is killing this country.

[Cha]

88. Yeah, I'm not surprised .. We'll Win without his

stupid vote. This Victory will be Ours who have worked so hard to keep our Nation out of the grasp of the fascist plutocracy. We are the Progressives who will be going Foward.

Thank you, President Obama, for all you have done for the last 4 Years! For Women, the Environment, the SC Judges, getting rid of DADT, Support of Gay Marriage..ETC ETC ETC..

"The President's Done a Lot! Here Are More Than 200 Obama First Term Accomplishments, With Citations!"

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

[Blue_In_AK]

93. Delete.

[bvar22]

97. Separating Fact from Fantasy.

*It is IMPORTANT to return President Obama to the White House, and put as many Democrats in the House & Senate as possible.

*Women, Minorities, the Working Class, The Poor, Non-Fundamental Christians, People in most other Nations, ALL will HURT IF Romney and Republicans are elected.

*Not everyone who votes 3rd Party for President is helping to elect Romney.
One may vote 3d Party for President in solid RED states and safe Blue States without helping elect Romney.

*Those in Swing States or Close States who vote 3rd Party ARE helping the Republicans.

The above are indisputable FACTS.

[liberal_at_heart]

100. I happen to agree with his views

My husband is an independent who tends to vote democrat. I am a democrat and I vote democrat but because I believe in the old liberal views I can't say I will never vote Green Party. I was really tempted to vote for Jill Stein, but voted for Obama instead.

[cali]

112. So you agree that the best thing is for the whole system to fall apart?

Because that's what Hedges believes. I'm disabled and on medicaid. I find his callous disregard for people who are poor, disabled, women, children and the elderly, repulsive. He's another side of white male privilege.

[msanthrope]

113. Well, yes--the system falling apart is okay for privileged fucks like Hedges, because they have

their own safety nets.

[William Seger]

105. It's just the "Nader Fallacy" again

The fact that only a candidate near the political center can win a Presidential election is the way a democracy is supposed to work. What needs to happen is to move the center, and the only way that will happen is with a strong, popular progressive leader. If such a leader should emerge, there is no reason he or she can't run as a Democrat, and the reality is that in cycle after cycle, strong progressives don't win the Democratic primary. But folks, if they can't win the Democratic primary, then they have exactly no chance whatsoever in the general. The reality is that at this time, Obama is the closest thing we've got. Going third party has exactly the same effect as saying, "The hell with it all," just dropping out of the democratic process and letting the center keep drifting toward the right.

[99Forever]

114. This thread and many of the ..

... responses is a testament to just sick this nation is.

We are truly fucked.

[Major Hogwash]

115. I agree. I've never even heard of Chris Hedges.

They might as well have been quoting Mr. Haney from Green Acres.

[99Forever]

117. I've heard of him and read his...

... articles from time to time. Couldn't be called a fan of his by any stretch of the imagination.

That said, his logic in this piece is very sound and his facts are solid, tho it makes some howl by doing so. I'll still be voting for Obama, but I understand where it is Hedges is coming from and still respect his opinion.

"Shoot the messenger" people really suck. They have this Nation circling the bowl. I'm glad I won't be alive to see the flush cycle finish.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

118. Hedges and Jill Stein want Rmoney to win

Stein admitted to Sam Seder her movement needs some to fight against, like Bush.

Fuck her and him too.