The "progressives" seem hell bent on controlling everything. True liberals see the tyranny coming from both sides, in particular the Left.
OBAMA 2014 BUDGETDISCRETIONARYDefense-57%---Yes!- -- 57% Sequester this sucker!Education-6%Govt.-6%Vet benefits- 6%Housing -5%Health 5%International-3%Energy/Environment-3%Science-3%Transportation 3%Labor-2%Food/Agriculture-1%
You are correct, absolutely! I'm so annoyed by the "sociological" discussions of "how older folks are more conservative! I've seen, and worked with AFL-CIO Retiree Councils, and these folks, veterans of yrs of tough struggles, personal students & casualties of the class war, are some of the most progressive, forward looking, sections of the labor movement. What makes the difference is NOT age, but, much like younger workers, whether you are organized or not!
Does anyone here see how the "hollowing out" of rural America is a problem? Increasingly, family farms, and the communities that support them are being replaced by large corporate farms (some foreign owned), and big box retail. There have always been progressive folks in the country, they are stewards of the land. What we should be looking at here is why is rural America in decline; it's a symptom of our greater problems.
NO MORE BUSH IN WHITE HOUSEBarbara Bush said it.In the past, she placed her sons' problems on Cheney and Rumsfeld.The day after inauguration Cheney was heard telling Rumsfeld “Prepare to Invade Iraq”GW Bush was not qualified to be President.He was a poor education student in High School and College.He admitted to 20 years of hard drinking.He dodged the draft.His record as President will be recorded as one of the worst in history.Two unnecessary wars.Increased Spending by 90%.Increased Debt by 112%Increased Deficit surplus to 1400B Deficit.Created 3785,000 jobs per year lowest since the Great DepressionCreated the Great Recession It has been well documented that he and 11 staffers told 935 LIES in 2100-2002 to convince the people and Congress that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.He alienated `1500 Million Muslims by killing their brethren.We will suffer more bombings due to that hatred.
Fabian---- the problem that has marginalized the Occupy mvmt is that they isolated themselves. The labor mvmt in many areas (including here in Ohio) tried to work w/these folks, even go them office space & equipment to use, invited them to labor fed meetings, etc, & never tried to "control" them. However, the dominant theme was some type of anarchism, extremely divisive, "know-it-all," "above the fray" attitudes.
In many areas, Ron (& Rand) Paul ultra-right wing types actually stopped any kind of real alliances from developing. They turned down labor's help, and any resources, infrastruture we offered. In central Ohio, Mary Jo Kilroy was the elected, with strong support from org'd labor, liberals, left & progressive voters. She was a strong advocate of health care for all, expanding (not cutting) Social Security & Medicare, against austerity & our wars. She was in a very tough,close race with a corporate GOP candidate. She was at a rally supporting health care for all & the Occupy folks showed up, only to attack her (for "taking corporate money"). It was front page news & she lost. The progressive community here can just say "thanks Occupy!"
No, as much as your comments are well meant, it was NOT media that marginalized Occupy. It was Occupy that marginalized Occupy!
The "progressives" are simply deluded about this issue.
How come 30 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Hmmm? You can't gerrymander districts for statewide elections.
All the last election proved is that you can't beat somebody with nobody. And even then, Obama barely squeaked through, not the ordinary pattern of a second term president.
Since then his approval rating has dropped. Now that the NRA has handed him his head on a plate (with the help of the Democratic leadership in the Senate), his vaunted end of terrorism has become a pathetic effort to pretend the terrorists are really only ordinary criminals, and the economy has not improved, I doubt that the "progressives" would win today--or in 2014.
It's the democrats who should be worried.
On #2, thinking itself changes with age. We might not recall details about the millions of marginal things learned through the years. But we have the advantage of life experiences, accumulating a good body of information, that can serve to put current issues into context. I personally know more open-minded people over the age of 40 -- people who are willing to question things, including their own ideas. What I've seen in life is that class (and the willingness to think beyond self-interest) has the most influence on political leanings. Those who have actually seen the dark side of our class war have a more complete understanding of our overall political/economic agenda, and if they haven't given up in disgust, they are more likely to be well to the left of today's middle class liberals.
In the past, each time the richest few gained a dangerous degree of power over the government, to the harm of the country, the poor and middle classes united to successfully push back, to the benefit of all. This time, the poor and middle classes were first deeply divided, pitted against each other, ensuring that there will be no successful push-back. This "divide and conquer" agenda was achieved mainly by the Clinton Dems and the media marketed to middle class liberals. It is this media, with its 27/7 pandering to middle class consumers of their sponsors' products, that divided and sub-divided the "masses." "Occupy" shows the impact in a nutshell. What began as a historically extraordinary event with the power to change the course we've been on, was quickly redefined (by media liberals) as a movement exclusively of the middle class. The rest of us walked away, and Occupy died (despite many, many efforts to revive it).
1. Everything that Mikesoul said.
2. As people age their mental acuity tends to diminish. In my interactions with folks of diverse backgrounds, I have noticed that in the majority of cases there is a correlation with cognitive decline and lifelong moderates and democrats becoming indoctrinated with Republican/"Fox news" memes. So - new Republicans are being created all the time, although I agree that over time there is a slow move towards Democratic positions on some "social issues".
3. If the Democratic party moves ever rightward (especially on economic, trade, corporate, surveillance and military issues) - why would any FDR/traditional Democrat care if post-DLC Democrats get elected instead of Republicans ?
This article fails to understand how history moves. Its premise is that somehow, due to demographic shifts, more conservative folks will die out & progressive folks will become dominant. What is left out of this picture is struggle, and struggle is reality!
History, the political landscape, people's anger/attitudes, do NOT stay static while other political changes occur, divorced from political reality, all around them. This analysis is based on a lack of struggle, the path of least resistance. That path actually leads to a political swamp.
Without a real mobilization of regular people, a real fightback representing people's needs, the political vacuum will be filled by something else. That something else most likely will be, as it was in the previous term a new form of ultra-right wing activism. If we do not organize & build the fight, in a massive way, led by org'd labor & allies, we will face a far worse reality.
The premise of this article illustrates a common problem with many so-caleld "progressives" who really don't get it. There will be no true progressive change until both parties of the corporate ruling class are rejected the American people. Marilyn Katz continues to ally herself with one of the two enemy parties of the corporate ruling class backed duopoly.
Katz, we might recall, told us last fall that that we needed to vote for Obama--who is, after all, a war criminal and assassin who has persecuted government whistle blowers, launched massive assaults on civil liberties, prostituted himself to corporate interests, and carried out acts of imperialism. Obama is, of course, a Democrat--the very party that she is somehow telling us represents the future of progressivism. This kind of nonsense that Katz keeps purveying in ITT illustrates so much of what is wrong with ostensible "lefists" who nevertheless continue to support one of the parties of the corporate-backed duopoly.
In fact, as those of us on the bona fide left (as opposed to pseudo-left posers like Mary Katz) understand, the Democratic Party has worked for years as the graveyard of social movements, and this ability of that party to co-opt and tame and ultimately render ineffective grassroots left movements illustrates why, in its own way the Democratic Party is just as much anathema to progressive values as the Republicans are. No one pretends that Republicans are progressive, so it lacks this special power to undermine progressiveness that the Democrats have managed to accomplish. And the fact that Obamabots and Democratic Party apologists like Mary Katz continue to refuse to address this issue demonstrates how serious the problem is. She talks about the "damage" that Republicans can do--and it is true that they can do damage--but no mention in her article about the damage that Obama did to, for example, civil liberties by converting what used to be controversies about Bush-era attacks on human rights into a bi-partisan consensus in which opposition to such attacks is now removed from the national debate. This is the Obama who described himself, I might add, just a few months ago as a moderate 80s Republican. No mention here in her article about Obama's assassinations or war crimes, his attacks on civil liberties, his support for death squads in Honduras, his persecution of Bradley Manning--issues that those Obamabot "progressives" that she claims to represent would be full of outrage over if a Republican were in the White House doing those same things. Those are examples of "damage" that are missing from her article.
I never cease to be amused at the way her 1968 leftist credentials are presented in the little summary at the end of her articles--an antiwar activist against the Vietnam War, well that's great, but now she supports a party of war, imperialism, and corporate fascism and claims to be a "progressive", so the idea that her present day politics represent any kind of continuation of what she ostensibly believed back then is clearly not credible. When 60s radicals embrace the corporate establishment in the 2000s and claim that they are just carrying on the same fight they always have, you just can't take such claims even remotely seriously. But it also illustrates just how much "damage" the Demcoratic Party does, because as it moves the right its so-called "progressive" supporters like Marilyn Katz move to the right with it.
Republicans don't have a stranglehold on the super rich ...it's the super rich who have a stranglehold on the Republicans and many, many of the Democrats.
The GOP has money. So they aren't going to go away nicely or quietly. Add to it the voting system the US has - Electoral college - it is ripe for manipulation. And already it is happening. The 2 court decisions - Citizens United and Speechnow - have made Super PACs possible.
Your assumption is that the republicans will give up their stranglehold on the super rich, which they will not do. They will find additional ways to manipulate or eliminate elections to keep themselves in power. Our current republican-centric president will assist them in that, no doubt, as he's given them most of what they demand.
I am not sanguine about the changing face of the American electorate, because that electorate matters less and less.