After watching Obama sell-out on issue after issue; After talking to some of my friends on the left; and after being informed of a CNN poll that puts Ralph Nader at 6% support, I have recanted this position. If I were a US citizen voting today in a US presidential election, I would vote for Ralph Nader.

While I do not pretend that there is no difference between Obama and McCain, I no longer believe that Obama has anything of substance to offer the American working class.

Nader at 6 percent in CNN Poll

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
[QB]A month ago, I took the position on Babble that that progressives need to continue to support the Democrats...I no longer believe that Obama has anything of substance to offer the American working class.

---

Good man, Left Turn.

The signal-to-noise ratio coming from the Obama campaign and millions of volunteers who accept this politician's empty rhetoric despite the obvious inconsistency between words and actions, is hard to ignore, hard to reject. There are a lot of good people caught up in Obama's media/political blitz, and it can feel like you're alienating them when you point out a logical alternative, such as supporting Nader, when it hasn't got a chance in Hell of being successful this time around.

But, it's the right thing to do.

Sure it is,

Just depends on how you view the side effects.

McCain is the organic version that does nothing for the American people and doesn't hurt the rich either.

Obama has a few side effects on the rich and mildly eases the pain of the American People.

Nader would be wildly effective on the American PEOPLE but the side effects to the powerful are horrible, just horrible.

That wouldn't be humane. How would the rich eat or get private health care?

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
While I do not pretend that there is no difference between Obama and McCain, I no longer believe that Obama has anything of substance to offer the American working class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Is this an attempt at some kind of humour? If so, it's not a bad satire of the archetypal coffee house leftist, solemly pronouncing on some arcane ideological point or another. You should really provide a picture of yourself wearing a black turtleneck and smoking a pipe to go along with the text. And maybe some kind of cap, too.

---

How about the first 60 seconds?

Obama to address Middle East peace, "starting from the minute I'm sworn into office."

How's that for empty rhetoric?

quote:

---

He added that the United States should create "a greater sense of security among the Israelis, a greater sense that economic progress and increased freedom of movement is something that can be accomplished in the Palestinian territories and, with those confidence-building measures, that we get discussions back on track."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=+=-:
You've heard about the first hundred days of the Presidency?

How about the first 60 seconds?

Obama to address Middle East peace, "starting from the minute I'm sworn into office."

How's that for empty rhetoric?

Though, if we take him at his word, isn't he saying the very first thing he will do on taking office is something aimed at the Middle East, symbolic or otherwise?

---

How's that for rhetoric? I dunno.

By paragraph three of that article, Obama is quoted as saying this: it is "unrealistic to expect that a U.S. president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region.". I will not be surprised if by day 100 of his presidency he sadly informs the world that U.S. forces must stay in Iraq to ensure peace. (Do you really believe the U.S. is ever pulling out of there? Hmm?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
... the archetypal coffee house leftist, solemly pronouncing on some arcane ideological point or another.

---

Sure, like personally opposing same-sex marriage, supporting Israel 100%, supporting capital punishment, promising to invade Pakistan, pronouncing "America" as a non-racist society, pledging 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan, threatening Iran - all those "arcane ideological points" that only a post-graduate student of Marxism can grasp.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Here: the activism of Ralph Nader, or Reverend Wright, or Cindy Sheehan is as much a part of democracy as free elections. The only difference is that their kind of activism is not dead in America, like their two-party electoral system to which progressives in America have acquiesced. In fact, it is this acquiescence that represents ideological fantasy--you have bought the capitalist dream that freedom starts and stops with signing an 'X' every four years and consequently, you may limit your participation in democracy to that single action. It is this gesture that is merely symbolic, without teeth, without significant consequence for leftist principles, not the just protest of those who expose such fantasy.

---

Excellent.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

(This is of course assuming that the "real" Obama was actually to the left of Clinton during the primaries.)

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]

Define his sell-outs.

quote:

---

After talking to some of my friends on the left; and after being informed of a CNN poll that puts Ralph Nader at 6% support

---

Show me another poll that puts Nader over 3%. Additionally, show me how Nader can win the presidency. Finally, show me how Nader's candidacy is anything more than a display of self-centred righteousness.

quote:

---

While I do not pretend that there is no difference between Obama and McCain,

---

Thank god...

quote:

---

I no longer believe that Obama has anything of substance to offer the American working class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
[qb]I'm convinced he would, with Democratic majorities in both houses, be able to implement some reforms.

---

Plural?

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
[qb]The political situation hasn't been this good for the left in the US since..... the early 90's

---

I'm not sure how the left are going to contain themselves if it gets any better than this. You know how volatile they can be.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

I'm not sure how the left are going to contain themselves if it gets any better than this. You know how volatile they can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

By this do you mean their ability of taking any victory no matter how small and turning it into a loss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
[qb]After watching Obama sell-out on issue after issue

Define his sell-outs.

I'm convinced he would, with Democratic majorities in both houses, be able to implement some reforms. Nothing that will turn the US into the EU, but something. The political situation hasn't been this good for the left in the US since..... the early 90's (how was that squandered) or perhaps the mid-60's.[/QB]

---

Been there, done that, bought the tshirt, and it fell apart after a few washes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
By this do you mean their ability of taking any victory no matter how small and turning it into a loss.

---

They are going to have someone, and it will either be Bush or Obama.

Obama wins that, easily.

There might be an argument for someone to the left of Obama for Senator or Governor, and that might be a worthwhile campaign.

Just out of curiousity, how many reactionary right-wing Presidents are you willing to live with while this plan evolves?

I would say we should aim for no more than 4. That's at most, until 2040. If there isn't a third party, cut losses (assuming anyone's even still alive at that point).

I find it funny that folks who typically sneer at marches and demonstrations as nothing more than "marching around in circles impotently" are delighted to take their one ballot and piss it away symbolically, when they know very well that their vote isn't going to do any more than marching around in a circle does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Obama - his election has a number of positives, but people are more interested in listing what won't change.

Layton - He has turned the NDP around and has made it a credible force, but people are more interested in the failures than the successes.

---

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

One I can recall is that both Layton and Obama have criticized the Free Trade Agreement with
Colombia. They did so on the same basis, that Colombia continues to "disappear" trade unionists.

Of course, people like Spectre want the United States to become like Albania under Enhver Hoxha, so of course they won't like Obama.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Of course, people like Spectre want the United States to become like Albania under Enhver Hoxha, so of course they won't like Obama.

---

Jeff, even for YOU that's out there.

Spectre is a leftist. He's not a Stalinist, even though he and I disagree on what choices the left should make in U.S. presidential politics. You owe Spectre and the rest of us an apology for saying something like that.

Neither Spectre nor anyone else here has said anything that comes within a million miles of advocating and Albanian-type regime for Canada, the U.S. or anyone else.

I'm as anti-Stalinist as you, maybe more so, Jeff, but you do that cause no good whatsoever in using such McCarthyite/Strangelovian/muffin-headed rhetoric.

Oh and Jeff, it's going to either be Obama or McCain, not Bush. Yes McCain and Bush are pretty much the same, but McCain is distinguishable by his ability to speak in complete sentences and dress himself(mostly).

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
...but you do that cause no good whatsoever in using such insane-sounding rhetoric.[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Is it true, Jeff, that you are in complete agreement with the Communist Party of the USA in unconditionally supporting Barak Obama? Communists!!

---

OMFG!

quote:

---

One I can recall is that both Layton and Obama have criticized the Free Trade Agreement with
Colombia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
And as someone who lives in Ontario, I thank my stars that we weren't so hardheadedly "principled" back when we tossed Ernie Eves out. Sure, maybe Ontario should have stuck to its guns. No strategic voting! And we'd now have one hospital (privatized), four schools (for the wealthy only) and you'd need to make reservations 6 months in advance for a visit to Emerg. But we'd have stuck to our guns! We'd have lived our principles! Nobody would have minded waiting another decade or two for a truly progressive movement to start to take shape!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:

Wear that outfit and the petit-bourgeoisie ladies will go wild for ya. Seriously. Try it, MC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Is this the beginnings of a thread drift in the direction of Long Live Premier McGuinty and Buzz Hargrove?

---

I doubt it. reglafella was trying to make a comparison between Ontario politics and the current to-support-Obama-or-not-support issue of this and many other threads in the forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
...Just out of curiousity, how many reactionary right-wing Presidents are you willing to live with while this plan evolves?...Nobody would have minded waiting another decade or two for a truly progressive movement to start to take shape!

---

There is a lot wrong with your entire previous reply but I like the humor; some folks in internet forums could use a laugh, right?

Nevertheless, I want to address the most important part of your reply, and ask a question:

How does supporting a progressive (such as Nader in the U.S.) amount to "waiting for" a progressive movement to develop?

I think by supporting a progress candidate you actually create the movement. The theory that a progressive, independent political movement can grow out of actual support for the very thing that seeks to suppress it (the Democrats and Republicans) make no sense to me. What am I missing here? If you have some kind of theory on this please tell us, because history has shown us so far that this does not happen.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

I agree with J House that given the choice between Obamaa and McCain, I take Obama every time.

quote:

---

Socialism will not come to north America like some Windows update that downloads in the background.

---

Yes, criticizing Obama means us lefties are truly horrible! Imagine! Criticizing a man who ran on vacuous promises of "hope" and "change" but who, in actuality, provides none of that.

Brilliant eh mate? Totally brilliant. We really should be flogged verbally and told to support the Empire at any stage.

quote:

---

There might be an argument for someone to the left of Obama for Senator or Governor, and that might be a worthwhile campaign.

---

Good question. I'd say it depends on what you mean by support. If it means working to build a movement, working to get others involved, and so on, then I'd say that's more than waiting.

But if the support is just a vote in November, I'd say that that vote isn't going to amount to all that much, and it's certainly not going to change who ends up with their finger on all the buttons until 2012.

And I suppose every yankee voter who's not solidly on the right is going to have to ask themself how they feel about McCain for a leader. Some may not be worried, and should go ahead then and vote for whoever it is they like. But those worried about McCain might want to stop and ask themselves whether showing what amounts to symbolic support of another candidate is worth four years of a nutbar at the helm.

And that's why I mentioned Ontario above, because we all had a similar choice back when. Some said "support the NDP!" and others said "Let's just get Harris/Eves the hell out of there and worry about the rest later".

For the record, I would have liked to see the NDP replace Eves, but realistically, I'd take Mr. McGuinty as the consolation prize over the alternative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
What happened to Cynthia McKinney?

---

quote:

---

Barack Obama's plan to build up U.S. forces in Afghanistan while keeping perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq has triggered a deep rift among antiwar activists….

Some hailed Obama's trip as an important breakthrough.

"So far the trip has been out of the park. It's an enormous moment," declared Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, which supports Obama. He hedged about Obama's troop commitments, however: He said he wasn't fully aware of Obama's call for a residual force in Iraq and was trying to get a sense from MoveOn members on their views about Afghanistan.

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, the national Catholic social justice lobbying group, was less enthusiastic.

"It was a significant step forward," she said, "but it was only a step."

Others were simply annoyed.

Barbra Bearden, spokeswoman for Peace Action, called Obama's comments about Afghanistan "a bit disheartening."

Ian Thompson, lead organizer in Los Angeles for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, an antiwar group, found Obama's Afghanistan position similar to that of President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

"What this shows is that Barack Obama does not really represent any policy shift," he said….

Bearden of Peace Action said that "we've seen the results of these military actions. We create a power vacuum and try to create a government. We did that in Iraq, and now we're talking about using the same failed strategy again in Afghanistan."

---

quote:

---

by once again co-opting large segments of the anti-war movement into the Democratic Party fold, Obama has ensured that, if he becomes President and escalates the war on Afghanistan, the antiwar movement will be too divided and weak to mount any kind of effective protest.

---

Or, Obama will recognise that a significant part of his base opposes the war, and he will pay attention in both his strategy and tactics.

The alternative is that anti-war people will remain outside of the Democratic Party, Obama or McCain will win without any assistance from them, and they will have no leverage.

quote:

---

The alternative is that anti-war people will remain outside of the Democratic Party, Obama or McCain will win without any assistance from them, and they will have no leverage.

---

quote:

---

I think by supporting a progress candidate you actually create the movement. The theory that a progressive, independent political movement can grow out of actual support for the very thing that seeks to suppress it (the Democrats and Republicans) make no sense to me. What am I missing here?

---

quote:

---

Cela n'empêche pas Nicolas Sarkozy de se réjouir de cette visite. Après avoir reçu John McCain au printemps, c'est au tour de Barack Obama. «Je suis le seul Français à le connaître», rappelle Nicolas Sarkozy qui l'a rencontré une première fois en 2006, au Congrès, à Washington. À l'époque, l'événement est passé inaperçu, éclipsé par la photo de celui qui n'était encore que ministre de l'Intérieur avec George Bush. Nicolas Sarkozy a gardé un «très bon souvenir» de cette rencontre. «Obama ? C'est mon copain», confie le président au Figaro.

---

Sarkozy : «Obama ? C'est mon copain !»

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=+=-:
You've heard about the first hundred days of the Presidency?

How about the first 60 seconds?

Obama to address Middle East peace, "starting from the minute I'm sworn into office."

How's that for empty rhetoric?

Though, if we take him at his word, isn't he saying the very first thing he will do on taking office is something aimed at the Middle East, symbolic or otherwise?

---

They announced that they see eye-to-eye on the importance of their respective countries' role in bringing peace and security around the world and, for greater involvement of these two countries in apprehending insurrection, Al-Queda, and the Taliban in both Afganistan and Pakistan.

quote:

---

"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand," Obama said, speaking not far from where the Berlin Wall once divided the city.

"The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand," he said.

---

I don't know whether to laugh or gag.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

In that stylish, respectful of others way that he has, he writes:

quote:

---

Earth to Jeff: They have no leverage. Holding your nose and voting Obama just makes you a patsy. It doesn't provide leverage.

---

Well, that is a fun theory, and it might be true.
But then comes the Forbidden Question: "What leverage do YOU have? How does supporting some sect or not participating at all, provide the leverage?

Because what I see, with Mr. Mess and his whole gang of Purists, is that they offer ZERO influence over anything, FOREVER.

quote:

---

Mr. Frustrated Mess cannot understand why anyone would support Obama, and then try to use that support to influence policy, as, for example, Born-Again Christians did with George Bush.

---

If a third party had any chance of taking the White House, U.S. progressives would all vote for it.

A McCain presidency has to be a dead zone for progressive organizing. This is why I can't in good conscience vote for a third-party presidential candidate.

The space for the growth of progressive politics in the U.S only exists under Democratic presidents. The Sixties would simply have been a continuation of the Fifties if Nixon had won in 1960, for example. The civil rights movement would have been crushed.

And the fact also remains that nobody who calls for support of third-party presidential candidates now did anything to build the left in the U.S. in the last four years. They weren't part of the antiwar movement, they did nothing to organize the poor or bolster labor.

And the most bleak fact is, if you say you are against the war and you vote third-party in the fall, you are, in effect, giving up on stopping the war. The antiwar movement will have no influence in a McCain Administration. It'll die like it died under Nixon. We can't go back into oblivion and irrelevance like that again. Republican presidencies always kill the Left.

It's enough to vote third-party down ticket. Doing that and doing actual movement building(and no movement was ever built solely during an election year)that goes on after the election is what's really needed. Third-party presidential candidates never get an audience, never inspire anyone, never reach the people. That's the reality. They're drops of water in the sea of consciousness.

Bash Obama if you have to, but if you vote against him you have to accept that you're responsible for hurting the poor and the workers and for pushing the country permanently to the right.

We can't wait twenty more years in the wilderness(which is what any third-party effort presidentially has to mean, since you can't build a third party fast in the U.S. anymore)for purity. White college kids in espresso bars may have that time, but the rest of us and the Rainbow can't spend that much time completely powerless and have any hope. It can't be worth building a pure left if it has to take decades.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

It's not even based on fact. The anti-war movement certainly grew while Nixon was in power. The Republican era from 1921 to 1933 saw a huge rise in trade union militancy and leftist organization. And before that, the socialist political career of Eugene V. Debs grew during the Republican era of 1897 to 1913, culminating in his receiving six percent of the popular vote for the Socialst Party in 1912.

An election result of, say, 50% McCain, 35% Obama, 15% third party(better than any possible third party could actually hope for, as Ralp proved for all time in 2000) wouldn't be a result that could lead to anything positive, and couldn't build a movement. It would mean the right would be in power forever.

All people of color would permanently lose ground. All workers would permanently lose ground. The poor would permanently lose ground. There can be no progressive gains if there are more conservative laws enacted. And if Roe Vs. Wade were repealed, feminism would be dead forever. No woman could recover from that.

And all hope of Canada regaining sovereignty would be lost as well. Deep integration would prevail forever if there was one more Republican president. The fightback couldn't possibly succeed after that.

Only middle class trustafarians(the kind that pretend to be lefties now but will be Yuppies in fifteen years) could withstand more Republican rule. For the rest it would be the death of hope. You know that as well as I. Lives are at stake. Those lives can't be saved by third-party presidential candidates.

It's enough to vote third-party on the down-ticket races. That is the place where the messages can be sent.

We have to get the bastards out and create the space. That has to come first.

You have got to accept that our conditions are different than those of Canada.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

We have to get the bastards out and create the space.

---

You have a plan "B"? I mean, when y'all finally realize that there ain't gonna be no "change", or "hope", and there is only war, where are you gonna go?

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Shecky Obama has a new routine:

I don't know whether to laugh or gag.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And all hope of Canada regaining sovereignty would be lost as well.

---

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

You have a plan "B"? I mean, when y'all finally realize that there ain't gonna be no "change", or "hope", and there is only war, where are you gonna go?

---

The defeat of the Republicans is the precondition for ANY plan of progressive revival. You can't honestly say it would be just as easy to build a left if McCain won. And you would HAVE to concede that stopping American militarism would then be impossible. You can't organize from a position of complete powerlessness. You can't build from the total outside. You have to at least, at a minimum, have a ruling party that is less likely to kill you. Each year the Republicans stay in is a year that ANY chance of the U.S. ever could be made progressive is permanently lessened. There is never going to be the possibility of progressive growth if the White House is simply conceded to the farthest right. Resistance isn't possible under Republican rule. Neither is hope. Hope doesn't survive if McCain is sworn in in January 2009. History would indeed end in the U.S. at that point. Don't you get it? McCain is the point from which we can't recover.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

Time to spread our wings. A Democrat is as bad as a Republican. Voting for one or the other ensures the never-ending preclusion of a third, independent party. Supporting an independent in a minor race and then one of the twin heads of American capitalism in the Presidential race sends a message, alrght---a message of total confusion.

None of these groups has the luxury of waiting for twenty or thirty years at a minimum that it would have to take to build a new independent left party from scratch. They would be extinct by then.

I guarantee you that, if McCain wins, no leftist in the U.S., no matter what strength any third-party presidential candidate showed, could wake up happy and energized. I guarantee you that no left gains could ever come again. The story would simply end.

Only if the far right is pried out of the White House first can the Left grow. It can't under long-term Republican rule.

There will be no more left that can withstand repression as it did under Nixon for a short period(and remember, it all died in '73 in the U.S.)

And the Twenties example couldn't be replicated either. That WAS right after the Bolshevik Revolution, which, for better or worse, did give people hope. There's nothing remotely like that now. The Democrats then hadn't become the New Deal party yet-there truly were no differences between them and the Republicans in those days.

Letting McCain win means government repression could never be defied or rolled back.

It means Roe V. Wade would be overturned which would end the feminist movement and force women back to back alley butchers forever.

It means unions would never regain strength.

It means all the rights lost would stay lost forever. It would be the one blow too many. It's completely irresponsible to ask the American left to accept permanent defeat by letting McCain win. You know his swearing in would make a progressive future permanently impossible. You know we couldn't organize against him. How can you ask us to accept that level of hopelessness?

2000 proved that third-party presidential campaigns have nothing to offer the U.S. 2000 proved that third-party candidates can never get more than 2 million votes.

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

No country in history has ever been in a bleaker state for the left than a U.S. in which McCain wins this year would be. I'm sorry for sounding bleak, but I know what the last eight years were like, and a McCain win means those eight years would be every year of the future for the U.S.

You know as well as I do that resistance or progressive politics could never grow in such a country. Grass-roots organizing would stop.

If McCain wins, I couldn't, with a clear conscience, ask any person of color, any union worker, any woman, any LGBT person, or anyone else who has progressive or humane values to remain in the U.S. I'd be asking them to live in a land where they could never have hope. I'd be asking them to live as slaves. I can't do that.

We only have hope if the right-wing control of the White House is broken. Only then can there be progressive growth. It's the difference between the Sixties(when the left COULD grow) and the Seventies(when it died).

And no, voting third-party down ticket and Obama for president DOESN'T send a mixed message. It sends a message that the madmen must be removed from executive power by any means necessary so that the ideals can then spread. There's no scenario anyone could suggest that would argue that a McCain victory could ever give way to a progressive future. Even Spector knows, in his heart of hearts, that a McCain win this year means the right can never be defeated again.

I tried it in Spector's way in 1996 and 2000. Those years prove my point. Nothing at all grew from the Nader campaigns. Nothing survives from them. They freed no one and inspired no one. Why think third-party presidential politics this year could produce anything different or better?

Would YOU want to live in a McCain U.S.?

Would YOU, any of you, think a left future was possible if McCain was sworn in?

A future that didn't come too late to matter?:
[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

But then comes the Forbidden Question: "What leverage do YOU have? How does supporting some sect or not participating at all, provide the leverage?

Because what I see, with Mr. Mess and his whole gang of Purists, is that they offer ZERO influence over anything, FOREVER.

Really, until we see some slight evidence that the "Obama isn't good enough" group can show another way to have influence over the Presidency, I'll just stumble along with my belief that supporters offer more influence on a candidate than do people who name themselves after dead communists.

---

Again Mr. House rants on to demonstrate how silly he really is.

Mr. House, who would have us lie with dogs because getting fleas is influence, would give this advise to a haggling purchaser: "Pay him what he wants, and then you'll have him over the table and then you can really wring some concessions from him."

Sure.

Just like Mr. House and his ilk are so filled with influence having paid their dollars before negotiating.

How much influence do you have Mr. House? Should we blame the failing economy, the war in Afghanistan, and the Khdar situation on you? Is that your "influence" at work?

I suppose Mr. House you vote Liberal or Conservative because supporting a 3rd party in Canada, well, wouldn't that be putting the lie to your arguments here? Or is that different?

quote:

---

The space for the growth of progressive politics in the U.S only exists under Democratic presidents. The Sixties would simply have been a continuation of the Fifties if Nixon had won in 1960, for example.

---

There wouldn't have been any successfull lifting of any other forms of social repression, either. A Nixon win then would have meant no feminism and no gay rights movement. It would all have just been strangled in the cradle.

Robespierre, you just don't understand U.S. politics. I've proven that doing what you advocate guarantees permanent defeat.

And Al Qa-bong, there's no contradiction between putting the defeat of the GOP first in the U.S. and backing the NDP or other third parties in Canada. It's easy to build new parties in your system, it's almost impossible in ours. The Saskatchewan example, where the CCF was in power only ten years after its birtn, is unachievable in the U.S. And if it takes longer than that it would be too late to be worth it. It can't be worth building a different American left if no one alive today lives to see it take power. It's called different conditions.

[ 26 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

And it goes absolutely without saying that a resistance culture and progressive politics will not be possible at any stage in the future if McCain wins. A Republican victory this year means the right can't be removed from power, period. Why is that so hard to understand?

You guys can't honestly think it doesn't matter if the far right stays in office in the U.S., can you?

Nobody's showed any scenario in which accepting McCain now(which is what you'd all have to admit voting third-party in the presidential race means)could bring anything positive for the left in the future. You all know such a scenario can't exist.

quote:

---

It was only in YOUR country that a CCF could rise in a decade.

---

Well, England and the Scandinavian countries have their equivalents to the CCF, so it isn't entirely because of our British Parliamentary system that we have seen socialist governments in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
You guys can't honestly think it doesn't matter if the far right stays in office in the U.S., can you?

---

You keep talking about "right" and "left" as if it means something.

Then, when someone points out to you that every single thing (without exception) that Obama says is "right", you toss out this "far right" thing. What the hell does "far right" mean??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
OK, the Fifties with Vietnam added. It goes without saying that the civil rights movement would have been crushed and the U.S. would still have legal segregation, though. Nixon would have staged his "Southern strategy" eight years earlier...

---

Ken, lol, you were cruising the stratosphere last time I checked this thread, now you're in orbit!

I'm offering a more realistic "what-if" now, for general consideration:

Let's say that Lenin lived, and so did Trotsky. Ok, so, then that means that the two leaders of the Russian Revolution would have had time to meet Ayn Rand and begin a love affair with her, which would have precluded Nixon's entry into politics because he secretly loved her but was torn between that and his self-loathing upon discovering that he also liked boys. And, of course, with all of that happening, the 60's would have ushered in a world government based on transcendental meditation.

Unfortunately, Lenin died and we got the world we live in today as a result.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And it goes absolutely without saying that a resistance culture and progressive politics will not be possible at any stage in the future if McCain wins. A Republican victory this year means the right can't be removed from power, period.

---

We heard this same story four years ago, when progressive voters in the US were being told that they had to vote for John Kerry because America just couldn't possibly withstand another four years of Bush. Well, guess what? it did.

Your entire thesis is predicated upon the baseless asumption that having Obama in the White House would somehow NOT be a disaster for the US or the US left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
...there's no contradiction between putting the defeat of the GOP first in the U.S. and backing the NDP or other third parties in Canada. It's easy to build new parties in your system, it's almost impossible in ours. The Saskatchewan example, where the CCF was in power only ten years after its birtn, is unachievable in the U.S. And if it takes longer than that it would be too late to be worth it. It can't be worth building a different American left if no one alive today lives to see it take power. It's called different conditions.

---

Similarly, "putting the defeat of the GOP first" is code for "perpetual duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans" - since the so-called GOP may be "defeated" in an election, but will always be there as the bogeyman to be "defeated" again at the next electoral go-round, when the Democrats are asking to be re-elected. What do you then say to the Democrats when they tell you "we have to keep the Republicans from coming back to power or the country will be doomed forever, and it will be all your fault, if you vote for a third party"?

You apparently still cling to the idea (which I have corrected before, but you apparently remain unconvinced) that building the CCF and later the NDP was "easy". It wasn't. There are no easy solutions. Nobody is saying that building a leftist third party is easier than voting for the Democrats in perpetuity. Quite the contrary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
Ken Burch, don't waste your time here on babble. You're not going to convince any of these people about the merits of Obama over McCain.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, Obama represents a class politics, one that promises to cement an alliance anchored in the professional-managerial class (including, perhaps especially, the interchangeable elements of which now increasingly set the policy agendas for what remains of the women's, environmentalist, public interest, civil rights and even labor movements) and the "progressive" wing of the investor class. (See, for example, Tom Geoghagen, "All the Young Bankers," The American Prospect, June 23, 2008.) From this perspective, it is ironic in the short term -- i.e., considering that he pushed HRC out of the way -- that Obama would be the one to complete Clintonism's redefinition of liberalism as conservatism. So there's no way I'm going to ratify this bullshit with my participation, and I'm ready to tell all those liberals who will hector me about the importance of voting that it's the weakest, most passive and least consequential form of political participation, and I'm no longer going to pretend it's any more than that, or that the differences between the Dem and GOP candidates are greater than they are, just to help them feel good about not doing anything more demanding and perhaps more consequential.

---

[ 26 July 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

LOL

Yeah that's a great goal. Let's all register our discontent!

ETA: I'm going to take my own advice next time, and vote for the third party (NDP) rather than give any legitimacy to our version of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber: Harper and Dion. I held out hope as long as I could that a stronger NDP could influence the Liberals to pass progressive legislation, but the more I see of Dion, the more inclined I am that this is an illusion.

[ 27 July 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
So the goal for USian working class voters is to register their discontent with Republocratic oligarchy?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

LOL

Yeah that's a great goal. Let's all register our discontent!

The thing about registering discontent, whether by abstaining from voting or by voting for an independent or small party candidate, is that NOBODY CARES.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:
Voting for an independent party candidate is part of a larger goal, it isn't only "registering discontent". That is simply a phrase pulled from LT's reply which you're defining in a self-serving way. It's childish behavior. Come on, you've been around forums long enough to know better, or must we teach you how to debate, too?

---

You're the one who a few posts up defined Obama supporters as 'so-called "progressives"', as if anyone who disagrees with your chosen strategy is some kind of fraud. That's how you debate?

I was simply responding (with snark) to the notion that "registering discontent" was some kind of action. Things are pretty bad right now in the USA and it looks like they are about to get a lot worse. I think many USians feel that there are a lot more important things than registering their discontent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:

Been there, done that, bought the tshirt, and it fell apart after a few washes.

Now is the time to push forward the idea of independent politics, not repeat the futile cycle of Democrat-Republican-Democrat again. What are you waiting for? Socialism will not come to north America like some Windows update that downloads in the background. It will only come as a result of "in yo face" struggle for independence. Supporting Democrats AGAIN has less than a zero percent chance of accomplishing that. Honestly, Nader's 3% or 6% poll rating sound pretty good compared to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
DAMAGE CONTROL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
There's no example in any historical situation on earth that could still point to there being hope for the U.S. left if the Republicans hold the presidency this year.

No country in history has ever been in a bleaker state for the left than a U.S. in which McCain wins this year would be. I'm sorry for sounding bleak, but I know what the last eight years were like, and a McCain win means those eight years would be every year of the future for the U.S.

You know as well as I do that resistance or progressive politics could never grow in such a country. Grass-roots organizing would stop.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, every four years a kind of mystical thinking seems to descend upon many otherwise trenchant voices of the left, for whom the allure of lesser-evil presidential politics invariably becomes the "best option at this time" for advancing progressive aspirations. "Under a McCain presidency, we'd be back to the square one where we've found ourselves since January 2001," warns Norman Solomon in a recent essay (Common Dreams, July 20, 2008). "Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it."

But what does this really mean? Short of a military dictatorship, do organizing opportunities not exist under a Republican president? Can we ask exactly how eight years of the Clinton presidency aided the progressive grassroots? Ironically, Solomon cautions progressives to guard against disillusionment by "dispensing with illusions." But isn't it illusory to believe that grassroots activism per se is more likely to flourish under a liberal presidency. Where is the historical evidence for this?

If you think about it, there have only been two Democratic presidents since the Depression whose terms coincided with historic gains in social progress. Under President Roosevelt in the 1930s, social security, unemployment insurance, and union rights won major victories. Under President Johnson in the 1960s, civil and voting rights acts and Medicare/Medicaid were passed. But did these changes occur because of the enlightened generosity of Roosevelt and Johnson? Not likely. Both the wealthy upstate New York "Blue Blood" Roosevelt and the Southern "Jim Crow" politician Johnson were by personal pedigree and bias and political history unlikely prospects for leading anything progressive. In fact, Roosevelt campaigned in 1932 on a Democratic platform advocating "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures." In Johnson's case, the Texas politician had a long Congressional record of opposition to civil rights, voting early in his career against the elimination of poll taxes, measures banning lynching in the south, and denial of federal funds to segregated schools.

It was rather the unemployed and trade union organizing movement of the 1930s and the civil rights protests of the 1960s, not some benevolent epiphany of either Roosevelt or Johnson that set the political agenda for reform. As leaders, both Roosevelt and Johnson were compelled to respond to the social turmoil of their times, just as in the early 1970s the nation under President Nixon and a conservative Supreme Court saw an end to the military draft and the legalization of abortion.

---

[ 27 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

But what does this really mean? Short of a military dictatorship, do organizing opportunities not exist under a Republican president?

---

It might mean that McCain would veto any progressive legislation.

There are actually some quite progressive senators and congresspeople and the greater the Democratic majorities there, the more progressive their bills will get. But the Dems will not get a veto proof majority in the Senate.

McCain being president and having veto power would give the Dems all the cover they need. "Hey don't blame us, McCain vetoes everything." Kinda like they're doing now.

quote:

---

Can we ask exactly how eight years of the Clinton presidency aided the progressive grassroots?

---

Sure. Look how much energy there was in 2000 for Ralph Nader's campaign. There was much, much more support for a leftist 3rd party then than there is now. Now people just want Bush to be over, and McCain is more of the same.

quote:

---

It might mean that McCain would veto any progressive legislation.

---

Progressive legislation by whom?

So right now what's been happening is that the Dems have been passing half-assed progressive legislation, Bush vetoes it, and then the bills die.

Now much criticism can be made of the Dem majority (they really only have the majority in Congress, not the Senate)--they could've pursued impeachment, they could've simply not funded the war. And it's disgusting that they didn't. But they have tried to pass good bills that Bush simply vetoed. And again, this gives Dem politicians cover.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Isn't the Democratic party now the majority in Congress? Do they do anything besides approving whatever Bush wants to suggest that they are progressive?

---

Democrats are a majority but progressive Democrats are not. There's a fair chunk of the caucus in the House and in particular, the Senate (it's both more conservative and more collegial) that feels it's good politics for them to reach across the aisle and compromise with Republicans. And perhaps it is good for their local circumstances. On the whole it makes for a legislative branch the Democrats can't reliably control even if theoretically they have the numbers to.

[ 27 July 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
McCain or Obama, either one will have veto power over bills coming before them. If McCain is president then nothing gets passed.

---

The presidential veto has nothing whatsoever to do with activism.

When Mark Harris talks about grass-roots activism, he's not talking about lobbying the administration for favours or using "influence" to pass legislation. When he talks about "organizing opportunities" he's not talking about organizing Congress to pass "progressive" legislation.

quote:

---

I've watched the giddiness on this site and elsewhere after Obama's Berlin speech (the short version of which would be: "We'll be the gentler, kinder military empire we used to be") and I just have to say this: things will not be back to normal once he's in power.

I agree that there will at least be a window for change in the right direction, and even a moment of goodwill from the rest of the world as Bush moves out. But the scale of the challenge, both domestically and internationally, is not to be underestimated.

Bush has dug America in a hole. A Big Hole. And America is right at the bottom. That applies to the financial system (broken), the economy (broken), the middle classes (broken), the trust in government as a solution to problems (broken), the military (broken), Western values (broken), the trust of the world (broken), the willingness to see America lead (broken).

Electing Obama does not repair any of these. At best (yes, at best) it starts the process of healing and dealing with the accumulated liabilities, but it is by no means obvious that that process will go anywhere lest succeed.

---

Obama inauguration will be America's darkest day