Cockburn, Nader, and Frank hitting the nail on the head. Again.
A movie to see: “Why We Fight“. If you enjoy informative documentaries, you’ll like “Why We Fight”. I paid to see both in a local small theater, and I hope a portion of my ticket price went to the filmmakers. They earned it.
Molly Ivins’ latest essay on what’s wrong with the DLC Democrats is right on, strongly-worded, strident, and she names names (and I don’t say any of that to connote something bad, I wish more people would say what they mean in clear unadulterated language free of business-friendly doublespeak).
But only time will tell if she backs this stuff come election time.
Remember that plenty of self-styled progressives can write strongly-worded, strident essays which name names. But they can also cower behind the Democrats when it’s time to make a vote (need I remind you of how many people “Voted to Stop Bush” in 2004?). These folks have said they’d vote for war-mongering, anti-universal health care, anti-public financing
Democrats (it hardly matters who the Democrats are, John Kerry or Barack Obama will do). In short, plenty of progressives will vote against all of the things Ivins favors in the aforementioned article which is currently Common Dreams’ most forwarded article of the week.
So get your left-wing belly-aching out now while it’s easy to do so. There’s no test in sight, so few will remember what you said come election time. But in 2008, I’ll be curious to see how many of you cave into fear because you’ve got just enough where you have something you fear losing, and you’re not willing to risk it to push for something you need more (like health care for almost 50 million of you Americans, or an end to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and never starting a war in Iran).
I was browsing my public library in late October and I jotted down something I forgot to bring up here. I read this on page 23 of the October 28, 2005 Chicago Reader in a full-page ad:
There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into “leaders” who tell us to seek common ground with fascists is provind every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.
You can read this text in a number of The World Can’t Wait’s PDF fliers (1, 2, 3).
A strong sentiment, but long-time readers of this blog know that I’ll wait to be convinced until election time when organizations like these endorse candidates. Will they join so many on the Left and frame the debate around the Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates (two ways to fight the war are offered, ending the war and occupation is left off the table), or will they stand behind an anti-war candidate, even if that candidate is unpopular and not often discussed in the mainstream media?
In short, will folks like these vote in line with the sentiment they express 3 years out of every 4 or will they cave into whatever the Democrats are offering? Will the Democrat offer a progressive platform, reject corporate funding, and earn their votes?
John Nichols’ latest article applauds Al Franken and asks this question:
“Some might chuckle at Franken’s line: “Bush is lucky that he had a Republican Congress, or he almost certainly would have been impeached and imprisoned.” But does anyone seriously question, after all the revelations regarding the doctoring of intelligence and the deliberate deception of Congress and the American people by the president and his cronies, that an independent Congress would now be reviewing impeachment resolutions?”
I would because the Democrats are so good at going along to get along. A majority of them supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq (including three of their most visible members, Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama). This illegal and unethical invasion and occupation is what George W. Bush’s presidency will be known best for. Hillary Clinton dismissed universal health care at least twice (once in 1993, another time in 2004) as millions more go without health insurance, and up-and-coming member, Barak Obama, goes along and supports Bush’s position on the war[1] and confirms Gonzales and (correction, thanks to an anonymous poster—Obama voted against Gonzales’ confirmation) Rice. How about how the Republicans and Democrats working together to marginalize third-party and independent competition right off of the TV “debates” (really just rehearsed readings) through dirty tricks? Or how Democrats take corporate money for their campaigns, assuring that they don’t really listen to the public. There is plenty to not like about the Democrats.
Franken’s question is useless as framed. What would have happened if a Democrat-majority Congress were elected is simply not as important as what is happening now and what the Democrats could do to convince the country that they have a message worth hearing. They could drop their corporate funding and get their money from the people; then we’ll know they’re listening to us. They could work toward hearing political competitors and real TV debates so that the public gets to hear about issues the two corporate parties haven’t addressed adequately (or, in some cases, at all). They could stand for government-funded national health insurance. According to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, 2/3rds of Americans would back this, but this was back in 1992 when Americans were more financially flush.
It’s too bad that none of this will happen. It will take an organized effort by the people to challenge the government to require adequate coverage of things people stand for.
And as for Al Franken, I’m hardly surprised. He’s a Democratic Party stooge.
[1] Shortly before his DLC speech, Obama was quoted as saying
“On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago.”
and,
“There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”.
As recently as late September 2005, Sen. Obama told an audience in Champaign, Illinois that he remains steady on his course to support Pres. Bush’s position on the war—Sen. Obama hoped that US troops “could begin to leave Iraq next year, [but] removing the troops now would result in a massive bloodbath for both countries.“. Check the link for a list of other charges against Sen. Obama including the lame reason given for voting against Gonzales.
One of the weak points of the argument against corporate media is the framing of media as being too homogenized—too few corporations running too much media. This was recently repeated by Ralph Nader in his latest essay (Counterpunch mirror):
The debate between progressives and corporatists over the state of the mass media goes like this-the former say fewer and fewer giant media conglomerates control more of the print and electronic outlets while the latter respond by saying there has never been more choices for listeners (radio), viewers (television) and readers (magazines, newsletters and newspapers combined).
Progressives add that half a dozen big companies, which control so many media, lead to a sameness of entertainment, news and advertisement overload. Corporatists counter by saying that there are more and more specialized media available for just about every taste in the audience.
What he’s saying is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough to really get to the heart of the issue. One might read the entire essay and come away thinking that progressive argument on this can be shut down by putting more corporations in charge of various forms of media. So instead of half a dozen giant media conglomerates we would have 10 or 20 giant media conglomerates in charge.
After all, this argument is being framed like the old joke where the punch line is “Madam, what you are is clear, we are merely haggling over price.”.
As for C-SPAN, I’m not so rah-rah on C-SPAN either:
We, the most powerful, technologically-equipped nation on Earth are left with C-SPAN and the suggestion that we an always start our own blog.
C-SPAN is remarkably pro-corporate. Sure, their preferred mode of coverage is to point a camera and a mic at something and offer no commentary, just running footage. This method I appreciate from a viewing standpoint and I prefer it. However, I’ve seen very heavy coverage of the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO organization, and a string of corporate news reporters on interview segments, and I’m tired of it. Nader dare not point this out in so many words because C-SPAN is one of the few television networks where he gets any coverage even if it is rare and during odd hours.
I find Nader’s article interesting, his points compelling, but I take issue with his unchallenged repetition of the progressive line that too few corporations run the media. That way of structuring the debate says that more corporations at the wheel would be preferable. Instead, what we need is to charge broadcasters rent (as Nader points out), and mandate independant media appearance on TV and radio, and federally mandate at least 1 hour of uninterrupted prime-time commercial-free coverage of ballot-qualified candidates for all elections (simply point a camera and mic at them for an hour in a studio and let them speak without interruption or delay for one hour). That alone would have put Nader’s campaign issues in front of millions more people in 2000 and 2004 and could have helped him and his vice presidential running mate overcome being kept out of the presidential so-called “debates”. And that is why these things will not happen without a huge persistant public outcry.
Joshua Frank on Rep. John Murtha’s call for troop “redeploy[ment] at the earliest predictable date” is worth reading in multiple respects:
For reference, here is the complete text of Murtha’s non-binding resolution which received a 403-3 vote against:
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to “promote the emergence of a democratic government”;
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The Duncan Hunter (R-CA) resolution offered in response read
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Also, check out Jeff Chester’s response to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s fundraising request and ask yourself if any of your anti-war buddies would have the guts to not vote for a pro-war candidate. “But she’s a woman!” and “But she’s a Democrat!” will start in earnest if she runs for President and if the Republicans don’t have a woman candidate too (Condoleeza Rice would give us a real race to the bottom). Who will have the guts to oppose a woman’s run for office and point out that they’re not being misogynistic, but staying true to their anti-war, pro-universal health care, anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA politics?
It’s perfectly fine to not vote for a woman if that woman is a poor candidate. If we’re compelled to vote for women or minorities in the name of diversity, then we’re really screwed because it’s so easy to find women and/or minorities who will work for all the things that aren’t in the public’s best interest.
If you’re feeling giddy because the Democrats won a few seats during the mid-term elections, read this and ready yourself for the next major election. You don’t often come across a concrete and succinct summary of why the national Democrats do not deserve your vote. Reza Fiyouzat doesn’t let you forget what happened these past few years, who helped make it happen, and how it ties into an unbroken line of using power to keep the voters away, “stay the course” in wars, and gut their base to satisfy their corporate paymasters. We’ve still got two business parties and they still work together to simulate opposition, giving you the impression you have a real choice.
David Sirota’s latest essay neglects to mention that many Progressives also voted for a pro-war, pro-CAFTA, pro-NAFTA, pro-corporate campaign funding John Kerry in 2004. Progressives “are not fully comfortable with progressivism” and have fully behaved in such a way that it is clear they “are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions” when many of these institutions fund Democratic Party campaigns.
I will continue to not take progressivism seriously so long as they buckle every 4 years for a series of candidates that collude with Republicans to keep competition out of their simultaneous press conferences masquerading as “debates”.
The Democrats in Congress right now can agree with the pro-war Republicans because it will cost them nothing. They know that they have no real challengers awaiting them either in the form of alternative candidates (who are easily dispatched because they’re either from a third party or are independent and can’t raise the funds to compete) or organized opposition to, as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) put it, “a flexible timetable not a drop-dead date, not a deadline, not cut and run” in which the US can leisurely “finish the mission, achieve our goals and bring the troops home”. These are not the words or the sentiment which places tough demands on the pro-war Republicans like demanding to bring the troops home now. Yet these are the representatives that get votes in gerrymandered Democrat districts. Just look at the eminently disappointing junior senator from Illinois—Sen. Barack Obama.
Today’s Democracy Now! features a recording of an interview with reporter Robert Fisk (transcript). As per usual, Fisk has great insights to offer. His experienced retelling of what happens on the ground make up the majority of his talk. But one red meat line in this interview raises a question: (emphasis mine)
“If you go to war, you realize it is not primarily about victory or defeat, it is about death and the infliction of death and suffering on as large a scale as you can make it. It is about the total failure of the human spirit. We don’t show that because we don’t want to. And in this sense journalists, television reporting, television cameras are lethal. They collude with governments to allow to you have more wars because if they showed you the truth, you wouldn’t allow any more wars.”
If the last part is true, how did millions organized in the streets against the invasion of Iraq in the US, England, and around the world, fail to stop the Iraq war before it began? Perhaps, given the answer to the last question, Fisk doesn’t believe the public really has this power:
Amy Goodman: [Y]ou’ve covered the Israeli invasions of Lebanon, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Gulf war, wars in Algeria, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the invasion and occupation of Iraq—
Robert Fisk: Enough, enough, enough.
Amy Goodman: What gives you hope? What gives you hope?
Robert Fisk: Nothing. I’m sorry. Nothing. I’m sorry. Nothing at the moment. Ordinary people, I guess. Ordinary people who speak out. People in the Arab world as well. But in terms of governments, nothing much. I may be wrong. I may be too much of a pessimist because I’ve seen too much.
Good to read Cindy Sheehan rejecting Sen. Hillary Clinton if Clinton runs for President because she’s saying something that would be dismissed as sexism if it came from any anti-war man:
“I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won’t support a pro-war Republican.”
Most Progressives and most of the Left don’t have the guts to stand behind this statement when it counts—at the polls. They will vote for whatever Democrat comes along.
If a man rejects voting for Sen. Clinton the immediate reaction will be a charge of sexism. But, and this is my main objection to Sheehan’s criticism of Sen. Clinton’s possible Presidential campaign, there are plenty of reasons for Progressives to reject her: she’s pro-Iraq war, pro-NAFTA, pro-CAFTA, her political history includes caving into HMOs when she managed the health care reform under President Clinton and recently rejecting universal health care out of hand, and Sen. Clinton supported many Republican nominees who had lied to help bring us the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where will you stand if she’s the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2008? If you’re in her district now, will you re-elect her to the Senate?