hypergrove (160 posts)March 14, 2017 at 11:12 am
A 3rd Party… Seriously?
The sentiment for a progressive 3rd party (aka a 4th way?) is certainly palpable at JPR. The sentiment for such a party, among Americans, seems to have peaked sometime during FDR’s terms. So please consider this, from Wikipedia:
Wallace was a strong supporter of New Deal liberalism, and softer policies towards the Soviet Union. His public feuds with other officials and unpopularity with party bosses in major cities caused significant controversy during his time as Vice President under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the midst of World War II, and resulted in Democrats dropping him from the ticket in the 1944 election in favor of Senator Harry S Truman. In the 1948 presidential election, Wallace left the Democratic Party to run unsuccessfully as the nominee of the Progressive Party against Truman, Republican Thomas E. Dewey, and States’ Rights Democrat Strom Thurmond. He won 2.4% of the popular vote and no electoral votes, and finished fourth.
I see a parallel between the Democratic bosses of 1944 and the Clinton bosses of 1990s onward. I see Bernie Sanders not so much as a Debs but more as a Henry Wallace, in our country’s political dynamic — not perfectly of course — should he ever run on a 3rd party ticket.
I’d love to understand how a 3rd party strategy can possibly work; history suggests such strategy (sadly) wouldn’t have a prayer of success.J ! Justice, Democrats, Justice ! P ! Primary the Corporatists ! R ! Roosevelt’s 2nd Bill of Rights !
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
1 week ago #24
1 week ago #10
1 week ago #25
1 week ago #28
Entrepreneur (1437 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 11:19 am
id-entity (1795 posts) (Reply to Entrepreneur - post #1) March 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
2. Yes we are.Disclaimer: You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Entrepreneur - post #1) March 14, 2017 at 11:31 am
4. Your point is that the Internet increases awareness …
that a progressive awareness translates into votes into victory?
Party bosses — like Clinton’s bosses — have been and still are principals in Democratic Party campaigns. I contend those bosses generate roughly the same ‘enthusiasm’ (votes) as the Internet does.
The bosses of yesteryear are the celebrity ‘thought leaders’ of today. Convince HuffPo and you’ll get a bunch of votes…. example: HA Goodman.J ! Justice, Democrats, Justice ! P ! Primary the Corporatists ! R ! Roosevelt’s 2nd Bill of Rights !
JimLane (911 posts) (Reply to Entrepreneur - post #1) March 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm
21. If only there had been an internet in 2016.
Jill Stein might have done better than 1% of the vote.
FanBoy (6340 posts) (Reply to Entrepreneur - post #1) March 17, 2017 at 8:11 am
24. the internet is controlled by corporations and government,
subject to monitoring and false flag maneuvers, and can be/is fragmented into 1000000 little interest groups. the internet makes managing and controlling people and political views even easier than 100 years ago.
MistaP (3892 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 11:23 am
3. Wallace's campaign was drowned in blood by the revival of the KKK
the Progressives were legally registering Black votes and that meant a wave of terror; the Second Red Scare was aimed at his party, not the Dems
Truman only won a squeaker by stealing all his policieshttp://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to MistaP - post #3) March 14, 2017 at 11:42 am
7. Agreed the Second Red Scare was effective, but …
2.4% ? Was it that effective? Not a single electoral vote?
And Hillary ‘stole’ all Bernie’s policies too, creating (arguably) the “most progressive platform in American history”. It’s the way it works in Amerika: the duopoly embraces fringe party policies in order to coopt them however ultimately that embrace becomes a grudging acceptance.
The squeaker was due to the electoral wins by Dewey and Thurmond. Your argument that the KKK was the key adversity Wallace faced, would be more believable if Wallace had won electoral votes outside the South.
MistaP (3892 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #7) March 14, 2017 at 11:54 am
10. I think we're asking the wrong questions–there hasn't been a major party shift
in then US without a third party midwifing it
- 1892/6 the Populists made the Dems drop their pure corporatism and squabbling
- 1912 Roosevelt almost became Prez again to cap off the Progressive Era
- 1924 LaFollette warns that structural change and safety nets were needed in the midst of the Roaring Twenties
- 1948 the Dixiecrats secede and launch the Klan against the returning GIs and Henry Wallace’s Black voter-registration drives (driving Truman way left)
- 1968 George Wallace’s AIP shows Nixon how to ratfuck and race-bait his way to a false unanimity
Anderson was the last of the old-style statesmen in 1980 as the neoliberals, young-earth creationists, and hedonists took over (Carter fatally went for a me-too approach)
- Perot brought in populism against the technocrats and outsourcers, but also a vindictiveness about Vietnam that showed that the Culture Wars could still be politically lucrative to continue (and contributed to the OKC bombing)
- Nader warned us 2000 to look for the resemblances between the parties (but so did Buchanan and Trump in the Reform Party primary)
- 2016 may’ve already been such a turn–an independent socialist was the real winner of the Dem primary but sabotaged by a clown car that Taft would sneer at
I’m thinking of an Independent Democratic Party that can secede and rejoin at will, stepping across the border at will, building a power base at the state level–no corporate money, no corporate policies, no “sheep-dipped” ex-Republican candidates; I thought it’d start in the northern tier and CO, but CA’s already gone Berniecrat and many FL counties have been retaken by the peoplehttp://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to MistaP - post #10) March 17, 2017 at 2:47 pm
30. It's a long road for the Dems from corporate slave-owner politics to
the corporate identity politics of today (sarcasm, a little).
- In 1892, Populist James Weave got 9% of the vote
- In 1912, Dem Wilson 42% … Prog Teddy 27% … Rep Taft 23% … Socialist Debs 6%
- In 1924, Prog LaFollete 17%
I had thought the progessive sentiment reached its peak in the 1930s, but I’m reconsidering bevause 1912, Roosevelt+Debs got 35%. And I’m thinking the progressives waned thereafter due to Wilson’s laws criminalizing progressive antiwar sentiments.
Also please see my reply to Satan below.
FanBoy (6340 posts) (Reply to MistaP - post #3) March 17, 2017 at 8:26 am
25. second red scare got going in the late 30s. so i doubt it was aimed at wallace
in particular, or his post-vp run at the presidency as a ‘progressive’
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to FanBoy - post #25) March 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm
31. Wallace later recanted his views about the USSR which he indeed held
Not necessarily aimed at Wallace, but certainly Wallace’s reputation for his previous ‘softness’ towards the USSR took a big hit in the Second Red Scare (the first being during the 20s I guess)
FanBoy (6340 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #31) March 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm
38. first red scare was basically post ww1 transitioning into 1920-21.
followed by the ‘roaring’ 20s (roaring for capital, not so hot for anyone else)
first red scare cleared the decks of rabble-rowser pro-labor commie types
that’s why the 20s roared — a pro-capital environment
followed by the great depression when the chickens came home to roost.
kind of like today: for the top and upper-middle, things are roaring on — for the rest of us, not so much
can’t wait for the chickens
Reciprocity Me (43 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 11:32 am
5. Democrats cheated at the 1944 Convention that looked almost exactly like the
2016 Convention, stolen by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Reciprocity Me - post #5) March 14, 2017 at 12:11 pm
16. ^^^^ watch this excellent video ^^^^ /eom
Reciprocity Me (43 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #16) March 14, 2017 at 1:25 pm
djean111 (2898 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 11:33 am
6. Yes, let's keep voting for Democrats, and hoping that they change.
These are different times, and the Democratic Party is weakening. By all means, you are free to not participate in any 3rd party activities. But, IMO and all that, the internet has connected and strengthened a lot more people who are disillusioned with and/or refuse to participate in the totally corporate owned two party system.You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie? Um, nope.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to djean111 - post #6) March 14, 2017 at 11:48 am
8. Bernie's strategy is to PUSH the Dems to the left, not try to coopt them
I concluded Bernie’s is the only strategy that can work, after pining for a 3rd party since June 2016 until last week.
I agree that the Internet is a great place to work out one’s disillusionments, to replace them with a more balanced reality.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to djean111 - post #6) March 14, 2017 at 11:49 am
9. Don't you support Bernie?
Bernie says: no third party. What’s unclear about that?
djean111 (2898 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #9) March 14, 2017 at 12:04 pm
13. Supporting Bernie, and blindly doing whatever Bernie says are two different
things, entirely. I figure Bernie wants to get things done now, and is using the best framework possible, NOW. I respect Bernie, and anyone who mocks or demonizes him is pretty much booted off my radar. But invoking Bernie’s name in order to herd folks into that festering and rank DNC chute does not work, will not work, and did not work – or else Hillary would be president. To borrow a somewhat authoritarian little question from you – what’s unclear about that? And this may not be the best website to attempt to kind of tell people what to do or what not to do. More of an express your opinion and see who agrees or disagrees. it is not a website where people are looking for someone to give them direction, it is more of an opinion place.You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie? Um, nope.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to djean111 - post #13) March 14, 2017 at 12:28 pm
17. agreed, that was out of line/ I really try hard to never say 'you' evah
as the subject of a sentence, and I implied such a ‘you’ right there. My apology.
My wife and kids taught me this, so we created an ironclad rule in our home to never begin sentences with ‘you’ — it totally screws a conversation, from the get-go.
Port tack 8 (530 posts) (Reply to djean111 - post #6) March 14, 2017 at 12:06 pm
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to djean111 - post #6) March 17, 2017 at 2:26 pm
28. My aim is not to discourage 3rd parties! It is to find the best strategy to
a) prevent every regressive bit of Trump’s agenda
b) elect progressives up and down the ballot in 2018
c) elect even more progressives plus a progressive candidate for President in 2020.
Obviously, another HRC run in 2020 (or her daughter, in 2018) would be little else than proof the Democrats have no clue.
djean111 (2898 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #28) March 17, 2017 at 3:47 pm
33. Bottom line – I will not vote for any DINOs in 2018 or 2020.
I will also remain #demexited. Seeing how the DNC squashes progressive candidates like bugs, here in Florida, once they rise through the ranks, I have zero faith that the un-elected donors and Third Way, etc., can be ousted. We shall see. it will also be interesting, to me, to watch how the membership of the New Democrat Coalition (of DINOs) increases or lessens. See if the DINOs figure out that they can’t pretend to be progressive if they belong to that Third Way abomination.
Satan (1303 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 11:54 am
11. Third parties peaked in the 1940's? I think Bill Clinton might disagree with you
Privately of course. He would never do so on the record. But he knows he owes his 1992 victory to Ross Perot being in the race. Perot was actually leading at one point, and if he hadn’t dropped out of the race and then dropped back in, he might have actually won.
If time machines existed, I know a lot of people who would go back to 1992 and take back that vote. Hell only knows what the ultimate results of a Perot presidency might have been, but there would not have been a NAFTA/CAFTA/SHAFTA/WTO/etc. and that alone would be an improvement.
Reagan was also aided to some extent by John Anderson’s third party run. Probably some folks voted for him thinking he was the lead singer of “Yes”. Anderson was probably as much of a factor as the “October Surprise” treasonous deal that Poppy Bush & Bill Casey made with Iran, or the complicit corporate media projecting Reagan as the “winner” at 7:00 PM Eastern time – which is 4:00 PM pacific, meaning that millions of voters hadn’t even left work yet, much less voted. (not to mention the folks in Alaska & Hawaii who hadn’t even digested their lunches yet by that point)
The DLC bots at SV (and other sites) are still bitching about their fictionalized version of the role that Ralph Nader supposedly played in the Florida 2000 clusterfuck, but never acknowledge the huge favor that Ross Perot & his pie charts did for the Big Dog. If we could retroactively remove third parties from the equation, I would start with John Anderson, with the understanding that a second Jimmy Carter term probably would have prevented a lot of things that are currently wrong with this country, and indeeed, probably prevented the creation of the DLC in the first place.
Now could somebody tell me where Michael J. Fox parked that goddamned DeLorean so I can go back to 1980 and fix this dragonshit!Fuck Trump, and fuck anybody who defends him. He has proven himself to be a threat to all life on Earth.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Satan - post #11) March 17, 2017 at 2:16 pm
26. Your point isn't responsive to mine becase
I spoke about the probability of a (progressive) 3rd party WINNING a national election. You spoke about vote-splitting and who benefitted, an entirely different topic. Oh, for your pleasure:
Statistics on Third Party results, 1920-2016 (Wikipedia)
1920 Socialist Eugene V. Debs (3.44%) & Farmer–Labor Parley P. Christensen (0.99%)
1932 Socialist Norman Thomas (2.22%)
1936 Union William Lemke (1.93%)
1948 Progressive Henry A. Wallace (2.37%)
1972 American Independent John G. Schmitz (1.42%)
1976 Independent Eugene McCarthy (0.91%)
1980 Libertarian Ed Clark (1.06%) & Independent John B. Anderson (6.61%)
1992 Independent Ross Perot Jr (18.91%)
1996 Reform Ross Perot Jr (8.40%)
2000 Green Ralph Nader (2.74%)
2012 Libertarian Gary Johnson (0.99%)
2016 Libertarian Gary Johnson (3.28%) & 2016 Green Jill Stein (1.06%)
These don’t suggest a particularly worrisome trend for the Dems or Repugs.
(on edit) I do agree that I didn’t think about non-progressives such as those you mention. I was talking solely about progressive parties.
Satan (1303 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #26) March 17, 2017 at 4:01 pm
34. Your own numbers verify what I said before.
You cannot claim that third parties “peaked in the 1940s” when Perot’s numbers in the 90s equal all of the third parties who came before or after him combined. If you wanted to say that third parties peaked in 1992, it would have been a far more accurate statement. And of course, many things have taken place since then to ensure that third parties do not have the sort of access that Perot had.
The two parties now control the debates. You can see literally dozens of primary debates among the Pachyderms and the Jackasses and usually three between the eventual two big party nominees. But until this corporate machine is brought down, you will never see a third party nominee on the same stage as the designated “D” and the designated “R” the way that Ross & his pie charts were on stage with Poppy & Bill. Or, more amusingly, Ross’s running mate Mr. Stockdale on stage with Al Gore & Potato-e-head Quayle, channeling his best Ronald Reagan impersonation…
Shittizens United makes it unlikely that any third party candidate could compete with corporate financing. Libertarian candidates being the one possible exception, because they benefit the corporations even more than Republicans with the non-taxing and non-regulation Ayn Rand dystopian fairy tales (see David Koch, Libertarian VP nominee – 1980)
Without Bill Clinton’s FAUX/Comcast/Clear Channel Enabling Act of 1996, Shittizens United (and its sequels) and the various Republican fueled hijackings of the voting process itself, I suspect third parties would have increased, rather than decreased after Perot. Even under the current conditions, your own numbers show 2016 being the best year for third parties in 20 years, since all of this distortion of the electoral process began.
The 50% of voters who didn’t bother voting for anybody in 2016 might have voted for Jill Stein, or some of them even for Gary Johnson, for that matter, if they had a little more access to information about those candidates. They KNOW they wanted nothing to do with Hillary or Cheeto. They may not have known that they had any other options.Fuck Trump, and fuck anybody who defends him. He has proven himself to be a threat to all life on Earth.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Satan - post #34) March 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm
35. Oh Satan, please notice that I said …
The sentiment for a progressive 3rd party (aka a 4th way?) is certainly palpable at JPR. The sentiment for such a party, among Americans, seems to have peaked sometime during FDR’s terms.
I didn/t say “populist” I didn’t say “reformist” I didn’t say “independent”
I said “progressive”.
And I will specifically note that progressives have this track record:
- 1912 – 35% of the vote (TR+Debs) Debs had ~10%
- 1920 – 3.4% (Debs)
- 1948 – 2.4% (Wallace)
- 2000 – 2.7% (Nader)
- 2016 – 1.1% (Stein)
My feeling about the 40s being the peak was incorrectly based on the myth that I’m seeing in a reply that argues the progressives pushed FDR to the left — from actually looking at the numbers, the peak moment for progressives was pre-WW1. I think the Alien & Sedition Act is the primary culprit for the demise of self-identified progressives, I mean, Debs was in jail in 1920 !!!
Sanders is a historical realist. It’s abundantly telling what’s afoot: Sanders’s not promoting any 3rd party, not even his own, the Democratic Socialists !
(BTW thanks for the video — one of my favorites of all time.)
Satan (1303 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #35) March 17, 2017 at 5:43 pm
36. I get what you are saying completely.
What I’m saying is that if Jill Stein had the same access to the “public stage” and electoral process that Ross Perot had, the 2016 results would have been much different.
Of course, if the DLC corruption in the Democratic party did not exist, a Jill Stein candidacy wouldn’t even be necessary, as Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee, and would have won the general election in a landslide.
Bottom line is that the problem isn’t three parties vs two. It’s the corporatist rigging of the system. So how do you deal with that? Do you expect a party loaded with the likes of Heidi Meinkampf and Joe Manballsfromthecoalcompanyonmychin to do something about it? Because you’ll be waiting longer for that to happen than Prescott Bush has been waiting for an air conditioner.
You seem to be supporting the “Justice Democrats”. I support the idea, in fact I’m the one who posted the first thread about them on this board, as far as I know. But how exactly are they supposed to prevail against a Koch funded party machine and have better results than Bernie did as a presidential candidate, or Keith Ellison did in his attempt to be the party chairman. In both cases, the DLC intervened and STOLE those nominations blatantly, and got away with it.
How do you overcome that – short of me sending up a legion of dragons to rip the heads off of every last Turd Wayer, of course – and if so-called “Democrats” are going to fight that hard to cling to RIGHT WING policies and “leaders” (using the term very loosely) – then is the party even worth saving at this point. Would it really be more difficult to build a new party, than to resurrect this one from the dead, when it is the equivalent of a stage four cancer patient with three amputated limbs in the current state.Fuck Trump, and fuck anybody who defends him. He has proven himself to be a threat to all life on Earth.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Satan - post #36) March 17, 2017 at 6:43 pm
37. I'm not a Justice Democrat rather
my tagline is “Justice, Democrats, Justice”. I believe that, above all else, we must seek and ensure justice. While I like the Justice Democrats, I’m not yet convinced they’re about more than a single (very important) issue: money in politics.
I voted for Jill Stein twice now, in ’12 and ’16. In ’12, I was pretty angry about the lack of a public option that BHO has promised would be enacted. In ’16 I voted my conscience again. Anyway, there’s been replies here that the “Internet changes everything” — if true, then why did Stein get only 1.1% ? Sure, debates, intimidation, money and the MSM played crucial roles, but 1.1% in the most anti-establishment election in decades?
I cannot agree more that the nomination was outright stolen by the establishment Democrats. Never before had Democratic elections experienced a “blue shift” equivalent to the “red shift”  we’ve been seeing ever since the spymaster’s (Bush’s) election. I have little doubt Hillary’s PACs paid voting machine vendors  during the 2016 primaries in the same way the Republicans paid them during this and previous general elections. Gerry-mandering & other shenanigans do not account for the inexplicable red shift to the Republican party in all elections since 2000.
I seriously doubt Herr Chump actually won the Rust States… he could only have won with large-scale vote-flipping. I believe the current Russian Meme from both the Democrats and the MSM is a distracting cover-up of the fact that BOTH PARTIES are now purchasing elections. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” as I watch them — with no/zero/nada/zilch supporting evidence — drone on about the sanctity and validity of our election process. C’mon! It stinks!
Lastly, you ask whether it’s easier to kick TPTB out, or start a new party? Let’s take the DU v JPR saga as a cautionary tale: what percentage had the courage to declare their conscience to the world? I’d gander more than 1.1%, but was it only 10%? Maybe the admins can tell us.
thanks for your great imagery, love the dragons and the sick sick patient before us.
Ferd Berfel (2950 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 11:55 am
12. That was the 1940's
This is a new millennium and almost 70 years farther on.…and you think you’re going to stop this simply by ‘pulling a lever’, in a booth, behind a curtain, every 2 years? Know yourself. And if you need help, call the FBI.
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Ferd Berfel - post #12) March 17, 2017 at 2:18 pm
27. see my reply to Satan, just above, and of course the ever-true
those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat its mistakes.
Betty Karlson (2883 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 12:08 pm
15. Thanks for that 20th century perspective.
This is the 21st century, by the way. Only Clinton and her ilk are still stuck in the last one."Someone hacks the DNC allowing all of America to see how the DNC operates as one of the most corrupt political machines in national history. Ergo, Hillary Clinton should be installed as President by judicial fiat. And if you do not agree to this scheme you deserve to be brought up on charges of treason because fascism." - NUGrrl, december 2016 “Once a person has been determined to be an UNTRUSTWORTHY LIAR, their pretend stances on important issues are simply not relevant to rational discussion.” – Ida Briggs, September 2016
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Betty Karlson - post #15) March 15, 2017 at 5:45 pm
22. I assume you did not mean
In your backhanded manner that I am a Clinton drone.
Betty Karlson (2883 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #22) March 15, 2017 at 5:56 pm
23. I assume you did not just accuse me of backhandedness?
No, you aren’t a Clinton drone.
But I besiege you not to discourage third party formation. With 44% of the people identifying as “independent”, and with news spreading at the click of a mouse, the dynamic is incomparable to what used to be 70 years ago."Someone hacks the DNC allowing all of America to see how the DNC operates as one of the most corrupt political machines in national history. Ergo, Hillary Clinton should be installed as President by judicial fiat. And if you do not agree to this scheme you deserve to be brought up on charges of treason because fascism." - NUGrrl, december 2016 “Once a person has been determined to be an UNTRUSTWORTHY LIAR, their pretend stances on important issues are simply not relevant to rational discussion.” – Ida Briggs, September 2016
hypergrove (160 posts) (Reply to Betty Karlson - post #23) March 17, 2017 at 2:57 pm
32. My aim is not to discourage 3rd parties! It is to find the best strategy to
a) prevent every regressive bit of Trump’s agenda
b) elect progressives up and down the ballot in 2018
c) elect even more progressives plus a progressive candidate for President in 2020.
I want to figure out the best way to contribute my energies, not to waste them.
I’m really thnakful for all the responses, which are incredibly helpful to me.
mmonk (534 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm
cascadiance (1474 posts) (Reply to original post) March 14, 2017 at 4:07 pm
20. Third parties DID help push FDR in to embracing the New Deal agenda…
Early on, he wasn’t that progressive in his policies, but it was the Bonus Army, Communist Party, and other leftist forces that convinced him that to gain popular support, he needed to embrace a lot of what they were on the streets protesting for… Third parties themselves may not win power, as they did not then, but getting power behind them can push the needle the other direction if done right. I still think one of the highest priorities for third parties is to push for ranked choice voting being adopted and rolling back the electoral college to help establish a national popular vote for president too (hopefully with ranked choice voting as part of it too).
Thank Your Local Leftists, Not Democrats
One of the most iconic parts of the Democratic Party’s history is the New Deal. The wide range of worker’s rights & protections included unemployment benefits, social security, a jobs program, abolition of child labor & the minimum wage. Since then, the Democratic Party has boasted off FDR signing the various pieces of legislation to underscore their alleged support for workers. The New Deal was so popular among the working class people, that Roosevelt was elected four times — and is still regarded as one of the most beloved Presidents by Americans.
However, there is history behind Franklin D. Roosevelt and the way the New Deal came to be, that has purposely been erased and forgotten.
During the early 20th century, Leftists were organizing unions and fighting for worker’s rights. People proudly and openly proclaimed themselves as unionists, socialists, communists, anarchists, and other Leftists — in the streets, at home and at work. As the great depression came into existence, the working class was decimated. As millions of people moved into Hoovervilles with the crash of the capitalist economy, Leftists began to demand immediate action from Roosevelt.
To say that Roosevelt was anything but reluctant to sign the New Deal, as if he really wanted to do what he did, would be ahistorical. If the New Deal Coalition; the unionists, the socialists, the communists, and other Leftists, did not organize and did not threaten Roosevelt, many many things would have been missing, if not the entire New Deal. Roosevelt signed the New Deal and enacted those programs that were so popular among the American people, and still are so popular among Americans, because of Leftists. Because he was afraid of not being elected and the threat of a revolution. It wasn’t so much that Roosevelt wanted the New Deal as much as organized Leftists made FDR enact the New Deal.
…Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!
sonofspy777 (121 posts) (Reply to original post) March 17, 2017 at 2:27 pm
29. There is no parallel
Bernie Sanders already has everyone’s attention.
Bernie Sanders’ party will be a NEW THING never seen in this country before.
Fiat justitia, pereat coelum!
(The truth, tho' Heaven falls!) - John Quincy Adams
99thMonkey (2441 posts) (Reply to sonofspy777 - post #29) March 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm