"This is a moment the Left has been waiting for a long time."

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | "This is a moment the Left has been waiting for a long time."

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #180949
      RufusTFirefly
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,296

      This is a moment the Left has been waiting for a long time. It hasn’t come in the form many expected, but it’s here nonetheless. In this context, it matters how far we set our political horizons, and how we approach getting there. More than any other figure in recent history can be said to have done so, Bernie is expanding our horizons. Rather than policies or plans alone, he is calling on social movements to overturn the entire state of affairs. For all her progressive policy ideas, Elizabeth Warren isn’t. If we’re serious about changing the world, that difference matters.

      From a thoughtful article about the differences between Sanders and Warren that manages to give credit to both but still winds up with a clear favorite.

      Why the Differences Between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Matter

       

    • #180959
      Two way street
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,604

      IMO: An Elizabeth Warren Presidency will be that she tried all her progressive plans and Congress just would not vote them through.  My Presidency will be more 4 years of the same New Democratic Party, Better Deal of the People continuing to struggle with active Trickle-Up.

      2020 Campaign Season: We the People are in the fight for our lives and livelihoods.

    • #180967
      game meat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,219

      On the policies themselves, Bernie’s solutions are more systemic and far-reaching. Warren’s and Sanders’s relationships to the Democratic Party and to Democratic Party donors are indicative of contrasting approaches to the political elite. And their bases of support demonstrate very unequal capacities to build the kind of movements we need on the ground to take on the billionaire class.

      Imo, this is the most consequential difference between them, and this is the reason I would not support Warren. Warren is beholden to the party, integrated into its corrupted structure, in a way that Sanders is not. Warren is a team player, a member of the blue team first and foremost, and a fighter for change second, a distant second.  It is the reverse for Sanders. And that makes all the difference in what we can actually expect from a Sanders vs. a Warren administration.

      Her actions in 2016 proved she will go along to get along before taking even the slightest risk. I’d say it was cowardly, but it’s really not; she’s just a careerist doing what careerists do. She speaks out only when it’s safe to do so, a fair weather friend of sorts.

      Warren is a part of the dem machine, and everything that entails. She’s made this clear. If you’re a Democrat and you are fine with what the party stands for, then you’ll be fine with Warren. If you’re not, then your mileage will vary. Regardless of the smug condescension coming from Warren shills, and their accusations of stupidity and unwitting Trump partisanship, there are legitimate reasons to oppose her if you’re uncomfortable with the establishment dem agenda.

    • #181020
      Mick063
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 571

      Robert Kennedy sums up this article better than I can.

      “Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.”

      Bernie’s vision is change through reform, to do things that have never been done. Warren’s vision is change through conform, to change things within the existing format.

      The battle between realist and idealist must always begin with very ambitious, on the edge of seemingly impossible, albeit inspiring goals. If not, the realism is mired in trivial, incremental activity and is susceptible to corruption.

      This is why the Democratic Party has been continuously shrinking for years (as a percentage of eligible voters). The leadership has put a premium on advancing people with fund raising acumen at the expense of advancing inspiring visionaries. Indeed, the fund raising faction is influenced by the donor class to mitigate and diminish inspiring visionaries.

      These are the people that cannot wrap their head around our collective inspiration because their definition of inspiration is; “Trump is bad and that should be good enough”. This has proven to be a failed political ideology.

      "I welcome their hatred" Franklin D Roosevelt

      • #181037
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 13,854

        @mick063 RFK’s comment is valid within the American context, but not within the global one. Nothing Bernie is proposing has not been implemented in one form or the other in some other country. Bernie repeatedly points this out, which has the additional positive effect of undermining American Exceptionalism, a tradition that goes all the way back to Manifest Destiny and is a hindrance to a transformation to a more just society.

         

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #181049
        closeupready
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,283

        @mick063

        That is a good point.

        Elsewhere here in the forum, someone out West (Los Angeles maybe) posted a remark about US presidents that none of them have had any effect on their lives whatsoever.  True or not, lots of people believe it.  Thus, this is what we have:  voters who are not required to vote, whose personal lives unfold satisfactorily regardless of which party holds office, who are faced with two choices come election time:  status quo; not status quo.  For SOME voters, voting is not optional from the standpoint of conscience.  But for MOST voters, they simply don’t care, and don’t feel they have any reason to care.  Thus, “not status quo” is going to motivate maybe 5 voters to take time out of their day to exercise their right.  For the other 200+ million of us who vote, it’s simply not good enough.

        The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

    • #181050
      RufusTFirefly
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,296

      @ohiobarbarian , I agree

      Despite the fact that he uses the term “revolution,” there’s very little that’s actually revolutionary about Bernie’s policies. He’s simply trying to bring us up to speed with most of the “developed” world.

    • #181128
      bazukhov
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,631

      The problem for “the Left” is the same as it’s always been.  There is no cohesive “left” in which everybody identifying with “the left” agrees.  Unfortunately, some factions of “the left” become dogmatic and will not allow for the compromises that can actually bring progress.   It becomes rigid when it needs to be flexible.

      Man is the only animal to have found the One True God…several of them.   Mark Twain

      Substitute the word ideology for God and you have the True Believers who believe that they are the only ones who have seen the light and exclude anyone who prefers to think for themselves.

       

      Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

      • #181138
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 13,854

        @bazukhov The problem for “the Left” is the same as it’s always been.  There is no cohesive “left” in which everybody identifying with “the left” agrees.

        Historically, that’s not true at all. There have been times, even in American history, where there was a cohesive Left. To name three examples, there was the abolitionist/Radical Republican movement during and after the Civil War, the leftist alliance during the New Deal and continuing a few years after World War II, and the civil rights/Great Society movement in the 50s and 60s that disintegrated on the shoals of Vietnam.

        All three times, there were certain goals all elements of the leftist or progressive coalition had in common. We have now entered into another such period of history. The problem is that the corporate media and the politicians who serve the kleptocracy have defined people like Barack Obama and Joe Biden as “left.” They’re not. Social issues in and of themselves don’t mean squat anymore. If a candidate isn’t for ending Forever War, addressing climate change, and substantially doing something about the inequality of wealth and political power in this country, then she isn’t leftist.

        Period. That’s not just my opinion, though you will no doubt say it is. That’s political reality now. It’s also why “centrist” Democrats continue to lose elections; not because most people prefer the Republican positions, but because they don’t see any differences that are important to them and so don’t bother to vote.

        Political relativism is bullshit.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

        • #181206
          bazukhov
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 2,631

          In those times, compromises were made between leftist factions.   A case of “agreeing to disagree”.   I was very active in the civil rights and anti-war movements in the 60’s and 70s.    They were riven with ideological disputes between the factions.  The Trots wanted violent revolution, the Maoists wanted Maoism, the socialists wanted peaceful revolution.  The environmentalists wanted to focus on the environment, the women wanted to focus on women’s rights.   The one thing we all had in common was loathing of LBJ and Nixon.  We didn’t compromise and Nixon was elected.

          My father was a Socialist who refused to vote for FDR because he was a rich capitalist.  The radical republicans had to compromise with Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation because they wanted to end slavery everywhere not just in the Confederacy.

          Politics is compromise.

          Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

          • #182376
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 13,854

            @bazukhov Yes, in the 30s and 60s the varying factions of the left did compromise and unite. My point is that Vichy Democrats, the current Democratic Party establishment, are not the left. I am not going to “compromise” with right wingers who have a long track record of breaking nearly every promise the make to those of us on the left. To be clear, Joe Biden is a right wing Fascist. Nancy Pelosi is a right winger. They’re both kleptocrats. They have never been, are not now, and never will be my allies.

            Or yours, if you subscribe to FDR’s policies.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #181194
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,934

        `Compromise is always always to the right.  Really.  You know that.  Just boils down to how much will we take from you THIS TIME.   And the folks whose ideology is money have replaced the meaning of  “the Left” while keeping the title.  So – no more votes or support for the vichy Dems, the centrists, today’s Democratic Party.

      • #181209
        incognito
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,706

        @bazukhov

        Not to be rude or anything, but I cannot believe you actually typed that!

        The “Left” has done nothing but “compromise” for the last 40 freakin’ years! How do you think we arrived at this place in history? The fucking Democratic party sold us out.  They started the DLC and welcomed your RW Blue Dog brethren into the party. The beginning of the end!

        They gave us NAFTA – lying about it creating jobs.

        They have destroyed our Industries and sent all our jobs overseas.

        They have decimated Unions.

        They have allowed corporations to buy favors from politicians.

        Obama could have implemented M4A while he had full control in the House and Senate. He chose instead, to give a great big handout to the Insurance industry and implemted a RW Healthcare plan, written for Mitt, Willard, Romney by the RW Heritage Foundation. Hope and Change!

        The Dems voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. They have since allowed every President to invade/attack whatever country had resources we want, without any questions asked!

        The corrupt Dem party voted for the Patriot Act…completely eroding the 4th Amendment…and then the bastards voted to renew it.

        The corrupt Dems voted for Trump’s $700 billion military murder money budget while we have 500,000 Homeless people sleeping on our streets.

        Obama opened the Gulf of Mexico back up to allow MORE DRILLING after the Horizon disaster. Hope and Change!

        Obama spent most of his time in office fighting to get the TPP installed…over the objections of the citizens. Hope and Change!

        Obama IGNORED the abuse and brutality of Standing Rock protesters and said nothing as people were being brutalized. Hope and Change!

        Obama ignored the abuse and brutality at Occupy Wall St. And said nothing as protesters were brutalized by police. Hope and Change!

        Obama bailed out the Wall St. CROOKS who crashed our economy in 2008. He bailed out Wall St. While allowing banks to steal MILLIONS of people’s homes. Hope and Change!

        The corrupt DNC rigged the 2016 election and stole the nomination from Bernie! So their hand-picked Warmongering Felon could be the nominee and LOSE. We have proof of that, remember?

        Tell me, bazukhov, how much more fucking compromise do you expect from us?

        You’re not getting any more from this voter, that’s for damn sure. I’m finished with their lies, deception and corruption.

        “Unfortunately, some factions of “the left” become dogmatic and will not allow for the compromises that can actually bring progress.   It becomes rigid when it needs to be flexible.

    • #181202
      sadoldgirl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 784

      It is time that we avoided this left/right issue. What we

      have now is a clear down versus up, in other words we

      have a class struggle. People try to avoid the word class,

      even though it clearly exists. Warren will be welcomed

      by the more socially thinking elite; this is still part of the

      comfortable elite. Bernie is speaking for the working class,

      which is the defining issue, as far as I am concerned.

    • #181208
      rampart
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 534

      whoever wins will be leading a failed state. neither Bernie nor warren will be able to do a thing because, suddenly but predictably, the deficit hawks will emerge from their cocoons. sometimes I think the establishment plans it this way.

      • #182287
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,934

        @rampart

        I am fine with Bernie and Warren not being able to do a thing – but it will be Bernie who is blocked from doing anything.  Warren likes the markets and war, which are moneymakers, and IMO all of her progressive campaigning is just campaigning.  But – if Bernie wins and cannot get anything done, that is light-years better than a Vichy Dem teaming up with the GOP to inflict harm on us, getting stuff DONE.  CMSU when people say oh, Bernie won’t get any of his agenda done!  My thought is – so, I should support someone who wants to do things I consider harmful?  What the fuck kind of logic is that?

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.