The 2008 election and American Progressives
October 9th 2007 18:40
It has been a frustrating few months for real progressives. The 2006 election gave many of us hope for an end to the Iraq debacle, real investigations into the myriad crimes and excesses of the Bush Administration, and even impeachment to remove the criminals at the top. Needless to say, progress has been slow at best. The lack of quick action puts the progressive in a bit of a quandary. What do we do?
Yes, impeachment seems a far off dream and the Iraq debacle looks like it will continue unabated. Still, there has been progress. Without the voters changing Congress in 2006, we wouldn’t know about the scandal surrounding fired attorneys, and Alberto Gonzales would still be Attorney General. Karl Rove may not have slid his slimy ass out of the White House. Bush would have probably felt confident enough to have already launched his lusted for attack on Iran. Granted, with all that is stinking up Washington, the progress made doesn’t seem like much. Still, it is better than the alternative. Which is the crux of the quandary faced by progressives.
I know what I would like to see. Mass pressure demanding an immediate end to the Bush Administration. Whatever it took, I would be aboard. I think if a majority of Americans took to the streets or took part in a general strike, the criminals could be forced out of office. Of course, that has inherent dangers in it with such an unpredictable and self-important president, but I think it would work. Problem is, not even a sizable minority of Americans is willing to do that, let alone a majority. So what do we progressives do?
Do we support the most progressive candidates, or go with those who have the best chance of winning? Why not both? We support the ideas that we hold dear, and those who espouse them. We can also support the candidacy of a person who will win once the nomination process is complete, and we must walk a line between aggressively forcing progressive issues and shooting ourselves in the process. We have to avoid the “Nader effect” at all costs. America can’t in any way have another right wing president. The stakes are too high. We can argue as to which Democratic candidate we want to support, but it is imperative that we offer our support once it is down to the two parties.
The Republican Party is coming close to fracturing, with the evangelicals splitting to a fringe candidate. It would be a shame to waste such a gift. Once there is a president not beholding to the far right in office, we can immediately and relentlessly press for movement to the left. Since Reagan, the political middle has been pushed more and more to the right. Candidates the right likes to call liberal now would have been centrist or even to the right decades ago. And those on the right have moved ever close to corporate fascism.
The Democratic front-runners are far from perfect. What we do have with them is a chance to move our agenda ahead. We have zero chance with any of the Republicans. Think of it this way. As progressives we are currently standing on a beach, looking at our goals across the water. We can jump in and swim, but it’s a long way. At least a Democratic president will give us a rowboat. It will still take a lot of work to get there, but we have less chance of drowning!
Yes, impeachment seems a far off dream and the Iraq debacle looks like it will continue unabated. Still, there has been progress. Without the voters changing Congress in 2006, we wouldn’t know about the scandal surrounding fired attorneys, and Alberto Gonzales would still be Attorney General. Karl Rove may not have slid his slimy ass out of the White House. Bush would have probably felt confident enough to have already launched his lusted for attack on Iran. Granted, with all that is stinking up Washington, the progress made doesn’t seem like much. Still, it is better than the alternative. Which is the crux of the quandary faced by progressives.
I know what I would like to see. Mass pressure demanding an immediate end to the Bush Administration. Whatever it took, I would be aboard. I think if a majority of Americans took to the streets or took part in a general strike, the criminals could be forced out of office. Of course, that has inherent dangers in it with such an unpredictable and self-important president, but I think it would work. Problem is, not even a sizable minority of Americans is willing to do that, let alone a majority. So what do we progressives do?
Do we support the most progressive candidates, or go with those who have the best chance of winning? Why not both? We support the ideas that we hold dear, and those who espouse them. We can also support the candidacy of a person who will win once the nomination process is complete, and we must walk a line between aggressively forcing progressive issues and shooting ourselves in the process. We have to avoid the “Nader effect” at all costs. America can’t in any way have another right wing president. The stakes are too high. We can argue as to which Democratic candidate we want to support, but it is imperative that we offer our support once it is down to the two parties.
The Republican Party is coming close to fracturing, with the evangelicals splitting to a fringe candidate. It would be a shame to waste such a gift. Once there is a president not beholding to the far right in office, we can immediately and relentlessly press for movement to the left. Since Reagan, the political middle has been pushed more and more to the right. Candidates the right likes to call liberal now would have been centrist or even to the right decades ago. And those on the right have moved ever close to corporate fascism.
The Democratic front-runners are far from perfect. What we do have with them is a chance to move our agenda ahead. We have zero chance with any of the Republicans. Think of it this way. As progressives we are currently standing on a beach, looking at our goals across the water. We can jump in and swim, but it’s a long way. At least a Democratic president will give us a rowboat. It will still take a lot of work to get there, but we have less chance of drowning!
| 65 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
