The Left Has Lost Its Way

Good article, some Great Comments:

By ocjim, April 21 at 8:47 pm
Too Simple
It is too simplified to say that the left has lost its way. Our government operates on the system of good faith. When one of the major parties in this operates will not negotiate or operate in good faith, our whole system is hamstrung. Neo-conservatives have engaged in a scorched earth policy since they gained majority status during the Clinton years. We all should understand that they own the Republican party. And they would rather destroy all vestiges of democracy than to compromise their plutocratic ideology. In such an environment and with inattentive voters, there is no way to do the will of the people.
So to say that the left has lost its way is a narrow explanation for the paralysis of our government. When else in our history have our whole federal government been so inept, so paralyzed, and so self-absorbed. All this because the union is less important than politics and the neocon ideology.

(Personal pondering - isn't one of the basic issues not discussed to any great degree is that our vote really doesn't count? It doesn't matter if I'm democrat, republican, whatever; delegates choose for me. And trust me, they aren't representing my choice! As Cyrena states in one of her responses, we do need election reform. Because it could be construed as taxation without representation. I do not have confidence that I have one reprensentative that has the strength and integrity to truly do their job. We're not talking about moral issues here. We're talking about a constitutional legal/social system which requires equality. EVERYONE'S VOTE SHOULD COUNT! Hand's down I would have voted for Dennis Kucinich.)

By Gmonst, April 21 at 4:57 pm
cut off the nose to spite the face
Let the politicians compromise. This is their job. It is not ours. If the left wants to regain influence in the nation’s political life, it must be willing to walk away from the Democratic Party, even if Barack Obama is the nominee, and back progressive, third-party candidates until the Democrats feel enough heat to adopt our agenda. We must be willing to say no. If not, we become slaves.
Compromise is part of politics on all levels. I question the logic that voting for third party candidates and walking away from the democrats is the way for progressives to gain influence. It seems to me that this will only move progressives farther from the limelight of politics and make them less influential. The time to build a powerful third party is not on the brink of this most important election, but during the off years. Start local and work up from the bottom, winning local elections and then progressively larger until it becomes a major force. It does progressives no good to throw votes away this year and let McCain have the election. It doesn’t seem realistic to think that at this stage we can influence the candidates toward more progressive platforms, and I doubt candidates with much more progressive policy platforms could stand a chance of winning. I think the best course at this time is to get someone like Obama (who is really the most progressive realistic possibility in many years)and then keep applying consistent pressure to adopt more progressive policies. Compromising on electable candidates is not the same as compromising one’s ideals. You can choose to vote for a candidate who gives progressives a friendly ear, or you can be overly idealistic and get nothing.
As for the religious aspects of this article, I am not sure we need more religion in politics. I think the separation of church and state is fundamental to a healthy democracy. That being said, I do think that a strong current of more outspoken liberal/progressive religious thought would be a good thing. After all, most religions stem from teachings of very radical people, very different from the dominate image of a religious person. I think that the religious right have too long dominated politics with the idea that the devoutly religious cannot support progressive candidates, or hold progressive views on issues. I think that the compassionate and thoughtful side of religions need to be promoted more by open-minded, and intelligent religious people. Those sorts of people need to be more outspoken in countering the fundamental religious extremists position that they speak for all religious or spiritual people. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person, and I don’t see the leaders of the religious right as anything more than authoritarian thugs. I am very resentful that their brand of closed-minded, destructive, hateful, and hypocritical religious practice and belief has become the norm of what one thinks of as religious.

By VillageElder, April 21 at 4:51 pm
... I find it shameful that a progressive community is considering either of these candidates. I understand that we have to choose between the lesser of the poisons as a rational look at the choices presented.
Which of these candidates have indicated that the Patriot Act should be revisited? Did I miss something? I have heard no discussion about the restoration of civil and constitutional rights. Have you heard this mentioned in other forums, if so please provide a link so I may share in your enlightenment.
Have you heard any discussion of prosecution of those who have broken federal law? Statutes broken by acknowledgment or treaty by the Senate of these United States? If so please provide a link so I may share in your enlightenment.
We have heard overmuch about the need for faith and guidance by god (Yahweh and Son). I would suggest that you fully read the “Law of Moses” and the actual sayings of “Jesus the Christ”. Their views on the worthiness of the halt lame and cripple are interesting as are the comments about women being raped. (stone them with many stones). Specific quotes can be provided for those who have not studied the myths that have crippled western thought and morality for too long. Yes Maani I can quote your book at length.
Given that the majority of the american public want health care, education, & etc. why do we have dimos without the balls to stand up for this view? If I missed the two corporatist candidates taking these stances please provide the link. The health care plans represented by H & O [sic] fall far short of the desires of the american public and those enjoyed by the rest of the industrialized and some third world countries, e.g., Cuba. Remember those are godless communists and the people of the Christ, that is the Christians, are commanded to care for the poor and needy (Yahweh and Son). Yet the godless corporatists, capitalists would deny health care and life care to the poor halt and infirm in the name of the almighty god and the market.
Can you say bullshit, boys and girls?

I'm glad there were others who took some offense to the 'religious' thing. That's a cheap cop out. The 'religious' leaders have basically been lying to us for years. They demand that you believe in physically impossible (or extremely highly improbable) occurrences as historical fact, otherwise you lack or are without faith and/or will be forever forsaken if you don't believe it. Whatever.

Read the article and responses. They're good.