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: 1551

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here's an article reporting on Clinton's speech to the National Education Association (NEA). She was booed during her comments on charter schools. She's been a long-time advocate of them even though they are nothing more that a corporate privatization scheme that has miserably failed to produce results. Just one more example of corporate Shillary's well-meaning but horribly implemented education agenda. Given that both the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers both endorsed Clinton despite rank-and-file denunciation, that should tell us something about how leadership in those organizations has also sold out to corporate interests.

Yes, I know, Trump is way worse. That doesn't though eliminate our responsibility to know exactly what we're getting into with Clinton. And to aspire much higher going forward.

Hmm, "aspire much higher" is a good campaign slogan for the future.

This year it's either "Hide your head and shillary for Hillary," or "Tip your tea and stump for Trump," or "Stick with your story and decline with Stein."

Hi. This may have already been posted on IPMS. At a quick search I didn't find it.

Overall, I like how Sam Harris talks about trump and compares and contrasts clinton with him.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Az1JyDJ_iKU

Seth Abramson, previously cited as a key author on metamodernism, is also quite a political commentator. In this piece he comments as an attorney, destroying the FBI chief's twisting of the law to let Clinton off. First off, intent was not required for what Clinton did. But even so, he shows unequivocally that Clinton did indeed meet every standard of intent imaginable. See the link for the numerous points of law as applied to the facts in this case. And this coming from a Democrat who will vote for Clinton, not some crazed Republican. Abramson is not alone among Democrats that have the good sense to actually know that the law was misapplied for purely political reasons. No wonder we the people have lost faith in our current corrupt system. He said:

"I’m a staunch Democrat, but I’m also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into pretzels to analyze Clinton’s actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and a lawyer."

Hi Edwyrd. Yes, politics and politicians do seem to twist and get twisted, pretzel-like. Clinton, though she may want to seem like one of the good guys and has many other rosy self-images and justifications, is deep in the mix. I think it probably is and has been good for me to have more confrontation with these realities about her, and the numerous others who can't seem to hold onto integrity.

I sometimes wish that abramson and others wouldn't, in the throws of frustration and emotion, forget about basic complexity, wouldn't join the polarizing single-descriptor club, wouldn't use either/or binary thinking.

I think Harris often does a good job of acknowledging the complexity and multifacetedness of reality.

By way of illustration, I'll highlight this phrase: "...the law was misapplied for purely political reasons." It seems to me that almost nothing is for "purely" whatever reasons, and the word "purely" ought to be used with caution. It seems to me that to say something is pure or purely seems to be a dumbing down that suggests loss of integrity itself. For the most part, they and we ought to be more careful with language usage, a tool of endeavored truth.

Being specific to this example, I think at minimum we could say,'socio-politically'. My supposition is that there have been multiple considerations, factorings, reasoning streams, a prominent one being political expedience. Coming from a slightly different angle, I don't think so many of these positions, policies, principles, and strategies are *just* self-serving or just to win.

My sense is that for Hillary and many others, including Ryan, Kasich, maybe even Sanders, and those few thought to have "integrity," there is a rather complex calculus that spans right and wrong, good and bad, selfish and altruistic.

Maybe I am distracting from a needed potency that seems to be gained my reducing complexity and dumbing down in emotion-inciting ways, BUT, I have trouble seeing opinion and dialogue as long-term helpful, intelligent, or benevolent when lower reasoning is used.

That's where I, one reader and listener within the masses, go when I read limiting descriptions and phraseologies.

As usual, I'm glad you posted this opinion piece.

As I noted a few posts up, Thomas Frank thinks Clinton is quite sincere in wanting to help people. I've come to accept that too, so she's not purely political. But she, like the establishment Dems, are captive to the corporate model so that such sincerity is left bereft of effectiveness. However, the FBI decision is indeed purely for political motives, since its legal analysis is specious bunk.

I think I'm gonna vote for the lesser of three evils, Frank Underwood. 

Hi Edwyrd - I think I get where your coming from, and, ok.

It probably doesn't matter a whit. I too think the FBI decision probably does have plenty of political perspective and motivation supporting it. I doubt that they think entirely in a political vaccum or singular political framework. "Socio" - because they probably factor in consequences, like social unrest and public disturbance. This necessitates *psychological* considerations as well. In a complexly interconnected country and world there are so many inter-touching links and categories that one might not want to think that something like this is purely political. I imagine that the teams and systems of consultation and checks and balances within the FBI weigh a lot. They make mistakes, but I'm supposing that they are not oblivious to such inter-actualities.

May 'our country' be smarter and ethically/morally better than it has often been :)



Edwyrd theurj Burj said:

As I noted a few posts up, Thomas Frank thinks Clinton is quite sincere in wanting to help people. I've come to accept that too, so she's not purely political. But she, like the establishment Dems, are captive to the corporate model so that such sincerity is left bereft of effectiveness. However, the FBI decision is indeed purely for political motives, since its legal analysis is specious bunk.

It is much like the rationalization that the CEOs of the big banks couldn't face criminal prosecution for their admitted crimes because that would upset the already unstable markets. But that too, like the FBI Clinton rationalization, has the profound psychological effect on the rest of us that there is a different law for the privileged, meaning they are above it while the rest of us go to jail for far lesser crimes. That fact harms society far more than the brief upset it might cause to financial markets for not prosecuting the privileged.

In fact, I recall well the savings-and-loan scandal of the 80s and 90s when several big bankers went to jail and there was minimal if any financial repercussion on the markets. To the contrary, it strengthened the markets and made clear that such criminal behavior would be punished. Legislative reforms were passed to correct the causes of the criminal behavior. Said reforms have been decimated over time, hence the mortgage-backed fraud in the 2008 crisis. Punishing criminals works, unless and until the criminals take over government as they are yet again by decimating the Dodd-Frank reforms. Clinton is just the tip of that Titanic iceberg.

"Sanders abandons the revolution" says Kshama Sawant here. She is greatly disappointed in Sanders endorsement of Clinton, saying the latter is opposed to everything he just campaigned for. Yes, Sanders got some concessions in the Dem Party platform, but Sawant reminds us it's non-binding and Clinton can and will renege on several of those Sanders planks. Hence, Sawant is endorsing Stein of the Green Party and encouraging others to do the same. She also wants to use the Green Party as a springboard to forming a new party called the Movement of the 99% with Socialist Alternative a leading faction.

Yet more Democratic Party corruption. I received am email today from Representative Grayson, who is running for the Senate. Therein he notes that the Senate Majority PAC, run by Senator Reed and the Dem establishment, are running a $1 million ad buy against Grayson and for his corporate Dem opponent. As you may know, Grayson is not only one of the most progressive representatives in Congress but also one of the most productive, having written more bills and passed more amendments that any other. And the Dem establishment wants to defeat him for Senate and install yet another corporate crony. The evidence just keeps accumulating as to what the Dem establishment is all about, and it isn't we the people.

Maher interviews Frank Luntz in the video below. Luntz is the spin meister for the Republicans. Whatever he tells them to say comes out of all of their mouths (and wherever) repeatedly ad nauseum (and ad diarrheum). The interview gets really confrontational throughout, but I agree with how Luntz opened saying (at 1:40):

"The problem for Hillary Clinton is she's not authentic, she's not straightforward. Bernie Sanders said what he meant, meant what he said. Bernie Sanders should have been the Democratic nominee, not Hillary Clinton. And frankly Bernie Sanders should have run as a third Party candidate. And the reason why is because he has a clearly defined set of principles, a clearly defined set of ideas, and that Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat. You would have three distinctly different philosophies."

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.

© 2021   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service