Tuesday, September 16, 2008

There's a difference between denying a thing...

and asking for proof of its existence.

Nero has repeatedly claimed widespread infiltration of the Democratic party by radicals, Stalinists, antiestablishment types & other nogoodnicks, but is unable to provide much of anything in the way of proof, aside a few individual connections.

What I said before & will repeat again now, (& let's see if our friend Nero will even try to make his case this time, or once again distort what I say, & ignore what he cannot distort), is that there are very few "radicals" or "Stalinists" supporting Obama or the Democratic Party. William Aires-to the extent that he is anywhere near the radical crazy he once was, anyway--is one guy. Tom Hayden--(same caviat)--is one guy. There is no widespread support among radicals for either (any) status quo politician coming out of either status quo party. That's what makes radicals radical. Rather than supporting the status quo, &/or working within the system trying to make the incremental changes they seek, like McCain, Obama, & pretty much every other politician from either major party, they favor immediate & fundamental change, frequently through unorthodox means (violence, mass movements, revolution, ...)

Yes, there have been, are, & will be a few isolated "radicals" who buck that trend & support major party candidates. But they are few & far between, and usually are not (or do not remain) well respected within their "radical" community. One might say these former radicals grew up & out of their youthful ways, much the same way we Americans politely ignore a some elected folk's youthful drug use & whatnot...

The fact is, there are very few if any Communist, Socialist, or Anti-War groups or organizations supporting or promoting Obama for President or the Democratic party. Name your boogieman... UPFJ isn't. World Can't Wait isn't. ANSWER isn't. CodePink isn't. Commies & socialists have their own parties & likely there own candidates, too.

Yes, there are a few individuals who are work for/with one of those organizations who do support Democrats. Yes, there are people (probably alot of people) who attend rallies & marches organized by these groups who also support Democrats. For the most part, those people are Democrats, who also happen to be anti-war, or anti THIS war. Being anti-war or anti THIS war, and attending a rally is support of their beliefs doesn't make them radicals. It makes them good citizens.

AmericanNeoCon is playing on irrational fears.
AmericanNeoCon preaching to his own personal choir.
AmericanNeoCon is wrong.

American Power: The Democrats and the Antiwar Movement


Carl Davidson said...

A sad story, in my opinion, but fairly accurate.

I run the 'Progressives for Obama' website, with about 500 core members, with some 1960s new left types that are prominent.

Believe me, I work every day trying to expand our reach to get even near to where some of these folks think we are.

But I assure you, much of the far left is infested, unfortunately, with a semi-anarchism against Obama, any Democrat and elections generally.

And a chunk of those hard leftists who actually vote, will be in the Green/Nader column

It's both a problem to solve and a condition to manage.

But all the rightwing hype about Obama's 'Marxism' or his 'Marxist Mentors' is just a bunch of crap to snooker suckers on the right. I'm supposedly one of them, and if Obama even remembers my name, it's as the guy who used to bug him to spend money on afterschool programs for low-income kids, and that's about it.

repsac3 said...

I get where you're coming from, Carl.

I was a hardcore Nader voter, and I'm still a member of the Green Party to this day.

But, Bush did far more damage to this country than I ever thought possible in 2000. I can no longer advocate that everyone everywhere vote on their ideals alone. Here in NY, its unlikely I will have to make that choice between my heart & my head, and I cannot promise that Obama will even earn my vote by November.

But I will never again tell progressive people in states where one's vote actually matters that they should not consider the Democrat very, very carefully. Even if there is a candidate who more closely represents one's own views, there is certainly something to be said for "good enough" or "the lesser of two evils."

Swing state voters need to vote with their head, especially this time. Those of us who're in states locked up for one candidate or the other can do our part & keep the pressure on the Democrats by voting for the candidates who best support the ideals progressives share. But swing state voters need to do all they can to get the better of the two major candidates into office, and that's Obama.