A Progressive Third Party

[Edward theurj Berge]

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.

[Ambo Suno]

Hi Edwyrd - you have been making a passionate appeal for an appropriate discrediting of Hillary Clinton and her bid for president. You have, as well, for the Democratic party. Also a relative extolling of Bernie Sanders and his progressive appearing moves, and for progressivism generally. There is probably more nuance in how you would make distinctions from what I have just said, but this a quick summary of how your posts come to rest in me.

As I hear your previous post to which I am reacting, as I do for most charged economic, political and socio-political opinion, numerous places in the chains of assumption, premise, and logics, where inside myself I glitch with a doubt here, an, I doubt it here, a, not so fast and glossy there. My inner vocabulary is populated, too, with reactive words like factoid, like rationalization, like heavy bias passed along as reality, especially when it comes to speculating about an unknown future, with this change or that.

To try to meet each point, as you know, opens an exceedingly long, maybe endless branching set of challenges and it is not worth our time, energy and arousal - so we may decide to not attempt such a refutation or even dialogue.

My impression of 'making a case for ...', as I do inside myself regularly, is that there are some early impressions and conclusions, often unconscious to us, that quickly marshall and martial outer rationales and "facts, proofs, and logics" for so much irrationality and profound unknowing that is behind our expressed opinions. That alone is enough for me to ease off most declarations with certainty, and to not feel confident of other people's.

So these are a few quick threads in me that weave a protective barrier for myself when I hear some favorite political etc assertions, like yours here. Not that you are not more right or constructive or helpful to the world through what you are believing than I. I simply want to say aloud that I feel and think different things.

As a somewhat aside, Sunday at the farmers market, sitting on the old geezers' bench, as I like to call it, a fracquaintance of mine who I like and who I see almost every week, made some pro-Sanders comments. Again. I like his enthusiasms, to a degree, and that he is relating to so much of the young-seeming energy surrounding Sanders' pathos-and-political-election-expression. When this articulate bench buddy began to unpack this elaborate and weightily conspiratorial chain of "facts" about Hillary, in order to assassinate her character, it became too much for me. Partly because I am a bit conflict, inflationary conspiracy, and uber-emotional-charge averse, I had to do a 'time out', let's stop this hodge-podge train, so I can get off. Seeds of factoidal remnants woven into an almost iron-clad crazy-net thrown over someone he opposes. I am not talking the quality of your logic and presentation of supportive information and opinion, I am talking that every vapor trail in the sky is a contrail conspiracy to, what, dumb us down, make us more docile, infertile, I forget what they all are. Por favor, my friend, J, let us not agree in peace. I can't dialogue this limitless hydra in any helpful or ok-feeling way, J, buddy - I'm gonna take a stroll - see you in a few.

At play with J, and with you here, is my temperament, my variable world-views, my conditioned reactivities, some knowledge, some logic, some caring, some styles of stirring it all together, and, pluralistic, relativistic and perhaps integral formulations notwithstanding, I can't go along with plenty that you have been saying about progressivisms and this election.

I hope that the charge that has impelled this unpolished post forward has allowed this post to be quasi-intelligible and somewhat respectful and cordial. In spite of myself.

Edwyrd theurj Burj said:

See this excellent article debunking the false dichotomy that if you don't vote for Clinton you in essence vote for Trump. One can indeed fight Trump while voting for someone other than Clinton. And to do the latter is to in essence give up on your progressive values, since Clinton does not represent them per her record and despite her disingenuous rhetoric. To do so is to fall in line behind the corrupt Democratic establishment, which will undoubtedly continue its corporate ways so that the issue is never resolved. We have to take a stand sometime for what is right or it will never be righted.

Some excerpts:

"Sanders supporters are simply not content to dilute the political revolution they have started by integrating it into the framework of the Democratic Party and by placing it within the confines of a Clinton presidency."

"So I will continue to support Bernie Sanders and the movement he has sparked both because I believe it is the right thing to do, and because I refuse to fall in line behind a candidate who has, in just the past few months, repudiated basic standards of transparency, belittled those who fight for ambitious social agendas, turned her back on single-payer health care, courted Republican donors, accepted campaign contributions from Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, and attacked the core argument against the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision."

"As for Reich's concerns about the future of the Democratic Party, well, I'm with Michelle Alexander: 'I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.'"

[Edward theurj Berge]

You're welcome to disagree Ambo. Though I'd prefer if you'd cite specific examples of things I've provided and then give specific arguments against them.

[Edward theurj Berge]

See the Salon article on a Sanders/Stein Green Party run. They start by noting that Sanders has not ruled this out. They also make a good case that this 3rd-party ticket would knock out Trump because it doesn't have Clinton's weaknesses against the Donald. 47% of voters would consider a third-party alternative to Trump/Clinton. Independent voters will likely decide the election and Trump will siphon off a greater percentage of these against Clinton alone, but if Sanders is in the race he'll maintain a substantial portion of them. Sanders will also maintain a substantial portion of those who want to vote for an outsider in the race, whereas Trump will get more of them against just Clinton. Trump can use Clinton's cozy relationship with Wall Street against her but not against Sanders. Trump is to the left of Clinton on trade agreements but again, that won't work against Sanders. Trump is to the left of Clinton of war, but Sanders would win on that one too. Clinton has the email scandal (among others) hanging over her while Sanders has no such baggage. And finally, the Green Party platform is very much akin to Sanders' own and gives us real progressives someone to vote for instead of against.

[DavidM58]

I saw a letter to the editor in my local independent weekly, where the writer was saying he favored Sanders, but that because he didn't have a chance at winning the Dem. nomination, he would therefore be supporting Trump.  It seems such an odd disconnect, but some people are that put off by Hillary.  And didn't we all know that 8 years ago?  Amazing to me that the Hillary was the chosen one by the Democratic establishment.

[Edward theurj Berge]

The Democratic establishment is clueless. The last two mid-term beatings would tell anyone not blinded by ideology of that fact but they still just don't get it and never will. Hence, fuck them.

[Ambo Suno]

Much respect, Edwyrd, for how you have said this. Thanks for this reply.

Edwyrd theurj Burj said:

You're welcome to disagree Ambo. Though I'd prefer if you'd cite specific examples of things I've provided and then give specific arguments against them.

[Edward theurj Berge]

See Taibbi's article on the establishment Dems here. Many in the establishment are thinking they don't need the Berners because they have all the other Dems sewn up. They think of the Berners as far outside the mainstream to affect much. Consequently, they can dispense with the Bern's agenda, it too being unsupported by the majority. This is in part due to the fact that they live in a bubble and hate their constituents, because the former are enlightened and know how the game is played and the latter are ignorant rubes to be manipulated instead of listened to.

Taibbi warns that they're missing the huge revolt against establishment politics, including their own Party. The reason it is gaining so much momentum is because Sanders not only listens to we the people but fights to enact legislation for our benefit. We not only feel but know he's on our side, as well as that the establishment Party votes to maintain their own power and that of the status quo oligarchy who supports their campaigns. So with Clinton as the nominee they think the revolution is over and things can return to normal.

They have no idea that the revolution has just begun and we're coming after their jobs. And we're also going to organize new Parties and/or join existing Parties where progressives have a genuine home. Much like the Republican Party collapsed this cycle, that same story is coming to the Democratic Party. And soon.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Forget the lesser evil; fight for the greater good. Jill Stein of the Green Party lays it out. The two-party system is broken beyond repair. We need a multi-party democracy. In fact, democracy demands it. That is, if you want democracy?

[Ambo Suno]

Hi Edwyrd - I actually felt badly for you when Bernie lost. I know that there are potential bigger material losses than how you feel, but in the mixture of feelings and thoughts in me - I imagined it was a bummer. To say the least. As it was for many people.

In this visually crisp video by Jill Stein and her team, at a quick peruse, I was disappointed in a convenient reduction of extreme complexity, too much reduction perhaps for those relatively few who are rather complex and who pass in and out of integral sensibility and understanding.

I get this was more than *news* piece but also had slants that she/they wanted to persuade toward. In her presentation she started with a not fully true dichotomy, but one that seemed symmetrical enough and sufficiently logically tidy appearing - vote fear vs vote values. Even when limiting to these two features, within me there is a complex calculus of proportion and priorities and probably other contextual interrelatings that inform me moment to moment. Pay more attention to values, weight fear more there, maybe keep them both in mind here, and such. So right away, I feel somewhere between bored and disappointed. (I may, of course, momentarily be influenced by reading and watching this while on a website that investigates "integral," often at a pretty nuanced and comprehensive considerations.)

I want to say excuse me, Edwyrd, for my take of the moment.

And there was some useful information and persuasion in this short video, as well. Thanks for the educational material.







Edwyrd theurj Burj said:

Forget the lesser evil; fight for the greater good. Jill Stein of the Green Party lays it out. The two-party system is broken beyond repair. We need a multi-party democracy. In fact, democracy demands it. That is, if you want democracy?

[Edward theurj Berge]

Robert Reich on a Third Party in this FB post:

"Regardless of what Bernie decides to do over the next month, several of you have suggested that he establish a third party -- the New Progressive Party -- that would continue to build the movement to reclaim our democracy and economy from the moneyed interests. It would recruit and support Senate and House candidates for the 2018 midterms, and run a presidential candidate in 2020. It would be a membership organization based on small contributions -- and would continue to mobilize, organize, and energize the political revolution Bernie began."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Ambo, when one campaigns they must make short and to the point commercials. And so with Stein. To expect a nuanced and in-depth discussion of policy in such commercials is expecting too much. If you want more info try Stein's home page, especially her platform (very similar to Sanders, btw). And then there's the Green Party page, as she is their candidate. As to an AQAL analysis, I don't find such things at all helpful.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Sanders is still naive about the Democratic Party. In this video he says that he'll work with Clinton to defeat Trump. But he'll also not concede until the convention because he wants to reform the Democratic Party platform to include our progressive agenda. It's time the Party worked for we the people again instead of its wealthiest constituents. I admire that Sanders is trying to reform a corrupt Party. And they will undoubtedly make progressive concessions at the convention. But he will learn that it's only for show to get the progressive vote, and they'll ignore those concessions going forward. And apparently that's what it's going to take for him to finally give up on the Party and direct his movement toward an alternative progressive Party and/or join the Green Party.