Progressives also need to build a viable, alternative online press. Being viable means that it's coherent and has at least a few successful, well-edited websites that have enough market share and respectability to be powerful. The websites should avoid giving prominence to stories about things like UFOs, astrology, and far-out conspiracy theories. Otherwise, they'll lose respect.
On the other hand, daily newspapers usually have an astrology column, don't they? And sex and gossip don't stop lots of mainstream publications from having valuable investigative pieces. So why the double standard?
Maybe OpEdNews needs to have more soft-core sex pieces! :)
In the days preceding President Obama's education speech, our local school district got lots of phone calls from angry conservatives demanding that the district not show students the speech. The school district gave in and refused to show the speech. (See Bellevue School District blocks Obama speech, then promotes it. ) Afterwards, the school district came under intense criticism for giving in so easily. I phoned their communications director, who said apologized ("We screwed up.") She said that they've gotten so many complaints about their decision that they haven't been able to get any work done.
The point is: the conservatives are VERY organized and progressives had better work as hard or harder.
Another example. At a political meeting the other day, I was told that Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has been getting more phone calls from opponents of a public option than phone calls of supporters of a public option. I'm not sure this is true, but if so, it is surprising, given reports that a majority of Americans want a public option, especially in our Democratic-leading state (WA). Cantwell is known to be on the fence about the issue. So progressives better get their act together and start phoning. Maybe the conservative phone callers are stay-at-home moms with instructions from the husbands and pastors to phone their lawmakers. :) :(
Now, there's plenty of blame to go around for the mess we're in: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his libido, Gore's stuffiness, Nader, Bush, Obama, Americans' ignorance and passivity, ... It's tempting to direct our anger and frustration at Obama and the (centrist) Democrats, since they should know better and they depended on our support to get elected. But if progressives start attacking Obama, it might backfire. Already, Obama is giving progressives the cold shoulder. In his address to Congress about health care reform, he called single-payer health care "radical" and disruptive. And he apparently forced Van Jones to resign. IF progressives criticize him more, he may respond by turning even further rightward.
Still, it sure is tempting to hold him accountable and to call his bluff; he says he wants to be held accountable. See Failure to prosecute: why Obama is having trouble passing health care reform . In the short run, we ourselves may suffer, but in the long run, we'll teach politicians that we are not a force to be ignored!
Cutting off your arm to spite your foot.
Sigh.
Nor am I optimistic about the short-term prospects of starting a viable third political party to counteract the Dems and the GOP. One may say that my attitude is a self-fulfilling prophesy: A third-party would succeed if enough people believed it could succeed. But even if we COULD make a strong third-party, agreeing on policies and candidates would be difficult, and it would all take a long time to come to fruition. So, fine! Work on building a third political party. But don't expect immediate results. And in the meantime, should we just ignore working to move the Democrats leftwards? There ARE plenty of good, progressive Democrats.
Just saying that the Dems are as bad as the Republicans and refusing to work with them pretty much leaves progressives powerless. Like PDA, ya need to work both inside, with fine progressives like Dennis Kucinich, as well as outside the Democratic Party.
For the short to medium term, we need to work with what we have. Call and visit your lawmakers. Build relationships with your local newspaper and radio and TV stations. Attend school boards and city council meetings. Write letters-to-the-editor. Get active in local advocacy groups. Join your local Democratic Party, attend their meetings, and push them leftwards. It's hard work, often boring, often with annoying people, but that's the price ya gotta pay. Visit progressive news sites and blogs and donate money to them. Buy local and less. Drive less.
All these long term strategies are tedious and slow. People want fast results -- which is why they attend rallies and protests, hoping, I think, that their voices will be heard.
The only way to get faster results would be MASSIVE protests or (non-violent) civil disobedience on a scale they couldn't ignore. But there are several problem with such a strategy.
Protests and civil disobedience are rather subversive and crude. They're little better than the tactics of the screaming teabaggers and right wingnuts shouting at town halls. They're based on spectacle and disruption, not reason.
On the other hand, daily newspapers usually have an astrology column, don't they? And sex and gossip don't stop lots of mainstream publications from having valuable investigative pieces. So why the double standard?
Maybe OpEdNews needs to have more soft-core sex pieces! :)
In the days preceding President Obama's education speech, our local school district got lots of phone calls from angry conservatives demanding that the district not show students the speech. The school district gave in and refused to show the speech. (See Bellevue School District blocks Obama speech, then promotes it. ) Afterwards, the school district came under intense criticism for giving in so easily. I phoned their communications director, who said apologized ("We screwed up.") She said that they've gotten so many complaints about their decision that they haven't been able to get any work done.
Another example. At a political meeting the other day, I was told that Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has been getting more phone calls from opponents of a public option than phone calls of supporters of a public option. I'm not sure this is true, but if so, it is surprising, given reports that a majority of Americans want a public option, especially in our Democratic-leading state (WA). Cantwell is known to be on the fence about the issue. So progressives better get their act together and start phoning. Maybe the conservative phone callers are stay-at-home moms with instructions from the husbands and pastors to phone their lawmakers. :) :(
Now, there's plenty of blame to go around for the mess we're in: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his libido, Gore's stuffiness, Nader, Bush, Obama, Americans' ignorance and passivity, ... It's tempting to direct our anger and frustration at Obama and the (centrist) Democrats, since they should know better and they depended on our support to get elected. But if progressives start attacking Obama, it might backfire. Already, Obama is giving progressives the cold shoulder. In his address to Congress about health care reform, he called single-payer health care "radical" and disruptive. And he apparently forced Van Jones to resign. IF progressives criticize him more, he may respond by turning even further rightward.
Still, it sure is tempting to hold him accountable and to call his bluff; he says he wants to be held accountable. See Failure to prosecute: why Obama is having trouble passing health care reform . In the short run, we ourselves may suffer, but in the long run, we'll teach politicians that we are not a force to be ignored!
Cutting off your arm to spite your foot.
Sigh.
Nor am I optimistic about the short-term prospects of starting a viable third political party to counteract the Dems and the GOP. One may say that my attitude is a self-fulfilling prophesy: A third-party would succeed if enough people believed it could succeed. But even if we COULD make a strong third-party, agreeing on policies and candidates would be difficult, and it would all take a long time to come to fruition. So, fine! Work on building a third political party. But don't expect immediate results. And in the meantime, should we just ignore working to move the Democrats leftwards? There ARE plenty of good, progressive Democrats.
Just saying that the Dems are as bad as the Republicans and refusing to work with them pretty much leaves progressives powerless. Like PDA, ya need to work both inside, with fine progressives like Dennis Kucinich, as well as outside the Democratic Party.
For the short to medium term, we need to work with what we have. Call and visit your lawmakers. Build relationships with your local newspaper and radio and TV stations. Attend school boards and city council meetings. Write letters-to-the-editor. Get active in local advocacy groups. Join your local Democratic Party, attend their meetings, and push them leftwards. It's hard work, often boring, often with annoying people, but that's the price ya gotta pay. Visit progressive news sites and blogs and donate money to them. Buy local and less. Drive less.
All these long term strategies are tedious and slow. People want fast results -- which is why they attend rallies and protests, hoping, I think, that their voices will be heard.
The only way to get faster results would be MASSIVE protests or (non-violent) civil disobedience on a scale they couldn't ignore. But there are several problem with such a strategy.
Protests and civil disobedience are rather subversive and crude. They're little better than the tactics of the screaming teabaggers and right wingnuts shouting at town halls. They're based on spectacle and disruption, not reason.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
