Am I just kidding myself? Am I just living out a long good bye?

[mmonk]

The Bush/Cheney era is coming to an end. The questions and debates will most likely remain however. There is, of course, the remaining debate the party leaders decided to try and end concerning the accountability and/or questions surrounding abuse of power and possible crimes. Though Obama has surrounded himself with politicians opposed to dwelling on where we have been, there will pressure to investigate nonetheless.

There are the Democrats, called “liberal” or “left” dismissively or considered too partisan for a new era of politics and bipartisanship. Those are the ones pushing most for investigations and Constitutional and legal remedies. But is this contingent of Democrats thus labeled properly or is there something they have to say of importance on the matter? Do they have anything useful to contribute to the party they have belonged? The general consensus among many self described elected moderates who seem to have a stranglehold on the party is that these Democrats don’t have enough to offer today’s America, that they are throwbacks to outmoded ideas, unrealistic idealism, a lack of maturity, a radicalism and lack of proper pragmatism for policy concerns.

Many of us though, don’t consider ourselves radical. Maybe we are too myopic? Or do we have legitimate points to be considered, especially in matters of profound importance such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, social justice, a sustainable world and a peaceful future containing fundamental fairness? Am I writing with a too noble or self righteous of a view of Democrats that fall outside those considered moderate or “centrist” by words and votes? We were told we had to vote for more Democrats that do not share our vision due to a perceived winning election strategy and we would be rewarded with progressive chairs on committees. We were not told that parameters would be set on these chairs to prevent them from becoming too pressing on matters of concern over Bush Administrations actions. And now that we have another Democratic Party victory, and we see little representation of likeminded Democrats in the executive branch. I guess my question is do we have any sort of purpose in the party other than organizing, fund raising, and service as a public whipping boy to prove to voters the party isn’t too “liberal” for the conservative votes they seek? There purportedly is a big tent and Obama is supposed to represent it. Time will tell us soon enough, I guess, whether we do have a purpose or are living delusion in what might be just a long good bye.


(note: This is not to be taken as not supporting Obama or the Democratic Party which I have. It is just an expression of feelings)

[patrice]

1. NGU! . . . Maybe it's time for a change of tactics? nt

[kenny blankenship]

11. You mean we should investigate expose prosecute and punish ?

Because that's what we have NOT been doing. Nixon was pardoned by Ford for covering up Watergate. OK we moved on. Reagan ran regional wars on the QT contrary to the Constitution and was let off by Congress which felt he was too sympathetic to hold accountable- consequently we got George Herbert Walker Bush next who would have never been elected President, had the Iran-Contra investigation run its full course through Congress. Then a little later, after Republicans pulled out all the stops trying to impeach Bill Clinton for nothing at all, we got Bush's idiot son, our current President.
Under this current Bush, the pretense that we have a Constitutionally limited Executive has all but disappeared.Wars and warcrime on an epic scale, domestic spying on ALL citizens not just a Democratic national headquarters building, torture, citizens held without trial or charges.

Notice a pattern here? It's getting worse on an exponential curve. You don't want to go to the next step. Really you don't.

[patrice]

15. I heard last week that United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of about 1400

peace and justice groups across the country, decided in their Annual Assembly in Chicago to pursue prosecution of War Criminals in 2009. That may include a national day of lobbying IN D.C. Haven't seen their plans yet.

I know, it's absolutely horrifying what has happened. It's very very difficult to accept that people are not and probably never will be in the streets over this. America has been profoundly changed.

The time has come to seek coalition and offer work for work with groups that share your principle values.

If you know any Quakers, they are often working on Social Justice issues. I know they've been doing community education about The Patriot Act.

[H2O Man]

2. During the general election season,

I invested a lot of time and energy reaching out to people who are non-democrats, and who are on "the left." The majority of them voted for Obama. I think that it is fair to question if his efforts in the upcoming four years will allow for someone like me to do the same thing in 2012.

I say that, keeping in mind that he is up against the machine descvribed in James Carroll's outstanding book, "House of War."

[mmonk]

3. So would you suggest I pick up a copy of Carroll's book

for my holiday reading?

[H2O Man]

4. It is well worth reading.

I would list it as among the best books that I've read.

[mmonk]

7. Then that is good enough for me.

[eleny]

14. Me too about the book

And to your question, we sure are in a tough spot. I didn't vote for Nader way back when. But he's come to mind in recent days. Sometimes I think the Dem party knows we have nowhere else to go. There isn't any real viable third party system in the USA. They're good organizations but the system is set up to freeze them out. So we stick with the Dems when our hearts and beliefs belong elsewhere.

It gets old after a while when you keep having to say "I told you so" because people are against our ideas until they lose their jobs, health care, savings, loved ones and environment to greed and war.

:hug:

[mmonk]

30. There must be some way to challenge this undemocratic dilemma we

find ourselves in. I just don't know how as I've tried all the traditional methods inside the system.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Available at Amazon for just a penny..

plus the usuall 3.99 S&H.
I just checked, and have been meaning to get that book for sometime now.

I buy most of my books for that price on the "used books" at amazon, if Bookmooch does not have them.

[mmonk]

17. Can't beat that price.

[defendandprotect]

26. And ... did you feel ....

or sense that the party was no longer open to average people ---

except as workers -- but that they were primarily interested in

people with $ and monied contacts ---??

I hope you had a better experience than I did ....

I also sensed that no real progressives were going to get thru any longer ...

except as workers ...

Hope I'm wrong --

[defendandprotect]

27. How many here are more "radical" than FDR ---

This attitude on liberalism is r-w/corporate/capitalistic garbage ...

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Hasn't every forward step this country has taken once been considered radical?

At one time only male, white, property owners could vote.
Slavery was legal.
Prior to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, Senators were selected by state legislatures.
At one time child labor was legal, as was abuse of employees.
There were no safety standards for work conditions.
None of the benefits that unions have brought us existed.

When you come right down to it, even our independence from Great Britain was once a radical idea.

Without radical ideas we would still be living in caves and eating raw meat.

[mmonk]

10. True that.

[Greyhound]

19. Throughout history "radical liberals" have been correct.

I think Gandhi put it best, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

He left off the last part, "...then they take the credit for your work"

[BrklynLiberal]

25. You are right about that last part....

[ixion]

6. The people who call liberals/progressives "radical" are the REAL radicals

because I find it a 'radical' concept to not hold people accountable because it's bad PR.

I find it radical to live in a 'free' society the persecutes people for their sexuality.

I find it radical to jail non-violent citizens for smoking a joint.

I find it radical to wage 'wars' against abstractions like 'terror' or 'drugs'.

I find all these things radical, and more, and further I find them utterly devoid of reason.

It's a really screwed up world we live in, IMO.

[mmonk]

8. Me too. Maybe so.

But why?

[kenny blankenship]

13. Reaganism is radical and extremist in its pro elite bias

The people who call liberals "radical" are Reaganite as any Republican that ever lived, though they call themselves Democrats.

[mmonk]

29. I think as you due. Reaganism is nothing but a belief system

though they think it as some sort of absolute truth. I don't understand why someone who has Republican party core beliefs would want to be a Democrat either nor why the party leadership allows them so much deference.

[fla nocount]

9. Thank you for the post and the time that you invested in it.

I don't believe in the evolution of the human psyche though. I believe the complacency that we are seeing in ideals and expectations stems from numbness on the part of the average citizen as they munch about the milieu. It is not yet time to revolt of care passionately, conditions are not such as to galvanize the populace in general, yet.

[mmonk]

12. I wonder what might.

I also wonder about basic intellectual curiousity among the public and recognition of problems.

[fla nocount]

18. The classic S Delta response pattern...

Food, shelter, security and a confidence in tomorrow's necessities. Lack of these as a group is what it will take to make us feel and act as a group. Ours won't be the first group conscious reaction, hell the concept even has a fancy french word to describe it, revolution.

[mmonk]

24. I'm familiar with that word.

I've even heard it from surprising sources lately (disgruntled conservatives).

[Generator]

20. Nixon was correct, I'm convinced now

If the president and vice-president do it while in office, it's not illegal. They certainly won't be prosecuted for anything. I'm as sure of that as I am the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't know how to change that-beyond hundreds of thousands of people in the streets for MONTHS and much social unrest. Ultimately what Bush/Cheney did didn't affect most Americans. That's the sad truth. THEY weren't tortured. THEY weren't held at Guantanamo. THEY didn't have to fight in Iraq. And if they know someone who did, they lie to themselves about the real reasons and the real reasons the war was allowed to happen. (OF course, economically they WERE affected-and that got them to vote for Obama)

The pentagon and their endless ilk that sucks on their teat learned everything from the sixties and it works. Control the media. No draft. No pictures of the war dead. And did I mention NO DRAFT. Well that's it in a nutshell. Until we all share the burden, we won't share the outrage. Because while I wasn't tortured or know anyone that was-it was done in MY name, for me. While I don't even know anyone that served in Iraq, they are there for me.

And I never get over it.

How that affects the Democratic party-it doesn't. Until there are more of us than the apathetic centrists and apologists we can't change anything. We are a minority. I would give up the precious Historic Obama presidency in a heartbeat for the war, the torture be ended, and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove etc. to be held account.

[mmonk]

21. The draft was definitely a big factor. Another was a media that was

showing what was going on. Today, we don't even have foreign correspondents. I kills me that people don't even notice. They just sit around and listen to talking heads as both our treasure and name go down the toilet. And did everybody flunk civics class? Seems so.

[BeFree]

22. Yes, well

If just a 1,000 votes for Al Gore hadn't been stolen, we would have had a precious 8 years of no war, torture or worsening bad air.

But the dem party didn't have Gore's back, and the left was sitting on the sidelines ogling Nader.

Ahhh, the memories. And lets not forget the left abandoned Carter, way back when. And that ushered in Reagan.

When we on the left give in, they take over. We are the finger in the dike.

(say it like cap. kirk would for best effect.)
We. Are. The finger in. The dike.

[bigtree]

23. everything disintegrates over time

. . . without care, attention, and rehabilitation.

In for a penny, in for a pound. You really didn't expect power to concede without constant pressure? It's a losing battle until we find our wedges and apply constant pressure. Until there is a large enough coalition of interests to challenge that power, it will persist. The Democratic party remains the largest coalition of interests that we've been able to manage which is able to support and advance those elements of opposition you describe in our political system.

It's perfectly fine to support interests which are more dedicated to your own ideals, but it's not going to be credible to portray them, on their own, as an effective alternative to the Democratic party in our political arena.

In short, we need to keep working with this coalition of concerns (which is the Democratic Party) to turn the screw. There really isn't any other choice.

[defendandprotect]

28. If there really "isn't any other choice" ....

shouldn't we be creating some---???

The question is leadership and where it is taking you .... NOT numbers--!!!