Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Democratic Leadership is paralyzed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 07:47 PM
Original message
The Democratic Leadership is paralyzed
We keep demanding they grow a spine. But those that do are destroyed before the eyes of the public. Any point they raise is met with countless "experts" from the right. While this destruction takes place before the cameras the reporters who's job was once to find the truth simply nod their heads and proclaim they have delivered the facts and leave the rest to the public to decide.

Over the last 40 years the nature of politics has shifted. This is due to the deliberate effort on the part of the right to undermine and dominate the method of distributing the flow of information in this society. They have strengthend the hold of Corporations (their natural allies) on the media. This in turn has lead to their revision of the function of the media. This has lead to the effective dismantling of the Free Press in America.

The Dems and the left have always depended on the public being able to be informed of the problems we face. Based on objective understanding of these issues solutions are offered that can solve them. Since the they do not have a preformed agenda they look to socially derived perceptions of problems. Thus they do not introduce talking points for issues that come from their previously formed agenda.

This difference of methodology gives the advantage to the right. Their agenda is based on a belief that they know the correct form the future should take. The left believes that future is made by increasing our understanding as we progress. It is difficult to create propoganda for a future you do not know. Meanwhile the right having undermined the media can introduce all manner of script and talking points to drive the public in the direction they wish.

This is why the Dem leaders are paralyzed. They have tried appealing to the right in order to try to hold and maintain a grip on the electorate. But that has failed them as well. It has merely handed the label of political opportunist to the right. And it has alienated the left as well.

Nothing they do works. With no effective method to advance no plan or direction can be seen. Thus they become lost. No longer able to act as a group they grasp at anything that offers the individual hope.

The only way for the Dems to find a path again is to find a way to restore the free press to the roll it is supposed to fill. That is the investigator for the people. Spin cannot function if there is someone investigating the spin and reporting the findings to the people. Without this function the people are blind, deaf, and dumb. Pliable to those willing to stoop to such tactics. Able to be manipulated by those who do not share in the vision of what a truly diverse society should be.

The Free Press is dead. The thing in it's place today must be torn down. We must replace it with an institution that cannot fall to the likes of the Neocons again. Our nation and our future depend on it. The Dems and any group championing We The People require that we do something to right this wrong. Or this great experiment of Democracy is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent post, nominated.
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 07:51 PM by HypnoToad
With luck, you won't be flamed and branded a freeper because you're speaking against those we must blindly follow, it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Are you goinc to the National Convention for Media Reform in St. Louis
the May?

I think since it is so close my hubby and I might just get to go, depends on our money situation though.

Here is a link:
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1980

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. There's one in Nashville, too. April 8-10.
Just in case anyone wants to go: http://www.freepress.org/conf.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wabranty Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good points; especially about the need for a free press
But the Democrats also need to build their own institutions and not solely rely on the press becoming free again. Check out this article in the The American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9366
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. wonderful! and nominated
thanks for the rant............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. The democratic leadership is supposed to be the electorate.
And the path for the dems to find thier way isnt restoring the free press per se. If we had the strength to do that, we would also have the strength to empower a democratic party.

The underlying need is the eternal base of power in humanity, people and organization.

The democratic party we have now was designed to pander to powerful liberal organizations, driven by grassroots activism. What needs to be done is a rebuilding of of a progressive base of power, so that progressives have the votes to take advantage of suck up to votes nature of our party that right now we hate so much because our ideas dont control the votes right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. excellent az, i agree n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
necso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nice thought,
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 09:52 PM by necso
but the mass media is largely bought and sold -- and it's going to (largely) stay that way for the foreseeable future. Sure, we can make some inroads here and there, but the mass media has gone way beyond paid whoring for the extremists -- pandering, propaganda and other forms of manipulation (that serve the extremists and the mass media corporations) have become mass media culture. And once something has become an institutional phenomenon, then this creates a whole new level of difficulty for anyone trying to change it (like water, the organization will attempt to flow back into its old form when it's disturbed). Besides, if anything, the problems with the mass media are getting worse not better. (Witness this recent media frenzy, an event stripped of the appropriate perspective and proportion, etc -- or with little tidbits of these necessary attributes (necessary for understanding the phenomenon and for dealing with it effectively) thrown in and then overwhelmed by the lies, distortions and other crap.) This alone makes one less than hopeful.

An alternative is to appeal to what's already stuck in people's heads (and is almost always stuck in people's heads -- in some form). There are a number of issues that people care about, have more or less fixed beliefs about -- and see as effecting them personally -- that are not so susceptible to media manipulation.

Of course, anything that we can do to resuscitate or to recreate a free press is our duty as Americans and as patriots -- a duty that we are bound to honor, regardless of whether or not it would serve the Democrat Party. But, at best, this will take a long time, and it may require power that we simply do not have -- and that we cannot hope to have unless we can first break the extremists' lock on power.

Frankly, I think that relying on transforming the media in order to break the death-grip that the extremists have on us (and on America) is just more wishful thinking.

I wish that I could say that I didn't think this way... but I can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. I keep saying it: The Dems have Battered Woman Syndrome
Always walking on eggshells, terrified to draw attention, the "please don't hit me again" attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well. You know what. I just feel like shit today!!!
I'm on the rag, have the flu, my eyes are burning, my head is throbbing, and my heart,...is ACHING!!!

Most of all, I am really, really scared that a freakin' handful of evil assholes are going to destroy my country and,...and,...

,...I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE HELL ARE MY HEROES?!?!?!

Where the hell is the freakin' courage and strength of character and passion for this country!!!

Damnit. I have worked my ASS OFF for NOTHING at great personal sacrifice because I LOVE MY COUNTRY!!!

WHERE'S MY DAMNED HEROES?!?!?!

,...where. are. they......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. well YOU are one of the heroes.
You are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. ,...uh,...
:cry:

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Don't cwy,
Seriously - you dedicated your efforts at your own expense. That's heroic.

You can't be too down because a few clowns aren't doing their jobs - they're temporary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. We wait for the pendulem to swing back
Because we believe that cycles like that naturally occur. But history doesn't just happen. History comes about due to the actions of those who rise to the occaision.

We The People have to be our own hero. We have to be the one's to rise up and make the difference. We cannot wait for someone to be our hero. We have to be the hero we are waiting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
31. I've come to the conclusion that the floor is tilting
Consequently the pendulum keeps swinging right. It is going to take a giant crackup to undo what has been done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Conyers & Boxer for starters.
Not many others though. Perhaps Dean, but that remains to be seen. The others are MIA. How sad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yeah. I didn't mean to dismiss the fighters we do have.
Like I said,...I just,...feel like shit today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. There are a few others:
Henry Waxman
Charles Rangel
Robert Byrd
Barbara Lee
Cynthia McKinney
Russ Feingold
Dennis Kucinich
Mark Dayton

and some others;

AND
you can listen to BERNIE SANDERS LIVE
on Thom Hartmans Radio Show Brunch with Bernie
tomorrow (Fri) at NOON Eastern
broadcast from Vermont Over the Net:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Discord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
33. He's chairing the DNC but has been muzzled by the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidMS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. the party needs change.
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 09:41 PM by DavidMS
There is quite a bit of blame to be spread

All the consultants and party manderins in washington aren't helping things.

There is a lot to be said for looking for new blood outside of the capital and insisting that they do some long term field research in places like Deadfish, Idaho. We need more people like Dr. Dean at the top and more more activism from below. For me its a little hard to get to maryland democratic functions (work behind enemy lines in VA, live in MD).

We could be making hay out of the Terry Schiavo but our elected representatives in washington are too chicken. We should be speaking about the rule of law on this one and peel off a few thosand rethungs for re-education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. When CNN hit with the rise of Cable
the rich man's counter to the fatcat network news system drew a huge exodus away from the homogeneous and insufficient big three by simple contrast, simple professionalism and better investment in certain news services. All it was a fairly conservative alternative doing certain things better without the presumption, the entertainment hype and the celebrity anchors.

But never mind media history, the cycles of adventure to pride to moribund entrenchment and decline. The main point is perhaps the good job of the news and the Free press itself has NEVER sufficiently existed accounting(maybe in an arguable chicken and egg relationship) for the ongoing dangerous naivete of a young nation.

News can't be ruled by the sponsorship of the marketplace controllers and still hope to be "free", just as is easily acknowledged about the
oppressive intervention of government(perennially threatened by elections and accountability). But that is ALL we had to inform a large society as a whole entity. Other than that there were the niches, the small sometimes nonprofit magazines. Hampered by budget, they, as we on line, are chiefly reduced to commentary and highlighting different priorities and judgments and omissions. And ironically dancing to the piper's tune down to the river as we take MSM as the STARTING POINT of most discussions!

Now jump again. What the country needs is a nationwide access to important and deep news as a whole, something that current wire services pervert in the vacuum filtered through feebly dependent and unprofessional paper journals. Multimedia linkage is important for accessibility. Reputation and quality alone is not enough. TV, radio, paper and Internet should off this "Source" and link down to niches so as not to swallow or again homogenize the national forums. Debates and commentary should also be on the side. A little faith in the raw power of truth is more in order than ever, yet our first rush has been to counter punditry with punditry, lite for lite, joke for joke, opinion for opinion.

Who, how, when, etc. is for wiser heads. A public coalition of contributing sponsors who, like the founders of the Internet, withdraw and free the process together with public subscriptions will help counter the corporate culture that strangles the very nature of journalism for its own needs. The workers, editors and journalists must have clear objectives and checks and balances in some fashion so that clubby atmosphere and personal enrichment and celebrity schmoozing
occurs as little as possible. And turnover and constant introduction of new talent is as important as for any organization no matter how wonderful your aging staff once was.

It's about the news, about information. And calling everyone stupid about every critical social process is as true for journalism as anything else in the downward spiral of deceptive times.

Maybe it's hard, maybe easy, maybe complex or simple. But it has to reach out to everyone like an oasis appearing in the desert 24/7 everywhere, every way, every time. The common man's CIA turned inside out is truly democracy by other means than the ballot, the political system and the capable enthusiasm of different stripes of activists.

Multiplying blogs or papers or journals or channels or shows is shaking loose complacency and false presumptions. It is not yet restoring(or creating what never existed!) a proper national forum in times of ultimate decisions and peril.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. I couldn't have said it better myself.....I did make a thread about
how the dems oughta throw the proverbial switch now that the pukes have strapped themselves into the proverbial electric chair, but I was met with ,"they're doing the right thing, I trust dean more than you" blahblahblah


the democratic leadership missed school again today...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. You have to watch out for traitors inside the party as well
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 09:58 PM by Selatius
You only have to look at the influence corporate money has over candidates running for office. In a system where candidates must go out and solicit money for their campaigns, the ones with the most money and resources have an advantage everytime. The bankruptcy bill is an overt example of the kind of power the corporatists have. Most of the influence peddlers operate in the shadows where things aren't so clearly visible. This is what sets apart corporatists of today from corporatists in Europe 70 years ago. They don't storm in and stomp their boots. They creep in instead to avoid panicking people.

It is far easier for a few wealthy individuals to come together and donate 1,000,000 dollars to a party than it is to get 1,000,000 people to come together and do the same thing. It is far easier for a few wealthy individuals to draw up a plan and act on it than it is for 1,000,000 people to form a consensus and act, and it is far easier for the few who own the news outlets to get their views across than 1,000,000 who do not have access to the press.

A.J. Liebling said it best: "Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one."

If you want your government back, you're not only going to have to break the corporate media but also break the power and influence corporations have over politicians. If you want a more diverse selection of opinions and views in government, you're probably going to have to break up the two-party duopoly, and that means making politicians turn against their own party and vote for diversity, not for party to abolish the obstacles to multi-party representative democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chomskyite_naderite Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. first we must raise political consciousness and educate
but we need a channel of mass communication to do that.
But we cannot do that until we reform the media. And we can't reform the media until we raise political consciousness.

Catch 22
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
necso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. There is much to
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 10:56 PM by necso
what you say.

But to fracture the Democratic Party now is to break the one real "army" in the field against the extremist-led horde. -- We might as well engage in some suicide-death duel (like Hannibal's generals did when facing final ruin) on a massive scale.

And there are other ways to break the corporate hold on the Democratic Party. The nomination process is not that difficult to come into control of (particularly when the Party is on its heels). And organizations outside of the Party (and that also can operate within it) can have significant influence on who gets nominated and what policy gets set (in people's minds and therefore on the playing field) and how it gets talked about(!).

What we are lacking now is a powerful organization (or better, organizations -- and leaders) that will go out there and really start shaking things up -- as opposed to playing it safe -- or just offering up that same old wine, albeit in new bottles (even the best vintage gets jaded to the palate).

If you can make big enough waves, then eventually they will rock everybody's boat. It's what the neocons did, only we have to do it faster -- and this means doing it smarter.

Of course, this would require the cooperation of a goodly number of people -- but people often follow leaders, and one or two national figures could go a long way in this direction. That is, they could if they were willing (and able) to shake the cobwebs out of their heads -- and to take a chance... and to do their damn duty.

And a multi-party competition is better suited to a system where the leader of the state is selected by the elected representatives and not by the (even indirect) vote of the people. In our circumstances (and if we fractured on more or less natural party lines), we would probably end up either having Presidents elected by some extremist (minority) group (particularly if we switched to a direct vote plurality system) or with the selection ending up in the House -- an event that people would be unhappy with and which could color the presidency as somehow being illegitimate (or so it would be made to seem to many).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. Two rebuttals to your post:
But to fracture the Democratic Party now is to break the one real "army" in the field against the extremist-led horde. -- We might as well engage in some suicide-death duel (like Hannibal's generals did when facing final ruin) on a massive scale.


This is not what I advocate at this time. The path towards passing election reform to liberate people so that they can truly vote for people they want goes through the Democratic Party. There's a method to it. First, the party must be rebuilt. Second, the party must win office and regain control of government (preferably all three branches). Third, once the party has retaken government, then the party must be compelled to pass election reform/finance reform to bring about a multi-party representative democracy. Once that is complete, I will be freed to vote for whomever I want, and I'll probably leave and join a socialist party or a libertarian socialist league.

And a multi-party competition is better suited to a system where the leader of the state is selected by the elected representatives and not by the (even indirect) vote of the people. In our circumstances (and if we fractured on more or less natural party lines), we would probably end up either having Presidents elected by some extremist (minority) group (particularly if we switched to a direct vote plurality system) or with the selection ending up in the House -- an event that people would be unhappy with and which could color the presidency as somehow being illegitimate (or so it would be made to seem to many).


All of this can be avoided completely. This issue has already been resolved years ago. One answer is to institute instant run-off voting. This way, the candidate favorable to a majority, not simple plurality, wins office every time, not extremists as you assert. Under our current system, extremists can get in if you have more than two parties running (Florida 2000). This is what you get when you have no provisions for run-offs when you have more than two parties running. Also, I'm not talking simply about the seat of the president but all federal seats in the House and Senate. This way, third parties are liberated to run candidates for Congress without giving the other side the victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
necso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. I have no problem going to
Edited on Fri Apr-01-05 03:45 AM by necso
a (real) multi-party system, if it can be made to work. This could give swing groups considerable power to prevent various excesses. And while this is not a traditional way of doing business, it is a way of enabling various responsible coalition member groups (separate party members, through their representatives) to effect the decisions of the coalition (as opposed to being unable to prevent single-party-coalition nominees from doing pretty much whatever, if and when elected). However, I am slow to believe in anything that relies on enlightening or educating the masses, and if there is any of this in your plan, then I must disagree about future directions -- if for no other reasons.

And I have no problem with instant-runoffs, but if we are going to open the door to change, then there are other changes that I might suggest ... And under our current system you can get extremists getting in even when there are effectively only two parties (witness 2004). My point is that, within the current framework (at least in many places and for many offices), even when their (extremist) party (and all other coalition members) takes only a minority of votes, then they can get pluralities on something like president (and even a majority of electoral votes), if opposition party members insist on voting for their own (which they can probably be expected to do, at least in their initial enthusiasm for having their own viable parties). Requiring a majority and having instant run-offs are ways of dealing with this (but this is not the case throughout the US now, and it is notably absent from the critical presidential race). And again, I have no problem with instant runoffs and requiring majorities -- although I do have an issue as to whether or not voters can be expected to be well informed -- but this is an issue in any case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. The problem is the news media if we're talking about informed citizenry
If you want to know why so many folks are so misinformed and voted for Bush, you'd have to look at where they get their news. The news media is an issue. AOL Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, FOX Corp., and General Electric control something like 80% of all television stations in the US. Some good old-fashioned trust-busting is needed, and I'd love to see a movement to community owned television stations directly administered by those respective communities in a democratic manner. I believe this is currently being tried in Venezuela.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. Absolutely nominated.
This post says everything I have been unable to articulate fully. I do it in pieces, but this pulls it all together quite well.

IMHO, you are spot-on, and further illustrate the idea that liberals tolerate ambiguity (unknown future) much better than do conservatives. Unfortunately, people do not recognize that as a strength in these black/white days. :-(

Well said, Az!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
23. This is why I hold David Brock in very high esteem
He saw exactly what you see to be true and he became an American Patriot instead of whore. His Media matters is very important in holding the3 Media accountable. The only problem is no one will publicize his findings. We need some powerful people that won't let themselves be bullied as well. Howard Dean is fairly bold and Kerry still has some spunk. It may not be a done deal just yet..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InformedSource Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
26. The Democratic Party has come to resemble the fake opponents
crooked boxing promoters put up against fighters that they have invested in. I probably shouldn't post here any more. The few Democrats who have occasionally represented my views betray me. Senator Robert Byrd has been brave about speaking out against the Iraq Attack, but backed the bankruptcy bill.

The only purpose seems to be to maintain the illusion of democracy by being the designated opponent, who loses as expected. Bill Clinton was some kind of mistake, but he's a semi-conservative "New Democrat."

It's hard for me to believe that a lot of people are looking at Hillary Clinton as a savior. Where has she been when it had counted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. I don't really believe that
There are too many people with passions still intact. While I can't say it never happens I believe there are active politicians that still want to make a difference. Still fight the good fight. Its just they have no means to make their positions heard fairly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. Too many? Or too few?
Some people I know have given up on national politics entirely. They only concentrate on local politics now. Local politics at least still give decent people a relatively good chance of affecting change at the local level. That's what I'm hearing from them. At the national level, it has become such that the best avenue into office is to have quite a bit of money, and many good folks don't have that kind of money, especially when they go against corporate power. Kucinich, Wellstone, et al. are exceptions, not the rule.

We have politicians who are marginal in many cases, and they're downright anti-worker if an issue comes up that conflicts with their interests such as the bankruptcy bill. Note that pretty much half the Senate Democrats voted for it. That's a blatent display, if any, of the kind of influence money can buy. While it is true that the Democratic base raised more money than Republicans this year, in general, it is far more difficult to energerize several million poor and working class Democrats to donate money and stay focused than it is to get several dozen rich industrialists to do the same thing. It's trying to get several million people on the same page vs. trying to get several dozen on the same page. If we were to take the path of least resistance, naturally, we would have to appeal to the several dozen who have the money and power, and this is what many politicians do. It's simply easier this way for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
30. so how much capital would it take
to create a leftist version of USA today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
32. An excellent post.
You get it, the rich sugar daddies of the left get it and I believe the next generation of DNC leadership get it. The Democratic party needs reformed.

Politicians who have conflicting loyalities between thier party and thier job security will never offer effective leadership to beat the right. It has to come from US, the people, who are motivated by love of country alone.

You and me and everyone who feels the way need to keep spreading the word and getting involved. We will push the DNC to stand bravely for our ideals and offer a model of leadership the country will respect and embrace.

Our point of view is emmergent. The DLC consultant culture based triangulation swing voter obsessed model is falling by the way side.

There is much to be hopeful about. We have Air America. Progressive talk is the fastest growing segement of radio. The Nation and Mother Jones readership is way up. People are coming back to the Democratic party and getting involved in politics again. We will educate these people on the need for reform in the Democratic party.

We are going to take our party back from the do-nothing weak politicans and the be-safe political consultants and then we'll have the power of our party at our disposal. Then we'll fight and we'll win. We have morality, justice, and the American Dream on our side, and I have faith the American public is not lost forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
34. The Right Also Lies Unabeshedly and w/ Purpose and the Corrupt Media
report the lies as if they are merely an opposing viewpoint rather than complete unsubstantiated fabrication. The effect of this is a total muddying of the waters. The right finds/pays "experts" who are willing to lie convincingly and the media plays along and claims that they are merely presenting the "facts" and both sides of the issue, when in reality they are allowing unabashed lies to be put on equal footing as facts. They are actually taking facts on one side and LOWERING them to the mere OPINIONS/LIES on the other side and therefore conflating them. The undiscerning public thinks "Well, their both experts and they both have opinions, so I guess it's up to me to decide how I feel about the issue." It's deliberate and it's scary to see it being done so blatantly. It's everything Orwell warned us about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
35. The US gov. is run by cold-blooded killers. Dems are terrorized.
People in the way of the corporate cold warriors and their CIA jackals simple get offed.

If they aren't made into unemployed outsiders, then they are eliminated in plane crashes like Cokie Roberts' father, Congressman Wade Boggs who questioned the Warren Commission's findings. Or Paul Wellstone. Or many others.

Remember anthrax mailed to Dem leaders and a few media guys?

Remember on 9/11 when even Congress had no air cover?

Some Dems are really Repubs who won false-flag campaigns.
Some Dems are just corrupt and bought off.
Some Dems are clueless about who really runs the government.
Many Dems are just playing along and taking their paychecks.

BUT...many Dems know who runs the government and that elective politics is only THEATER for the MASSES. Obstacles get eliminated.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
(The Origins of the Overclass, by Steve Kangas)

>snip<

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"

Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His financial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from society’s elite.

By the 1950s, the CIA had riddled the nation’s businesses, media and universities with tens of thousands of part-time, on-call operatives. Their employment with the agency took a variety of forms, which included:

* Leaving one's profession to work for the CIA in a formal, official capacity.
* Staying in one's profession, using the job as cover for CIA activity. This undercover activity could be full-time, part-time, or on-call.
* Staying in one's profession, occasionally passing along information useful to the CIA.
* Passing through the revolving door that has always existed between the agency and the business world.

Historically, the CIA and society’s elite have been one and the same people. This means that their interests and goals are one and the same as well. Perhaps the most frequent description of the intelligence community is the "old boy network," where members socialize, talk shop, conduct business and tap each other for favors well outside the formal halls of government.

Many common traits made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies. Both share an intense dislike of democracy, and feel they should be liberated from democratic regulations and oversight. Both share a culture of secrecy, either hiding their actions from the American public or lying about them to present the best public image. And both are in a perfect position to help each other.

How? International businesses give CIA agents cover, secret funding, top-quality resources and important contacts in foreign lands. In return, the CIA gives corporations billion-dollar federal contracts (for spy planes, satellites and other hi-tech spycraft). Businessmen also enjoy the romantic thrill of participating in spy operations. The CIA also gives businesses a certain amount of protection and privacy from the media and government watchdogs, under the guise of "national security." Finally, the CIA helps American corporations remain dominant in foreign markets, by overthrowing governments hostile to unregulated capitalism and installing puppet regimes whose policies favor American corporations at the expense of their people.

>snip<

Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

* Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
* William Paley (President, CBS)
* Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
* Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
* Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
* Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
* Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
* James Copley (Copley News Services)
* Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
* C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
* Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
* ABC
* NBC
* Associated Press
* United Press International
* Reuters
* Hearst Newspapers
* Scripps-Howard
* Newsweek
* magazine Mutual Broadcasting System
* Miami Herald
* Old Saturday Evening Post
* New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.

Ben Bradlee was the Post’s managing editor during most of the Cold War. He worked in the U.S. Paris embassy from 1951 to 1953, where he followed orders by the CIA station chief to place propaganda in the European press. (9) Most Americans incorrectly believe that Bradlee personifies the liberal slant of the Post, given his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigations. But neither of these two incidents are what they seem. The Post merely published the Pentagon Papers after The New York Times already had, because it wanted to appear competitive. As for Watergate, we’ll examine the CIA’s reasons for wanting to bring down Nixon in a moment. Someone once asked Bradlee: "Does it irk you when The Washington Post is made out to be a bastion of slanted liberal thinkers instead of champion journalists just because of Watergate?" Bradlee responded: "Damn right it does!" (10)

It would be impossible to elaborate in this short space even the most important examples of the CIA/media alliance. Sig Mickelson was a CIA asset the entire time he was president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. Later he went on to become president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, two major outlets of CIA propaganda.

The CIA also secretly bought or created its own media companies. It owned 40 percent of the Rome Daily American at a time when communists were threatening to win the Italian elections. Worse, the CIA has bought many domestic media companies. A prime example is Capital Cities, created in 1954 by CIA businessman William Casey (who would later become Reagan’s CIA director). Another founder was Lowell Thomas, a close friend and business contact with CIA Director Allen Dulles. Another founder was CIA businessman Thomas Dewey. By 1985, Capital Cities had grown so powerful that it was able to buy an entire TV network: ABC.

For those who believe in "separation of press and state," the very idea that the CIA has secret propaganda outlets throughout the media is appalling. The reason why America was so oblivious to CIA crimes in the 40s and 50s was because the media willingly complied with the agency. Even today, when the immorality of the CIA should be an open-and-shut case, "debate" about the issue rages in the media. Here is but one example:

In 1996, The San Jose Mercury News published an investigative report suggesting that the CIA had sold crack in Los Angeles to fund the Contra war in Central America. A month later, three of the CIA’s most important media allies — The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times — immediately leveled their guns at the Mercury report and blasted away in an attempt to discredit it. Who wrote the Post article? Walter Pincus, longtime CIA journalist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. This ought to be its own post.
Seriously, even if you've posted this before standalone, it can't be re-iterated often enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. You need to do a SOLO Post on this one, JohnOneillsMemory
Is there anyone we can trust?

Anyone, at all? Or is it that hopeless?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. What can we do to "help" the good Dems?
And how do we know who the honest, good Dems are? At that, even the honest, good Repubs, if thats possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. The right has many weapons, but its not hopeless.
Even in the face of such opposition there are those that would rise to counter them. But it's not just the willingness to risk oneself. The means must also be present. Drive and means. Without both of these there is no path.

If we were able to reclaim the media the right would surely bring the might of its more aggressive avenues to bare. But as long as the press were free to report the actions the right would lose ground. We may lose heroes but I believe there are more heroes ready to step into the breach when one falls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. You Forgot The Democrats Who Are Actually FIGHTING. But Then,
that doesn't fit in with your negativity, does it?

Overbearing negativity on the Left's part is as destructive as the rampant Fascism of the Right's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
43. Oh Goody, Another Negative Diatribe Attempting At Profundity.
How about some specific examples of Democrats?

And make sure to ignore Democrats who do the right thing and fight the good fight, okay?

That shouldn't be too much trouble.

Of course this bullshit gets nominated.

Circular firing squads, circle jerks.... DU's finest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Um I think you may have missed the point
There are many heroic Dems trying to fight the good fight. But unless their actions reach the public in a way that they can see it as good they become limited in the scope they can reach.

A heroic deed unreported or spun to be something else will not be realised by the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC