There is a fable that when Kissinger and Nixon met with Mao Zedong, Mao wondered out loud why the physically unattractive Kissinger was so successful with women.
There something to consider that is not in your piece Les. That Biden's agenda was not going to be continued by any other viable candidate. The labor, economic, environmental and domestic programs he was pursuing, were and are an anathema to the funders and wanna be leaders of the D's. What you might consider is that rather than ego, it was preserving and advancing his agenda that kept him pushing forward. Because as we've seen, Kamala quickly dispensed with the populist agenda, didn't stand up for the industrial policy or any of the other real accomplishments of the Biden Presidency, nor would any of the others. It's also easy to say that the Bernie wing was complicit because they would lose access. But again, consider that what they feared losing were the positive steps Biden was taking, that would be lost if he wasn't the candidate. This isn't to say he should have tried to get a second term. But rather that we shouldn't ascribe all negatives to why he did and why others supported that. In my opinion, the right route for D's would have been to assure Biden that a different candidate would continue to pursue his agenda, and that they couldn't or wouldn't do that, is the heart of the problem. Just my thoughts brother...
I totally agree with you. Top it off with the fact that Biden and his staff - Blinken, Sullivan, Kirby, Jean-Pierre either daily repeated to the American people the lies about what was happening in Israel or totally ignored it. I voted for Biden in 2020 but immediately resigned from the Democratic party and spent the next 4 years disgusted with him and his cronies, vowing never to vote for him again. I am equally disgusted with the Congress and any of the potential 2028 candidates who have raised their heads. A new party and a total prohibition on money to fund campaigns would go a long way to improving things, but, at this stage, that seems unlikely.
Agreed. I like the analogy of a broken romance. The Dems walked out on working people in the '80s. But they call and send flowers every couple of years, giving us false hope that they will come back to stay. But it's over.
I think most of us who read this will agree wholeheartedly. This is the argument that should appeal to those mentioned near the end, those who might think the democrat party should be transformed into a working class vehicle. It's good that Les mentioned both a party and a formation, although my own experience is that the most obvious formation that could fill that role at present - DSA - is not up to the task. The Labor Party was a good beginning, but it was controlled by one person - Tony Mazzochi, who seemed to smother it.
There is another side to this, apart from what most of us might expect: The Palestine solidarity movement. In spite of it being a single issue it is becoming a defining movement for our time. The genocide taking place is so important, and the lines of decency defined in both a human and political sense, make it a pole of consciousness that could lend it that role. We see opportunism and cowardice on one hand, and courage and activism on the other. We see broader issues being raised there, and the type of energy needed to move forward and outward. If those activists built something more they could become the nucleus of a revolutionary movement. It's the best candidate I've seen lately.
I would hate to see supporters of Hamas leading us into the new order. Why aren't the activists upset about Russia's war on Ukraine or China's suppression of the Uyghurs? One word: antisemitism. I would support anti-fascists if they took the lead but not antisemites.
I was recently kicked off of the Scheerpost commentary for taking a clear stand in support of Palestine and in opposition to any form of antisemitism. As someone who has been active in Palestine solidarity, I can tell you that the movement bends over backwards to reject voices of bigotry, specifically against Jews, from expressing that in that movement. But the reality is that we live in a society with negative influences, and it is important to pay attention when those influences try to attach to good ones. We have been slandered by zionism when they say we are antisemitic. We are not, and many Palestine activists are Jewish.
The war in Ukraine is a separate issue, as is the situation in China. The last time I checked in, antisemitism was very prevalent in Ukraine; official bodies memorialize figures associated with the Holocaust. For that matter, the history of a century ago, give or take, show zionist collaboration with fascism. To oppose zionism is not to support Hamas; and I don't see any association between Uyghurs and semites. It sounds like you are trying to impose your ideas on unrelated issues to those you disagree with for reasons known only to yourself. This discussion was about other issues, and I don't want to enter a debate that ends in another pissing match.
There something to consider that is not in your piece Les. That Biden's agenda was not going to be continued by any other viable candidate. The labor, economic, environmental and domestic programs he was pursuing, were and are an anathema to the funders and wanna be leaders of the D's. What you might consider is that rather than ego, it was preserving and advancing his agenda that kept him pushing forward. Because as we've seen, Kamala quickly dispensed with the populist agenda, didn't stand up for the industrial policy or any of the other real accomplishments of the Biden Presidency, nor would any of the others. It's also easy to say that the Bernie wing was complicit because they would lose access. But again, consider that what they feared losing were the positive steps Biden was taking, that would be lost if he wasn't the candidate. This isn't to say he should have tried to get a second term. But rather that we shouldn't ascribe all negatives to why he did and why others supported that. In my opinion, the right route for D's would have been to assure Biden that a different candidate would continue to pursue his agenda, and that they couldn't or wouldn't do that, is the heart of the problem. Just my thoughts brother...
I totally agree with you. Top it off with the fact that Biden and his staff - Blinken, Sullivan, Kirby, Jean-Pierre either daily repeated to the American people the lies about what was happening in Israel or totally ignored it. I voted for Biden in 2020 but immediately resigned from the Democratic party and spent the next 4 years disgusted with him and his cronies, vowing never to vote for him again. I am equally disgusted with the Congress and any of the potential 2028 candidates who have raised their heads. A new party and a total prohibition on money to fund campaigns would go a long way to improving things, but, at this stage, that seems unlikely.
Agreed. I like the analogy of a broken romance. The Dems walked out on working people in the '80s. But they call and send flowers every couple of years, giving us false hope that they will come back to stay. But it's over.
Nice job, Les.
I think most of us who read this will agree wholeheartedly. This is the argument that should appeal to those mentioned near the end, those who might think the democrat party should be transformed into a working class vehicle. It's good that Les mentioned both a party and a formation, although my own experience is that the most obvious formation that could fill that role at present - DSA - is not up to the task. The Labor Party was a good beginning, but it was controlled by one person - Tony Mazzochi, who seemed to smother it.
There is another side to this, apart from what most of us might expect: The Palestine solidarity movement. In spite of it being a single issue it is becoming a defining movement for our time. The genocide taking place is so important, and the lines of decency defined in both a human and political sense, make it a pole of consciousness that could lend it that role. We see opportunism and cowardice on one hand, and courage and activism on the other. We see broader issues being raised there, and the type of energy needed to move forward and outward. If those activists built something more they could become the nucleus of a revolutionary movement. It's the best candidate I've seen lately.
I would hate to see supporters of Hamas leading us into the new order. Why aren't the activists upset about Russia's war on Ukraine or China's suppression of the Uyghurs? One word: antisemitism. I would support anti-fascists if they took the lead but not antisemites.
I was recently kicked off of the Scheerpost commentary for taking a clear stand in support of Palestine and in opposition to any form of antisemitism. As someone who has been active in Palestine solidarity, I can tell you that the movement bends over backwards to reject voices of bigotry, specifically against Jews, from expressing that in that movement. But the reality is that we live in a society with negative influences, and it is important to pay attention when those influences try to attach to good ones. We have been slandered by zionism when they say we are antisemitic. We are not, and many Palestine activists are Jewish.
The war in Ukraine is a separate issue, as is the situation in China. The last time I checked in, antisemitism was very prevalent in Ukraine; official bodies memorialize figures associated with the Holocaust. For that matter, the history of a century ago, give or take, show zionist collaboration with fascism. To oppose zionism is not to support Hamas; and I don't see any association between Uyghurs and semites. It sounds like you are trying to impose your ideas on unrelated issues to those you disagree with for reasons known only to yourself. This discussion was about other issues, and I don't want to enter a debate that ends in another pissing match.