With the realization that Sanders will probably not win the Democratic Party nomination, and that said establishment Party is corrupt beyond repair, there has been a spate of internet articles on what to do with the Sanders campaign machine. One option I hear frequently is to take all that momentum and organization and form a progressive third party, one that challenges both the establishment Democratic and Republican Parties. We've come to realize that the Democratic Party is too far gone to the dark side of corporate cronyism never to return to its own progressive roots. In the posts that follow I'll provide my jeremiad on this.

Views: 1484

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Then Joe Corbett posted this on his FB wall:

"ok, folks, here's the counter-intuitive logic in favor of voting for trump. if trump is president expect a united left against his every move, clarifying progressive values and demonstrating the bankruptcy of right-wing values. if clinton becomes president on the other hand expect a divided left, and further stealth moves toward the right with neoliberal policies that only a corporate democrat could get away with.  

"think about it. trump has already done a yuuge favor to america by moderating the republicans and making them see that hillary is actually a very good republican choice for them. even paul ryan has come out and apologized, for christ's sake, saying he was wrong for calling poor people lazy!! meanwhile, a trump presidency would get nowhere with a deeply resistant deep state to any aggressions he might want militarily. moreover, the bigoted douche-baggery he is known for can serve as a public platform for the collective therapy that is so badly needed if america is to get over its racist past and present, with the media for once in tow manufacturing consent around progressive multicultural ideals. what america needs, in short, is a little extreme and repugnant opposition to its core values to help clarify its own identity and unify the factions that corporate america has worked so hard to create since the backlash against the counterculture of the 60s."

With this strategy we could vote our conscience. If we all did so, even in loss, it would be millions of votes FOR progressive values and incite the ongoing movement to defend them. This would set up a very active progressive resistance intent on changing Congress in the mid-terms and have a real progressive Presidential candidate in 4 years. Otherwise, if we buy into the 'incremental change' BS, the status quo is maintained forever.

Yes, this has crossed my mind as well.  A Trump presidency will create an enantiadromia effect (or a Hegelian dialectic) that could energize a swing to the opposite pole. On the positive side, Trump is neither a paleo-conservative, nor a neo-liberal; therefore he might help disrupt those power structures. On the negative side, he is a fascist. On this account I would not want to risk any tidbit of support going toward the Donald (as we in the family call him) - the potential for disaster is too great. 

While there are no doubt a number of Republican fascists in Congress, I wonder though if they are in the majority and would actually pass fascist laws? I'm hoping Trump's obvious fascism would motivate a majority of Americans to get politically involved to the point that not even Republican Congresspeople would implement such policies. Which in turn would further motivate people to keep pressure on lawmakers and vote in a progressive majority in two years?

Here is an interesting listing of republican figures who are deeply averse to The Donald and many of whom would vote for Hillary over him.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out-agains...

In part two of Thomas Frank's interview with Hartmann (part one here) he discusses the meritocracy of the professional class and why it has consistently failed the American people. Frank is not opposed to expertise per se, just the orthodox meritocracy that is defined by establishment standards. He compares them to some of the experts of FDR's administration. While some of them did indeed have some more establishment credentials, many were mavericks that challenged the establishment's policies as well as what the very term expertise meant. It was more an expertise of the streets rather than the ivory towers, one that came from living the life of the people rather than the privileged life of the professional class. So under the professional liberal meritocracy their social class always does quite well. The rest of us not so much.

Following up on the last post, there is also a complexity of failure. Around 6:00 in that video he notes how the establishment professional class has an obsession with complexity. It's a complexity that is totally divorced from the realities of a concrete economy. And a complexity that also fails to deliver to anyone other than the professional class. 

Which reminds me of the sort of complexity championed by the so-called developmental expert class. They too use abstract metaphysical premises in defining complexity. Whereas the other professional complexity experts, typically undermined but the establishment professionals, comes more from an embodied base, both physical and socio-culturally, and hence have a more 'realistic' and pragmatic platform for their expertise that applies to and supports our everyday lives.

It also reminds me of the integral academic expert class, who think that to validate integral theory we must join the establishment educational system. In so doing they unconsciously accept much of that establishment paradigm, including its insular and defunct system of validation. Hence so much guerrilla scholarship and expertise like we find in this forum tends to be ignored at best, with some exceptions.

Another third party article. Some excerpts:

"Not only will a Clinton presidency result in eight years of somebody like Ted Cruz, but the resentment of Democratic superdelegates, and a system viewed to be corrupt, will reach a boiling point."

"A third party will emerge from the anger, frustration, and animosity felt by millions of Bernie Sanders supporters, who believe Bernie stands for ideals, while Clinton represents the vapid allure of political power."

"It’s impossible for establishment Democrats to understand the level of emotion involved in helping elect Bernie Sanders in 2016. Battling a political machine that earns millions in speaking fees from Wall Street and lobbyist ties, Vermont’s Senator has raised enough money to compete and win. Also, the groundwork for a new political party is rooted in the manner establishment Democrats have treated loyal constituents."

"I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself."

"I highlight the choice faced by Democratic superdelegates in this YouTube segment and urge them to choose wisely. Both Clintons have received tens of millions from Wall Street, pushed policies that harmed core constituencies, and are close to Henry Kissinger. With millions of people around the U.S., and especially millennials, watching the contested Democratic convention, the hopes and dreams of a great many people rest with Bernie Sanders. If these dreams are shattered by the nomination of a person who isn’t popular among millions of Democratic voters, don’t expect party unity. Expect the frustration to build a new political party where superdelegates lose their power and influence."

Robert Reich on this election and the next one. For this one he says we need to stick with Clinton. But for the next one? Quoting from his FB post:

A Hillary Clinton supporter writes: “By continuing your support of Bernie now that his odds of getting the nomination are almost nil, you're just hurting Hillary and helping Trump.”

A Bernie supporter writes: “How can you say you’ll work your heart out to get Hillary elected if she gets the Democratic nomination? I’ll never support Hillary. If Bernie forms a third party, I’m with him. Or else I’ll vote for the Green Party candidate.”

With due respect, let me explain why I think both of these positions are wrong. As I’ve said before, I believe Hillary Clinton is best qualified to be president of the political system we now have, and Bernie is best qualified to get the system we need.

So I urge you to fight like hell for Bernie as long as he has any chance at all. But if he loses the nomination, we must fight like hell for Hillary. Not voting, or voting for a third party candidate, helps Trump.

This doesn’t mean giving up on Bernie’s principles. Regardless of the outcome of this election, we must keep up the pressure to reclaim our democracy and our economy from the privileged and the powerful. How do we accomplish this? One possibility: Form a third party as soon as the election is over, and start planning for 2020.

Trump made an appearance in my neighborhood this weekend.  One comment on a local blog characterized him as a "False Flag."  I still would lean toward voting for Clinton rather than risking a Trump presidency, but it's an interesting argument (though I haven't checked out all of her links yet):

Thelma Follett  //  Sun, May 08, 2016, 11:52 am

Trump is a friend of the Clintons.  He is a false flag to force the sheeple yet again to vote for the lesser of two evils.  Here are merely a few of the recent online articles you should be looking at.

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nomin...

https://shadowproof.com/2016/05/06/rather-campaign-liberal-alternat...

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/05/trump-unifier-are-hilla...

https://theindependentthinker2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/i-used-t...

Hi t - if this below quote is your thinking (and not still the Facebook piece), I feel in general alignment with it. I suppose I am a bit conservative in this regard. It feels to me that we are in a particularly and increasingly delicate geopolitical-etc-time, and erring a bit on the side of caution, like for example, more old-fashioned (meaning in a careful respectful way) diplomacy, as well as we are able, makes sense to me. I'm valuing relative stability where some would call it stroking the status quo. (As always in most big world issues, I'm not sure which)

"With due respect, let me explain why I think both of these positions are wrong. As I’ve said before, I believe Hillary Clinton is best qualified to be president of the political system we now have, and Bernie is best qualified to get the system we need.

So I urge you to fight like hell for Bernie as long as he has any chance at all. But if he loses the nomination, we must fight like hell for Hillary. Not voting, or voting for a third party candidate, helps Trump.

This doesn’t mean giving up on Bernie’s principles. Regardless of the outcome of this election, we must keep up the pressure to reclaim our democracy and our economy from the privileged and the powerful. How do we accomplish this? One possibility: Form a third party as soon as the election is over, and start planning for 2020."





theurj said:

Robert Reich on this election and the next one. For this one he says we need to stick with Clinton. But for the next one? Quoting from his FB post:

A Hillary Clinton supporter writes: “By continuing your support of Bernie now that his odds of getting the nomination are almost nil, you're just hurting Hillary and helping Trump.”

A Bernie supporter writes: “How can you say you’ll work your heart out to get Hillary elected if she gets the Democratic nomination? I’ll never support Hillary. If Bernie forms a third party, I’m with him. Or else I’ll vote for the Green Party candidate.”

With due respect, let me explain why I think both of these positions are wrong. As I’ve said before, I believe Hillary Clinton is best qualified to be president of the political system we now have, and Bernie is best qualified to get the system we need.

So I urge you to fight like hell for Bernie as long as he has any chance at all. But if he loses the nomination, we must fight like hell for Hillary. Not voting, or voting for a third party candidate, helps Trump.

This doesn’t mean giving up on Bernie’s principles. Regardless of the outcome of this election, we must keep up the pressure to reclaim our democracy and our economy from the privileged and the powerful. How do we accomplish this? One possibility: Form a third party as soon as the election is over, and start planning for 2020.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2019   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service