One audience member on the comment line following a recent Oakland, CA Green Party discussion panel—titled "Growing the Political Revolution: What's Beyond Bernie?"—cited Albert Einstein for having once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting things to turn out differently. This maxim is actually invoked with some regularity these days as a caution against American left efforts within the Democratic Party.
Tom Gallagher's argument makes sense if one entirely divorces "winning" from those things which give winning its meaning.
Once a politician always a politician -- apparently. What the hell did Gallagher actually say? We should, but we shouldn't, but we should -- does that just about get to the gist of it?
Garbled writing reflects garbled thinking. Apparently Mr. Gallagher didn't notice that it was the party 'machine' that insured Sanders' defeat. Focus on the fact of historical two party domination in no way validates it. Perhaps he was educated in one of the deep red states that discourages students from thinking outside the box.
"And if one of the factions is going to split off.......let's let it be the Clinton people."
What does that mean?
Why would Hillary's voters "split off?"
Gallagher's comparing Sanders' PRIMARY election performance with third party performance in GENERAL elections is as meaningless as making a case that Sanders' earning 45% of the delegates to CLINTONCON in Philly had any influence on the general election.
That 45% plus two bucks (three bucks in Philly) bought a cup of coffee and not much more when you factor in all the obstacles put in the Sanders' campaign's way.
Maybe Mr. Gallagher missed the rise of the DLC -- the Democrats have already been taken over, Yes, we need to work to a degree within the Democratic party to support progressive populists and especially to win electoral reform so that alternative candidates have a fighting chance. It is also vital to build a progressive alternative at the grass roots, local and state levels. The Working Families Party is a good start and is sometimes in alliance with the progressive wing of the Dems -- that is how rational politics work. The Socialist Party is good as well.
We cannot continue to let corporate democrats take us for granted. Building a progressive party -- either one that already exists or a left-alliance is vital to us having a voice. Beyond the selection season, we need to be massively mobilized on issues,
The title of this article: "THIRD PARTY LOYALISTS" is misleading when you consider that a majority of those who vote for Green Party candidates and most other third parties are not partisan, they vote for candidates who earn their votes, unlike partisans who believe they owe their vote to the party, whose votes are mostly faith based and rarely evidence based.
Approximately 30% of the voters in each general POTUS election ARE loyal to the Democratic Party and approximately 30% ARE loyal to the GOP. They are dyed-in-the-wool loyalists, unlike thrid party voters.
"Massive mobilization" efforts should be a priority.
"Building a Progressive Party" not so much. We don't need another political party. What we need are fewer political parties.
Meanwhile, we should be content with the Nazi presidential candidate who's so bad that she needs to run opposite Trump to look like a decent option. The author hasn't put much weight into the idea that the main options just might be so bad that they aren't options at all.
Trump preys on those who have something positive to stand up for and who have been wrongly accused of bigotry, much the same as Clinton preys on those who oppose bigotry and have been under-appreciated and harassed as a result. The faulty assumption in either case is that they're a respectable representative of the people.
Win or lose, that's the problem here, that in rejecting the better duopoly, people aren't voting for a president, they're voting for their favorite form of broken logic. Whether it's the way that Trump treats ignorant people as if they're a protected minority, or whether it's the way that Clinton treats corruption as if it's equivalent to success. Win or lose, the passive acceptance of broken logic will be a problem for anyone regardless of political affiliation.
The Sanders revolution is what happens when someone puts on the political big boy pants completely independently of the Washington political structure. It's a validation of the idea that it makes more sense to think in terms of principles rather than parties, and the disappearance of Sanders into the fold at the end is a warning against complacency with duopoly politics.
Regardless, I take issue with way the topic is presented. Try this. Duopoly Sheep: Inanity Redefined or Political Entitlement Disorder? There's a certain inanity to someone mobilizing scumbags to override your initiatives due to the fact that you're interested in things that are worthwhile and effective, which would thus make it more inconvenient for them to get away with behaving in a corrupt manner.
The dynamics on the Republican side and Democratic side are totally different. Since Goldwater ran in 1964 the Republican party has shift way to the right and continues to move in that direction. According to EJ Dionne, that is the man reason for gridlock. On the hand values of the Democratic Party have been pretty much the same for decades but to because the Republicans embraced the religious right and other reasons the Democrats have had to make changes to win elections. Also with loss of southern conservatives and the decline of organized labor the Democrats had to find a new political base. Because of these shifts the old Left or what became of the old Left now finds itself more distanced from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Parry now seem to be more involved in identity politics than economic class-based politics. Looking at numbers, the Green Party seems to have too small of a base to have much significance. I think Bernie Sanders is making the only real choice that can lead to change which is to try to work within the Democratic Party to push it further left.
The article's title is objectionable and inaccurate, rather like a trolling post or clickbait, while the article itself is inchoate, confused, and nearly incomprehensible - the reason for editors, one would have thought.
Just as I thought, Gallagher is peddling fantasy's.
Gallagher talks like the election is really a valid plebiscite rather than what it really is...a PSYOP. The whole thing is the political equivalent of a series of Pro-Wrestling matches, leading us gradually from multiple choices to only two: Completely Vile Vs. Slightly Less Awful. The objective is make us believe that those are the only possibilities, so that we accept dystopian governance. Also, by holding our noses and voting for a Wall Street War-Woman we become accessories to the crimes she will inevitably commit. So that in 2017 when, under the guise of Humanitarian Intervention, she is bombing the crap out of Syria, Ukraine or wherever, we will have too much guilt on our consciences to squawk much because back in November 2016 we became her accomplices. Screw that. I might have to live in a dystopia, but damned if I am going endorse this nightmare.
Republican's believe in unregulated Capitalism and Democrat's believe in regulated Capitalism.
That's the entirety of the battle between the two groups.
The oligarchy's game is to limit our choices.
They set up a binary choice between a slightly right of center candidate (Trump is a lunatic mirage) and a slightly left of center candidate. Both are funded and both are acceptable to them.
Given the track record of third party candidates, it seems reasonable to believe that if Sanders had not run as a Democrat, he would not have generated nearly as much excitement or interest. If this is really about ideas and policies rather than individual candidates, then generating that interest is quite important. It's remarkable to me that in the USA people were and are actually talking about free higher education, an idea that wouldn't have gotten so much as a mention anywhere before the success of the Sanders campaign.
A variety of parties in the alphabet soup of the Left have been talking about such things for a long time, of course, but no one listens. It's pretty obvious which path leads to greater engagement with large groups of people, so if the idea is capitalist reformation, like it is with the Greens, we can plainly see that Sanders' run as a Democrat has been more effective than the years of campaigning by reformist third parties. The DSUSA is even older than the Greens, but I guess their PR isn't quite as good, and has had virtually no success at even getting ideas discussed, which is the first step toward acceptance.
It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"
We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their continued presence.
-Richard Feynman, from the Rogers Commission Report investigating the cause of the space shuttle Challenger explosion, 1986
What' we're dealing with here is a political structure which has already failed, but which people up high can't or don't want to admit has failed us. Can we please start talking seriously about ranked choice voting?
Sanders did win... that is, if all of the machinations, cheating, blocked independent voters, media lies told often and OTHER contrivances are not used to grant Mrs. Clinton the manufactured victory.
As to the article, it could be summed up as "Almost pregnant."
incoherent ramblings from the democratic machine city of San Francisco. Home of Nancy Pelosi and Willie Brown. The author fails to note that Ross Perot received 18.9% of the vote in 1992. What is the message here - Give up ever having change? Always vote for the lesser of two evils. They - the politicos - must love it that they think we have to make this compromised choice.