For years I've been asking for an explanation why we working people should believe the Dems are the good guys when they're neolibs. I ask those who write comments on the D supporting news sites if they're fine with an econ system that considers human and natural resources as things to use and defines away the damage as irrelevant externalities.
If they answer at all, it's almost always deflection, whataboutism, ad hominem, straw man. I have yet to read a coherent answer, let alone a persuasive one. There are probably many reasons for the D party leadership to avoid difficult topics. Their corporate donors. Their certainty that as products of an Ivy League "meritocracy" they are this era's Best and Brightest. (Never mind the cautionary tale of Halberstam's book.) But why the odd or inadequate responses of the D faithful?
I'm convinced they don't want to see--D for denial. Their iconic animal should be the ostrich. It reminds me of when progressives think racism isn't about them, the contrary well explored in Robin Diangelo's book //White Fragility.// And when Native Americans point out that 'progressive' is related to an assumed cultural superiority and to endless econ growth, attitudes asserted as universally true by Western cultures. From long and bitter personal experience, I'd add classism.
I realize that anyone born after 1970 has never lived with government committed to the common good nor ever known a truly New Deal Dem party. But that doesn't excuse never wondering why so many Americans feel excluded from and alienated by politics or considering that "lesser or two evils" may not be a great selling point. To me, the D supporters don't want to see past the thin veneer of the current D party because a frightening reality would then become all too visible. A reality that isn't a simple either/or, with us/against us, good guy/bad guy. It means acknowledging a complex reality requiring deep assessment of one's self, then conscientious responsibility, along with the very difficult work of building coalitions while respecting the Other.
Biden should’ve moved aside and let Bernie run. Alexander Ocasio Cortez would also be a formidable candidate. But will the neoliberals allow actual progress to happen? The reality is America have two very very lousy choices. So either way it will suck. Trump will screw up America from within, Biden will screwing things up around the world by kicking off WWIII.
We’re foolish to allow either of those two criminals to run.
This is no time for dreaming or wishing it wasn't so. The reason this mysterious "younger" candidate, who would energize the Democratic base hasn't magically appeared is because the possible miracle candidate doesn't exist. The D's don't have a bench right now that has the national standing or financial wherewithal to mount as effective a rebuttal to Trump as Biden can. In addition, Biden has done an exemplary job against an insane opposition and just as insane global events. With all due respect to you and those commenting here, the only path forward is to get out there and drum up every vote in opposition to this madness and get them to the polls. The majority is not with the autocrats. The enemy is apathy, lethargy and seeing the trees instead of the forest. Yep he's old. Yep he falters. But he's the horse we have to ride folks and its time to close ranks and get to work.
I agree with your assessment of Biden's presidency but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of his chances to beat Trump. Those debate moments will be broadcast millions of times if Biden is the nominee. He cannot overcome the obvious ravages of age. Finding another candidate won't be easy. But it starts with good people like you calling for an alternative. It is risky to be sure. But Biden is far riskier. I don't see how he can overcome the debate and what in fact American voters believe about his fitness. We can't wish that away. Thanks for your comment.
I was at the 68 Chicago convention and campaigning all over the country that year. It was surreal. The good news is that the anti-war forces were strong enough to get Johnson to withdraw. The bad news was that the established Democrats refused to break with him until it was too late. Many thx for your comment.
In 1968, I was one of McCarthy's Millions, ran a local political campaign, and travelled around the west coast for various reasons in connection to other campaigns. I pretty much saw what you did. Although it was several years more before mounting evidence meant I could no longer pretend that the D leadership elite wasn't backing away from their New Deal ideals plus abandoning labor. And therefore the common good.
For years I've been asking for an explanation why we working people should believe the Dems are the good guys when they're neolibs. I ask those who write comments on the D supporting news sites if they're fine with an econ system that considers human and natural resources as things to use and defines away the damage as irrelevant externalities.
If they answer at all, it's almost always deflection, whataboutism, ad hominem, straw man. I have yet to read a coherent answer, let alone a persuasive one. There are probably many reasons for the D party leadership to avoid difficult topics. Their corporate donors. Their certainty that as products of an Ivy League "meritocracy" they are this era's Best and Brightest. (Never mind the cautionary tale of Halberstam's book.) But why the odd or inadequate responses of the D faithful?
I'm convinced they don't want to see--D for denial. Their iconic animal should be the ostrich. It reminds me of when progressives think racism isn't about them, the contrary well explored in Robin Diangelo's book //White Fragility.// And when Native Americans point out that 'progressive' is related to an assumed cultural superiority and to endless econ growth, attitudes asserted as universally true by Western cultures. From long and bitter personal experience, I'd add classism.
I realize that anyone born after 1970 has never lived with government committed to the common good nor ever known a truly New Deal Dem party. But that doesn't excuse never wondering why so many Americans feel excluded from and alienated by politics or considering that "lesser or two evils" may not be a great selling point. To me, the D supporters don't want to see past the thin veneer of the current D party because a frightening reality would then become all too visible. A reality that isn't a simple either/or, with us/against us, good guy/bad guy. It means acknowledging a complex reality requiring deep assessment of one's self, then conscientious responsibility, along with the very difficult work of building coalitions while respecting the Other.
Biden should’ve moved aside and let Bernie run. Alexander Ocasio Cortez would also be a formidable candidate. But will the neoliberals allow actual progress to happen? The reality is America have two very very lousy choices. So either way it will suck. Trump will screw up America from within, Biden will screwing things up around the world by kicking off WWIII.
We’re foolish to allow either of those two criminals to run.
I think Biden has one foot out the door. But the Dems never go for Bernie or AOC.
Yep the Dems slacked off on holding the felon accountable, and here we are. It's fascism, and it could rake 10years to even regain normalcy.
This is no time for dreaming or wishing it wasn't so. The reason this mysterious "younger" candidate, who would energize the Democratic base hasn't magically appeared is because the possible miracle candidate doesn't exist. The D's don't have a bench right now that has the national standing or financial wherewithal to mount as effective a rebuttal to Trump as Biden can. In addition, Biden has done an exemplary job against an insane opposition and just as insane global events. With all due respect to you and those commenting here, the only path forward is to get out there and drum up every vote in opposition to this madness and get them to the polls. The majority is not with the autocrats. The enemy is apathy, lethargy and seeing the trees instead of the forest. Yep he's old. Yep he falters. But he's the horse we have to ride folks and its time to close ranks and get to work.
I agree with your assessment of Biden's presidency but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of his chances to beat Trump. Those debate moments will be broadcast millions of times if Biden is the nominee. He cannot overcome the obvious ravages of age. Finding another candidate won't be easy. But it starts with good people like you calling for an alternative. It is risky to be sure. But Biden is far riskier. I don't see how he can overcome the debate and what in fact American voters believe about his fitness. We can't wish that away. Thanks for your comment.
COPE
I wholeheartedly agree with you!! Could not have articulated it better. Thank you.
Many thanks for your kind words.
I was at the 68 Chicago convention and campaigning all over the country that year. It was surreal. The good news is that the anti-war forces were strong enough to get Johnson to withdraw. The bad news was that the established Democrats refused to break with him until it was too late. Many thx for your comment.
In 1968, I was one of McCarthy's Millions, ran a local political campaign, and travelled around the west coast for various reasons in connection to other campaigns. I pretty much saw what you did. Although it was several years more before mounting evidence meant I could no longer pretend that the D leadership elite wasn't backing away from their New Deal ideals plus abandoning labor. And therefore the common good.