Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Election 2008

Progressive Revolution: We Can't Afford to Play Small-Ball and Tip-Toe Around Right-Wingers Anymore

By Mike Lux, Wiley Press. Posted January 19, 2009.


Lux's new book, "The Progressive Revolution," argues that it's time to stop playing into conservative fearmongering.
picture2
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from chapter 8 of Mike Lux's new book, "The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be" (Wiley, 2009). In this text, Lux argues that a "culture of caution" dominates Democratic politics in the modern era: "When you try something big and fail, even if the failure is due in great part to your own timidity, you only become more cautious. The failure of health-care reform made President Clinton more cautious, and he started playing small ball." As Obama's inauguration approaches, progressives and Democrats in Washington need to overcome their fears of proposing bold policies and stand up for the kind of America they believe in. 

 When Barack Obama based much of his 2008 Presidential campaign on the theme of hope, he certainly wasn't the first candidate to make that pitch. And when John McCain, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, during the years since 9/11, preached fear and more fear and nothing but fear, they weren't the first to do that, either. The entire history of American political debate can, in some sense, be described as the argument between the hope of progressives for a better future vs. the fear of conservatives who want to protect the way things are now.

In recent decades, neither party has been able to get a toehold as an enduring political majority. The Republicans' problem has been that they aggressively overreach, and then their rather extreme policy prescriptions just don't work. We get wars with no exit plans, side tax cuts that result in gigantic deficits, and voluntary goals for industry that never result in anything tangible happening.

For Democrats, the problem has been the opposite. They have been so beaten down by the conservative attack machine that they have allowed themselves to get into the habit of being cautious. When in power, they have had decent policy ideas that have produced pretty good results, but the results aren't substantial enough to make permanent changes or get voters excited about what Democrats are trying to accomplish. Since the tumultuous change decade of the 1960s and the ugly backlash that followed it, Democrats have often been too scared to think big about progressive change, and it has hurt them. ...

Fear and Conservatism

Fear has been a staple of every generation of conservatives .... Fear of the democratic mob. Fear of the freed slave. Fear of the liberated woman destroying the traditional family. Fear of freethinkers destroying religion. Fear of communism. Fear of gays and lesbians. Fear of hippies, "free love," and the drug culture. Fear of the immigrant. In a bizarre twist, Social Darwinism gave us fear of the weak, and in the modern version of Social Darwinism, Reagan gave us fear of the poor on welfare. Post-9/11, you can now add in the ever-potent fear of terrorism. Sadly, while some of those fears have faded with the passage of history, many remain with us, still powerful.

Many conservatives still fear feminism, sometimes to a hilarious degree. Here is one of my all-time favorite quotes, from the inimitable Pat Robertson: "[Feminism] is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

I had no idea feminism was so comprehensive, but there you have it. Of course, many men who are threatened by strong women aren't quite so hysterical, but like threatened people everywhere, they love to mock. Rush Limbaugh, who coined the feminazi, has this definition of feminism: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

The prospect of empowered women isn't the only fear that conservatives have carried throughout the years of our nation's existence. They have always feared free thinking, which opens the door to a range of ideas and beliefs. The notion that their children might be exposed to any ideas or scientific theories that are different from what is being taught at home, as exemplified by the battles that are fought daily about public education, still scares conservatives a great deal. Read articles from any local newspaper about the nature of their resistance-to the teaching of evolution, the discussion of global warming, the assignment of certain books by English teachers, and so on-and you will see parents who are terrified that their own children might learn a way of thinking contrary to their own.

Fears of communism and welfare have faded somewhat in the last twenty years because of the fall of the Soviet Union and the passage of welfare reform, but they have been quickly replaced by conservatives' finding new things to scare voters with. Terrorism and immigrants have become the new hot-button excuses for pushing the political fear button. Or maybe I should amend that: terrorism, at least, is relatively new as a major fear for voters because until 9/11, people knew it could be a problem but didn't worry about it much. After 9/11, it became the biggest thing Americans were scared of. Immigration, on the other hand, is a very old fear that conservatives have been exploiting with renewed vigor in recent years.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: mike lux, the progressive revolutio

Mike Lux is the author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be (Wiley, 2009), and is the co-founder and President of Progressive Strategies. Since starting the company, Mike has launched a number of important projects, including American Family Voices, an issue advocacy group working on pocketbook issues for American families; and the Progressive Donor Network, which works to coordinate a network of individual donors, issue advocacy groups, and top flight political consultants and strategists.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Extremely insightful article!
Posted by: Plexius2 on Jan 19, 2009 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basically, those of us on the ground trying to support LIBERAL (yes, I said the L word)candidates have been tearing our hair out for years now, because the Democratic frontrunners are always just Republican Lite from our perspective. We support them ONLY because, though voting for Nader felt good, it resulted in Bush's election. So we are always supporting spineless cowards like Clinton, and perhaps Obama, who won't act in a truly Democratic fashion, when what we need is someone bold like Kucinich. I am hoping that the pendulum must swing back to a moderate like Obama first, before it continues on further left to a Kennedy. I am sooo sick of living in a Conservative world governed by repressive Repubs and wimpy Demos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Has Already Capitulated ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 19, 2009 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least from what I've read. He wants 70 or 80 Senators to support his Stimulus Plan. This would of course need the support of 15 to 25 Republicans ...

Ask yourself what "real change" are we the people to get if Obama wants to cater to Republicans ... The answer is not much. Looking at Obama's stimulus it is all temporary, there are no structural or permanent changes.

We need bold, daring proposals such as "Medicare for All", a Public Central Bank and higher taxes and eliminated loopholes on the well to do and corporations.

Obama 's incrementalism will only lead to disaster. We do not face "normal problems" in normal times. We face a crisis that will consume us if economic, structural, political, moral and philosophical changes are not made. These needed changes will not be born out of compromise but out of bold even radical ideas ideas pressed by bold and courageous leadership.

Obama is trashing his own mandate with small ball, incremental, compromised proposals that give away progressive ground in return for nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You hit the nail on the head! Posted by: badkitty68
» Not in the least Posted by: pelican beak
Fighting Fire with Water
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 19, 2009 2:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One day, two years, eleven months and six days ago, I got mad as hell and decided I wasn't going to take it anymore. That was the day I started "The Rant".

It's high time we LIBERALS started fighting back and I am happy as a pig in poop to see it happening. We're going to take our country back from these hideous bastards and bitches (Hi, Condi!)

Electing Barack Obama was only a first step - assuming that it was a step - we shall see. But we shouldn't sit back and deceive ourselves into thinking that we have elected the first African American president and we'll all live happily ever after. We've got to get to work.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A "Progressive" ROT to FASCISM
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Jan 19, 2009 3:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sacred cow Obama is an obvious Trojan Horse erected to confuse and bemuse gullible folk who actually believe in the idea of Washington "Progressives". His track record of continual support for corporate crime policy (9/11 "war on terror" FISA spy state, perpetual Wall Street Bailouts, etc) and the hand-picked parasite corporatists that have swamped his regime prove this beyond any doubt.

The only honest and real change agent of color is Cynthia McKinney and we know how seriously circus Washington and the corporate monopoly media took her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A "Progressive" ROT to FASCISM Posted by: goldengatetim
Give 'em a mile they take an inch...
Posted by: kogwonton on Jan 19, 2009 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the democratic leadership for you. If I didn't know better I'd guess they were working for the other team. (actually, that's a joke - I really do think they're working for the other team).

Meanwhile, the Republicans steal two elections (three, if you count the 2002 congressional elections)and skid by with the 500 vote National Majorities (or thereabouts), and call it a mandate, aye, 'political capital', and they spend like they've got unlimited credit. When they get an inch they take a light year.

Take a look at the difference between the tactics of boldness vs. the tactics of caution and see who is getting into the end zone first.

Idiots.

If there aren't some hangings (figuratively speaking - maybe) then it is clear that there is a Constitutional crisis, and clearly we've been the victim of a coup against it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah right
Posted by: beandang on Jan 19, 2009 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think what its time for is for the people to take back what was once theirs!

RT
Is your ISP spying on you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No more softball!
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jan 19, 2009 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cringe when Obama and his supporters talk about reaching across the aisle. It's as if they've been asleep for the last twenty years. Haven't they noticed that playing softball with Republicans works no better than Republican policies?

I'm for giving Repubs a lot of verbal abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep! Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: No more softball! Posted by: Quannah
Political Philosophy
Posted by: jstuv on Jan 19, 2009 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In order to understand a political philosophy, take it to its final conclusion.

COMMUNISM: If everyone was compensated equally …and there is a grantee of employment, why would anyone work or innovate? COMMUNISM imploded.
FASHISM: If all dissenters were killed and all their possessions confiscated, how would the society continue? They would have to steal from and kill their own …which is what happened in 1944, 1945.
The TALIBAN: If Art and Entertainment were not permitted and all women subjugated; all dissenters killed, how would the society replenish itself? They would die out eventually.
REPUBLICANISM: In order to maximize profit, all labor would be so minimally compensated that workers would be slaves. All wealth would be inherited. There would be no need for elections as the outcome was already determined.

Is that the society you would want?

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM: If all wealth and services were equally shared, but citizens have a say in their entire social and governmental structure, would there be a need to steal or for war and war profiteering?

You figure it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Political Philosophy Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Political Philosophy Posted by: pelican beak
On not tripping over one's own feet...
Posted by: ctuck622 on Jan 19, 2009 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem I encounter with so-called "progressive" groups-at least down here in the "redneck wilds of Florida," is not only a sad short-sightedness blinding them to connecting the dots, differentiating between friend & foe, surface issues from true underlying issues, i.e., how to get to the root of injustice rather than scrambling around, sucking up to politicians & playing lobbyist, but their overt nastiness at anyone who tries to point out otherwise, and instead, choose to engage in the same corrupt, unethical behaviors as do politicians they criticize.

For example, I circulate a petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/equaljusticeforall

which demands a Constitutional Amendment preventing any state in the union from ever again passing unconstitutional legislation, as did FL in 2004, charging court fees to the indigent, the only state in the union to do so, denying millions of citizens a basic Constitutional right to redress grievances in courts of law. As well, Florida's Constitution guarantees access to courts without sale, denial, or delay, but this didn't stop Florida "slawmakers" from passing the law nonetheless, spitting on both the US and Florida Constitutions...after all, to these last century hicks...what's a little Constitution-spitting if it protects corporations, politicians, healthcare providers, government agencies, et al., from being held accountable in courts of law for statutory violations, unethical and unprofessional behavior, and any and all other injustices committed daily??

One would think that since this issue underlies so many other issues, such as gay rights, voting rights, discriminatory acts, to name but a few, that "progressive" organizations would leap to the fore to tackle this, but nooooooooooooooooooo, instead, organizations such as Progress Florida, et al., prefer to shoot themselves in the foot and ban me from their website, slandering me to other groups and media outlets, denying my First Amendment right of free speech, in some weird kind of "agreement" to not allow this issue, which again, sabotages all other issues, to be exposed to the rest of the world for what it is--gross injustice, "good ol' boy, business-as-usual," last-century politics.

Having said all that...y'all remember that these manipulative tactics are nothing more than basic divide-and-conquer strategies, so "progressive" organizations out there, pull your heads out from your heinies and take a good look in the mirror...and ask yourselves...are you helping or hindering your causes...are your egos perchance getting in the way of the freedoms of others to fight for what is right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Author falls for his own argument about fear mongering...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jan 19, 2009 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In stating the fear mongering as policy for the Repugs he then goes on about the fear of real terrorism. the War on Terror is a created farce, again to push thru an agenda of FEAR. why doesn't the author see this? it's just a continuation of previous planks of fear in various platforms put forth by politicians time and time again.
real progressive change starts from the bottom up. take a lesson from the Repugs and get a PR firm to sell progressiveness with short sound bite slogans. if it's packaged and sold right to the public, maybe the average person will stop voting against their own interests when they realize that progressive change can benefit them in a myriad of ways and can float all boats, so to say, to the benefit of the country. enough of the fear mongering please...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Attacking Obama Will not affect change
Posted by: TexasCowboy on Jan 19, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very thought-provoking and insightful article. To change America and the culture created by both Dem and Repubs, it is the American people who must demand forward thinking initiatives. Obama must work in the confines of an archaic system if he is to accomplish any far reaching initiatives. Dems in congress truly have been intimidated by the fear mongering of Repubs, they make bold claims on proposed changes, and fall back to a comfortable, non-threatening stance rather than expending leadership that Americans need. I do not support attacking a man who has not even been in office, we all know Repubs are already doing that with typical fear-mongering, hate-filled, white supremacists style banter.
If we truly believe this is a government of, by and for the people, then the onus is on those people to speak out and demand real change. Americans hold the power and we hold the responsibility for our own destiny.
We must think in new ways and we must act in a new ways.
It is an ageless principle between right and wrong, and doing what just makes sense.
We should not be slaves to the pillaging by corporate corruption, big oil, pharmaceutical companies, Wall Street, Financial Institutions or to the Congressional leaders who are bought off by these companies and their lobbying groups who use our financial resources for their own personal political gains and their growing wealth. We should not allow them to be our masters.
If America is to climb out of this pit, Americans must demonstrate the same passion as they demonstrated in electing Barack. Technology makes it simple to contact our government, organizations and news media must be forced to hear us out. We cannot be silent, we cannot simply complain to each other in blogs and post our concerns and complaints. We are responsible for our destiny and if we chose to stand on the sideline rather than foster the will of the people to those in government, then I fear we become as complicit as people who complain even though they do not vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Of course, the big question is Posted by: truthlover
» It all makes perfect sense... Posted by: kogwonton
elephants in living rooms
Posted by: mwildfire on Jan 19, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The claim that all (okay virtually all) Democrats in Congress are as timid as crippled mice is as believable as the similar claim that all modern journalists are stupid or lazy and that's why they don't ask real questions of a criminal regime but just act as "stenographers."
I don't buy it. ALL of them? Well no--just the journalists that work for mainstream (corporate) media--which is unfortuantely what shapes the opinions of a majority of the US public. Just the politicians that make it to a seat of power via an electoral process in which the seat is won, 90% of the time, by whichever campaign spends the most. And thus virtually all policians must make private promises to private interests in order to win the seat--and then must pay off after the election--a payoff which ALWAYS comes at the expense of the public interest--in order to keep the seat next time. So is it really "timidity" that causes Democrats in Congress to refuse to hold CEOs responsible, and instead grant them $700 billion with no strings attached--or is it campaign contributions from Wall Street firms (Obama's #1 money source)? Is it timidity that causes Democrats to do almost nothing serious about the health care situation--or contributions from drug companies, hospital companies and insurance companies? Is it timidity that causes them to support each and every war each and every President proposes--or contributions from weapons companies and concern for the incomes of those working at military bases in their state?
Meanwhile, do virtually all newspapers and networks support the Likud line on Middle Eastern issues because they can't be bothered to do their own research, or because they're not willing to go up against AIPAC--and perhaps because the top editors include Zionist Jews? Ironically, the fear motive attributed to members of Congress probably does apply--to journalists, who are usually accused instead or stupidity or laziness.
But Democrats in Congress are not so stupid they can't see that those Democratic politicians who challenge the status quo inevitably rise in the polls. No, the problem is that public opinion is not terribly important to politicians, rhetoric aside. What matters, to those facing the imperative of a battle to retain the seat every two years, is keeping the campaign contributions rolling in. And the only way to do that is to keep selling out the public interest. It's not as though the press will expose the sellout--they're busy selling ads to the same corporate interests, and thus just as eager to keep the corporations content. In the Senate they only have to face this battle every six years, so they have more breathing room. But usually by the time they get to the Senate they've spent a number of years in the House, and their integrity (if they EVER had any) is a dim memory.
Babies are not delivered by the stork, okay? And politicians are not "timid."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way a Progressive Revolution will occur is if both the Republican and Democrat parties are
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 19, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABANDONED ! Otherwise, get out 4 years worth of tissues and keep weeping away and stay the LOSERS' course !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gene Robinson's Prayer Censored!
Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand on Jan 19, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is Alternet's reporting on the fact that HBO did not broadcast the historic opening of that entire gala yesterday - the amazing call to include EVERYONE in this "new era."

I am not a christian, but I can certainly recognize wisdom when I see it, and CENSORSHIP AND BIGOTRY when it is EXCLUDED - from a celebration about OVERCOMING BIGOTRY!

I have posted the prayer on my blog, because it is a beautiful prayer. Let us not let this attrocity lie, and find out who was responsible for this bogus decision, especially since that Warren character will certainly not be censored!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» nice start to the "era of inclusion" Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» RE: Gene Robinson's Prayer Censored! Posted by: Joshua Holland
Personally, I am sick
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Jan 19, 2009 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to death of conservatives and their fear of everything progressive and new. I am sick of living in a conservative society with people who have been conned into believing that "conservatism" is wholesome and good and "liberalism" is evil and crazy. Personally, I think it is the other way around. I do not fear science, but I am afraid of religious freaks running the world. I do not fear an empowered woman, yet I avoid anyone who wants to stifle that empowerment. I could go on and on.

Granny made a new video and posted it on you tube. She flushed George and Dick down the toilet (unfortunately it was only a digital trick) and had ominous warnings for Mr. Obama. Go watch it, make a comment and pass it on!

Granny's crazy videos = Go get a chuckle!

Luv,
Granny

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Personally, I am sick Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» RE: Personally, I am sick Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» RE: Personally, I am sick Posted by: pelican beak
exoevolution
Posted by: exoevolution on Jan 19, 2009 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives & Progressives have very different North Stars.

Conservatives want to conserve "their" power.

Progressives want to progress "our" power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: exoevolution Posted by: Blink
Fake
Posted by: willymack on Jan 19, 2009 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lesee, we had a fake prezdint (remember the fake elections in 00 & 04?) and a fake "administration", ruling over a fake "republic", wherein the "decider" ruled by decree and signing statements, for eight nightmarish years. We got suckered into not one, but TWO fake wars, for fake reasons. We have a fake 911 commission report, which is an insult to anyone with half a brain. We had a fake mission of mercy in New Orleans, designed to oust poor blacks and "gentrify" their former neighborhoods. We have a fake "war on drugs", a fake "no child left behind" school scam, a fake "health care system", a fake EPA, a fake "patriot" act, a fake "homeland security department", and a fake arch-villian by the name of bin Laden to personify fake threats to our people. Bin Laden is probably dead by now, but he's still useful when brought back from the dead through fake recorded messages. In short, everything for the past eight years has been FAKE, and has resulted in weakening our nation to the point of faliure and disolution. I hope the incoming administration can pull us out of the fire, and we can again experience Reality in the form of honesty, morality, and good government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Volunteerism
Posted by: pelican beak on Jan 19, 2009 3:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re: "Times are changing. No longer will we be laying back watching football games while drinking beer or smoking dope. This is the age of volunteerism."

Drinking beer and smoking dope go well with volunteerism, also.
------------------
There are better ways to volunteer than going door-to-door asking if toilets or stoves need cleaning. If anybody knocks on my door asking to clean my toilet, I'll presume they're already high on something, or looking to scope out my house for a later robbery. If I choose to let them in (a big IF), and they actually do it, and seem sincere, I'll happily share my stash with them. But I'd also be curious what they were on when that idea seemed like a good one to them.

I live in the boonies where people have chosen to live so they won't be bothered by others. Most of my neighbors (there are only 2 within a quarter mile) would annoyed if I did what you suggest. But I appreciate the direction you're pointing toward. The key is finding those who actually need something, without bothering those who don't. There are better ways than randomly going door-to-door.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Volunteerism
Posted by: Blink on Jan 19, 2009 4:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I can see THAT happening...NOT.

Liberals are the stingiest people in the world when it comes to voluntary givinh (note the Obamas giving only ~2% of their income to charity, in contrast to the Bushes, who routinely give much much more). In contrast, it is conservatives who volunteer more, donate more of their time and money, etc., to charitable causes, including assistance to the poor. You guys just want to confiscate enough taxes from everyone so nobody has to lift a finger on their own -- we can just pay some gov'mint agency to do our charity work for us.

If you come knocking on my door like some proselytizing do-gooder, you'll think twice about doing it again, you liberal religious wing-nuts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Volunteerism Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Volunteerism Posted by: Blink
» RE: Volunteerism Posted by: Quannah
A few thoughts this article provoked
Posted by: pelican beak on Jan 19, 2009 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding repug fear-mongering -

Fear of global warming is a progressive position that many repugs won't accept. On this issue, they are the ones who resist acknowledging a danger. Perhaps some better political understanding how to best deal with their fear-mongering can be found by studying their tactics on this issue.

The repugs own the ultimate defense against fear-mongering, in the form of Xtian nihilism, which actually welcomes the prospect of the end of the world. This is the ultimate trump card against fear-mongering - supporting the force which would destroy the Earth. They've got the popular fairy tale that somehow the end of the world is a good thing.
----------------
Reacting to unfamiliar threats with unreasoning fear is a reptilian response. Reacting to them with determination to understand and solve is a primate response. Which is functional and which is dysfunctional, for the problems we face?
-----------------
W. stated that Muslim terrorists hate us for our freedom. That statement has always struck me as an apt characterization of W's outlook. I'd suggest that conservatives hate progressives for their freedom. I'd suggest that Xtians whose lives are grimly shackled to the "do-bees" and "don't-bees" of their scripture hate secularists who reject that scripture, for their freedom. Homophobic Xtians hate the gays because of their freedom. Etc.

I first noted with Reagan an effective smokescreen they've long used to their advantage, which is this - Whenever the repugs are doing something dishonest or unconstitutional, they find some pretext to scream long and hard about how the Dems are doing that thing. If it's a bogus pretext, all the better, because everybody gets their panties in a wad unraveling its bogusness, which is one step further away from realizing the repugs are the ones actually doing it.
------------------
In the meantime everyone, enjoy this glorious week when the wretched bushco has to leave the premises!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: effective smokescreen Posted by: kogwonton
Hope??? Deocracy???
Posted by: wormfarmer on Jan 19, 2009 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the election of a bi-racial president signifies change, look who he has decided to
surround and align himself with. The deceit faced by the population of this country in
regard to hope, change, the election of a bi-racial president, is reflected in the choices of the new administration. I see no change in anything but personnel, and we've been there.
The power of domination and control is evident in the substance of "Brand Obama", his
corporate voting record, (F.I.S.A., bailout, retroactive pardoning for the telecommunications industry, continued involvements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan AND Iraq), and there is more to come. So much for democracy, Baa, Baa, for now.
We should have either voted Nader into office, or had open Revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The American people are hoping Posted by: truthlover
RE: Gabriel Blows
Posted by: chance garden on Jan 19, 2009 7:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess before the Age of Work "Volunteerism" was not called that...it was what humans DID to live their lives and survive...

...the extent to which we require government agencies to mandate our lives, or in the case of gaza, to suffer the circumscription our existence, to that extent we ARE slaves...

...You're right, volunteering shall be a force in the future, because political organizations that attempt to do same have not for the most part worked out that well...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Success of our nation depends on losing, Republican frame of mind.
Posted by: yale on Jan 19, 2009 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fear isn't the only engine that drives the rightwing machine. They also promote the self centered, take everything you can grab, each man for himself attitude. This poison frame of mind that Repubs seem to cherish has done a lot of damage to our society. Until we exterminate the source, reaching the fruits of a progressive revolution will involve a lot of hoop jumping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EVERYTHING must be investigated
Posted by: metamind on Jan 19, 2009 7:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats have used lots of excuses to explain why they have failed to properly investigate many crimes ... including 9-11. Those excuses run out tomorrow. There is NOTHING that the Congress cannot investigate and EVERYTHING that is should.

It's the truth that sets us free from the illusion. Set the truth free and it will set us free. Nothing is beyhond the reach of Congress or the President. All documents and individuals in government can be brought before the people.

If the Democrats refuse to do their duty and give us an open, honest and fair form of government then it's time for an Article V Convention. It's time to re-write the Constitution.

There is time to investigate or else there is time to end the American experiment in democracy. Take your pick.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PEOPLE NEED SAFETY NETS HERE JUST LIKE THEY HAVE IN 65 NATIONS
Posted by: cori on Jan 19, 2009 9:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not about being progressive, this is about our people feeling that they have security and that the economic rug cannot be pulled out from under them at any moment. A society cannot prosper unless they have jobs, job security, access to health care, affrodable medication, college and housing. All other developed nations provide much of this to their people. Now there is no place to invest your money and people do not want to spend when they don't know if they will lose their job or home tomorrow or if they get sick. People are holding on to their money because this nation barely offers the public support at all while the bank coffers are bulging. We have no trouble spending 2 billion per day on Iraq and ten's of billions more to the military. We pay for the biggest prison system on the planet and give away billions to drug and health insurance companies . We need to demand the same safety nets thatpeople in Europe enjoy. banks have been given billions and we are still suffering. Obama should learn from Europe. We deserve safety nets and with enough pressure we can get them. Tax cuts won't do it. Building roads and bridges won't do it. We are in a DEPRESSION folks - it was on the news. So lets let Obama know we won't settle for half a loaf while the banks get the whole bakery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disturbing "?Accident?"
Posted by: Lilly on Jan 19, 2009 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tonight Rachel Maddow said that when HBO exercised its exclusive right to record yesterday's Inauguration kickoff ceremonies at the Lincoln Memorial, it began taping AFTER Bishop Gene Robinson had given his invocation. When confronted today, HBO said this was done at the request of Obama's people. When THEY were confronted they said Oooops, so sorry, it was all an accident. I don't buy this. It sounds like a so-called tactful way to avoid controversy in a tape that will be shown in theaters. Obama has been throwing an awful lot of bones to conservatives. We are watching him now, maybe with a new note of caution mixed in with our support of him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Disturbing "?Accident?" Posted by: freelyb
Rush should look in the mirror
Posted by: sicntired on Jan 19, 2009 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then he might say that conservatism is just a way for fat ex junkies to make money so they can buy women.Limbaugh ,like all the right wing radio jocks spout fear and ignorance and never admit mistakes even when the evidence is right in front of them.Anne Coulter is the classic example of this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Never Said he was a Progressive
Posted by: EncinoM on Jan 20, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He never hide his record, those that voted for him, because they believed he was a progressive were mistaken.

That said, Obama's records is one of a liberal moderate. But the Nadarites and McKinney freaks, on this board rather whine and moan and spit in the face of history. Their goal seems to be to exile themselves by their actions. I guess it si easy to whine and complain, but actually doing something, sitting across the table from someone with different opinions and listening and reaching agreements takes work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still Dont Get It
Posted by: JackieHK on Jan 20, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How ingrained this fear must be that Mr Lux is afraid to call it a Liberal Revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trying to find common ground
Posted by: pelican beak on Jan 22, 2009 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your first post to me stated, “Kucinich and Mckinney were the only real "progressive" reformers and were shut down and out of the process from the first to the last.”

I completely agree. My first choice was Kucinich. He dropped out one year ago this Saturday. At that point, it was clear the change I’d like to see wouldn’t happen this election cycle either. At that point, my support (much less enthusiastically) fell to Edwards, and then even less enthusiastically to Obama when Edwards dropped out. I don’t think our political views are all that different, PointMan. How we differ seems more about how we respond to not getting what we want in a representative democracy.

So all of your blather about how you imagine me to be, based on your complete ignorance, is nothing but absurd. When you wrote, “What is sad and comedic is status quo clowns like “Pelican Beak” that offer mindless garbage as Obama hope at a pathetic sandbox” you were simply playing in your own imaginary sandbox, pretending to know what you hadn’t the faintest clue about. The sense I get from you is that you confuse comic book characters in your head with real people.

My root interest since the 1960’s has been environmental. I believe the latest time when we could have turned our impact around with minimal societal hardship passed in the 1970’s. When Reagan/Bush I took office in 1980 and tore down Carter’s solar panels on the White House roof, and the country fell big for his “Morning in America” claptrap, I fell to the level it seems you’re at now. My EF! And third party experiences in the 1980’s left me highly skeptical that positive change from those fringes would help – there were simply too many ideological hotheads howling at the moon, which you remind me of. Then Clinton added his layers of wrong direction, and then W. started driving us in the wrong direction as fast as he could.

My sense is that the time to change without a serious crash has already long passed and humanity now is simply running out the string to ecoblivion – no leadership can avoid it. I’ve tried seeking both avenues – to get the Democratic Party to represent my values, and then to get third parties to have a fighter’s chance of succeeding, and both attempts reached dead ends.

Of the two of us, PointMan, you’re the one still nourishing pathetic hope that your White Knight will come along and save us. “Oh please, Cynthia McKinney! Come and save us!” Sorry to pop your bubble, boy, but even if she had won, we’d maybe hit the wall at 90 mph instead of 200. That’s nothing we should be happy about. The die is already cast.

I will keep signing petitions, calling my reps to tell them what I want, and participating in political forums as this, but that is simply procedural. I’m simply fighting how I think is right regardless of hope for the future. If you want to spend these next years believing in the third party tooth fairy, you go right ahead. It ain’t gonna happen in time.

When I participate in forums as this, my primary motivation is simply to learn how people think. I toss in quips and barbs at the loathsome bushco enemies, but most of my entries are to challenge people’s thinking, to see if they ARE thinking. You could have responded to me with thoughtful commentary, but you haven’t evolved to that level yet. You’re still playing childish bully games, still living in the make-believe land of YOUR hope.

So when you write things like this about me, “But of course, it's you McBama and O'Bush all the way. Yep, only the 1st and 2nd Party have what it takes to spread hope you can deceive with,” you’re simply pulling your ideas about me out of your butt. I can only presume your ideas about other things are just as naïve and ignorance-based.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement