CommunityMy FDL


I have long had the opinion that the Democratic Party is unredeemable, indeed, is a major obstacle to achieving progressive change, social justice, or even mild, cosmetic reform.

~~ Ed. note: Edited for compliance with site rules; see

Notably during the HCR ‘reform’ charade, Single Payer and it’s advocates were held to be verboten, and strict message discipline was imposed, in an effort to get Obama’s HCR bill passed, with or without the risible ‘Public Option’ Sparkle Pony.

Since  status is more important to many than facts and reason, I thought I would pass along today a couple links from high status, high profile writers who openly express these taboo viewpoints that I have been advocating for so long.

Glenn Greenwald hasn’t modified his principles or actions one bit since the election of a Democrat to the Oval Office, and here he has some choice words for the (D) captured ‘progressives’

They do the opposite; they proudly announce:  we’ll probably be angry a lot, and we’ll be over here doing a lot complaining, but don’t worry:  no matter what, when you need us to stay in power (or to acquire it), we’re going to be there to give you our full and cheering support. That is the message conveyed over and over again by progressives, no more so than when much of the House Progressive Caucus vowed that they would never, ever support a health care bill that had no robust public option, only to turn around at the end and abandon that vow by dutifully voting for Obama’s public-option-free health care bill.  That’s just a microcosm of what happens in the more general sense:  progressives constantly object when their values and priorities are trampled upon, only to make clear that they will not only vote for, but work hard on behalf of and give their money to, the Democratic Party when election time comes around.

Knee-jerk orthodoxy enforcers – head on over to the comments on Salon and try some of your standard rebuttals, ok?

But really, how is that ‘vote (D), no matter what thing

And then, there is William Greider, genteel and respectable, finally saying it as plain as can be:

Democrats are not used to governing aggressively. They haven’t done so for decades, and they may no longer believe in it. For many years, incumbent Democrats survived by managing a precarious straddle between the forces of organized money and the disorganized people they claim to represent. The split was usually lopsided in favor of the money guys, but one could believe that the reform spirit would come alive once they were back in power with a Democratic president. That wishful assumption is now defunct.

Many progressive groups, including organized labor, suffer a similar dependency. They will not be able to think clearly about the future of the country until they get greater distance from the Democratic Party.

my emphases.

Don’t blandish me, I’m just the messenger.

But the time of giving offerings to the musty Donkey totem is drawing to a close, and recent polls reveal that folks are not stopping by the temple anymore, and your invocations to the faithful are falling on deaf ears.

Will the (D)’s lose more seats? Are the (R)’s ludicrous boors? It matters not.

What matters is building new political and social formations that are oriented towards ameliorating the real problems our society faces, rather than diverting people of goodwill into supporting some odious gang of corporate tools.

Previous post

GOP Governors Help Us Understand Actual Definition of "Class Warfare"

Next post

The Roundup for January 7, 2011