The Movement Will Continue No Matter How The Election Turns Out

| Strategize!

Note: Below is an announcement of a partnership between Popular Resistance and Resistance Against Plutocracy which created the ‘Bernie or Bust Campaign.’ This is not an electoral alliance but a movement building alliance. We recognize the incredible work the Bernie Sanders campaign has done to build national consensus around the issue of the unfair Wall Street dominated economy and the corruption of the US electoral system by big money interests. We also recognize that despite the national consensus on these issues an independent mass movement is essential for creating the trasnsformational change need. We hope other supporters of Sanders ‘political revolution’ recognize that a revolution does not coincide with an election but is much bigger than an election.

The people need to build a movement that is able to impact whoever is elected president, as well as congress, state legislatures and local governments. We need to unite Sanders supporters with the popular movement. We know that a Sanders campaign would have been impossible without the movement that changed the political environment and made space in elections for people like Senator Sanders, who has spoken for social movement issues his whole career. And, we know that the work the Sanders campaign has done to build national consensus and mobilize people were major advances for the social movement. There is synergy and that must continue after the election so the people can continue to build their power. KZ and MF

Announcing an Alliance between ‘Bernie or Bust’ and Popular Resistance

Some of the strongest supporters of Bernie Sanders, the Bernie or Bust Campaign organized by Resistance Against Plutocracy, are making plans to continue working toward the goals of the Sanders campaign after the election. A dialogue between Popular Resistance and Bernie or Bust began when David Lindorff published a column suggesting Sanders join with Jill Stein of the Greens in order to continue his campaign through November. We were pleased to learn that those taking the Bernie or Bust pledge grew by nearly 40,000 after they added “or vote Green” to their suggestion for how to respond to a Hillary Clinton nomination.
As individuals we support the plan for Stein and Sanders to work together. We believe that a Sanders-Stein campaign could actually win the election, but we told the brain trust of Bernie or Bust that Popular Resistance is not an electoral group but a movement building group. They expressed interest in helping to continue to build the mass movement we need to transform the country – a movement that has grown significantly since the financial collapse of 2008-09.
We hope more Sanders supporters recognize that no matter how this nomination process turns out, we need to build a mass movement that has the power to set the agenda regardless of who is the next president.
  • liberalwa

    No thanks. Stein is uninspiring and wouldn’t add anything to the ticket

  • PeterJRobbins

    I support this alliance that recognizes that systemic change will take far more than one election to affect. The positions of Dr. Stein and Sen Sanders are not far apart and collaboration would likely be mutually beneficial. To achieve the many progressive goals needed after 40 years of conservatism, the armies of activists need to work together as much as possible. This is a good step in that direction.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Kevin, if you’re going to merge movements, I would be partial to focusing the common theme on Empire — which exists both within and beyond borders, as opposed to plutocracy (or Bernie’s oligarchy) which only exists domestically within a country.

    However, your strategy of merging a unified movement focused on a central causation of all the smaller “identity issues”, and the bigger (but still subordinate) ‘symptom problems’ like; expanding wars, vast inequality, racism, economic tyranny, Wall Street looting, environmental destruction, etc., etc. is a fantastic, and long overdue concept to bring about solidarity of one meta-movement that can get better converging traction and influence.

    Great concept — and I’m sure you will do a great job in bringing things together.

    BTW, Kevin, has there been any discussion on the idea of Sanders — if he is able to win it — bringing in some of the Green Shadow Governments’ intellectual horse-power and practical experience into his Cabinet?

  • sferios

    You are clearly right that the way we win is with movement building and not elections. Perhaps it’s time the Green Party stops running presidential candidates and started demanding electoral reforms that actually give them and other third parties a chance of winning. Hoping that Bernie could bring enough people to the Green Party to win the presidency is a nice dream, but the fraud and voter suppression happening right now in the primaries is just one of many indications that even if Bernie ran with Jill, the corporate class would never allow them to win. The bottom line is we will never have fair elections until major reforms happen. Participating in such an electoral charade is demoralizing, which is why so many people simply don’t vote. I think it would be a much more successful movement-building campaign if the Greens decided NOT to run a presidential candidate, but rather linked up with Bernie and focused all their time and money to push for massive electoral reforms.

  • jemcgloin

    Actually if Sanders does not win, the two major parties well be running the most unpopular candidates in fifty years. If there was ever a chance for a third party to win that would be it.
    If Sanders loses, the movement should throw its support behind Jill Stein. She would have a tiny but real chance of winning.
    And even if Stein lost, a sizable move to the Green Party, while both major parties are fractured could move the conversation about what is possible. And nothing is more powerful than the conversation.

  • jemcgloin

    The plutocracy is the empire. It is the global billionaire class, the web of global corporations they own, including mass media, and the politicians they rent around the world. The US government with its giant military and intelligence services, is their most potent resource, but they are not bound by its national boundaries or aspirations.
    Look at the Waltons. The reach of even just Wal-Mart is truly global. They are not worried about an American Empire. They are using the US government to further their own Empire, jostling for position with the other billionaires who all own pieces of each other’s corporations and sit on each other’s boards and don’t need a conspiracy because they all make similar decisions for similar reasons.
    If there ever was an independent American Empire it was subsumed into the global corporate revolution decades ago. That revolution has nearly succeeded and we are at its tail end.
    I wish we only had to fight a national empire. That would be far easier. We are fighting a global billionaires class that rides the American “empire” wherever it wants to go, with corporate mass media as it’s reins, deciding which wars are necessary (those that pry resources from national control), and which policies unrealistic (like helping poor people).
    The oligarchy is a world oligarchy and they are winning.
    Anyone who is fighting them is probably on our side.
    (Except if they want you to commit violence they probably work for the FBI.)
    Viva la Evolution

  • kevinzeese

    I would not call this a merger — that goes further than either of us of want to go. Both groups will remain independent of each other and have an alliance where we will work on common areas of agreement. We hope other people who support the Sanders campaign will see that to put his agenda in place — and a broader agenda of ending US militarism and Empire, will also see the value of getting involved in the popular movement.

  • kevinzeese

    This is not about elections. Popular Resistance does not get involved in elections. This is about movement building because no matter who is in office it will require a peoples movement to ensure our agenda is put into place.

  • kevinzeese

    Maybe you should form a political party, run no candidates and see whether your idea or election reform is feasible taking that approach. I don’t think it is, but you can show me I’m wrong.

    Political parties purpose is to run political candidates. Other advocacy groups form for election reform. Many are trying to reform US elections, including us. There is some progress but not all that much. So, accomplishing the goals you suggest would be great, but it is not an easy task. Why would the two parties reverse themselves and allow real democratic reforms that allow third parties to challenge them?

    We need to figure out ways to build political power and that takes both advocacy groups for real democracy and political parties showing that those issues have electoral impact. I don’t see them as working against each other but rather working with each other.

  • sferios

    Just to be clear, my suggestion is that third parties refuse to run *presidential* candidates, not that they stop participating in all elections. Third parties have had success in local and state elections, and it’s important to continue that. But when it comes to the presidential race, people are demoralized and feel hopeless. They know it is rigged. This is especially true right now, as the current primaries are revealing it to everyone. When this is the case, it seems like a no-brainer to me that third parties should stop participating. This is what opposition parties do in other countries, after all, when elections are rigged. Right? I think if the Green Party were to do this, they would strike a chord with the people, and they’d see their membership grow a lot.

    And I’m not being some idealistic anarchist here. I’m not in my twenties anymore quoting Emma Goldman: “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” I believe that parties need to participate in elections. I just don’t think they should do it when those elections are rigged. It is demoralizing.

    Lastly, I apologize if my suggestion is offensive. I realize a lot of people are putting a lot of time into Jill’s campaign, and of course I back her positions on everything. My comments are not meant to disparage the work so many Greens are doing. I’ve voted Green many times and I have never once voted for a Democrat or a Republican. At the same time, I have never voted for a Presidential candidate in my life, even a Green candidate, because it always felt ridiculous to me when there was zero chance for them to win. I am sure I’m not alone.

  • jemcgloin

    As long as everyone, especially their supporters, decide ahead of time that they can’t win, third party candidates will never win. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Between the people that vote for the lesser evil and the people that refuse to vote for a “loser” we have enough people to save the world, but not enough balls.
    Even when third party candidates don’t win they can change policy by changing the conversation and how people understand the issues.

  • kevinzeese

    So, in 1840s and 50s would you have not voted for the abolition of slavery candidate because he could not win? Running and losing presidential races by third party candidates seems to be one of the ingredients to winning issues being urged by movements. Those 20 years of losing abolition campaigns helped to weaken the Democrats and destroy the Republicans as well as elect abolitionists to Congress who pushed the debate that was off the table onto the table.

    I could make the same point about women getting the right to vote, unions getting the right to organize, workers getting an 8 hour day and child labor being stopped. Even the New Deal came out of the losing campaigns of the Socialist and Progressive parties. Movements have won because of presidential candidate in third parties who lost. The goal is to advance issues, not necessarily to win elections.

    And, there is synergy between local and presidential candidates in third parties. The greatest growth of the Greens was Nader 2000. If there were a Sanders-Stein ticket this year, I bet the growth would be even bigger. I know it would change the dynamic in Margaret’s US Senate race as well as in Baltimore’s mayoral race. I am sure this would be true across the country. Greens are more likely to win with a strong presidential candidate, especially a viable one like Sanders-Stein.

    How much do third party presidential candidates need to win to help their party and push their issues forward? It merely needs to be enough to scare one of the two parties into seeing that the Greens can impact the outcome of the race. Most presidential races are less than a 5% spread, indeed a win over 5% is considered a landslide. So, if the Greens win 5% that could impact the outcome of the election.That is enough to pull the Democratic Party in our direction and force them to adopt some of our issues. That is how major change has happened.

    Could Sanders-Stein win? This year could be a perfect storm for such a win. It is the first time ever that we know of in US history where independents make up the largest number of US voters — polls are between 45% and 50% being independents. The Republicans are down to about 21% and that was before this horrible primary; Dems are at about 29% but may have grown slightly because of Sanders. Both parties are likely to nominate unpopular candidates with very high negatives. And, both parties are divided among themselves.

    And, Sanders has had the best insurgent campaign since the Dems put in place their rigged primary system in 1982. He has very high popularity ratings, has built a strong national organization of enthusiastic volunteers and a solid fundraising base. Sanders-Stein could meet the requirement of the phony National Corporation (they say Commission, but that is a disguise) on Presidential Debates. They would get in the debates and reach 60 million voters in one night. And, a three-way race is very unpredictable.

    I’m not saying they would win, but they would be viable and taken seriously by voters.

    I recommend you vote for president even if you think a third party cannot win because showing electoral support even without winning helps to build the independent mass movement we need to build people power against the corporate state.

    All that being said, I don’t think Sanders is likely to run third party. He is too tied to the Democrats and too afraid of being ostracized and isolate in the senate if he does so. But, it is worth trying to push him because perhaps after this primary he sees he is capable of winning a national election and he may be able to see there is a path to victory.

  • rgaura

    The articulation of a narrative for a future that respects nature and people, that restores health to ecosystems and all life, its happening. We are all part of it. This is such an amazing time to be alive. Our narrative must articulate justice above all, a very neglected word and concept in the corporate propaganda of the last 3 decades. This year will be a year of wild cards and upsets, lets keep our eyes on the best possible outcome, and choose a future worth living. Keep our love alive, and live your highest dream. May it be so!

  • Aquifer

    Sorry, disagree – from my perspective, Sanders is “uninspiring” – a series of slogans “Down with the billionaires!” seems to about cover it. He makes no connection between the various systemic problems we have – economy/environment, environment/FP, FP/economy – fails to square the circle, or perhaps more to the point, circle the square … “it’s the vision thing” he lacks and “without a vision, the people perish” as they say … Stein puts it all together – sorry if you find that “uninspiring”. Don’t confuse style with substance …

  • Aquifer

    Sorry, what are you a “mod” of, this site?

  • Aquifer

    It will be interesting to see how many disappointed Sanders supporters vote Stein in the election – If Clinton gets it, I have seen comments to the effect they might vote Trump, to stick it to Hillary, or they won’t vote at all, or, as with this B or B “movement”, write in Sanders ….

    Frankly i think it naive to think the B or B folks will support Stein – or, to the extent they do so, only out of protest, or as an anemic Plan B – the next time the D’s pull out another “charismatic” candidate to carry their flag, and they routinely find one (Warren next time? if Clinton wins the election they will wait 8 years) , these folks will hop on board and we will see ’08, ’16, redux with another “revolutionary” candidate – in between it will be pretty much business as usual …

    Have been trying for quite some time now (years, in fact) to have a “conversation about what is possible” – the only useful thing i see coming out of the Sanders campaign is that folks have demonstrated they could turn a “can’t win” candidate into a “can win” one and adequately fund his campaign by the simple mechanism of choosing to support him – the fact that that should be obvious, hasn’t been – now i would hope that it is, but only if we bring it home that if it can be done for Sanders, it can be done for any candidate, and then, maybe, just maybe, our conversations could be around who is the best candidate with the best platform instead of who “has the best chance” – because, with any luck, it will have dawned on us that who has the best chance is the one we give it to – it is not about chance, but about choice …

    Hope springs eternal ….. 🙂

  • Aquifer

    So you wouldn’t vote for Sanders if he got the DP nomination? Hey, neither would I. but i learned a long time ago that it is not enough to just say NO to something, you have to say YES to something else – I say Yes to Stein – any candidate on a ballot can win if enough folks support ’em …

  • Aquifer

    Frankly, i would quite prefer, if that is the duo, to see Stein/Sanders – the VP has to back up the Pres. and frankly, there are things about Sanders i would not want to see Stein “back up” – look what happened to “Earth in the Balance” Gore when he was Clinton’s VP, 8 years of muzzling on what was, theretofore, his “signature” issue …..

    Sanders has made it rather clear he does not want to be a “spoiler” – meaning a “spoiler” for the DP, which is what he would be cast as as a 3rd party – he is not inclined to point out that the DP has been one of the “spoilers” of just about everything else in our lives, and it is time, past time, to “spoil” it for them and the RP – and unless you are in that mode, you ain’t gonna buck the “system” ….

    He has been an IINO for decades – Obama and Schumer backed his Sen, candidacy, for Pete’s sake, and he has opposed any indy, e.g, Nader, who had the temerity to challenge a Dem, even a crummy one … So i don’t buy this whole, “he ran as Dem only for ‘pragmatic’ purposes” routine – he ran as a Dem because he is one, albeit an “insurgent” one – but even insurgents, like Kucinich, whose (former) prog cred, iMO, makes Sanders look like a piker, demonstrated that, when push comes to shove, it is party over principle, and what happened to K, in any case, was, I am sure a lesson not lost on Sanders, nor Grayson, nor Warren, etc. – when you sign up with the DP, depend on it for your political fortunes, as Sanders has, as Ivins would say, ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya …

    So I don’t think that such an “alliance” with a “movement” whose primary focus has been to get a particular D in office will prove very fruitful, unless that alliance is willing to switch its focus – and that I doubt … Where did disaffected O supporters go …

  • Aquifer

    “As long as everyone, especially their supporters, decide ahead of time
    that they can’t win, third party candidates will never win. Its a self
    fulfilling prophecy.”

    Bingo! – it’s time, past time, IMO, for folks to stop thinking about Greens, e.g. as Plan B and start working for them as Plan A ….. 🙂

    ” …we have enough people to save the world, but not enough balls.”

    Good one! Another, rather more graphic, way of describing the “politics of fear” that we persist in practicing …. 🙂

  • Aquifer

    Why talk about bringing the GSC to Sanders – if that is what you want, why not elect the lady who put it together?

  • DHFabian

    There’s that elephant in the living room that liberals have spent the last quarter-century trying to ignore. The proverbial masses — poor and middle class, workers and the jobless — have been deeply divided and effectively pitted against each other. The US has been shipping out jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s, and liberals have pretended that there are no consequences.

    This isn’t the first time in our history that the richest few were able to essentially take control of the government/nation, to everyone’s harm. Each time in the past, the proverbial masses, poor and middle class, ultimately united to successfully push back. This time, we welcome the poor to “stand in solidarity” to save the middle class — just don’t expect a crumb to trickle down. Without a mass movement, a show of unity and force, nothing is going to change. By now, how can we even find a way to pull the “masses” back together?

  • DHFabian

    We would need an agenda to form a movement that is large enough to be heard in Congress. Liberals/Democrats spent another eight years promoting an agenda that has left us more deeply divided by class, middle class vs. the poor. Revolutions (in any sense) have historically been sparked by despair. The hopelessness of today’s poor is the result of an agenda supported by the middle class, from Reagan’s deregulation mania to B. Clinton ending actual welfare. The richest few sit back, sip their cognacs, and smile.

  • DHFabian

    If the nomination is handed to Clinton, I think most of us are writing in Sen. Sanders’ name. I strongly support Jill Stein’s agenda, but the fact remains that few even know what that agenda is. Tragically, we have lack of alternative media in the US serving to “ensure an informed public” (which is, historically, the purpose of news media — apparently long-forgotten).

  • DHFabian

    Clinton and Trump have strikingly similar agendas. No, no progressives would vote for Trump. I would expect a repeat of Gore vs. Bush. Think back: Clinton/Gore targeted the poor and took the first steps to similarly end Social Security. They hit us with NAFTA, increasing job losses while simultaneously increasing the number of people who are absolutely desperate for any job at any wage. When it came to Gore vs. Bush, the poor (and those who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the economy) voted third party or withheld their votes, and the middle class picked Bush. Twice.

  • DHFabian

    Setting aside lofty ideals, most voting choices come down to economic issues.We remain in the midst of a hell of a class war, middle class vs. the poor. Over the last eight years, the Dem voting base — poor and middle class, workers and the jobless — has only been more deeply divided. There has consistently been talk about party strategy. Most people’s votes are determined by policies. What policies are people supporting? What’s the agenda? What’s the goal?

  • DHFabian

    What popular movement? The middle class one? That’s only popular among the middle class, and the middle class is less than 50% of the population. The poor and middle class have profoundly different perspectives, therefore different priorities.

  • DHFabian

    The catch is that so few people actually took time to learn about Stein’s, or the Green Party’s, agenda.

    Sanders’ agenda absolutely doesn’t lack vision! What is missing is media coverage of that agenda. Most of the liberal media disappeared Joe Biden by early 2015, and began trying to sell Clinton (incredibly) as a “bold progressive” by mid-2015. They tried for as long as they could to ignore Sen. Sanders.

  • DHFabian

    That’s the point: A movement for whom, and for what? All that stuff about “the 99%” is just weird under our circumstances. Now, it’s evident that our middle class so strongly believe in the success of our deregulated capitalism that they think everyone is able to work, there are jobs for all, therefore no need for poverty relief. With this as their concept of current conditions, just what are they going to push back against, or work to build?

    There can be no movement unless the proverbial masses — poor and middle class, workers and the jobless — unite, develop a common vision of where this country should/could be, and DEMAND that Congress listen.

  • Margaret Flowers

    DHFabian is certainly not a moderator. We are starting to grow weary of him.

  • Margaret Flowers

    The Democrats who voted for Bush instead of Gore in Florida cost him that state, coupled with the fact that Gore ran a lousy campaign and couldn’t win his own state of AL or Clinton’s state. The myth of the spoiler goes on and causes people to vote against their interests by supporting the Big Money parties. I wish that Nader had actually spoiled the 2000 election and that it had been embraced – that is where the power is.

  • Margaret Flowers

    What does writing in Sanders’ name accomplish? Nothing. What a waste – a self-fulfilling prophecy: third parties can’t win so I won’t vote for them. The Bernie or Bust people understand that and are urging people to vote for Stein.

  • Margaret Flowers

    I think that “Stein is uninspiring” is one of the Democratic Party talking points. I see it in other places. Sad that is the best they could come up with.

  • Margaret Flowers

    What are you doing to make that happen?

  • Aquifer

    Well now that there are getting to be more poor everyday – maybe by Nov, if we can convince them to vote 3rd party again, we could win! 🙂

  • Aquifer

    Thank you! We have to be quite prepared to “spoil” the electoral chances of a duopoly that has spoiled just about everything else ….

  • Aquifer

    Well golly gee – if you are supporting her agenda, then are you spreading the word about it so that there are more than a “few” who know? are you promoting her in your contacts or promoting including her in fora where more than a few can see/her or folks like Flowers – do you know what happened to Flowers recently when she tried to participate in a debate? Are you talking about that? Have you signed and spread these:

  • Aquifer

    Really? You think, e.g. that Biden had a coherent “vision” and that’s why he wasn’t covered?

    Sorry, Sanders “vision” is of the DP maintaining hegemony – do you think he won’t support Clinton if she wins? What kind of “vision” is that?

    Sanders has gotten a lot more coverage than Stein or Flowers, even on so-called “prog sites” or from so-called “prog” organizations – you want “media” coverage, a good place to start is with “prog” media ….

    The “media” has been covering Sanders from the get go – just not in the way you would like … don’t buy that “no media” for Sanders bit …

  • Aquifer

    And that’s what Stein, Flowers and others are working for ….. And not only “demanding” that our schmucky Congress critters, and WH listen, but working to replace them with those that do, have been, and will ..

  • Aquifer

    Actually i think it is rather telling that it is the best they can do … 🙂

  • Aquifer

    You gotta get your head out of the sand – look around, the popular movements for jobs, the environment, social justice, all of which are of vital concern to those poor you champion – all of which need to come together and form a united political front …. that’s what GP candidates like Stein and Flowers propose …

  • Aquifer

    The policies which “people” are you referring to? The poor? You claim to have your ear attuned to them – so what policies are they supporting?

  • Aquifer

    Actually, i think sferios is the one with “mod” attached to his/her moniker …

  • dumbrepubs

    ” Revolutions (in any sense) have historically been sparked by despair. ” Good enough reason to put a republican in for the next 8 years and when that despair rises to the critical level it will happen. That’s when the clintonistas will come over to the light. But they have to hurt first and I’m more than willing to put the screws to them.

  • Aquifer

    Naw, there is never a “good reason” to put another D/R in office …

  • Aquifer

    That would be great if that is what they are doing – but, from my understanding what they are doing is pushing a write-in for Sanders wherever possible, and only voting Green where it is not … nowhere good enough for me …

  • dumbrepubs

    Glad you recognize that.

  • Aquifer

    And no matter how big the movement, if it doesn’t put decent folks in office, or provide a credible threat to do so – you will still get stuff like the TPP put on the table, promoted and quite possibly passed …

  • Margaret Flowers

    They were initially pushing a write in, but they realize that it is more constructive to vote for Stein instead. We are focused on using the momentum to continue building a mass movement for social transformation.

  • Aquifer

    Ah, i gotta keep up 🙂 – the interview i saw on Redacted Tonight with one of the founders last week, I think, gave me the distinct impression that the write-in was the first choice … if they have scrubbed that, so much the better …

    Personally i am still more for making you “guys” Plan A – hope that comes soon … 🙂

  • jpskyrud

    Thank you Kevin and Margaret for all you are doing. You are like a bright light on the horizon. If Bernie doesn’t pull it off in the primaries, maybe rather than joining Jill on her ticket, he could keep the movement going and throw it behind her candidacy. She has it all together. I voted for her last time and will vote for her this time, no matter who else is running.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Yes, Fabian, the goal is to get the poor, working poor, working middle-class, and the professional middle-class united in understanding that they are all getting effed and treated like ‘subjects’ by the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire that only works for the sociopathic ruling-elite < 0.1% .

    And the policy from that goal is the expose and then non-violently eff the EMPIRE.

    One meta-issue and one 'litmus test' to be anti-Empire vs. the shirking slime pro-Empire rulers, deceiving crooks, and exploiters.

  • Richard Olson

    If a Republican is sworn in as President in ’17, the people who vote for him are most unlikely to vote against Senate/House (R) candidates down ballot. Meaning Republicans will control both the Presidency and the Congress for a minimum of two years.

    A Bob Jones/Liberty University/Tea Party-type legal beagle will be appointed no later than the end of Febrary to return the Supreme Court to a far right majority. A slew of lower federal bench vacancies, scores if not a hundred or more, will be filled with clones of the Supreme before any potential ’18 voter backlash arrives to stem this tide — and can we bet on this “come”, to put it in gambler parlance? Two years of this type of appointment, minimum, results in decades of backward decisions which shape policy for generations, no matter how progressive succeeding policy makers.

    Other appointments? The Ambassador to Iran will be issuing threats and perhaps soon returning to the States, shortly before America strikes militarily. The Ambassador to Russia will be tasked with conveying hostile belligerence. Israel will be “incentivized” to continue belligerence toward Palestinians and Arabs iaw Biblical nihilistic eschatological yearning. The US seat at the UN may be filled by a different day labor hire each rare occasion our government deigns to fill it.

    TPP? Done. Consumer Protection Bureau? In the same trash bin as the EPA, Dept of Ed, FDA, ACA, Medicare/Aid, and a whole bunch more — the entire 20th century of gov’t for all accomplishments are on the conservative deconstruction list, and much if not all can and will be disappeared in a couple of years. And it will take a decade minimum before a sufficient number of people actually realize, through personal experience, the enormity of what they have lost, to maybe summon the will to pursue getting it back.

    Realistic climate change policy? Hardy-har-har. Same goes for green energy, agriculture, all things re sustainability. The opposite, in fact? You bet your boots. Will these problems take a time-out while we lose this round, and also hold off until things get so shitty an uprising at long last swells up, and takes the reins from the 0.01% and their well paid ten million protector minions. No. And no.

    We are dealing with a population that politely handed back (when asked to by ALEC and Americans for Prosperity in Right to Work [sic] state legislative proposals) worker’s power attained by half a century of labor movement incarceration/beatings/killings. Who voted for Bernie in Wisconsin, and often on the same ballot put their big X next to the name of an ideologically doctrinely pure as well as perhaps least competent state Supreme Court candidate ever up for election, one opposed by an enormously qualified and experience jurist with a proven record of objective rulings from a lower court position. A profoundly ignorant population which thinks the only significant position in American government is the Presidency.

    I can vote for Jill Stein in my bright red state, and so can every one else who would never vote for anyone with an (R) behind their name, at least for President, because as long as (until the outmoded pos is finally abondoned) the Electoral College disqualifies our votes, it makes no difference whom we vote for. This is not the case in tightly contested swing states.

    I would rather the US had a system where the Green Party presented a slate full of candidates local/state/federal in all 50, and the playing field for every party is level. But that isn’t the case.

  • AlanMacDonald

    That could work. But it might more likely lead to a majority vote if Bernie supporters would shift over to the only candidate who has come out foursquare in her (and her party’s support against the Empire), as Jill already has in her “Power to the People Plan”:

    “Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and
    human rights. End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by
    at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning
    our republic into a bankrupt EMPIRE.” [Caps added]

  • Jon

    You apparently are not aware that Greens have been involved with electoral reform VIGOROUSLY for many years, and ranked voting in particular! Please pay attention. Running for president gives Greens a platform that otherwise would not be heard, and helps build ballot access. Further, Greens have been running for local offices and winning some, including mayorships and city councilors. We usually have some200-300 elected people at any given time.

  • Jon

    Sanders supporters need to tell Bernie: Which side are you on A. The side of the people to whom you preached “political revolution” or B. the Democratic (sic) Party? If the latter, are you really a phony after all?

  • Jon

    In order to have that occur, millions of people need to abandon the Demagogues and Repugnants, and those who can afford to run could then do so with real support. We need that avalanche.

  • Jon

    FRACK the empire! On with the REVEL-ution!

  • Jon

    So, Is Hillary inspiring???!!!

  • Aquifer

    Well yeah ….

  • AlanMacDonald

    The term ‘oligarchs’ carries the strong message that these individuals are separate, distinct, and somewhat competing individuals — whereas the far more correct term ‘Empire’ fully and very accurately carries the truth that all of the tiny sociopathic 1% ruling-elite are working in concert against ‘we the people’.

    Secondly, the distractive and erroneous term, ‘oligarchy’ (which it was strongly to Bernie Samders’ disadvantage in his campaign to use) actually only applies to a political disease within one country — where as again the far more correct term ‘Empire’ much more accurately carries the full truth that the entire global ruling-elite of the world are conspiring in concert to operate a Disguised Global Capitalist Empire to enslave as mere ‘subjects’ the 99% of we citizens of our world.

    Hopefully, before his brave and well intended, but vaguely stated, “Political Revolution” collapses, Bernie can properly diagnose, educate, ‘expose’, and energize the people that what is required to ignite a real and coherently framed revolution is for him to fire a non-violent “Shout heard round the world” to ignite an essential Second American “Political Revolution against EMPIRE” — which is a full, complete, and action sentence, with an ‘object’ (the object being to confront this Empire).

    As Zygmunt Bauman hauntingly puts it, “In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis…is a crucial, perhaps decisive, part of the disease.”13
    Berman, Morris 2007 “Dark Ages America, The Final Phase of Empire”

    The correct diagnosis of the disease is Disguised Global Capitalist Empire throughout our world — not just economic oligarchy or plutocracy in our former country.

    Americans need to understand, “it’s not just about you”.

  • AlanMacDonald

    YES, Kevin.

    As I noted to sferios above, Bernie was just test driving the strategy that “Occupy” built around the issue of economic tyranny at home, and what your October11 DC anti-Empire movement (and the much older 60’s anti-imperialist-war movement) had already proven.

    Combining an anti-capitalist economic-tyranny “Occupy” Rel 2.0 movement “at home” with a robust anti-war & anti-Empire movement globally, would give the Green light to the Green Party’s already sound policies — and leverage Bernie’s explosive impact with or without him.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Plutocracy and oligarchy are only diseases withIN a country.

    What you call “world oligarchy” is Empire plain and simple.

    Empire is the disease that shows itself through the symptom problems of “Empire abroad entails tyranny at home” H. Arendt.

    You may well have your own panties in a twist, but don’t expect others to change from the rational definition of Empire as the correct diagnosis of the disease metastasizing from the tumor merely HQed here.

    It’s a global Empire — specifically the first truly global Empire, and first seriously disguised Empire with dual Vichy parties of faux-democracy.

    The only correct diagnosis doctor for this unique 21st century form of global Empire is as a Disguised Global Capitalist Empire — the cancer is not just a lump, it’s called cancer. Let’s be accurate, doctor, in this House.

  • sferios

    Hi Aquifer,

    I would vote for Sanders if he got the DP nomination. Mostly this is because I promised my wife, who has been so inspired by him.

    But it is worth pointing out what my wife is really inspired by, and I would not say it is Bernie Sanders. I think what she is really inspired by is the “potential” she sees in his Presidential run. (The last time she was so politically engaged was during Occupy.) It’s the potential for change that is so inspiring to so many people about what Sanders is doing.

    And so I think we have to ask ourselves… why has Jill Stein and the Green Party not inspired people in the same way? Jill is actually *better* than Bernie on many issues. Yet we simply do not see millions of people rallying Green. Why not? I think if we are honest with ourselves we have to admit this is because, as a third party, the Greens do not offer *potential.” The two-party duopoly has shut out third parties in systematic ways, and the masses (correctly) understand that there is no chance third parties can win.

    I know this is depressing, but it’s something we need to admit. If we don’t admit this, then we end up judging and blaming the very masses we are trying to organize. Take your statement here, for example:

    “any candidate on a ballot can win if enough folks support ’em …”

    This is only true in hypothetical sense. It is not true in reality. And believing that the reason third parties get such little support is simply because “not enough folks” join up, is fundamentally flawed. There are structural reasons why third parties cannot gain this support. This is why it was the right decision for Bernie to run as a Democrat. He knew that running Green would have no effect. He would have been ignored as much as Jill is ignored.

    Early on Nader and Hedges and others tried to talk him out of running as a Democrat, believing he would only funnel people into the DP. Now at least Ralph has changed his mind about that, and sees that it was, in the end, the right decision. No campaign has drawn as much attention to the corruption of the Democratic Party establishment as his campaign. The only question now is what Bernie is going to do when the nomination is given to Hillary.

    I see that Greens want him to run with Jill. Is this the best strategy? Will it result in a weakening of the two-party duopoly? I have always supported grassroots movements of protest and civil disobedience before electoral politics. To be honest, I would rather see Bernie refuse to endorse Hillary and take his movement outside of electoral politics completely, or at least PRESIDENTIAL electoral politics. In fact I would like to see the Green Party stop participation in presidential electoral politics. I think it only alienates people because everybody knows third parties cannot win presidential elections.

    I understand this position of mine angers a lot of people, but I would simply reiterate that if it angers you, it does so because you believe that the only hurdle to the growth of the Green Party is individual apathy and unwillingness to “join the party. And I think this fundamentally misunderstands the structural elements, elements that are obvious to the majority of progressives in this country.

    I founded Occucards. I wrote the text on all the cards. Here’s my card on the two-party duopoly where I lay out some of these structural elements. I think that unless and until we remove these (unless and until we stop the rigging of elections), it makes no sense for third parties to run presidential candidates. It not only makes no sense but it results in lower membership.


  • sferios

    I’m the web designer who created the PopRes site. I work for Kevin and Margaret. I have moderator status but I don’t actually moderate in the sense of monitor comments, etc. 🙂

  • sferios

    Hmm. Ok Kevin, you may be changing my mind.

    If what you’re saying is that the goal is to strip enough votes from the Dems that the Republicans actually win… I can get behind that. I do not fear four years of Trump or Cruz more than I fear business-as-usual with with Democrats. If this moves the Democrats to the left and results in them actually changing their policies, that wold be a huge victory.

    Maybe part of my problem is I have never seen this happen. I’m 46. The first President I remember is Carter, when he was on his way out. It wasn’t until Reagan that I came of age politically, and things have been a steady decline since then. I did not live through the abolition of slavery, or women gaining the right to vote. I had no idea there were third party electoral pressures that contributed to these victories. In my lifetime third parties seem to have had very little impact on federal policy. This has never led me to support the Dems, of course, but it has made me critical of the tactics and strategies of third parties.

    I’ll think more about this. Expect a phone call within the next week also. 🙂


  • sferios

    Hi jemcgloin,

    Check out my responses to Aquifer and Kevin. I resonate with what Kevin says, but not with your argument here. Kevin acknowledges the Greens can’t win, but the goal, rather, is to strip votes away from the Democrats and hopefully move them to the left (even and especially if it means the Republicans win). This seems honest and practical to me. I actually would LOVE to see the Republicans win precisely because the Greens took away 10% of the Democratic vote.

    Your argument, on the other hand, that the Greens can actually win, and that the only reason they don’t is because people don’t have enough faith, or whatever, seems impractical to me. I think there are sound, structural reasons the Green Party cannot win a presidential election, and I do not blame those people who see this and refuse to participate.

    What Kevin has gotten me thinking about is… perhaps it’s time the Greens started being more practically honest, and admitting that what they want to do is strip votes from the Democrats and move them to the left, EVEN IF IT MEANS TRUMP WINS! Perhaps this would resonate with all those progressives (including and especially the working class) who do not vote.

  • Aquifer

    You didn’t answer my question, what are you a “mod” of?

    How is the “potential for change” activated by putting another Dem in office?

    I think that, if in fact, we were “honest with ourselves” we would admit that it is our refusal to disavow that “TINA to the D/Rs” that is a big factor in our refusal to see any potential in 3rd parties … that silly idea needs to be tossed lickety split …

    Those same “masses” were told that Sanders couldn’t win – so If we “were honest with ourselves” we would admit that if the Sanders campaign has done nothing else, it has proven that a “can’t win” candidate with “no money” can be turned into a “can win” with lots of money by the simple fact of folks choosing to support ’em – you cannot get around that …

    As for “structural” barriers – they can be gotten around – Stein was on enough state ballots to get enough EC votes to win, covering over 80% of the population in ’12, and hopefully will be on more in ’16 – she has qualified for Fed’l matching funds, so every dollar given, up to $250/individual is matched – a “twofer”. Granted media access is an issue – but Sanders supporters perpetually complain about “media blackout” for him and yet he has apparently gone far “in spite” of it …

    So in so many ways Sanders campaign has, unintentionally, to be sure, undermined all the usual DP arguments for why “3rd parties can’t win” and the key was simply refusing to let that “can’t win” nonsense get in the way of supporting a candidate – sorry, but no matter how you slice it, if it has been done for a, IMO, lesser candidate like Sanders, it can be done for a greater one like Stein – it is not a matter of chance, but of choice – our choice – if you choose to be bound by the TINA straitjacket, that is your choice, but know,, that by continuing to push that “can’t win” routine to discourage 3rd party support, at any level, and make no mistake that routine is used at ALL levels, you are carrying water for TPTB, as those are the only folk that benefit by keeping us in the duopoly fold – ask your wife what she thinks about that – better yet, ask your wife to reply – 🙂

    As for electoral politics – my position is that movements without politics and politics without movements are like a one-legged man – he can hop around a lot, but he won’t get to far …

  • Aquifer

    Ah, OK – that clears that up … guess you read them occasionally. though … 🙂

  • kevinzeese

    Emanuel, let me respond to a few of your comments in one answer.

    First, glad my review of history about how third parties and movements have succeeded in winning issues had some positive influence on your thinking.

    As to why Greens lose, you are right there are structural issues that make it much more difficult for third parties. The Dems and Repubs do not want third party challengers so at every level of government they have made it very difficult. All sorts of barriers are put in place to even make it hard for them to exist and barriers continue in political campaigns, again at all levels of government.

    Have you ever seen an insurgent campaign like Sanders before? I’m 60 and I have not seen one. So, at 46 I doubt you have. A good lesson that what has failed before may succeed at a different time.

    This years is a perfect storm for Sanders because of the political climate being changed by the social movement that began to build after the economic collapse with its first big moment being the occupy encampments but continuing to grow significantly since then. The movement is probably four times larger now than it was during the occupy which had about 350,000 mobilized. These movements have changed the conversation and political priorities on issues like inequality, race, living wages, college debt, immigration, farm workers and more. This made room for a Sanders campaign that would have been a Kucinich-like campaign before 2008.

    Can a Sanders-Stein ticket win? Again this may be an even more perfect storm than the primary has been. The two parties are going to nominate two very unpopular candidates with very high negatives (maybe the two most unpopular in history) and both parties will be divided and both parties are more unpopular than ever. For the first time ever independents are the largest group of voters making up 45% to 50% of the voting population according to various polls – this is double of what it has been as recently as 2008. Sanders does very well with independent voters.

    Sanders has very high positives and low negatives. Stein has a very solid grasp on the issues, frankly even more than Sanders, especially on foreign policy, climate and youth issues. This is not to understate Sanders who is among the best in the senate, but he is a senator focused on senate bills, Stein is outside looking at issues not limited by the corrupt senate.

    Could Sanders and Stein create a unity campaign that unites all the left third parties, Greens, Socialists, Progressives, Peace and Freedom and Labor? Could they get significant support from independents? How about disaffected Dems and Repubs? How about youth? My answer to all of that is yes. And, if they could, would that be a coalition that could win a three way race. Again, I see it as a winning coalition.

    Will Sanders have the courage to leave the Dems, his new party, and go back to his roots? I think the odds are against it because it would cost him in the senate where he would be isolated from the Democratic Party, a loner with no influence. But, if there is pressure from his grassroots and he can see a path to winning the presidency, he might change his mind.

    And, what a pay-off a victory would be — truly historic– he could be transformative of the Supreme Court with perhaps three appointments. He could mobilize people to run independent or third party and these candidates would be seen as legitimate and viable for the first time. There have been thousands of independent candidates blocked by a corrupt system, and the Sanders-Stein era would build on that base and win races that were unwinnable in the past- who knows how far it could go. That would be the real political revolution Sanders has been talking about.

  • Aquifer

    I think you underestimate his loyalty to the DP and the apparent ease with which he is influenced by “pragmatic” considerations –

    I still would prefer a Stein/Sanders ticket, if that is the duo – 🙂 That would put her in charge of FP, among other things …

  • Aquifer

    ” ..what the majority of progressive (and younger) Americans will do with Bernie’s movement — — is to bring Bernie (man or movement) into our third party, Green Party.”

    Gee Alan, that was great – I hope you are right, but we shall have to see – i don’t think “the man” will come, and as for the movement, that all depends on how much it depends on “the man” …. I think the jury is still out on that one …

  • kevinzeese

    Key Facts Showing Nader Did Not Cost Gore the 2000 Election

    By Kevin Zeese

    Below is an examination of the three key states in the 2000 election, Florida, Oregon and New Hampshire; as well as polls and exit polls taken at the time of the 2000 election. They show the myth that Nader cost Gore the election is false and the reason for Gore’s loss was he ran a poor campaign that could not even win the support of hundreds of thousands of Democratic and liberal voters in those states – who voted for Bush, not for Nader.

    Of course, if Gore had one his home state of Tennessee or Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, none of these states would have mattered.

    Florida: Gore lost by less than 1,000 votes Nader received 97,000 votes. But this is not the reason Gore lost: Gore lost because he lost to Bush among key constituencies – especially registered Democrats, that Gore should have won:

    – Bush received the votes of 12 times more Democrats than Nader did. Twelve percent of Florida Democrats voted for Bush. Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with the Democratic candidate, Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting. For about one million Florida Democrats it was: Vote Bush or don’t vote.

    – In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

    – Bush won 5.25 times more self-identified liberals than Nader did in Florida, Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader, indicating that progressive voters and those who might have been seen as a natural lock for Gore, actually were stolen not by the Greens, but by the Republicans.

    – Gore lost in Florida among white women (many of those soccer moms who Clinton carried, and many of whom would normally have been reached by a Democratic candidate talking about education, health care, abortion, and other key issues) by a 52-45 margin, with the Nader factor being negligible among this group.

    – The Supreme Court used Gore’s tactical mistake of not asking for a complete statewide recount as the principal reason to justify their decision. Gore sought only a partial recount in four Democratic counties that he mistakenly thought would give him a better chance of winning. A study found that Gore probably would have won statewide, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a recount of all disputed ballots statewide. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called “undervotes,” about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

    New Hampshire: Bush’s margin of victory was about 7,500 votes, and Nader received about 22,000 votes there. Exit polling data shows if Nader hadn’t been in the race, a little less than half of those Nader votes would have gone to Gore, and a fifth would have gone to Bush, so Bush would have still won New Hampshire by about 1500 votes without Nader in the race. Bush took six times more Dems from Gore than Nader did, and twice as many self-described liberals.

    Oregon: Bush won the state by a margin of only about 23,000 votes, and Nader received the votes of 54,000.

    – According to exit polls, without Nader in the race Gore would have gotten 47 percent of those 54,000, for a total of around 25,400, Bush would have received 21 percent of those 54,000, for a total of about 11,300, and in the end, Bush would still have squeaked out a victory, by about 8,000 votes.

    – Bush outpolled Nader among Democrats by a margin of 3.5 to 1.

    Bush took 43 percent more of the self-described liberals than Nader.

    If Gore carried his own home state, along with either Clinton’s home state of Arkansas or the traditional Democratic stronghold of West Virginia, then Florida would be an irrelevancy.


    Why Nader is Not to Blame,

    Dispelling the Myth of the 2000 Election,

    The Ralph Nader Myth,

  • Aquifer

    Sorry – I think that is a misguided approach starting with the phrase “strip votes from the Democrats” – think about it – that implies that they were D votes in the first place, that they “belonged” to the D’s and that in “stripping” them away we are “stealing” from them – that is the essence of the “spoiler” argument ….

    Whether it pushes Ds to the left or not, I don’t know and don’t care – the GP, IMO, needs to present itself as having the best analysis, the best ideas and the best candidates – if folks choose them over D’s or any other party – it is for the “right” (as in left) reasons ….

    I don’t want to see either Ds or Rs win – I put “spoiler” in quotes when i talk about the so-called “spoiler effect” of 3rd parties to point out that, IMO, it is about time to “spoil” the electoral chances of parties who have spoiled everything else … but “spoiling” is not the main agenda – winning is and by winning I mean we the people winning … let the GP set the pace, and let the rest catch up … 🙂

    As Walker (Alice, not Scott) said, the best way to keep folks from using their power is to convince them they don’t have any …

    And do consider, that the most enthusiastic, hardest working folks are those who believe they can win – one indeed can fight for “losing” or “hopeless” causes – but only a few will – and that is how power is stripped from the best of causes in the public mind – by labeling them as such …

    I told Stein when i first met her 4 years ago, that i was supporting her not as a “conscience” or “protest” vote, or to “raise the issues” – i was supporting her because i wanted her to win, I still do – and a campaign to win is different from one “to raise Issues” – the issues have been raised, they are out there, the task now is to get folks in office who, with vision, intelligence, integrity and guts will take those issues and turn them into policies and programs that will effectively deal with them – and D/s won’t do that, no matter what face they wear on the electoral circuit – so 5% is “nice”, but not as a goal – the goal is to win – why, like those folks lampooned in a telecom commercial, be “settlers” for less than we need and can achieve, if we worked our buns off, opened our horizons and decided to win – you cannot achieve what you cannot conceive – ask you doc candidates whether they have seen “hopeless” patients get better and walk out the door because someone or a few would not give up (I have seen it) – and ask yourself what kind of doc would you rather have treating your loved ones – one who “went with the odds” or one who worked in spite of them – a good practitioner of “political medicine” does the latter, because the stakes are too high not to …

  • sferios

    What an exciting election it would be if he did! Are you able to talk to him? Sit him down? If anyone can convince him you can.

    Along with structural hurdles, today there is outright fraud also. From Arizona to Illinois to New York, Bernie seems typically silent on this. Have you seen this Chicago Election board meeting, for example? I’ve set the video to start at the important part, where an election integrity monitor tells the board that audit workers were seen “erasing Sanders tallies and adding in Clinton tallies because the hand audit didn’t match the machine count.” Exit polls are also now regularly “adjusted” by the corporate media before they are reported on, to make sure they match the reported results. If such fraud is happening now within the Democratic primary, of course it’s going to happen during the general election. This makes it hard for me to get excited about electoral politics at all.

    I wish Sanders would simply leave the Democrats and take his movement into the streets to draw attention to the fraud, including and especially the electronic fraud.

  • sferios

    I’ve been very motivated by the issue of what is going to happen to this whole movement that Bernie has galvanized. Will he endorse Hillary? Will he just fade away? I suggested a month ago to Kevin that we start a petition to ask him not to endorse her. I hadn’t ever considered asking him to run as a Green with Jill. I’m still not convinced it’s the best idea. Mostly because I have no faith in electoral politics, especially since electronic voting machines (attached to modems, easily hackable) have taken over. (If it can be done it will be done.) I’ve always put much more faith in street actions, protests, civil disobedience, etc.

  • kevinzeese

    No question to us that building a movement is more important than electoral activities that is why Popular Resistance does not get involved in elections. Everything flows from a mass movement, including the political agenda and political dialogue.

  • Aquifer

    It seems to me that the fault is not so much with electoral politics, per se, but the way we have been using it – to perpetually put D/Rs in office – like ducks in a shooting gallery, swimming from one end of the swamp to the other getting shot at both ends – as they say, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity – We blame “the system”, and it is pretty rickety and warped to be sure – but it still could be used to get decent results if we decided to – say leave that swamp and pick a better pond 🙂 …. Now we simply use it to get “our team” in, even if they are schmucks ((to paraphrase Nixon,) “at least they are our schmucks”, or to keep “the bad guys” out – it doesn’t occur to us to use them toward positive ends, to get what we want or need. We buy what someone else tells us is “the best we can get” and somehow, strangely enough, that always seems to be a D/R, doesn’t it – and we pooh-pooh folks who tell us we can do better …

    I don’t rally care what Sanders does – i wrote him off as someone to get excited about some time ago, as i wrote O off early in ’08 – to me the only thing of value to come out of his campaign has been a demonstration that a “can’t win” candidate with no money can become a “can win” by the simple mechanism of folks deciding to support him anyway – that’s how it is done, that is how it is always done, and i have been saying that for some time now, before Sanders came along – so the next time i hear that “can’t win” nonsense, I’ll just pull out Sanders campaign and say – look how far you can get ,,,

  • AlanMacDonald

    Don’t worry. Just put on a wild looking wig and shout out in a Brooklin accent, “Political Revolution against Empire”, it’s HUUUGE LET’s go kids.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Likewise I haven’t voted either rigged party since my first in ’68 write-in for Gene.

    But, I’m old now and Bernie i’issues real — although he stil has to come-out against the Empire before I’ll vote for him in the general.

  • jemcgloin

    You sound like a Democrat. The strategic triangulation crap is exactly why no one votes. Americans don’t follow triangulators they follow leaders who are trying to win. If everyone that believes in the Green Party platform voted for the Green Party, they would win. But the billionaires tell you they can’t win, just like they told you that Sanders can’t win, jus like they told you that you can’t have universal single payer healthcare, free education, or a higher minimum wage. Wait the minimum wage is going up? I thought that was impossible. Republicans don’t worry about whether it is possible to make abortion illegal or start a $3trillion war for oil in Iraq, they just do it.
    We don’t win when we do what is possible, we win when we define possible.

  • jemcgloin

    You must catch up with history. The same people that are the plutocracy here are the plutocracy in every country. The global banksters don’t care about national borders except as a way to limit our freedom. It doesn’t limit their ability to move cash or goods or get policy enacted. Look at how Europe, which was a perfectly nice place to live compared to the U.S., has now followed the U.S. model and hollowed out its own economy to enrich the banks and billionaires. My plutocracy and your empire are run by the same people.

  • jemcgloin

    I would vote for Bernie, and than start protesting against his limited vision of what needs to be done. Citizen’s United was a minor step in the corporate take over that started when the supreme court hijacked the 14th amendment back in the 1880s.
    But putting Sanders in office could reverse the momentum of the corporate revolution as long as the movement doesn’t get lazy because “Sanders will take care of it.” Same thing with the Greens by the way.

  • jemcgloin

    I could be wrong but my read of Sanders is that he would have to be very angry at Clinton and the DNC to leave the Democratic Caucus to join the Greens. I’m pretty sure he will throw his weight behind Clinton.
    This will break the hearts of many Sanders supporters, especially young people who might be tempted to forget about politics. Many of them expected Sanders to win and save the world, and don’t realize this fight is well over a hundred years old.
    The movement really has to make a huge effort to remind them that they are the revolution, not Sanders (as he says) and that they must carry on, and that we will win if we fight long and hard enough.

  • AlanMacDonald

    jem, call it whatever you like. However, I tend to call it a Disguised Global Capitalist Empire — as do most writers and academics focused on this Empire which is not per se strictly an American Empire.


    “The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from dominant groups around the world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, “U.S.” imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S.state apparatus to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a “U.S.” imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington.”

    Robinson, William I. (2014-07-31). Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (p. 122). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

    I think it is worth being precise about all the specific characteristics of this totally new and historically unique Empire in all th world and all history —- it is global (not just US) although it is nominally HQ in, and poses as, being an American Empire, but since 9/11 its has been less acceptable/seemingly unpatriotic to many Americans to call the Empire an American Empire. the DGCEmpire primarily employs the “U.S. state’s apparatus” of massive ‘soft and hard super-powers’, but for the Empire’s purposes, and not the U.S.’s benefit.

    It is highly ‘disguised’ with dual Vichy parties, and it is ‘capitalist’ in its primary (and current) power structure —- although the media/propaganda-sector of the Empire is perhaps as influential as its ‘capitalist’ (corporate, financial-sectors). Under duress or confrontation the militarist and extra-legal sector of the DGCEmpire might well increase in direct application of power.

    Anyway, jem, you can call it whatever you like, but I have chosen to identify it in a quite specific way for reasons that I strongly believe are most favorable to overthrowing it, and not confusing the majority of average Americans with other terminology.

    After all, the First (and only successful) American Revolution was distinctly “against Empire” — so as Bill Murray might say, “At least we got that going for us”.

  • chetdude

    “how can we even find a way to pull the “masses” back together?”

    One at a time.

    DH it’s your turn… ☺

  • chetdude

    And until the People’s Movement is strong enough, as it nearly was in the late 20s/early 30s of the 20th Century, there will be insufficient numbers to “put decent folks in office.”

    An interesting argument could be held about whether it’s the entirely undemocratic electoral system that keeps the indecent in office (or turns the decent indecent once they get in) or the immense, amazingly effective blanket of the propaganda machine that keeps people convinced that they’re powerless and therefore keeps us from organizing for our own self-interests and that of our Planet?

    (Of course, the owners and managers of both systems are easily discernible and those who benefit are easily found on the Forbes 400 list.)

    A cautionary tale…

    When I was on the Green Party Steering Committee in a democrat machine town/county, there were two factions in that group.

    There were those, mostly disgruntled democrat functionaries, who bought into the paradigm imposed by the (VERY RED) state that to gain ballot access and run candidates we had to get tens of thousands of signatures on a petition every two years. So the very few of them constantly spent thousands of hours on street corners, etc and played guilt trips on anyone who wasn’t out in the hot sun gathering signatures.

    Then there were those of us who looked at our membership of 1 out of 100 registered voters and said, “Let’s grow the party, make it fun, connect up with all of the dozens of worthwhile groups doing the hard work for Peace, Economic and Social Justice in town and they will come.” Then we would once and for all get and maintain ballot access by having enough registered Greens – doubling the number would have DONE IT in that town. Then we should think about SERVING as a catalyst and electoral arm of the local Movement. Not the dog, just the tail.

    We “Movement” Greens were pushed out of the Party by the disgruntled democrat’s “parliamentary procedures” and “politics”.

  • chetdude

    I’ve been “arguing” with DH for months now.

    The poster has occasional flashes of showing that his/her heart in the right place but constantly defaults to being the “Debby Downer” pushing the impossible to overcome “blame the mythical middle-class” meme. Blame them for being somewhat brainwashed by the most effective propaganda system on the Planet in the country that INVENTED propaganda?

    It’s very hard to drag DH’s mind out of that tunnel and get her/him to consider aligning with ANYONE who’s working toward Peace and Economic and Social Justice no matter what their “class” and that we need to ATTRACT people one at a time…

  • Aquifer

    So in your state it was the number of registered members that determine ballot access? In mine, NY, a party has to have a certain % of votes in a Gov. election to avoid, til the next Gov election, having to get petition signatures …

    i opt for the latter – the propaganda that says “3rd parties can’t win” – the best way to keep folks from exercising their power is to convince them they don’t have any – but it is a self fulfilling prophecy – any body on a ballot can win if enough folks support ’em, and nobody can if they don’t –

  • chetdude

    Actually it was either a percentage of registered members, percentage of vote in major state offices OR a nearly impossible number of signatures on petitions…

    All purposefully very high thresholds…that only allowed the two-wings of the One Big Political Club in automatically…

  • AlanMacDonald

    Yes, Kevin.

    I see only two essential ingredients in that fabulous recipe that you describe; for Sanders to acknowledge, talk about, and endorse, that the U.S. shouldn’t act like a global empire abroad (which Stein already pledged in her “Power to the People Plan”), and that the Greens (and GSG) enthusiastically accept, acknowledge, and actively promote joining in building the new social democratic movement out of the original ‘people’s goals’ of the old ‘New Deal’ Democratic Party.

    Hell, even Tom Brokaw, author of “The Greatest Generation” and a former MSM anchor, has broken left and said on national TV that, “when Trump and Craz talk about refugees and 3 year old orphans, what we’re really talking about is refugees and 3 year old orphans caused by American policy” — so Bernie should at least have the courage to support the sanity

  • DHFabian

    OK. Movement for what, and for whom? We’ve been on the verge of launching this movement for over a quarter of a century now. Want a revolution? OK, figure out for whom and for what. We’re more deeply divided today, middle class vs. the poor, than we were eight years ago.

  • DHFabian

    You aren’t going to build a movement without a platform. What is the movement for or about, and for whom? We’ve had another eight years of being urged to brainlessly “stand in solidarity” with the better off alone. What’s the plan? What should we be willing to stand up for?

  • DHFabian

    Yep, we’re all trying to figure out the logistics, but you can’t build a movement without an agenda. If you have an inclusive agenda, “the people will come.”

  • DHFabian

    No, Occupy did begin as an extraordinary People;s movement that could have changed the course we’re on, but it was quickly redefined — by Dem pols, the lib media — as a middle class movement alone. The rest of us finally walked away.

    Today’s Americans are rigidly capitalist, deeply divided by class. In fact, we’ve gone to the extreme of deciding that those who aren’t of current use to employers — the jobless poor, and many of those who can’t work (health, etc.) — are undeserving of the most basic human rights (per the UN’s UDHR) of food and shelter. For the last eight years, liberal media have maintained their pep rally for middle class consumers and campaign donors.

  • DHFabian

    Many do think this way. In reality, very few are willing to vote third party, and I think most people today primarily vote against the opposing (D or R) party. The record on presidential elections throughout the modern era shows this.

  • DHFabian

    People don’t vote when there are no candidates who represent them and their greatest concerns. Right now, we have Republicans representing the rich, Democrats representing the middle class (with an occasional pat on the head to low wage workers). This leaves out a big chunk of today’s population — the poor, and those who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the country.

    Decades of research indicate that most votes are based on economic factors. For whom can you vote when no candidate represents you? You either vote third party or withhold your vote.

  • DHFabian

    Not sure. What has remained eerily lacking in this campaign cycle is, incredibly, the issues.While liberals seem to like the sound of “democratic socialism,” something that Sen. Sanders previously endorsed, there is no indication that they actually support it. Note that democratic socialism includes a legitimate welfare system. Sen. Sanders’ goal is to represent all the people, and the nation.

    I don’t think there’s much support for the FDR agenda today. Consider that what came to be called AFDC was first included in FDR’s Social Security Act — the New Deal. Bill Clinton got rid of that, and had just enough time to begin similarly “reforming” Social Security out of existence, targeting the disabled. Although Obama was able to restore Social Security (with little credit for it from lib media), there is no question that HC would pick up where BC left off, phasing out Social Security.

  • Aquifer

    Well there we have the proverbial chicken/egg problem. Those “requirements” won’t change as long as D/Rs are in power – so we gotta slog through those petitioning efforts and then get those folks in office so they can change them 🙂

  • DHFabian

    If he supported Clinton, whose agenda is virtually the opposite of everything that Sanders has believed in, he would destroy his own integrity.

    Interesting bit of history that shines a spotlight on the core characters of these two candidates: While Clinton was a Young Republican in college, sipping tea and working for the Goldwater campaign, Sanders was on the streets, putting his life at risk in the fight for civil rights in the South. Clinton is still sipping tea with the elite, Sanders is still in the streets with the People.

  • DHFabian

    What are the most critical issues to address in this country? Not just the issues of greatest concern to the middle class (they’re less than 50% of the population), but to the country as a whole? What would need to be done to rebuild the economy? To get the country to take a break from war?

    On the economy, we have a blue-print, but liberals have shown little interest. From FDR to Reagan, the US had implemented a range of policies and programs, with a focus on poverty reduction, that actually took the country to its height of wealth and productivity. Then Americans changed their minds. The policies were reversed, the programs ended, and the US has remained on a downhill slide. Either we repeat history, collapsing our economy into another Great Depression, or we learn from history.

  • Aquifer

    Well, yeah, they do think that way and it is past time we worked to change that thinking … perhaps first off by pointing out whose interests it serves and whose it does not … ..

  • DHFabian

    The Party has only been getting pulled further to the right since the Reagan Democrats back in the 1980s. On core socioeconomic policies (which determine overall quality of life AND the nation’s chances of economic survival), the Clinton Democrats have proved to be well to the right of former Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, even Reagan. In response, the media marketed to liberals have moved to the right.

    What do you think are the most critical issues? What needs to be changed? What we’ve heard from liberals over the last eight years comes down to being a call to maintain the status quo. While much of the country is in crisis, they “stand in solidarity” with the better-off alone, and call for… gay marriage?

  • DHFabian

    What revolution? We’ve been “on the brink” of revolution for decades. If we had a revolution, who would fight whom? We’re rich vs. middle class vs. poor.

    Fools refuse to learn from history. Each time in the past that the richest few gained control of government, to the harm of the country, the “masses” — poor and middle class, workers and the jobless — ultimately united to push back, to everyone’s benefit. That can’t happen today. So now what? Wage a revolution? Sorry, we can’t get enough time off from work.

  • Aquifer
  • DHFabian

    OK, what is the Green Party’s platform? How would they address the most critical issues? I’m not challenging (I actually already know the Green Party platform), but am questioning. It does appear that people want a movement, yet don’t know where they want that movement to go. What are the policies, the agenda?

    Sen. Sanders was an Independent, and joined the Dem Party to be on the Party ticket out of practical considerations. The overwhelming majority of voters at this point pick a “D” or “R.” What matters is the issues.

    Put it this way: “Who are We the People, and what do they want?”

  • Aquifer

    I would suggest that they rather do know where they want that movement to go and Steins, and Flowers platforms embody it ..

    Absolutely, what matters is the issues – and that is why it is so important to support folks who best, and have consistently outlined them and how to deal with them …

    And i know that most voters pick D/Rs on a ballot, while it is interesting to note that about 50% of the electorate identifies as neither – the next step is to demonstrate that in the voting booth …

    As for Sanders – sorry, don’t buy that “practical considerations” bit, “practical’ for him, maybe, but not for the rest of us …

    For whom is it “practical” for him to support Clinton if he doesn’t get the nomination …

    As to who “We the People” are, and what do “we” want – do we want a perpetual corp party hegemony?

  • chetdude

    But those petition requirements are DESIGNED keep activists spinning their wheels…pissing away time that could better be used organizing and educating…

    BECAUSE “success” in their electoral game requires BIG BUCKS!

  • Aquifer

    Well it’s true that they are designed to keep activists busy – but, it seems to me that is all the more reason to put folks in office who would eliminate them ….

    And, as Sanders campaign has demonstrated, the “little people” are capable of putting “big bucks” together, as well as the fact that volunteer labor can reduce the need for “big bucks” …

  • chetdude

    INHO, only if the Movement is what counts and the organizing of that positive, sustainable, forward thinking Populist Movement is done…

    THEN the electoral tail can be wagged by the Movement Dog…

  • Aquifer

    I dunno – when i was a kid we had a dog, a fine fellow with a bushy tail he was quite proud of, waved it like a banner. When we moved down South for a short while we shaved down his fur thinking it would help him with the heat – he was clearly embarrassed and walked around with it tucked between his legs – a sign of submission and defeat …

  • jemcgloin

    It would be good if he saw it that way, but he probably feels his integrity is tied to fulfilling his promise to support the nominee. Matbe the actions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign have changed his mind, but I doubt it.

  • jemcgloin

    Its not really his movement. The movement of movements that Sanders jumped to the front of has been building in many ways for a long time. I do give him credit for realizing its importance, and that he could help build the movement through an election campaign.
    There is a big possibility he could hurt the movement, though, so his followers must be helped to understand the big picture.

  • jemcgloin

    Yes vote for a third party that will probably lose. If everyone that doesn’t vote, or holds their nose to vote for a “winnner,” did that, the Demublican winner, would have to claim a “mandate” with 26% of the vote. They would have to start trying to attract voters that vote for parties that are interested in the People’s interests. The increase in votes for third parties would make them seem a lot more viable. Then maybe one would rise above the rest and be able to get 27% of the vote.
    They want to suppress the vote and the best way to do that is have the people suppress themselves.

  • jemcgloin

    Well it makes more sense when you say it that way, but if the American People are using “oligarchy” and “plutocracy” wouldn’t it make more sense to educate them to the fact that these people are part of the world billionaire/corporate empire than to let them go on believing that they are separate entities. Many Americans are perfectly comfortable with an AMERICAN Plutocracy, Oligarchy, or Empire, and actively support it, but those same people would flip if they figured out that it was a sham foisted on them by a global empire that is stealing their sovereignty. I don’t have any sympathy for these kinds of people, but it would sure make the empire’s job more difficult.
    U.S.” imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a “U.S.” imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington.” This statement I think agrees with what I keep saying, but calling it “U.S. imperialism” helps to hide the true power structure instead of revealing it. The U.S. government is now a victim of the empire (that it had a hand in creating).
    People need to know.

  • jemcgloin

    Usually there are sound structural reasons why the Greens can’t win, but I don’t consider that an excuse to either vote for a lesser EVIL, or to not vote.
    Of course at this particular moment in time, with the two parties extremely unpopular, running the two most unpopular candidates in 50 years, if the Bernie supporters and their $27 times two million people were to jump to the Green party, and all those people they might squeak through, or at least get enough votes to make it seem possible for them to win in the future.
    Then poor people might realize that there is a party that represents them and come out next time.
    We have to keep creating possibility not repeating the establishment’s mantra that everything good for the People is impossible.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Yes, Fabian, there must be solidarity in recognition, understanding, and action toward an inclusive agenda!

    The Revolution against Empire is the only fully “inclusive agenda”, as you call it Fabian, and you are certainly correct that “you can’t build a movement” (neverless a Revolution) without an agenda which incorporates and is ‘inclusive’ of all people and all issues.

    Empire is the meta-issue of our entire “ailing social order” — and the diagnosis of the core tumor of cancerous Empire must be diagnosed, exposed, and shared with the people if we are to have any chance of saving the ‘body politic’ of our sickening country.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Yes, Fabian, the “Occupy” movement “did begin as an extraordinary Peoples’ movement” — and it did actually accomplish its target of exposing the sharp distinction between the differences in thinking and actions of the ruling-elite “1%” and the “99%” of the rest of us, despite the fact that, as you rightly say, the entrenched political structure of both the “Dem pols and the (neo)liberal-(con) media” miss-framed the movement as only a “middle class movement”, which in turn allowed the rougher hands of the neocon ‘R’ Vichy party of the same Empire to use violence to throw “Occupy” out of its places of occupation.

    The value of this lesson of history about “Occupy”, which you recount, is that an “Occupying” movement can always be ejected from its physical place(s) of Occupation in the physical world through a combination of superior propaganda and force of arms/violence by the entrenched power of an Empire. But such a vicious and destructive outcome can only be achieved by the dark forces of Empire if (and only if) the Empire is not shown to be acting as an Empire!

    Therefore, Fabian, what you are clearly demonstrating and teaching I what you have said here comports exactly with the larger proof that you offer:

    That successful Revolution in the 21st century, where several countries, and one remaining super-power former country that constitutes the nominal HQ and metropole of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire and merely ‘poses’ as our former country, can only be confronted through an essentially non-violent Revolution — but that such a Second American Revolution against Empire again must employ and reveal the truth that the Empire is indeed “acting like a global Empire”, and that such revealed truth, which must be voiced by the American people themselves must also be reinforced by the solidarity of others with some significant measure of authority — as you have demonstrated by noting that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights would rightly adjudged the behavior of our former country in male treatment of America’s poor as being “undeserving of the most basic human rights of food, shelter, medical aid, not to mention mass incarceration of a particular racial segment of our fellow citizens — which appears more like the enforcement of economic tyranny “at home” and the expansion of “Empire wars abroad”.

    Is there any wonder that the massive world’s unique ‘super-power’ of the ‘media/propaganda-sector’ of the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire HQed in the U.S. is spending so much of its power seeding and repeating the mantra that the “UN is irrelevant”.

    To a highly disguised and truly global Empire, the most important and indeed essential truth that must be protected at all costs from its own people and any recognized world sources of global human rights is to insure that no mention, not even any whisper, of the truth be leaked that that super-power is acting like a global Empire abroad or a repressive economic tyranny to its own ‘subjects’!

  • Arlene Hickory

    I am both excited and cautious about this alliance, and I think this is the way to be in making collaborations work and being able to stay focused and ready to challenge shifts that weaken resolve. I was (still am) a part of Occupy Chicago. I now belong to a number of groups that have crafted different styles of relationship in order to share resources, extend our reach and make our voice louder. Popular Resistance is a major resource for me. I am on board with this.

  • DHFabian

    And sadly, the war on the poor will continue. So many voted for Obama on the chance that he could launch a legit discussion about our poverty crisis, and he did raise the issue a few times. I’ve seen a few mentions of black poverty. The great majority of poor are white. (Black people don’t know they exist, white people pretend they don’t.) Liberals take the Reagan approach, implying that the solution to poverty is to improve conditions for the middle class and wait for something or another to trickle down. We’ve seen more vigorous campaigns to ban the simple pleasure of a soft drink than we have to address our poverty crisis. The “inequality” discussion remains stuck at discussing the gap between the better off and the rich.

    At the moment, we keep people passive with vague talk about a “revolution,” a promise of change for… who knows? There are lots of causes, none of which include the most basic: the means to survive. Of course people know that not everyone can work and that there aren’t jobs for all. No matter. We dismiss them as mere “surplus population,” of no consequence. It has been open season on our homeless for years, as they’ve been beaten, raped, killed, but their lives don’t matter.

    If we had a revolution, who would fight whom? Liberals like the theme of the “1% vs. the 99%” when, in fact, we’re rich vs. middle class vs. poor.

  • DHFabian

    Follow the discussion to see what the problem is: The focus of this election cycle remains on the logistics, the strategy, to the exclusion of the cause. What is the cause? Who should we stand up for, and why?

    I know that many don’t grasp why so many people don’t vote. Let me use an example: Clinton/Gore had targeted the poor. In Gore vs. Bush, the poor — and those who get why it matters — voted third party or withheld their votes, and the middle class picked Bush. Twice. The poor, etc., voted for Obama on the chance that he could launch a legit national discussion about our poverty crisis. He did raise the issue a few times. Liberal media disappeared Joe Biden from the start, and went all-out in 2015 to sell the most anti-poor candidate available — Hillary Clinton.

    Wonder why people are so cynical? Although the producers of liberal media are aware of Clinton’s long record of support for the right wing agenda, they worked to market her as a “bold progressive.” Clinton’s record is consistent, going from her days as a Young Republican in college, working for the Goldwater campaign through to the work she did in 2015 to push the TPP through Congress. (Interestingly, while Clinton was sipping tea with the elite in college, Bernie Sanders was actually risking his life marching for civil rights in the South!)

    If Clinton is selection, these masses will once again vote third party or withhold their votes. Don’t expect them to vote for the candidate who would only worsen conditions for them.

  • Newton Finn

    As this essential “new agenda” is being contemplated, with input from a host of revolutionary movements to create THE MOVEMENT, I think it must not only be broad (to cover the numerous interrelated issues we are facing), but also deep (including language and symbols that summon the sublime in the human spirit).

    Such language and symbols of depth must be inclusive enough to call to groups that run the gamut from atheist humanists to the religious left, while not being so amorphous as to be meaningless.

    For some time now, I’ve been working through the intricate thought of Albert Schweitzer, whose central concept of “reverence for life” would seem to be one option in this regard. I trust that there are others in movements looking toward THE MOVEMENT who are doing similar work with other significant philosophical thinkers.

    “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” served us well at one time, but lacks reference to the crucial environmental concerns that have subsequently arisen and threaten to overwhelm us. We will need a similar rallying cry and elemental conceptual framework to awaken and unify the vast numbers of people necessary for a global movement that not only impedes but destroys capitalism, like monarchy before it.

  • DHFabian

    I’m personally not at all disappointed in Occupy. I am deeply disapppointed in the subsequent exploitation and redefining of Occupy. A spark of optimism remains because that core ideal remains alive. Occupy continues, if less so in the US, in spite of efforts to redefine it in ways that are so divisive (i.e., a “middle class workers’ movement”).

    The US has declined significantly. Not sure how one defines “super-power.” China could fit the US in their back pocket, or wipe us out by morning. A number of nations have the power to eradicate all life on Earth. Economically, the wealth of the nation is concentrated to a small sector while we have created a hell of a poverty crisis. Internationally, the US is no longer the top dog economically. In every respect, we are regarded as a “declining empire.” The US is exhausted, economically and militarily. Meanwhile, we’re deep in a class war, and this time, the proverbial masses have been pitted against each other, to the relief of the richest few.

    On the final point: Who benefits from the “war against the empire?” Our middle class maintain, “Not a crumb for the poor!” Don’t expect the poor to “stand in solidarity” to save the butts of the middle class. As long as the war on the poor continues, the proverbial masses remain divided, and the richest few sit back and smile.

  • chetdude


    You CAN’T put “folks in office” who can change the system because the system is designed to filter OUT anyone who would seriously or effectively change it…

    Think ALTERNATIVE social structures and localized economies bypassing the dominant paradigm.

    It’s been done before…that’s REALLY what the Movement should be about…

  • DHFabian

    You can’t build a party or a movement without giving people a legitimate reason to participate. Decades of studies show that voting choices usually come down to economic issues. An entire chunk of our population has remained shut out since the Clinton administration: the poor. This hasn’t changed. Political ideology and strategy are one thing, the agenda is another.

  • DHFabian

    Yes, Sanders is the real thing. He has been a solid progressive all along. At the same time that Hillary Clinton was head of the Young Republicans chapter at Wellesley College, Bernie Sanders was putting his own life in danger marching for civil rights in the deep South. This still defines the two candidates.

    Sen. Sanders has consistently been about We the People, poor and working class — not corporate powers. That’s a critically important point. He’s not just for workers, but for those who have been pushed out by years of shipping US jobs out of the country. The truly poor have simply been erased from the discussion since the Clinton administration. It takes a discussion, an agenda, to build a movement. We have a hell of a poverty crisis precisely because of the “corporate empire,” and yet we’ve been through another eight years of liberals excluding this critical issue from the discussion, as if they are embarrassed by “those people” who have been left jobless and destitute.

  • DHFabian

    If Clinton is selected, many will indeed vote third party or withhold their votes. That said, I would encourage people to take some time to read the Green Party platform. It’s not focused on the us vs. them theme, but is about rebuilding an economy/nation that actually is inclusive.

  • Aquifer

    Well the system may be “designed” to do one thing, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use it to do something else … my mother had a big old metal ice cream scoop, “designed” for – scooping ice cream, but it made one hell of a hammer once one realized one could use it for that ….

    IMO we can’t afford to just stick to the local – those folks in office at all levels make laws that have enormous effects on our lives – we can’t just let them go on their merry way if they keep screwing up our lives …

    Yeah, we need to change probably more than one “predominant paradigm” – and one of those is the one that says we must limit our electoral choices to those of the corp duopoly …

  • Aquifer

    Oh i think folks already have legitimate reasons to participate – look at the response ti the Sanders, and even the Trump campaigns …

    Again, if they would check out the Stein/GP sites – they would find an agenda that would answer many of their needs ….

  • AlanMacDonald

    Newton, thanks greatly for your understanding, support, ideas, and too kind words.

    Liberty, equality, justice, and social democracy
    Violent (and dual-party Vichy disguised)


  • AlanMacDonald

    Empress-in-waiting, Killary, was just excoriated — in the New York Times Magazine no less — by Mark Landler, NYT Washington

  • AlanMacDonald

    Empress-in-waiting, Killary, was just excoriated, in the New York Times Magazine no less, by Mark Landler, White House Correspondent for The New York Times, based in Washington, D.C., since March 2011 —- in the Magazine’s COVER Article:

    “How Hillary Became a Hawk” —- which article is adapted from “Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and
    the Twilight Struggle Over American Power,” to be published this Tuesday 4/26 by
    Random House.

    What a nicely timed and well deserved kick in the teeth to the aspiring “Empress-in-waiting”.

    Here’s the link to this deadly expose from the NYT:

    And Here’s the deeply researched new book that I just pre-ordered on Amazon, which shows all the evidence, timeline, and particulars about Killary and her deadly proclivity to start wars in the Middle East and right up to Russia’s borders [in Ukraine with the help of her little ‘cookie feeder to the neo-Nazis, Victoria ‘KAGAN/PNAC’ Nuland]:

    As Bernie might say himself about this highly favorable, if unexpected deus ex machina turn of the screw for his leverage over Killary:

    “This is HUUUUGE!”

  • jemcgloin

    Well this is one middle class American, firmly in the world’s 5% most wealthy, who believes we need to come to a census that high taxes should pay for a living wage, free public education at all levels, and universal single payer healthcare. There is plenty of money. The too big to fail have it, and they need to give it back.

  • jemcgloin

    Occupy did change the course. Enough to make Fight for Fifteen plausible. Before Occupy, it was all austerity, all the time. Occupy, a spark in a dry forest that burned world wide, did not fix the world, the apparent standard. But compared to what we planned, it was a resounding success.

  • chetdude

    In the near future, in a disintegrating myth called “United States of America”, on a Planet rapidly being degraded by the effects of the dominant “economic” paradigm, I truly believe that LOCAL is all we’re gonna’ have in the not too distant future…

    Or, at best, the new Paradigm will have to be built from the Bottom Up!

    I still think the best long term strategy is a critical mass of people, The Movement, disengaging from the dominant consensus trance…

    After having spent a significant number of years recently trying to crack the nut of getting people with the right values elected locally, trying to break through the corporate cash-infused mechanism of the local, dominant democrat machine that was entire captive of the local “economy” driven by car dealers, the Sick Care system, developers, road builders and, worst of the worst, the Military Industrial Complex (number ONE employer, just ahead of Wal-Mart), except for those rare isolated areas (such as Richmond or Arcata, CA) I’d urge my brothers and sisters in the Movement to think about BYPASSING the dominant paradigm rather than “working within it”…

  • Aquifer

    Well as Nader has said, if you don’t get into politics, politics will get into you …

    I agree re changing paradigms but one of the “predominant paradigms” I really think we need to change is allowing D/Rs to run the show … at any level … In any case, I don’t think paradigms can be “bypassed” – they need to be dismantled …

    As i have said, I think politics without movements and movements without politics is like a one-legged man – he can hop around a lot, but he won’t get too far …

  • Pingback: The Political Revolution Continues: Even If Bernie Loses, We Win()

  • Pingback: The Political Revolution Continues: Even If Bernie Loses, We Win – News Day()

  • Pingback: The Political Revolution Continues: Even If Bernie Loses, We Win()

  • tyrannystopper

    When the whole machine is against one man, I stand with that man.
    TRUMP 2016
    Sanders sold out guys, 30+ years in office, nothing to show.
    Controlled opposition.
    We had Ron Paul for years as Controlled opposition too.

    In the end we all hate the massive corruption at the top.
    This is unifying point that all can work towards.
    Stop playing left/vs/right, Progs vs Cons, etc etc etc
    Anything that creates division is not part of the solution.