Imagine a better future – Liberal Street Fighter
… is naught but a failure of imagination.
The Four Horsemen don’t cause the Apocalypse. After all, they’ve been riding for centuries, hanging over our heads. They merely symbolize what life on Earth is already like. […]
There are some people with a vested interest in keeping the world as it is, because that is the world they have power over.” — Promethea – Alan Moore
These people own our entire political system, our economic system and much of our media. BOTH political parties are war parties. Those identified as “leaders” of the party of opposition, Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and so many others, enable our aggressive stance toward the world, CELEBRATE our aggressive stance against the world, honestly believing that there is no other way to win elections OTHER than to out-sabre-rattle the Republicans. As Scott Ritter told Raw Story this past spring:
Raw Story: You suggest Americans vote out all who voted for these measures. If New Yorkers voted out Hillary, who voted for both the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, and who is also leading pack of the Democratic Party for the 2008 nomination, what then?
Ritter: Hillary is the manifestation of all that ails the Democratic Party. She stands for nothing. She has been compromised by her voting record…how can she stand for anything worth supporting? And yet, she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, thus guaranteeing another NeoCon/Republican victory. ‘Dump Hillary Now’ would be the smartest move Dean could make as the new Democratic National Committee Chair…. Like I said, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen and it will take time.
Raw Story: What about Dean?
Ritter: Dean has to be part of the process of rebuilding and that will take time. Dean cannot run for President, because Dean cannot run as a Democrat–the party is not set up to sustain someone like him. He is one of the exceptions in a corrupt party. He is also not corrupted by his voting record. He is someone who represents something, he did not vote for the war in Iraq, for example.
The thing I fear most is that the leaders of the Democratic Party could very well be right. Perhaps we Americans have lost the ability to imagine a better world. Peace through engagement in world bodies, in a system of broadening international laws, in a world where we can learn to understand one another by TALKING to each other … perhaps those scenes no longer flicker across the back of the national eyelids. Judging by our bloody westward expansion, our adventures in Latin America and the Pacific Basin, perhaps they seldom did.
Throughout the supposed “progressive” blogosphere, we’re seeing more and more former military, former REPUBLICANS, put forward as the hope for the party’s future, while progressives who come from activist backgrounds are denigrated far and wide. Is this the people we really are, really want to be, WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE? A martial people, seeing salvation only in the guise of a uniform?
This is not to say that many of these candidates might not be true progressives, or be great candidates, but it seems more and more that certain elements in our party think that these are the kinds of backgrounds that will lead to “victory”. Some, like Paul Hackett, are moving toward the left on the war, joining leaders like Russ Feingold in calling for a timetable for removing American troops from the Iraq War(crime). The majority of the party still seems unwilling to go that far.
After all, BOTH parties have made it their business to build up a strong, that is aggressive and powerful, military structure. Entire economies and political power bases are established in the building and maintaining and storage of the biggest and most destructive war machine the world has ever seen.
Is this the best we can imagine for ourselves, our country, our world and future and children and generations upon generations after them who will live under this bloody crimson shadow? Is Lewis Lapham right about us?
I don’t say that over the last thirty years we haven’t made brave strides forward. By matching Eco’s list of fascist commandments against our record of achievement, we can see how well we’ve begun the new project for the next millennium — the notion of absolute and eternal truth embraced by the evangelical Christians and embodied in the strict constructions of the Constitution; our national identity provided by anonymous Arabs; Darwin’s theory of evolution rescinded by the fiat of “intelligent design”; a state of perpetual war and a government administering, in generous and daily doses, the drug of fear; two presidential elections stolen with little or no objection on the part of a complacent populace; the nation’s congressional districts gerrymandered to defend the White House for the next fifty years against the intrusion of a liberal-minded president; the news media devoted to the arts of iconography, busily minting images of corporate executives like those of the emperor heroes on the coins of ancient Rome.
An impressive beginning, in line with what the world has come to expect from the innovative Americans, but we can do better. The early twentieth-century fascisms didn’t enter their golden age until the proletariat in the countries that gave them birth had been reduced to abject poverty. The music and the marching songs rose with the cry of eagles from the wreckage of the domestic economy. On the evidence of the wonderful work currently being done by the Bush Administration with respect to the trade deficit and the national debt — to say nothing of expanding the markets for global terrorism — I think we can look forward with confidence to character-building bankruptcies, picturesque bread riots, thrilling cavalcades of splendidly costumed motorcycle police.
We squander our vast riches on weaponry, on retaliation, on retribution and vast prison complexes here and expanding secret gulags overseas. We act as a people with no faith or belief in redemption, in rehabiliation, in fresh beginnings or new starts. No olive branches will be clutched in the claw of the American Imperial Eagle, only another brace of poison-tipped arrows.
Are the leaders of our party right. IS THIS WHO WE ARE?
We will find out in the coming years, as the current monsters driving our war machine are weakened by scandal and their own hubris. Will we merely replace “their” chickenhawks with “our” chickenhawks? Republicrats for Republicans, or will we rise to our highest dreams and imagine better futures for ourselves? Will we follow the narrow and convictionless, like Hillary Clinton, or can we join Cindy Sheehan, Gold Star Mothers for Peace, Veterans for Peace and actual leaders like Russ Feingold to find a new kind of strength, the strength that knows that real power grows from convictions and belief in a peaceful future? Some would say that this is “hippy” thinking, but wasn’t the United Nations founded at least partly in this belief? Haven’t we built courts and diplomatic missions and international university exchange programs on this “hippy” idea? Are diplomats sitting around a table, a table whose shape and size was no doubt the result of extensive discussion, merely singing Kumbaya when they sign below words like these:
Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Damned hippies.
Can we imagine ourselves to be members of that society of hope again, or will we continue to place our support behind failed leaders: failures in conviction, failures in vision and failures in honorable opposition? Are we really the people that our leaders believe we are?
I choose to imagine that we are not.
Beyond the lunar sphere lies the mercurial domain of intellect and science, of magic and language. Humankind’s most precious gift, communication has its wellspring here. – Promethea – Alan Moore
can’t they make up their imperialistic minds? I’d been convinced that Syria was next.
I think the timing of this new hardball is to coincide w/ the rather harsh winter they have, since one of the things they settle for is heating oil. Hard ball poltics using freezing people …
Maybe it’s to coincide with that.
never can tell with the fucking “permanent corporate government” we operate under.
I like this post madman, but I do take exception to this:
Throughout the supposed “progressive” blogosphere, we’re seeing more and more former military, former REPUBLICANS, put forward as the hope for the party’s future, while progressives who come from activist backgrounds are denigrated far and wide.
No offense taken since I agree with everything you say. BUT keep in mind that some of us that were/are in the military are even further to the left of all except for a few of the Dem candidates. I also realize that most of you Americans are to the right of me. Even many of the hippies.
In fact, in my case, I have to compromise my “liberalness” a bit to even approve of the few that are the “Left wing” of the Dem party. Fughedabout the right wing moderate Dems you guys call “Centrists”.
That being said, I still agree with the thrust of your diary.
oh, indeed, but there seems to be a tendency by some to take military service as some kind of indicator of character, which is lazy and dangerous thinking. There are good vets and bad, just as there are good activists and bad. Some great vets are great activists. I’ve met Clark “supporters” who support him BECAUSE he was a general: that is the first and only reason they give for wanting him to run for President. Some of the greatest champions for peace have served as warriors. It just shouldn’t be the primary reason we back them, but rather the policies they advocate.
Do I need to point out that Ritter, whom you quote to great effect, is a former Marine, holding the rank of Major? Part of the hope of reconnecting with the martial component of our society is that, unlike the chicken-hawks who make up the current misadministration, veterans tend to be reluctant warriors. It’s no accident that many have become “champions for peace.” They know something about the horrors of war.
I do take your broader point, that the Democratic Party has grasped at military figures to make them look tough. As I said on a recent thread, I find the whole “Support the Troops” thing and the glorification of the military to be exploitive of that military. There are plenty of people who love to venerate our returning “heroes,” but fewer who want to hear their sad stories and care for their physical and emotional injuries.
One of the great ironies is that long before the Democratic Party started courting people like Clark, they were the party of veterans. There are far more elected Democrats who have worn their country’s uniform — even that weasel Tom Daschle — than the party of chicken-hawks, the Republicans. The men and women of the military have done better by Democratic administrations — the largest pay raise on record was under Carter. The military/industrial complex and war profiteers do very well by the Republican Party. If the brain trust making the decisions for Democrats had any balls, they’d make that a political issue, but instead they try to imitate the insincere jingoism of the GOP, in what has devolved into a battle of empty images.
indeed …
Hackett, Massa, Clark … they may all bring good things to the table (the only one who impresses me, to be frank, is Hackett, and it has as much or more to do w/ his willingness to be frank, and his unashamed pro-choice stance). I can’t tell you the number of disturbing encounters I’ve had with Clarkies, which I try hard not to project onto the man, but it is hard. Redfaced demands to back a “real, proven leader”, with a plain emphasis that it is his MILITARY experience which “PROVES” that he’s a good man.
I respect Ritter, even though he’s far to my right, b/c he can defend his arguments. He offers a great deal of experience, and does his best to back up what he asserts. He’s refreshingly blunt (which is one of the things I admire about not only him and General Clark, but also Howard Dean and Russ Feingold).
These are the qualities we need to focus on: blunt honesty, integrity, commitment to a set of ideals that the candidate/office holder/public servant can actually ELUCIDATE. A uniform is no guarentee of any of these things, but I find a frightening number of Americans, and Democrats, willing to believe that it does.
Good and bad in ANY profession: we need to remember that we have not only men like General Eisenhower and General Clark, but also men like General “My God was bigger than his god” Boynkin.
So isn’t it interesting that Hackett is the candidate the Democratic Party is currently fucking over. I’d add more detail to that but I only just became aware of the insider shenanigans. I like a bit of bluntness myself and Hackett is very plain spoken. Like this:
the thing is, on paper, I’m probably closer to Brown in overall policies, but they both seem worthy in different ways.
We need to get over this idea that primaries are bad. The Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from the past. Vibrant conflict and debate within a party STRENGTHEN it. Fighters fight preliminary bouts before the title bout. That’s how they learn, find out their weaknesses and strengths, and the weaknesses and strengths of their corner.
I wish the DSCC & DCCC would stay the fuck out of it, let local parties duke it out. This is the reason we have no bench to look for to find new leaders.
Thank you for clarifying your statement further up the thread. Like I said, I don’t take offense, since I understand where you are coming from from your previous posts.
(the only one who impresses me, to be frank, is Hackett, and it has as much or more to do w/ his willingness to be frank, and his unashamed pro-choice stance)
I agree with this to a large degree, for the one reason that this guy, Hackett is calling’em he sees’em. I think that, regardless of who wins, the race between Hackett and Sherod is a good thing for both candidates. I know that some are pissed that Sherod changed his mind and entered the race. But you have to think of this as a tactical advantage. The GOP does this all the time.
If they had left Hackett, a relative unknown, unchallenged he would lose all of that face time in the media that a good primary race provides. This has the same beneficial effect for Sherod’s campaign as well.
No matter who wins that race, two strong candidates will get their face in front of the voters for a good long period of time before the real race even begins.
Everyone will have a good long time to get to know both of these candidates long before they take on the thugs.
This is a strategy that should be emulated in every race. No primary should go unchallenged EVEN IF THERE IS ONE CANDIDATE THAT IS A SHOE-IN to win. Which is certainly not the case in the Ohio race. That should be an interesting primary. There is just too much “free air time” in the media to skip primary races. Make the media work for all of the candidates. Not just the GOP.
It just shouldn’t be the primary reason we back them, but rather the policies they advocate.
This fact was obvious when Clark went right to the head of the primary pack, despite his supporters having little information on his various stances. Clark hadn’t even developed policy positions on any issue, other than Iraq(and that was more commentary) and yet he was viewed as Democratic savior. The glare of shiny medals is a dangerous trend in viewing leadership. I would argue a teacher is as noble a profession as a “supreme commander”.