Home | About | Donate

The Democrats Should Stop Wishing on a "Star" and Start Helping to Build a Progressive Movement


#1

The Democrats Should Stop Wishing on a "Star" and Start Helping to Build a Progressive Movement

Peter Bloom

Only a few months after taking office, President Trump have confirmed all the worst fears of progressives and liberals. From his potential ties to Russia to his almost beyond belief retrogressive budget, the new administration is promoting an agenda that is as economically elitist as it is politically authoritarian. Even more worrying, has been Trump’s commitment while in power to in his rhetoric and actions contribute to the rising tide of white nationalism sweeping the country and potentially the world.


#2

Did the author sleep through Bernie's campaign, or maybe, think that we did?


#3

Democrats are has beens who wage eternal war and destroy democracies world wide.

Political movements are not built. They rise against forces of eternal war in defense of a good life when the joy of being a human is shorted out by the rich. People thought Bernie was professor Dumbledore when he went for president.

In normal times, the daily blossom of the gift of life is fully absorbing infinite fun. Rich people are not happy.


#4

The Dums are worthless. Exhorting them to do anything progressive is a waste of energy.


#5

Historically, charismatic candidates have surfaced at least four years before they get elected, so the Democrats best start cultivating their 2020 star post haste, if that is actually their strategy.


#6

The "charismatic leader" debate does have its merits. Famous political philosopher Max Weber wrote an essay about how charismatic leaders can suddenly rise to stardom, but have a habit of burning and crashing soon after their election. From The Philippines to Italy people have been choosing TV celebrities over seasoned politicians for quite some time. The results have always been predictable, that the actors have no substance and were only used to advance a particular party.
Obama was also a "celebrity candidate" except the Democrats and corporate America introduced him to the public just a few years before his ascendancy to the Presidency once the 1% were assured that Obama would not ruffle any of the feathers of the super rich. His good looks, his youth, his excellent speaking ability and his 'other-than-white' complexion made him an ideal candidate to appeal to a nation dying for a Progressive to steer the country away the MIC, Big Oil and Big Pharma. It didn't happen, but it did give the Democrats another 8 years in office.
The Democratic Party could make a celebrity out of a truly progressive candidate if they were inclined to do so, but so far that shows little chance of happening. Instead the corporate dependant Democrats are looking for an "Obama 2" to lead them the next time around. This may or may not be a good strategy for the Democratic Party, but it definitely stinks for the 99% who are looking for real change.
The part that Democratic Party officials seem to miss is that even an anti-corporate candidate would receive corporate donations. First of all, corporations have been funding both sides for generations now. Corporations really don't care if a Democrat or a Republican win, as long as they can curry favour with the eventual winner. Obviously a truly Progressive candidate would receive less than a Wall Street stooge dressed up as a Liberal, but as Bernie Sanders has shown, a real Progressive will get lots of grass roots funding if their message is loud and clear making up for the corporate short fall. Once a real progressive is elected, along with a Progressive Congress, we can move to quickly quash any corporate friendly loop holes like legislating our Citizens United or abolishing the college electoral system. In more developed democracies, lobbying is outlawed all together. The U.S. needs to adopt such policies if democracy is to survive here.
if we are unable to change the Democratic Party's allegiance to Wall Street, then a third Party must 'break away' from the Democratic party during an election year. This will send a clear message to the Democratic leadership that the inability for the leadership to adopt a Progressive candidate that represents the 99%, will ensure that the Party cannot beat the Republicans. A third party candidate could even possibly win if they had enough national exposure at the time the break from the Party occurred.
In any case, until the Progressives seize control of the Democratic Party, it is unlikely that another 100 million Americans will be willing to even cast a vote in the next election. Too many Americans are sick and tired of how both parties conduct themselves with rigged elections, endless empty rhetoric and a ban on discussing real issues that matter the most to the 99%.


#7

This author spoke truth to the powerless and we needed to hear some truth but he left out a lot that still needs to be said. Great piece though.

Firstly, as another CDer wrote, the Dems had a star in Bernie and they dropped the ball on his very popular campaign. The Dems didn't want a true progressivism agenda and gambled on making the most of an unpopular candidate but one who was a woman. Utterly cynical politics that, Dems tried yet again to sidetrack progressive issues by running a 'change only on the outside' (Obama was black but not the progressive he promised us that he would be) candidate. This time it was a less than popular star but they thought electable because she was a woman. A Wall St Washington politico that ran against the popular candidate more than against the Repubs. The Dems figured that being a woman would get the women's vote and be enough for most progressives too. But the truth was that she was always a gamble because she really wasn't that popular.

This author rightfully points out that the Dems are looking for a new star but he skips over why didn't they go with Bernie who was clear and away the most popular Dem candidate especially among independent voters? The reason is that the Dems didn't really want to become a people's party that represented the people of the USA more than it would the deep pocket elites.

There lies the rub and It is sure starting to chafe since the Dems virtually threw this election rather than let a popularist progressive like Bernie win. Instead the Dems gave us Trump's authoritarian elite form of governing that makes little attempt to represent the people of this country. This billionaire elite tells us what they will do rather than do what the people of this country want their government to do.

You have to ask yourself whether or not the 'no term limits' Dems are okay with that? These Dems feel that in the next election that they will be able to run an even less progressive candidate because the Repubs have been so bad already. Meanwhile the country will have been pillaged by this corporate coup in progress and a ton of serious lasting damage will have been done. Sure the Dems want to find a star. It is the nature of politics after all. However the truth is that the Dems allowed Trump to take over because the Dems are not progressives and they have yet to see that the majority of people are. Only certain issues are truly conservative. For example most republican voters do not want to destroy Soc Sec and Medicare etc. Had Bernie had the support of the Dems he would have won in a landslide!

However the Dems didn't really want a progressive reformer, so they gambled on an unpopular candidate while using formulaic political thinking. A woman candidate would get the progressive vote so their thinking went.

It almost worked bu t. The Dems literally gambled the farm on the (Wall St) long shot rather than go with a populist that they feared would actually be a progressive.

The problem is that the Dems have long been a fifth column that has undermined progressive political representation in government and now the cupboard is bare except for regrets. The Dems never expected someone like Trump could win I suppose.

I wish that the Dems would mind that he has! It sure looks like we do not have a two party system but in actuality that we have a 3/4's Republican and 1/4 Democrat version of a two party system... and now it is going to hurt real bad.

These politicians may pretend that they aren't aware of climate change but they are and they know they are gambling too. The world is like in a pressure cooker and these greedy fools are turning up the heat... literally! Will there be unrest? Trump is destabilizing the efforts of millions to avert the worst of climate change. Call it Trump's biggest gamble (even though it is the world's people who will end up suffering)!

The problem with gambling is what happens when you lose?


#8

"Progressive" needs to be deep-sixed. In place, we must use a phrase that means something similar, that is not so lame. Something that tells the listener immediately: The Dems and Repubs are history - never coming back! We the People are here, now! And we are awake and will not be bought-off with trinkets, lies and gmo food. You Dems R US - Feel the Bern! The People, Planet, Peace Party. We the 99% will make this happen. You Dems, enjoy your free ride! We of the People, Planet, Peace Party, will not forget your betrayals, Mr. & Mrs. Clinton and you too, Mr. Obama. We know you Repubs, too. Just corporations masquerading as people! You BOTH are free-loaders and lying liars, to boot. Millionaires and billionaires will pay your damn taxes, grudgingly or whatever, but you will pay, sooner or latter.


#9

Framing is EVERYTHING, all else always follows.