Home | About | Donate

How Trump Can Unite the Left


#1

How Trump Can Unite the Left

Christopher D. Cook

As millions of Democrats, Greens, liberals, progressives, and lefties across America prepare to resist Trump, it’s time to build greater unity and alliances among this vast rainbow of people, communities, and movements. With heightened attacks on immigrants, women, people of color, Muslims, the environment, workers’ rights, and more, we simply cannot afford political isolation and fracturing.


#2

The left will be united when they dump the Democratic Party.


#3

The left is already united around economic and social justice for the 99%. The Democratic party has been the wedge that divides. If the party can actually be taken over by a progressive left, which is Main Street America in many respects, then the Party could become a source for a powerful united front for a progressive agenda.


#4

As long as ultra identity politics of the far left doesn't facture the movement.


#5

The "far left" is more issues oriented than identity oriented. Its the centrists (most of whom identify as liberals) that are nearly 100% identity and minimally issues oriented.


#6

Too late. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended basic welfare aid in the 1990s. We're 20 years into one hell of a war on the poor. Countless families have been torn apart, and the overall life expectancy of the US poor has fallen below that of every developed nation. The majority of US poor are white, but deprivation of basic human needs is just as hellish regardless of race. "First they came for the poor..." and now our more fortunate hear the bootsteps of fascism approaching their own doors.

Years of work went into pitting the middle class against the poor, and pitting the poor against each other by race. We knew that the Obama admin. represented our last chance to bring people together, for the common good. We're more divided by class and race than we were eight years ago.


#7

The far left haven't had the public microphone since before Reagan.


#8

If your defeatism is honest and honestly worn, that is a pity; if it is something you are trying to cultivate here and elsewhere, well, what goes around comes around. Lead, follow, or get out of the way; and STFU.


#9

"Now more than ever, all those wanting an egalitarian, racially just, and sustainable society fueled by participatory democracy need to forge a broad united front. "

Yes, THINK BIGGER than merely uniting the Left. Unite the Right as well.

And realize that none of this would be happening without Trump having won! Where would we be right now if Clunkton had won??? ASLEEP!

Asleep again.


#10

We could unite most people around economic justice, taking the country back from corporate control. Most other problem areas would be improved if Wall street and the billionaires didn't dictate our daily life.This is the biggest issue that touches everyone in one way or another.


#11

It obvious that wealth inequality lies at the root of all our grievances. Let's fight for an economic democracy that will give our political demoracy a solid foundation. There's a simple and just way to do this proposed by the American economist Henry George in 1885 . I summed up his solution to human poverty in a letter to Chris Cook a few years ago but
he was not in the least interested. These journalists are all in love with their mouth.


#12

"It’s time for progressive unity."

Progressives are united by definition and online.

Online Direct Democracy


#13

Could become a source, yes; but the "if" that you posit is pretty big. The leadership of the Dems is very well entrenched; almost institutional. Cantwell and Murray, for example, crossed the aisle to vote to block importation of cheap drugs from Canada a couple of weeks ago. They don't seem at all worried about average citizen reaction--correctly believing that money from big donors will buy the ads necessary to keep them and their ilk in office for perpetuity.


#14

I'm liking this article for a lot of reasons. Of late I have begun to feel like we are in some sort of echo chamber on progressive news sites. They give scant attention to the need to organize a coherent party w a coherent platform--which is something we desperately need. Instead, they serve up helpings of Trump stuff which really is only preaching to the choir on sites like these. And if that's all that they intend to do, then actually they would be playing the long game to enshrine and perpetuate lesser-evilism for 2018 and beyond. I think your article is one of the few that is taking a focus on what the left can begin to think about and do, rather than just complain and indulge in "I knew it all along...Trump is a prick" self affirmation. We do have to begin to create a vehicle that will consolidate the many threads of the movement--including stopping the wars, which really seems to be taking a back seat to all the other issues that people express concerns about.


#15

I would like to propose that it might be the wars and pentagon spending that lie at the core almost all the issues that concern us. War pollutes the culture, enshrines conflict and "manliness," and most important: hijacks incredible resources (money) that could be better spent--meaning, spent to remedy concerns about the direction our nation has been taking these past decades. I don't disagree w you re importance of economics--just think that seems to also be dependent upon our military obsession.


#16

The military is also a huge and somewhat unrecognized "jobs program." A dark and very destructive jobs program--not like the CCC's my dad worked for in the 30's.


#17

No they didn't. I posted the full amendment here several times yesterday for all to read with barely a response. Everyone is so committed to whatever the Intercept or Counterpunch says they are becoming Limbaugh-like ditto heads on the Left. All the amendment did was allow the Chair to move money to support importing drugs from anywhere in the world during conference negotiations as long as whatever came out in the conference report was budget neutral. That is it.

It was poorly written and had almost no proscriptive language in it. Literally, had it passed and the Chair brought up the issue during conference, we could have faced a disaster on our hands regarding imports, unless you think Ted Cruz was voting on it out of nicety. Folks are acting like the amendment was limited to Canadian drugs manufactured under their version of the FDA. It wasn't.