The Washington Post editorial board held a meeting with Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on August 25. For a Republican or Democratic presidential nominee, this is standard. For a third-party candidate like Stein, the fact that the Post met with her is quite an accomplishment. However, the editorial board crassly attacked her immediately after the meeting.
"But whether you look at Trump’s coal plan or Hillary’s fracking plan, these are deadly for the climate and for the younger generation, and need to be called out and if I’m not in the debates there will be no one to tell the truth about what’s happening. We’ll have two fossil fuel-funded candidates, who are continuing to fan the flames of the burning planet."
Today, on "Democracy Now," Glenn Greenwald pointed out that the areas of correspondence between the official party candidates (on continued war, on aid to Israel, on benefits to big business) are never discussed. That leaves only the issues that lean more towards social and cultural differences.
His point, like that of Dr. Stein is that the public doesn't know what they are NOT being told and what's not put up for debate seems like a "done" issue... not requiring further discussion. That's perfect for Big Business and the MIC, but horrific for any claim to a Democratic Republic.
When the Anglo-European colonialists established themselves in Canada, the U.S., and Australia they went to work eradicating the Indigenous cultures and one way this was done was through enforced education. Once the children of the Indigenous tribes were placed into public schools, they were indoctrinated to turn against their own culture, language, and mores.
There are numerous ways that the Dominant Culture (that which is most resonant with the will, wishes, and intentions of wealthy white males) subsumes all others into itself.
One of the reasons I have demanded a re-examination of the "We" meme and how it's used... is for the purpose of exposing the over-arching truth that too many voices have been suppressed in order for society to arrive at that supposed singular ONE way/one consensus view.
The following paragraph demonstrates that others are also seeing through the WE/US identifiers and the subtle way they are used to block out all other visions, cultural and ethnic references, and alternatives to an IMPOSED status quo propped up as an "unchanging reality":
"So, when I say “that’s him,” I refer to the provocative language that he uses, but his ideas, and his vision are not different from mine. He is unapologetically a member of an oppressed group, and he speaks in the language of his culture. And I think he speaks to a demographic that feels pretty locked out of the American power structure. And I think it’s extremely valuable for us to be able to have a conversation in more than one dialect, speaking to more than one demographic here, finding our common ground, and having a very frank discussion about race, for one thing, which is where he is most hard-hitting, race, and the issues of human rights."
... a conversation in more than one dialect.
What a novel idea!
More and more people are coming to see what I've been talking about! And these groups and individuals are stepping out of the formation laid down and enforced by that same Rich White Male demographic niche.
Stein's comments about Clinton when it comes to climate change are way off base. Scientists disagree about whether fracking used to replace coal with natural gas is a positive or negative for climate change. Stein completely ignores Clinton's aggressive goals for clean energy. Of course Clinton also supports Obama's Clean Power Plan and the success in Paris that he had getting a climate agreement. Anyone listening to Clinton on climate or reading her website on climate should conclude that she is a climate hawk. Stein's basic problem is that the Democrats are fighting against climate change but she can't admit because that would undermine her claim that the Green Party is needed. Stein is right that a declared national emergency is needed to fight climate change. However, it is the nature of climate change makes that politically impossible. There is no "Pearl Harbor" that could allow such a declaration. Climate change is a slow process and the climate system is so complex it is difficult for scientists to understand. Moreover, the most dramatic effects are occurring in the Arctic, far from large human populations. Because of politics even politicians who know we need faster action are forced to make changes more slowly than they should. And economics also have to be considered. There does not appear to be any way for things to nicely fall into place to deal with this threat.
Your closing 3 paragraphs are gems, Mr. Gosztola:
"Because beyond voters wanting alternatives, they want viable alternatives, and the Post actively makes it seem Stein and the Green Party can and will never be that alternative. The result preserves the two-party system and the cycle of electoral politics, which reinforces and fuels systemic corruption and powerlessness among voters."
Maybe you could get through to the C.D message squad that ONLY blames "The People" for their vote "choices."
I don't need to be supportive of Stein's candidacy to appreciate your well articulated and reasoned criticism of the Washington Post's poor journalism.
Great article Sir.
Have you no shame, sir? (Joseph Nye Welsh)
If Jill Stein's candidacy is a fairy tale, lets hope it is the Cinderella fairy tale!
Do they pay you the same when you repeat yourself?
As for Lady McFrack, you apparently missed her enthusiastic pushing of fracking during her time as Sect. of State.
Thank you Kevin, spot on as usual. You can be sure the establishment does not want Jill Stein speaking to the masses. Bernie was exciting but Jill is both articulate and well informed and has a delivery that is poised yet forceful. She would be an excellent president as she cuts through the bs and gets to the point without hesitation. Baraka has the same appeal and edge. I love watching her quietly and kindly kick ass.
The media censors everything we hear and see on tv. Greenwald just said the media in Brazil is owned by five families of the establishment. When information is withheld or censored it sure isn't anything like a democracy it's more like China. We've lost so much we need Jill and the Green party, maybe we can at least make a difference on climate change.
Jill not Hill
In this election the choice of the major candidates are quite flawed. Trump , his racism his demogogery, his advocacy of violence ie urging his fans to beat up protesters. Offering to put up money for the legal defense of the man who sucker punched that young black man. Some of Trump's followers being leaders of racist groups, eg David Duke. On the other side is Hillary Clinton with her ties to big banks, the high perception of being untrustworthy by the general US public. In other words seen as a woman who lies a lot.
Yet with her many faults I'd still vote for her over a dangerous irresponsible candidate Donald Trump. This election is too important to waste one's vote. If one votes for any third party candidate you're taking votes from Hillary and giving them to Trump. If Jill Stein was a viable candidate I would of considered voting for her. Truth be told I like many of her progressive views on the economy, the environment, education. But if I vote for her I believe Trump would win. I would like a future where third parties are viable but I don't believe its this election. No offense to you.
With the red and blue candidates not currently in jail only because they are wealthy and well connected, the only available strategy that partisan voters, the corporations and their media have to promote the red and/or blue is to ignore all other candidates, or if that fails, they need to make fun of all competitors since there is no reason (that holds water) to vote FOR red or blue.
As in past elections the message we will see repeated during the next two months is: red and blue = adults, all other candidates = children.
I'm not familiar with the source you mention, but maybe at some point I'll check it out.
I just got David Daley's book (On voter fraud through sophisticated gerrymandering of strategic districts) in the mail and it will be good reading during the tropical storm now close to my neck of the woods.
I think decent, honest, informed souls ARE struggling with this matter.
What is the moral calculus when a citizen finds herself (or himself) inside a closed system that works all its considerable power to maintain a status quo that IS deadly to the human spirit, human body, body of the planet, and livelihoods of billions?
Many here make compelling cases against voting for Mrs. Clinton--due to her ties and adherence to awful policy (in a virtually continuous chain which I know hardly stops and starts at The White House) added to such self-evident lies and double-dealing. She is not liked.
It's not that Trump isn't--as I explained it yesterday--a sort of cosmic joke, the Joker of the pack whose own positions vary from day to day; it's WHO and WHAT he represents.
As you pointed out (and as has been pointed out from souls ranging from Mr. Greenwald to Sanders), Trump is creating an atmosphere that validates the most egregious within our nation: the extreme right wing goons who really do hate Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, women, Mother Nature, and anything that doesn't look like a gun or a white male.
I'd like to know what polling looks like in my state, Florida... given its record.
I would prefer to vote for Jill Stein but if it looks like Trump might win... I am wrestling with what is the Greater Moral Imperative here.
Ultimately, I think it's evil and mortifying that citizens are being forcibly put in this position due to the ways that Sanders' WINNING campaign (and message and stands) was derailed.
Actual, meaningful, authentic democracy would make room for REAL choices, fair vote counts, open media campaigns, and not put voters into a virtual strait jacket.
The MSM labels any candidate who is not bought in to incrementalism (that characterized the differences between Clinton and Sanders during the primaries) as unrealistic childish dreamers, yet one of the main themes of Martin Luther King's I HAVE A DREAM speech (delivered 53 years ago this week) was incrementalism. Although King called it gradualism, he reminded us that a century of promising to get things done slowly and within the "system" had a 100% failure rate.
The MSM promotes incrementalism or gradualism knowing that those strategies are a formula for assuring that there is zero chance that anything will change...precisely the mission of the MSM to maintain the status quo !
Thanks for publishing this article, and giving me an opportunity to respond.
I agree with statements you made such as this:
Unfortunately, media institutions like the Post are hard-wired to act as gatekeepers for establishment politics.
For many decades oligarchy has infiltrated the two major parties --- the wealthy few engaged in abuse of democracy. And without shame continue to profit off the backs of the working poor, and destruction of the environment. Oligarchy dominance is not a right-wing conspiracy, it is actual reality. They engage in propaganda and gerrymandering to protect the wealthy few (oligarchy).
It is alarming that so many people are duped, blindly continue to support such malevolence that has resulted in so many atrocities on so many levels.
Many decades of neglect regarding the environment has resulted in extinction of species. The wealthy few have no shame, and their stronghold on major media groups is the tool they use to abuse democracy and dupe millions of Americans to continue supporting horrendous abuse of human rights, international laws and destruction of the environment.
The biggest con of the century is that voting for the Green Party is a wasted vote. Much like trickle-down economy is also a con. The reality is, oligarchy dominance has infiltrated (poisoned) both major parties at the highest level of government and military. The oligarchy dominance of the two major parties are rotten to the core, they have no shame in abuse of human rights and violation of international laws.
It is alarming that so many people are duped to believe that the Green Party does not have the means to govern if Jill Stein becomes POTUS. Read this:
There have been countless allegations this year that the Green Party never runs local candidates. This deliberate falsehood could not be further from the truth. The next time you come across this slander (typically from Democrats), send the 'author' our page that lists 200+ candidates were running in 2016.
The other con is that the Green Party offers pie-in-the-sky, fairy tale policies. This is not true, and in fact the Green Party is the only party that is part of a worthy global movement. Jill Stein is highly intelligent and knowledgeable regarding all issues local, national and global. The Green Party has outstanding judgement, sensible solutions that are absolutely doable, smarter strategies that will not blow the deficit. Jill Stein explained it admirably in the CNN Green Party Presidential Town Hall - Video. She in fact nailed it so solid that major media groups have tried to get this video off YouTube. This link I posted (video) was uploaded by the Green Party (YouTube Chn).
So, ya gonna vote for Stein?
Nice try SR - but what Stein is saying is that, as a white woman she cannot speak for, as on behalf of, the experiences of a black man in a culture that insists on making distinctions between people on the basis of skin color, or gender, for that matter - that in speaking of personal experience, one cannot speak of a "we" in any meaningful fashion. But that is not the same thing as saying that we cannot speak of a "we" in terms of fundamental needs and aspirations shared by all as members of the human "race" - and that until "we" learn to speak for, as in favor of, those needs and aspirations in a unified voice - until "we" realize that "we" are all in this together, that "we" have a responsibility to and for each other, whether "we" like it or not, "we" will all go down together ...
So keep whacking the "we", but i suggest you are on shaky ground in attempting to use Stein to back you up ....
Btw, who are you voting for, which woman - Clinton or Stein?
"Scientists disagree about whether fracking used to replace coal with natural gas is a positive or negative for climate change."
Well maybe - but they all seem to agree that both of them are bad ... sorta like suggesting that we have to chose the LOTE when we ought to reject both ...
"There is no "Pearl Harbor" that could allow such a declaration ..."
Hmm, i dunno - ask the folks who are flooded and burned out of their homes at an increasing rate - ask the farmers whose crops are failing for lack of water - ask the folks who are experiencing "500 year" or even "1000 year events" that repeat - within a few years ...
"Stein's basic problem is that the Democrats are fighting against climate change ..."
LOL - that's a good one - pushing fracking and pipelines all over the place, leasing federal lands for more ff development ... ir the Rs were doing this, you would be all over them - but it must be OK because Ds are doing it ...
"Climate change is a slow process and the climate system is so complex it is difficult for scientists to understand ...
Slow? And what, pray tell, would you call "rapid" - 15 minutes? a few days? a week or two?
"Because of politics even politicians who know we need faster action are forced to make changes more slowly than they should ..."
Bingo! Because of politics - the politics of Rs and your beloved Ds - so yeah those politics are precisely why the Green Party is needed and the sooner we give it some power, the better ...
"And economics also have to be considered. "
You bet your sweet bippy, they do - and the longer we wait to make the transition from FF to renewables, the more we will have to spend to clean up from the havoc cc is wreaking - that is if we can clean it up at all...
The result of LOTE voting preserves the 2 party system - and it is "the people" who are doing the voting -
What you want to say, apparently, is that "we" need to blame WaPo, e.g, - for our "choices" - what, do they hold a gun to our heads?
Until "we" take responsibility for our own choices, until "we" stop using the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework" as an excuse for not doing due diligence re the electoral process at least as much as "we" do in buying a car or a washing machine - oh wait, maybe i can't say "we" here, though, can I, maybe some of "us" actually do that ... maybe that's the problem, not enough of "us" do - so "we", indeed, may not be the problem, it is "us" that is the problem - As Pogo told us long ago - "We have met the enemy and they are us" ... I shall have to remember that ...