Views » November 16, 2010
Debating ‘The Change We Seek’
By Joel Bleifuss
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6642/debating_the_change_we_seek/
This article is ALL wrong; Bleifuss starts from the wrong premise that we need a "new" left, and that Obama is, or is going to be, a "friend of the people." Obama was about as much of a "community organizer" as he is a "liberal" or "progressive." Obama is a flim-flam man and con artist posing as a president while selling Wall Street's high-priced, worthless scams called health insurance premiums to the people. The guy is a reincarnation of Elmer Gantry.
Obama's "base" is not working class people; Obama's base is Wall Street coupon clippers... these are the "bundlers" who put Obama in the Whitehouse. Snoopy could have beat McCain and Palin.
Who says we need a "new left;" the "old" left knew how to get the job done.
It is this "new" left that brought together the "Progressives FOR Obama" when any reasonably intelligent person concerned about peace and solving the problems of working people could easily see from reading Obama's own words in Foreign Affairs Magazine that Obama is a neo-liberal--- as distinct from a liberal which the "new" left so despised (oh, ya; for the "new" left the working class is something the "old" left was a part of... you didn't need the working class to bring about change when you have Obama).
Rather than reading Amy Dean, you might try reading Earl Browder's "People's Front." Or William Z. Foster's "The Twilight of World Capitalism."
Here is some "progressive political strategy" from those of us still stuck in the "old" left:
Organize for a National Public Health Care System providing the American people with free health care through 30,000 neighborhood clinics based around 800 fully funded main health care centers (17 in each state) instead of 800 U.S. military bases dotting the globe paid for with funds derived from ending these stupid, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional imperialist wars along with a good hefty tax on the rich and corporate profits. This would create around ten-million new good-paying jobs for unemployed people.
Same kind of program for child care--- a National Public Child Care Program... another three-million to 5,000,000 jobs.
Just tell the American people private industry and small business failed along with capitalism and we wouldn't trust private, for-profit schools to teach our children to read and write so why would we trust "the free market" to provide us with health care or quality, safe child care.
Peace = Health care + Child Care + Jobs
See, we don't need "new" math nor the "new" left when "old" formulas and equations do just fine; just like the "old" left.
Come on, In These Times... even Chris Hedges has figured out that the reason we aren't doing so well is because we don't have a strong Communist Party as a catalyst for thinking, education and action.
Forget about saving Barack Obama's worthless political butt... what we need to do is restore the historic liberal-progressive-left coalition that delivered the New Deal and won Civil Rights legislation like Executive Order #11246 (affirmative action) that your president Obama refuses to enforce.
The time has come to place socialism on the table as we struggle to dump Obama and win real reforms... the "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010" should be repealed and replaced with a National Public Health Care System built on the foundations of the existing socialized health care programs we already have in this country and everyone supports: VA, the Indian Health Service and the National Public Health Service... just because the Republican and the Tea Baggers want to repeal this doesn't mean that it shouldn't be repealed through a struggle for real health care reform.
Let's remember... the American Medical Association was the Tea Party movement of the 1930's and they called Frances Perkins a "Bolshevik." Certainly we can stand a few insults hurled our way.
Why hasn't In These Times asked its readers to poll all their friends on this question:
How is Barack Obama's Wall Street agenda and war economy working for you?
Views » November 16, 2010
Debating ‘The Change We Seek’
By Joel Bleifuss
In a democracy, political power can and should flow from the bottom up. Sadly, it's a lesson the White House appears unable to grasp.
The 2010 midterm election results make one point abundantly clear: The Democrats are doing something wrong.
Yes, midterm losses were expected, given the dismal state of the economy.
Yes, secret corporate donations corrupted the political process.
Yes, K Street lobbyists jerked the strings of many members of Congress.
Yes, the Democratic Party is in the thrall of apparatchiks unable to see across the Potomac.
Yet for all the extenuating, understandable circumstances, the fact remains that on November 2 the Dems not only lost the House, but they lost more seats than either party has lost in one election since 1938.
So where do we apportion blame?
The proverbial buck stops with President Barack Obama, who seems to have forgotten the principles that guided him as a community organizer. He failed to cultivate his base.
For example, exit polls show that youth stayed home in 2010. In 2008, voters 65 and older made up 15 percent of the electorate, and in 2010 they counted for 23 percent. In 2008, voters 18 to 29 comprised 18 percent of the electorate, and in 2010 only 9 percent.
In a democracy, political power can and should flow from the bottom up. While this is something that the Tea Party has no problem learning, sadly, it is a lesson the Democratic National Committee and White House appear unable to grasp. Here we are, back to where we were in 1972, 1980, 1988, 1994, 2002, take your pick. Those elections all had different circumstances, but a common theme: The Democratic Party establishment mucked things up.
This past summer, we surveyed members of the In These Times Community, asking questions about the future editorial direction of this magazine. A majority of you said you wanted to see “more discussion and debate about progressive political strategy.”
Recall, the night of Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008, when Obama told his Chicago supporters: “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time, we are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change that we seek, we are the hope.”
It is through debate and discussion that we can begin to successfully navigate ways to achieve “the change we seek.” As the 2010 election results demonstrate, that cannot start too soon. To meet that challenge, In These Times will devote more space in the magazine to the critical issue of political strategy. We invite your participation.
Our December issue’s cover story, “Where We Go From Here,” contains essays by two movement veterans.
In “What We Lost After We Won in 2008,” Marilyn Katz, a longtime Chicago anti-war activist, discusses the failure of Democratic Party leaders to nurture the 2008 movement that elected Obama president and put Democrats in control of Congress.
In A New Blueprint for Change,” Amy Dean, a legendary labor organizer, makes the case for creating local and state political coalitions that keep elected officials engaged with their social movement constituencies.
Nine years ago, as In These Times celebrated its 25th anniversary, James Weinstein, the magazine’s founding editor & publisher, wrote, “A viable New Left cannot exist without principled, rigorous publications to inform it, and to help give it direction. That was what we intended to do in 1976 when we cobbled together In These Times’ initial staff in Chicago. It remains our purpose today.”
Joel Bleifuss is the editor and publisher of In These Times, where he has worked as an investigative reporter, columnist and editor since 1986. He is on the board of the Institute for Public Affairs, which publishes In These Times.
